Deuteronomy 5:11

Summary

The verse prohibits taking the name of Yehovah, God of Israel, "for emptiness" (lashav'), and grounds this prohibition in a consequence: Yehovah will not leave unpunished anyone who takes his name "for emptiness." The command uses the imperfect tense to express an ongoing or future obligation, while the consequence clause employs negation with the piel form of naqah ("to leave unpunished").

Key words

lo' ("not", H3808) — negation particle opening both the prohibition and the consequence clause, establishing the dual structure of command and rationale.

tissha' ("you must take", H5375G, qal imperfect) — second-person masculine singular; the simple stem indicates the basic action of "taking" or "lifting up," here applied to the divine name.

shem ("name", H8034) — masculine singular construct form; appears twice (positions 4 and 18), linking the prohibition to its consequence through lexical repetition.

lashav' ("for emptiness", H7723H) — the prepositional phrase with definite article; shav' denotes futility, vanity, or falsehood; the preposition la ("for/to") indicates purpose or direction.

yenakkeh ("he will leave unpunished", H5352, piel imperfect) — third-person masculine singular in the intensive stem; the piel form intensifies the sense of acquittal or exoneration, making the negation emphatic: Yehovah will not leave unpunished.

What the text says

The verse presents a two-part structure: a direct command followed by a causal clause. The command lo' tissha' et-shem-Yehovah prohibits "taking" the name of Yehovah your God. The phrase lashav' ("for emptiness") specifies the manner or context of this prohibited action—the name must not be taken toward or for purposes of emptiness, futility, or falsehood.

The causal clause (ki lo' yenakkeh Yehovah) provides the rationale: "for Yehovah will not leave unpunished." The object of this non-acquittal is expressed through a relative clause: et asher-yissha' et-shemo lashav' ("the one who takes his name for emptiness"). The repetition of shem and lashav' in both clauses creates a structural parallelism that binds the prohibition to its consequence: the same action prohibited in the command is the action for which Yehovah will not grant impunity.

The grammar emphasizes futurity and generality through the imperfect forms (tissha', yenakkeh, yissha'), suggesting these are standing rules rather than isolated commands. The piel form yenakkeh intensifies the negation, making clear that acquittal is categorically denied—not merely withheld, but actively refused.

Differences between versions

The LXX renders lashav' as epi mataiō ("upon/for futility"), maintaining the sense of purposeless or vain action. The Vulgate uses frustra ("in vain") and adds super re vana ("upon a vain thing"), expanding the phrase. Both versions preserve the core meaning but with slight semantic emphasis. The verb yenakkeh appears as katharisē in the LXX ("cleanse/purify") and erit impunitus in the Vulgate ("will be unpunished"), both capturing the sense of acquittal or exoneration, though the Vulgate's phrasing reverses the negation structure slightly.