A possibly "dense" post follows (first half). Followed by a "daily living application" (see the second half, "One final thought)....
I recently finished an excellent book by Carmen Joy Imes called
"Bearing God's Name: Why Sinai Still Matters."
It's an easy read (though her accessible style does not detract from its value!) and one of its really cool features are the QR Codes that link to the excellent
"The Bible Project" website.
Anyway, Imes' launching point is that the Second Commandment (or third, depending on one's faith tradition) is NOT primarily about "swearing." So while "taking the Lord's name in vain" is part of it, the verb actually speaks to "bearing" (hence, the book's title). And this "bearing" language is a direct pointing back to Genesis 1:27 (among other verses). Meaning, we are God's imagers and, as such, should (and should want to) conduct ourselves in a manner that shows us to be God's faithful, loyal, and compassionate representatives on earth (think also of the "steward"-type language found throughout the Bible and especially in some of Jesus' teachings like
Luke 16:1-13 (a positive example) and
Matthew 18:21-35 (a negative one)).
There are also tantalizing clues (yes, only clues, because the book is meant for the casual, everyday reader) that point to
The Name theology and what this meant for both the Old Testament Jew and the New Testament early Christian.
The Name, without getting too technical, is a way OT writers expressed the presence of God in the "person" often described as the "Angel of the Lord." So verses that have "My Name is in him" (or something along this line) like
Exodus 23:21 don't simply mean that the "him" carries God's authority; rather, that this "him" IS God in some way.* This is also why many editions of the
Tanakh (especially the "Bibles" of observant Jews, orthodox and conservative) replace
Yahweh with
Ha Shem ("The Name"; English-language Bibles generally replace
Yahweh with "L
ORD"). This is done because
Yahweh is THE Divine Name and, thus, inappropriate for sinful Man to utter.
Ha Shem is used as a respectable substitute/work-around that "names" God without being disrespectful.**
The Name concept also figures prominently in the theology of the New Testament (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17).
One final thought....
Speaking of "taking the Lord's name in vain" here's are two comments for all those who feel comfortable tossing out "Jesus" or "God" as verbal ejaculations or curses (etc.):
1. To quote the song, "there is power in the Name." I think it was C.S. Lewis who made the point that it should be no surprise non-God fearers so casually/frequently (I would argue, recklessly (see, next comment)) toss about Jesus' or God's Name because while they won't admit it they know in their hearts that
The Name has power.
2. And then there's
Pascal's Wager. If the casual swearing non-God fearers are correct (i.e., there is no God), then they have nothing to lose. But they also don't gain anything; life is life and death/non-existence awaits.
But if I (and the billions of others who believe the God of the OT & NT is real) am correct, then I lose nothing by not "using the Lord's Name in vain," but stand to gain everything for my "believing loyalty." On the other hand, the casually-swearing non-God fearers lose it all because after
Romans 14:11 comes to pass then comes
Revelation 20:14-15.***
Not that I am playing Elvis Presley's game (i.e., cynical belief: in Presley's case he wore the symbols of various, major faith traditions in order to cover all the bases); rather; if I want to determine which position is the better strategic starting point, then I'll take the God-fearing one rather than the non-God-fearing one.****
Just a thought.
Psalm 19:14
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* This is part of the "Two Yahwehs" line of thought (i.e., "Jewish binatarianism"); a line of thought widely accepted by Jews in the OT period and part of mainline Jewish thinking/belief until after the Second Temple period (c. 100 AD/CE) when rabbis declared it a heresy (for some pretty obvious reasons...). If the "Two Yahwehs" concept intrigues you, the starting point should be Alan Segal's
"Two Powers in Heaven."
Btw, this "Two Yahwehs" concept is why Christians were "easily" able to adopt Trinitarianism: the first two Persons of the Godhead were an accepted "fact" by Jews and the very early, post-Resurrection Church. So there's two of the three. Now on to the third: no later than the time of Jesus' birth (the last quintile of Second Temple Judaism (c. 530 BC/BCE - c. 100 AD/CE) many saw/accepted that the Wisdom "character" found in various places in the OT had divine attributes. This "allowed" for the Spirit Jesus mentions. And as Jesus equated the Spirit as equally God (with the Father and Him) adopting the Trinity as a core tenet of Christianity was not the leap many today seem to believe it was/is.
** "You are standing on holy ground" is another phrase used to indicate Divine Presence. Some are obvious to modern-day readers (like
Exodus 3:5), but others not so much (like
Joshua 5:13-15). To the OT Jew, none of this messaging/imagery would have been difficult to understand. Hence, another reminder why we should understand The Bible in its original context: while The Bible was written FOR us it was not written TO us!.
*** I'm not saying this because I want this for the non-God fearer or the avowedly anti-God person. Instead, my hope is
2 Peter 3:9.
**** Yes, I've heard all the counter-arguments to the
Wager (like the "moon is made of Swiss cheese" one). They hold no weight for me because they misrepresent the purpose of the
Wager or the significance of the decision Pascal is asking his reader to consider.
--- End of line (MCP)
