Blasphemy

Blasphemy is apostacy, whether idolatrous or of any other description. Rev 13:1-6; Rev 16:9; Rev 16:11; Rev 17:3; Act 26:11; Eze 20:27-32.

From the Greek according to Dr. Campbell, properly 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, Rom 3:8. Rom 14:16. 1Pe 4:4. Gr. It is, however, more peculiarly restrained to evil or reproachful words offered to God. According to Linwood, 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, independent of consequences which others may derive from them, must be injurious in their nature.

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 dishonour 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."

By the English laws, blasphemies of God, as denying his being or providence, and all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, &c. are offences by the common law, and punishable by fine, imprisonment, and pillory; and, by the statute law, he that denies one of the persons in the Trinity, or asserts that there are more than one God, or denies 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; the legislature thinking, perhaps, that spiritual offences should be left to be punished by the Deity rather than by human statutes.

Campbell’s Prel. Dess. vol. 1: p. 395; Robinson’s Script. Plea, p. 58.

I think it proper to stop at this word, as the sense and meaning of it is not so generally understood as it were to be wished; and many of God’s dear children, it is to be apprehended, have their minds much exercised about it, fearing they have committed the unpardonable sin, in blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It will not be amiss, therefore, to make an humble enquiry concerning it, looking up for the Lord the Spirit to be our Teacher. The sin of blasphemy is peculiarly applied to those who sin against God by profaning

hisholy name, and speaking lightly and wantonly of his person, prefections, and attributes. The law under Moses’s dispensation punished such crimes with death. (Lev. 24. 11.16.)

This is what may be called blasphemy in general. But added to this, our Lord speaks of a peculiar branch of blasphemy against the person and work of God the Holy Ghost, as being accompanied with aggravated malignity, and in its nature unpardonable. But as if that none of his children might make a mistake concerning it, with that tenderness and grace which distinguished his character, the Lord Jesus mercifully set forth in what the peculiar degree of the sin consisted. He had been casting out devils, and the Scribes andPharisees, with their usaul malignity, ascribed those gracious acts to the agency of the Evil Spirit. Hence, our Lord thus expressed himself, "Verily, I say unto you, all sin shall be for given unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they should blaspheme. But he that should blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." And then it is added, as an explanation of the whole, and to shew in what the unpardonable sin consisted, "because they said, he hath anunclean spirit." (Mark 3: 28, &c.) Here was the blasphemy, in ascribing the works of Jesus, wrought evidently the Spirit of JEHOVAH, to the agency of Satan; was blasphemy with a vengeance, and from its peculiar malignity unpardonable. And who are the persons that commit it? Surely, not they who desire to love Jesus, and to feel the gracious influences of the Holy Ghost. Their distresses and their fears are, lest they should come short of the grace of God. They are too well convinced that the Lord Jesus wrought all his miracles by his own almighty power, even to call it in question; so that in this sense, it is impossible for them to commit this unpardonable sin. They would shudder even to hear such blasphemy from the lips of others; and how then should it come from their own? Who then were the persons to whom the Lord Jesus alluded when he thus expressed himself? Most evidently and plainly, the Scribes and Pharisees then before him. They had charged Christ with having an evil spirit, by whose influence he wrought miracles, andhenceJesus declared the sin, and shewed, at the same time, that it was totally unpardonable. And what confirmed it more, and manifested that they were given up to a reprobate mind, was, that hardness and insensibility both of their sin and their danger. Here is another sweet and precious testimony to the timid and fearful child of God, if he would but attend to it as it really is. Your very softness of heart proves the reverse of those obdurate Pharisees. They had commited it, and were insensible and unconcerned. your sorrow and apprehension most decidedly manifest that you have not so sinned, neither can have committed such an evil. The very different state of the different characters draws the line of distinction, and shews who are the blasphemers of the Holy Ghost, and who are not. The Lord be the teacher of his people.

βλασφημια, properly denotes calumny, detraction, reproachful or abusive language, against whomsoever it be vented. That βλασφημια and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr. Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the following passages: Mat 12:31-32; Mat 27:39; Mar 15:29; Luk 22:65; Luk 23:39; Rom 3:8; Rom 14:16; 1Co 4:13; 1Co 10:30; Eph 4:31; 1Ti 6:4; Tit 3:2; 1Pe 4:14; Jud 1:9-10; Act 6:11; Act 6:13; 2Pe 2:10-11; in the much greater part of which the English translators, sensible that they could admit no such application, have not used the words blaspheme or blasphemy, but rail, revile, speak evil, &c. In one of the passages quoted, a reproachful charge brought even against the devil is called κρισις βλασφημιας, Jud 1:9; and rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word βλασφημια is maledicentia, in the largest acceptation; comprehending all sorts of verbal abuse, imprecation, reviling, and calumny. And let it be observed, that when such abuse is mentioned as uttered against God, there is probably no change made in the signification of the word: the change is only in the application; that is, in the reference to a different object. The idea conveyed in the explanation now given is always included, against whomsoever the crime be committed. In this manner every term is understood that is applicable to both God and man. Thus the meaning of the word disobey is the same, whether we speak of disobeying God or of disobeying man. The same may be said of believe, honour, fear, &c. As, therefore, the sense of the term is the same, though differently applied, what is essential to constitute the crime of detraction in the one case, is essential also in the other. But it is essential to this crime, as commonly understood, when committed by one man against another, that there be in the injurious person the will or disposition to detract from the person abused. Mere mistake in regard to character, especially when the mistake is not conceived by him who entertains it to lessen the character, nay, is supposed, however erroneously, to exalt it, is never construed by any into the crime of defamation. Now, as blasphemy is in its essence the same crime, but immensely aggravated by being committed against an object infinitely superior to man, what is fundamental to the very existence of the crime will be found in this, as in every other species which comes under the general name. 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 as necessary that this species of calumny be intentional, He must be one, therefore, who by his impious talk endeavours to inspire others with the same irreverence towards the Deity, or perhaps, abhorrence of him, which he indulges in himself. And though, for the honour 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. The first divine law published against it, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord,” (or Jehovah, as it is in the Hebrew) “shall be put to death,” Lev 24:16, when considered along with the incidents that occasioned it, suggests a very atrocious offence in words, no less than abuse or imprecations vented against the Deity. For, in what way soever the crime of the man there mentioned be interpreted,—whether as committed against the true God, the God of Israel, or against any of the false gods whom his Egyptian father worshipped,—the law in the words now quoted is sufficiently explicit; and the circumstances of the story plainly show, that the words which he had used were derogatory from the Godhead, and shocking to the hearers. And if we add to this the only other memorable instance in sacred history, namely, that of Rabshakeh, it will lead us to conclude that it is solely a malignant attempt, in words, to lessen men’s reverence of the true God, and, by vilifying his perfections, to prevent their placing confidence in him, which is called in Scripture blasphemy, when the word is employed to denote a sin committed directly against God. This was manifestly the attempt of Rabshakeh, when he said, “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,” (the word is Jehovah,) “saying, Jehovah will surely deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2Ki 18:30; 2Ki 18:33-35.

2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular, which our Lord denominates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Mat 12:31-32; Mar 3:28-29; Luk 12:10. But without entering minutely into the discussion of this question, it may suffice here to observe, that this blasphemy is certainly not of the constructive kind, but direct, manifest, and malignant. First, it is mentioned as comprehended under the same genus with abuse against men, and contradistinguished only by the object. Secondly, it is farther explained by being called speaking against in both cases: ος αν ειπη λογον κατα του ανθρωπου,—ος δ’ αν ειπν κατα του πνευματος του αγιου. “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man.”—”Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost.” The expressions are the same, in effect, in all the Evangelists who mention it, and imply such an opposition as is both intentional and malevolent. This cannot have been the case of all who disbelieved the mission of Jesus, and even decried his miracles; many of whom, we have reason to think, were afterward converted by the Apostles. But it was the wretched case of some who, instigated by worldly ambition and avarice, slandered what they knew to be the cause of God; and, against conviction, reviled his work as the operation of evil spirits. This view of the sin against the Holy Ghost is confirmed by the circumstances under which our Lord spoke.

If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees’ imputing the miracles wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost to the power of the devil; for our Lord had just healed one possessed of a devil, and upon this the Pharisees gave this malicious turn to the miracle. This led our Saviour to discourse on the sin of blasphemy. The Pharisees were the persons charged with the crime: the sin itself manifestly consisted in ascribing what was done by the finger of God to the agency of the devil; and the reason, therefore, why our Lord pronounced it unpardonable, is plain; because, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, they resisted the strongest means of conviction, and that wilfully and malignantly; and, giving way to their passions, opprobriously treated that Holy Spirit whom they ought to have adored.

From all which it will probably follow, that no person can now be guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in the sense in which our Saviour originally intended it; but there may be sins which bear a very near resemblance to it. This appears from the case of the apostates mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to whom “no more sacrifice for sins” is said to remain; whose defection, however, is not represented so much as a direct sin against the Holy Ghost as against Christ, whom the apostate Jews blasphemed in the synagogues. It implied, however, a high offence against the Holy Spirit also, with whose gifts they had, probably, been endowed, and their conduct must be considered, if not the same sin as that committed by the Pharisees, yet as a

consenting with it, and thus as placing them in nearly, if not altogether, the same desperate condition. Even apostacy in the present day, although a most aggravated and perilous offence, cannot be committed with circumstances of equal aggravation to those which were found in the case of the persons mentioned by St. Paul; and it may be laid down as certain, for the relief of those who may be tempted to think that they have committed the unpardonable sin, that their horror of it, and the trouble which the very apprehension causes them, are the sure proofs that they are mistaken. But although there may be now fearful approaches to the unpardonable offence, it is to be remembered that there may be many dangerous and fatal sins against the Holy Ghost, which are not the sin against him, which has no forgiveness.

Blasphemy signifies a false, irreverent, injurious use of God’s names, attributes, words, and works. Whenever men intentionally and directly attack the perfections of Jehovah, and thus lessen the reverence which others entertain for him, they are blasphemers.

By the Mosaic law blasphemy was punished with death (Lev 24:10-16); and the laws of some countries still visit it with the same punishment. Fines, imprisonment, and various corporal inflictions are annexed to the crime by the laws of Great Britain. It is matter, however, of sincere satisfaction, that there are very few instances in which these enactments require to be enforced.

Much has been said and written respecting the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, usually but improperly denominated the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. Some refer it to continued opposition to the Gospel, i.e. obstinate impenitence or final unbelief.

But we object to this opinion, because it generalizes the nature of the sin in question. On the contrary, the Scripture account narrows it to a particular sin of a special kind, discountenancing the idea that it is of frequent occurrence, and marked by no circumstances of unwonted aggravation. Besides, all the notices which we have refer it not so much to a state of mind as to the outward manifestation of a singularly malignant disposition by the utterance of the lips.

The occasion on which Christ introduced his mention of it (Mat 12:31, etc.; Mar 3:28, etc.), the subsequent context, and, above all, the words of Mar 3:30 (’because they said, He hath an unclean spirit’) indicate, with tolerable plainness, that the sin in question consisted in attributing the miracles wrought by Christ, or his Apostles in His name, to the agency of Satan. It was by the power of the Holy Ghost, given to the Redeemer without measure, that he cast out devils: and whoever maligned the Savior by affirming that an unclean spirit actuated and enabled him to expel other spirits, maligned the Holy Ghost.

It is difficult to discover the ’sin unto death,’ noticed by the Apostle John (1Jn 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.

A man is guilty of blasphemy, when he speaks of God, or his attributes, injuriously; when he calumniously ascribe such qualities to him as do not belong to him, or robs him of those which do. The law sentenced blasphemers to death, Lev 24:12-16 . In a lower sense, men are said to be blasphemed when abused by calumnious and reviling words, 1Ki 21:10 ; Mal 6:11 .\par

Blasphemy. In its technical English sense, blasphemy signifies the speaking evil of God and, in this sense, it is found Psa 74:18; Isa 52:5; Rom 2:24, etc. But, according to its derivation, it may mean any species of calumny and abuse: See 1Ki 21:10; Act 18:6; Jud 1:9, etc.

Blasphemy was punished by stoning, which was inflicted on the son of Shelomith. Lev 24:11. On this charge, both our Lord and St. Stephen were condemned to death, by the Jews.

[The Unforgivable Sin!] The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Mat 12:32; Mar 3:28, 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. It is plainly such a state of wilful, determined opposition to God and the Holy Spirit, that no efforts will avail to lead to repentance. Among the Jews, it was a sin against God, answering to treason, in our times.

Literally a "railing accusation" against anyone (Jud 1:9). "Evil speaking" is probably meant by it in Col 3:8. But it is more often used in the sense of any speech directly dishonoring God (1Ki 21:10; 2Sa 12:14; Psa 74:18; Isa 52:5; Rom 2:24). Stoning was the penalty, as upon the son of Shelomith, a woman of Dan, and of an Egyptian father (Lev 24:11); Stephen was so treated by a sudden outbreak of Jewish zeal (Act 7:57-60). The Savior would have been stoned for the blasphemy alleged as the ground of His condemnation (Mat 26:65; Luk 5:21; Joh 10:36); but the Romans, to whom He was delivered, used crucifixion.

So the fulfillment of the prophecy (contrary to what might have been expected, seeing that crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment) was brought about, "they pierced My hands and My feet" (Psa 22:16; compare Joh 18:31-32; Joh 19:6-7). The Jews, in spite of themselves, fulfilled the prophecies to the letter (Joh 11:50-52). The hearer of the blasphemy rent his garment, which might never be mended, and laid his hand, putting the guilt wholly, on the offender’s head. The Jews, because of Lev 24:16, superstitiously shrank from even naming Jehovah. In Exo 22:28, "thou shalt not curse the gods" (elohim) refers to disrespectful language toward magistrates. From Exo 23:13, "make no mention of the name of other gods," they thought themselves bound to turn the idols’ names into nicknames, as Baal into Bosheth, Beth-aven for Beth-el, Beel-zebul for Beel-zebub.

When the Jewish rulers, who had such numerous proofs of Jesus’ Messiahship, shut their hearts against conviction, and at last stifled conscience and the light so utterly as to attribute His miracles of love, as the casting out of unclean spirits, to the help of the prince of demons, Christ pronounced that they were either committing or on the verge of committing the sin against the Holy Spirit which is forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come, though all sin against the Son of man can be forgiven (Mat 12:31, etc.; Mar 3:28, etc.).

None can now commit formally the same sin of attributing Jesus’ miracles against Satan’s kingdom to Satan’s help, so evident a self contradiction that nothing short of a seared conscience, and a hardened determination to resist every spiritual impression and even malign the Spirit’s work before other men, could have given birth to such a sin. But a man may commit virtually the same sin by continued malignant resistance of the gracious Spirit in one’s own heart, with, at the same time, blasphemous and Satanic misrepresentation of it to others. He who has committed it is so given over to a reprobate mind as to have no pang of conscience about it, and the very fear of anyone that he has committed it is proof positive that he has not, for if he had he would have been "past feeling" (Heb 6:4-6; 1Jn 5:16).

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 Psa 74:18; Isa 52:5; Rom 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 1Ki 21:10; Act 18:6; Jud 1:9, etc. Hence in the Sept. it is used to render בָּיִךְ, Job 2:5; גָּדִ), 2Ki 19:6; יָכִח, 2Ki 19:4; and לָעג, Hos 7:16, so that it means " reproach," "derision," etc.; and it has even a wider use, as 2Sa 12:14, where it means "to despise Judaism," and 1Ma 2:6, where βλασφημία = idolatry. In Sir 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’; חָרִŠ, 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 (Lev 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 (Exo 22:28; Lev 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 Exo 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 Lev 24:16 as prohibiting the utterance of the divine name under any circumstance (comp. Num 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 Exo 3:13; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, v, 163 sq.). They also construed Exo 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, Hos 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. Mat 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 (Rom 3:8; Rom 14:16; 1Pe 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 (Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12; Lev 24:10; Deu 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 Mat 12:31-32; Mar 3:28-29; Luk 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 Heb 6:4-8; Heb 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 (1Jn 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.

Blasphemy. Irreverent or insulting language fn regard to God. Psa 74:18; Rom 2:24, and elsewhere. But the original words in scripture had often a wider signification, and meant evil-speaking, slander, reviling generally. Mat 15:19; Luk 22:65, and elsewhere. The punishment prescribed by the Mosaic law for the crime of actual blasphemy was death by stoning. This we find executed on the son of Shelomith, Lev 24:10-16; and it was on this charge, though a false one, that our Lord and Stephen were condemned. Mat 26:65-66; Act 6:11. If Jesus had not been the Son of God, his assumption of equality with the Father would have been blasphemous. That assumption was true; but the Jews accused him of blasphemy because they knew not who he was. In regard to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the essence of this fearful sin seems to have been that the Jews, shutting their eyes to the proof of miracles which Christ gave, daringly attributed those good works to an unclean spirit. Mar 3:28-30. So a desperate resistance to the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit shuts up the soul to irretrievable ruin. It is not that the blood of Jesus Christ could not cleanse such a sinner, but that the man defeats the kind purpose that would lead him to it. He never applies to the fountain of unlimited virtue; and so he remains uncleansed forever.

In scripture this does not always refer to speaking evil of God, to which the word is now restricted. The same Greek word is translated ’railing’ in 1Ti 6:4; Jud 1:9; and ’evil speaking’ in Eph 4:31, as it might well be rendered elsewhere. Blaspheming the name of the Lord was under the Jewish economy punishable by death: the son of Shelomith who had married an Egyptian, was stoned to death for this sin. Lev 24:11; Lev 24:14; Lev 24:23. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was attributing the Lord’s action of casting out demons to the agency of Satan - a sin which should not be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come. The context shows that ’the unpardonable sin’ refers to this particular form of blasphemy. Mat 12:24-32.

Those That Blaspheme Against The Holy Spirit

Mat_12:31-32; Mar_3:28-29; Luk_12:10.

Those That Blaspheme The Name Of The LORD

Lev_24:16.

Who Blasphemies The Name Of The LORD

2Sa_12:13-14; Psa_74:18; Rom_2:21-24.

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. (Mar 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. (Mar 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 (Mar 3:28-29, Mat 12:31). The comprehensive sentence must include blasphemy against God, although that is not expressly mentioned. In Mat 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. (Luk 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 (Mar 3:28).

The nature of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Mat 12:22-32, Mar 3:29, Luk 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’ (Mat 12:28), or ‘by the finger of God’ (Luk 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 Mar 3:29, following א BL, 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 (Mat 9:3, Mar 2:7, Luk 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’ (Joh 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 Mat 26:65 and Mar 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’ (Act 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 Luk 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.

By: Kaufmann Kohler, David Werner Amram

Evil or profane speaking of God. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act.

The Jewish law is based on the case of the blasphemer, one of the mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the children of Israel (Lev. xxiv. 10-23). He blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; was sentenced to be taken without the camp; and it was decreed that all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. The judgment in his case was formulated in a general law in verses 15 and 16.

The term "we-noḳeb shem Yhwh," used in verse 16 ("And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord," A. V.), does not seem to signify that the mere pronunciation of the Ineffable Name was considered blasphemy, but that it was blasphemous to curse or revile the same. The later law, however, took the word "noḳeb" in the sense of "pronouncing," and declared that the Ineffable Name must have been pronounced before the offender could be subjected to the punishment provided by the Law.

Both the lawgiver and the prophets speak of the blasphemer of God and of the king. To revile the king, who was God's representative, was apparently considered a species of blasphemy (Ex. xxii. 27; Isa. viii. 21). This is furthermore shown in the case of Naboth, the indictment against him being: "Thou didst blaspheme God and the king" (I Kings xxi. 10). Beyond the reference to cursing in the text of Leviticus, there is nothing in the Biblical laws to indicate what constitutes the crime, and nothing to show that, to prove blasphemy, it was required to prove that the blasphemer had uttered the name of God. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "noḳeb," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounce the name of God (Mishnah Sanh. vii. 5). The Gemara goes further and extends the crime to an impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of God, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." As long as the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a). According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its use was restricted (Ḳid. 71a; see Adonai; God, Names of).

Even in taking testimony during the trial of a blasphemer, the witnesses who heard the blasphemy were not permitted to repeat the very words, but an arbitrary phrase was adopted to indicate the blasphemy. Thus, R. Joshua ben Ḳarḥah said: "Throughout the examination of the witnesses, 'Yosé' should be used for Yhwh, and they should say, 'Yosé shall strike Yosé,' to indicate the blasphemy" (Mishnah Sanh. ib.). At the conclusion of the trial sentence of death could not be passed by such testimony only, and it thus became necessary for one of the witnesses to use once the very words which they had heard. The court directed all persons not immediately concerned in the trial to be removed, and the chief witness was then addressed thus: "State literally what you heard"; and when he repeated the blasphemous words the judges stood up and rent their garments, that being the common sign of mourning. And the rents were not sewed up again, indicating the profound degree of the mourning. After the first witness had thus testified, the second and the following witnesses were not called on to repeat the identical words; but were obliged to say, "I also heard it thus" (Mishnah Sanh. ib.).

The text of the law in Leviticus provides that the stranger, as well as the native born, is liable to punishment for blasphemy. Talmudic tradition states that blasphemy was one of the seven crimes prohibited to the Noahides (Sanh. 56a), i.e., according to natural law. Although, according to Jewish law, a Jew who blasphemed a heathen deity was not guilty of the crime of blasphemy, Josephus ("Ant." iv. 8, § 10, after Philo, "Vita Mosis," 26; ed. Mangey, ii. 166) to the contrary notwithstanding, yet a heathen might be guilty if he blasphemed the name of the Lord (Baraita Sanh. 56a). The crime of the heathen blasphemer, though subjecting him to the penalty of death, did not oblige the Jewish by-standers to rend their garments. The Talmud bases the custom of rending the garments in such cases upon the Biblical precedent in II Kings xviii. 37), where Eliakim and others rent their garments when they heard the blasphemy of Rab-shakeh; and in order to bring this view into harmony with the practise requiring the rending of garments only on hearing a blasphemy by a Jew, the Talmud states that Rab-shakeh was an apostate Jew (Sanh. 60a).

According to R. Ḥiyya, the rending of garments was no longer required after the fall of the Temple ("He who hears blasphemy nowadays is not obliged to rend his garments, because otherwise his garments would be nothing but tatters," Sanh. ib.); for the criminal jurisdiction of the Jewish courts had ceased, and the fear of death no longer deterred the blasphemers. The later law, however, restored the practise of rending the garments. In an opinion rendered by Gaon Rab Amram ("Teshubot Geone Mizraḥ Uma'arab," collected by Joel Müller, No. 103) he says, "He who hears his neighbor blaspheme must excommunicate him in these days, no matter what language was used. This is the practise of the pious. It is not necessary that the blasphemy be in Hebrew, and it makes no difference whether the Ineffable Name or the attributes of God be mentioned, whether the offender be a Jew or a non-Jew, whether the language be Hebrew or any other. These distinctions were made to distinguish the capital crime from the lesser offense; but for purposes of excommunication, it makes no difference whether the blasphemer be a heathen or a Jew, whether heuse the Sacred Name or the attributes, nor what language he uses; he must be excommunicated." And this opinion is, with slight modification, repeated in the Yoreh De'ah (340, 37) as follows: "He who hears the Name blasphemed, or even an attribute of God, such as 'The Forgiving One,' 'The Merciful One,' etc., even if pronounced in a foreign language, must rend his garments, provided he hear it from an Israelite (and an apostate is in these days considered a heathen); and even if he hear it from the mouth of the witness stating how the blasphemer blasphemed. But the witnesses testifying in court need not rend their garments again, having once done so when they first heard the blasphemy."

The excommunication of the blasphemer was substituted as a punishment for the death penalty (see Excommunication), rendering it unnecessary for the witnesses to repeat the identical words of the blasphemy, as this was required only when the death penalty was inflicted (Pitḥe Teshubah to Yoreh De'ah, 340, 37). Abba Saul was of the opinion that, in addition to the punishment inflicted by human power, the blasphemer is also excluded from the life in the world to come ('Ab. Zarah 18a). See Sacrilege; Shem ha-Meforash; Unbelief.

Bibliography:

Mayer, Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Römer, iii. 415;

Saalschütz, Das Mosaische Recht, pp. 494 et seq.

BLASPHEMY.—The modern use of this word is more restricted in its range than that of either the OT or the NT. 1. In the former it is narrower in its scope than in the latter, being almost universally confined to language or deeds (1Ma 2:6) derogating from the honour of God and His claims to the over-lordship of men (Lev 24:10-16, cf. 1Ki 21:10; 1Ki 21:13, 2Ki 19:6 etc.). The contemptuous scorning of sacred places was regarded as blasphemy (see 1Ma 2:6; 1Ma 7:38, cf. Act 6:13), as was also the light and irresponsible utterance of the sacred Name (Isa 52:6, Eze 36:20, Deu 5:11), the degradation of Jehovah-worship by conformity to pagan rites (Eze 20:27), and the continued wilful transgression of Divine commands and despising of ‘the word of the Lord’ (Num 15:30 f.). The incident of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath seems to be a concrete example of blasphemy (Num 15:32 f.).

2. 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 (Mat 15:19 = Mar 7:22, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8, 1Ti 6:4, Jud 1:9), looked at, however, on its ethical and religious side. The cognate verb, too, is treated in the same way (Mar 15:29 = Mat 27:39, Luk 22:65; Luk 23:39, Rom 3:8; Rom 14:16, 1Co 4:18; 1Co 10:30, Tit 3:2, 1Pe 4:4; 1Pe 4:14, 2Pe 2:2; 2Pe 2:10; 2Pe 2:12, Jud 1:8; Jud 1:10), as is also the derived adjective (2Ti 3:2, 2Pe 2:11).

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 (Mar 2:7 = Mat 9:3, Mar 14:64 = Mat 26:65, Joh 10:33; Joh 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 (Mar 15:29 = Mat 27:39, Luk 22:65; Luk 23:39, Act 13:45; Act 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 (Act 19:37).

3. The legal punishment for blasphemy was death (Lev 24:16), and so the Jews claimed the life of Jesus, as the just and lawful outcome of His words and teaching (Joh 19:7, cf. Joh 10:33; Joh 8:58 f.). The proto-martyr Stephen lost his life, too, on a charge of blasphemy (Act 6:13; Act 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. Joh 18:31; see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, Additional Note in loc). On the ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,’ see art. Sin, III. 1.

J. R. Willis.

(Greek: blapto, injure; pkemi, speak)

Any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God.

Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by Bacon when in his "Advancement of Learning" he speaks of "blasphemy against learning". St. Paul tells of being blasphemed (1 Corinthians 4:13) and the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (2 Samuel 21:21; 1 Chronicles 20:7) or against individuals (1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus 3:2). MEANINGWhile etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Suarez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds. It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God". It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God". It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean". Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import. THE MALICE OF BLASPHEMYBlasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning an last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II, Q. xiii, art. I). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible--an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity. These forms of the sin being specifically distinct from the simpler kind, it is necessary to specify their character in confession. Whether blasphemy has been direct or indirect, however, calls not for specification on the part of the penitent, since both these forms are specifically the same, though clearly differing in the degree of malice. The question has been raised whether blasphemy against the saints differs in kind from that uttered immediately against God. While De Lugo thinks that such a difference obtains (De Poenit., disp. xvi, n. 178 sqq.) the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus seems more tenable, for as the latter theologian observes, the saints, ordinarily speaking, are not blasphemed because of their own excellence but because of their close relationship to God (Theol. Moral., lib. IV, n. 132). THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMYIn the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith’s son: "The man that curseth His God, shall bear his sin: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die" (Leviticus 24:15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (2 Kings 18:37, 19:l; Matthew 26:65).Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a constitution of A. D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks, according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A. D. 818, this sin was a capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of "the things that defile a man" (Matthew 15:20; Mark 7:21-23).Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by Pius V in his Constitution "Cum primum apostolatus" (p. 10). According to the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year’s income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys. BLASPHEMY IN CIVIL LAWBlasphemy cognizable by common law is defined by Blackstone to be "denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule". The United States once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that "Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common Law", Accordingly where one uttered the following words "Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore", it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.-----------------------------------ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sum. Theol., II-II, Q. xiii, a. 3; Q. ev. a, 2ad, 3am; Q. lxxx, a. 3; I-II, Q. x, a. 2; ST. LIGUORI, Theol. moral., lib. IV, tract. ii, c. i.JOHN WEBSTER MELODY Transcribed by Janet Grayson The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

blas´fē̇-mi (βλασφημία, blasphēmı́a): In classical Greek meant primarily “defamation” or “evil-speaking” in general; “a word of evil omen,” hence, “impious, and irreverent speech against God.”

(1) In the Old Testament as substantive and vb.: (a) (בּרך, bārakh) “Naboth did blaspheme God and the king” (1Ki 21:10, 1Ki 21:13 the King James Version); (b) (גּדף, gādhaph) of Senna-cherib defying Yahweh (2Ki 19:6, 2Ki 19:22 = Isa 37:6, Isa 37:23; also Psa 44:16; Eze 20:27; compare Num 15:30), “But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand (i.e. knowingly and defiantly),... the same blasphemeth (so the Revised Version (British and American), but the King James Version “reproacheth”) Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” Blasphemy is always in word or deed, injury, dishonor and defiance offered to God, and its penalty is death by stoning; (c) (חרף, ḥāraph) of idolatry as blasphemy against Yahweh (Isa 65:7); (d) (נקב, nāḳabh) “And he that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death” (Lev 24:11, Lev 24:16); (e) (נאץ, nā’ac) David’s sin is an occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (2Sa 12:14; also Psa 74:10, Psa 74:18; Isa 52:5; compare Eze 35:12; 2Ki 19:3 the King James Version; Isa 37:3).

(2) In the New Testament blasphemy, substantive and vb., may be (a) of evil-speaking generally, (Act 13:45; Act 18:6); The Jews contradicted Paul “and blasphemed,” the Revised Version, margin “railed.” (So in the King James Version of Mat 15:19 = Mar 7:22; Col 3:8, but in the Revised Version (British and American) “railings”; Rev 2:9 the Revised Version, margin “reviling”; so perhaps in 1Ti 1:20; or Hymeneus and Alexander may have blasphemed Christ by professing faith and living unworthily of it.) (b) Speaking against a heathen goddess: the town clerk of Ephesus repels the charge that Paul and his companions were blasphemers of Diana (Act 19:37). (c) Against God: (i) uttering impious words (Rev 13:1, Rev 13:5, Rev 13:6; Rev 16:9, Rev 16:11, Rev 16:21; Rev 17:3); (ii) unworthy conduct of Jews (Rom 2:24) and Christians (1Ti 6:1; Tit 2:5, and perhaps 1Ti 1:20); (iii) of Jesus Christ, alleged to be usurping the authority of God (Mat 9:3 = Mar 2:7 = Luk 5:21), claiming to be the Messiah, the son of God (Mat 26:65 = Mar 14:64), or making Himself God (Joh 10:33, Joh 10:36). (d) Against Jesus Christ: Saul strove to make the Christians he persecuted blaspheme their Lord (Act 26:11). So was he himself a blasphemer (1Ti 1:13; compare Jas 2:7).

The Unpardonable Sin

(3) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come” (Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32 = Mar 3:28, Mar 3:29; Luk 12:10). As in the Old Testament “to sin with a high hand” and to blaspheme the name of God incurred the death penalty, so the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit remains the one unpardonable sin. These passages at least imply beyond cavil the personality of the Holy Spirit, for sin and blasphemy can only be committed against persons. In Mt and Mk a particular case of this blasphemy is the allegation of the Pharisees that Jesus Christ casts out devils by Beelzebub. The general idea is that to attribute to an evil source acts which are clearly those of the Holy Spirit, to call good evil, is blasphemy against the Spirit, and sin that will not be pardoned. “A distinction is made between Christ’s other acts and those which manifestly reveal the Holy Spirit in Him, and between slander directed against Him personally as He appears in His ordinary acts, and that which is aimed at those acts in which the Spirit is manifest” (Gould, Mark at the place). Luke does not refer to any particular instance, and seems to connect it with the denial of Christ, although he, too, gives the saying that “who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven.” But which of Christ’s acts are not acts of the Holy Spirit, and how therefore is a word spoken against Him not also blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? John identifies the Holy Spirit with the exalted Christ (Joh 14:16-18, Joh 14:26, Joh 14:28). The solution generally offered of this most difficult problem is concisely put by Plummer (Luke ad loc.): “Constant and consummate opposition to the influence of the Holy Spirit, because of a deliberate preference of darkness to light, render repentance and therefore forgiveness morally impossible.” A similar idea is taught in Heb 6:4-6, and 1Jn 5:16: “A sin unto death.” But the natural meaning of Christ’s words implies an inability or unwillingness to forgive on the Divine side rather than inability to repent in man. Anyhow the abandonment of man to eternal condemnation involves the inability and defeat of God. The only alternative seems to be to call the kenotic theory into service, and to put this idea among the human limitations which Christ assumed when He became flesh. It is less difficult to ascribe a limit to Jesus Christ’s knowledge than to God’s saving grace (Mar 13:32; compare Joh 16:12, Joh 16:13). It is also noteworthy that in other respects, at least, Christ acquiesced in the view of the Holy Spirit which He found among His contemporaries. See HOLY SPIRIT.

(âëáóöçìßá, vb. âëáóöçìåῖí, adj. and noun âëÜóöçìïò; perhaps derived from âëÜðôåéí, ‘to injure,’ and öÞìç, ‘speech’)

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 2Ti_3:2 the Revised Version has ‘railers’ instead of ‘blasphemers’; in Act_13:45 m and Act_18:6 m it gives ‘rail’ as an alternative, and in Rev_2:9 m ‘revile.’ ‘As we be slanderously reported’ (âëáóöçìïýìåèá, Rom_3:8); ‘why am I evil spoken of?’ (ôß âëáóöçìïῦìáé; 1Co_10:30); ‘to speak evil of no man’ (ìçäÝíá âëáóöçìåῖí, Tit_3:2); ‘those.… rail at dignities’ (äüîáò âëáóöçìïῦóéí, Jud_1:8; cf. 2Pe_2:10) are other examples of the use of the word with a human reference. The two meanings of âëáóöçìßá are combined in Act_6:11, where Stephen is accused of Speaking blasphemous words (ῥÞìáôá âëÜóöçìá) against Moses and God (åἰò Ìùóῆí êáὶ ôὸí èåüí).

According to the Levitical law the punishment for blaspheming the name of Jahweh was death by stoning (Lev_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.

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 (ôὸ ðñüôåñïí ὄíôá âëÜóöçìïí, 1Ti_1:13), but strove to make others blaspheme (ἠíÜãêáæïí âëáóöçìåῖí, Act_26:11; Act_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 (Epp. 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’ (ib.). 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’ (Act_13:45); those of Corinth ‘opposed themselves and blasphemed’ (Act_18:6); and the historian might have multiplied instances without end.

Blasphemy was not exclusively a Jewish and Christian conception. To the Greeks also it was a high offence âëáóöçìåῖí åἰò èåïýò (Plato, Rep. 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 (ïὔôå âëáóöçìïῦíôåò ôὴí èåὰí ὑìῶí, Act_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 (Rev_13:1), to whom was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies (Rev_13:5), who opened his mouth for blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle (Rev_13:6); as the scarlet-coloured Beast who was covered all over with names of blasphemies (Rev_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’ (Rev_13:4). Cf. article Emperor-Worship.

Literature.-In addition to articles on ‘Blasphemy’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Encyclopaedia Biblica , Hastings’ Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible , and Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , with the literature there cited, see the relevant Commentaries, esp. Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 (International Critical Commentary , 1902); H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John2, 1907; J. Armitage Robinson. Ephesians, 1903. See also Catholic Encyclopedia , s.v., and Roman Catholic literature cited there.

James Strahan.

Bad or insulting language directed at a person or thing is usually referred to as a curse. When directed at God it becomes a blasphemy.

According to the law of Moses, blasphemy was an act not merely of disrespect to God but of rebellion against God. The penalty was death (Lev 24:10-23; 1Ki 21:10; Act 6:11; Act 7:58). Israelites by nature had a reverence for the name of God, and were not as likely to speak blasphemously of God as the Gentiles were (2Ki 19:6; 2Ki 19:22; Psa 74:10; Psa 74:18). But they often acted blasphemously, as seen for example when they turned from God to serve idols (Eze 20:27-28).

Jews of New Testament times accused Jesus of blasphemy because he claimed for himself powers that belonged to God only (Mar 2:7; Mar 14:61-64). This was one reason why they persecuted Jesus and his followers. They even tried to make the followers of Jesus curse him – and that really would have been blasphemy (Act 26:11). In fact, the Jews themselves were the ones guilty of blasphemy; for in speaking evil of Jesus they were speaking evil of God (1Ti 1:13).

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was a sin that Jesus said could not be forgiven. This statement must be understood in its context. Jesus realized that many Jews did not clearly understand the nature of his messiahship, and did not know what he meant by referring to himself as ‘the Son of man’. God could forgive people’s doubts and misunderstandings about Jesus, but he would not forgive their deliberate rejection of the plain evidence that Jesus’ works were good and they originated in God. When people called God’s Spirit Satan and called good evil, they put themselves in a position where they had no way of acknowledging God’s goodness. They therefore had no way of receiving his forgiveness (Mat 12:22-32; Mar 3:28-30).

If people today are distressed through thinking they cannot be forgiven because of some blasphemy they have spoken, they should realize that their distress is a sure sign that they have not committed the sin Jesus referred to. The sin Jesus condemned is not a rashly spoken curse, but a deliberate refusal of God; not a single act, but a persistent attitude. And so long as people stubbornly persists in that attitude they cannot be forgiven.

Speaking evil of God or denying Him some good which we should attribute to Him. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is stating that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the devil (Mat 12:22-32) and is an unforgivable sin (Mar 3:28-30). Blasphemy arises out of pride (Psa 73:9; Psa 73:11), hatred (Psa 74:18), injustice (Isa 52:5), etc. Christ was mistakenly accused of blasphemy (Joh 10:30-33).