Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?

What does it mean to use the Lord’s name in vain? This is a question that might seem self-evident to most people in western society. Whether you are religious or not, you would not even hesitate with your answer, “It means to say G-D.” I am sure that there are more people that can answer this than there are who can list the ten commandments, name the Gospels, or tell you the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. With all the talk about cursing pastors and the evolution of swearing going on in the blogsphere, I thought that I would try to contribute once more to this discussion by asking the question “What does it really mean to take the Lord’s name in vain?”
Obviously, I am going to say something that is at odds with the common conception among those of us who grew up in the context of our western Judeo-Christian culture, otherwise I would not have included the word “really,” and put it in italics! The reader must also be warned that I am going to use a phrase that is very offensive to many. I am assuming that I am dealing with a mature audience who understands the intentionality that I bring to this blog (most of the time!). If what I am proposing here is correct, we all need to hear this in order to overcome a serious issue of folk theology that damages the character of God and misrepresents what it means to talk in a Christian manner.
For most, the ultimate violation of the third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.” You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy. Some people will stand before God and when asked “Why should I let you in to heaven?” will proudly say, “Because I did not murder, commit adultery, and I never said “the G-D word.” (Please note, I don’t think God is going to ask that question.)
I believe we have this wrong. In fact, from a purely objective standpoint, I don’t believe that this phrase causes God to bat an eye whatsoever. Think about it this way for a moment. Why would calling on God to damn something be so bad? What does the verb “damn” mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb ”to damn” as “the act of pronouncing an adverse judgement upon.” To call upon God to damn something is neither sinful nor unbiblical. In fact, you can find people throughout Scripture, especially in the Psalms, who call upon God to bring judgement on their enemies. In other words, they are asking for God to damn those who they feel are ripe for His judgement. In this sense, saying “God damn _____” is as biblical as saying “God bless _____.”
Some may say to me the reason why this is a violation of the third commandment is because people are using God’s name in a “vain,” “worthless,” or “empty” way. In this case, to say “God damn it!” in our colloquial tongue is not the same as seriously calling upon God to damn something or someone. For these people, if you say it seriously, fine, but if you say it casually, then you have used His name in an empty way and thereby broken the third commandment.
But there are three major problems with this line of reasoning:Â
1) “God” is not the name of God, but a common phrase used to refer to deities in general. How can a generic classification be considered a formal name? It would be like you saying that my name is “person.” God gives His name to Moses in the book of Exodus. His name is Yahweh. Would you have the same offense if someone were to stub their toe and say “Yahweh damn it!”? I doubt it.
2) If the principle that we are going by is that we are not to use God’s name and not really mean it, then I believe that we are very inconsistent in what we take offense to as a culture. Why don’t people get offended when others say “God bless you?” Do you think that every time someone says this that they really mean it? Do you think that in their mind they are talking to God, beseeching on your behalf for a blessing? Just about every email I get ends with the phrase, “God bless.” I seriously doubt that that person actually said a prayer for me before he or she hit send. If this is the case, then why is saying ”God bless you” not just as much a violation of the third commandment as saying “God damn you?” Is it more biblical to ask for God’s kindness or judgment? I don’t think anyone who is honest with themselves can say that they are consistent in this regard. Saying “God damn it” and not meaning it should be just as bad as saying “God bless you” and not meaning it.
3) This is the most important so I have saved it for last. In fact, if what I am about to say is true, then the first two don’t really make a difference. The question is this: What does it mean to use God’s name in an empty or vain way? What does the third commandment really mean? It is hard to tell from a simple word study on the Hebrew term naqa (vain). As well, our understanding of a “name” and what it signifies is much different than what it meant in the context in which this commandment was given. What we have to do is to try to understand what it meant then, so that we can understand what it means now. It does us no good to anachronistically impose our understanding upon an ancient text. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we presuppose), not exegesis (letting the text speak on its own terms).
Briefly, here is what I believe your studies will show. The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.
God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect. He does not want anyone saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” if the Lord had not spoken. All of you have experienced this. You have had people say you said something you did not say. This can be very damaging to your character. It is very destructive to your name. Why? Because it makes you out to be something that you are not. How much more important is it for God to protect His character? It is fitting that God would have put this as one of the ten most important commandments as the nation of Israel moved towards Canaan.
What does this mean for us? Well, for starters we understand that the third commandment is certainly not focused on something so trivial as saying “God damn it!” The funny thing is that while some people may never think of using that phrase, people all over the Christian religious landscape are breaking the third commandment every day, damaging the Lord’s reputation. “Thus sayeth the Lord . . .” “God told me to tell you . . .” “God says that if you send in this much money, you will be blessed.” I could go on and on, but you get the point. Using the name of the Lord in vain means that you do damage to His reputation and character through false and unsure claims. Think again before you say “God said . . .” Make sure that He has really said it. If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertianty. Saying “I think God is telling you to . . .” rather than “God is telling you to . . .” may not be as authoritative, but it will keep God’s reputation safe and keep you from breaking the third commandment.
As an aside, I think that this misunderstanding of the third commandment is not only sad, but tragic. If I were Satan (and I am not
), I can’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment and misrepresent the character of God than to make people focus its essence on the phrase ”God damn it.”
Does this mean that I believe that we can now say this phrase and not worry about it? Not exactly. I think that using this phrase in a colloquial way is offensive in many (if not most) contexts. We don’t want to be offensive. It all comes back to being intentional with everything we say. While it is not a violation of the third commandment necessarily, it is offensive speech that must be used with wisdom and discretion.
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?
- Are All Sins Really Equal in God’s Sight?
- Is Natural Revelation Also God’s Word?
- Should the Church Seek for
MiraclesSigns? - Things I used to believe, but now I am not so sure

JoanieD on 07 Jun 2007 at 6:45 am #
Very well said, Michael, and very wise. Thanks and I hope you have a great day!
Joanie
C Michael Patton on 07 Jun 2007 at 7:47 am #
Thanks Joanie!
Chad Winters on 07 Jun 2007 at 8:22 am #
Thanks, Michael….
You concretely answered something that had been bugging me in a nebuluous way for awhile. I knew we had that wrong but not exactly sure how. I’m glad you fleshed it out for me and I think you are absolutely correct!!
Again we strain at gnats and swallow camels, its disheartening
Eriol on 07 Jun 2007 at 8:24 am #
This is a quite good, blog-length treatment of a subject that needs repeatedly to be addressed in evangelicalism. It is no small thing, as you say, to attach God’s name to an activity or enterprise in which He is not involved.
I had only recently finished Friessen’s Decision Making and the Will of God when I heard Bruce Waltke make much the same point you make here. The convergence of these two messages turned my nascent spiritual life upside-down for a time while I came to terms with personal responsibility for my choices and desires. Having been unchurched prior to my conversion, I quickly adopted the evangespeak that was rampant in the little Christian subculture.
(An analysis of the psychosocial reasons for prefacing one’s behavior with “God said/told/showed/revealed . . .” is a tangential but important issue itself).
The following year (1983?) I was asked by an application to seminary to “explain my call to the ministry.” Well, I had no “call to the ministry,” believing that it was a decision that God both gave me the wisdom to make and the responsibility to make. I was not courageous in saying I did not believe in such a call: the forward to Friessen’s book had been written by the then-president of the seminary! So I was pretty sure I was on holy ground and wouldn’t be kept out for that reason!
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the need for evangelicals of all ages to take responsibility for their words and actions rather than attributing their motivation to God. I know you have addressed one side here, but there is also the aspect of irresponsibility on the part of Christians who employ such language and thinking. Such behavior lies at the root, I think, of much unbalanced theology and praxis.
Again, thank you for the post.
nathanimal on 07 Jun 2007 at 12:02 pm #
Just wanted to say I completely agree. And it is very sad that we get caught up in trivial issues. I KNOW satan loves the fact that we misunderstand these things. I just wish more Christians knew this. Guess this is a good place to start as any.
Josh on 07 Jun 2007 at 3:27 pm #
Thanks for the refreshing post. I think these types of things fall under the category of “straining out a nat, but swallowing a camel” and can turn us into whitewashed tombed legalist very quickly.
One thing I would like to add that may help our perspective on issues like these is from a book (which I don’t remember the name or the author). In the book the author talked about how he used an instance where someone said “Jesus†(in the sense of throwing your hands up in the air and saying “Jesus†out of frustration), using that opportunity he asked the person, “You know my friendâ€? The guy was confused and asked “who’s your friendâ€, the author answered, “Jesus, my friend, you said his name, do you know himâ€?
This gave him an opportunity to talk about Jesus without sounding like a “crazy fundamentalist†because the other person brought it up to begin with. At this point the person has two choices (rather two paths to go down in their reasoning) either to say, “Oh a Jesus freak, your crazy†and walk away or “how do you know he’s your friend?†Which if the second line of reasoning is used, you know God is working because they are having “ears to hear†even if it’s just a tiny bit. It’s amazing what God can do with simple questions, and how He uses them to open the eyes of people you were “sure†were clamped shut.
This is also Jesus’ model, using the circumstances of the day to spread the news of the Kingdom (woman at the well, paralyzed man being lowered down etc) so this should be our ultimate goal in our everyday life’s as His disciples. Again, I affirm and thank Mr. Patton for addressing this issue, but I think if we walk away with merely “head knowledge†on the subject with have missed its point.
Thank you again for your wonderful post,
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
P.S. I’m not saying that Mr. Patton in anyway desired merely to educate, I’m just encouraging the practical application of such useful knowledge.
C Michael Patton on 07 Jun 2007 at 3:32 pm #
Josh-
I love it! Good points and valuable to the post. Thanks!
kprice on 07 Jun 2007 at 5:08 pm #
I am going to send this to my husband. He will love it! This one has come up in our household once or twice before!
-Kara
kprice on 07 Jun 2007 at 5:16 pm #
Thanks for so clearly defining what it means to use the Lord’s name in vein! I’ll be sending this on to my husband. He’ll love it! This one has come up in our household once or twice!
Kara
Threepwood on 07 Jun 2007 at 10:18 pm #
FINALLY!!! You have no idea how nice it is to hear this stuff. God Bless You. Really. More people need to hear this too.
Thanks.
tobias on 08 Jun 2007 at 7:30 pm #
Awwwwwwesome post!
It’s so refreshing to read something that enlightens issues that just don’t seem right after a minute of thought, but that we usually don’t give more than a minute of thought. And it causes me to examine myself and realize I’ve got that off thinking in me as well.
Thank you!
(Now I just need to restrain myself from throwing it a few “God said you all should..” peoples’ faces I can think of… God grant me a heart of grace!)
scotti on 18 Jun 2007 at 3:15 pm #
I tend to agree with you. But with a little added insight…
We speak of a woman who marries and changes her last name to that of her husband as “taking his name.” If she were to take his name, and then continue to act as a single woman, she would be taking his name in vain.
If we live our lives in a way that people question that we are really called by His name, we take His name in vain. So our faithlessness is actually taking His name in vain.
Having said that, I think we should not be saying the GD stuff. Because as Christians, it’s supposed to be our job to shine His light so that people can repent and escape His judgment. It’s not our job to call down His judgment.
Luke 9:54-56
And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village
C Michael Patton on 18 Jun 2007 at 6:26 pm #
Scott, thanks for the post. I am not sure that I would look at it this way. It may be a good illustration as to how a woman takes or receives her husbands name, but I don’t know of any evidence to suggest that this is what was going on in with regards to the ancient audience. We have to be very careful not to refer to the way we understand something and impose that upon how they understood it. This is called the anachronistic fallacy.
Anyway, if you could point us to any information that would suggest this is the right way to understand it, that would be appreciated.
Thanks for contributing!
scotti on 19 Jun 2007 at 2:40 am #
One Scripture that comes to mind is the book of Haggai. Where God uses the prophet’s marriage to Gomer as an illustration of Faithless Israel. Surely they took God’s name in vain just as Gomer did.
Interesting blog. I’ll be back!
Ronnie V on 15 Jul 2007 at 1:41 pm #
Seems waaay to simplistic.
So you’re saying that He really meant, “Don’t misrepresent me”? That He really meant, “Don’t lie about me”?
Wasn’t that covered under a different commandment?
This doesn’t appear to be the understanding of Jewish scribes (who were reluctant to even print His name) either.
My understanding of this is that to use His name in vain is like; knocking on His door- then running away before He opens it. Should he not be more reluctant to open the door for you in the future? Kinda like the boy who cried “Wolf”?
I would only minimize this command (as you have) with great fear and trembling. Please rethink this.
C Michael Patton on 15 Jul 2007 at 1:57 pm #
Thanks for the post!
I can see you don’t agree with me, but you gave no historical or exegetical evidence as to why other than the way Jews interpreted it. Have you really studied the way that they interpreted it fully? Are you going to follow by their hermeneutical method of protecting the law in everything? Look at the implications for interpreting the fourth commandment in Christ’s day. You could not even sneeze (literally) on Sunday. They always protected the law by emphasizing the “letter of the law” and lost the underlying principle. This is my arguement here, not only of the Jews, but our Christian culture.
Thanks for the post my friend.
Ronnie V on 16 Jul 2007 at 10:44 pm #
Thanks for your reply Mr. Patton,
Thank you for allowing me to try to figure this one out. I haven’t done any formal theology so I’m kinda slow at this. Sorry for dragging this thread out.
Now, I hear you telling me that I need more historical and exegetical evidence. I hear you telling me that I should study this more fully. I hear you asking me if I’m going to follow Jewish hermeneutics slavishly. I assure you that I feel no compulsion on “protecting the law” but rather on honoring the law-giver. The law will remain whether I protect it or not.
There is much I do not understand about your exegesis.
I do not understand why Deut 18 does not use the term vain as you seem to use it in your exegesis. Indeed, your definition fails often with a word study.
You have rendered many O.T. passages meaningless with your strict definition. Why are you so reluctant to allow the root meaning to define the semantic domain? Are you not being more strict than I am?
Your study tickles my ears but makes my eyes trickle. Please provide a better study.
P.S. Please tell me how to find the word “naqa” as well.
May God bless you in your studies,
Ron
C Michael Patton on 16 Jul 2007 at 10:54 pm #
Ronnie, the word used for vein means “empty” or “worthless.” This supplies us we a semantic domain to be sure, but the context does not narrow the meaning without historical inquiry. Therefore, we saying that God tells us not to use his name in empty or meaningless way. Now the question comes down to what does the word “name” mean in this context. Again we find that it has to do with reputation, the essence of who or what one is.
Now, here is what we have, “You shall not give our Lord an ill-reputation by throwing it around in a meaningless way.”
From here is where we find the parallel to the day of people using the name of their gods in order to gain an audience.
This is the closest parallel that we can find. The next step is to compare Scripture with Scripture to find if our interpretation is consistent with other part of the Bible. Immediately we find that God is concerned about protecting His reputation by making sure there are no false prophets. Deut 13, 18. Then we see this abused in Jer 13.
All things considered, this is the best exegesis I can do.
For a short summary of this process, the theological/exegetical process, see here. Scroll to the bottom and watch or listen to # 4 and #5. (Really, it is much more profitable if you watch).
God bless.
Ronnie V on 17 Jul 2007 at 11:49 pm #
Thanks Mr. Patton,
Thanks for the video. I can’t tell you that I learned anything from it though.
I’m still not finding the word “naqa” either. Do you mean the Hebrew for “take”?
Also, I hear you saying that the word “vain” is synonomous with “presumptuously” in Deut 18. I don’t see even a 51% parallel.
As I understand this passage- it applies only to prophets.
That with your “timeless principle” we can safely ignore this commandment because we suspect that there are no more prophets in the same sense.
I find it much safer to rely on the footnote of the NET Bible
regarding this commandment:
21tn ש×Ö¸×•Ö°× (shav’, “vainâ€) describes “unreality.†The command prohibits use of the name for any idle, frivolous, or insincere purpose (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 196). This would include perjury, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.
I find it much safer to rely only commentators like Matthew Henry, John Gill, K&D etc. regarding this commandment.
I’m reminded of F.F. Bruce saying, “If you find the sayings of Jesus easy you probably are not understanding them”.
Jesus not only expands the categories of adultery, murder, blasphemy etc. ,but refuses to minimize the commandments (as you seem to be doing). In fact, he pronounces a curse on those that do (Matt. 5:19).
May you not be among them.
Regards,
Ron
C Michael Patton on 17 Jul 2007 at 11:56 pm #
Well, all I can say is that we are held accountable by our exegesis first. While I do respect what others have said about this, not many current scholars would follow the common evangelical folk theology concerning this issue. In fact, the NET Bible quote you gave should have given you further confidence that I am not in left field on this one.
Again, it comes down more to historical inquiry and what “name” means in the context. We simply think of it as an articulated designation, but in that day (and in some cultures today) it had to do with reputation. That is where you should take your studies next. What does “name” mean?
Anthony Forsyth on 22 Jul 2007 at 4:20 pm #
Ron,
I’d just like to inteject here and say a couple of things:
1) Michael’s exegesis seems, to me, to be making the commandment harder and not easier. In addition, he has clearly stated that the use of God’s name as a curse word would be wrong still, but not on the basis of the 3rd commandment.
2) Is there any evidence to suggest that anybody was using God’s name (or any other god’s name) as a form of cursing at that time? Surely that would be necessary to understand the passage in the traditional manner?
It was a blog and not a precise article, for sure, but I thought it articulated well a good piece of exegesis.
Anthony
SharperIron » The Third Commandment on 25 Jul 2007 at 12:59 pm #
[...] & Pen’s C. Michael Patton ponders the meaning of taking God’s name in vain and concludes we are missing the [...]
It's Your Monkey... on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:17 pm #
So Should I Start Swearing?
I was pointed to an interesting perspective on the Third Commandment (not taking the Lord’s name in vain) here. It makes more sense than any other argument I have heard against taking the Lord’s name in vain.
…
RonM on 31 Jul 2007 at 5:46 pm #
I think it would be best to understand that we’re talking about two ways of using God’s name: one is to use it in a frivolous manner, the other is to use it in cursing. The third commandment is explicitly prohibiting using God’s name in a frivolous manner. It is good to point out that we can do so without cursing. Certainly we don’t want to be careless as to how we use the Lord’s name. But how much more then does this imply that the Lord’s name ought not to be used for cursing either! The Lord’s model prayer included the phrase, “Hallowed be Thy name” (Matt 6:9). I can’t imagine that anyone with a clear conscience could in a fit of frustration utter a curse using the Lord’s name and consider this a means of hallowing His name or bringing glory to Him! It may not break the letter of the law, but it certainly breaks the spirit of the law! We should be careful as to what we encourage others to do in this matter as Jesus said that, “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matt 12:36)
paulsteven on 09 Aug 2007 at 5:40 pm #
I think Mr Patton has made a good point here and reminded
us that we have a responsibility to represent the Lord as
accurately as we can. That we also have to give account
for every idle word should preclude using expressions like
GD and let our ‘yea’ really mean ‘yea’. I thought Scotti’s
insight on our being ‘the bride of Christ’ and therefore
responsible to be a true and example of Christ, our
‘bridegroom’ very helpful and supported by scripture
throughout the testaments. My only question is therefore:
What is there to argue about here?
I find it very helpful when my brethren of whichever
Christian persuasion shed a little more light on the scripture.
As long as these insights are supported by the
preponderance of scripture and point us to greater devotion
and obedience, and a closer ‘imitation of Christ’, thank God
for them! God bless you! (I mean that!)
Theological Musings » More Than Meets the Eye on 23 Aug 2007 at 7:57 am #
[...] we do use the term “God”, even with a capital G in other ways. As was pointed out in a post on another blog (a blog unfamiliar to me, and one I only found in looking for some other information about this [...]
Cage on 17 Sep 2007 at 1:15 pm #
To pick up a bit on what Anthony was saying (#2)…
It seems to me that people are denouncing a modern usage that may not have even been imaginable in biblical times. How many ancients were throwing their hands up saying “Jesus” or stubbing their toe and screaming G-D?
It appears obvious that the commandment could not directly apply to these utterances since they didn’t exist at the time. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
Great article and discussion Mr. Patton
Robb Hand on 18 Sep 2007 at 4:56 pm #
There is very little that I could add to your well thought out and presented article. All I will say is, “Well done and about time”.
SuseADoodle on 19 Sep 2007 at 9:29 pm #
I didn’t read all of the comments but did notice a couple that look at this commandment a little differently.
“Take” and “Use” are actually different.
My husband was the one who introduced me to this other way of looking at the 3rd commandment. He works in a factory and some of his co-workers get upset at anyone on the line who use any curse word and tell them they are offending God by “taking His name in vain” when the word ‘god’ wasn’t even in what they said.
The answer my husband has for that is that most of the words they hear are slang terms for functions God created and therefore not a surprise to Him. (Even so, I would suggest avoiding using those terms because they’re crude and crass.)
Hubby sees “taking” the Lord’s name as referring to something like a
(1) marketing ploy — such and such celebrity is now a Christian (hoping to break into that market — and when it turns out it isn’t quite as lucrative as they had hoped, they become a Buddhist or an Atheist).
Or,
(2) actually following the Bill Bright idea of “Try God.” But when things get tough, you say “that didn’t work” and move on to what the next self-help guru has to offer to improve your life.
Taking the Lord’s name in vain seems to be more about wearing the mantle of being one of His followers to either look right to the right people or to see how that “magical” cloak will make your own life better now.
Now, back to “swearing” — I said maybe we shouldn’t do it because it offends people. But, who is being offended? As a general rule it is people who are living a legalistic lifestyle of Christianity rather than one steeped in grace and mercy. Maybe swearing isn’t the way to do it, but a lot of these Sisters and Brothers need to be offended right out of their legalism and into a real understanding of the truth of the hymn “JUST AS I AM.” And stop telling the world they need to be pefect BEFORE they can come to God?
Mark Ginter on 26 Sep 2007 at 2:37 pm #
One thing I don’t see mentioned in any comments is the fact that contemporary interpreters chose to replace YHWH with LORD in different instances, no? Doesn’t this cloud the issue a bit. For instance — the suggestion is made that the word God can refer to any god — but in contemporary scripture the ‘G’ God is the one who has a name and his name is YHWH. So, in a sense, ‘G’od becomes a replacement word for YHWH since - seeing as how it doesn’t have any vowels - it cannot even be pronounced from the Hebrew.
I repeatedly tell my ‘youth’ that if they insist on using the Lord’s name (which, historically seems to have settled on ‘G’od at this point) - then when they finally turn to him and need him for something he is less likely to respond - since every time they’ve called out his name prior has been in vain.
Also - Paul seems to hand us some stern words on cussing - which would make the issue of the cuss phrase moot.
Just thought I’d throw those points out there.
Peace,
Mark
Earnestine on 30 Sep 2007 at 5:15 pm #
EXCELLENT. What does it mean to covet?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 Oct 2007 at 4:52 pm #
Wow! Great Post! Thanks much for the great exposition!
Thomas on 26 Oct 2007 at 3:25 pm #
It is unfortunate that instead of going straight into Scripture and demonstrating precisely how God intends us to interpret the 3rd Commandment, you take us into the void of your own reason, then pagan antiquity to explain what God must have intended.
Sadly, the very presupposition of your post is in violation of the 3rd Commandment, for in it you have profaned the very word of God which He has magnified above His name.
Jason on 02 Nov 2007 at 4:14 am #
But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk.
With respect we know no such thing.
We can be absolutely sure that there is no other God like Yahweh, who created and sustains all that is. However we cannot eliminate the possibility of rebellious spirit beings presenting themselves to ancients or moderns with the title of Baal or Zeus or Ra.
Only one God deserves worship, but that does not mean that there aren’t beings who’d like to be His competition.
chrismw on 02 Nov 2007 at 11:32 am #
I realize this is an old post, but I can’t help asking what it means to CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, or CALL UPON THE LORD.
I don’t hear anyone bringing this up.
It might inform what you consider “taking the Lord’s name in vain” means.
DJ Sarver on 06 Nov 2007 at 12:58 pm #
“Seems waaay to simplistic.”
Actually, it seems way too simplistic that one would be damned for eternity for using the phrase “God damn.” Maybe though, since it was mentioned in this post that taking the Lord’s name in vain could also refer to misrepresentation of the lord, if you’re saying “God damn this or that,” well.. now that I think about it you’re not really saying that he did or didn’t. You’re just asking him to damn something in a subtle way. Just like saying God bless this or that. I get it now! Haha. Anyway! This was a really good post and it explained a lot and put it in terms that I think everyone could understand. Good job! A+
Steve on 07 Nov 2007 at 11:38 am #
This post/blog seems old and this comment might be coming a little late..but have you ever considered
that the use of God’s name in vain may simply be to do things for your own glory
and not for the Glory of God. To use God and the works that you do for God, or feel that
you are doing for God, really is for your own glory? Like a rich man’s son
telling his friend about his fathers wealth and following up with, in that wealth I got this and from that I got
that…when he really is speaking these things not to glorify his father, but in his own vain? I believe that God is telling us to do things for His Glory and not our own.
Tim Carr on 15 Nov 2007 at 5:42 pm #
I have always believed this to be the case. I never once thought that saying God Dammit was taking the Lords name in vain, for I always knew God was never so trivial as to be concerned with a cuss word in the context of the Ten Commandments.
This is a wise post and I think it settles the matter most sufficiently.
T. Sargent on 03 Dec 2007 at 9:37 pm #
So would statements like: Oh God, Oh my God, JC, Oh my gosh be considered using Gods name in vain?
steve on 05 Dec 2007 at 9:16 pm #
t.Sargent it may be offensive, it clearly does nothing to build up his body, and certainly does not appear to be for his glory. I suspect then it is wrong. A violation of the 3rd commandment - I certainly dont think so. Doesnt make it right. but its not breaking the 3rd. Thats like taking thou shall not kill and addressing it to an ant you killed without knowledge - or 1 of 1000 living things in your hair before carelessly washing. - Killed - but a violation of a commandment? Where do you draw the line? No one is giving permmission to be valgar - Just trying to understand his commandment.
Witness in Love
Cdowis on 06 Dec 2007 at 2:18 pm #
There is another perspective. It is the use of the Lord’s name without regard to His actual teachings, or teaching false doctrine. Using the Lord’s name to promote one’s theological agenda.
Parchment and Pen » Ray Comfort and Blasphemy on 09 Dec 2007 at 1:06 pm #
[...] don’t believe the Comfort has done his homework on what taking the Lord’s name in vain really means. Neither do I think that he understands blasphemy. BADG defines blasphemy this way: [...]
rpavich on 24 Dec 2007 at 2:07 pm #
Ok…I know that I’ve already commented but I took the time to do a thorough study on this.
It would seem that Michael’s right. Though I detest the idea of someone using my Lord’s name in a curse word, the scriptures don’t support that idea.
Neither does any of my bible dictionaries, Lexicons, or the early church fathers that I checked out…they all agreed with Michael’s assertion.
Now my question is this: Then why is saying G-D! wrong? It’ has to be!
Am I just a product of my traditions?
bob
Mike Asher on 28 Dec 2007 at 6:22 pm #
naqa’ (naw-kah’) Strong’s number 5362 >> A primitive root; to feel aversion — be alienated.
Naqa’ is not found in Exodus 20:7.
The word “vain” is Strong’s number H7723 >>
shav {shav}; from the same as show’ in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain) — false(-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.
Shav comes from the root word Show’ - Strong’s number 7722 >> ravage, devastation, ruin, waste, waste (of land)
I am not an expert in the Hebrew language but I think you are mistaken in word as well as mistaken in reasoning.
Leviticus 10:3 - “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified”.
I realize that “vain” is nowhere to be found in this scripture but for the purpose of this discussion I believe it to be relavant.
God’s name is holy, sanctified, separate. It is not biblically sound to “lower” His name by frivolous use in our speaking.
In Job 37:22 “He comes from the north as golden splendor; With God is awesome majesty”.
In Luke 11:2 “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.”
In Psalm 24:3 “He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.”
In Revelation 15:4 “Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For you alone are holy.”
Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”
I came about this blog because my son is trying to decide if it’s ok to watch movies that take the Lord’s name in vain. My wife and I don’t patronize movies that practice this and have suggested that he consider his position in this matter. This is where the rubber meets the road in my opinion. Is there any question in your mind of Hollywood’s intentions toward the precious and awesome name of our God?
Please allow me to suggest that you handle His name with the highest degree of reverence.
Blessings
C Michael Patton on 28 Dec 2007 at 6:36 pm #
Mike, thanks for the comments. Thanks most of all for taking this approach with your son. Supposing that you are correct, I would ask you What is God’s name? Is it “God”?
You did not seem to engage my arguments either.
Robert on 28 Dec 2007 at 7:32 pm #
This last post or two brings up another question: No…God’s name is not technically “God” but even if we don’t us His actual name…that’s our intent when we say “G-D”…right?
bob
steve on 29 Dec 2007 at 10:04 am #
I noticed or failed to read anything addressing another side to this - what does it mean “to use”? I would add more but biblically I do not know the answer. I am sure it has a lot more to do with our actions then it does to speak his name with intent to be vulgar. Is not our purpose, given back from God’s grace thru Christ, to glorify God? Speak and do things in his name for our glory..is that not using his name in vain?
HM on 31 Dec 2007 at 5:10 pm #
I think a lot of my objection to the whole G-D phrase and others like it is a lack of reverence and respect for God in general.
I agree with your point though, we recently did a Bible study in church discussing the 10 commandments and this exact point came up.
Robert on 01 Jan 2008 at 12:02 pm #
Michael…
Can you chime in here?
I think we, as readers, agree with you…so how does the offense of saying “G-D” fit in?
Is it dealt with somewhere else?
Are we prisoners of our own traditions?
God bless
bob
Doyle on 03 Jan 2008 at 8:34 pm #
I say just avoid things which may danger the reputation of Christianity like Patton said and don’t say something you aren’t sure you should say. Many people claim to be Christian, but are almost the exact opposite. That gives God (Yahweh) a bad name, and it gives atheists a reason for disbelief.
Robert on 04 Jan 2008 at 4:59 am #
Doyle,
I heartly agree with you!
However…the point of the post was that the 3rd commandment doesn’t support such a broad spectrum of definitions….:)
It’s been interesting.
bob
Robb Hand on 04 Jan 2008 at 8:06 am #
Robert, I have been thinking about your question for the past day or so. It is a good one. Where does scripture cover the use of G-D since the 3rd commandment clearly does not address using God’s name with profanity?
I am sure that more scriptures address it, but here are just two passages that seem to answer this question.
Ephesians 4:29 reminds us that no unwholesome speech is to come from us. It would be hard to argue that shouting G-D would would be wholesome or edifying to other believers.
Deuteronomy 6:5 / Mark 12:29, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength. If would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which the use of God’s name (or accepted title in English) in anger or irreverence could fit within the requirement of the greatest commandment.
Mike Asher on 04 Jan 2008 at 9:54 am #
I wanted to ponder this for a while before I answered your follow-up questions…..I apologize in advance for a lengthy post.
You asked: “What is God’s name? Is it God?”
If you don’t mind me asking, what word(s) do you use when to are praying to God? When I used the word (God) in the previous sentence did you know who I was referring to? How?
Here is a definition I found for this word god: “the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship”
Are you suggesting that we as believers in Christ Jesus disassociate this word god from our God so that we can then use this word in any way we see fit? Which word should we use when we are referring to our God in the presence of our children and unbelievers? Should we teach our children that the word god doesn’t necessarily mean “God”?
You said: “You did not seem to engage my arguments either.”
Ok, your argument labeled number 1 above is answered above.
Argument labeled Number 2:
We are commanded in the Bible to bless and not curse in Romans 12:14:
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”
It’s implied in James 3:10 “Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.”
I can’t speak to the situation wherein someone speaks a blessing and doesn’t really mean it as this is an intention of the heart, and only God can “see” that. But, when I say “May God bless you”, I can speak that blessing without praying first. One speaks a blessing out of an intention of edification, encouragement, building up…..hopefully
Argument labeled number 3:
“Empty” is not an adequate (IMO) definition for the word Shav (not naqa) It includes “empty” but it also means to do evil to or to desolate in some way.
Also you say in number 3 that God is trying to prevent His people from pronouncing something in the name of a false god. This would be covered under the 9th commandment, a false witness. Can you provide some Bible examples of this specific thing happening? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your line of thinking here.
The word “take” in this commandment means “to lift, bear up, carry, exalt, take”
I think it has to do with the walk we walk and the talk we talk. Further I believe this is an issue of spiritual discernment, at least partially regulated by our conscience and heart. Do you get a “red flag” in your spirit when hear these words spoken?
In response to your last sentence….Please allow me another question: When someone speaks the words in question, what is the intention of the heart when they are spoken? Are these words ever spoken to build up or encourage? I believe the answer is no. This curse is ALWAYS spoken in a negative sense. I believe that these words are a direct violation of the commandment you refer to but that there are many other ways we could also be in violation.
Is that a problem for Christians? Not under law but under grace? Please consider these verses.
Ephesians 4:29 “Let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.”
Matthew 12:37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matthew 15:18 “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.”
Hebrews 13:15 “Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”
Before I trusted the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins, I spoke these words in question many times. I am not holier than thou……
Mike
Robert on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:04 pm #
Michael,
Mike raises some interesting points…what say you?
This is a very interesting thread…thanks again…I’m sure we are keeping you from your next post…:)
bob
C Michael Patton on 05 Jan 2008 at 12:46 am #
Sounds good I guess
. But my argument was a historical one. If the historical issues I raise are correct, I don’t see any way by the conclusions that I have come to. I would do some cultural studies to understand this issue if you wanted to persue it further. But, in the end, I suspect you will come to the same conclusions I have that saying G-D does not violate the 3rd commandment, even though it is culturally offensive and therefore wrong in a relative sort of way.
Thanks for all your contributions. Please understand that this is an old post and I don’t have time to read all the comments on new posts! But I am glad that you all keep the discussion going.
Just remember that emotional reaction to points that are raised should not provide motivation for their justification.
C Michael Patton on 05 Jan 2008 at 12:52 am #
The positive of this commandment is “You shall protect the Lord’s reputation.” The negative, “You shall not damage the reputation (name) of God.” “Name” has to be with reputation and representation. Do a study on what it means to pray in Jesus “name.” I think you will find that it is not a magic incantation, but a representation of who He is.
Unless you can show that there is an anachronistic fallacy in equating the New Testament understanding of “name” with the Old Testament understand, this will help you understand my points.
Again, it takes much more than just thinking deeply about these things, we have to dig into the cultural understanding behind them. Otherwise we will have abandoned an authorial intent hermeneutic and then everything is relative according to what each individual thinks it means. We don’t have time for such reader response hermeneutics do we?
Robert on 05 Jan 2008 at 6:51 am #
Michael,
I think you nailed it and as far as I’m concerned…this one is about done…
It’s not a violation of commandment 3…but culturally, it’s not something that I like to hear.
I did come to that conclusion by way of study…I just couldn’t let go of my hatred of hearing it
bob
Readmore on 10 Jan 2008 at 9:19 am #
Here’s my $.02, late though it may be. Assuming Hosea 4:2 is referring back to five of the 10 commandments (which it almost certainly is), it should provide some clarity on how the other OT authors (or at least the prophet Hosea, who was after all, under inspiration) viewed this commandment.
“Cursing”, or “swearing” as it is rendered in the KJV, must refer to the third commandment. The word in question, from the Hebrew alah, can mean to pronounce a curse upon someone. This helps clarify the interpretation of “taking God’s name in vain” as pronouncing a curse upon someone in the name of God, as was the practice in the contemporary heathen nations.
Robert on 10 Jan 2008 at 9:23 am #
Readmore,
You obviously do! (just making a friendly joke about your name
I’ll check out your reference, thanks.
I’m also discussing this with another Christian brother who is insisting that our modern idea of G-D is covered by the 3rd commandment…this will be good food for discussion….
bob
melcartera on 11 Jan 2008 at 2:19 am #
Thanks, cmp!
I see the modern-day application here to preachers, pastors, teachers, and Christian counselors.
This is an urgently needed reminder to preacher-entertainers, to remind them of the high calling of preaching!
God bless you! (and I mean that, not taking His Name in vain)
Mel
1389 on 19 Jan 2008 at 8:04 pm #
Agreed!
I would suggest that, every time when social custom prompts to say something like “God bless you”, it behooves us to take just a moment to reflect mentally on our loving concern for our fellow human beings, and genuinely ask the Lord to watch over them.
Jason on 31 Jan 2008 at 9:03 pm #
“
Jason on 31 Jan 2008 at 9:05 pm #
Michael,
You mentioned the 4th commandment and not being able to sneeze on sunday; was the sunday reference intentional? I ask since the little “a’s” intent and understanding would be Saturday as the Sabbath. Just splitting hairs to poke a little fun. =)
I love what you and Rhome do, it’s a great service to the Body of Christ.
Jason on 31 Jan 2008 at 10:45 pm #
I see another Jason… how did this happen? How will we tell ourselves apart?
Jason C
Jason J on 31 Jan 2008 at 11:25 pm #
I’ll go by Jason J =)
C Michael Patton on 01 Feb 2008 at 12:56 am #
One of my best friends is Jason J. (James)
C Michael Patton on 01 Feb 2008 at 12:57 am #
By the way Jason, great to have you!
matt on 09 Feb 2008 at 5:22 pm #
If we’ve been wrong about this and thought saying G-D Damn was bad because of cultural bias and poor interpretation, what might we think is ok that will shock us when we are condemned for it?
Just sayin.
And seriously, when I say God Bless you, I mean it. God Bless you is a request for good, goddamnit is a request for ultimate judgement. I will pass on saying that, whether it is a cultural bias or no.
Graeme MacLean on 11 Feb 2008 at 12:15 pm #
I have enjoyed your discussion. It was sent to me by good friend.
I think that God has many names and ‘God’ is one of them. I agree the third commandment refers to maintaining a reverent attitude towards God at all times which would require us to mean what we say when we use His name. It also may refer to the requirement to have His authority to use His name. Hence, the kings of Israel would seek the will of the Lord from the prophets who had the authority to reveal God’s will rather than rely on their own will (Isaiah 37: 1-2). This is also evident in Daniel’s interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar dream (Daniel 2:27-28) where he said, “The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” Daniel knew that the wise men, astrologers, magicians, and soothsayers did not have the authority to speak on behalf of God and could, therefore, not interpret the king’s dream which came from God.
Today we might feel that a piece of paper, a degree, gives us the authority to speak on behalf of God, but, that is not so. It is written of Christ: “And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Mark 1: 22). This line of authority must come from Christ as we see in Matthew 16: 19. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Invoking the Lord’s name to bless or curse without His authority to do so takes His name in vain and puts the individual in sin.
Graeme MacLean
HEATHER on 26 Feb 2008 at 12:25 am #
MY LANDING ON THIS BLOG IS NO ACCIDENT. I HAVE NEVER LOOKED AT IT FROM THIS PRESPECTIVE OF TAKING HIS NAME AS A CHILD OF GOD, AND THEN NOT LETTING HIM LIVE THRU US, AS TAKING HIS NAME IN VAIN. FROM CHILDHOOD I’VE HAD IT DRILLED IN ME THAT IS WAS ALL ABOUT SPEECH. I LOVE THE MARRIAGE ANALOGY. PRAISE GOD THE FATHER THAT WE ARE HIS CHILDREN AND THE BRIDE OF CHRIST!THANK YOU FOR SHEDDING MORE LIGHT ON THE DARKNESS THAT SURROUNDS US.
IT HAS FINALLY SUNK IN THAT THE REASON GOD WANTS ME TO CONTINUOSLY SEEK HIM IN HIS WORD IS SO THAT I CAN CONTINUALLY ALLOW HIM TO SHOW ME NEW WAYS TO THINK, GROW AND LIVE IN CHRIST, AS WELL AS RE-ENFORCING PRINCIPLES HE’S ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ME.
WITH MUCH REGRET, I HAVE SPENT THE MAJORITY OF MY 38YRS LIVING MY LIFE AND NOT JESUS’ LIFE THRU ME. I BASED EVERYTHING I DID ON MY EMOTIONS. I LISTENED TO ADVICE FROM EVERYONE AND ACTED ACCORDING TO MY FEELINGS. BY BEING SWAYED BY MY HEARTFELT DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS OPINIONS(WHETHER I AGREED OR NOT), I NEVER LEARNED TO DEPEND ON GOD FOR GUIDANCE OR STRENGTH. I HAVE FINALLY LEARNED NOT TO TRUST MYSELF OR MY WAY OF THINKING. MOST IMPORTANTLY I NO LONGER RELY ON MAN. JEREMIAH 17:5-7
SIX MONTHS AGO GOD PUT A QUESTION IN MY HEART. “WHAT DO I BELIEVE AND WHY?” AS I RESEARCHED VARIOUS TOPICS LIKE THE RAPTURE, JESUS’ 2ND COMING, AND THE TRADITIONS OF CHRISTMAS & EASTER, GOD SHOWED ME WAYS THAT I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ALL ALONG. I WAS REARED IN ANON-DENOMINATIONAL ” BIBLE BELIEVING” CHURCH, ATTENDED CHURCH CAMPS AND A BAPTIST PRIVATE SCHOOL. I’VE HAD TO ADJUST MY BELIEFS IN AREAS I WAS SURE OF BEFORE. MY POINT HERE IS THIS, I’VE FOUND THAT BY LISTENING TO WHAT OTHER BELEIVERS SAY AND THEN COMPARING IT TO HIS WORD AND ASKING HIM TO SHOW ME HIS TRUTH, I HAVE SO MUCH MORE CONFIDENCE IN HIM NOW. I FINALLY HAVE TRUE PEACE.
THANKS AGAIN FOR THE LIGHT YOU’VE SHED ON COMMANDMENT 3
BY THE WAY, MY MOTHER IS 65 YRS AND WHEN I SHARED THIS WITH HER SHE TOO WAS ENLIGHTEN. IT JUST GOES TO SHOW WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR NEW WAYS TO UNDERSTAND AND PLEASE GOD.
ONE MORE THING. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENT ABOUT SAYING G-D. I BELIEVE IT IS ONLY GOD’S PLACE TO DAMN PEOPLE. GOD TELLS US TO LOVE AND PRAY OUR ENEMIES-THIS LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DAMNATION. WE ARE ALL SINNERS WHO ARE WE TO MAKE SUCH A REQUEST TO GOD? ADDITIONALLY DAMNING ACTIONS OR OBJECTS SEEMS UNNECESARY TO ME SINCE THIS WORLD AND ITS SYSTEM OF LIVING IS ONLY TEMPORARY. LOOKS TO ME LIKE ANOTHER WAY THE ENEMY USES TO PROMOTE IDLE SPEECH.I FEEL SAFER ONLY USING GOD’S NAME IN POSITIVE TERMS.
Wrong? - Zelda Universe Forums on 01 Mar 2008 at 9:57 am #
[...] that God gave you the power to make your own Christian laws = taking his name in vain. See? :3 Reclaiming the Mind Ministries Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean? __________________ <&erii> from a certain perspective, Andi, you’re a wretched piece [...]
Wrong? - Zelda Universe Forums on 01 Mar 2008 at 10:17 am #
[...] that God gave you the power to make your own Christian laws = taking his name in vain. See? :3 Reclaiming the Mind Ministries Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean? "OMG" and "Goddamit it" are actually just casual terms nowadays - unless you [...]
Lori on 01 Apr 2008 at 1:42 pm #
What an edifying discussion! I came here looking for the meaning of taking the Lord’s name in vain as it came up for discussion at the dinner table last night. There seem to be one point we can agree on. Regardless of whether the 3rd commandment is related to the use of G-d in the various profane exclamations common today, there are plenty of scriptures that are related to that and tell us we should not use of the Lord’s name profanely. I’ve always thought it odd that there was a commandment related to what seemed somewhat trivial (and I realize someone of you may not agree with my use of that word) in comparison to the other commandments. Still, I feel completely justified by scripture to tell my children God doesn’t want his name used in that way.
More importantly, I think that Michael’s original point is so relevant to today’s social, political and cultural situation. There are many people (politicians) who claim to speak God’s word to justify their actions. Even if they are representing God’s wishes correctly, does He want them claiming that? If, as Michael put it, the commandment means God did not want the Israelites “to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements,” to “say that He said something that He had not said,” then it seems not.
I realize I’m taking this discussion in a very different direction and I don’t expect that you’ll necessarily respond. But I can say that this discussion has reaffirmed my concerns about the religious overtone of our politics today. Even if we want to be considered a Christian nation, I’m not sure that means God wants us to be doing things in His name. We can judge our leaders by whether they take a moral stand, but we should proceed with caution if a politician, or religious leader advocating on a political question, speaks or acts on God’s behalf.
Blessings.
Betty on 02 Apr 2008 at 4:12 pm #
I just started reading R. C. Sproul “The Holiness of God”. The Israelites had been delivered by God’s hand out of Egypt, seen His signs and wonders-and built the golden calf-taking His Name in vain already. Hypocrites and false converts also take His Name in vain, having a form of goldliness, but denying its power, and His Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of it.
Rebecca on 03 Apr 2008 at 8:24 pm #
I have a lovely 39 year old daughter that says God Damn It around me all the time and I cringe each and everytime. Yet, I realize that on a technical, legalistic level it was just as you said, Michael….. it’s asking God to damn someone or a situation.
But Jesus came to teach us to serve and to let come out of your mouth what is in your heart. I know that my daughter is not speaking to God directly and asking for His damnation. She is angry and is accustomed, however incorrectly, to think of that phrase as one with hostility, resentment and out of control misery! That is what is in her heart at the moment. She thinks she is expressing something vile in order to create some sort of injustice done to her. If they were in her presence, she might punch the one she holds accountable for her anger. Considering the environment at the time…. work, public area, etc… many know that to get physical is illegal and carries consequences that most find the strength to avoid, so the next best thing is to give a “right punch” by way of the tongue!
It is not the worse word or phrase my daughter can think of to say, no doubt. But I know she has it at least stored in the catagory of the worse words/phrases one can speak. If that is what she believes, even in her ignorance, then it is indeed vile. If she had learned that broccoli was a vile word to use, then she could include that in catagory of “Words I Use When I’m Out of Control and Vindictive”. And when used in a moment of anger and intolerance, it is vile. Not the word really, but the intent. I think God is more concerned about the heart than the technicalities. Come to think of it, see how a bitter, unforgiving heart can even make broccoli sound bad?
Now considering some have been raised to misunderstand the 3rd commandent, I am not out to be the next “shock jock” and use that phrase myself. I don’t think it would be appropriate to it in a culture that has always thought it to be blasphemy. I beleieve God wants us to be sensitive to that fact and to do otherwise is simply rebellious. Plus, I don’t want the decaying side of our culture to think I have cratered and joined forces. And you can be sure of this. Even though most of society would defend their right to speak in such a vile way, if they overheard a Christian use the same language and, I’m sure some have, eyebrows would be raised and Christians would be shamed for using “their” language! Go figure! But I like being head to a higher standard, even if the world doesn’t know that’s what they are doing. I want to be consumed with God, not “my rights”.
Matthew 15:starting with verse 16…Jesus speaking to Peter: ” Don’t you know that anything that is swallowed works it’s way through the intestines and is finally defected? But what comes out of the mouth gets it’s start in the heart. It’s from the heart that we vomit up evil arguments, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, lies, and cussing. That’s what pollutes”. from The Message
Let’s not be like the religoius leaders in the old testament, obessing for the right law/commandment under which to place God Damn It. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. It’s about tone, content and objective when we speak…not just words alone. That is how my simple uneducated mind understands it.
Ten Commandments for Atheists « Josiah Concept Ministries on 15 Apr 2008 at 2:21 am #
[...] excellent Parchment and Pen theology blog has defined the third commandment here as making a pronouncement in the name of God that did not come from God. Perhaps Christian is [...]
Veretax on 30 Apr 2008 at 9:35 pm #
Great blog, I would add only one thing, and for some reason the verse citation escapes me, but does it not say in the New testament that to any one who perceives a thing as sin, to him it is as sin? Therefore if you find and feel that to speak in a perverse manner, or to curse is a sin, it really doesn’t matter whether it violates the 3rd Commandment or not. Sin is sin and all equally detestable in the presence of a Holy God.
Also when I pray, I typically address him by the title LORD. Reason being is two fold, first when I was saved and surrendered my life to Christ I was giving up ownership of my life and allowing him to direct my paths, secondly, the simple word ‘god’ whether capitalized or not has typically seemed over used and less an affectionate term for the relationship we share as believers in Christ. Now I don’t go around or make it a habbit to say G-D or any other such derivatives. I find cursing in general to be idle talk that is neither efficient nor expedient to what the Lord intends for me to do in this life. That having been said, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that to take the Lords name in vain has a lot to do with reputation.
If you go back to the OT when Abraham finally tells Abraham that he is going to fulfill his promise of a son, he doesn’t have Abram (abraham) swear on his own name, so instead God swore on his own name and the sign of circumcision was passed down as the symbol of his covenant with Abraham. So it would seem that to take the Lord’s name in vain is to in effect sign a writ of surety (to have God co-sign if you will) something you agree to do, and then back out or do the opposite would be a more logical example of taking the Lord’s name in vain.