Blasphemy

== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament ==

BLASPHEMY ( βλασφημία; for derivation of word see Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 305a).—This word is used in the Gospels, as in other parts of the NT, for abusive speech generally, as well as for language that is insulting to God. Thus we read of ‘an evil eye, blasphemy ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 railing), pride,’ etc. (Mark 7:22), where the position of the word indicates human relations. The evil eye is followed by the evil tongue, the one by look and the other by speech expressing malignity towards a fellow-man. Two questions concerning blasphemy come up in the Gospels, viz. the teaching of Jesus Christ on the subject, and the charge of blasphemy brought against our Lord.

1. The teaching of Jesus Christ concerning blasphemy. —Using the term in the general sense, our Lord does not always formally distinguish between insulting speech with regard to God and abusive language towards men. βλασφημία in any application of it is sin. As railing against our fellow-men, it comes in a catalogue of sins together with the most heinous—‘murders, adulteries,’ etc. (Mark 7:22). In this connexion it is treated as one of the ‘evil things’ that ‘proceed from within, and defile the man.’ Thus it is taken to be the expression of a corrupt heart, and as such a defilement of the person who gives vent to it. Nevertheless it is not beyond the reach of pardon. With one exception all revilings may be forgiven (Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31). The comprehensive sentence must include blasphemy against God, although that is not expressly mentioned. In Matthew 12:32 there is a reference to blasphemy against the Son of Man, and in both cases the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned; but in neither case is there any reference to blasphemy against the Father. Perhaps the safest thing is to say that this was not in mind at the time, so that no direct pronouncement was made concerning it; and, further, it is to be observed that Trinitarian distinctions do not appear in these teachings of Jesus. Jesus is here the ‘Son of Man,’ not ‘the Son,’ i.e. of God, and the Holy Spirit is God in His manifested activity. Still, it must be implicitly contained in St. Mark’s emphatic sentence, ‘ All their sins … and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme (ὅσα ἂν βλασφημήσωσιν).’

To ‘speak a word against the Son of Man’ is taken as one form of the blasphemy or reviling. Here, therefore, the word is not used in its relation to God. It does not stand for what we now understand by ‘blasphemy’ in our narrower sense of the word. Jesus is not here standing on the ground of His divinity, to insult which would be blasphemy in this modern sense. He is speaking of Himself as seen among men, and referring to personal insults. But, since the term ‘the Son of Man’ appears to be a veiled reference to His Messiahship, for Himself and for the enlightened among His followers He must have meant that those who insulted Him, even though He was the Christ, were not beyond pardon; cf. ‘Father, forgive them,’ etc. (Luke 23:34, om. BD*, etc.). Some doubt, however, is thrown on this reference to ‘the Son of Man’ because (1) it does not occur in the Mk. parallel passage; (2) in Mk. but not in Mt. the phrase ‘the sons of men’ occurs in an earlier part of the saying (Mark 3:28).

The nature of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:22-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10) must be learnt from the context. This excludes such notions as rejection of the gospel (Iren.), denial of the divinity of Christ (Athan.), mortal sin after baptism (Origen), persistence in sin till death (August.). The form of the blasphemy is given in the words ‘because they said, He hath an unclean spirit,’ and the occasion of it was Jesus’ casting out of demons. Jesus declares that this is done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (Matthew 12:28), or ‘by the finger of God’ (Luke 11:20). To ascribe this action to Beelzebub is to be guilty of, or to approach the guilt of, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because it is treating the Holy Spirit as Beelzebub. Jesus did not expressly say that the scribes who put forward this Beelzebub theory of His work had actually committed this sin. He judged by thought and intention, not by outward utterance. A prejudiced, ignorant, hasty, superficial utterance of the calumny would not contain the essence of the sin. This must be a conscious, intentional insult. If one mistakes a saint for a knave, and addresses him accordingly, he is not really guilty of insulting him, for it is not actually the saint but the knave whom he has in mind. If the presence of the Holy Spirit was not recognized, there could be no blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But when it was perceived and yet deliberately treated as evil, the action would indicate a wilful reversal of the dictates of conscience. Our Lord warns His hearers that such a sin cannot be forgiven either in the present age—the pre-Messianic, or in the age to come—the Messianic, that is, as we should say, the Christian age. The condition of such a person will be that he is guilty (ἔνοχος) of an eternal (αἰωνίου) sin (so Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 of Mark 3:29, following אBL, etc., ἁμαρτήματος; not ‘damnation,’ as in Authorized Version, after the Syrian reading ἁμαρτήματος;, A, etc.). This cannot well mean ‘a sin that persists, a fixed disposition,’ as Dr. Salmond understands it, because (1) the Greek word ἁμαρτήματος; stands for an act, not a state; (2) there is nothing in the context to indicate persistency in the blasphemy; (3) the Jewish current conception was that a sin once committed remained on the sinner till it was atoned for or forgiven. He had to bear his sin. Therefore one who was never forgiven would have to bear his sin eternally, and so would be said to have an eternal sin. Wellhausen understands it to be equivalent to eternal punishment (‘schuldig ewiger Sünde, d. i. ewiger Strafe,’ Evang. Marci , 28).

At the same time, while this must be understood as the correct exegesis of the words, the saying should be interpreted in harmony with the spirit of Christ. Now it is characteristic of legalism and the letter to make a solitary exception, depending on one external act. The Spirit of Christ is concerned with character rather than with specific deeds, and it is contrary to His spirit that one specific deed should be singled out for exclusion from mercy. Then, elsewhere, the breadth of His gospel indicates that no genuine seeker would be rejected. Therefore we must understand Him to mean either (1) that to be guilty of such a sin a man must be so hardened that he never would repent, or (2) that such a sin cannot be overlooked, forgotten, and swallowed up in the general flood of mercy. It must come up for judgment. Against (1) and for (2) is the fact that our Lord says nothing of the offender’s disposition, but only refers to the sin, its heinous character, and consequent never-to-be-denied or forgotten ill-desert. See, further, art. Unpardonable Sin.

2. The charge of blasphemy brought against Jesus Christ. —This charge was brought against our Lord on three occasions—two recorded in the Synoptics and one in the Fourth Gospel. In all of these cases the alleged blasphemy is against God, actual blasphemy in our sense of the word. The first instance is at the cure of the paralytic who had been let down through the roof (Matthew 9:3, Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21). Jesus had just said to the sufferer, ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee.’ Upon this the scribes and Pharisees who were present complained that He was speaking blasphemies because only God could forgive sins, that is to say, that He was arrogating to Himself a Divine prerogative. In His answer He distinctly claimed this right on the ground of His enigmatic title of ‘the Son of Man,’ and held it to be confirmed by His cure of the paralytic. The second occasion is that recorded by St. John, where the Jews declare that their attempt to stone Jesus was ‘for blasphemy,’ adding ‘because that thou, being a man makest thyself God’ (John 10:33). This was just after He had said, ‘I and the Father are one (ἕν).’ The third occasion is at the trial of Jesus. According to Matthew 26:65 and Mark 14:63-64 when Jesus, after being adjured by the high priest to declare if He were the Christ, declared that they would ‘see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven,’ the high priest treated this as blasphemy, rending his garments as a token of honor at the words. Yet the claim was not for more than the Book of Enoch assigned to the Messiah. But the Messiah in that Apocalyptic book is a heavenly being. Such a being Caiaphas would understand Jesus to claim to be, and he reckoned the profession of such a claim blasphemous. This was the formal ground of the condemnation of Jesus to death by the Sanhedrin. The first charge, that of threatening to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, had broken down because of the inconsistency of the witnesses. The second charge is suddenly sprung upon, Jesus by the high priest on the ground of His words at the council; and, on this account, as guilty of blasphemy, He was condemned to death, although it was useless to cite the words before Pilate, who would have dismissed the case as Gallio at Corinth dismissed what he regarded as ‘a question about words and names’ (Acts 18:15). Therefore a third charge, never mentioned in the Jewish trial,— laesae majestatis , treason against Caesar,—was concocted for use at the Roman trial.

It is to be observed that there is one common character in all these accusations of blasphemy brought against Jesus. He is never accused of direct blasphemy, speaking insulting words about God. The alleged blasphemy is indirect, in each case claiming more or less Divine rights and powers for Himself.

Lastly, it may be noted that Luke 22:65 Authorized Version has the word ‘blasphemously’ for the way in which the mockers spoke of Jesus; but Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 has ‘reviling,’ which is the evident meaning. There is no reference to our narrower sense of blasphemy as insulting the Divine; the word (ἁμαρτήματος;) is used in the common wider sense.

Literature.—S. J. Andrews, Life of Our Lord , 505–514; Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, art. ‘Blasphemy’; Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lex. s.vv. βλασφημία, βλασφημὲω; and in particular on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Martensen, Christian Ethics , ii. p. 123ff.; Gloag, Exegetical Studies , p. 1 ff.; Expositor , 2nd ser. iii. [1882] p. 321 ff.; A. Maclaren, Christ’s Musts , 44–54.

W. F. Adeney.

== Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature ==

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 Psalms 74:18; Isaiah 52:5; 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 1 Kings 21:10; Acts 18:6; Judges 1:9, etc. Hence in the Sept. it is used to render בָּיִךְ, Job 2:5; גָּדִ ), 2 Kings 19:6; יָכִח, 2 Kings 19:4; and לָעג, Hosea 7:16, so that it means " reproach," "derision," etc.; and it has even a wider use, as 2 Samuel 12:14, where it means "to despise Judaism," and 1 Maccabees 2:6, where βλασφημία = idolatry. In 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'.

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 (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 (Exodus 22:28; 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 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 Leviticus 24:16 as prohibiting the utterance of the divine name under any circumstance (comp. 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 Exodus 3:13; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, v, 163 sq.). They also construed 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, 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. Matthew 26:65.)

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 (Romans 3:8; Romans 14:16; 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).

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.

As blasphemy by the old law (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Leviticus 24:10; 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.

The early Christians distinguished blasphemy as of three kinds:

1. The blasphemy of apostates and lapsi, whom the heathen persecutors had obliged not only to deny, but to curse Christ.

2. The blasphemy of heretics and other profane Christians.

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.

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 Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; 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.

There is no connection between this awful sin and those mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-8; 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 (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).