What's in a Name?

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 NKJV

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” William Shakespeare



What does the commandment mean when it refers to using the name of the Lord God in vain? To do anything in vain is to act toward no particular end like our continued prayer that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have made the ultimate sacrifice will not have died “in vain”; that is, for nothing. We need to believe that their sacrifice has meant something; so, too, must it be when we choose to invoke the name of the Almighty. There should be a good reason for mentioning His name, and the reason cannot be for selfish gain.

There are certain traditions – some say superstitions – that forbid that His name be spoken or even written. Often there are references to “YHWH” which is not pronounceable even though we call it “Yahweh”, and there are some rabbis who will write out only “G-d”. The simplest reason for a refusal to mention His name is that He is utterly holy, and no human tongue is worthy to speak His name.

I must admit that I have difficulty with the simple English translation, or transliteration, “God”. In my mind, such a reference infers too much familiarity though I cannot find fault with others who do make such a reference. I see no disrespect intended and throughout the Bible, this is the common reference.

What is interesting about His “name”, however, is that I’m not so sure anyone really knows what His proper name is. He certainly has many titles, but does He have a “name” as you and I have names by which we are identified? And if we did know His name, would there be such thing as a prohibition against using His name aloud? According to some traditions, yes. So if we cannot speak or write His holy name or even pronounce it, how can we be accused of misusing His name or using it “in vain”?

Using such reasoning, how can the use of the word (or name) “God” as a prefix to a particular swear word be considered to be a misuse; that is, if His name is not “God”? This particular point is arguable on many levels so far beyond my scholarship that I won’t even try to go there. Suffice it to say, I think such a narrow interpretation does not serve us well and does little to help us to understand what is at risk because of the written statement that those who do misuse His holy name will be held accountable for such misuse. Like other points of the Law, we would do ourselves no favors by seeking the narrowest or simplest explanation and then choosing to move along as having settled the matter.

To be sure, this particular commandment coming so early in the “list” serves a purpose. We have already been introduced to the Lord as the One who delivered a nation from captivity and we have been put on notice that we are not to create carved or “graven” images in a feeble effort to make for ourselves a “god” that might be pleasing to our sight. So now we are being advised that because the Almighty is holy, His name must be invoked with nothing less than profound respect. The passage seems clear enough that He does indeed have a name. If we then know it, we must be careful about how we choose to use it.

One approach to addressing this particular commandment might be to consider the continual conflicts that arose between Jesus and the Pharisees. I think we can agree that the Pharisees were a pious bunch, very religious, very devout, but also very misguided in their interpretations – AND ENFORCEMENT – of the Law. Looking carefully at many of the discussions or arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees, it would be easy to conclude that perhaps it was that even with noble intentions, the pharisaic interpretation of the Law served more to suppress a people than to free them. And we should know that when the Law was presented to Moses and then to Israel, it was presented to a freed people. So it would stand to reason that this commandment has not lost such a particular flavor that has somehow between Sinai and now become a means by which to suppress or enslave anyone, especially in the name of the Holy God of Israel.

So as a freed people who have been redeemed by this very God, how can we make best use of this particular passage? And we must, as a redeemed people, understand that surely this commandment itself has not been written “in vain”. It means something to us; it must. Otherwise the Law itself has been reduced to nothing more than a “buffet” line of choices we can accept or reject depending on our level of understanding and/or willingness to obey. This commandment, as all others, requires our attention.

The most notable violation throughout the world today is the radical Islamist who carries out his acts of terror in the name of “Allah”. In Arabic, this means “God” which infers the one living and true God of all creation. These terrorists have every intention of making the world to live in genuine fear but to what end? They need to be feared, and this is very much a reason why they want all the media coverage they can possibly get. Do you remember the videos that were floating around on some Arabic websites in which captured westerners were beheaded? It was meant to invoke fear. Who wants to die at all, let alone die in such a horrific manner?

But to do such a thing in the name of our Lord, let alone any “god”, would naturally beg the question: what “god” would demand such a thing of his followers and for what purpose? Reaching back to the time in which the Law was given, the Israelites were about to move into a land that was inhabited by pagans, some of whose religious practices required human sacrifice. These were the “gods”, as I shared earlier, that are extremely self-serving. A human sacrifice accomplishes nothing more than to drive people away or worse, subject them to nothing more than suppressive, oppressive, abject, senseless, soul-wrenching fear.

The name we are to invoke is a name that does not seek fear but, rather, respect. The Lord God of all creation, the God and Father of Jesus the Christ, will accept no less. So the use of His name must move toward this particular end, to glorify that holy name and give Him the opportunity to work in the lives of others as we profess to have had Him work in our own.

Think about the political battles we have endured in this country, sometimes suffering the invocation of the Lord as a means by which to force others to live according to standards we have adopted for ourselves. The so-called “religious right” has been in the forefront of some major political battles in an effort to design a society or a culture that would be more pleasing to them, and I have to say that in some ways I am probably as guilty as I have shared in the past about my beliefs on homosexuality and abortion, just to name two particular social issues.

Is secular legislation the answer, though? Some insist that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Ok, so what exactly does this mean? And where is it written in Holy Scripture that we are called to legislate and force adherence to our understanding of moral standards rather than live as an example and act according to these same moral standards? Is it good use of the Lord’s name and reputation to try and “beat” others into submission for the sake of the Gospel, the GOOD NEWS that we have been redeemed? The Crusades and the Inquisition are two moments in human history that would suggest that such efforts will always fail miserably unless one’s goal is to do harm. How ironic it is that we would choose to use the very freedom we have been granted and attempt to enslave others according to our own interpretation of what is good and right!

Something occurred to me during a recent policy process class session when we were discussing the civil rights era. I had never considered the underlying conflict that virtually embodied the struggle for civil rights but it seems to me that Dr. King, a Christian preacher who helped lead the struggle for equality according to principles taught by Christ Himself, was in conflict with others who believed that our Holy Father commanded that the races not mix. I also happen to believe that it is highly significant that because of Dr. King’s Christian leadership, the movement was successful even though I also believe that we still have a long way to go – just not by secular legislation. It might seem, then, that this struggle for HUMAN rights was a good use of the Lord’s name. Notice, however, that Dr. King rarely invokes the Lord by name but, rather, by principle … and by action.

It must also be considered by the faithful that a violation of any of these ordinances or commandments as presented to us in the Torah is a misuse of His name. We live and work and worship in public, and friends and acquaintances typically know that we are Christians. How much good use of His name is there when we are known as Christians only by the churches we attend rather than by the lives we choose to lead?

When we invoke His name, it speaks volumes about our understanding of His nature when the context of our use of His name is taken into consideration. Is our life one of selfishness or selflessness? Is our life one of vengeance or justice? When we work within our own society and within our own system of government, are we trying to force a certain standard only because this particular standard would be more pleasing to us, or are we genuinely concerned about the moral well-being of those who do not believe as we believe or act as we act or live as we live? Do we have an ulterior motive when we call upon, or invoke, His holy name?

We must always try to be openly aware of the Lord’s presence in our lives, and we must know that our personal opinions or desires are not always the Lord’s. Everything we do matters not only in the eyes of others who know us as the Lord’s own; it also matters to the Lord who wants the unbelievers as much as He wanted us. Our use of His holy name without careful consideration of His will and His desire – and not our own – will have everything to do with the success – or failure – of our endeavors.