Friday, July 31, 2015

Please Exercise Caution



A reader asked about my pronouncements on the Second Commandment.  It started with the discussion of the numbering, because different traditions do divide them differently, and I use the Lutheran numbering just from habit. I think my children use the numbering common to the Reformed churches.

He wondered about my sources for the ideas, as it has some bearing on a related discussion he is involved in.  That set me back.  I can usually identify where I first encountered such ideas, but could not think of anything. It seemed to have been part of the furniture for a long time. Here is the more difficult part of this: therefore, I don’t know who else teaches this.

I still assert it. I consider the main idea behind the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain to be a warning against false teaching, claiming that God said something that he actually didn’t.  “Don’t put God’s signature under your ideas,” is my favorite metaphor for that. However,  I think the common interpretation has some value. Most cultures, and certainly Hebrew culture, placed a lot of importance on words as words, and even more on names as names.  To treat God’s name(s) with reverence is consonant with the whole style of taking off your shoes on holy ground, or not touching the Ark of the Covenant. I think that is also a meaning.  The set of ideas around vows and swearing by what is on the altar is referenced by Jesus and is also part of the commandment, though it doesn’t seem to have much utility in our culture now. I see this teaching as related to idolatry and graven images, of confusing in our minds (or misleading others) who God actually is and the importance of his voice as opposed to his appearance.

I can’t imagine I’m the first person to come up with this idea.  If I am, then I would have to declare it wrong. It is beyond credibility that God would leave an important main idea lying around for a few thousand years without poking someone to pick up the threads. We can safely assume that the collective wisdom of the church exceeds the wisdom of an assistant village idiot. I have thought of this as a neglected interpretation, which people have avoided because it is uncomfortable to the point of being frightening. But if it’s new, then it’s invalid.

I have certainly thought it for many years. My associations with the idea are from Genesis and Exodus, from the first chapters of the prophet Isaiah, from the Revelation to John, and from the words of Jesus. Those are also the areas I would point to as evidence for the idea that the commandment focuses on not misrepresenting God. The idea shows up at the beginning of Scripture and the founding of Israel - it is prominent right out of the gate; neither adding nor subtracting from the scripture is also one of the last things said in the Bible; when Jesus comes on the scene we would expect him to focus on main points, and he does devote a lot of energy to criticising scribes and Pharisees not so much for their personal behavior (though that is there), but for misleading others about what God is telling them to do. Blind guides, weightier matters of the law, millstones around the neck and all that. As for Isaiah, I think I take that as a synecdoche of all those discussions in the prophets of “Thus saith The Lord.”

So be cautious. I think it’s valid, but it’s not common, and people aren’t going to recognize it when you bring it up at Bible study.

12 comments:

james said...

I'm pretty sure I heard a Lutheran sermon on the 10 commandments a few years (8?) ago that took the "don't sign God's name to your plan" approach.

jaed said...

I've heard it before too, though I'm not sure where. The idea is definitely out there.

One additional nuance: the Jewish tradition is that the name of God - the word itself, rightly pronounced - has power when spoken. So taking the Name in vain also connotes potential misuse of divine power. The idea might be seen as a bridge between "don't claim God is endorsing what you say" and "don't irreverently throw around words that refer to God.

Earl Wajenberg said...

Rest assured you are not the first to come up with the idea. I heard it from C. S. Lewis, in one of essays, in words that yours follow so closely, I wonder if you didn't read the same essay somewhere and then forgot the source (as I am half-way to doing, since I can't recall which it was). And Lewis, I feel confident, would not have presented his own interpretation without a lot of caveats; he gave such caveats on other occasions.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

That is entirely likely, Earl.

Texan99 said...

I've always thought of it more along the lines of "don't use a wedding veil to blow your nose on," or for that matter, "communion wafers to snack on." We use words for their shock value when we swear, so it comes naturally to appropriate the names that our culture holds in reverence. That's workable and practicable if all that matters in indulging in a little shocking behavior, but we should be mindful of misusing holy things for mere convenience: in C.S. Lewis's terms, "Christianity and Spelling Reform"--where we harness Christianity to whatever socially desirable cart we feel like pulling that day. That aspect of it gets into the territory of idaolatry and "signing God's name to our personal preoccupations."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Thanks for the reminder. That particular thought of Lewis's - from Screwtape, I am quite sure - is a propos for a current FB problem.

Earl Wajenberg said...

After some googling around, I found reference to Lewis's essay "Meditation on the Third Commandment." A little rummaging in my attic will find the essay itself, I think. But, in short, Lewis here urges that there not be formed a specifically Christian political party, because of the resulting temptation to think that such a party speaks with the voice of the Church, and then the voice of God.

"If ever Christian men can be brought to think treachery and murder the lawful means of establishing the regime they desire, and faked trials, religious persecution and organized hooliganism the lawful means of maintaining it, it will, surely, be by just such a process as this."

and

"On those who add 'Thus said the Lord' to their merely human utterances descends the utter doom of a conscience which seems clearer and clearer the more it is loaded with sin. All this comes from pretending that God has spoken when He has not spoken."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

That latter quote must be my original intro, Earl. You are correct that even the word-choice has echoes. Thanks. It must be from God In The Dock, which I bought and gave a way thrice in the 80's.

Texan99 said...

Finally found a citation online to the printed source: "God in the Dock," p. 109. The piece "Medication on the Third Commandment" can be found in its entirety online.

I can't find my copy of "God in the Dock," either! These things do get loaned out.

james said...

Do you keep up with David Warren?

FWIW, I think both interpretations of the commandment are correct, though only one is common. Perhaps it is common because it is the plain meaning, or perhaps because the Jews have it so important (and we do need to give weight to tradition in a case like this), or perhaps because the other interpretation is so inconvenient.

Donna B. said...

David Warren has written some interesting essays. Thanks for the link.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I do like Warren. However, i have an extremely unp,leasant association with a classmate with the same name, so I don't go there as much as I'd like..