Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain: What Does it Really Mean?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

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.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
- A Primer on the Christian Understanding of Capital Punishment
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
- Essentials and non-essentials: Observations
- Top Ten Lesser Known Arguments for the Existence of God
Print This Post

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?
Rocky Johnson on 08 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am #
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for this AWESOME and ACCURATE post!
I am TOTALLY convinced that one of the biggest stumbling blocks sitting before unsaved people today is “Christians”, and by Christians… I mean, people who CLAIM to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, but may or NOT be in fact. The damage done by us (I will include myself since I am a Christian), is when we teach people “doctrines and/or traditions of men” as if it is the Word of God and not making SURE we are totally lining up with scripture. We MUST all do as YOU just did in this posting and examine the scriptures… study them for ourselves and not just fall back on what a preacher, or teacher, or friend, or Mom, or Dad, or a tradition says… but what the SCRIPTURES say and mean.
I have always had a problem with people who consider saying (G-D) to be taking the name of the Lord in vain. If anything, using the phrase “Gosh darn” is worse because by definition… when one uses that phrase they are in effect “cursing” by trying to side step “cursing” so it is a more deliberate act and thus actually makes the person guilty of BOTH offenses (as far as profanity goes). (Just a thought). I don’t use the phrase (G-D), nor do I think ANY Christian should use it to curse, (swear), but just as you so clearly explained, saying it is not what is at issue. The question is, is using that phrase taking the name of the Lord in vain?
Using that phrase is not a violation of the 3rd commandment.
Thank you again for your post and blog.
May God bless and keep you… and yes… I mean it along with prayer.
Christian American Voter on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:52 am #
Very interesting conversation. So what does everyone think about the 3rd Commandment and it’s application to Sarah Palin’s comments made to her Pentecostal church? (See Video Below)
Should Christians trust other Christians (in this case Sarah Palin’s direct quotes) which proclaim that God’s will is to unify “People & Companies to get gas pipelines built”, and promote & justify war with Iraq as being “God’s Plan”…?
It was the Bush Administration’s plan to go to war, last we all checked, and “Palin’s Plan” to get a gas pipeline built which will enhance Alaska’s wealth and her own career as a politician.
Read Luke 9:54-56 “…For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”
Mankind must be highly careful to decipher the truth between understanding a man-made wars vs “God’s Will”.
Palin’s quote that the Iraq War is God’s Plan, could potentially backfire and fuel radical Muslim desire for Jihad (Muslim Holy War) with the US. Bin Ladin’s own statements showed that he hoped to use the US stepping foot onto Muslim soil in war, as reason to ignite Muslim countries to “unite in Jihad against the US”.
Isn’t this talk from Palin, especially coming from a potential VP and possible default President of the USA (should God forbid McCain die or fall very ill in office – a highly likey event considering his age, and that 8 of 43 US presidents – that’s nearly 1 in 5 US presidents in our history having died in office, plus the fact he’s had cancer 4 times and has reportedly up to 18 current ailments), awfully dangerous speak?
…Potentially giving those radical Muslim countries video evidence (should Palin be elected to office) reason to feel the US is – via it’s leaders, instigating Jihad with Muslim countries? I find this quite worrisome…
Please see for yourself the “Sarah Palin & the Wasilla Assembly of God Video” below.
Sarah Palin DIRECT QUOTE #1 in this video below:
“I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that…”
– Sarah Palin
(Can the 3rd Commandment also mean in essence: Thou shalt not use the Lords name to gain an audience for your political gain or profit. ???)
And, Palin’s direct quote #2 in this video re: the Iraq War US Troops:
“Our national leaders are sending them [our US troops] out on a task that is from God”….”that plan is God’s plan”. – Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4LjsfWbZLA&feature=related
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5801485&page=1
I would be interested in hearing your perspective considering this very important election. Thank You.
Bob Brague on 09 Oct 2008 at 8:52 am #
I’ve often thought the widespread use, in America at least, of the phrase “Oh, my God!” (OMG) is a case of taking the Lord’s name in vain. (This was before I read — and agree with — your statement that “God” is not his name.)
OMG is everywhere, but mostly on the home makeover shows of TLC, HGTV, Ty Pennington extravaganzas, and reality shows everywhere. I suppose it is meant by the users to express surprise, joy, delight, unexpected results, etc., but OMG has become exceedingly trite. I wonder whether He really is “their” God since many times their lifestyles don’t seem to take Him into consideration.
Mike on 05 Dec 2008 at 4:48 pm #
I think you def. need to do some more research
before you keep typing Gd so much without
hesitation. Your stuck on saying it all has to do
with the word “name.” God is God! Lets not forget
that. And make sure that your definitions for the
words vain and damn are not just supporting
your theory. Have you researched them enough to
back your theory. I can say with little research on
my part I do not agree with saying gd is ok! I think
that def. falls into not taking his name in vain. Do
you honestly think that if God here’s a Christian
spout that off that he doesnt care. I beg to differ.
Jason C on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:43 pm #
CAV, if you haven’t noticed the militant Muslims are in a holy war with the West. As far as they’re concerned they’re just continuing a war begun 1400 years ago that will continue until the world submits to Allah and his Prophet.
Based on your criteria sportsmen shouldn’t pray before a match, businessmen shouldn’t pray before meetings, politicians shouldn’t pray before politics. How does that fit with the commandment to acknowledge God in all your ways?
Perhaps God doesn’t want a pipeline, perhaps God doesn’t want a war, but who can say? He accepted a necessity for war, even commanded it on occasion. He seems pretty indifferent to pipelines, but can probably see the economic benefits as being good for people.
In the end I’d rather have a politician who acknowledged God and was wrong, than one who believed themselves beyond all judgment. I’m not saying Obama is like that, he’s a Christian too, but Palin would probably have been okay as a VP.
Daniel on 12 Dec 2008 at 4:45 pm #
You mentioned people being offended by saying God bless you when someone sneezes. What if you said it without really wanting someone to be blessed by God? What about misquoting scriptures and saying “GOD said ________…” when it’s not true? What if you sing praise to God, but your heart isn’t behind the words you are saying? You are misusing God’s name in these situations to. I think it goes far beyond simply cursing using God’s name, which you started to hint at towards the end.
Stevie on 10 Jan 2009 at 8:39 pm #
Great topic! I don’t think “God d@mmit” and “God bless you” are similar in offense. The former differs because it is illogical (among other things). God doesn’t damn people per se. He only allows for it, per accidens, because of the existence of free will! People damn themselves. You’re asking God to do something He cannot do by His very nature.
Joshua on 14 Jan 2009 at 4:49 pm #
This article/arguement is old, but I just came across it today and wanted to share my opinion.
First off, the Bible says not to curse and considering that the word “damn” in our society is a curse, we shouldn’t be saying it. However, even if the word “damn” wasn’t a curse (the letter of the law) the manner in which we say it does not bring glory to God. (the intent of the law). So, if you’re throwing God’s name around, carelessly, in your curses, you’re violating God’s word.
Secondly, a really simple and very sound philosophy when researching and dealing with the Word of God is as follows: “Do you tremble at His word or are you looking for loopholes around it?” Trying to justify the use of a phrase that obviously brings no glory to God just because you don’t want to feel bad about saying it is, in my humble opinion, borderline blasphemous in the sense that you aren’t “agreeing” with God’s word.
Scott Caputo on 12 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am #
I disagree completely. Saying “God Damn it” is a sin. Its a thoughtless and Godless invocation of God’s name. When was that phrase ever used thoughtfully or with proper reverence for the name of God?
Just as “God Bless ___” is can be a thoughtless invocation of God’s name., and thus a sin.
And your argument that “God” is a general term referring to all gods, is in error. The bible refers to God as God, God refers to Himself as God, and if you are a Christian or a Jew, GOD is GOD.
If you argue that you meant “god” instead of “God” then you are guilty of breaking the first commandment.
The Name of God, should be spoken only in reverence, or in good Christian fellowship, or when relating the word.
Its not okay to say God Damnit, just as its not okay to say, “Jesus Christ!” as an exclaimation. Thoughtless.
God will “bat and eye” so be careful in your speech.
MIC on 20 Feb 2009 at 9:08 am #
Great blog. I was just reading the 10 this morning and as usual pondered the 3rd because our Western definition just doesn’t sound like it fit with the time it was given.
I decided to google ‘take the lords name in vain’ to see if anyone else questioned this as I did. scotti on 18 Jun 2007 at 3:15 pm talking about how a women takes on a man’s name fit closest to my own thoughts. I based this on God’s own curse on people that ‘though they labor they labor in vain’, meaning to produce nothing. So if using or taking on God’s name produces nothing then the 3rd is being broken.
Likewise, if you say ‘God said …’ and produce nothing then the 3rd is broken. I’ve seen many people hurt (more specifically their faith hurt) by those (stumbling blocks) making false promises in God’s name saying ‘Send money’, ‘have enough faith’, ‘just repeat a written prayer (that’s not in your heart) and all will be well’.
Those who think this complicates the law don’t understand the law. The law was not given that man could keep it. It was given to show that man could not keep it, that without Christ (the only one who could) man is lost. If you break a ruler, it doesn’t matter whether it’s at the 3 inch mark or the 4, the 5, or any other. The ruler is broken. The law is the same way, one unit in honor of a triune God.
Just as Paul says that we are not to sin more so the grace abounds more, I am not saying it’s okay to say OMG, GD, FU, or any other offensive language. Just recognize that without Jesus Christ, the only perfect keeper of the law, no one is saved. Do the best to honor our God, the trinity of Yaweh, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the blog. I’ve been blessed and pray others will be too. And I mean God Bless You
Daniel Goepfrich on 07 Mar 2009 at 4:56 pm #
You’re right on, Michael. To “take God’s name in vain” is to use God’s name/authority/etc. for your own agenda or something that he would have no part in.
Two NT examples of this are 1) the moneychangers cheating innocent worshipers – in God’s name (Luke 19:45-46); and 2) grown children withholding financial support from their parents because they had dedicated their monies “to God” (Mark 7:6-13).
In both cases they were mis-representing God and misusing his name (for their own purposes) to do something he would not approve.
Also, remember to whom the 10 commandments were given – God’s people. Ultimately, it does an unbeliever no good to follow God’s plan for living, because they are still under his condemnation. God’s laws are given to his people to keep us safe and to keep us from walking back into slavery.
Cynthia on 09 Mar 2009 at 12:34 pm #
As a fairly new “convert” to the Reformed doctrines, I hesitate to put my two-cents-worth in here. However, as a mother of 6 and grandmother of 10, I have learned a few things from my slow-but-steady walk with my Lord -
There is a reason that one of the most common expressions of disgust refers to excrement (the “s” word.) There is a reason that even unregenerate, filthy-mouthed parents cringe and respond with quick punishment when their children use profanity in their presence. We all recognize cursing for what it is — and blessing and cursing should NOT come out of the same mouth of a Christian, period.
I have spoken to quite a few who claim that they have the “liberty” to use profane and obscene terms because of their “freedom in Christ,” or their belief that these expressions are simply that, rather than the taking of His name in vain.
Here’s my take (for what it’s worth among so many who know the scripture far better than myself:) Expression of disgust, shock, or anger should NEVER include any form of the name of God — it is a poor testimony to the world of our lack of the fear of God and of self-control, among other things. Whatever we personally determine “taking the Lord’s name in vain” to mean, we must be mindful of what comes out of our mouth, and that we do not give any cause to the world to scorn our faithfulness to Christ.
By the way, just to make it more complicated, I taught my children that it is best to avoid “minced oaths” as well (substitutes like “darn,” “shoot,” “Geez,” and “Goldarn!”) If God indeed measures the thoughts and intents of our hearts, shouldn’t we stay as far away as possible from the impression of worldly conversation?
Thanks for listening -
Cindy
Big Daddy on 09 Mar 2009 at 3:40 pm #
I think you contradict yourself to a certain degree. Your post seems to suggest that it is permissible for Christians to use the word God or the name of Jesus as a simple curse in frustration or anger. It seems to me that God would want those who claim to belong to him not to use his reputation in such a vain (meaningless) fashion.
Although I totally agree that the higher meaning would be for wicked televangelists to stop speaking for God and robbing congregations.
In that same vain and meaningless fashion would Christians not represent the intention of a loving God if they were to use such phrases as unthoughtful speech?
I also agree that although people generally don’t say the correct names in such uses – Jesus’ Hebrew name is Yeshua or more properly Yehoshua and the name of God is Yahweh as you correctly mentioned – but they certainly have the entity of the creator or Messiah in mind when they repeat such phrases.
Could you imagine using the name of another religious figure as a curse in frustration? What if the people in your cubicle farm went around all day saying, “By Allah!” or “Oh for Mohammed’s sake!” Perhaps we might realize that it is at least disrespectful in manner to say such a thing if we want to be true followers of a loving God. We certainly don’t want to dissuade people from knowing Christ by shouting or murmuring curses including His name.
And by the way your interpretation of the fourth commandment is close but slightly off base. The Sabbath is from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. You can sneeze all you want to on Sunday – the venerable day of the sun is a Roman institution that was instated to bring the sun worshipers and the Hebrew Christians in line and stop fighting.
Big Daddy on 09 Mar 2009 at 4:04 pm #
What does name mean?
One last thought on this since I reread your response regarding what name means.
Christians – in the Greek to mean “Christ-Ones” or followers of Christ. If we call ourselves Christians we take His name and reputation upon ourselves.
You are right that we are held to a higher standard in all our actions – which I would think would include our speech.
Although you are correct that no one at the time the commandments were given would have used the term God or Jesus during a severe toe stubbing – it is evident that they were even hesitant to write the name or word representing Him and therefore referred to Him in several different ways – Adonai, the great I AM and more.
It’s pretty apparent that even in the context of their colloquial speech that the Hebrews did not want to misrepresent the Lord in any fashion, whether it be the utterances of their anger or their actions.
May God Bless us all for being about His business with respect and true Christian thought and action!
Firespeaks on 10 Mar 2009 at 8:56 pm #
One purpose of the 3rd commandment was to keep the honor of God’s name.
Satan is in it at a much deeper level than we think but that’s not the point. Let’s address Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
I think this is a good starting point. If we look a Strong’s Concordance the word Name is the Hebrew word “Shem” which has the meaning as
• Name
• Reputation, fame, glory
• The Name (as designation of God)
• Memorial, monument
I think with some reason we can see that the verse is not talking about just his name (whether you call it Yahweh or Jehovah is not the issue) the verse is talking about anything that can be associated with God.
You are right euphemisms may not violate the letter of the law,
But in Matthews 12:36 Jesus make it very clear that euphemisms violates the spirit of the 3rd commandment
Matthew 12:36 Jesus tells us “That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” KJV
The NIV says “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment for every careless word they have spoken.”
The word idle and the word careless in the two versions of Matthew 12:36 is the Greek word argos which means lazy without effort or at leisure. Here Jesus makes clear that casual conversation or off the cuff wording will be judged just as any other sin.
Now as we see the name of God as not just a word but anything for which we associate with God we see the power of His Name
I would like to go further with this subject and I can think of verses after verse that would support my view.
However instead think about King David a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22) and his attitude toward the Name of God
When you read psalm 145 and the power of The scripture began to minister to your spirit. I’m sure you will know the truth in no uncertain way.
George Bigger on 08 Apr 2009 at 1:15 am #
Michael,
I think this is excellent. The popular (I suppose one could say ‘literal’) interpretation of this commandment can cause people to do at least two counter productive things.
1) As you stated, avoid the use of the phrase (like avoiding scratching an itch), believing they had made some sort of spiritual conquest by doing so.
2) Fail to meditate on possible deeper meanings of the commandment.
Following a rule without considering its meaning at some point is much like following the sheep with the bell around its neck. It is one thing to follow a teacher because they have a sense of inner peace that can be felt by those around them. It is quite another to follow the sheep off the cliff because they are the leader and that is where they went.
Peace be with you, and also with me.
Rob Hemi on 06 Jun 2009 at 11:06 pm #
Doesn’t taking the Lord’s Name in vain mean using His Name for one’s selfish gain? Because if that’s the case, then most preachers are definitely taking His Name in vain. Walk into almost any Christian church of your choice. Look around the sanctuary. What do you see? Thick, EXPENSIVE carpet. High quality, EXPENSIVE oak pews. The BEST of EVERYTHING. And how was it all obtained? By the preacher using the Lord’s Name in order to manipulate the flock’s emotions to the point that the collection plate got STUFFED FULL of money! Did any of that money go to help the poor? Nope. Or for someone’s heart operation. Nah. It went to that solid oak desk in the Pastor’s study, didn’t it? It SURE didn’t go to helping the poor! Okay, of course there are exceptions to this. Some churches walk the walk. I wish some of them were in my town. It would be a real joy to belong to a church like that. But around here, it’s “put money in the collection plate or else you’re not a Christian”. THAT is taking the Lord’s Name in Vain. And it’s why I don’t go to church anymore.
Eric Logan on 08 Jun 2009 at 6:37 am #
Excellent post! Thank you. I’m preparing a message on this same topic and I found your post to be quite foundational. To elaborate and extend your idea…
If we look at the 10 commandments and instead of reflecting on what we cannot do, look at what we are called to do instead … that is, the positive flip side of the admonition against something (i.e. ‘Don’t Steal’ becomes ‘protect others property and exercise extravagant generosity’) then we begin to see what Jesus meant when he said “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
In that vein, the flip side of not taking the Lord’s name in vain, is to glorify God’s name … not just our words, but our actions also. If we believe that God love us and wants to bless the world through us, then we can look at the names God uses in connection with blessing people – His attributes – The description of His nature and think about how we not only verbally proclaim those attributes, but live them out as a blessing to those around us … Not just for those of us called and who deserve His blessing, but for those who don’t as well (Please see the humor here since NONE of us deserve God’s blessings, yet receive it by the His Grace!).
Here’s Sunday’s message from our senior pastor (Dr. Michael Traylor) setting the stage for how to approach the 10 Commandments, guiding my approach in preparation of the sermon on the 3rd Commandment:
http://www.newhopefree.org/sermons/2009_06_07.mp3
When we truly bless the world, when we love all people, when we live our faith in a way that makes a difference … (starting with those in our spheres of influence) … then we glorify the name of God powerfully! As you said, God has a reputation to protect, and we are called to do our part!
g on 15 Jun 2009 at 1:38 pm #
I am speaking at a youth conference next month on this subject and agree we need to look beyond G-D as the only way to use Gods name vainly in our lives. God reveals Himself as I Am. He was looking for Israel to covenant with Him and show His name to the nations- When we say we “take” His name (as those in covenant take the names of another) and continue to live as individuals it harms the relationship. When we pay attention how we use “I am” in our speech– “I am so thankful” vs. “I am so angry” we see how powerful those words are. We join the name of God vainly to ideas and attitudes that dishonor His name.
When we hear ourselves say I am— we generally believe what we are stating and need to be careful to say what God says about who we are. I am is current. It is moment by moment. God is not a God of I used to be or I will be. He is a God of I Am and we need to make sure we are not using His name without consideration of what we are telling ourselves and those around us.
I had a student struggling with sexual thoughts who did not know how to overcome them. I asked if he had acted out any of the thoughts physically–He had not. Then I asked if he had ever heard himself say “I am (what ever the struggle might be)————–” He had not. Casting down imaginations is much easier than forgetting experiences or overcoming labels we assign ourselves. Thankfully he grew through this time in his life and learned to see himself as God saw him. He later said if he had spoken the words “I am ——————-” it would have set him on an entirely different path.
We introduce ourselves as “I am (whatever our name might be)
I told my kids to see I Am as their last name rather than an opening statement. They carry their fathers name and hopefully remember the name of their heavenly father and consider Him in their lives.
I still hate the way our culture uses G-D, but I agree we are straining at gnats if we thing God is bothered by mere words.
Tom on 16 Jul 2009 at 9:27 pm #
OK, I guess I need to stir the puddin’ a little more. I have enjoyed reading the last 2+years of thought over the past few minutes, and have an additional thought.
I agree with the original posting, as cussing seems more in line with keeping your temple clean, as opposed to the third commandment.
Although I understand the vapid contexts associated with the word “vain,” I have always understood a context of the word “vain” in the context of self-absorption, ie, vanity.
So, in my simplistic mind, the third commandment carried the context of not to take God’s name for your own carnal benefit.
I have attributed my wincing at the following things to this thought:
Jesus fish on business cards, Preachers who focus solely on money, People who talk up their particular brand of Christian religion to the exclusion of living a spirit filled life.
And, unfortunately, much of my wincing is at my own actions on this issue.
Just a thought.
I am God on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:08 pm #
Merriam Webster defines “in vain” 1 : to no end : without success or result
So, taking the lord’s name should be evaluated for the end that it brings. If calling on “god” and jesus all the time is not helping you in any tangible manner, consider giving up on christianity or religion in general.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic god forgives murders but not blasphemers. Maybe it’s time to find a new deity, one with a more reasonable moral code.
You can talk ill of me all you want, just don’t kill anybody.
Reader from Bama on 30 Aug 2009 at 2:52 am #
Has anyone considered that when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and all the other extreme number of laws His followers were adhere to that He was intentionally setting things up for the coming of Yeshua the Messiah thus letting the people know that NO ONE other than Yeshua could follow all the laws set forth thus Adonai’s birth on Earth as Yeshua, God Incarnate….Immanuel and thus the only person to walk the earth and not sin? And that He did this to prepare everyone from the dispensation of the law to the dispensation of Grace under Yeshua and His sacrifice on the cross for us as the FINAL sacrifice for sin.
Also, Scripture states the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
I believe we all should step back with the “I’m right and you’re wrong” legalistic stuff and check first on our salvation and state of our spirituality and that includes our speech and how we present ourselves as Christian witnesses to unbelievers.
No we shouldn’t cuss. However, we are all sinful by nature because of the fall thus everyone sins. We all drop the ball from time to time. The point is that we repent, ask to be forgiven (already done all ya gotta do is ask) and be humble when this is done.
If you’ve made a mistake in front of an unbeliever and you believe this has made you a “stumbling block” to that person go to that person and explain that you are sorry, however, you are not perfect but are forgiven by the Grace received from the blood of Jesus Christ.
Same could be said of a Christian who carries on about drinking and is seen out in a restaurant having a glass of wine with dinner. That is a damaging witness for that Christian, whereas, if that same Christian has said the only admonition in Scripture I can find about drinking is where God told the Levite priests not to drink and rest is about excess, excess, excess to the point of becoming drunk etc. or drinking for the wrong reasons and to remember Jesus drank wine and turned water into wine then that Christian’s witness is not damaged.
Bottom line……if you’ve offended one point of the law you’ve offended the whole meaning we’re all sinful by nature and we cannot go one hour or one day without sinning. All sin is an abomination to God but thankfully we have Jesus to bridge that gap from sin to God and it’s ONLY through Christ Jesus we can do this because no one and I mean no one comes to the Father except through Jesus the Son. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. End of discussion.
Y’all can argue with me, call me out whatever.
Nuff said.
Goodbye and truly God Bless……….”Yahweh, Yeshua Adonai, Ruach Hakkodesh I truly call upon You to bless my brothers and sisters in Christ who participated in this discussion. I ask this as always in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and as always the Name Above All Names Yeshua and not my will but Your will be done. Amen”
Byron on 09 Sep 2009 at 9:25 pm #
Very Good, Now if people learn to live by the other 9 also, they will be blessed. Possibly saved and go to heaven.
The New testament tells us to live by the 10 commandments as well as the old testament.
Do you live by the ten commandments. . . .
James Godfrey on 03 Nov 2009 at 7:12 pm #
I look at it this way taking anything dealing with God and making it vain is taking his name in vain. Example: You use an obsure verse that may mean many things but to that particular verse it means the total opposite of what you are portraying it to mean. In doing that you have taking his words in vain and in taking his words in vain you have taken his name in vain.
Scott Moore on 10 Nov 2009 at 3:52 pm #
I heard Dr. Vern Steiner (www.miqra.net) say recently that understanding the context will never impoverish, but only enrich the text. I don’t have much else to add to what has already been said, but thanks Michael for your helpful thoughts. I believe that what you are saying enriches my understanding of this text. Contrary to the accusations of some here, I do not hear you prescribing cursing as a normative lifestyle for Christians. The fact remains that if we honoring the Name & reputation of the LORD, we will be careful how we use His Name. However, there is more on the line here!
And Rob… go back to church, bro. You need the body, and the body needs you, even if they’re all hypocrites.
Michael on 20 Nov 2009 at 10:02 am #
I think the real meaning of the 3rd commandment is this: Love, i.e. honor, your god YHWH with all your heart and mind and soul and strength. I’m not sure what exactly is in mind with that one, but I AM sure I don’t do it on a consistent basis.
That being said: Lots of food for thought on that one. Thank you, CMP.
Jake on 01 Dec 2009 at 1:50 am #
Since to me all ten commandments boil down to some basic morality issues ingrained in humans. Id say taking his name in vain would be to use it to do damage to others as c michael patton implied. Having the power of god over people is a responsibility just like any of the sins work. They all give you power over your fellow man a or imply that you want the power your fellow man has. They all give one man/woman power over another for ones benefit. So if your going to use his name it should be to spread love and peace and not for any personal benefit which is a basic principal which you can always trace through history. Selfishness. The third commandment for me is the ultimate test of faithfulness of one that commands the power of god. Such as a priest or pastor. All you have to do is turn on some of these religious programs on TV and see some guy preaching to people that god wants there money and then he walks out the back of the building puts on his suite and jumps in his Mercedes. That to me is pretty basic as are all and should be all the 10 commandments. Why would god complicate morality. its simple. Be kind and caring in everything you do and pay it forward. Selflessness. Test this if you want read each commandment and consider why you would do it. Pretty much they all boil down to selfishness. Or maybe im just crazy. Sorry if this is out of context with some of the more recent post I tried to read them all but there is a lot of stuff. Also if you look on Wikipedia they list the third commandment as “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God”
bil_ on 01 Dec 2009 at 11:38 pm #
Wow! Great discussion…two years and going! So, just to redirect a little bit here, I agree with Mr. Patton to a point, but let me explain. And first, let me say that I will try to not fail in eisigesis (which I agree is rampant and wrong) nor a achronistic fallacy (love this new term!). I will stick to the Text.
It seems based on the commandments themselves, that the command is totally concerned with G_d’s holiness. Being the “third” command, it comes just after “I AM the only God” and “don’t you dare worship anything/one but Me…’cause remember: I AM.”
The word “take” or “use” means many things, including bear, lift up (btw, great connection to NASA here!), carry, use, take, etc. He does self-refer here again to Himself as I AM (YHWH), so He doesn’t just say “god” but “YHWH your God”. And the third word in question means in emptiness, vanity, falsehood, worthlessness.
With that in mind, we could reasonably restate the command as:
I AM your God (remember the one who delivered you from Egypt?!!?) so don’t lift up/use/carry around my Name/Reputation/Glory/Fame in any empty, vain, false, worthless ways.
So while I 100% agree with Mr. Patton’s assertion that it doesn’t mean ONLY cursing in a worthless manner, it does, as I read it, mean that TOO. In other words, the Israelites may have (and as has already been stated DID) had the prerogative to call an ACTUAL CURSE down from YHWH, they should NEVER do so lightly. I would think then, in our context, that stubbing our toe, or spilling milk, may not warrant a curse from G_d.
Also, and interestingly, by my reading this command would only be binding on those whose God WAS YHWH (YHWH YOUR God), so for anyone who did not know Him, or who had not (yet?) been delivered by Him from slavery, the curse they “request” is to a false god, which is no god at all, and therefor of no consequence. So Christians ought to stop wagging our finger at those who are following false gods and spouting meaningless curses (or blessings for that matter) all the while ceasing our wagging tongues from meaningless chatter that defames our Holy and Righteous God and guarantees our punishment according to His command. (That’s the third one, in case you’ve lost track.)
G_d help us.
me on 14 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm #
“Vain”
Not to utter “…in vain…” is one of the Ten Commandments. There are Ten Commandments, but they are not of the Covenant. There is a Covenant, but it contains no Commandments. The Covenant commands nothing of men, it is pure. The Ten Commandments are of men and its cunning way of getting its desires etched across the unblemished Covenant itself which is in fact, two wonderful blank ivory tablets (Hippo Ivory, “hip” huh?), each authenticating the other’s content’s…which is nothing.
The Ten Commandments are best defined as graffiti penned by man at the behest of the the pig because the beast is eternally penned himself and cannot write, it is hoofed. It must deceive man therefore into authoring for it, penning and penciling for it, understand?
I hope that doesn’t sound kooky or radically out there, I don’t mean it that way and it isn’t being written in that tone or intent. It is simply true.
There was/were and are no “Commands” made, only mutual promises between two parties. Each party being a part of the whole. When the tablets were presented, there was no reason to write anything upon them, it had been written. The beast’s most wanton desire is to command, which he can never do, he can only deceive. This is why they are entitled as a whole, “Commandments.”
Never, ever, would the party responsible for the Covenant blemish the two tablets representative of pureness and goodness with writing of any kind, especially writing defining that which is the most wicked. Writing and words can be erased, altered, misinterpreted and changed. But love, goodness and caring remain the same and cannot be written down and is defined by the individual him or herself. The party responsible for the Covenant writes nothing, it had been written already; And certainly, would never write anything on stone or in it, stone like a mountain, eventually withers, decays and is washed to the sea. Stone is meant to be walked upon, not to base a life upon.
Nothing needed to be said or written, both parties knew what was being promised and what needed to be kept. They both know the pig needed and needs to be kept in a pen to prevent it from deceiving men into penning and penciling for it. That is the purpose of the Arc itself, to pen the pig within it for eternity. The gold is the best conductor of electricity on Earth. Two poles are to go through “it.” Not the Arc, through “it,” the beast. “It” can be carried and led that way, not lead men. “They are never to be removed.” If they are removed, the beast might or will be able to move or make eye contact, which is how it moves around from one to another. Furthermore, to ensure no eye contact is made by the beast with either of its two heads, each upon its two rears, two cherubim will be positioned upon the lid with wings outstretched blocking each head’s view.
“VAIN” mean…don’t call unless you really are in need, call for a reason, not in vain.
“
James Dylan on 07 Mar 2010 at 4:29 pm #
Great post, answered my question. But what about people who say “Oh My God!” Is this taking the Lords name in vain? I know that God’s name isn’t “God”, but still. Is this the same as saying “God Damn It”? It is a pet peeve of mine.
Danielle on 19 Mar 2010 at 8:06 pm #
I totally agree I don’t understand its not like god is going to strike you with a thunderbolt or something