RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Imes, Carman Joy. Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 2019.
The third commandment warns us to take not the name of the Lord thy God in vain. The Westminster standards define that as any irreverent use of God’s name, word, or works, or anything whereby He maketh himself known. All of that is true. What is not immediately obvious, however, is why the Hebrew construction of the command is something different. The Hebrew says not to “bear” the Name of God in vain. Behind the “bearing of God’s Name” is a very rich biblical theology of law and covenant.
Carman Joy Imes reminds us that the Law (Torah) is much more than a legal code. Torah, not unlike other ANE law codes, was not always used like legal codes are today. For example, there really is not any evidence that Hammurabi’s Code was cited as precedent in Babylonian law courts. Rather, it and other ancient laws were often hypothetical and instructional. They make the reader ask the question “How is this law employed in a loving and communal relationship?”
Regarding the third commandment, she notes that we are told not to “bear” God’s name in vain, not merely not to “use” or “speak” it in vain (of course, the latter is most certainly true). Similar to how the High Priest bore the names of the twelve tribes on his garment, so too do we carry God’s name before the world.
We see similar language being used in the New Testament. Jesus said the Father has “placed His seal on him.” We are warned not to use lightly the name that was invoked upon us (James).
Conclusion
Along with her cogently argued case, Imes gives a helpful bibliography. My only criticism, if such it is, is her lack of discussion of God’s Name going before the people of Israel as they conquer Canaan. God’s Name in that scenario is active, almost like a personal agent. That would have strengthened her case immensely.
The third commandment warns us to take not the name of the Lord thy God in vain. The Westminster standards define that as any irreverent use of God’s name, word, or works, or anything whereby He maketh himself known. All of that is true. What is not immediately obvious, however, is why the Hebrew construction of the command is something different. The Hebrew says not to “bear” the Name of God in vain. Behind the “bearing of God’s Name” is a very rich biblical theology of law and covenant.
Carman Joy Imes reminds us that the Law (Torah) is much more than a legal code. Torah, not unlike other ANE law codes, was not always used like legal codes are today. For example, there really is not any evidence that Hammurabi’s Code was cited as precedent in Babylonian law courts. Rather, it and other ancient laws were often hypothetical and instructional. They make the reader ask the question “How is this law employed in a loving and communal relationship?”
Regarding the third commandment, she notes that we are told not to “bear” God’s name in vain, not merely not to “use” or “speak” it in vain (of course, the latter is most certainly true). Similar to how the High Priest bore the names of the twelve tribes on his garment, so too do we carry God’s name before the world.
We see similar language being used in the New Testament. Jesus said the Father has “placed His seal on him.” We are warned not to use lightly the name that was invoked upon us (James).
Conclusion
Along with her cogently argued case, Imes gives a helpful bibliography. My only criticism, if such it is, is her lack of discussion of God’s Name going before the people of Israel as they conquer Canaan. God’s Name in that scenario is active, almost like a personal agent. That would have strengthened her case immensely.
