Deep study of scripture and its surrounding history, contexts, and worldviews of its writers and readers has produced a deep understanding in me. Namely—the world is not black-and-white. Scripture has plenty of theological absolutes, but it also has plenty of textual and resulting theological unknowns, which themselves result in ranges of possibilities when it comes to interpretation. Exodus 22:28 presents just such an environment where a range of possible views quickly emerge even with a casual scratch at the surface of the text.
Recently, the Lord has had me focused on Psalm 82:1 and this focus has led me to the surrounding references associated with it. One such reference churned to the surface is Exodus 22:28. When I hovered my mouse over the passage link, a tool-tip popped up with the scripture text taken from the Brenton English Septuagint in view. Here's that text:
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor speak ill of the ruler of thy people.
Clicking over to this verse, I started examining it in various translations, including variants of the Masoretic and even the good old King James. I truly expected the King James to match the basic modern translations of the MT (e.g., "God" and not "gods"), but to my amazement, it did not. Here is the KJV:
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
There are several other translations that interpret Elohim as "the gods":
Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not speak ill of the gods, and the prince of thy people thou shalt not curse.
Webster's Bible Translation
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
Other translations have "God", as in: You shall not revile God. So, what's going on here? What's the driver living behind these English translations and what appears to be confusion, differences of opinion, and so on? What is behind this range of choices between "the gods" and "God"?
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
(28) Thou shalt not revile the gods.—The LXX. And Vulgate give the passage this sense; and so it was understood, or at any rate expounded, by Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii. 26) and Josephus (Ant. Jud. iv. 8, § 10), who boasted that the Jews abstained from reviling the gods of the nations. But the practice of the most pious Israelites in the best times was different (1Kings 18:27; Psalm 115:4-8; Psalm 135:15-18; Isaiah 41:29; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 10:11-15, &c.). The gods of the heathen were uniformly, and with the utmost scorn. “reviled.” It has been suggested that the true meaning of elohim in this place is “judges” (Rosenmüller, Zunz, Herxheimer); but to have that sense, the word requires the article. It is best, therefore, to translate by “God,” as is done by De Wette, Knobel, Keil, Kalisch, Canon Cook, &c., and to understand the entire passage as intended to connect the sin of cursing a ruler with that of reviling God, the ruler being regarded as God’s representative.
Can you see the hands and minds of man dripping all over the various reasons behind the translations? Even the third century BCE Jews are getting their hands wet as they create the LXX. Later translators are calling the LXX interpretation and translation into question based on what they think of earlier Jews (see the blue text above). It is like a little translation war going on across time and space, contexts and worldviews, opinions and thoughts. Each team is debating their points as we roll down the timeline.
To me, the most curious debate team on the translation debate timeline stage are the King James translators who chose to side with the LXX. Behind them both (KJV and LXX) stands the static MT that is rather solid on this particular verse and passage (e.g., not that many variants).
There are no known significant textual variants within the Masoretic Text (MT) tradition for Exodus 22:28. The Masoretic Text is remarkably consistent in this case. However, there may be minor differences in vocalization or cantillation marks among different Masoretic manuscripts, but these do not affect the meaning of the text. They merely impact how the text is pronounced or sung during Jewish worship.
Context is king!
One of the context questions to ask is: Who is the speaker?
In this case, it is God speaking through Moses writing. In fact, this is the point in scripture where Moses is writing down what God gave him while he was on Mount Sinai—both the ten commandments and many others (613 in total). Let's get an overall breakdown of the text surrounding Exodus 22:28. Here is that summary:
Exodus 20: This chapter introduces the Ten Commandments, which God gives to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. These laws form the basis of moral and religious life for the Israelites, covering areas such as worship, honoring parents, murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and covetousness.
Exodus 21: This chapter outlines various civil and criminal laws, including those related to Hebrew servants, personal injury, and property rights. It also covers laws concerning violence, including penalties for causing harm to others.
Exodus 22: This chapter continues with laws on property rights, including those related to theft and damage to property. It also includes laws on social and religious responsibilities, such as laws against mistreating foreigners, widows, and orphans, and laws concerning lending and borrowing.
Exodus 23: This chapter includes more laws on social justice, such as laws against spreading false reports, perverting justice, and lying. It also includes laws on Sabbath rest for the land and people, and the three annual festivals (Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Harvest, and Feast of Ingathering) that the Israelites are to observe. The chapter ends with God promising to send an angel to guide and protect the Israelites as they journey to the Promised Land.
Obviously, we have two basic competing interpretations of either "the gods" or "God" for verse 28, but if we back up just a few verses, we find that God (as the speaker) references "gods" in verse 20, which reads:
He that sacrifices to any gods but to the Lord alone, shall be destroyed by death.
NOTE: Because of textual differences, there are sometimes added or missing verses as we move from source-text to source-text. This is the case for Exodus 22:20, which in some texts is verse 19 and not 20. We will refrain from understanding why at the moment and just know that this difference exists in the text variants.
1. Masoretic Text (MT):
Hebrew: "כָּל־זֹבֵ֥חַ לָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים יָחָ֑רָם בִּלְתִּ֥י לַֽיהוָ֖ה לְבַדּֽוֹ"
My Translation: "Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction."
Translation Notes: The Hebrew verb "זֹבֵ֥חַ" (zoveach) means to sacrifice. "לָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים" (la'elohim) translates to "to gods", implying any god other than the LORD. "יָחָ֑רָם" (yacharam) is a term for being devoted to destruction or being under a ban. "לַֽיהוָ֖ה לְבַדּֽוֹ" (la'YHWH levado) means "to the LORD alone".
2. Septuagint (LXX):
Greek: "ὃς ἂν θύῃ θεοῖς, ἀπολείται πλὴν Κυρίῳ μόνῳ."
My Translation: "Whoever sacrifices to gods shall be destroyed, except to the Lord alone."
Translation Notes: The Greek verb "θύῃ" (thyei) means to sacrifice. "θεοῖς" (theois) translates to "to gods", implying any god other than the Lord. "ἀπολείται" (apoleitai) means to be destroyed or perish. "πλὴν Κυρίῳ μόνῳ" (plēn Kyriō monō) means "except to the Lord alone".
The translations are similar in both texts, emphasizing the exclusive worship of the LORD (or the Lord in the LXX) and the severe punishment for those who sacrifice to other gods.
The presence of the phrase "πλὴν Κυρίῳ μόνῳ" (plēn Kyriō monō) or "except to the Lord alone" together with "θεοῖς" (theois) or "to gods", immediately makes the text very clear. The Lord is distinguishing himself from the gods of the surrounding nations that he knows Israel will have to deal with until he comes (i.e., Messiah) and also afterwards. So, translating "לָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים" (la'elohim) as "to gods" (lesser elohim) is really straight-forward.
From this we can gain a coherent understanding and context within the worldview of Moses. Remember: Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince who would one day (in the eyes of Pharoah) become Pharoah, himself. As such, he was trained in Egyptian gods, goddesses, tales of the underworld, Rah, Isis, and others. On the down-low, his mother trained him to know Yahweh and gifted him with the understanding of his Hebrew roots in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). It also seems quite clear that Jews of the Second Temple Era, including the third century BCE translators of the LXX would have this in their view as well.
Given all of this, why would God tell Moses to not revile God? Given the context of Exodus and all that God did, and the other commandments, is it not contextually clear how Jews ought to be treating, approaching, and thinking about God? Does it not make more sense to glean from the Lord's words to Moses that the Jews are going to have to live among nations with other gods? Is it not more cohesive to think that on one hand God is instructing them to sacrifice only to him, but at the same time—don't revile the gods of the nations around you, thereby picking a fight and causing contention with them that would only add burden to Israel trying to live peacefully among their surroundings?
The Jews of the time of the LXX were certainly in this position of having to share the world with Greeks. The entire purpose of the LXX was to give Hellenized Greek-speaking Jews a copy of the OT Torah. And in their reading and memorizing of The Law, Exodus 20:20 and 28 would clearly speak to them of this balancing act they were to uphold: Worship and sacrifice to God alone, but don't make waves by picking fights with the Greek pantheon. In my own personal estimation of the choices available on how to translate Exodus 20:28, I am going to side with the LXX translators, the KJV, Douay-Rheims, and Websters—coming down on "gods" rather than "God".
Of course, there is the argument coming from Ellicott's commentary:
But the practice of the most pious Israelites in the best times was different (1Kings 18:27; Psalm 115:4-8; Psalm 135:15-18; Isaiah 41:29; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 10:11-15, &c.). The gods of the heathen were uniformly, and with the utmost scorn. "reviled."
This point is well taken, but doesn't it also have counter-point arguments as well? Do you think that every scrap of scripture text is nothing but Jews reviling the gods of the peoples around them? There are plenty of examples. Let's look at a few and then weigh it all out as a set of choices.
In the Old Testament, there are instances where the Israelites interacted with other nations and their gods without reviling them, often for practical reasons such as trade, diplomacy, or survival. However, it's important to note that these instances do not necessarily mean that the Israelites approved of or worshipped these foreign gods, as the First Commandment explicitly forbids this. Here are a few examples:
1. Genesis 41: Joseph in Egypt - Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers, ended up in Egypt, where he rose to become the second most powerful man after Pharaoh. Joseph interpreted Pharaoh's dreams and helped Egypt prepare for a coming famine. Despite being in a land with many gods, Joseph did not revile the Egyptian gods but lived peacefully among the Egyptians.
2. 1 Kings 5: Solomon and Hiram - King Solomon of Israel formed an alliance with King Hiram of Tyre, a city known for its worship of the god Baal. Solomon did not revile Baal but cooperated with Hiram to build the First Temple in Jerusalem. The two kings traded materials and labor for this project.
3. Daniel 1-6: Daniel in Babylon - Daniel and his friends were taken captive to Babylon, where they served in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar and later King Darius. Despite being in a land of many gods, Daniel and his friends did not revile the Babylonian gods. Daniel even interpreted the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, which involved the Babylonian gods.
4. Esther 1-10: Esther in Persia - Esther, a Jewish woman, became queen of Persia and used her position to save her people from extermination. She did not revile the Persian gods but lived peacefully among the Persians.
As New Testament Christians, we have further expounding that helps guide us in determining what choice to take with Exodus 20:28 in view:
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
Like the Jews of old, we who are in Christ are to not run amok through life picking fights with the non-believers around us. While we are called to be staunchly allegiant to Jesus Christ as King of kings and to his commandments in love, grace, mercy, compassion, and so on—we are clearly not at liberty to openly revile the beliefs and practices to where our lives descend into fights and chaos with the unbelievers around us. This is why people in modern times in the United States are so against the practices of churches like Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas as they openly attacked gays and homosexuals.
Picking your possibility for Exodus 20:28
At the end of the matter, we appear to be left with at least two choices for how to interpret and then translate this verse in its surrounding context. One the one side is to consider the idea of not reviling the gods of the surrounding people around us, just as ancient Jews lived shoulder to shoulder with peoples of the nations with their pagan pantheons. On the other side is to choose that the text is telling us not to revile God, which has its own arguments. What you must decide is which version with its own contextual story makes the most sense to you.
Most of all, I have a hope for you as a reader. If you did not already know that the bible is not filled with absolutes of black-and-white interpretation and translation, I hope that this article has helped you to see that scripture as the story of God has places where what God has produced invites you to study, pray, think, reason, and then start making choices.
I hope that it also helps you to understand that in the case of Exodus 20:28, whichever side you choose, there are going to be people who choose the other side or possibilities. In such a case, you're going to have to make a choice about how you live in relationship with them. They've made a choice you did not. They have their mind, their reasoning, and their conscience before the Lord just like you do. At the end of the matter, the Lord is Judge over all of us and we rise or fall to him alone and not to each other in such matters. It is here that we must choose mercy, compassion, and distance ourselves from stepping into the Lord's shoes, which are far bigger than we could ever fill.