More Than Meets the Eye
t’s no secret that one of the very natural tendencies of humankind is toward legalism. And it’s no secret that Christians face the temptation quite often to become legalistic. Even when we attempt to explore liberty, we run the risk of becoming legalistic about our liberty! Ironic, isn’t it?
Usually, the danger in legalism is seen as being too restrictive. In other words, if someone is being legalistic about a certain issue, they are usually drawing a tighter line around something than needs to be there.
But what about the times when drawing that line causes us to miss the point entirely? What if it causes us to completely permit other thoughts/behaviors while focusing on particular thoughts/behaviors that aren’t even relevant?
Such, I fear, is the case with a particular Old Testament commandment.
Someone put together a series of billboards posing as messages directly from God. I’m sure you’ve seen them somewhere along the line. Stark white letters on a solid black background. Things like “Let’s meet at my house Sunday before the game. — God” or “Don’t make me come down there. — God”, etc.
Apart from the constant theological problems in most of the messages (i.e., God’s ‘house’ is not a church building and, ummm, He already did “come down” here and has sent His Spirit to remain here with us), there was one that really jumped out at me and caused me to think about this particular issue.
“Next time you curse, use your own name. — God”
A similar one said, “Keep using my name in vain, I’ll make rush hour longer. — God” Yeah, that’s exactly the type of God we serve, right? Ahem. Anyway, back to my point…
We are all familiar with the commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” And many of us believe that we know exactly what it means, right?
So I got to thinking, what does it mean to take God’s name in vain? I mean, I know what I was always taught it meant.
Be honest. Most of us were taught that this meant not saying things like “Oh, my god” as a careless expression. I was even taught that it was wrong to say “Thank God.”
And then, of course, there were the “substitution words” that were equally sinful. Gosh. Gee. Geez. Golly. Because these were all substitutions for the word God or Jesus, I was told, they were equally sinful.
Now, contrary to what you might be expecting, the point of this post is not to actually defend the use of any of those words or phrases. I’ll leave that up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
But, my thought process went something like this: By focusing so much on the casual phrases and “substitution words” that are used, have we missed a bigger point? More frightening, are we actually condoning behavior and thoughts that are in violation of this command while believing that we are innocent because we “don’t say those things”?
And so I began to mull over what it means to take God’s name…
Wait a minute. What is God’s name? Is it “God”?
We use the term “God” (with a capital G, of course) as the name for the god we worship. We rightly believe that our god is different from all other gods, and so we distinguish him by calling him “God”. But is that his name??
It’s almost sad that we don’t actually use his name. And while I have no evidence for this, I believe that the reason we don’t actually use his name is a derivative of the Jewish tradition of not speaking his name for fear of violating this commandment.
However, one must be truthful and acknowledge that 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 topic after I had already decided to write this), many Christians say “God bless you” just as casually as the phrase “Oh my god” is used. Is that offensive? To most people, no. At least not in my experience.
But, and here is the rub: How many times do we invoke the authority and blessing of our God on the things that we are doing, teaching, saying, thinking, desiring, exhorting, preaching, etc.? And how many times do those very things that we are doing, teaching, saying, thinking, desiring, exhorting, preaching, etc. go against the very nature of what we have revealed about our God, yet we claim his backing and authority for them anyway?
Is that not a greater offense to our God?
Or when we claim to represent Jesus (which if we believe that Jesus is divine, than we must treat the name “Jesus” as a name, if not the name, of our God) and yet live a life that does not reflect his character and work, is that not an offense to our God? Are we not “using [his] name” in a vain manner?
Think about it, and feel free to discuss or dispute it below.
Until next time,
steve 
August 23rd, 2007 09:29
Steve,
If this is multiple choice, I would say “D. All of the above.” The “vanity” of our life and ministry in God’s name is a heart matter. (Which, in my opinion, is priority.) It also has deeper negative impact than vain speech. Using God’s name carelessly in speech is only a symptom of the same deeper problem.
But of course, we’d rather rake the leaves than chop the roots.
August 23rd, 2007 10:35
Cameron, that’s a great phrase (about raking the leaves). I have never heard that before, but it is so appropriate for so many of the discussions we have here.
Like I said in the post, I’m not trying here to defend the casual use of the word “god” in speaking. I just think it’s been way blown out of proportion to the point of ignoring the bigger issue.
August 23rd, 2007 10:48
Hey Steve,
Thanks for this post, this is a particular topic that has interested me for a while. You know there is a verse in the Bible that tells us that God’s name is Jealous (or Qanna in Hebrew - Exodus 34:14). I dare you to pray “Qanna, Father, …” next time you’re with a group of brothers. We also have the YHWH and it’s many possible pronunciation issues (Yahweh, Jehovah, etc.). Don’t forget Immanuel and thus, Jesus. We also have pronunciation issues with the name Jesus, Jesus is pronounced as Iēsous in Greek (I think it is the same in Spanish). Further, Jesus is the Hellenization of the Hebrew word for Joshua, or Yehoshua. So, next time you pray, pray to our Father, Qanna, in Heaven and our Lord, Yehoshua. I bet you get stoned!
My Hebrew teacher, Dr. Sailhamer, said something really great in our Hebrew class about YHWH and the Jewish legalism of not using the name. God gave them his name because he desired to have a relationship with them. He wanted them to be able to talk to him as a father, friend, and god. But the Jews were so afraid of him as a god that they forsook their relationship with him as their father and friend. They did not dare speak his name for fear that they would sin.
But regardless of all this, I agree, we take things too far. Not to mention Paul tells us that we are not under the Law (which includes the Ten). I have a post waiting to be written about why we prefer legalism over trusting God. I think it fits in perfectly with this topic.
God’s Glory,
Lew
August 23rd, 2007 11:44
Steve, you said, “we claim to represent Jesus…and yet live a life that does not reflect his character and work, is that not an offense to our God?”
The name “Christian” is so often used as an adjective today to give our secular lives the stamp of God’s approval. I wonder how He feels about…
“Christian” music
“Christian” fiction
“Christian” gift items
“Christian” ______________ (fill it in youself)
What do you think?
Kat
August 23rd, 2007 11:56
Lew, great thoughts in response. I have seen some say that the Jewish refusal to even pronounce the name of God as a defense (historical evidence) that the command was about verbal usage of the actual name.
However, I think that it seems more consistent to see it as the tendency of the religious leaders to build “extra padding” around the commands in order to not get close to offending.
August 23rd, 2007 12:00
Kat, thanks for your comment. I agree with you. Frequently, I try to catch myself from using the term “Christian” as an adjective for various things. It’s hard to break that habit, though!
August 23rd, 2007 16:27
Great post! I like what Lew said: “God gave them his name because he desired to have a relationship with them. He wanted them to be able to talk to him as a father, friend, and god.”
I agree that God desires relationship with people. Using someone’s first name is more personal and intimate than Mr. or Ms. So and So. Also, if I think about the relationship between my husband and me, it just wouldn’t be the same if he addressed me as Woman (capital W, mind you) instead of my name or another word of affection (sweetheart, hon, etc.).
I think God wants a level of intimacy that freaks many people out. He seems more managable and we seem less naked if we can keep Him at a bit of a distance. I wonder if the word “God” does that.
And yet, I still call God, well, God - most of the time anyway. It’s the way it’s always been done! (just kidding - hehe) Anyway, when I’m really distressed about something, I’ll call Him Father or Daddy when I talk to Him. I hadn’t really thought about this much. I’m glad you brought it up. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
August 23rd, 2007 17:23
Steve,
I’m with you in your thoughts on this, but thinking and understanding to whom the Christian is related, through the life and work of Jesus Christ, is such an enormously broad matter which requires us to have careful ballance.
John Bunyan’s words in his treatise on “Fearing God” show us another side of the equation :”… (the words) they present us with God, the true and living God, maker of the worlds, and upholder of all things by the word of his power: that incomprehensible majesty, in comparison of whom all nations are less than the drop of a bucket, and than the small dust of the balance. This is he that fills heaven and earth, and is everywhere present with the children of men, beholding the evil and the good; for he hath set his eyes upon all their ways.”
Blessings,
Aussie John
August 23rd, 2007 17:27
Great thoughts Steve. I have found that the more I seek to understand this commandment, the more deeply it cuts. Since I call myself a Christian (literally, a little Christ), anytime I live or think contrary to the glory and grace of God, I violate this commandment.
As to our current practices in what names we use for God, I think most come from the New Testament. The New Testament writers could have used transliterated Hebrew names for God (like Yahweh) but instead chose the common Greek words which are roughly equivalent to our words ‘god’ and ‘lord’. I’m not sure why they did this. Perhaps it was to make it easier for Greek speakers to understand the gospel. Perhaps it was to make clear the uniqueness of God. Had they used God’s name, then the ancient world may have concluded that the Christian god was just one more god in the pantheon. Perhaps it was to make sure that the Jews would not be unnecessarily offended.
Like you, Mary, I usually refer to God as Father when I pray. I’d like to think this is because of Jesus’ teaching on prayer, but it’s probably just because that’s what I’ve heard others do.
August 23rd, 2007 19:09
Word.
August 23rd, 2007 20:27
Steve,
Isn’t it interesting how Jesus took the command not to take God’s name in vain, and extended its meaning beyond simply refusing to pronounce the word “YWHW”. He said that we would be accountable for every idle word that we speak. Wow… every idle word… unprofitable word. Making sure each of my words are active and profitable is quite a bit different than making sure I don’t say certain words. But, this makes the command much more positive. Instead of worrying that I might say something wrong, I can instead trust the Spirit to give me words that will build up, teach, encourage, and comfort. What a difference the Spirit makes in our lives - even in our words!
-Alan
August 23rd, 2007 21:08
okay… I tried, but I can’t let this go. Every time I see this post, I can’t help but thinking about…
Transformers
More than meets the eye
Transformers
Robots in disguise…
Come on… admit it… you have to sing along, right?
-Alan
August 24th, 2007 00:40
Alan,
ROTFL!
August 24th, 2007 05:46
Were I younger I might have to sing along.
Though I have seen the movie, I never made a connection between Transformers and Steve.
Now that I think about it, Steve is all about transforming common religious practice into acts of faith which spring from reflection on the Word.
Thanks, Gordon, for your very concise comment!
August 24th, 2007 09:30
I am sure you are on to something not only in this one particular area but within all of what we have come to believe about a lot of our collective Christianity and understanding of scripture.
Scripture tells us that:
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.
We are creative beings made in the likeness of “God”.
What I have recently become aware of is what we read in scripture has a “working out” and underlying reality attached to the words. Not that we can’t take something at face value but that when we only do that we may be missing some of the more important aspects of truth hidden within.
One of our next subjects could be Mark 3:29…but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.
But we will leave that for another day. Keep up the good thoughts and welcome back.
August 24th, 2007 10:30
Ded, there really wasn’t more that I felt impressed to say. This was a really great post.
August 24th, 2007 18:53
Good post. And love the ‘rake the leaves’ expression. That expression sums up the nature of legalism pretty well. Legalism never changes the heart, and so the roots never get touched.
It’s so interesting to me… I too am in a process where I am re-evaluating so much of what I’ve been taught (evaluating it against what Jesus Himself taught). I think what I’ve learned in the process is that we can’t just camp out with the current revelation we have. We must continue seeking a deeper revelation of who Jesus is. I am deeply sceptical of people who teach with an attitude that “This is THE answer to what this scripture means, and if you have any other questions about any other scriptures I can give you those answers as well.” Even if we could get to the point where we “had all the answers,” God is constantly doing new things. It reminds me of when David brought the ark of the covenant back. But not to Shiloh where it “belonged.” He set it up in his backyard. And God liked this “tabernacle of David” even though it completely disregarded the very Mosaic law God had set up previously. What’s doubly interesting about this is that the priests continued to offer the sacrifices and incense back in Shiloh, even though God didn’t live there anymore. Hmmm….
August 25th, 2007 16:47
Again, some really great comments that I’ve done a lousy job of keeping up with!
I’m glad that so many of you got something out of this post. It’s a tricky subject to try to talk about.
Alan, I actually wasn’t familiar with the transformer song, so my allusion was unintentional, by far! But I liked ded’s take on my use of it
Gordon, glad you thought it was so good, brother. I appreciate the encouragement you are to me. Hope to see you and your family again before too much longer!
Terry, I’m glad we’re on this ride together. You’re a blessing to me, too.
With regard to the Mark passage, I don’t have any original thoughts myself on it. I have often heard it explained in the context of the larger passage, wherein “blaspheme” refers to attributing the work of Christ to Satan or some other source. It seems in our American culture, we have the opposite problem wherein things that are not of Christ are being attributed to him.
Sarah, it’s funny that you mention the David story because we just read that not too long ago in our homeschooling “through the Bible at a snail’s pace, hoping to finish before he actually graduates from high school” reading!
And I had similar thoughts about how David was moving stuff around like that and it seemed so contradictory to how it was spelled out to Moses. Yet it doesn’t seem to show that God was too upset by it.
Craig, I’d have to search, but do we see our Father actually being addressed as “God” in the NT? I haven’t searched it in this context, but I need to. I know there are references to “our God” and “my God” (referring to him, not casual usage of a phrase). He is addressed, however, as Father, as Abba, etc.
Aussie John, I’m not completely sure I understand the entirety of your comment. Do you feel that my post was out of balance in some way? If so, can you help me bring balance to it? Thanks!
Mary, intimacy with God is something that definitely freaks people out. We love to put barriers up. For example, the common usage of a verse from Ecclesiastes in the song which says, “You are God in heaven, and here am I on earth” — which in reality was (in my opinion) a desperate expression of a depressed and lonely man, yet is contradictory to the revelation of Jesus in the Old Testament.
With regard to the desire on God’s part for intimacy, I have often summarized it as follows:
1. God creates man and enjoys intimacy with him.
2. Man sins, breaking that intimacy
3. God chooses a people (Israel) through whom he desires to restore intimacy with all humans.
4. Israel rejects the offer of intimacy, instead asking Moses to mediate for them
5. God “puts up” with this arrangement for a while, sending prophet after prophet to speak his word
6. Finally, he ends the mediation and comes in human form himself (Emmanuel = God with us)
Interesting, however, how even now, we continue to want to put layers of mediation between us and God. How that must frustrate him…
August 27th, 2007 12:40
Steve,
Nothing comes to mind. I’d have to do a search as well. It’s worth thinking about. Perhaps we could do a word study of how God is addressed in the Scripture. We might find some edifying surprises.
The most likely example, if there is one, would be a quote in the New Testament of the Old Testament (Here’s where we would find examples of ‘lord’ being used such as ‘O Lord our God’). That points to a fourth possible reason why transliterated Hebrew names weren’t used. Perhaps the New Testament writers were simply following the usage of the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
August 27th, 2007 16:15
I hope this doesn’t offend anyone, but I couldn’t help but be reminded of a funny thing that I heard one time. My best friend(Ricky) and I and our fathers were on a long trip one time and Ricky was telling funny stories. This particular day he started reciting Richard Pryor stories.
I was scared because I didn’t know how my father would react, but Ricky’s dad(Big Rick) didn’t seem to mind, so my dad didn’t say anything. In fact he laughed at them too.
Anyway, if you’re familiar with Richard Pryor, you’ll know his jokes are filled with profanity. So Ricky is “cussing up a storm” telling us these stories. G.D.this and M.F. that and then he says “Holy Jesus!!, Holy Jesus!!”
Suddenly Big Rick thunders in “Rick I don’t want you saying that!” To my Dad and me we thought that was even more funny than the stories themselves. After all, who in there right mind would be bothered by “Holy Jesus!” if GD and MF didn’t bother them?
It wasn’t until several years later, after I got saved, that I realized that Big Rick didn’t want little Rick saying the Lord’s name in vain.
August 27th, 2007 18:07
Steve,
Brother, I’m sorry to have given the impression that I may have understood some imbalance in your words.
Not by a long shot! Re-reading what I wrote I agree I gave that impression. By injecting Bunyan’s words into the conversation I was attempting to raise the issue of reverence for whom God IS. However we address, or refer to, God, there often seems to be a common thread of irreverent familiarity.
Blessings,
Aussie John
August 27th, 2007 18:15
Craig, if I get a chance to do some study on that, I’ll post my thoughts. Meanwhile, if anyone else has any thoughts on it, jump in!
Tom, interestingly enough, most would find GD to be in the same category. I wonder why he only drew the line at the term “Holy Jesus”?
Aussie John, I am glad you didn’t think I was imbalanced there!
The issue of familiarity in addressing or referring to God is a tough subject. I have seen both extremes of this.
When I was a teenager, there was an elder in the church I grew up in who would sometimes refer to Jesus as “bro” (short for “brother”, in case that slang didn’t make it down under). My parents were quite offended by it. I had trouble understanding why it was a problem.
However, I have seen other discussions where people have expressed similar sentiments to my parents’. So maybe I’m missing the point.
At any rate, we see both “reverence” and “familiarity” in scripture and I wonder where the line gets drawn. Is there a “reverent familiarity”? Or is familiarity automatically irreverent?
Just tossing that out for discussion, if anyone cares to answer.
August 27th, 2007 19:17
I once tried to get a girl to marry me by declaring that it was God’s will for us to be together (fortunately, she didn’t agree, and I repented of that line of thinking).
As far as reverence and familiarity, perhaps our familiarity should be borne out of our relationship with Him. Jesus called His Father “Abba”, not “Buddy”. Paul often called Him “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I don’t think it’s for us to make up the familiar terms. We should let Him give those terms to us.
August 27th, 2007 21:36
does legalism make familiarity irreverent? methinks maybe it does…. when our youth rewrote “the Lord’s prayer” and made it in the familiar, I had a huge struggle with that. but why? was it because of my upbringing? i don’t know. am i more comfortable with a distant God? is it more difficult to revere someone when you are on familiar terms with him? is that a bad thing?
August 27th, 2007 22:05
DPR, your comment makes me think about something. We are so quick in evangelical circles to point to the deity of Jesus and make sure that we get our Christology “correct”. However, there does seem to be a difference in the NT between our relationship to the Father and our relationship to Jesus.
Now, please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying anything here to detract from Jesus as deity arguments. What I’m getting at, however, is your point about Jesus referring to the Father as “Abba”, not “Buddy”. (Although my understanding is that “Abba” is pretty intimate insofar as a child is intimate with their father. It’s very personal.)
And you are quite correct! The attitude of child to father should be one of respect and honor.
But with Jesus, we are given some pretty familiar terms in scripture. Jesus says that he no longer calls his disciples servants but friends. He is referred to by the phrase “son of God” and we are referred to as “sons of God”, so we are brothers.
I also point to the early part of John’s vision in Revelation when he falls before Jesus and Jesus raises him back up. Make of that what you will.
So, when I said that we see both reverence and familiarity, I was thinking with relation to Jesus, and you mentioned the Father. I think there is a difference there.
August 27th, 2007 22:30
flutemom, glad to see you here commenting
Was this post anything like what you thought it would be when I told you I was writing it?
You ask some great questions. I think it’s always worth the effort to figure out if our discomfort is truly a nudging of the Spirit or if it’s baggage from our traditions.
I know that many of the things with which you and I were taught to be uncomfortable have since become much more understandable to me as tradition and not Spirit.
But here’s the other thought that I had when reading your comment. You mentioned something that the youth did that caused you some concern. While it is definitely the responsibility biblically speaking for older to teach younger, there is another aspect of this that comes to my mind.
Familiarity vs. reverence is, at best, subjective. What might seem overly familiar to one may truly be reverent for another. And, in many ways, it may be contextual. Let me give an example:
Here in the south, it is common for adults to be referred to (by children) as “Mr. first name“. I am often referred to as “Mr. Steve” by younger children. I prefer that to “Mr. Sensenig” on many, many levels. It’s easier to pronounce, for one, and sounds “warmer” to my ears — less formal, yet still quite respectful.
We have good friends who moved to Tennessee from California. Their kids are very respectful, yet despite my requests to be called “Mr. Steve” (since some of them, including their father, still have trouble pronouncing “Sensenig” [can’t seem to get the emphasis on the right syllable]), they still default to “Mr. Sensenig”.
To them, it’s respectful. To me, it’s not familiar enough for the level of friendship we have with this family. But I’ve resigned to accepting it from them because they are doing what they think is respectful.
Anyway, I say all that to say this: It is always tricky for us to look at someone else and say, “They are not being reverent enough.” Or, just as dangerous: “They are not being familiar enough.”
Maybe I feel in my relationship with God that it is appropriate to pray:
“Daddy in heaven, even just your name is special. Take charge and have your way here, just like you do there. I have needs every day, and I need you to meet them. And please forgive me when I screw up in the same way I forgive others when they do things like that to me, too. Don’t lead me toward things that are going to cause me to sin, and kick the tail of the one who keeps trying to tempt me. Because, in a nutshell, you’re everything. You’ve got it all. You rock more than anything or anyone in this world. And you always will. Thanks!”
If that’s where my relationship with God is, then I don’t see a problem with that. I shouldn’t expect others to say it that way, nor should others be too quick to criticize me if I do.
Having said all that, my experience tells me that often, youth are encouraged to do things like that just for the sake of being “youth”. I wouldn’t encourage that. But, I would definitely applaud the idea of thinking outside the traditional box.
August 28th, 2007 08:28
Steve,
I presume that he thought Jesus was the Lord’s name and that God was maybe a title or sir-name.
On a slightly different note, I’ve heard it said that GD is blasphemous because God is not the one who damns us, but rather the one who saves us. What do you think?