1. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.
2. Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, or attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature.
3. In the middle ages, blasphemy was used to denote simply the blaming or condemning of a person or thing. Among the Greeks, to blaspheme was to use words of ill omen, which they were careful to avoid.
4. That which derogates from the prerogatives of God. Mark 2:1 .
1. An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity.
BLASPHEMY means literally defamation or evil speaking, but is more peculiarly restricted to an indignity offered to the Deity by words or writing. The common law of England treats blasphemy as an indictable offence. All blasphemies against God, as denying his being, or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profanescoffing at the Holy Scriptures, or exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, are punishable by the temporal courts with fine, imprisonment, and also infamous corporal punishment. The Act 1 Edw. VI. c. 1 (repealed 1 Mary, c. 2, and revived 1 Eliz. c. 1 ), enacts that persons reviling the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, by contemptuous words or otherwise, shall suffer imprisonment. Persons denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of the Act of Toleration by 1 Will. III. c. 18. The 9 and 10 Will. III. c. 32, enacts that if any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, should by writing, preaching, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be God, or should assert or maintain that there are more gods than one, or should deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, he should, upon the first offence, be rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust, and for the second incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and should suffer three years’ imprisonment without bail. It has been held that a person offending under the statute is also indictable at common law (Rex v. Carlisle, where Mr Justice Best remarks, “In the age of toleration, when that statute passed, neither churchmen nor sectarians wished to protect in their infidelity those ...who disbelieved the Holy Scriptures.”) The 53 Geo. III. c. 160, excepts from these enactments “persons denying a3 therein mentioned respecting the Holy Trinity,” but otherwise the common and statute law on the subject remains as stated. In the case of Rex v. Woolston (2 Geo. II.) the court declared that they would not suffer it to be debated whether to write againet Christianity in general was not an offence punishable in the temporal courts at common law, but they did not intend to include disputes between learned men on particular controverted points. The law against blasphemy has not recently been in active operation. In 1841, Moxon was found guilty of the publication of a blasphemouslibel (Shelley’s Queen Maty, the prosecution having been instituted by Hetherington, who had previously been condemned to four months’ imprisonment for a similar offence, and wished to test the law under which he was punished. In the case of Cowan v. Milbourn, in 1867, the defendant had broken his contract to let a lectureroom to the plaintiff, on discovering that the intended lectures were to maintain that “the character of Christ is defective, and his teaching misleading, and that the Bible is no more inspired than any other book,” and the Court of Exchequer held that the publication of such doctrine was blasphemy, and the contract therefore illegal. On that occasion the court reaffirmed the dictum of C. J. Hale, that Christianity is part of the laws of England. The Commissioners on Criminal Law (sixth report) remark, that “although the law forbids all denial of the being and providence of God or the Christian religion, it is only when irreligion assumes the form of an insult to God and man that the interference of the criminal law has taken place.”
Profanecursing and swearing is made punishable by 19 Geo. II. c. 21, which directs the offender to be brought before a justice of the peace, and fined 5 shillings, 2 shillings, or 1 shilling, according as he is a gentleman, below the rank of gentleman, or a common labourer, soldier, &c.
By the law of Scotland, as it originally stood, the punishment of blasphemy was death. By an Act paseed in the first parliament of Charles IL, whoever, “not being distracted in his wits,” should curse God or any person of the ble3sed Trinity was punishable with death; and by a statute of King William’s reign (1695, c. 11), any person reasoning against the being of God, or any person of the Trinity, or the authority of the Holy Scriptures, or the providence of God in the government of the world, was to be imprisoned for the first offence until he should give public satisfaction in sackcloth to the congregation, to be punished more severely for the second offence, and for the third doomed to death; but by 6 Geo. IV. c. 47, amended by 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 5, blasphemy was made punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. (e. R.)
9th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 3, p. 807 [808 words — estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
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 habitualprofanation 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 irreverentfamiliarity, 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. 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 _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?” 2 Kings xviii, 30, 33–35.
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.
And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.
to tell him, “This is what Hezekiah says: Today is a day of distress, rebuke, and disgrace; for children have come to the point of birth, but there is no strength to deliver them.
And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.
to tell him, “This is what Hezekiah says: Today is a day of distress, rebuke, and disgrace; for children have come to the point of birth, but there is no strength to deliver them.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
I know your affliction and your poverty—though you are rich! And I am aware of the slander of those who falsely claim to be Jews, but are in fact a synagogue of Satan.
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Then I saw a beast with ten horns and seven heads rising out of the sea. There were ten royal crowns on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
And the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, where I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.
But if ye can certify me that Bel devoureth them, then Daniel shall die: for he hath spoken blasphemy against Bel. And Daniel said unto the king, Let it be according to thy word.
This site uses cookies to remember your display preferences (search sources and editions, Bible version, auto-link, images, light/dark theme). No personal data whatsoever is collected. Privacy Policy
