Difference between revisions of "Blasphemy"

<p> (βλασφημία, vb. βλασφημεῖν, adj. and noun βλάσφημος; perhaps derived from βλάπτειν, ‘to injure,’ and φήμη, ‘speech’) </p> <p> In ordinary usage and in Eng. law this word denotes profane, irreverent speaking against God or sacred things; but the Greek word has a wider sense, including all modes of reviling or calumniating either God or man. In &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:2 the Revised Versionhas ‘railers’ instead of ‘blasphemers’; in &nbsp;Acts 13:45 m and &nbsp;Acts 18:6 m it gives ‘rail’ as an alternative, and in &nbsp;Revelation 2:9 m ‘revile.’ ‘As we be slanderously reported’ (βλασφημούμεθα, &nbsp;Romans 3:8); ‘why am I evil spoken of?’ (τί βλασφημοῦμαι; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:30); ‘to speak evil of no man’ (μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, &nbsp;Titus 3:2); ‘those.… rail at dignities’ (δόξας βλασφημοῦσιν, &nbsp;Judges 1:8; cf. &nbsp;2 Peter 2:10) are other examples of the use of the word with a human reference. The two meanings of βλασφημία are combined in &nbsp;Acts 6:11, where [[Stephen]] is accused of [[Speaking]] blasphemous words (ῥήματα βλάσφημα) against Moses and God (εἰς Μωσῆν καὶ τὸν θεόν). </p> <p> According to the [[Levitical]] law the punishment for blaspheming the name of [[Jahweh]] was death by stoning (&nbsp;Leviticus 24:10-16); but as Roman subjects the Jews had not power to put any man to death. Though they attempted to observe the regular forms in their trial of Stephen for blasphemy, his death was not a judicial execution, but the illegal act of a solemn [[Sanhedrin]] changed by fanatical hatred into a murderous mob. </p> <p> After Jesus had come to be acknowledged as the Messiah, the denial of His status and the insulting of His name were regarded by His followers as conscious or unconscious blasphemy. St. Paul recalls with shame and sorrow the time when, in this sense of the term, he not only was guilty of habitual blasphemy (τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον, &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:13), but strove to make others blaspheme (ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν, &nbsp;Acts 26:11; &nbsp;Acts 26:11). The fortitude of those who resisted his efforts made a profound impression on his mind, and probably did more than anything else to pave the way for conversion. Like Pliny afterwards in [[Bithynia]] ( <i> Epp </i> . x. 97), he doubtless found it was all but impossible to make men and women speak evil of their so-called Messiah-‘maledicere Christum’-or submit to any other test that would have indicated disloyalty to Him: ‘quorum nihil cogi posse dicuntur, qui sunt re verâ Christiani’ ( <i> ib. </i> ). When, on the other hand, St. Paul began to preach Jesus as His own Messiah, the blasphemies of his countrymen against that Name became his daily fare. The Jews of Pisidian [[Antioch]] ‘contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul and blasphemed’ (&nbsp;Acts 13:45); those of [[Corinth]] ‘opposed themselves and blasphemed’ (&nbsp;Acts 18:6); and the historian might have multiplied instances without end. </p> <p> [[Blasphemy]] was not exclusively a [[Jewish]] and [[Christian]] conception. To the [[Greeks]] also it was a high offence βλασφημεῖν εἰς θεούς (Plato, <i> Rep </i> . 281 E), The majesty of the gods and the sacredness of the temples were jealously guarded. St. Paul, who reasoned against idolatry, never used opprobrious language about the religion of [[Greece]] or Rome. It was better to fight for the good than to rail at the bad. The town-clerk of [[Ephesus]] reminds his fellow-citizens, roused to fury at the bare suspicion of dishonour to Artemis, that St. Paul and his companions were no blasphemers of their goddess (οὔτε βλασφημοῦντες τὴν θεὰν ὑμῶν, &nbsp;Acts 19:37). Towards the cult of Caesar, which was still kept within some bounds, the [[Apostle]] always maintained the same correct attitude. But in the Apocalypse, written in the reign of Domitian, there is a startling change. That emperor, ‘probably the wickedest man who ever lived’ (Renan), was the first to demand that Divine honours should be paid to himself in his lifetime. Not content, like his predecessors, with the title Divus, he caused himself to be styled in public documents ‘Our Lord and God.’ In Asia Minor the deification of Caesar, the erection of temples in his honour, and the establishment of communes for the promotion of his worship became imperative, while the offering of incense to his statue was made the ordinary test of loyalty to the Empire. To the prophet of Ephesus all this seemed rank blasphemy, and he delivered his soul by denouncing it. He personified the [[Empire]] as the Beast whose seven heads had names of blasphemy (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1), to whom was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies (&nbsp;Revelation 13:5), who opened his mouth for blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle (&nbsp;Revelation 13:6); as the scarlet-coloured Beast who was covered all over with names of blasphemies (&nbsp;Revelation 17:3). That a creature called an emperor should assume the attributes of the Creator, and compel the homage of an infatuated world, was nothing less than a Satanic triumph; and whether men knew it or not, they ‘were worshipping the dragon’ (&nbsp;Revelation 13:4). Cf. articleEmperor-Worship. </p> <p> Literature.-In addition to articles on ‘Blasphemy’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> , <i> Encyclopaedia Biblica </i> <i> , Hastings’ Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible </i> , and <i> Encyclopaedia of [[Religion]] and Ethics </i> , with the literature there cited, see the relevant Commentaries, esp. Sanday-Headlam, <i> Romans 5 </i> ( <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , 1902); [[H. B]]  Swete, <i> The [[Apocalypse]] of St. John </i> 2, 1907; J. Armitage Robinson. <i> Ephesians </i> , 1903. See also <i> [[Catholic]] Encyclopedia </i> <i> , s.v. </i> , and Roman Catholic literature cited there. </p> <p> James Strahan. </p>

<p> <strong> BLASPHEMY </strong> . The modern use of this word is more restricted in its range than that of either the OT or the NT. <strong> 1 </strong> . In the former it is narrower in its scope than in the latter, being almost universally confined to language or deeds ( 1M&nbsp; Malachi 2:6 ) derogating from the honour of God and His claims to the over-lordship of men (&nbsp; Leviticus 24:10-16 , cf. &nbsp; 1 Kings 21:10; &nbsp; 1 Kings 21:13 , &nbsp; 2 Kings 19:6 etc.). The contemptuous scorning of sacred places was regarded as blasphemy (see &nbsp; Malachi 2:6 &nbsp;Malachi 2:6; 1Ma 7:38 , cf. &nbsp; Acts 6:13 ), as was also the light and irresponsible utterance of the sacred Name (&nbsp; Isaiah 52:6 , &nbsp; Ezekiel 36:20 , &nbsp; Deuteronomy 5:11 ), the degradation of Jehovah-worship by conformity to pagan rites (&nbsp; Ezekiel 20:27 ), and the continued wilful transgression of Divine commands and despising of ‘the word of the Lord’ (&nbsp; Numbers 15:30 f.). The incident of the man gathering sticks on the [[Sabbath]] seems to be a concrete example of blasphemy (&nbsp; Numbers 15:32 f.). </p> <p> <strong> 2 </strong> . When we come to the NT, the word is found more frequently, and is employed in a manner more nearly allied to the usage of classical writings. The EV [Note: English Version.] has accordingly tr. [Note: translate or translation.] it often as ‘railing’ or slanderous talk generally (&nbsp; Matthew 15:19 = &nbsp; Mark 7:22 , &nbsp; Ephesians 4:31 , Col 3:8 , &nbsp; 1 Timothy 6:4 , &nbsp; Judges 1:9 ), looked at, however, on its ethical and religious side. The cognate verb, too, is treated in the same way (&nbsp; Mark 15:29 = &nbsp; Matthew 27:39 , &nbsp; Luke 22:65; &nbsp; Luke 23:39 , &nbsp; Romans 3:8; Rom 14:16 , &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 4:18; &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 10:30 , Tit 3:2 , &nbsp; 1 Peter 4:4; &nbsp; 1 Peter 4:14 , 2Pe 2:2; &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:10; &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:12 , &nbsp; Judges 1:8; &nbsp; Judges 1:10 ), as is also the derived adjective (&nbsp; 2 Timothy 3:2 , &nbsp; 2 Peter 2:11 ). </p> <p> One of the most frequent of the charges brought by the Jews against Jesus was that of blasphemy, and when we inquire into the meaning of the accusation, we find that it was the application to Himself of Divine attributes and prerogatives (&nbsp;Mark 2:7 = &nbsp; Matthew 9:3 , &nbsp; Mark 14:64 = &nbsp; Matthew 26:65 , &nbsp; John 10:33; &nbsp; John 10:36 ). On the other hand, the NT writers regarded the unreasoning attitude of the Jews to the claims and teaching of Jesus as blasphemous (&nbsp; Mark 15:29 = &nbsp; Matthew 27:39 , &nbsp; Luke 22:65; &nbsp; Luke 23:39 , &nbsp; Acts 13:45; &nbsp; Acts 18:6 ). It is interesting also to notice that this is the word put by the author of the Acts into the mouth of the town-clerk of Ephesus when he was appeasing the riotous mob who were persuaded that St. Paul and his companions had insulted the local deity (&nbsp; Acts 19:37 ). </p> <p> <strong> 3 </strong> . The legal punishment for blasphemy was death (&nbsp; Leviticus 24:16 ), and so the Jews claimed the life of Jesus, as the just and lawful outcome of His words and teaching (&nbsp; John 19:7 , cf. &nbsp; John 10:33; &nbsp; John 8:58 f.). The proto-martyr Stephen lost his life, too, on a charge of blasphemy (&nbsp; Acts 6:13; &nbsp; Acts 7:58 ), when his enemies, in a violent and sudden fit of rage, forgot the limitation imposed on them as vassals of the Roman Empire (cf. &nbsp; John 18:31; see Westcott, <em> [[Gospel]] of St. John </em> , Additional Note <em> in loc </em> ). On the ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,’ see art. Sin, III. 1. </p> <p> [[J. R]]  Willis. </p>

<p> is an Anglicized form of the Greek word '''''Βλασφημία''''' '','' and in its technical English sense signifies the speaking evil of God (in Heb. '''''יְהוֹה''''' '''''נָקִב''''' '''''שֵׁם''''' , to curse the name of the Lord), and in this sense it is found &nbsp;Psalms 74:18; &nbsp;Isaiah 52:5; &nbsp;Romans 2:24, etc. But, according to its derivation ''( '''''Βλάπτω''''' '''''Φήμῃ''''' '' quasi ''(Βλαψιφημέω'' ), it may mean any species of calumny and abuse (or even an unlucky word, Eurip. ''Ion.'' 1187); see &nbsp;1 Kings 21:10; &nbsp;Acts 18:6; &nbsp;Judges 1:9, etc. Hence in the Sept. it is used to render '''''בָּיִךְ''''' , &nbsp;Job 2:5; '''''גָּדִ''''' ), &nbsp;2 Kings 19:6; '''''יָכִח''''' , &nbsp;2 Kings 19:4; and '''''לָעג''''' , &nbsp;Hosea 7:16, so that it means " reproach," "derision," etc.; and it has even a wider use, as &nbsp;2 Samuel 12:14, where it means "to despise Judaism," and &nbsp;1 [[Maccabees]] 2:6, where '''''Βλασφημία''''' = idolatry. In &nbsp;Sirach 3:18 we have it applied to filial impiety, where it is equivalent to "accursed" (Schleusner, Thesaur. s.v.). In the Auth. Engl. Vers. "blaspheme," etc., occasionally represent the following Heb. words: '''''בָּיִךְ''''' , ''Barak'; '''''גָּדִŠ''''' , Adaph';'' '''''חָרִ''''' '' '''''Š''''' , Charaph'; '''''נָקִב''''' '' , ''Nakab';'' '''''נָאִוֹ''''' , naats'. </p> <p> '''I.''' Among the Israelites injurious language toward Jehovah was punished, like a heathenish and capital crime, with stoning, as in the case of the son of Shelomith (&nbsp;Leviticus 25:16; Josephus, ''Ant. 4:'' 8, 6; comp. Otho, ''Lex. Rabb.'' p. 104 sq.). This, however, did not include any prohibition of blasphemy against ''Foreign'' deities (&nbsp;Exodus 22:28; &nbsp;Leviticus 24:15), as [[Philo]] ''(Opp.'' ii, 166, 219) and [[Josephus]] ''(Ant. 4:'' 8, 10; ''Apion,'' ii, 33) suppose, the practice of which among the Jews seems to be alluded to by Pliny (13:9: "gens contumelia numinum insignis"). The injunction against disrespect in &nbsp;Exodus 22:28, refers to magistrates ( '''''אֵֹלהַים''''' ); comp. Selden, Tus nat. et gent. ii, 13; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, v, 158 sq. The Jews interpreted the command in &nbsp;Leviticus 24:16 as prohibiting the utterance of the divine name under any circumstance (comp. &nbsp;Numbers 1:17; see Hartmann, ''Verbind. [[D. A]]  Wld N.T.'' p. 49 sq., 434; also Philo, Opp. ii, 166), and hence never pronounce the word JEHOVAH (See Jehovah) (q.v.), a superstition that still has its analogous customs in the East (see Rosenmuller on &nbsp;Exodus 3:13; Michaelis, ''Mos. Recht,'' v, 163 sq.). They also construed &nbsp;Exodus 23:13 so as to hold themselves bound to give nicknames to the heathen deities; hence their use of Bosheth for Baal, [[Bethaven]] for Bethel, [[Beelzebul]] for Beelzebub, &nbsp;Hosea 4:5, etc. When a person heard blasphemy he laid his hand on the head of the offender, to symbolize his sole responsibility for the guilt, and, rising on his feet, tore his robe, which might never again be mended. (On the mystical reasons for these observances, see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. &nbsp;Matthew 26:65.) </p> <p> '''II.''' Blasphemy, in the theological sense, consists in irreverent or insulting language toward God or his perfections ''(Blasphemia Est Locutio Contumeliosa In Deum;'' and Augustine, ''De Morib. Manich'' lib. ii, c. 11, ''Jam Vero Blasphemia [[Non]] Accipitur Nisi Mala Verba De Deo Dicere).'' Primarily, according to Dr. Campbell, blasphemy denotes calumny, detraction, reproachful or abusive language, against whomsoever it be vented. It is in Scripture applied to reproaches not aimed against God only, but man also (&nbsp;Romans 3:8; &nbsp;Romans 14:16; &nbsp;1 Peter 4:4, Gr.). It is, however, more peculiarly restrained to evil or reproachful words offered to God. According to Lindwood, blasphemy is an injury offered to God by denying that which is due and belonging to him, or attributing to him what is not agreeable to his nature. "Three things," says a divine, "are essential to this crime: 1, God must be the object; 2, the words spoken or written, independently of consequences which others may derive from them, must be injurious in their nature; and, 3, he who commits the crime must do it knowingly. This is real blasphemy; but there is a relative blasphemy, as when a man may be guilty ignorantly, by propagating opinions which dishonor God, the tendency of which he does not perceive. A man may be guilty of this constructively; for if he speak freely against received errors it will be construed into blasphemy." (See Cavils). </p> <p> There can be no blasphemy, therefore, where there is not an impious purpose to derogate from the Divine Majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. The blasphemer is no other than the calumniator of Almighty God. To constitute the crime, it is also necessary that this species of calumny be intentional. He must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavors to inspire others with the same irreverence toward the Deity, or, perhaps, abhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself.. And though, for the honor of human nature, it is to be hoped that very few arrive at this enormous guilt, it ought not to be dissembled that the habitual profanation of the name and attributes of God by common swearing is but too manifest an approach toward it. There is not an entire coincidence: the latter of these vices may be considered as resulting solely from the defect of what is good in principle and disposition, the former from the acquisition of what is evil in the extreme; but there is a close connection between them, and an insensible gradation from the one to the other. To accustom one's self to treat the Sovereign of the universe with irreverent familiarity is the first step, malignly to arraign his attributes and revile his providence is the last. </p> <p> As blasphemy by the old law (&nbsp;Exodus 20:7; &nbsp;Leviticus 19:12; &nbsp;Leviticus 24:10; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 5:11) was punished with death, so the laws of Justinian also directed that blasphemers should be put to death. The Church ordered their excommunication. In the Church of Rome cases of notorious blasphemy are reserved. By the laws of [[England]] and of many of the United States, blasphemies of God, as denying His being or providence, and all contumelious reproaches of the Lord Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Bible, or exposing it to contempt, are offences punishable by fine, imprisonment, etc. (Blackstone, Ccmmentaries, bk. 4,ch. iv). By the statute of 9 and 10 [[William]] III, ch. 32, if any one shall deny either of the [[Persons]] of the [[Trinity]] to be God, or assert that there are more than one God, or deny Christianity to be true, for the first offence, is rendered incapable of any office; for the second, adjudged incapable of suing, being executor or guardian, receiving any gift or legacy, and to be imprisoned for years. According to the law of Scotland, blasphemy is punished with death: these laws, however, in the present age, are not enforced; and by the statute of 53 [[George]] III, ch. 160, the words in italics were omitted, the Legislature thinking, perhaps, that spiritual offences should 'be left to be punished by the Deity, and not by human statutes. </p> <p> The early Christians distinguished blasphemy as of three kinds: </p> <p> '''1.''' The blasphemy of apostates and ''Lapsi,'' whom the heathen persecutors had obliged not only to deny, but to curse Christ. </p> <p> '''2.''' The blasphemy of heretics and other profane Christians. </p> <p> '''3.''' The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The first kind is referred to in Pliny, who, in giving [[Trajan]] an account of some Christians that apostatized in time of persecution, says, "They all worshipped his image, and the image of the gods, and also cursed Christ." That this was the ordinary mode of renouncing the Christian religion appears from the demand which the proconsul made to Polycarp, and Polycarp's reply. He bade him revile Christ, to whom [[Polycarp]] replied, "These eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any harm: how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" [[Heresy]] was sometimes reputed blasphemy, and was punished by the same penalty. </p> <p> '''III.''' The [[Blasphemy Against The Holy Ghost]] is variously understood. Some apply it to the sin of lapsing into idolatry; others to a denial of the proper [[Godhead]] of 'Christ; others to a denial of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Others place this sin in a perverse and malicious ascribing of the works of the Holy Spirit to the power of the devil. [[Augustine]] resolves it into obstinacy in opposing the methods of divine grace, and continuing in this obduracy to the end of life. The passages in the N.T. which speak of it are &nbsp;Matthew 12:31-32; &nbsp;Mark 3:28-29; &nbsp;Luke 12:10. These passages are referred by many expositors to continued and obstinate resistance of the Gospel, which issues in final unbelief. This, they argue, is unpardonable, not because the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from such a sin, nor because there is any thing in its own nature which separates it from all other sins, and places it beyond the reach of forgiveness, but simply because so long as a man continues to disbelieve he voluntarily excludes himself from mercy. In this sense, every sin may be styled unpardonable, because forgiveness is incompatible with an obstinate continuance in sin. One principal objection to this view is that it generalizes the sin, whereas the Scripture represents it as specific, and discountenances the idea that it is of frequent occurrence. The case referred to by Christ is this: He cured a daemoniac who was blind and dumb. The Pharisees who stood by and witnessed the miracle, unable to deny the fact, ascribed it to the agency of the devil. Not only did they resist the evidence of the miracle, but they were guilty of the wicked and gratuitous calumny that Christ was in league with the powers of darkness. It was not only a sin of thought, but one of open speech. It consisted in attributing to the power of Satan those unquestionable miracles which Jesus performed by "the finger of God," and the power of the Holy Spirit; nor have we any safe ground for extending it to include all sorts of willing (as distinguished from unwilling) offences, besides this one limited and special sin. In both the cases referred to, speaking against is mentioned as the sin. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man;" "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost." The Spirit dwells in Christ, and, therefore, such imputations were calumnies against the Holy Ghost. The sin betokened a state of mind which, by its awful criminality, excluded from all interest in Christ. </p> <p> There is no connection between this awful sin and those mentioned in &nbsp;Hebrews 6:4-8; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:26-31. There may be dangerous approximations to such a sin. When men can ridicule and contemn religion and its ordinances; when they can sport with the work of the Holy Ghost on the human heart; when they can persist in a wilful disbelief of the Holy Scriptures, and cast contemptuous slanders upon Christianity, which is " the ministration of the Spirit," they are approaching a fearful extremity of guilt, and certainly in danger of putting themselves beyond the reach of the arm of mercy. Some persons, when first awakened to discover the awful nature and aggravations of their own sins, have been apprehensive that they have fallen into this Sin, and in danger of giving themselves up to despair. This is a device of the devil to keep them from Christ. The very fear is a proof they are free from the awful crime. The often misunderstood expression, " It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world," etc., is a direct application of a Jewish phrase in allusion to a Jewish error, and will- not bear the inferences so often extorted from it. According to the Jewish school notions, the person blaspheming the name of God could not be pardoned by sacrifice, nor even the day of atonement, but could only be absolved by death. In refutation of this tradition, our Lord used the phrase to imply that " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven; neither before death, nor, as you vainly dream, by means of death" (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.). It is difficult to discover the "sin unto death" noticed by the apostle John (&nbsp;1 John 5:16), although it has been generally thought to coincide with the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; but the language of John does not afford data for pronouncing them one and the same. The first three [[Gospels]] alone describe the [[Blasphemy]] which shall not be forgiven: from it the " sin unto death" stands apart. (See Lucke, ''Bripe D. Apostels Johannes,'' 2d.ed. 305-317; Campbell, ''Preliminary Diss.'' Diss. 9,pt. ii; Olshausen, ''Comm.'' pt. 453 sq. Am. ed.; Watson, ''Theol. Dict.'' s. av.; ''Princeton Rev.'' July, 1846, art. ii). (See [[Unpardonable Sin]]). </p>