Commandment

[Amie]

I was again listening to a Christian radio program the other day and the subject of the commandment, "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" came up. One woman said that it is more than a cuss word, but when people attach God to themselves for gain. She gave the examples of a person wearing a cross in order to look important, or a salesman having a bible on their desk to aid in making sales.

I was taught that to call out to God, or to say God, etc, when I really didn't want to talk to God, was taking his name in vain. I remember the great debate between myself and my Baptist friend in elementary school about whether "Gosh" counted, lol!

Thinking about it now though, I realize that the only name that I've "taken" is my husband's last name: May. I could see where a person could have broken the commandment by "taking" the name of God for self gain. Yet, that person had to be one who without question was betrothed to God.

In what way did the betrothed take God's name in vain? AND, is it even possible to break that commandment today? (I suspect not)

Amie

[Me Again]

I think the commandment needed to be understood in the context of the other commandments in which it is found: 1) I am the Lord your God, 2) you shall have no other gods before me, 3) don't take my name in vain, and 4) keep the sabbath.

These were commands which were worship-oriented. Vain brings to mind the idea of meaning. Israel needed to recognize that God and He alone is their god, and that his name had meaning in their life. Out of this respect for his name (his person - YAH), they would keep his sabbath.

This has nothing to do with saying things like "goddamn it," or "Oh my god." It has everything to do with the recognition that God is YAH, God is LOVE, God is HOLY. People can go through life and never "cuss," but still take his name in vain by not recognizing that he is God.

[davo]

Yeah I tend to agree with you Ed.

When I was young it was typically on this surface level as you've described Amie in that "OMG!" was frowned upon as blasphemous etc. As I got older this for me translated more into to "taking the Lord's name in vain" to mean – to call one's self a "Christian" and yet not live accordingly. I think as far as "self applicability" goes that has some merit. But even that can become a self-righteous trap with regards to "merit". Personally I believe the Law is gone with regards to "requirements".

When we follow God's way of love we are more inclined to do and reflect that which works-righteousness that serves God's purposes in blessing others.

[Amie]

Do you guys see anything to the idea that "take" has to do with marriage? No one "took" his name, save for those to whom God was betrothed and for that to be, there must be a covenant.

If we are presently all included in the new covenant, then not a person on earth could take God's name in vain.

If the new covenant belonged to the first fruits alone, then no one is currently taking God's name at all.

I see it like y'all in that it is connected to those other commandments. If they were worshipping other gods etc, then they were taking his name, as in, entering into covenant with God - vainly.

Do you see any merit in that?

Amie

[davo]

I tend to see it more in terms of how you describe the ancients as apostising the covenant by turning aside from their creator, but I haven't really considered it along the lines of marriage etc.

[Me Again]

Since the covenant between God and his people is described as a marriage, I see a lot of merit to Amie's suggestion here. "Taking his name" vainly would signify, once again, the committing of adultery (idolatry), which would also coincide with the 2nd commandment of worshipping graven images.

Also, in Romans 1, we are told that the covenant people neither worshipped him, nor gave him thanks. I think that would fit quite nicely with Amie's framework.

Good thoughts.

HOWEVER, I still do not see ALL/EVERYONE in covenant with God. I am still of the persuasion that we enter into covenant with God through faith and baptism. My view is that those "outside" the covenant are blessed by those within, rather than cursed as they were pre-parousia.

The old law was death and beget death. That's why one would be unclean if they touched a dead thing. When Jesus came, and since, life begets life. When the unclean woman touched Jesus, she became clean rather than Jesus becoming unclean. I see the same with the church post-parousia. We are clean because of Jesus, and rather than us becoming unclean by being touched by the "unclean," we make them clean.

[Amie]

When the unclean woman touched Jesus, she became clean rather than Jesus becoming unclean.

I never put that together! Wow!


We are clean because of Jesus, and rather than us becoming unclean by being touched by the "unclean," we make them clean.

I haven't come to a conclusion. The reception of the new covenant by the first fruits could have been a revelation that we are all clean. If it was inherited on our behalfs, it still exists, but for everyone. If people still enter into covenant, then the marriage of the bride and bridegroom would be eternal -- I'm not sure what that would mean for the consummation, or for the offspring of that union.

Since you believe that people do still enter into covenant, do you think it possible to break that commandment today?


I tend to see it more in terms of how you describe the ancients as apostising the covenant by turning aside from their creator, but I haven't really considered it along the lines of marriage etc.

I think that idolatry=adultry as Ed seems to have it as well. There is a lot of symbolism of Israel being unfaithful, and then later being washed 'as if' she were a virgin and she being accepted 'as if' that were true. I have to wonder whether some husbands, not finding the "token of virginity" on the consummation blanket per the law, did the same themselves because they loved the wife.

Amie

[Me Again]

Amie asks: Since you believe that people do still enter into covenant, do you think it possible to break that commandment today?

No, I don't. The bride of Christ is "naked but unashamed." We no longer experience shame, and due to our husband's love for us, we celebrate his love, rather than looking for other husbands. The law was for "lawbreakers," i.e., those who were ashamed. Spirit, which is what we are, is unashamed.

When I talk about us entering into covenant, I am speaking not about some salvific experience (although that's still how Davo would describe it, in his understanding of salvation - "saved to serve"), I'm speaking of an experience. Anyone who experiences that pure love of Christ enters that covenant. Others, not in covenant, can experience love, but oftentimes find themselves still struggling with their nakedness, being told by "satan" (the religious) that they should be ashamed of that nakedness.

So, what does that mean for us? We need to enter into that bedchamber (see my other post today), and make love to our husband.