Psalms 80:10
There shall be no new god in thee: neither shalt thou adore a strange god.
Open Psalms 80:10 in the Motif Searcher, word by word across all five texts →Show on the spiral →The verse in its languages
- Vulgate (Clementine)
- non erit in te deus recens, neque adorabis deum alienum.
- Septuagint (Swete)
- οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ θεὸς πρόσφατος, οὐδὲ προσκυνήσεις θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ.
- Hebrew (WLC) shown from Psalms 81:10
- לֹֽא יִהְיֶ֣ה בְ֭ךָ אֵ֣ל זָ֑ר וְלֹ֥א תִ֝שְׁתַּחֲוֶ֗ה לְאֵ֣ל נֵכָֽר
Haydock's commentary
New God. Who must of course be false. (Haydock)
Hebrew, "strange," Exodus xx. 2., and Jeremias xxiii. 23. (Calmet)
An express law on this head was a great benefit, (Worthington) as most people had gone astray. (Haydock)
From Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859, in the transcription made by Todd Easton and kept online by John Paul Wohlschied at johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock.
The Fathers on this verse
St Irenaeus Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter VI, The Holy Ghost,
3. When, however, the Scripture terms them [gods] which are no gods, it does not, as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification, by which they are shown to be no gods at all. As with David: “The gods of the heathen are idols of demons;” and, “Ye shall not follow other gods.” For in that he says “the gods of the heathen”, but the heathen are ignorant of the true God, and calls them “other gods,” he bars their claim [to be looked upon] as gods at all. But as to what they are in their own person, he speaks concerning them; “for they are,” he says, “the idols of demons.” And Esaias: “Let them be confounded, all who blaspheme God, and carve useless things; even I am witness, saith God.” He removes them from [the category of] gods, but he makes use of the word alone, for this [purpose], that we may know of whom he speaks. …
St Augustine Expositions on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXXXI
13. “Israel, if thou shalt have heard Me, there shall not be in thee any new god” ( ver. 9 ). A “new god” is one made for the time: but our God is not new, but from eternity to eternity. And our Christ is new, perchance, as Man, but eternal God. For what before the beginning? And truly, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And our Christ Himself is the Word made flesh, that He might dwell in us. Far be it, then, that there should be in any one a new god. A new god is either a stone or a phantom. He is not, saith one, a stone; I have a silver and a gold one. Justly did he choose to name the very costly things, who said, “The idols of the nations are silver and gold.” Great are they, because they are of gold and silver; costly they are, shining they are; but yet, “Eyes they have, and see not!” New are these gods. …
St Ambrose Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter XI. It cannot be proved from Scripture that the Father existed before the Son, nor yet can arguments taken from human reproduction avail to this end, since they bring in absurdities without end. To dare to affirm that Christ began to exist in the course of time is the height of blasphemy
68. You ask me whether it is possible that He Who is the Father should not be prior in existence. I ask you to tell me when the Father existed, the Son as yet being not; prove this, gather it from argument or evidence of Scripture. If you lean upon arguments, you have doubtless been taught that God’s power is eternal. Again, you have read the Scripture that saith: “O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto Me, there shall be no new God in thee, neither shalt thou worship a strange God.” The first of these commands betokens [the Son’s] eternity, the second His possession of an identical nature, so that we can neither believe Him to have come into existence after the Father, nor suppose Him the Son of another Divinity. For if He existed not always with the Father, He is a “new” [God]; if He is not of one Divinity with the Father, He is a “strange” [God]. …