A commentator on a recent post alleged that I had committed blasphemy, and I was reminded about the general lack of understanding that surrounds the use of this term. Our English word is derived from the Greek word blasphemeo, which means to speak reproachfully about, revile, or speak evil about something or someone. In a scriptural context, of course, the term is most often used in connection with anyone who speaks about God in this way. Our modern understanding of the term, however, is considerably more expansive. If we Google the term, we find that it is defined as "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk." Moreover, we all know that there isn't a great deal of consensus about what constitutes sacrilege or profanity. As a consequence, the term has really become detached from the way it is employed in the Bible.
In terms of the Old Testament, the word came to be associated with the commandment against taking God's name in vain (Exodus 20:7). In other words, the sense was that God's name should never be associated with the mundane or with falsehoods. In practical terms, however, the word simply isn't used very much in our English translations of the Hebrew Bible. Among the Jews, these notions led to a reluctance to even use God's name. After all, if God's name wasn't spoken, the possibility of misusing it would be greatly diminished!
In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus warned against blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and that he himself was accused of blasphemy! In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ is reported to have said: “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come." (12:31-32) It should also be noted that these comments were framed as part of his reaction to an accusation by the Pharisees that he was casting out demons by using Satan's power (see verses 24-28). In other words, don't denigrate or disparage what the Holy Spirit accomplishes! Later, in the same Gospel, when Christ was on trial before the Jewish Council, we read: "Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, 'Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?' But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, 'I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.' Jesus replied, 'You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, 'Blasphemy! Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?' 'Guilty!' they shouted. 'He deserves to die!'" (26:62-66) Likewise, in the Gospel of John, we read about another occasion when the people were ready to stone Jesus for blasphemy because "You, a mere man, claim to be God." (10:33) Finally, in the highly symbolic language of the book of Revelation, we also see the sin of blasphemy associated with the "Beast." (13:1, 6, 17:3)
Hence, from the perspective of Scripture, we see that "blasphemy" was generally more narrowly defined than our current employment of the term suggests. Thus, while many of us would agree that using God's name to curse someone or something is profane, our consensus about blasphemy tends to break down along more traditional lines with any use of God's name in other contexts. In other words, some Christians are more legalistic than others. These folks tend toward the old Jewish view that any use of God's name risks taking it in vain. Consequently, for them, idioms like "Oh Dear God!" aren't simply exclamations "of surprise, alarm, dismay, annoyance, or exasperation." (see The Free Dictionary) For some folks, these kinds of exclamations are clear manifestations of blasphemy. For me, this appears to be one of those issues of personal conscience (Let everyone by fully persuaded in his/her own mind). I have no desire to offend anyone else's sensibilities on the subject. However, ultimately, we are all individually accountable to God - not to each other.
The following quote was forwarded to my private email account:
ReplyDeleteTo laugh at the pretensions of Mohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy.
To say in St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of God is also blasphemy.
There was a time when to acknowledge the divinity of Christ in Jerusalem was blasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemy in New York.
Blasphemy is to a considerable extent a geographical question. It depends not only on what you say, but where you are when you say it.
--Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I believe that blasphemy is a matter of intent. Can a human really give due glory to God when he is beyond our comprehension. We have some understanding of him but it is limited by what we know from our hominid condition. Moreover we only know about God what he has decided to reveal to us. But does this lèse-majesté amount to blasphemy. I think not. There is no intent to disparage in the natural and necessary simplicity of human belief.
ReplyDeleteOne could make a plausible argument, if intent is set aside, that to believe in an anthropomorphic version of God is a disdaining of his true nature and, hence, a blasphemy. But the people who have believed in an anthropomorphic God, including the ancient Hebrews, do not mean to deride in this subordination. They just operate within their attained scope of epistemology.
I used to believe that the Armstrongist concept of divinization, that we will all one day be "God as God is God," was a blasphemy. While it indicates an egregious lack of understanding about who God is, it has no disrepsectful intent. They do not realize that their rough-hewn apotheosis of man is the implicit demotion of God. Such a divinization should be classed as a heresy rather than a blasphemy. Its dynamic is error not scorn.
Even the use of such terms as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient can be opposed as a classification error. These words are commonly used in Christianity but they are formed by taking human characteristics and prefixing them with the word omni- which means something like "all" in this context - "all" as understood in the limited human experience. It is difficult to confront but God is not omni- anything. He is absolute. But to say he is omnipresent is not a blaphemy. It is a matter of trying to understand God by analogy to human capabilities. But its limitations should be recognized: it is literary and not real.
When the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy, he did not understand Jesus to be God. Jesus believed that these people did not understand what they were doing. If the high priest did know that Jesus was God then his accusation of basphemy against Jesus was itself a blasphemy.
And, lastly, Matthew 12:31-32. This is often taken to mean that an unpardonable sin has been committed and the sinner will be condemned to eternal damnation. I believe that it rather means exactly what it says with no gratuitious solteriological implications rolled into the picture. The sin will not be forgiven, that is, a penalty will be inevitably exacted. There will be no waiver through forgiveness. The penalty must be paid in this life or the next but it does not cancel salvation.