Shattered: Top Ten Myths about the Ten Commandments (Part 3)

In the first two posts of this series, I identified 9 myths about the Ten Commandments that are pervasive today. You can read those posts here and here. But I've saved the best for last. Today I'm tackling the myth that sent me on a 5-year quest for answers, resulting in a PhD and a published book. I've been waiting 7 years to share this with you!

Myth #10. The Ten Commandments prohibit the use of Yahweh's name as a swear word or in false oaths.

Exodus 20:7 reads: "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain, for the LORD will not hold guiltless one who takes his name in vain."

I've asked a lot of people what they think this verse means (we'll call it the "Name Command"). Most people assume that the Name Command teaches that we're not supposed to use God's name as a swear word (as in the flippant, "Oh, my God!" or the harsher "God dammit"). Instead, we should use it reverently. I agree that we should honor God's name by using it reverently, but I do not think swear words are the problem that the Name Command seeks to address. 

Photo: Banner of Truth Trust

Others suggest that the Name Command prohibits false oaths. This interpretation has a very long history. To cite just one example, consider Question and Answer 93 from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. What is the aim of the third commandment? 

A. That we neither blaspheme nor misuse the name of God by cursing, perjury, or unnecessary oaths, nor share in such horrible sins by being silent bystanders. In summary, we should use the holy name of God only with reverence and awe, so that we may properly confess God, pray to God, and glorify God in all our words and works.

However, the Name Command says nothing about oaths or cursing. In fact, there are no speech-related words at all. Translated simply, it says, "You shall not bear the name of Yahweh, your God, in vain." Perhaps this is why I've been able to count 23 distinctly different interpretations of the Name Command. It seems like an odd statement -- how does one "bear" God's name? It's no wonder that interpreters have often gone to other passages (either inside or outside of the Bible) hoping for clarification.  Most assume that "bear the name" is short-hand for something like "bear the name on your lips," which would be to say the name, or "lift your hand to the name," which would mean to swear an oath.

But there's a much simpler explanation. We miss it because it involves a metaphor that's unfamiliar to us. Shortly after the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, God gave instructions to Moses regarding the construction of the tabernacle, which will house the two stone tablets, and the official vestments of the high priest, who will officiate. The article of clothing that is of central importance to Aaron's position as high priest is a cloth chest apron studded with 12 precious stones. These stones are to be inscribed, each with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Yahweh instructs Aaron to "bear the names of the sons of Israel" whenever he enters the sacred tent (Exodus 28:12, 29). Aaron literally bears their names. He carries them on his person as he goes about his official duties. He serves as the people's authorized representative before God. He also bears Yahweh's name on his forehead, setting him apart as God's representative to the people.

As special as he is, Aaron is a visual model of what the entire covenant community is called to be and do. At Sinai, Yahweh selected Israel as his treasured possession, kingdom of priests, and holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6). All three titles designate Israel as Yahweh's official representative, set apart to mediate his blessing to all nations. By selecting the Israelites, Yahweh has claimed them as his own, in effect, branding them with his name as a claim of ownership. Because they bear his name, they are charged to represent him well. That is, they must not bear that name in vain. This goes far beyond oaths or pronunciation of God's name. It extends to their behavior in every area of life. In everything, they represent him. They are his public relations department. The nations are watching the Israelites to find out what Yahweh is like.

Not convinced yet? Look at Aaron's blessing in Numbers 6:24-27. After Aaron's ordination  as high priest (where he was clothed with the special garments) and the consecration of the tabernacle and people, his first official act was to pronounce this blessing over the people (see Leviticus 9:22). It's very likely that you've heard the blessing before. It's often used in churches and synagogues:

"May Yahweh bless you and keep you;

May Yahweh smile on you and be gracious to you; 

May Yahweh show you his favor and give you peace." 

But have you ever read the following verse? "So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them."

You see? It's quite explicit. God put his name on the Israelites as a claim of ownership. They wore an invisible tattoo. They were not to bear it in vain.

Prairie College, Three Hills, AB (Photo: C Imes)

Perhaps an illustration will help. Imagine a group of students from Prairie College (the Bible college where I teach) who drive to Calgary on a Friday night wearing their Prairie College swag. They go to a bar, get totally hammered, and begin to pick fights with the other customers. Soon, they are kicked out and stagger off to their cars to drive home. On the way home, their car swerves over the center line and crashes head on into oncoming traffic, killing both drivers instantly and injuring several others. When this story hits the news, what sort of impression will it leave about Prairie College? These students may not think of themselves as representatives of the college, but by enrolling as students and wearing the name, they identify with the school. Like it or not, people's impressions of Prairie are largely formed by the behavior of its students.

So, too, with the people of God. Drawn into a covenant with Yahweh at Sinai, like it or not, they have become his representatives. At the top of the list of covenant stipulations inscribed on the stone tablets are two commands that set the stage for all the others: Worship only Yahweh, and don't bear his name in vain. These two echo the covenant formula repeated throughout the Old Testament: "I will be your God, and you will be my people." The rest of the 613 commands in the Torah flesh these out in more detail.

And that is what I think the Name Command is all about.

-----

Much more could be said, but this is a blog post, not a book. If you have more questions, you'll find a 186-page justification for this interpretation in my book, Bearing YHWH's Name at Sinai: A Reexamination of the Name Command of the Decalogue. After a brief introductory chapter, chapter 2 engages with other interpretations throughout history, chapter 3 provides extensive word studies of each of the key words in the Name Command, chapter 4 explores the literary context, and chapter 5 delves into conceptual metaphor theory, connecting the Name Command with the high priest and the wider biblical theme of "bearing Yahweh's name."

In the meantime, watch for the biblical theme of "bearing Yahweh's name" as you read the Bible. It's all over the place, once you have eyes to see! You can start with 2 Chronicles 7:14 or Ezekiel 36:20-21 in the Old Testament, and 1 Peter 4:16 or Revelation 14:1 in the New Testament.

Why Andy Stanley's Statement on the Old Testament Concerns Me . . .

Andy Stanley rocked the internet this week by saying that Christians ought to “unhitch” their faith from the Old Testament. No doubt a great many who heard this were relieved. There’s a lot of gnarly stuff in the Old Testament that people struggle with (I should know. I’m an Old Testament professor whose students line up to see me during office hours.) Stanley’s pastoral motivation for making the statement is commendable. He has watched countless people leave the faith because they could not swallow the Old Testament or its God. His hope was to win them back by focusing on the resurrection of Jesus. But unhitching from the Old Testament is not the right solution.

Stanley is not the first person to talk this way. Not long after the resurrection a leader arose in the early church who felt the same way. His name was Marcion. Marcion saw a strong distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament. He rejected the Old Testament and even those New Testament books that he thought were “too Jewish.”

And he was rightly condemned as a heretic early in the 3^rd century.

But why?

What’s so important about the Old Testament?

Stanley concedes that it is inspired, and that it gives us the “backstory” so that we can understand the New Testament. That in itself should be enough to motivate us to keep reading it. The New Testament makes little sense without it. But the relevance of the Old Testament goes deeper than that.

New Testament authors consistently use the Old Testament as their primary source for ethical reflection. In fact, they appeal to the Old Testament far more often than they appeal to things Jesus said while he was on earth, not just for the backstory, but to guide their behavior.  In other words, they are not just reminiscing about the “bad ole’ days” when they cite the Old Testament. It remains their authority. It tells them how to live after the resurrection.

Stanley made his appeal for Christians to “unhitch” from the Old Testament while preaching on Acts 15. This is a grand irony. Acts 15 narrates the proceedings from the first church “council” meeting. Leaders have gathered to figure out what to do now that there are Gentiles who want to become disciples. Do they have to convert to Judaism first? Or can they follow Jesus as Gentiles? Conversion requires circumcision, but these folks have already received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which complicates matters. The Spirit is a sign of covenant membership, but these are not Jews, at least not yet. What to do?

James stands up in the meeting and delivers the clincher. He quotes Amos 9 (which is, if you don’t know, in the Old Testament). It’s a mic drop moment -- not because he has just undermined the Old Testament Law, but because he demonstrated from the Old Testament itself that Gentiles can be considered covenant members without first converting to Judaism. The council is unanimous – no circumcision necessary for Gentiles. Still, they issue 4 directives for Gentile Christians – no eating food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals, and no sexual immorality – each of which is associated with pagan worship practices. The reason given for these directives is the law of Moses (Acts 15:21). Did you catch that? The book of Acts demonstrates precisely the point that Stanley's statement seemed to deny, namely, the law of Moses retains relevance for both Jewish and Gentile believers.

Reading it well can be tricky. Each cultural situation requires us to re-engage with it, asking new questions as we seek to be faithful to the covenant. But what we cannot do is relegate it to the archives as something of merely antiquarian interest.

So before you head out and buy your copy of the new “Perforated Bible” (which allows you to remove the parts you don’t need), wait first and read the New Testament. You’ll discover that the Old Testament cannot be so easily dismissed.

----------

Update (3/29/19): Stanley requested an interview with Dr. Michael Brown in July 2018 in which he clarified what he meant by his controversial statement. I can now better appreciate what Stanley was trying to do. That is, Stanley sees the early church leaders unhitching from the wrong worldview they had developed, a worldview associated with the Old Testament law that had misunderstood it at some level. The evidence of this worldview is Peter's unwillingness to enter a Gentile home before his vision in Acts 10. That mistaken worldview was in conflict with the new covenant and it was time to let that go. Stanley doesn't want to get rid of the Old Testament altogether. He affirms that the Old Testament, when properly understood, is essential and enriching to the Christian life. He insists that we should take our cues from Paul and Jesus for how to read it.

Stanley's primary burden is to introduce people to the reality of the resurrected Jesus first, before trying to make sense of the Old Testament. He wants them to set aside any baggage they have about the Old Testament that prevents them from entering into a relationship with Jesus. So the Old Testament is not discarded, but put on hold temporarily. I'm relieved that we have more common ground than it seemed at first. I've updated this post in light of Brown's interview, which was recently shared with me, but I'm not deleting it because Stanley's original statement still concerns me. I hope I've articulated an important corrective to the growing sentiment among Christians today that the Old Testament is irrelevant.

Staying Grounded at the Academic Conference

Next week I'm heading to the regional meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature. This time it's being held at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. I'll be presenting a paper, responding to a colleague's paper, and chairing a session. I've written before about the value of these conferences. They are worth every penny.

This week InterVarsity released a piece I wrote about the spiritual side of conference attendance. What are the dangers of conference attendance? How can I avoid them? And most importantly, how can I participate in the work God is doing in the academy?

----------

I’ll never forget the euphoria of my first several academic conferences. I marked those long days in dozens — attending dozens of papers, meeting dozens of scholars, and buying dozens of books — until my brain was as distended as my suitcase. Walking between sessions, my eyes flitted from face to name tag and back again, registering surprise as bibliography entries took on flesh and passed me in the halls. In those years I “collected” sightings and handshakes, listing them in my journal on the way home. I was conscious of the danger of idolatry, but it was hard not to be giddy. The stories I brought home made me feel important-by-association.

August Konkel, Daniel Block, Jennifer Jones, Carmen Imes,
and Richard Hess at the IBR Annual Meeting, 2017

Things are different now, but equally dangerous. I know these scholars well enough now to see them as human. The seduction of the personality cult has been eclipsed by another phenomenon: they know me. Now the temptation is to “collect” stories of those who called out to say hello, sought me out during a reception, complimented my paper. In the early years it was a big deal to see Dr. So-and-So give a paper, and a bigger deal to ask a question afterward. Now Dr. So-and-So is taking me out to breakfast, asking about my work, and recommending me for committees and other projects.

---------

You can read the rest of my post over at The Well.