The Third Commandment

Swearing and Worship

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Genre: Speech

Lesson: 4

Track: 18

Dictation Name: RR130J18

Date: 1960's - 1970's

Isaiah 45: 20 - 25

"20Draw near together ye that are escaped of the nations; they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven and say unto a god that cannot save them,

"21Tell ye, and bring them near. Yea let them take counsel together. Who hath declared this from ancient time? Who hath told it from that time? Have not I the Lord, and there is no God else beside me, a just God and a Savior. There is none beside me.

"22Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God and there is none else.

"23I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

"24Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength; Even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.

"25In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."

John Calvin, in speaking about the Third Commandment, "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," made in passing this observation as central to his thesis. And I quote, "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." End of quote. Calvin then goes on to say, as he discusses this passage in Isaiah which we just read, in particular the twenty-third verse, which is the key verse in the passage. That God prophesies certain things.

First, that history will culminate in God's absolute Lordship over all men and nations. Every knee shall bow unto God. Now this does not mean, as Calvin points out, citing Isaiah in a number of passages, that everyone in the world will be a believer. What it does mean is that Christian faith shall triumph. And everyone the world over will acknowledge the sovereignty of God whether they believe in Him or not because it is the people of God who rule. It is the Law of God which prevails. It is the righteousness of God which is declared in every nation. Thus, there shall be from end to end throughout all the Earth, the sovereignty of God manifested and the Law of God governing.

Secondly, Isaiah declares in this passage, or God declares, speaking through Isaiah, that unto me not only shall every knee bow but every tongue shall swear. In other words, an oath in the name of the God of scripture shall be the universal oath in every nation, in every court, for every office. And God declares that this constitutes a form of worship. Thus we see that oath taking is declared by scripture to be a form of worship. So that when George Washington took the first presidential oath of office (and he knew exactly what he was doing), he was worshiping the God of scripture and declaring that his term of office would be an attempt to magnify God and to govern in a godly manner. [ 0:05:43.4]

Now as Calvin goes on to interpret the Third Commandment, he points out that in terms of this passage in Isaiah, it is silly to restrict the meaning of the Third Commandment to the use of the name Jehovah. That is, any profanity which uses God's name. Calvin declares that profanity means any activity outside of God, outside of the temple. And blasphemy is any activity conducted outside of God, and in contempt of His sovereignty. Any trifling use of reality apart from God is thus, blasphemy. When men do sometimes tremendous and awe-inspiring things, that they do it in the name of man. The {?} of violating the Third Commandment. When they attempt to play God as they deal with life, they are again guilty of blasphemy.

This last week, for example, the papers reported that scientists are planning soon to be able to tell any expectant mother whether her child is going to be a boy or a girl. They will remove the embryo from the uterus, examine it to see whether it will be male or female, and if they don't like the sex, it will be killed. If they do, it will be reimplanted. They claim that in a few years they may be able to do this but they have done it experimentally, sometimes to success, with rabbits.

Now this constitutes blasphemy. It is a trifling use of reality in contempt of God. It is taking the name of God in vain. The commandment says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Thou shalt not, therefore, deal with any reality in vain, in vanity, in contempt of God and His law. We must take God's name in truth.

We can see, therefore, how trifling a great deal of preaching is on this subject. I've known a number of ministers who went after all kinds of slang expressions as though they were blasphemy. For example, I can recall one minister in particular (and incidentally the last time I saw him, I almost threw him out of the house because of flagrant lying), who was death on anybody who said, "Dear me." Now when you trace "dear me" back to its origins a few centuries ago, we find that various people from Latin countries who were in England very often said in their language, "My God." (Deo Meo). And the English parodied it and made fun of it, "Deo me" and it became "dear me." A kind of a joke at these immigrants who were in England. But some of these clergymen will tell you that if you say, "dear me," which is an utterly harmless expression, you're guilty of violating the Third Commandment. Is this being trifling? Isn't it taking the name of the Lord in vain to preach something like that with all the wickedness and evil round about us?

Similarly, some clergymen will say that the expression, "not worth a dam" is profanity. But is it? For one thing, the 'dam' there is not d-a-m-n, as in damnation, but it is d-a-m. It has reference to the smallest coin in India. It's like the French expression, "not worth a sous." The sous is the most insignificant of French coins, so insignificant it has disappeared. No longer a coin. And the dam is the smallest coin of India. And various Western troops, especially the British troops stationed in India, when they wanted to say they couldn't care less or a thing was totally worthless, they said, "not worth a dam." It's a good expression. We might soon be saying, "not worth a penny" and mean the same thing. And before long, "not worth a dollar." Isn't it trifling to reduce the Third Commandment to such nonsense? Of a good deal of preaching today we had better say it's not worth a dam.

Now as we analyze the meaning of the Third Commandment, we must remember that the temptation of man at the beginning was, "ye shall be gods, knowing," that is, determining for yourselves good and evil. Man when he separated himself from God with the fall, began to define reality in terms of Man, and in the name of Man rather than in the name of God. When men began again to call upon the name of the Lord, we are told that men again began to look to God as their Lord, their Creator, their Savior. They saw him as their only Redeemer, their only Law-giver, their only hope, and they brought all of life under the dominion of God. This is what it meant to call upon the name of the Lord. So, to keep the Third Commandment, to call upon the name of the Lord, to take the name of the Lord in truth is to bring all things under the dominion of God and His Word.

But to take the name of the Lord in vain is to deny in reality the only true God, to make an empty profession of Him, to treat every law sphere as though it had nothing to do with God. As though politics, economics, science, education, were independent spheres independent of God. Modern politics is guilty of blasphemy. Modern education is guilty of blasphemy. It is not under God. Not in His name. And some Christian schools are guilty of blasphemy, because they are conducted in the name of the Lord but the sovereignty of God in every sphere of study is not manifest.

Some generations ago a German scholar {?} remarked, "Perjury does not concern the transgressor alone, but its whole race. Why? Because it moves man and his society from the world of blessing to the world of the curse. It takes man out from under God's name and puts him under man's name. And it moves the foundations of society. True swearing is therefore true worship. It ascribes to God the glory due to His name. Thus we see the relationship of the oath to society is a tremendous one. When the oath is weakened, when its sanctity is destroyed, then society is in revolution.

And so it is that our world today is in transition from Christian society to a totally revolutionary society. For this reason, the ancient horror of any blasphemy of the oath, of a false oath is understandable. Before we became a revolutionary society, that horror of blasphemy characterized all of our society. In modern times, that sense of horror has disappeared. Do you remember when the high priest, although he was being a hypocrite, accused Jesus of blasphemy? What a demonstration he put on, a sense of total shock. Now he was being hypocritical, but he was mirroring what society felt about blasphemy. Because blasphemy was a revolutionary attack on the foundations of society.

In recent times, that sense of blasphemy has only survived in one or two places. Before World War II it existed in Japan. Any blasphemous use of the name of the emperor or of Shintoism created a tremendous shock in all of Japanese society. Now that has disappeared. We have destroyed it. Without supplying it any other foundation. And so it is the situation in Japan is a precarious one today. As long as they have prosperity, they will go along as at present. But revolution is under the surface. And we are responsible for it.

Because the horror of blasphemy as a false oath is gone so is the definition of treason. Two or three books have been written on treason in recent years, trying to define 'what is treason?' And they no longer can. Since there is no longer a true oath in any society there is no true sense of responsibility. To whom are you responsible? There are two great claimants to responsibility today. On the one hand, the totalitarian State which says everyone is absolutely accountable to us. They make themselves God. On the other hand, the anarchistic individual who says, "My conscience is absolute. And you cannot violate my conscience." The totalitarian individual. And so today society is caught between these two totalitarian forces. The State, and the individual, the anarchistic individual. And it is falling apart.

Now Rebecca West, who by no means is a Conservative, in her book on treason, The Meaning of Treason, The New Meaning of Treason, declares at the beginning as she analyzes the past definition, and I quote, "According to tradition and logic, the State gives protection to all men within its confines. And in return, exacts their obedience to its laws. And the process is reciprocal. When men within the confines of the State are obedient to its laws, they have a right to claim its protection. It is a maxim of the law, quoted by {?} in the sixteenth century, that protection draws allegiance, and allegiance draws protection. It was laid down in 1608 by reference to the case of Shirley, a Frenchman who had come to England and joined in a conspiracy against the king and queen. But such a man owed to the king obedience, that is, so long as he was within the king's protection." unquote.

Now this is the historic meaning. And it had a significance. It meant that men and society were responsible under God. And therefore, being first of all responsible to God to fulfill his requirements each had under God a responsibility one to the other. Any one dwelling within the confines of a country and having its protection owed an allegiance to that country. Thus, even if you were an alien, as long as you were within the borders of that country you could be guilty of treason, because you had the protection of that country while doing business there or while living there or while traveling through that country. Therefore, you owed that country an allegiance to obey its law. Similarly, since there was a mutual responsibility under God, the country wherein you were, owed you a responsibility of protection. And you had the right to go to court and sue for that protection.

What would this mean today? It would mean that as people who are giving faithful allegiance to your country, you have a right to demand protection of your property, of your person, of your family. But if you are not giving allegiance, the country is traitorous to you. But if the country is not giving you protection, it is traitorous to you. In other words, treason works both ways. And why was it therefore in terms of this definition that under Cromwell the Puritans felt they could go to war against the king and execute him for treason? Because he was conspiring against the people, not to protect them, but to destroy them. So the king was executed for treason. There was thus you see, a mutual obligation. Allegiance. Protection. People and State equally under God and having a duty to discharge toward one another. But now there is no sense of obligation, no sense of loyalty, no definition of treason. On the one hand you have the totalitarian State that claims everything and promises nothing. On the other hand, the totalitarian individual who exalts his conscience above all things.

As a result, these several books on treason which have been written of late, conclude by saying it is virtually impossible to define treason today. And the courts reflect this muddy conception. There is no hope. There is no sovereign God above and over men and nations in terms of modern thinking. And therefore there is no sense of treason. When all the {?} is black, no concept of black is possible, is it? Everything is black, so how can you define black? There is no differentiation. Only when you have differentiation is definition possible. If everything were water you could define nothing because you would only have a universal sameness. When you reduce the world to Relativism, when you say there is no truth and all things are relative, as our courts today have done, for our Supreme Court justice has said the only truth is that there is no truth. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. When you have such a situation, no definition is possible. No concept of treason, and no concept of crime.

And so today, the question being debated in law schools and in the courts themselves is what constitutes crime? There is no definition of crime now, and the Supreme Court is protecting the criminal increasingly because the Supreme Court does not believe there is such a thing as crime, and the criminal. Take away the oath and you take away an absolute God to whom men are absolutely responsible. Then all things become relative. And the possibility of defining anything disappears.

Now to define is to de-limit or to fence. A definition is a fence. When you define a book, you are by that definition saying this is not everything else in the world, this is precisely this thing. A definition constitutes therefore a fence. Now when you have Relativism you have destroyed the definition of fencing. And so all life is totally open. And how can you protect the good citizen from the criminal? How can you protect the innocent from the evil? The good from the bad? Protection disappears because the fencing of definition is gone. And this is the end result of the Relativism that has set in. Hence it is that we are in a time when there is a necessity for judgment. The judgment of God upon this generation to restore perspective and definition and fencing protection {?} the world. We can rejoice as we face the {?} that we do have God's promise. " I have sworn by myself. The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return. And unto me shall every knee bow. Every tongue shall swear." The world shall be filled with the righteousness of God as the waters cover the sea. Let us pray. [0:28.14.3]

Our Lord, and our God, we thank Thee that Thy judgment is sure. That this evil generation that destroys all meaning shall be brought to the bar of judgment and condemned. We thank Thee our Father that we who are Thy people can face the future with a certainty that unto Thee shall every knee bow and every tongue shall swear unto Thee. That Thy law order shall prevail in every nation, in every sphere. In this confidence our Father we prepare ourselves, knowing that the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and of His {?}. Our God, we praise Thee. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Are there any questions now? With respect to the lesson first of all... Yes.

[Questioner] {?} in prosecution of... {?} they want to say {?}

[Rushdoony] Right. But you see, this is their problem. They deal with it, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but who is the enemy? In other words, if everything is relative, the word 'enemy' has lost its meaning. And they can say, maybe the person you regard as the enemy is really the wave of the future and your best friend. So you see, ah, the definition of a constitution does not hold if words no longer have any meaning.

Yes...

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Right, ah, some years ago Ortega {?} defined the new barbarian, which he said took in the modern intellectuals, the scientists, almost everyone; the new barbarian was the man who treated all the blessings of Christian civilization as though they were like the trees of the woods. They were just there. That they were not the product of tremendous effort, character, centuries of development. They were simply another natural resource that was always going to be there. And that is the essence of the new barbarian's outlook.

[Questioner] {?} means... {?} no responsibility. They have no {?} ... they have no respect for themselves {?}

[Rushdoony] The Hippy is a Relativist who's being very consistent to the new State. Nothing has any meaning; all things are relative.

Yes.

Yes.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] The profane is that which says it is outside the temple or outside God. Now, in terms of the Bible, nothing is outside God. So that the idea of profanity is man's attempt to say, 'I will live outside God, I will speak outside God. I will conduct all things as though they existed outside God.' So that the essence of profanity is of course, ah, a false premise. Nothing can be outside God. But it acts as though everything were, or could be.

Yes.

[Questioner] Ah, I thought it interesting that the {?} requiring an oath of the... {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Ah, an interesting book could be written on the oaths of modern government. Because not only Hitler, and Stalin, but the Western countries have changed the oath very very extensively in recent years. And gradually the name of God has been removed and other things substituted, or else, what remains is a dead letter. But it is increasingly an oath either to the State or to the head of the State, or an oath in which you swear by yourself. So, that's a very good point. And I wish somebody sometime soon would make a study of the oaths of the past thirty years.

Yes.

[Questioner] Can you {?} I find that there are and even though {?} in their attitude toward people like myself and yourself, they feel that, they call us, {?} and I feel that{?} very absolute in their attitude. Don't you think so?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Because, you see, they regard anyone who holds a faith in God as the enemy. As Chief Justice {?} said a good many years ago, twenty years ago now, "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes." So who is the enemy in such a position? You and I. And therefore, they feel the only absolute is that there are no absolutes, so they take an absolutist stand against anyone who holds to God. He has to be obliterated. This is the implication of their position.

Yes.

[Questioner] Uh, those that deny {?} a God, {?}swearing allegiance to God, but who are not united to God, are they swearing to {?} or are they swearing in vain?

[Rushdoony] Good point. They are swearing to an extent in vain but not entirely so, because the implication here is they will be kept in subjection by fear. This is pointed out later on in Isaiah. In other words, the sovereignty of God will be so thoroughly exercised that even the ungodly will toe the line. They will be taking it in vain in that they do not in their hearts believe that they will not dare perjure themselves as they testify. So it indicates a situation of strong government.

Now some time ago in one of my newsletters, I think in the (was it the fourth, or sixth one a couple of, three years ago now almost), I dealt with a particular area of the South Seas, where over a hundred years ago the cannibals attacked an American vessel which was there peacefully trading, and ah, killed virtually everyone but two or three men who escaped in a boat. They were cannibals, they were vicious, ah, and they figured they could get away with it. The captain who was notified, sailed back there and he attacked and so thoroughly punished these people that for a generation or more until they became civilized, no cannibal or savage in that area ever dared touch an American. American ships, American men and women could move about freely in that otherwise dangerous area. The reason was, they recognized any ship that flies an American flag, or any citizens from that country is someone not to tangle with, because they don't put up with any nonsense. And we will be thoroughly punished if we lay a finger on them.

Now those people had not changed; they were still cannibals. They were still savages. But they had been disciplined in this area. And this is the kind of thing that Isaiah, ah, portrays in his concluding chapters. You see it isn't a question today of, ah, evil being any more dangerous than it was fifty years ago, but that the good has become impotent. It has taken off the brakes. It's like a car with the same amount of power, but no brakes. And with a steering mechanism gone wrong. It's then a dangerous car.

Yes.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, ah, prior to World War I an American was safe anywhere in the world, because he was an American. The same was usually true of a British subject also. And one or two other countries. But since World War I and especially since the 30's this has been fading rapidly because we no longer have any sense of obligation to our citizens. Our government no longer protects you if you're abroad because it no longer protects you at home. It's part and parcel of the same pattern. How much protection do you have here? Do you realize that, ah, if you are robbed tomorrow, even though the thieves may be caught, you have very little chance of recovering your property? Because unless you can prove that the TV set has the serial number that you have on your files, and the serial numbers on the bank notes you have them, the law says, 'how do we know it's yours?' And so, the goods will be sold and the State will take proceeds.

Yes.

[Questioner] {?} that no one in this world... {?} and example...{?} there's no {?} even though {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, ah, I've forgotten the name of the professor, but some years ago, ah, this actually happened, this very prominent philosopher was asserting categorically in class that there were, there was no such thing as certainty. The idea of certainty as absolutes was wrong. And anyone who dealt in terms of absolutes and certainty, ah, was being very very foolish. And one student mischievously raised his hand and said, "Are you absolutely sure of that position, Professor?" and he said, "I am absolutely sure!" [laughter]

Yes. You had a question.

[Questioner] {?} the United States... {?} abdicating its destruction

[Rushdoony] Yes. A good question. Now, the old definition was that allegiance draws protection; protection draws allegiance. Now that was the maxim of law. If you are not giving allegiance, you are not entitled to protection. So, if, ah, denial of our basic premise of law when today the court gives protection where there is no allegiance, and denies protection where there is allegiance.

Our time is just about up but there are a few things I'd like to, ah, share with you, some bits of wisdom from the comic strip, "Smidgens" in particular. In this case, Smidgens is listening to the radio news. And Congress says the temporary surtax has done miracles for the economy. So next year, they'll push for a permanent temporary surtax. And then, Smidgens comments {?} "I guess Will Rogers was right. Man is the only animal that can be skinned more than once." [laugher]

Then again, from Smidgens, a senator is campaigning, "Furthermore, I'll fight for strict gun laws. Under my plan, everyone will have to register their gun and pay a $5 license fee."

"Will that stop crime, Senator?"

"No, but there just isn't any other way to get your money."

[laughter]

And then this, I've been reading a very delightful book on the Church of England, ah, a historical treatment of some of the curiosities of the Church in bygone centuries. And many many offices that were once common are now gone, like the Sluggard Wakers, which we had of course in New England, a man who went around with a pole to give a rap to anyone who slept. I don't know how they slept, though, in the Church of England, because in the rural districts they had Dog {?}, a paid employee of the congregation, and this is, I'll read just a portion of it. "In rural districts where the parish was extensive and some of the worshipers from solitary farmhouses lived miles away from the church. Something was gained if spiritual profit could be combined with worldly advantage. So the farmer would take his sheep dog with him and look after his flocks and herds by the way. Arrived at the church, the dog entered with him and crouched under his seat for a time, until other canine brethren were discovered near a pan. Restlessness usually followed this discovery, then motion, then locomotion, until two or three dogs met in the aisle. There might only be a sniff and friendly greeting, if so, all's well. But if the collision produced growls and snarls culminating into warfare, then could the office of Dog {?} be glorified. Bearing down upon the combatants who were oblivious to the cries of their owners, he with is staff {?} quickly made third man amongst them, and as the beaten dogs slunk to their places to lick their bruises he returned to his post near the door with a glad heart, proud of having something attempted, something done. And as the congregation settled in their place and the noise subsided, the clergyman resumed the service. When children sing, ' Bells is ringing, cats is singing, and dogs is done at the church,' they give us a fairly good picture of the days of the Dog {?}. When the church bells were ringing for service, the cats were left at home to bask before the fire and sing {?} on the hearth rug while the dogs went to church with their masters, and lay under the surface of the pew until the service was over." And he goes on to say it was common for the service to be interrupted or the {?} service three, four, five times with a dog fight. A great many churches and especially sermons today that could be improved with a few dog fights. [laughter]

One of the, ah, regular items of pay in church registers, especially in the accounts of the parish of Great Stockton Huntingtonshire, was this, for example: December, 1647. Item: paid for wages spent upon the man that lost John Pickle all night and the next day until he was married. One shilling. [laughter]

Many changes have occurred in the social and domestic life of England since the days when men had to be watched to prevent them from escaping the married state. Well with that, we are adjourned.