Like Button

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Taking the Name of the Lord in Vain

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Bible knows that one of the "Big Ten" Commandments is this one:
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exo 20:7).
And we're pretty sure what it means, too. "Thou shalt not cuss." That's what it means. Of course, many today have surrendered that understanding. Mild expletives (and often more) are acceptable today. "I mean, look, it doesn't talk about cussing; it talks about a vain use of the name of the Lord." So we're clearer now. It's only when we use the word "God" as a cuss word that it's bad, right? Clearly all those TV shows and movies where characters say rude things like "God damn it" are using God's name in vain, right? Or is that right?

There are a few problems here. First, the Bible uses the idea if not the phrase. God, in fact, damns some. So the phrase itself can't be the problem. Second, as it turns out, "God" is not His name. Did you know that? The term "God" is a reference to His title, not His name. His name is YHWH. When was the last time you heard that name "used in vain"? In the case of Christ, His title is "Christ" and His name is Jesus. So "names" are an issue. Third, there is the whole problem of using God's name in vain in the sense of using it without meaning it. That would mean that every time you say "God bless you" to someone who sneezed and didn't actually mean a blessing from God, you were using God's name in vain. If it wasn't a prayer, it was "vain".

So what does it mean? If it isn't the use of the word "God" (or, of course, Jesus), then what? Well, our problem is we're moderns trying to understand an ancient concept. Beyond that, we're Americans trying to read back American independence into a different culture entirely. Worse still, we're modern Americans whose mantra is "Question authority" trying to understand the ancient concept of the authority of a name. Satan has certainly done his work here.

The concept of "the name" in biblical (and later) times was not a simple, woodenly literal use of a word that designates something or someone. I came across this concept in my reading of 1 Kings. Ahab wanted his neighbor's vineyard. His neighbor refused. Ahab's wife, Jezebel, told him she'd take care of it. "So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city" (1 Kings 21:8). That's the idea. In fact, this concept occurs all over Scripture.
"But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die" (Deut 18:20).

So David sent ten young men, and David said to the young men, "Go up to Carmel, visit Nabal and greet him in my name" (1 Sam 25:5).

"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many" (Matt 24:5).

"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:14).

"Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).

"I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene--walk!" (Acts 3:6).

Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!" (Acts 16:18).
Perhaps now you begin to get a sense of "the name" concept. It isn't a term. It is an authority. Surely you've seen it in those movies about the days of kings when a rider arrives declaring, "I come in the name of the king." What is the point there? He isn't coming on his own authority. He has the authority of the king. Even so, "in the name of" means "by the authority of". Using God's name in vain, then, would be falsely appealing to God's authority as your own. It would be the false representation that you are operating under the authority of God.

How does that work, then? I'm sure you know people who, while fastidious in their use of the term "God" as a casual word, are happy to tell you, "God told me that you should ..." Did He? Especially when the command is opposed to Scripture. One woman told me, "The Holy Spirit told me that it was okay to conduct a seance because that was an Old Testament prohibition and we're not under the Law." Really? That would be a vain use of the name of God. How else do we use His name in vain? Well, since we are His representatives -- ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20) -- our actions reflect on His name. In the most trivial example I can think of, how did you feel when that car that cut you off in traffic nearly causing an accident had a "Jesus" sticker on the back? That would be using the name of the Lord in vain. Claiming to be a follower of Christ while living as a worldling would be using the name of the Lord in vain.

"Oh, good," I'm hearing some say. "That means we can swear to our hearts content." Well, that would be problematic. Paul warned that we should "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear" (Eph 4:29). James says, "No one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be" (James 3:8-10). We are to put aside "abusive speech" (Col 3:8) and, instead, "Let your speech always be with grace" (Col 4:6). "There must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks" (Eph 5:4). While I have tried to dissuade you from thinking that the Third Commandment is a ban on cussing, I don't want you to think there is no such concern. But our higher concern must be the proper use of the authority of God and the best possible representation of Christ in the world. That is the bigger problem. That ought to be our primary focus.
________
Follow Up Question: If part of "using the name of the Lord in vain" includes claiming to speak for God when He didn't actually say it, would it also be considered "using the name of the Lord in vain" when God actually says something and we deny it? Is it "using the name of the Lord in vain" when we ask "Did God say?" when God clearly said? Is it "using the name of the Lord in vain" if someone claims "We can't actually know what God said [about this]"?

6 comments:

Unknown said...

I have, for a long time, also pointed out that saying "Oh my god" is a very blatant and obvious form of taking His name in vain. In fact it's exactly like saying "Jesus Christ!" as an exclamation. I've never understood how so many Christians have a problem with "Jesus Christ!", but feel just fine saying "Oh my god!" It's the same thing. We do not allow either in our home. For me, I'd rather hear a thousand "F-bombs" than hear someone take the Lord's name in vain like that.

Stan said...

I agree that "F-bombs" are somehow less offensive than the coarse use of the name of my Savior. I find it fascinating, in fact, that you never hear someone say, "Vishnu, man, what's wrong with you??!!" or the like.

On the other hand, I think you might have missed the point. The biblical prohibition isn't about using God's name as an expletive. Indeed, "God" is not His name. Nor is "Christ" the name of His Son. The biblical concept is that of authority -- "in My name". Misusing the authority of God is the concept. That shouldn't mean that we can be irreverent in our conversation, but that isn't in view in the Exodus 20:7 command.

Unknown said...

Yeah, I did get point actually. The topic just reminded me of my "apparently rare" idea of using the term "oh my god" that is so common today and so frivolously just thrown about...
I like your point, however, I don't see how it fits in the "Thou shalt not take the name in vain" category really.. To use something in vain means to use it for no reason or in a disrespectful manner. I see your point as saying to claim to be of the Lord and then displaying behavior to the contrary is taking His name in vain. I don't think it is. I think that is being disobedient and a hypocrite. Certainly not any better of course, but it doesn't seem to fit the definition of "in vain" to me...

vain (vn)
adj. vain·er, vain·est
1. Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt.
2. Lacking substance or worth: vain talk.
3. Excessively proud of one's appearance or accomplishments; conceited.
4. Archaic Foolish.
Idiom:
in vain
1. To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain.
2. In an irreverent or disrespectful manner: took the Lord's name in vain.

Stan said...

I'm trying to be clear on your point, Mike. It appears that you're making the case that the commandment in question is, in fact, not about misuse of authority, but about idle use of a word. Is that your position? (If I have correctly understood your position, perhaps you will also explain your understanding of why you think God was concerned about an idle use of His title?) Not arguing here. Just pursuing your line of thinking.

Unknown said...

yes. That is how I understand it. God is Holy and worthy of all praise and honor. Idle use of His name (any of His titles that are referring to Him)is disrespectful and not honoring. I just think you are reading too much into that particular commandment. I think it is simply referring to respecting and honoring the name of the Lord. Look how many hymns are about "The Name of the Lord"...

Stan said...

Mike: "I just think you are reading too much into that particular commandment."

Well, then, I suppose we'll have to disagree. Since I cannot find a single instance in Scripture of anyone ever being taken to task for the vain use of the name YHWH (because "God" is not His name), and since the primary use of "the name of" in Scripture appears to be "under the authority of", I'm going to go with my approach. Obviously, as I have already stated repeatedly, we should reverence God which would include the vain use of His name, but that seems to fall so far short of the full intent.