Part Three of "As if Doctrine Not Given": to know God or not; right doctrine or wrong context?

 …Lessons from the Wilderness…^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Volume 23

Esti doctrina mon Daretur

 …(As if doctrine is not given – Part Three)…[5]

 So, now what?

Doctrinam contextu iure qua iniuria? 

(Right doctrine or wrong context?) ^{[6] (}[7]⁾

(2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV)

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

Amen.

                We spoke of the providence of G-d in the second part of this series – now let us begin to appreciate what understanding G-d is all about.  

The Case against knowing G-d.

Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899) asked skeptically, “Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite personality? Can it imagine a beginningless being, infinitely powerful and intelligent?”[8] We see this sentiment over and over again, from the atheist, the agnostic, the scholar, the theologian. Lay believers even profess this. We even get the feel that this is what Scripture says also:

Hosea 4:1-3

1 ^aListen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel, For the Lord has a ^bcase against the inhabitants of the land, because there is ^cno ¹faithfulness or ²kindness or ^dknowledge of God in the land. 2 There is ^aswearing, ^bdeception, ^cmurder, ^dstealing and ^eadultery. They employ violence, so that ^fbloodshed ¹follows bloodshed. 3  Therefore the land ^amourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, And also the fish of the sea ¹disappear.^[9]

 Job 36:26 (NET)

²⁶ “Yes, God is great – beyond our knowledge! The number of his years is unsearchable. ^[10]

Job 11:7-9 (NASB-’95)

                7 “^aCan you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? 8 “They are ^ahigh as ¹the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than ^2bSheol, what can you know? 9 “Its measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea.^[11]  

Even the natural things of the earth are outside of our complete understanding: physics; biology (natural and “evolutionary”); mathematics (the laws thereof and the theories behind them). Look for just a second at the topics math alone covers: algebra, calculus, geometry, logic, mathematical physics, statistics. Just take physics. This discipline can branch out into mechanics; quantum mechanics; classical mechanics; thermodynamics; electromagnetism; relativity; optics; to nuclear and particle physics, even into cosmology. In any area or specialty, we can find branch after branch, departments upon departments. It must be asked then; can any one person know them all? Add to this discussions on evolution theories, creationism, natural biology and even the human consciousness (to just mention a few) and we can see how one could get lost in maze of human knowledge and still not plumb the depths.

                 So is the argument against knowing G-d. Consider this: since AD 30, almost 34,000 different Christian groups have surfaced, 1,200 in the United States alone, each with its own denominations, sects, and congregations.[12] One is liable to find no consensus among all of these, or even within their own particular branding. There is more likely than not a different view of G-d within each also. The quest does not stop here though as this does not include the other major and minor “religions” found in the world today. So, it begs the questions then of: “Which god?”, “Whose god?”, “What god?” or “What holy book?”. Before anyone says or asks what about these practices, add onto the list - just to be clear - atheism, humanism, secularism, and agnosticism (and any other isms not listed here) which are, by definition, also “religions”, whether or not the adherents of said practices can or would agree with that premise.[13]  On and on it goes…

The case for knowing G-d.

 

(John 17:1-3 NET)

“When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.

Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”

                 In making a case for knowing G-d, I must tell you up front: I only believe in one G-d: The G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All other -isms aside when I talk of understanding and knowing G-d, YHVH Elohim is who I mean. If you are looking for something else, well, you will not find it here. Yeshua makes it clear: there is only One True God. Sorry Trinity believers, but unless Yeshua is a liar, and that cannot be the case, then His words have kavod – weight.

                 At its root, the word כבוד [Kavod] means ‘honor’ or ‘respect’.  When studying the etymology of the root word

[כָּבֵד kāḇēḏ I;* כָּבֵד kāḇēḏ II; כֹּבֶד kōḇeḏ; כְּבוּדָּה k^eḇûddâ; כְּבֵדֻת k^eḇēḏuṯ^[14] ], the various iterations of the root dbk (read right to left as it is written in Hebrew: for our purposes, we will express it from here in left to right form) has the most common and constant definition of “be heavy”. This translates in almost all Semitic languages as being equal to “honor”.[15] There is a wide range of usage throughout the various Semitic languages, from Akkadian, to Hebrew, even with a similar root found in the Egyptian language: the TDOT has it as thus: “…where wdn¹⁹ and its derivative dnś,²⁰ “be heavy, burden,” are used not only of physical weight but also figuratively of an illness that burdens parts of the body, the oppressive power of the king, good and bad qualities, and (with the meaning “weighty”) names and reputations. The homonymous root wdn, “sacrifice,”²¹ may be associated with wdn, “be heavy,” as meaning “make heavy,” “consider weighty,” “honor (with offerings),” “worship,” as in the case of Semitic kbd/t.^{22 [[16]]} …”

                 It must be noted that depending upon the grammatical use of the stem (root), the meaning varies. The ‘stem’ refers to the relationship of the verb’s subject to the action of the verb. That is to say the “sense” or the “voice” in the grammatical relationship.[17] It sounds confusing, but there are various grammatical forms a word can take: hofʿal, hifʿîl, hištafʿal (and variations), piʿʿēl, qal (adj.)[18], and others. This is not a grammatical lesson, but it just serves to illustrate how a word is interpreted. Take the nifʿal^[19] stem: it can either show a reflexive action or a passive action, depending upon the verb’s usage. All the different stems have a specific relationship within the root’s usage, by itself or in a compound word.

                 So where am I going with this grammatical/vocabulary study you ask? We read most of our bibles in English in the Western world. We are then relying upon a translator or better, a transcription of a translation from one language to the next. What if that “translator” is not fluid in the language he/she is attempting to interpret? Is it possible mistakes can be made? Is it possible, that due to the bias or prejudices or the preconceptions of the translator could creep into the translation, and due to an improper reading or worse, a conscious decision on the translators part, the meaning of a passage can be altered? Look again at how the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament explains the subtleties of the translations due to the “voice” or “sense” of the stem:

 “…The hiphil (17 occurrences, plus 2 in Sirach) functions primarily as the causative of the qal, so that its meanings are closely related to those of the qal: “make something difficult or burdensome for someone,” etc., and “make someone’s heart/ear stubborn.” In the sense of “honor,” the hiphil is found with the purely causative meaning “cause to be held in honor” in Isa. 8:23(9:1); Jer. 30:19.⁵¹ In the majority of cases, the piel (38 occurrences, plus 6 in Sirach) has declarative or estimative meaning:⁵² “honor, approve.” The secondary meaning deriving from the basic meaning “be heavy” has a broader range than the abstract English term “honor”: it extends from simple “recognize, respect” through “esteem, consider competent or expert (in something)” to “honor, venerate.” With respect to Yahweh, in the sense of “revere,” it denotes a concrete religious attitude (often par. → ירא yārēʾ). In the sense “make stubborn,” the piel (in contrast to the hiphil) refers to a casual action.⁵³ The niphal (30 occurrences, plus 11 in Sirach) is especially common with a human subject as the passive equivalent of the piel: “be(come) recognized or honored.” With Yahweh as subject, it takes on the reflexive sense “show oneself to be weighty or important.”⁵⁴ Like the niphal, the pual (3 occurrences) functions as the passive of the piel: “be honored” or (from the piel meaning “reward”) “become rich.”⁵⁵ The hithpael (3 occurrences, plus 3 in Sirach) functions semantically as the reflexive or passive⁵⁶ of the piel.

The adjective (40 occurrences, plus 5 in Sirach) corresponds in meaning to the qal: “heavy, burdensome, oppressive, stubborn”; also “much, many.” …” ^[20]

                 You see that the same root or stem kbd (כָּבֵד) can change meaning depending on how it is used or if it is developed into a compound word. For our study today, let us just assume the most common and constant definition, “ heavy” or “honor” which we will use in its form of meaning “having importance” or to “make someone heavy, consider someone important”. We can see an example of this in Exodus 20:7:

 ^20:7 “You shall not take²⁰ the name of the Lord your God in vain,²¹ for the Lord will not hold guiltless²² anyone who takes his name in vain. “ ^[21]

The word “vain” is the Hebrew word H7723. שָׁוְא šāwʾ  which by definition can be vanity, falsehood, emptiness. ^[22] What is the opposite of “heavy” or “weight”? Emptiness. This prohibition found within the Ten Commandments is not about using the Father’s name falsely, or carelessly. No, it is in treating His name as if it carries no weight, no “כָּבֵד kāḇēḏ”, no “kavod”; no kdb, no honor. It is as if someone is treating His name as if it is worthless. This is deeper than just merely carelessness. This brings about a flippant attitude, a turning away from the Glory that belongs to Him, the awe, the reverence we should have when we approach the King of Glory. It is to speak falsely of Him, for if we speak His name without honor, we frankly speak falsely of His majesty, His power, His fame. So, you see, a false doctrine was created, by not understanding the “sense”, the “voice” of the words spoken. Instead of honor, we have substituted the English definition of the word “vain” which we see in these definitions:

 “take someone's name in vain: to use (a name, especially the name of God) in a way that does not show proper respect

▪He took God's name in vain.

▪(humorous) I thought I heard someone taking my name in vain. [=saying my name]…” [23] or

“…3 she took the Lord's name in vain IRREVERENTLY, casually, disrespectfully, flippantly…” [24]

                 We get a bit of the proper sense here, but it falls short of the mark that the Hebrew brings to us. Casual, flippant, irreverent, not showing the proper respect. These are our definitions, not Yahveh’s. These definitions do nothing to convey the depth of emptiness the Father says do not treat His name with. And what is His “name”? Again, My opinion is that we fail to see the enormous gap in our understanding. As used in Exodus 20:7, it is the Hebrew word שֵׁם šēm* pronounced Shem. It is translated as the English word “name” and that is the definition we give to it. What is a “name”? Merriam-Webster defines it this way:

 “…Definition of name

 (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing: The boy's name is Brad.

                b: a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity

2: a descriptive, often, disparaging epithet: called him names

3a: REPUTATION: gave the town a bad name

                b: an illustrious record, FAME: made a name for himself in golf

                c: a person or thing with a reputation: one of the most detested names in history

4: FAMILY, CLAN: was a disgrace to his name

5: appearance as opposed to reality: a friend in name only

6: one referred to by a name: praise his holy name

in the name of

1: by authority of: open in the name of the law

2: for the reason of; using the excuse of: called for reforms in the name of progress…”[26]

                 For ease, I have highlighted the most common usages or definitions that are used by the majority. By the definition(s) 1a, 3c and 6, in our modern way of thinking are, together or separately, the usual methodology used to interpret Shemot (Exodus) 20:7. Look at one more translation of Shemot 20:7:

 ⁷ “You shall not _⌊misuse the name of Yahweh your God_⌋,^c because Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who _⌊misuses his name_⌋.^{d [27]}

                 Looking at the footnotes, the Lexham English Bible editors give the sense of the clause “…_⌊misuse the name of Yahweh your God_⌋…” to be: “…Literally “take up/bear/carry the name of Yahweh your God for what is worthless/false/empty”…”. In other words, it goes along with the idea I introduced earlier of do not treat Yahveh’s name as something antithetical to כָּבֵד kāḇēḏ, honor. I have to ask this though: is there a deeper meaning to these words?

 Look at what was said by the sages about this verse:

                D.            “On [the tablets also] is it written, ‘You shall not take (the name of the Lord your God in vain)’ (Exod. 20:7), and concerning Joseph it is written in Scripture, ‘… by Pharaoh, you shall not depart from this place!’ (Gen. 42:15).^[28] [Tractate Beshallḁ, Chapter 20, Section III]

 This is just my opinion, for am I a scholar? No, just a seeker, looking for a way to make sense of the words Father has dictated by His Spirit to men. My opinion is this: there is more here than just using G-d’s name wrongly, or pronouncing it incorrectly, or making oaths unto it. I believe it is in what Rabbi Yohai eluded to in Tractate Beshallḁ. Let us compare the verses and my take on why he made his allusion:

 Exodus 20:7 (NET)

^20:7 “You shall not take²⁰ the name of the Lord your God in vain,²¹ for the Lord will not hold guiltless²² anyone who takes his name in vain.^[29]

^{Genesis 42:15 (NET)}

 ^42:15 You will be tested in this way: As surely as Pharaoh lives,²⁶ you will not depart from this place unless your youngest brother comes here. ^[30]

                 The idiom “…as surely as Pharaoh lives…” is not only an oath formula (as pointed out in the footnotes) but also a directed point of order: this pointed to the authority that Joseph had to force his brothers to do what he required of them. This is my point of departure from the herd – I do not feel that this commandment speaks only about His name, but speaks directly to what the first four commandments spoken of in the 10 D’varim all reference:

 The Authority of Yahveh over all Creation.

This is the beginning of how we know Him, and what doctrine and context is correct. We are leading up to understanding how to determine what is right, and what is wrong. Context is king, never forget that.

We will continue this in our next post.

 Till then, May YHVH richly bless you all, my beloved, Amein.

 

---

[1] Authors note: Use of information from Jewish-themed websites should not be construed as these sites endorsing or confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or to aid in the readers understanding of the subjects discussed. The inverse is also true – by using these sites in no way confirms or denies that this author holds to all things found on these sites – but brethren, we all can learn from one another, Jew and Gentile; may it be so in shalom and love and respect.

[2]  Author’s note:  Throughout this study I will be using the Net® Bible and the Net® Notes: within the notes you will sometimes see symbols like this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sy^s). These are abbreviations/symbols used by the Net Bible© for identifying the principal manuscript evidence that they (authors and translators of the Net Bible©) used in translating the Scriptures. Please go to  https://bible.org/netbible/ and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way the NET Bible uses them.

[3] Author’s Note: In these studies, I have used the notes that come along with the passages I cite from the sources that I cite: these need a bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is footnoted is something that I necessarily agree with if it contradicts what I believe pertains to any matters of the Torah or the commandments of G-d. I give you the notes as they are written by the authors of the material I cite from, so that you can see the information contained within them. It is not my place to edit them; if they state anything that is in opposition to what I teach, then so be it. If I do not agree with them, why do I include them you might ask? I do not believe in censuring anyone’s opinions or scholarship; as I would not want mine censured, so I will not do to that to another. Torah leads me to respect others, even if I disagree. That being said, the except is that I should challenge something I believe contradicts the truth of G-d’s word. That I will do in the main body of my epistles for that is where my gentle dissent belongs. Most differences will come when I quote from primarily Christian resources. While some have a true, scholarly mindset to them, one that tries to not interject denominational or sectarian views, my view is from a Hebraic perspective. Therefore, we may disagree on interpretation. Information and research contained within these resources may be helpful to one’s understanding: that is why I include them.

[4] One may wonder why I omit the “o” when I write the title “G-d”. Some say that to leave out the “o” is a sign of being under the influence of the Rabbis who forbid saying the name of Yahveh. I say, one must conclude on their own, and do as their heart convicts them. Within the bounds of G-d’s word, I believe in the power of the name of the Most High and in uttering it in awe and reverence yet find no contradiction in my soul for the hyphenated title “G-d”. I have written it both ways but now must follow the conviction of my heart. I do not disrespect anyone else’s opinion on this matter, and regardless if you think it wrong or right, I ask for the same respect. Let each be fully persuaded in their own mind and heart – for now – this is right for me till the Father corrects or confirms. I am after all, a work in progress. Shalom. 

[5] Credit where credit is due: this epistle is inspired in part by the writings of David Bentley Hart.

^[6] Adapted from “The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? : Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New” edited by G.K. Beale ©1994 G.K. Beale, published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI

[7] Author’s loose translation…

[8] Robert G. Ingersoll, “Why Am I an Agnostic?,” in Essays and Criticisms (New York: C. P. Farrell, 1897), 7.

^a Hos 5:1

^b Hos 12:2; Mic 6:2

^c Is 59:4; Jer 7:28

¹ Or truth

² Or loyalty

^d Jer 4:22

^a Deut 5:11; Hos 10:4

^b Hos 7:3; 10:13; 11:12

^c Gen 4:8; Hos 6:9

^d Deut 5:19; Hos 7:1

^e Deut 5:18; Hos 7:4

^f Hos 6:8; 12:14

¹ Lit touches

^a Is 24:4; 33:9; Amos 5:16; Zeph 1:3

¹ Lit are taken away

^[9] New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Ho 4:1–3). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^[10]  Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

^a Job 33:12, 13; 36:26; 37:5, 23; Rom 11:33

^a Job 22:12; 35:5

¹ Lit the heights of heaven

² I.e. the nether world

^b Job 26:6; 38:17

^[11] New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Job 11:7–9). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[12] http://infomory.com/numbers/number-of-christian-denominations/

[13] After all, what is a religion? For these groups referenced here, I use the informal definition found in the article “Religion.” From the Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion. Accessed 2 Sep. 2020 which is “…an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group…” Like it or not, the title of “religion” belongs to all groups or individuals who fit into this band of understanding.

* kāḇēḏ. W. Caspari, Studien zur Lehre von der Herrlichkeit Gottes im AT (diss., Leipzig, 1907); M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography III,” Bibl, 46 (1965), 326; É. P. Dhorme, L’Emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (Paris, 1923, repr. 1963), 128–133; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im AT. BZAW, 74 (1955); E. Jenni, Das hebräische Piʿel (Zurich, 1968); J. S. Kselman, “RB // KBD: A New Hebrew-Akkadian Formulaic Pair,” VT, 29 (1979), 110–14; M. Liverani, “kbd nei testi administrativi ugaritici,” UF, 2 (1970), 89–108; L. Rost, “Der Leberlappen,” ZAW, 79 (1967), 35–41; C. Westermann, “כבד kbd schwer sein,” THAT, I, 794–812.

^[14] Dohmen, C., & Stenmans, P. (1995). כָּבֵד. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, & H.-J. Fabry (Eds.), D. E. Green (Trans.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Revised Edition, Vol. 7, p. 13). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[15] …Ibid…TDOT Volume 7, Page 14

¹⁹ WbÄS. I, 390; cf. Arab. wadana.

²⁰ WbÄS, V, 468; cf. E. Edel, Altägyptische Grammatik, I. AnOr, 34 (1955), §444.

²¹ WbÄS, I, 391.

²² Cf. AHw, I, 416f.; Dahood, 326.

^[16] Dohmen, C., & Stenmans, P. (1995). כָּבֵד. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, & H.-J. Fabry (Eds.), D. E. Green (Trans.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Revised Edition, Vol. 7, p. 14). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[17] Heiser, M. S., & Setterholm, V. M. (2013; 2013). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Lexham Press.

adj. (adjective, adjectival)

[18] Heiser, M. S., & Setterholm, V. M. (2013; 2013). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Lexham Press.

^[19] ..Ibid..

⁵¹ Jenni, 105.

⁵² Ibid., 40ff.

par. parallel/and parallel passages

→ indicates cross-reference within this Dictionary

⁵³ Ibid., 105.

⁵⁴ Cf. GK, §51c; on a possible tolerative meaning of the niphal of kbd, see J. H. Eaton, “Some Misunderstood Hebrew Words for God’s Self-Revelation,” BT, 25 (1974), 337f.

⁵⁵ Cf. S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT, 11 (1961), 141f.

⁵⁶ BLe, §291j.

^[20] Dohmen, C., & Stenmans, P. (1995). כָּבֵד. G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, & H.-J. Fabry (Eds.), D. E. Green (Trans.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Revised Edition, Vol. 7, pp. 16–17). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

·         [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes.  For more information, see footnote #2 and 3.]

²⁰ tn Or “use” (NCV, TEV); NIV, CEV, NLT “misuse”; NRSV “make wrongful use of.”

²¹ tn שָׁוְא (shav’, “vain”) describes “unreality.” The command prohibits use of the name for any idle, frivolous, or insincere purpose (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 196). This would include perjury, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.

²² tn Or “leave unpunished.”

·         End NET® Bible Notes

^[21] Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Ex 20:7). Biblical Studies Press.

^[22] Baker, W. (2003). The complete word study concordance: Old Testament (p. 2046). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[23] Copyright © 1988 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, © 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, by Babylon NG V 0.1.2, version 11, ©2008 Babylon Software

[24] Copyright © 2006 by Oxford University Press, Inc. by Babylon NG V 0.1.2, version 11, ©2008 Babylon Software

[25]“Name.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/name. Accessed 23 Sep. 2020. [Highlights mine.]

^c Literally “take up/bear/carry the name of Yahweh your God for what is worthless/false/empty”

^d Literally “bears his name for what is false”

^[27] Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Ex 20:7). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[28] Nelson, W. D. (2006). Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (p. 83). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

·         [The following notes are taken from the NET Bible® footnotes, copyright (c) 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press L.L.C. All rights reserved. Used by permission from www.bible.org, n.d. Numbering system is unique to NET® Notes.  For more information, see footnote #2 and 3.]

²⁰ tn Or “use” (NCV, TEV); NIV, CEV, NLT “misuse”; NRSV “make wrongful use of.”

²¹ tn שָׁוְא (shav’, “vain”) describes “unreality.” The command prohibits use of the name for any idle, frivolous, or insincere purpose (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 196). This would include perjury, pagan incantations, or idle talk. The name is to be treated with reverence and respect because it is the name of the holy God.

²² tn Or “leave unpunished.”

^[29] Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Ex 20:7). Biblical Studies Press.

²⁶ tn Heb “[By] the life of Pharaoh.”

sn As surely as Pharaoh lives. Joseph uses an oath formula to let the brothers know the certainty of what he said. There is some discussion in the commentaries on swearing by the life of Pharaoh, but since the formulation here reflects the Hebrew practice, it would be hard to connect the ideas exactly to Egyptian practices. Joseph did this to make the point in a way that his Hebrew brothers would understand. See M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92.

·         End NET® Bible Notes

^[30] Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Ge 42:15). Biblical Studies Press.