βλασφημία, properly denotes _calumny_, _detraction_,
_reproachful_ or _abusive language_, against whomsoever it be vented.
That βλασφημία and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr.
Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the
following passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; Mark xv, 29; Luke
xxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 13; x, 30; Eph.
iv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9, 10; Acts vi,
11, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 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 βλασφημίας, Jude 9; and
rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word βλασφημία
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 properly 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 toward 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
_Yahweh_, as it is in the Hebrew) “shall be put to death,” Lev. xxiv,
16, when considered along with the incident 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
_Yahweh_,) “saying, Yahweh 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 Yahweh should deliver
Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33–35.
2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular,
which our Lord denominates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Matt.
xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 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: ὃς ἂν ἐίπη
λόγον κατὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρωπȣ,--ὃς δ’ ἂν ἐίπη κατὰ τοῦ ϖνεύματος τοῦ
ἁγίς. “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 apostasy
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.
_reproachful_ or _abusive language_, against whomsoever it be vented.
That βλασφημία and its conjugates are very often applied, says Dr.
Campbell, to reproaches not aimed against God, is evident from the
following passages: Matt. xii, 31, 32; xxvii, 39; Mark xv, 29; Luke
xxii, 65; xxiii, 39; Rom. iii, 8; xiv, 16; 1 Cor. iv, 13; x, 30; Eph.
iv, 31; 1 Tim. vi, 4; Titus iii, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 14; Jude 9, 10; Acts vi,
11, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 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 βλασφημίας, Jude 9; and
rendered by them, “railing accusation.” The import of the word βλασφημία
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 properly 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 toward 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
_Yahweh_, as it is in the Hebrew) “shall be put to death,” Lev. xxiv,
16, when considered along with the incident 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
_Yahweh_,) “saying, Yahweh 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 Yahweh should deliver
Jerusalem out of mine hand?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33–35.
2. It will naturally occur to inquire, what that is, in particular,
which our Lord denominates “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” Matt.
xii, 31, 32; Mark iii, 28, 29; Luke xii, 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: ὃς ἂν ἐίπη
λόγον κατὰ τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρωπȣ,--ὃς δ’ ἂν ἐίπη κατὰ τοῦ ϖνεύματος τοῦ
ἁγίς. “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 apostasy
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.