WHEN JESUS 'BLASPHEMED'
The media: Paul Johnson
examines the implications of a fighting word
HOLY Week is an appropriate time to remind ourselves that Jesus was, in reality if not in name, put to death for what his opponents regarded as blasphemy. The ancient Jewish law was hard on blasphem- ers. Leviticus xxiv 16 lays down that such a sinner, 'shall certainly be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him'. There is a suggestion in the First Book of Kings (xxi 10) that blasphemy against the king was also punishable by stoning to death. The Jews were not the only ancient people to judge blasphemy capitally. Death figures as a punishment in other old law codes. The Justinian Code provides severe penalties too, and the death sentence was revived by the Council of Aachen (818 AD). The Jews were particularly strict, however, because of the intensity of their monotheism and their anxiety to draw absolute distinctions be- tween God and man.
That, indeed, was precisely why they held Jesus to be blasphemous: he appeared to them to be arrogating to himself divine attributes. St Mark relates (ii 1-12) that when Jesus, in Capernaum, told those sick of the palsy, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee,' there were 'certain of the scribes sitting there', who asked: 'Why does this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?' (The story is also in Matthew ix 3 and Luke v 21.) Again, St John (x 31-33) relates that the Jerusalem Jews 'took up stones again to stone him', and when he asked them why, replied, 'for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God'. That was the essence of his crime when he was judged by the High Priest. When he was asked, 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Jesus replied, 'I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.' Then the High Priest 'rent his clothes' and asked, 'Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.' Blasphemy then was Jesus's capital offence in their eyes. Of course Caiphas and his colleagues knew that the Romans would not execute Jesus on such grounds. The civil authorities thought it a lot of nonsense. When, some years later, the Jews brought St Paul before the Roman Deputy for Achaia, Gallio, and accused him of a similar offence, Gallio sneered that it was just 'a question of words and names', adding, 'I will be no judge of such matters.' Hence Caiphas was obliged, in effect, to have Jesus charged with insurrection, calling himself 'King of the Jews', a point that was never even raised at his religious trial.
Jesus repeatedly denied the charge of blasphemy levelled against him. But that did not mean he took blasphemy lightly. Quite the contrary. There is a striking passage in St Mark (iii 28-29), also found in Matthew xii 31-2 and Luke xii 10, in which he insists on its gravity: 'Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of 'eternal damnation.' Jesus did not explain what he meant by this blasphemous sin against the Holy Ghost, and attempts by theologians to deduce what it was are conflicting. Irenaeus thought it meant wil- ful rejection of the gospel, Athenasius the equally perverse denial of Christ's divinity, Augustine the vicious persistence in sin till death, or 'final impenitence' as we used to call it. But all these, and other, explana- tions are agreed in implying a flagitious, deliberate and persistent denial of truth by someone who knows what the truth is, a sin against the light. I have always taken this sin to mean a calculated rejection of the 'Woke up this morning — everything seemed more or less OK.' religious spirit by one who understands it.
However, Jesus also refers to blasphemy in quite another sense, close to what modern law codes mean by using 'insulting language'. There is a highly significant passage in St Mark vii 17ff, in which Jesus tries to explain to his disciples the nature of corruption. It does not, he says, come from without but from within, from a corrupt heart: Tor from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetous- ness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.'
Here is not the place to comment on this fascinating if obscure catalogue, except to note that 'blasphemy' is presented in this context as an offence as much against men as against God. In the Revised Version the term used is 'railing'. The New English Bible gives 'slander'. It is notable that, in the list of sins springing from a corrupt heart, blasphemy is immediately preceded by 'an evil eye', inadequately translated by the NEB as 'envy': what is meant here surely is the contemplation of our fellow human beings with malice and hatred, for whatever reason. The evil eye is followed by the evil tongue (or word), which can be understood as the use of speech or writing to express malice or hatred, to inflame or injure other people, to hurt their feelings, destroy their happiness, insult the things they cherish.
To blaspheme in this sense, then, is to sin by word against other people. Jesus does not put it in the same category as the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. It can certainly be forgiven, but it is nonetheless, since he ranks it with murder and theft, serious. It seems to me that this is precisely the sin of which Salman Rush- die and his publishers are guilty. It is not exactly blasphemy, at least in the technical sense understood by the law of England. But it is a malicious misuse of the power of words, to wound and insult. Rushdie knew what he was doing. So did Viking Penguin.
According to Zahid Hussein, race rela- tions officer for Peterborough City Coun- cil, who was one of nine religious scholars the publishers consulted, the consensus among them was that the book was certain not merely to offend but to cause grave trouble and possibly unleash terror. Au- thor and publisher chose to ignore this advice. Their motive may have been to uphold the freedom of publication, or it may have been the greedy pursuit of hype and money; possibly both. But what they did was sinful, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ, let alone Islam. That is why Osservatore Romano, which is always reli- able on matters of moral theology, was right to take a stern view of the book's publication. What has now to be tested is whether publication was also unlawful, and, if not, whether the law needs to be strengthened.
Previous page
