But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.”
Not to prophesy in the name of an idol
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וַאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בְּשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וּמֵת הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
שהזהירנו מהתנבאות בשמה, והוא שיאמר האל צונו לעבוד אותה או שהיא בעצמה צותה לעבדה ויעדה גמול והזהירה מעונש כמו שיחשבו נביאי הבעל ונביאי האשרה, ולא בא בכתוב אזהרה מבוארת מיוחדת בזה הענין כלומר שלא להתנבא בשמה, אבל התבאר בכתוב העונש ודין מיתה על המתנבא בשמה. והוא אמרו יתעלה ואשר ידבר בשם אלהים אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא, וזאת המיתה בחנק לפי מה שהושם השרש אצלנו כל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא בחנק. וכבר ידעת השרש שבארתי בשרש י"ד מן השרשים הקודמים לזה המאמר, והוא אמרם התורה לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר, ותהיה האזהרה שלו מאמרו ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו. ואינו נמנע היות לאו אחד מזהיר מדברים רבים ולא יהיה משפטו לאו שבכללות כשהתבאר העונש בכל ענין וענין. והנה אביא לך מזה דמיונות במקומם. וכבר התבארו דיני מצוה זו באחד עשר מסנהדרין. (שופטים ושוטרים, שם פ"ה):
That He prohibited us from prophesying in its name. And that is that one say, "God commanded us to worship it," or that it, itself commanded to worship it and set up a reward and warned about a punishment - as the prophets of Baal and the prophets of Asherah thought. And no specific clear prohibition appears in Scripture for this - meaning not to prophesy in its name. However Scripture does explain the punishment and the law of the death penalty for one who prophesies in its name. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die" (Deuteronomy 18:20). And this death penalty is with strangulation, according to what was made a principle with us - any undifferentiated death penalty stated in the Torah is nothing other than strangulation. And you already know the principle that I explained in Principle 14 of the principles that preceded this essay: And that is their saying, "It does not punish unless it prohibits." And [this commandment's] prohibition is His statement, "and make no mention of the name of other gods" (Exodus 23:13). And it is not impossible for one negative commandment to prohibit several things - and its status will not be that of a general negative commandment, when each and every punishment is explained [by itself]. And behold I will bring you examples of this in their place. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the eleventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 5.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a flat, unconditional command
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
No applicability flags are recorded for this commandment.
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Death by strangulation (ḥenek)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Binding
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 1.315-318 reinterpreted it Addresses the enticer/false prophet leading toward other gods, which corresponds to the Deut 13 material rather than to prophecy in the name of an idol under Deut 18:20; cited here only as thematically adjacent, not as a direct treatment of this commandment
The New Testament
- 1 John 4:1-3 reinterpreted it Testing of spirits/prophets, with christological loyalty criterion replacing the YHWH-exclusivity criterion
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- neo assyrian vassal treaties Neo-Assyrian treaty clause requiring subjects to reject and report prophetic/ecstatic speech (from raggimu and maḫḫû figures) directed against loyalty to the designated heir — the institutional counterpart to Deuteronomy's rejection of prophecy from rival divine sources Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence §10 (lines 116–122), Esarhaddon Succession Treaty, SAA 2.6 Parpola and Watanabe, SAA 2 (1988)
- ugaritic texts Ugaritic religious literature attests a living prophetic/oracular tradition around the Baal-Asherah cult system; prophecy in the name of Baal and Asherah (attested in 1 Kgs 18; Jer 2:8) constitutes the specific ANE prophetic institution that this commandment directly prohibits Relationship to the parallel: polemical contrast Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1–1.6) and related cultic poetry Smith and Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 2 vols (Brill, 1994, 2009)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The commandment prescribes capital punishment by strangulation for the public act of uttering a prophetic oracle in the name of a deity other than YHWH; religious freedom as a post-Enlightenment norm holds that the state may not impose the death penalty on any individual for the exercise of religious speech, even when that speech constitutes a leadership claim within a rival tradition.
-
Article 18 (freedom of religion) and Article 19 (freedom of expression)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
The commandment makes the public exercise of prophetic authority within a non-Yahwistic religious tradition a capital offense; UDHR Articles 18 and 19 protect both freedom to hold and manifest religious belief and freedom of expression, rendering the imposition of the death penalty for this speech act a direct violation of both articles.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5 and Maimonides prescribe strangulation for prophesying in the name of a foreign deity; modern proportionality doctrine categorically excludes capital punishment for non-violent religious speech acts, however institutionally organized.
-
Article 6 (right to life)
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 6 limits capital punishment to the most serious crimes and prohibits it for acts that do not constitute crimes under international law; the capital sanction for prophesying in the name of a foreign deity cannot meet the Article 6 threshold of 'most serious crimes.'
-
Article 14 (right to fair trial) and general abrogation note
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that capital jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the Sanhedrin following the destruction of the Second Temple; the de jure norm of capital punishment for this offense remains textually authoritative but is not de facto enforced.