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.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, х lashaaw' (H7723)] - Thou shalt not utter the name of Yahweh to a falsehood; i:e., Thou shalt not swear falsely (Gesenius). A different meaning is attached to these words by Hengstenberg, who ('Pentateuch,' vol. 1:, p. 290) explains them thus: 'Thou shalt not attribute (carry) nothingness to the name of Yahweh thy God. Yahweh, the I AM, who had revealed Himself as such to Israel, must not be confounded with nothingness.'
The commandment, according to his view, is directed against hypocrisy in general, of which the essence is falsehood-the donation of God into the sphere of nothingness, of which perjury is only one species. [Hengstenberg and Keil maintain that naasaa' (H5375) sheem (H8034) never means to 'utter a name,' but to 'take up, to raise;' but Gesenius has proved that this verb, which signifies to take up, is frequently used in the sense of 'uttering' (Exodus 23:1; Numbers 23:7; Job 27:1; Psalms 15:3; Psalms 139:20; Isaiah 37:4). Keil holds that shaaw' (H7723) does not signify a lie, but from its etymon, shaa'aah (H7582), to be waste, denotes what is vain, nugatory, that for which there is no occasion. The Septuagint has: ou leepsee epi mataioo, 'Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God upon a vain thing, a trifling, frivolous occasion.'] This accords with our Lord's exposition of the commandment, as prohibiting all swearing in ordinary social conversation-all light and irreverent use of the name, titles, attributes, works of God, or anything that is His.
For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain "not hold him guiltless" = hold him guilty. In a later age of Jewish history the Rabbis perverted the meaning of this precept by limiting its application to the use of the name х Yahweh (H3068)], Jehovah, and hence, they not only tolerated, but sanctioned the practice of swearing in common conversation as quite harmless, provided the reference to God was not directly expressed. Our Lord exposes the falsity of this rabbinical gloss by showing that it was a violation of the law. Henceforth all light appeals and useless references to the Divine Being were to be avoided; and in regard to the spirit of the law, which implies that God knows all that is said, a simple affirmation or negation is all that is required. It is observable, that while God speaks in the first person throughout the first and second commandments, there is here a transition to the third person.