Yes, in a theocratic society, God/authority/religion/law are tied into one construct AS A MUST, which is the system of the society. We can ignore the most strict literal meaning of the passage because the original meaning covered everything from slandering to lying in God's name and so on and so forth to strictly not take the name of God in vain, therefore the Israelites took great caution when they spelled YHWH or Yahweh, both verbally and in written form.Good point, Neo. I guess then to a degree we can classify that usage under the "probably no longer need to follow that so closely", because that sort of ritualistic/theocratic society no longer exists for Christianity.
The meaning is the same only the strictness of the application of this rule has changed. Your view lies in the middle of the whole intended meaning of the commandment, so does mine as we do not live in that culture anymore. In a theocratic society, the meaning would still be the same because in that context, the conditions to revere authority would be met in the fullest possible manner that it should.Though I would be curious, does that mean that the core meaning of the commandment has changed its focus with the times? Or gained new meaning? Or is my view of it simply totally off-base from the intended command?
For example, if you are in front of the queen of England, you can not say her first name without her proper title, it would come with Her majesty or her royal highness and other titles.
i.e "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"
You have to realize that to Israel, even though they had human leaders, God was the ultimate authority and the final word. He was the king of Israel therefore to address him, one must take caution as they were to address the king and not only king, as in this instance it was God himself. Who was the king and the creator. To the Jew of that time, it was the utmost authority there was and as holy as it can get. And this reality exhibited their daily lives and culture.
So at one hand formal/legal dialogue required that the kings name (in this case God's name) be not taken in vain. And on the other hand the comand covered the spiritual side of matters as one must not slander or take the name of God for personal profit, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud and etc. So the same command addressed two sides of the picture, one social and legal, the other personal and spiritual.
Hope this clears it up.