Blasphemy

VIEW:68 DATA:01-04-2020

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.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

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).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

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.
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

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 Jam_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 1Jo_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.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

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.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Blasphemy
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.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores