Thanks for the insight on this. This has been on my mind about where the phrase gd damnit comes from. I think that most people do use it to vent frustration at a situation, so it is not necessarily geared towards God. To me, it’s a knee-jerk reaction most of the time.

I think that most people don’t give a lot of thought or even know what the Third Commandment means. It’s not just about taking the Lord’s name in vain, but also lying or deceiving when using his name. I, unfortunately have seen a lot of (christian) people do this in order to manipulate or make people feel guilty when they don’t need to.

One thing that I do find a bit ironic with people who are offended by the phrase, they are often the people who instigate situations that would make people say it. Sometimes when people pressure or instigate someone, sometimes saying it or some other forms of profanity is a way to make people realize that you are serious about wanting to be left alone or not pressured. So, for those who don’t like hearing it, maybe take a step back and don’t be an instigator. It kind of goes with the saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk.

I don’t thinki so. At least not the boat. Maybe the ferry you are riding!

It was common in the Old Testament history to have idiomatic reflection on the law. I think that the above references by you are simply idioms, not representing original intent. The easiest examples of this come as the first and the second commandment get blurred during the Monarchial times. If you were to follow the methodology (and rise your boat) you would probably become Cathilic in you understanding of the first and second commandments as “idolatry” was eventually identified with having other gods, yet the second commandment does not have to do with having other gods (already stated in the first commandment) but to make a likeness (controlling) YHWH.

Therefore I would be careful with you assertion that my exegesis fails to take into account all the evidence. I see what you are saying but I would prefer to stay in my boat.

It is significant that in the 105 comments and the body of the exegesis by CMP that the only two occurrences of the third command being “broken” were not used, referenced or discussed:

Agur tells us in Proverbs 30:7-9 that the dying prayer he had was to not be poor lest he steal AND TAKE THE NAME OF MY GOD IN VAIN. So apparently stealing is a form of taking God’s name in vain. Or stealing at least evidences a heart that lacks trust in his God to provide for him (which attacks Gods character and word) doubting the veracity of God and his integrity. Notice that contextually, this passage follows a great section regarding the word of God being PURE! (Pr 30:5-6)

The second definition of denying Gods name in vain, is “speaking against him wickedly” as found in Psalms 139:20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

Although the common thread of “taking his name in vain” is to speak against God; a better understanding of violating the 3rd commandment is to speak against his character and to doubt his integrity and veracity.

In summary, CMP your are correct that saying “God Damn” is not the violation of the third commandment (the prohibition for that kind of talk is clearly denounced by Paul in passages such as Eph 4:29-31 ) But you missed the exegetical boat by failing to compare scripture with scripture to let the Bible give you the definition of the third commandment.

I SO think your article is misguided and will only serve to make people sloppier Christians with even more license to be irreverent, tacky, and unbridled with our emotions. This whole issue is so entangled with flesh that you can’t leave it where you’ve left it. I have a few points.
1) While it is true that the word “god” is just a noun meaning lord or overseer, when it is capitalized–even in the mind–it means Yaweh God, Jehovah, Creator. Your name is C. Michael. So when people call you Mike, or Patton, or Daddy or Son, you respond. God is known by many names, and to the majority, He is known only as God. And He DOES care about this issue, if only for the following reasons.
2) If you aren’t really asking God to damn, then WHO are you giving power to do the damning??? That, in itself, is a problem for your soul. Only God has power to condemn to hell. So…if God isn’t Yaweh, who is he??? Who are you talking to???
3) If you ARE asking God to damn, then WHAT or WHOM are you asking him to damn (to hell) when you stub your toe, are cut off in traffic, when you spill hot coffee on yourself, when you’re angry, etc., etc. Just sayin’.
4) We are to account for EVERY IDLE WORD.

Thanks, and God bless.

I believe this statement is definately referring back to the 3ed commandment(as Mr. Patton says):

“But the prophet who arrogantly(or daringly) speaks a word in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”

Now the phrase “which I have not commanded him” is actually a Hebraic idiom that states a negative to affirm a positive(e.g. Leviticus 10:1, Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35).

What God was saying is that anyone who daringly claimed to represent(Yahweh in which they did not) were liers(false witnesses) and thus were guilty dragging his name in the mire(Jer. 14:14, Zach. 13:3). Breaching the third commandment!

Now notice God uses the word “zud” or “zid”. Which translates as “boiling, seething, arrogant, insolent, daring, rebellious”. So this is not to be aimed at sincere naive folk. But more towards those who craftily push for church fund-raising for God’s cause(but sneakily pick-pocket all the dough)-leaving a sour tasted to prospective converts!

To this, Zacharia’s message still rings true:

“You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD’s name.”

My father recently told me of a speech her heard on talk radio (not sure by whom) about how “taking the Lord’s name in vain” was actually a reference to an ancient Jewish custom. Apparently, people could contractually bequeath their land, property or inheritance to God in order to avoid bequeathing this inheritance to their rightful relatives. This was considered “taking God’s name in vain,” and this is the true meaning of the commandment, according to this speaker. Somehow the interpretation changed over time as this cultural custom (or breach thereof) fell into antiquity.

[...] If Ever I think of Eternity and Realise The Amasement awaiting us in God Name, This song speaks to … and Realise [...]

So, would the recent incident at a Xavier football game where the Xavier fans taunted the losing team by chanting, “We’ve got Jesus” be an example of taking the Lords name in vain?

Very good article/post.

So . . . does the phrase “In God We Trust” on American money, even license plates in Indiana, violate the third commandment?

Dan