The Law: The Third Commandment – Exposition of the Third Commandment

The Law: The Third Commandment

The Third Commandment

Exodus 20

Exodus 20:7

7. 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.

7. Non sumes nomen Jehovae Dei tui in vanum: quia non absolvet eum Jehova qui nomen suum sumpserit in vanum.

Its Repetition

its repetition

Deuteronomy 5

Deuteronomy 5:11

11. 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.

11. Non sumes nomen Jehovae Dei tui in vanum: quia non absolvet Jehova eum qui nomen suum sumpserit in vanum.

Exodus 20:7. Thou shalt not take the name. There is a manifest synecdoche in this Commandment; for in order that God may procure for His name its due reverence, He forbids its being taken in vain, especially in oaths. Whence we infer on the other hand an affirmative commandment, that every oath should be a testimony of true piety, whereby the majesty of God Himself should obtain its proper glory. Moreover, it is clear that not only when we swear by God, His name is to be reverently honored, but whenever mention of it is made. Thus in these words He maintains His holiness not only in His word, but also in His works, against all profane contempt of it. We shall soon see that to swear by God’s name is a species or part of religious worship, and this is manifest too from the words of Isaiah 45:23; for when he predicts that all nations shall devote themselves to pure religion, he thus speaks, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall swear by me.” Now, if the bowing of the knees be a token of adoration, this swearing which is connected with it is equivalent to an acknowledgment that He is God. Since, then, reason dictates that the species is put for the genus, we must see what is to be understood by God’s name, and by the adverb לשוא, leshav. It is silly and childish to restrict this to the name Jehovah, as if God’s majesty were confined to letters or syllables; but, whereas His essence is invisible, His name is set before us as an image, in so far as God manifests Himself to us, and is distinctly made known to us by His own marks, just as men are each by his own name. On this ground Christ teaches that God’s name is comprehended in the heavens, the earth, the temple, the altar, (Matthew 5:34,) because His glory is conspicuous in them. Consequently, God’s name is profaned whenever any detraction is made from His supreme wisdom, infinite power, justice, truth, clemency, and rectitude. If a shorter definition be preferred, let us say that His name is what Paul calls τὸ γνωστόν, “that which may be known” of Him. (Romans 1:19.)

Note 308. The quotation more nearly accords with the Apostle’s citation in Romans 14:11, than with the original passage in Isaiah. See Owen’s note in C.’s Romans, (C. Society’s Edition, p. 503.)

Note 309. “Au mot Hebrieu, qui nous translatons l’Eternel;” to the Hebrew word, which we translate the Eternal. — Fr.

God’s name, then, is taken in vain, not only when any one abuses it by perjury, but when it is lightly and disrespectfully adduced in proof of frivolous and trifling matters: I speak with respect to oaths. In this, however, man’s ingratitude is very gross, that when God grants them His name, as if at their entreaty, to put an end to their strifes and to be a pledge of their truth, still it flies promiscuously from their mouths not without manifest disrespect. God will again condemn perjury in the Fifth Commandment of the Second Table, viz., in so far as it offends against and violates charity by injuring our neighbors. The aim and object of this Commandment is different, i.e., that the honor due to God may be unsullied; that we should only speak of Him religiously; that becoming veneration of Him should be maintained among us. The word לשוא, leshau, might indeed be translated “for falsehood,” and in this sense we shall see it used elsewhere; but since it often is equivalent to חנם, chinam, which means gratuitously, or in vain, this exposition seems to be most appropriate. In this, too, fuller and richer instruction is contained, viz., that men should not drag in His name in light matters, as in sport or derision of Him, which cannot be done without insulting and profaning it. And thus the holiness of God’s name, which preserves us in His fear and in true piety, is contrasted with the particle לשוא, leshau. But since nothing is more difficult than to restrain men’s licentiousness in this respect, and to excuse or at least diminish the sin, the slipperiness of the tongue is pleaded, its punishment is here denounced: that if God’s name is rashly exposed to reproach or contempt, He will avenge it. The more hardened, therefore, in their licentiousness they may be, the less will be their impunity; so far is depraved habit from diminishing the guilt.

Exposition of the Third Commandment

The Exposition of the Third Commandment

Leviticus 19

Leviticus 19:12

12. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

12. Non jurabitis per nomen meum mendaciter, nec profanabis nomen Dei tui: ego Jehova.

Deuteronomy 6

Deuteronomy 6:13

13. ... shalt swear by his name.

13. Per nomen ejus jurabis.

Deuteronomy 10

Deuteronomy 10:20

20. ... swear by his name.

20. In nomine ejus jurabis.

Leviticus 19:12. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely. Although Moses is treating of the duties of the Second Table, and had previously forbidden men to deal fraudulently with their neighbors, he still adds this sentence by way of confirmation. It may, however, be inferred from the second clause of the verse that He directly had regard to the glory of God when he says, “Thou shalt not profane the name of thy God.” For raging greediness after gain causes the avaricious and rapacious man not only to defraud men, but to become insolent to God Himself. Moses, therefore, although he is professedly condemning the falsehood and deceit whereby our neighbors are injured, at the same time takes occasion to introduce the declaration that we must beware lest, whilst covetousness impels us to do wrong, injury should be done not only to men but to God Himself also. The word used here, however, is not שוא, shau, as before, but שקר, sheker, which properly signifies deceitfulness; and therefore I have said that it enjoins us to beware lest any one by his perjury should do any injury to his neighbor; nevertheless, that this prohibition has direct reference to the Third Commandment, since Moses especially insists on this point, that God’s name is profaned by perjury, and thus he not only inculcates integrity, but also has regard to religion, that God’s majesty may not be violated. The expression is worthy of notice, “Thou shalt not pollute the name of God,” because God, who is eternal and immutable truth, cannot be more grossly insulted than by being summoned as a witness to falsehood, which is assuredly a shameful and wicked pollution. This was not regarded by the heathen, who, although they pretended to reverence God’s name in their oaths, yet made no scruple of deceiving, if he whom they had promised deserved it. Thyestes in the poet says, “I never have pledged my faith, nor do I pledge it to any faithless person;” since his brother was a villain, he considered that he lay under no valid obligation to him. This is as if God’s majesty were dependent upon men’s deservings, so that it was allowable to call Him to witness whilst we deal deceitfully. Let this, then, be our firm conclusion, that in our oaths God is first to be regarded, whose holy name is more precious than a hundred worlds.

Note 310. Cic. de Off. 3 28, 29. “Deinde illud etiam apud Actium Fregisti fidem. Neque dedi neque do infideli cuiquam, quanquam ab impio rege dicitur, luculente tamen dicitur. “Nam illud quidem, Neque dedi, neque do fidem in fideli cuiquam, idcirco recte a poeta; quia, cum tractaretur Atreus, personae serviendum fuit.”

Exodus 23

Exodus 23:13

13. ... and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

13. Nomen deorum alienorum non memorabitis, non audietur in ore tuo.

13. Make no mention of the name of other gods. There is no sort of doubt but that this declaration should be connected with the Third Commandment. Moses explains that God’s name is taken in vain and abused, if men swear by other gods; for it is not lawful to refer the judgment of things unknown to any other than the one true God. Consequently, the glory of the Deity is transferred to those by whose name men swear. Therefore by the Prophet God pronounces a severe denunciation, that He will destroy all those that swear by His name, and also by Malcham, (Zephaniah 1:5,) since thus the Jews mixed Him up with their idol, and so profaned His holiness. In sum, since by swearing we profess that He is our God, whom we declare to be both the knower of our hearts and the judge of our souls, the true God justly claims this honor for Himself alone, inasmuch as the glory of His name is detracted from, not only if we speak less reverently than we should of Him, but also if we associate with Him such as may usurp a part of His rights. And this more clearly appears from the two passages which we have adduced from Deuteronomy, wherein the people are commanded to swear by the name of the one God, which is equivalent to rendering to His sacred name in our outward profession of service the unmixed reverence which it deserves. Still God does not exhort the people to indulge themselves freely in oaths, as if by frequent oaths they exercised themselves in the duties of piety, but simply means that when there is occasion for it or necessity, and a just cause shall demand it, they must swear in no other way than by invoking Him alone as their witness and judge.

Note 311. “Ce qui vaut autant comme de luy rendre l’hommage qu’il merite, en le constituant tesmoin des choses cachees, et confessant que c’est a luy seul de maintenir la verite;” which is equivalent to rendering to Him the homage He deserves, in constituting Him the witness of hidden things, and confessing that it is His alone to maintain the truth. — Fr.

Deuteronomy 23

Deuteronomy 23:21-23

21. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

21. Si votum voveris Jehovae Deo tuo, non tardabis illud solvere: alioqui requirendo requiret illud Jehova Deus tuus abs to, et erit in to peccatum.

22. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

22. Quod si abstinueris a vovendo, non erit in to peccatum:

23. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

23. quod egressum fuerit e labiis tuis observabis, et facies sicut vovisti Jehovae Deo tuo liberaliter, et sicut loquutus es ore tuo.

21. When thou shalt vow a vow. The rule of vowing also pertains to the keeping of the Third Commandment, since, by vowing, men exercise themselves in the sanctification of God’s name, and to promise anything to God is a kind of swearing. For what between men is called a covenant or agreement, with respect to God is a vow; and therefore it may be fitly called a sacred engagement, which not only is made with God as its witness, but which is contracted with God Himself. We have elsewhere cursorily touched upon certain oaths, such as that of the Nazarites; but since that consecration was a part of God’s worship, I have placed it under the First Commandment. Nor indeed did Moses there treat directly of the obligation itself of the vow, but of that exercise of piety which stimulated the people to the pursuit of purity, sanctity, and sobriety. I have followed the same course as to the free-will-offerings, which were certainly for the most part votive, but I have considered what was the main thing in them without much troubling myself as to what was accessory. But now under another head Moses confirms what he taught before, that God’s name was not to be taken in vain; therefore he commands them to pay their vows, by withholding which the glory of God’s name is diminished, whilst He is Himself defrauded of His right, and the promise ratified before Him is set at nought. Moreover, it is to be observed that all the vows which were ever acceptable to God were testimonies of gratitude, lest the recollection of His benefits should fail, forgetfulness of which is too apt to steal over us. When, therefore, the saints were conscious of tardiness or listlessness in proclaiming His goodness, they made use of this aid and spur, as it were, to correct their sloth. Thus, when they asked anything of importance from God, they were often accustomed to bind themselves by some promise as a manifestation of their thankfulness. Such are the vows which Moses commands to be solemnly and faithfully paid, that they might not cheat God when they had escaped from peril or had obtained what they wished, whereas in their anxiety they had been humbly suppliant. For we know with what facility or rather levity many are hurried into making vows, who afterwards, with the same fickleness, think little of breaking their promise.

On this point, then, God justly rescues His name from contempt, and to this end demands that what has been promised to Him should be paid. But inasmuch as superstitious persons apply this, or rather wrest it indiscriminately to all vows, their error must be refuted, so that we may understand the genuine meaning of Moses. The Papists would have all vows kept without exception, because it is written, “Thou shalt not slack to pay whatever hath passed your lips.” But a definition of vows must first be given, or at least we must see what vows are lawful and approved by God; for if all vows must be effectually kept, however rashly made, of old under the Law it would have been right to kill their sons and daughters, to erect altars to idols, and thus under this pretext the whole Law of God would have been entirely brought to nought. Wherefore a distinction between vows must be laid down, unless we wish to confound right and wrong. This then is the first point, that nothing can be properly vowed to God, except what we know to be pleasing to Him; for if “to obey is better than sacrifice,” (1 Samuel 15:22,) nothing surely can be more absurd than to indulge ourselves in the liberty of serving God, each according to his own fancy. If a Jew had vowed that he would sacrifice a dog, it would have been sacrilege to pay that vow, since it was forbidden by God’s Law. But inasmuch as there is an intermediate degree between that which God has expressly prescribed and forbidden, it might be objected that it was allowable to make a vow in respect to things which are called indifferent. My reply to this is, that since the principle ought always to be maintained by the godly, that nothing is to be done without faith, (Romans 14:23,)it must ever be considered whether a thing is agreeable to God’s word, otherwise our zeal is preposterous.

Note 312. “Nos voeus sont pervers et esgarez.” — Fr.

God formerly did not forbid many things which He still was not willing to have offered to Him in worship; and so now-a-days, although it would be lawful not to taste meat all our lifelong, still if any one should vow perpetual abstinence with respect to it, he would act superstitiously; since he would inconsiderately obtrude upon God what we gather from His word that He does not approve. Wherefore if all our vows are not reduced to this rule, there will be nothing in them right and sure. Another very gross error in the Papists may also be condemned, viz., that they foolishly promise God more than they can pay. Assuredly it is more than blind arrogance, nay, diabolical madness, that a mortal man should wish to present as if it were his, what he has not received; as if any one should vow that he would not eat during his whole life, or should renounce sleep and the necessary supports of life, by common consent he would be convicted of madness. No gift, then, can be acceptable to God, except what He in His goodness has conferred upon us. But what is done in the Papacy? Monks, and nuns, and priests, bind themselves to perpetual celibacy, and do not consider that continency is a special gift; and thus whilst none of them has regard to the measure of his ability, they wretchedly abandon themselves to ruin, or envelop themselves in deadly snares. Besides, every one should consider his vocation. A monk will vow himself to his abbot, and throw off the paternal yoke: another, who was adapted for the transaction of public business, will abandon his children under cover of the monastic vow, and thus acquire immunity, Hence it appears, that whether a vow should be kept or not, is to be estimated from the character of him that vows. But a more gross and more common error is committed in respect to the object of vows. I said above that the godly never made vows to God, except in testimony of gratitude; whereas almost all the vows of the superstitious are so many fictitious acts of worship, having no other aim than to propitiate God by the expiation of sin, or to acquire favor meritoriously. I will not pursue at length those more detestable hallucinations whereby they defile themselves and their vows, when they substitute their idols in God’s place; as for instance, when a man vows an altar to Christopher or Barbara. To sanction this barbarous impiety, this passage of Moses is alleged, which certainly contains something quite different, viz., that those who vow to any other being, pervert the worship of God; and in which also Moses takes it for granted that a vow is not accounted legitimate, except what is made to God Himself in accordance with the rules of religion and the prescription of the Law. Thus in this exordium the doctrine is laid down, that guilt is incurred unless what is promised is paid.

Note 313. “Une chapelle a sainct Christofle, ou a saincte Barbe.” — Fr.

22. But if thou shalt forbear to vow. He confirms what he said, that they would be guilty before God who have broken their promises to Him, because no necessity compelled them to promise, and consequently that their guilt was doubled, inasmuch as they chose rather to sin when it was at their option not to vow. Thus Peter, reproving the faithlessness of Ananias and Sapphira, says,

Note 314. It will be seen that C. paraphrases, and does not quote literally the words of St. Peter.

"Who hath compelled you to lie to the Holy Ghost? was not the field your own, which you might have retained? but now to defraud God of part of the price, is impious hypocrisy.”
(Acts 5:4.)

Meanwhile God indirectly inculcates sobriety in vowing, when He discharges them from it as a duty; as if He had reminded them, that there was no reason why they should incur guilt by idly promising what He does not require. And surely nothing is wiser than to be very sparing of vows; since those who run into them inconsiderately, either presently repent of them, or else pay them in a servile manner, as if it were a task to which they are driven by force, and not without annoyance and disgust, and thus destroy the grace of the act. As to the words, “that which is gone out of thy lips,” they do not refer to the ceremony, on which the Jew’s as usual too unscrupulously insist; but He puts a restraint by them on vowing, to which we are of ourselves but too much inclined. Whence it is said in Psalm 66:13, 14,

"I will go into thy house with burnt-offerings; I will pay these my vows, which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble;"

although the Prophet intimates that in his sore straits he had always retained his composure and presence of mind, so as expressly to implore God’s help, and to manifest his constancy and confidence by making vows, still it is signified at the same time that he did not precipitately utter empty words, but spoke with serious reflection. And indeed since the tongue of many is too voluble, and goes before their heart, the main obligation of vows is not to be sought in the act of their utterance; but, to make them truly complete, a mutual agreement is required between the heart and tongue. The same expression will often occur again; and its repetition shews that it is meant to remove the scruples of the weak, lest as soon as any desire to vow shall have entered their minds, they should fancy that it imposes a religious obligation. We know that among heathen nations, in the solemn dedication of their temples, a priest was appointed who should first recite the words; by which ceremony they were reminded that nothing is duly offered to God except He Himself should dictate it, as it were. I allow that this reason was but little considered by them; nevertheless, by their example, God would condemn all levity, or inconsiderate fervor in sacred offerings.

Note 315. “Afin qu’ils ne se forgent point un remors de conscience, si tost qu’il leur sera renu en fantaste de vouer;” lest they should conceive a remorse of conscience, as soon as they shall have taken a fancy to make a vow. — Fr.

Note 316. “Pour dicter, et suggerer les mots;” to dictate and suggest the words. “Mos erat, ut in exsecrationibus, et devotionibus, in foederibus, in dedicationibus, in votis, juramentis et aliis hujusmodi, certa verba adhiberentur (quod carmen dicebatur) a quibus ne minimum quidem licebat discedere. Itaque ne quo in verbo peccaretur, praesto erat pontilex, aut sacerdos, qui vel memoriter, vel de scripto dictabat, quae dicenda erant. Liv. 8:9; 31:17; Val. Max. 4:1, 10,” etc. — Facciolati in voce Praeco