6. The Name of God
In July 1968, a man was convicted in Westminster, Maryland, on charges that he “did unlawfully use profanity by taking the Lord’s name in vain in a public place.” The man in question was arrested for fighting on Main Street and for resisting arrest. The reason for the conviction was a revealing one. The steady erosion of the law under Supreme Court interpretations made conviction on the usual charges more difficult. Magistrate Charles J. Simpson used the old law of 1723, because “sometimes an obscure law like this is the only way we have to solve some of these problems.”200
The judge’s dilemma is not surprising. Under the influence of the new doctrine of equality, crime has steadily been equalized with good, and even given an edge. Walt Whitman, regarded by many as America’s greatest poet, asserted this equalitarian principle bluntly: “What is called good is perfect and what is called bad is just as perfect.”201 When good and evil are equalized, then the
erosion of the law is inescapable and inevitable.
But it is not enough to deny equality. Law premised on equality will simply assert the tyrannical supremacy of an elite group of men. True law must rest on the absolute and only true God. God as absolute Lord and Judge is the ultimate arbiter of all things, and, as the determiner of men’s destinies, His word and fear are compelling in the lives of believers. Hence, the sworn statement by a true believer has always been basic to all rules of evidence. A principle canon law, which has been influential in civil courts, is this:
An oath, taken in the sense of a means of judicial proof, while preserving its own individual character as an invocation of the Divine Name in testimony or guarantee of the truth of a particular assertion, is the most powerful and effective means of obtaining proof and of arriving at the truth of the facts of a case and is necessary before a judge may give sentence.202
This same authority defines blasphemy in these terms:
This crime may take the form of heretical blasphemy, i.e., that by which the existence of God or His attributes are impugned or denied; or of simple blasphemy or imprecation, i.e., reviling or profaning the name of God or of the
saints.203
Both aspects of this definition have been previously considered. It is important now to deal more specifically with thename of God: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Names in Scripture are revelatory of the character and nature of the person named. A man’s name changed as his character changed. As Meredith wrote,
Thethird commandment deals with God’s name, His office, His position as the great sovereign RULER of the universe. . . .
In the Bible, personal names have ameaning.
Every name or title of God reveals some attribute of the Divine character. In studying God’s Word, we learn new facts about God’s nature and character with each new name by which He reveals Himself. In other words, God names Himselfwhat He is!
If men use the name of God in a way which denies the true meaning and character of God, they are BREAKING the third commandment.204
Not only the Old but the New Testament meaning ofname bears out Meredith’s point. Thus, in the Greek New Testament,
By a usage chiefly Hebraistic thename is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e., for one’s rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds, etc.205
Moreover, as Meredith noted,
The Hebrew word here rendered “guiltless” may be better translated “clean”— “the Lord will not hold him to beclean that taketh his name in vain.” The test of spiritual cleanliness is the attitude of a man to the NAME of God ! A man is clean
or unclean according as he uses the name of Godin truth — or for vanity.206
This definition of the third commandment was clearly brought out by the Puritan divine, Thomas Watson, inThe Ten Commandments, a continuation of his study, A Body of Divinity. The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly also brought this out plainly:
Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment? A. The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought,
meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required, and the abuse of it in ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarrelling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
It is apparent thus that blasphemy is today more common than the true use of God’s name. Dr. Willis Elliott of the United Church of Christ has said, “I consider adherence to the infallibility of Scripture demonic.”207 B. D. Olsen, who claims to adhere to the infallibility of Scripture, lays claim to “vision.”208 Both assertions are alike blasphemy. To cite Meredith again, God declares
through Isaiah: “Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness” (Isa. 48:1). People to whom this prophecy applies use thename of God, but fail to obey the revelation of God contained in His name.209 Manytitles for God appear in Scripture; these are revelatory of aspects of His nature. His name, however, is given as Jehovah or Yahweh (the true vowel construction is unknown), and it means, “He Who Is, the self-existent One, I am that I am.” This is the revelation of God contained in His name.
God is thus the principle of definition, of law, and of all things. He is the premise of all thinking, and the necessary presupposition for every sphere of thought. It is blasphemy, therefore, to
attempt to “prove” God; God is the necessary presupposition of all proof. To ground any sphere of thought, life, or action, or any sphere of being, on anything other than the triune God is thus blasphemy. Education without God as its premise, law which does not presuppose God and rest on His law, a civil order which does not derive all authority from God, or a family whose foundation is not God’s word, is blasphemous.