Exodus 20:7

20:7 “You shall not take ¹  the name of the Lord your God in vain, ²  for the Lord will not hold guiltless ³  anyone who takes his name in vain.

Exodus 20:1

The Decalogue

20:1 ⁴ God spoke all these words: ⁵ 

Exodus 21:10-13

21:10 If he takes another wife, ⁶  he must not diminish the first one’s food, ⁷  her clothing, or her marital rights. ⁸  21:11 If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money. ⁹ 

Personal Injuries

21:12 ¹⁰ “Whoever strikes someone ¹¹  so that he dies ¹²  must surely be put to death. ¹³  21:13 But if he does not do it with premeditation, ¹⁴  but it happens by accident, ¹⁵  then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.

Psalms 74:10

74:10 How long, O God, will the adversary hurl insults?

Will the enemy blaspheme your name forever?

Psalms 74:18

74:18 Remember how ¹⁶  the enemy hurls insults, O Lord, ¹⁷ 

and how a foolish nation blasphemes your name!

Psalms 139:20

139:20 They ¹⁸  rebel against you ¹⁹  and act deceitfully; ²⁰ 

your enemies lie. ²¹ 

Matthew 12:31

12:31 For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, ²²  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Mark 3:28-29

3:28 I tell you the truth, ²³  people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. ²⁴  3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” ²⁵ 

John 8:58-59

8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, ²⁶  before Abraham came into existence, ²⁷  I am!” ²⁸  8:59 Then they picked up ²⁹  stones to throw at him, ³⁰  but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. ³¹ 

John 10:33-36

10:33 The Jewish leaders ³²  replied, ³³  “We are not going to stone you for a good deed ³⁴  but for blasphemy, ³⁵  because ³⁶  you, a man, are claiming to be God.” ³⁷ 

10:34 Jesus answered, ³⁸  “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ³⁹  10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), ⁴⁰  10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart ⁴¹  and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Acts 26:11

26:11 I punished ⁴²  them often in all the synagogues ⁴³  and tried to force ⁴⁴  them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged ⁴⁵  at them, I went to persecute ⁴⁶  them even in foreign cities.

Acts 26:1

Paul Offers His Defense

26:1 So Agrippa ⁴⁷  said to Paul, “You have permission ⁴⁸  to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand ⁴⁹  and began his defense: ⁵⁰ 

Acts 1:13

1:13 When ⁵¹  they had entered Jerusalem, ⁵²  they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. Peter ⁵³  and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were there. ⁵⁴ 

James 2:7

2:7 Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to? ⁵⁵ 

[20:7]  ¹ tn Or “use” (NCV, TEV); NIV, CEV, NLT “misuse”; NRSV “make wrongful use of.”

[20:7]  ² 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.

[20:7]  ³ tn Or “leave unpunished.”

[20:1]  ⁴ sn This chapter is the heart of the Law of Israel, and as such is well known throughout the world. There is so much literature on it that it is almost impossible to say anything briefly and do justice to the subject. But the exposition of the book must point out that this is the charter of the new nation of Israel. These ten commands (words) form the preamble; they will be followed by the decisions (judgments). And then in chap. 24 the covenant will be inaugurated. So when Israel entered into covenant with God, they entered into a theocracy by expressing their willingness to submit to his authority. The Law was the binding constitution for the nation of Israel under Yahweh their God. It was specifically given to them at a certain time and in a certain place. The Law legislated how Israel was to live in order to be blessed by God and used by him as a kingdom of priests. In the process of legislating their conduct and their ritual for worship, the Law revealed God. It revealed the holiness of Yahweh as the standard for all worship and service, and in revealing that it revealed or uncovered sin. But what the Law condemned, the Law (Leviticus) also made provision for in the laws of the sacrifice and the feasts intended for atonement. The NT teaches that the Law was good, and perfect, and holy. But it also teaches that Christ was the end (goal) of the Law, that it ultimately led to him. It was a pedagogue, Paul said, to bring people to Christ. And when the fulfillment of the promise came in him, believers were not to go back under the Law. What this means for Christians is that what the Law of Israel revealed about God and his will is timeless and still authoritative over faith and conduct, but what the Law regulated for Israel in their existence as the people of God has been done away with in Christ. The Ten Commandments reveal the essence of the Law; the ten for the most part are reiterated in the NT because they reflect the holy and righteous nature of God. The NT often raises them to a higher standard, to guard the spirit of the Law as well as the letter.

[20:1]  ⁵ sn The Bible makes it clear that the Law was the revelation of God at Mount Sinai. And yet study has shown that the law code’s form follows the literary pattern of covenant codes in the Late Bronze Age, notably the Hittite codes. The point of such codes is that all the covenant stipulations are appropriate because of the wonderful things that the sovereign has done for the people. God, in using a well-known literary form, was both drawing on the people’s knowledge of such to impress their duties on them, as well as putting new wine into old wineskins. The whole nature of God’s code was on a much higher level. For this general structure, see M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King. For the Ten Commandments specifically, see J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research (SBT). See also some of the general articles: M. Barrett, “God’s Moral Standard: An Examination of the Decalogue,” BV 12 (1978): 34-40; C. J. H. Wright, “The Israelite Household and the Decalogue: The Social Background and Significance of Some Commandments,” TynBul 30 (1979): 101-24; J. D. Levenson, “The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel,” HTR 73 (1980): 17-33; M. B. Cohen and D. B. Friedman, “The Dual Accentuation of the Ten Commandments,” Masoretic Studies 1 (1974): 7-190; D. Skinner, “Some Major Themes of Exodus,” Mid-America Theological Journal 1 (1977): 31-42; M. Tate, “The Legal Traditions of the Book of Exodus,” RevExp 74 (1977): 483-509; E. C. Smith, “The Ten Commandments in Today’s Permissive Society: A Principleist Approach,” SwJT 20 (1977): 42-58; and D. W. Buck, “Exodus 20:1-17,” Lutheran Theological Journal 16 (1982): 65-75.

[21:10]  ⁶ tn “wife” has been supplied.

[21:10]  ⁷ tn The translation of “food” does not quite do justice to the Hebrew word. It is “flesh.” The issue here is that the family she was to marry into is wealthy, they ate meat. She was not just to be given the basic food the ordinary people ate, but the fine foods that this family ate.

[21:10]  ⁸ sn See S. Paul, “Exodus 21:10, A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” JNES 28 (1969): 48-53. Paul suggests that the third element listed is not marital rights but ointments since Sumerian and Akkadian texts list food, clothing, and oil as the necessities of life. The translation of “marital rights” is far from certain, since the word occurs only here. The point is that the woman was to be cared for with all that was required for a woman in that situation.

[21:11]  ⁹ sn The lessons of slavery and service are designed to bring justice to existing customs in antiquity. The message is: Those in slavery for one reason or another should have the hope of freedom and the choice of service (vv. 2-6). For the rulings on the daughter, the message could be: Women, who were often at the mercy of their husbands or masters, must not be trapped in an unfortunate situation, but be treated well by their masters or husbands (vv. 7-11). God is preventing people who have power over others from abusing it.

[21:12]  ¹⁰ sn The underlying point of this section remains vital today: The people of God must treat all human life as sacred.

[21:12]  ¹¹ tn The construction uses a Hiphil participle in construct with the noun for “man” (or person as is understood in a law for the nation): “the one striking [of] a man.” This is a casus pendens (independent nominative absolute); it indicates the condition or action that involves further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

[21:12]  ¹² tn The Hebrew word וָמֵת (vamet) is a Qal perfect with vav consecutive; it means “and he dies” and not “and killed him” (which require another stem). Gesenius notes that this form after a participle is the equivalent of a sentence representing a contingent action (GKC 333 §112.n). The word shows the result of the action in the opening participle. It is therefore a case of murder or manslaughter.

[21:12]  ¹³ sn See A. Phillips, “Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977): 105-26.

[21:13]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “if he does not lie in wait” (NASB similar).

[21:13]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and God brought into his hand.” The death is unintended, its circumstances outside human control.

[74:18]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “remember this.”

[74:18]  ¹⁷ tn Or “[how] the enemy insults the Lord.”

[139:20]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “who.”

[139:20]  ¹⁹ tc Heb “they speak [of] you.” The suffixed form of the verb אָמַר (’amar, “to speak”) is peculiar. The translation assumes an emendation to יַמְרֻךָ (yamrukha), a Hiphil form from מָרָה (marah, “to rebel”; see Ps 78:40).

[139:20]  ²⁰ tn Heb “by deceit.”

[139:20]  ²¹ tc Heb “lifted up for emptiness, your cities.” The Hebrew text as it stands makes no sense. The form נָשֻׂא (nasu’; a Qal passive participle) should be emended to נָשְׂאוּ (nosÿu; a Qal perfect, third common plural, “[they] lift up”). Many emend עָרֶיךָ (’arekha, “your cities”) to עָלֶיךָ (’alekha, “against you”), but it is preferable to understand the noun as an Aramaism and translate “your enemies” (see Dan 4:16 and L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 253).

[12:31]  ²² tn Grk “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men.”

[3:28]  ²³ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[3:28]  ²⁴ tn Grk “all the sins and blasphemies they may speak will be forgiven the sons of men.”

[3:29]  ²⁵ sn Is guilty of an eternal sin. This passage has troubled many people, who have wondered whether or not they have committed this eternal sin. Three things must be kept in mind: (1) the nature of the sin is to ascribe what is the obvious work of the Holy Spirit (e.g., releasing people from Satan’s power) to Satan himself; (2) it is not simply a momentary doubt or sinful attitude, but is indeed a settled condition which opposes the Spirit’s work, as typified by the religious leaders who opposed Jesus; and (3) a person who is concerned about it has probably never committed this sin, for those who commit it here (i.e., the religious leaders) are not in the least concerned about Jesus’ warning. On this last point see W. W. Wessel, “Mark,” EBC 8:645-46.

[8:58]  ²⁶ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[8:58]  ²⁷ tn Grk “before Abraham was.”

[8:58]  ²⁸ sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).

[8:59]  ²⁹ tn Grk “they took up.”

[8:59]  ³⁰ sn Jesus’ Jewish listeners understood his claim to deity, rejected it, and picked up stones to throw at him for what they considered blasphemy.

[8:59]  ³¹ tc Most later witnesses (A Θ^c Ë^1,13 Ï) have at the end of the verse “passing through their midst, he went away in this manner” (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, dielqwn dia mesou kai parhgen {outw"), while many others have similar permutations (so א^1,2 C L N Ψ 070 33 579 892 1241 al). The wording is similar to two other texts: Luke 4:30 (διελθὼν διὰ μέσου; in several mss αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο καί [autwn eporeueto kai] is found between this phrase and παρῆγεν, strengthening the parallel with Luke 4:30) and John 9:1 (παρῆγεν; cf. παράγων [paragwn] there). The effect is to signal Jesus’ departure as a miraculous cloaking. As such, the additional statement has all the earmarks of scribal amplification. Further, the best and earliest witnesses (Ì^66,75 א* B D W Θ* lat sa) lack these words, rendering the shorter text virtually certain.

[10:33]  ³² tn Or “the Jewish authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Here again the phrase refers to the Jewish leaders. See the notes on the phrase “Jewish people” in v. 19 and “Jewish leaders” in vv. 24, 31.

[10:33]  ³³ tn Grk “answered him.”

[10:33]  ³⁴ tn Or “good work.”

[10:33]  ³⁵ sn This is the first time the official charge of blasphemy is voiced openly in the Fourth Gospel (although it was implicit in John 8:59).

[10:33]  ³⁶ tn Grk “and because.”

[10:33]  ³⁷ tn Grk “you, a man, make yourself to be God.”

[10:34]  ³⁸ tn Grk “answered them.”

[10:34]  ³⁹ sn A quotation from Ps 82:6. Technically the Psalms are not part of the OT “law” (which usually referred to the five books of Moses), but occasionally the term “law” was applied to the entire OT, as here. The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads “I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” Jesus will pick up on the term “sons of the Most High” in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title “gods” because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for “divinity” for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word “God” of him who is the Word of God?

[10:35]  ⁴⁰ sn The parenthetical note And the scripture cannot be broken belongs to Jesus’ words rather than the author’s. Not only does Jesus appeal to the OT to defend himself against the charge of blasphemy, but he also adds that the scripture cannot be “broken.” In this context he does not explain precisely what is meant by “broken,” but it is not too hard to determine. Jesus’ argument depended on the exact word used in the context of Ps 82:6. If any other word for “judge” had been used in the psalm, his argument would have been meaningless. Since the scriptures do use this word in Ps 82:6, the argument is binding, because they cannot be “broken” in the sense of being shown to be in error.

[10:36]  ⁴¹ tn Or “dedicated.”

[26:11]  ⁴² tn Grk “and punishing…I tried.” The participle τιμωρῶν (timwrwn) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style. Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[26:11]  ⁴³ sn See the note on synagogue in 6:9.

[26:11]  ⁴⁴ tn The imperfect verb ἠνάγκαζον (hnankazon) has been translated as a conative imperfect (so BDAG 60 s.v. ἀναγκάζω 1, which has “ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν I tried to force them to blaspheme Ac 26:11”).

[26:11]  ⁴⁵ tn Or “was so insanely angry with them.” BDAG 322 s.v. ἐμμαίνομαι states, “to be filled with such anger that one appears to be mad, be enraged…περισσῶς ἐμμαινόμενος αὐτοῖς being furiously enraged at them Ac 26:11”; L&N 88.182 s.v. ἐμμαίνομαι, “to be so furiously angry with someone as to be almost out of one’s mind – ‘to be enraged, to be infuriated, to be insanely angry’ …‘I was so infuriated with them that I even went to foreign cities to persecute them’ Ac 26:11.”

[26:11]  ⁴⁶ tn Or “I pursued them even as far as foreign cities.”

[26:1]  ⁴⁷ sn See the note on King Agrippa in 25:13.

[26:1]  ⁴⁸ tn Grk “It is permitted for you.”

[26:1]  ⁴⁹ tn Or “extended his hand” (a speaker’s gesture).

[26:1]  ⁵⁰ tn Or “and began to speak in his own defense.”

[1:13]  ⁵¹ tn Grk “And when.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[1:13]  ⁵² tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the Greek text but is implied (direct objects were often omitted when clear from the context).

[1:13]  ⁵³ sn In the various lists of the twelve, Peter (also called Simon) is always mentioned first (see also Matt 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.

[1:13]  ⁵⁴ tn The words “were there” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.

[2:7]  ⁵⁵ tn Grk “that was invoked over you,” referring to their baptism in which they confessed their faith in Christ and were pronounced to be his own. To have the Lord’s name “named over them” is OT imagery for the Lord’s ownership of his people (cf. 2 Chr 7:14; Amos 9:12; Isa 63:19; Jer 14:9; 15:16; Dan 9:19; Acts 15:17).