What exactly does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain?

[Jiggy37]

Other than the obvious cursing, I mean. If I misspell "Yeah" as "Yah," should I be concerned? I'm guessing no. If I say "Ja" like the German word (I think it's German, anyway), should I be concerned? Again, I'm guessing no.

But what if I'm watching, say, Popeye and he's saying "I am who I am"? Shouldn't I be offended? Isn't that the name of God that the Jews wouldn't dare pronounce?

I guess I'm just wondering what exactly it means... I know generally, but want to know fully.

[mbtcforJesus]

I wouldn't worry about the accidental typos. God is not going to zap you for that. :):

The one that really bothers me is when people say God D--- It! Or say Jesus Christ when they're mad.

Isn't it sad how the name of Jesus is used so profanely on TV these days, but if you want to use it for God's glory TV people edit it out.

[Hootmon]

Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not3808 take5375 (853) the name8034 of the LORD3068 thy God430 in vain;7723 for3588 the LORD3068 will not3808 hold him guiltless5352 (853) that834 taketh5375 (853) his name8034 in vain.7723

H7723
שׁו שׁואo
shâv' shav
shawv, shav
From the same as H7722 in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjectively), uselessness (as deceptive, objectively; also adverbially in vain): - false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.

H7722
שׁאה שׁואה שׁוא
shô' shô'âh shô'âh
sho, sho-aw', sho-aw'
From an unused root meaning to rush over; a tempest; by implication devastation: - desolate (-ion), destroy, destruction, storm, wasteness. IMO, 'uselessness' is a good replacement word for 'vain'...

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in uselessness, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in uselessness.


Its no mistake that the Commandments are written in the order they are. From God's perspective, they are listed in the order is importance, and grouped together by subject matter. Therefore, the Third commandment is directly related to the first Two, and is talking about the God-Man relationship.

IMO, the Third commandment is an admonition against invoking God for mundane reasons. For instance, 'I swear to God that Ill repay this loan'.

James 5:12
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

[gzusrulzme]

think of it this way:

everytime you say "God" he looks down and says "what?"

so hopefully there isn't a dirty word attached, or your just saying it to be saying it......or your cursing when you said it. That would be sad for Him to hear dont ya think?

[julaam]

gzusrulzme, that was a wonderful post. I'm going to remember that so when my grandson is old enough to face the issue I have a good way to stop him before it becomes a habit. Thanks.

[Gary]

I think Hootmon said it perfectly. To take an oath in the name of God, or to use His name for false pretenses; "I swear to God I didn't steal the money" or whatever.

If you think about it; when the 10 Commandments were written, what was the purpose of God making this rule? Were the Jews big at cursing at the time or using terms like G-D it? Jesus Christ wasn't even prophesied yet so how could anyone use His name as a swear word?

I think it refers to any useless, or self-serving invocation of the name of the Lord, not necessarily cursing.

[pilgrimian]

IMO, 'uselessness' is a good replacement word for 'vain'...

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in uselessness, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in uselessness.


Its no mistake that the Commandments are written in the order they are. From God's perspective, they are listed in the order is importance, and grouped together by subject matter. Therefore, the Third commandment is directly related to the first Two, and is talking about the God-Man relationship.

IMO, the Third commandment is an admonition against invoking God for mundane reasons. For instance, 'I swear to God that Ill repay this loan'.

Amen!

Yes, it has to do with reverence.

I've heard people argue that we really don't know His name...but that those in Israel did know it at the time of the giving of the 613 laws within the Mosaic Law. Just the same, though, Christ said not to take God's name in vain too.

We, as Believers, are to be set apart from the Unbelievers...we are to live lives of righteousness...we are to provoke the Jews to jealousy (Romans 11). Why would we swear, or use language like the Unbelievers do? When we speak it should be evident that we are different than them.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Jacinth]

I see people write, "oh my G_ _" all the time and I've seen here at RR. It upsets me very much when I see it but I don't say anything. I've seen posts where people have said things like, "Lord, that was a good thread." Or they say, "Lordy". I think all of those are not only taking the Lord's name in vain but the "Lordy" one is so disrespectful.

[antsinmypants]

Other than the obvious cursing, I mean. If I misspell "Yeah" as "Yah," should I be concerned? I'm guessing no.

I'm thinking YHVH knows your motives, so no.

If I say "Ja" like the German word (I think it's German, anyway), should I be concerned? Again, I'm guessing no.

It was YHVH who confounded the understanding and the tongues of men, and gave each people their language-- and He understands them all. I'm learning German and "Ja" means "yes"-- just as "Da" in Russian means Yes... whereas "Yah" is part of YHVH's name-- and He knows the meaning and motive of everything-- so why stress when you say something, if it is just "yes" or sounds like something else, but isn't?

G-d knows your heart.

But what if I'm watching, say, Popeye and he's saying "I am who I am"? Shouldn't I be offended? Isn't that the name of God that the Jews wouldn't dare pronounce?

No.

Popeye says "I am what I am"... technically that is how SOME Jews interpret the "I AM" sentences.. but that's not exactly what that means. The name that most Hebrews will not pronounce is Yud Hey Vav Hey -- YHVH -- pronounced Yah-Veh/ Yah-Weh /Yah-Vah.


G-d knows our hidden intents and what's in our hearts, as the bible says.. i'd not stress if you aren't meaning or doing anything maliciously.

[Jiggy37]

Okay, thank you for the replies, everyone. :): Basically what I thought, but I just wanted some sort of confirmation from anyone who knows a little bit about this.

I see people write, "oh my G_ _" all the time and I've seen here at RR. It upsets me very much when I see it but I don't say anything. I've seen posts where people have said things like, "Lord, that was a good thread." Or they say, "Lordy". I think all of those are not only taking the Lord's name in vain but the "Lordy" one is so disrespectful.
That reminds me of a question I should have asked from the beginning. Are "oh my gosh" or "golly" or even "gee" (gee = G = G--) taking the Lord's name in vain, since they're basically said in the same spirit? I understand we have to have some way to express surprise or frustration, but does it have to be done with words that were just created as "euphemisms" for taking God's name in vain?
Personally, I avoid saying those things just because I know how they originated. I would not think that God judges people who are in ignorance of how they came about, but what about us who continue to use them even when we know where they came from?

[gzusrulzme]

gzusrulzme, that was a wonderful post. I'm going to remember that so when my grandson is old enough to face the issue I have a good way to stop him before it becomes a habit. Thanks.


It worked great for my kids, they've had to remind me on a few occassions. I think we are all guilty of saying it without even thinking sometimes.

[antsinmypants]

Okay, thank you for the replies, everyone. :): Basically what I thought, but I just wanted some sort of confirmation from anyone who knows a little bit about this.


That reminds me of a question I should have asked from the beginning. Are "oh my gosh" or "golly" or even "gee" (gee = G = G--) taking the Lord's name in vain, since they're basically said in the same spirit? I understand we have to have some way to express surprise or frustration, but does it have to be done with words that were just created as "euphemisms" for taking God's name in vain?
Personally, I avoid saying those things just because I know how they originated. I would not think that God judges people who are in ignorance of how they came about, but what about us who continue to use them even when we know where they came from?


According to the dictionary-- Yes.

A long time ago, I wrote something and was severely ridiculed here on Rapture Ready and even got some hateful entries in my guestbook on my website (Thank YHVH that I put in the "Webmaster Must Approve submissions" option in, because I was able to stop them from being posted).

Here is the thread:
"Is Saying God acceptable...?" (http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=119038)

[jonhiram]

H7723
שׁו שׁואo
shâv' shav
shawv, shav
From the same as H7722 in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjectively), uselessness (as deceptive, objectively; also adverbially in vain): - false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity

Take into account take5375 (853)

To put a finer point on it...to name ourselves to be christian, never having received the new birth.

[MikeJ]

Ants is right. If you look in an old Webster's dictionary, the words "Gosh" and "Golly" are defined as slang for God. The word "Gee" is slang for the Name Jesus.

Dr. J. Vernon McGee once said that you don't become familiar (insolent) with the Lord. He's our God, Lord, King, brother and friend but, e.g., in heaven, you won't walk up to Him and slap Him on the back and refer to Him with some nickname. He commands respect.

[antsinmypants]

Take into account take5375 (853)

To put a finer point on it...to name ourselves to be christian, never having received the new birth.


853 = Aleph Tav/Alpha Omega = Y'shua!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What verse did you get the "Take 5375" from? :):

[antsinmypants]

The word "Gee" is slang for the Name Jesus.

While this is true in SOME cases, there is something you tell a horse, donkey or mule when you plow.

That's Gee and Haw.
(right and left)


m-w.com

Main Entry: 1gee
Pronunciation: 'jE
Function: verb
Etymology: origin unknown
verb imperative -- used as a direction to turn to the right or move ahead; compare 5HAW
intransitive senses geed gee·ing : to turn to the right side

[Hootmon]

853 = Aleph Tav/Alpha Omega = Y'shua!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What verse did you get the "Take 5375" from? :):Exodus 20:7... Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not3808 take5375 (853) the name8034 of the LORD3068 thy God430 in vain;7723 for3588 the LORD3068 will not3808 hold him guiltless5352 (853) that834 taketh5375 (853) his name8034 in vain.7723 3 times in one verse. :wave

[antsinmypants]

Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not3808 take5375 (853) the name8034 of the LORD3068 thy God430 in vain;7723 for3588 the LORD3068 will not3808 hold him guiltless5352 (853) that834 taketh5375 (853) his name8034 in vain.7723

Exodus 20:7... 3 times in one verse. :wave


That explains EVERYTHING!

In the hebrew the Aleph tav comes right BEFORE name, L-rd, so it's misplaced by the "Take"- should be at name /L-rd.

I knew something looked fishy for "take" to have an aleph tav. :heh

Thanks Hootmon :): I knew I had seen it before.. :D:


Ok, Found a photo of it on BLB but can't get it to upload:


La Hasha, (aleph tav) Et-Shem-YHVH (Aleph Tav/Yshua- name [of] YHVH) alhayk L'shva Bey la Ynaqh YHVH Et (Aleph Tav) Asher-Ysha Et (Aleph Tav)-Shomer Lashra.


Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of Aleph-Tav YHVH in vain; for Aleph-Tav YHVH will not hold him guiltless that taketh Aleph Tav's name in vain.


:D: ::beams::

[blitzkreig]

To take an oath in the name of God, or to use His name for false pretenses; "I swear to God I didn't steal the money" or whatever.Exactly Gary.

The Law was not written to instruct on the importance of correct spelling. The Law was not written to limit the number of times the Lord's name was mentioned. The Law was written so that we understood the importance of the use of His Name.

This from John Calvin on the Commandments in his work Institutes of the Christian Religion:


The name of God is vulgarised and vilified when used in oaths, which, though true, are superfluous. This, too, is to take his name in vain. Wherefore, it is not sufficient to abstain from perjury, unless we, at the same time, remember that an oath is not appointed or allowed for passion or pleasure, but for necessity; and that, therefore, a licentious use is made of it by him who uses it on any other than necessary occasions. Moreover, no case of necessity can be pretended, unless where some purpose of religion or charity is to be served. In this matter, great sin is committed in the present day—sin the more intolerable in this, that its frequency has made it cease to be regarded as a fault, though it certainly is not accounted trivial before the judgment-seat of God. The name of God is everywhere profaned by introducing it indiscriminately in frivolous discourse; and the evil is disregarded, because it has been long and audaciously persisted in with impunity. The commandment of the Lord, however, stands; the penalty also stands, and will one day receive effect. Special vengeance will be executed on those who have taken the name of God in vain. Another form of violation is exhibited, when, with manifest impiety, we, in our oaths, substitute the holy servants of God for God himself,207 thus conferring upon them the glory of his Godhead. It is not without cause the Lord has, by a special commandment, required us to swear by his name, and, by a special prohibition, forbidden us to swear by other gods.208 The Apostle gives a clear attestation to the same effect, when he says, that “men verily swear by the greater;” but that “when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself;” (Heb. 6:16, 13).


The Anabaptists, not content with this moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our Saviour’s general prohibition, “I say unto you, Swear not at all:” “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil,” (Mt. 5:34; James 5:12). In this way, they inconsiderately make a stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him in opposition to the Father, as if he had descended into the world to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not only permits an oath as a thing that is lawful (this were amply sufficient), but, in a case of necessity, actually commands it (Exod. 22:11). Christ again declares, that he and his Father are one; that he only delivers what was commanded of his Father; that his doctrine is not his own, but his that sent him (John 10:18, 30; 7:16). What then? Will they make God contradict himself, by approving and commanding at one time, what he afterwards prohibits and condemns? But as there is some difficulty in what our Saviour says on the subject of swearing, it may be proper to consider it a little. Here, however, we shall never arrive at the true meaning, unless we attend to the design of Christ, and the subject of which he is treating. His purpose was, neither to relax nor to curtail the Law, but to restore the true and genuine meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. If we attend to this we shall not suppose that Christ condemned all oaths but those only which transgressed the rule of the Law. It is evident, from the oaths themselves, that the people were accustomed to think it enough if they avoided perjury, whereas the Law prohibits not perjury merely, but also vain and superfluous oaths. Therefore our Lord, who is the best interpreter of the Law, reminds them that there is a sin not only in perjury, but in swearing. How in swearing? Namely, by swearing vainly. Those oaths, however, which are authorised by the Law, he leaves safe and free. Those who condemn oaths think their argument invincible when they fasten on the expression, not at all. The expression applies not to the word swear, but to the subjoined forms of oaths. For part of the error consisted in their supposing, that when they swore by the heaven and the earth, they did not touch the name of God. The Lord, therefore, after cutting off the principal source of prevarication, deprives them of all subterfuges, warning them against supposing that they escape guilt by suppressing the name of God, and appealing to heaven and earth. For it ought here to be observed in passing, that although the name of God is not expressed, yet men swear by him in using indirect forms, as when they swear by the light of life, by the bread they eat, by their baptism, or any other pledges of the divine liberality towards them. Some erroneously suppose that our Saviour, in that passage, rebukes superstition, by forbidding men to swear by heaven and earth, and Jerusalem. He rather refutes the sophistical subtilty of those who thought it nothing vainly to utter indirect oaths, imagining that they thus spared the holy name of God, whereas that name is inscribed on each of his mercies. The case is different, when any mortal living or dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God, as in the vile form devised by flattery in heathen nations, “By the life or genius of the king”; for, in this case, the false apotheosis obscures and impairs the glory of the one God. But when nothing else is intended than to confirm what is said by an appeal to the holy name of God, although it is done indirectly, yet his majesty is insulted by all frivolous oaths. Christ strips this abuse of every vain pretext when he says “Swear not at all”. To the same effect is the passage in which James uses the words of our Saviour above quoted (James 5:12). For this rash swearing has always prevailed in the world, notwithstanding that it is a profanation of the name of God. If you refer the words, “not at all”, to the act itself, as if every oath, without exception, were unlawful, what will be the use of the explanation which immediately follows—Neither by heaven, neither by the earth, &c.? These words make it clear, that the object in view was to meet the cavils by which the Jews thought they could extenuate their fault.


Every person of sound judgment must now see that in that passage our Lord merely condemned those oaths which were forbidden by the Law. For he who in his life exhibited a model of the perfection which he taught, did not object to oaths whenever the occasion required them; and the disciples, who doubtless in all things obeyed their Master, followed the same rule. Who will dare to say that Paul would have sworn (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23) if an oath had been altogether forbidden? But when the occasion calls for it, he adjures without any scruple, and sometimes even imprecates. The question, however, is not yet disposed of. For some think that the only oaths exempted from the prohibition are public oaths, such as those which are administered to us by the magistrate, or independent states employ in ratifying treaties, or the people take when they swear allegiance to their sovereign, or the soldier in the case of the military oath, and others of a similar description. To this class they refer (and justly) those protestations in the writings of Paul, which assert the dignity of the Gospel; since the Apostles, in discharging their office, were not private individuals, but the public servants of God. I certainly deny not that such oaths are the safest because they are most strongly supported by passages of Scripture. The magistrate is enjoined, in a doubtful matter, to put the witness upon oath; and he in his turn to answer upon oath; and an Apostle says, that in this way there is an end of all strife (Heb. 6:16). In this commandment, both parties are fully approved. Nay, we may observe, that among the ancient heathens a public and solemn oath was held in great reverence, while those common oaths which were indiscriminately used were in little or no estimation, as if they thought that, in regard to them, the Deity did not interpose. Private oaths used soberly, sacredly, and reverently, on necessary occasions, it were perilous to condemn, supported as they are by reason and example. For if private individuals are permitted, in a grave and serious matter, to appeal to God as a judge, much more may they appeal to him as a witness. Your brother charges you with perfidy. You, as bound by the duties of charity, labour to clear yourself from the charge. He will on no account be satisfied. If, through his obstinate malice, your good name is brought into jeopardy, you can appeal, without offence, to the judgment of God, that he may in time manifest your innocence. If the terms are weighed, it will be found that it is a less matter to call upon him to be witness; and I therefore see not how it can be called unlawful to do so. And there is no want of examples. If it is pretended that the oath which Abraham and Isaac made with Abimelech was of a public nature, that by which Jacob and Laban bound themselves in mutual league was private. Boaz, though a private man, confirmed his promise of marriage to Ruth in the same way. Obadiah, too, a just man, and one that feared God, though a private individual, in seeking to persuade Elijah, asseverates with an oath.209 I hold, therefore, that there is no better rule than so to regulate our oaths that they shall neither be rash, frivolous, promiscuous, nor passionate, but be made to serve a just necessity; in other words, to vindicate the glory of God, or promote the edification of a brother. This is the end of the Commandment.

[Hootmon]

Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of Aleph-Tav YHVH in vain; for Aleph-Tav YHVH will not hold him guiltless that taketh Aleph Tav's name in vain.


:D: ::beams:::whoo

[heavenlierealm]

think of it this way:

everytime you say "God" he looks down and says "what?"

so hopefully there isn't a dirty word attached, or your just saying it to be saying it......or your cursing when you said it. That would be sad for Him to hear dont ya think?
i cringe and it hurts my ears when i hear that :(: