Blaspheme Me?
Posted: December 9th, 2008, 6:16 pm
The other day, I wrote in the General Discussion side of Open Forum about having purchased the book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man which asks, and seeks to answer, the question “How reliable is the Gospel tradition?”
I am nearing half way through the book. It is nicely written, with lots of scholarly references, and reasonably considered conclusions. I am glad to recommend it to those who have an interest in the who/why/how/when of the world’s spiritual traditions.
As I wrote earlier, it will not really matter to me – as a seeker – whether the book concludes that Jesus did or did not exist as a historical personality or even whether the man Jesus, if there was such a man, was the source of most or all of the Gospels Teachings, or whether the authors of the Gospels gathered them from other sources or even made some of them up themselves, and simply attributed them to Jesus. That is, as a seeker, what matters to me is that the Teachings exist, and that along my path, I came across them. Here, I embrace Ramakrishna: “(Whatever the appearances) God alone is the Guru”.
So, again, my interest in this book, and in others like it, is curiosity. I enjoy reading this stuff for its own sake.
That said, I understand why it would – and does – make others uncomfortable, and so this post is in The Sand Box.
Here’s an interesting item from the book –
For a long time, the Gospels’ warning against blasphemy (Matthew 12.32, Luke 12.10) has been confusing to me. Here’s how it reads in Luke (RSV): “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”. Matthew toughens the warning by adding, “… will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (in other words, I suppose, never).
Why is it sort of okay to blaspheme “the Son of man” (Jesus) but not “the Holy Spirit”?
Here the book writes,
Once one understands the biblical/Hebrew idiom "son of man" as meaning simply "human being" (as in Psalms 8:4), the saying makes eminent sense: Everyone who speaks a word against a fellow human being will be forgiven, but who blasphemes against God will not be forgiven.
Similarly, Mark 3.28: “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”.
Notice that, in Mark, the “Son of man” is absent, but the phrase “sons of men” appears – and in that context pretty clearly means you and me.
I don’t know when “son of man” became “Son of man” and came to mean “Jesus” as opposed to “human beings”. The book promises to address that question “in a later chapter”; I’ll try to remember to post it here when I come to it. But until then, I confess, I have never understood the phrase “Son of man” as an epithet for Jesus. I suppose it is intended to suggest that he is at once Divine and "one of us", the purpose for which I can understand. I can think of other guru-traditions which make that case. (I remember reading somewhere that in the original Hebrew and Greek biblical texts, there was no capitalization, so presumably "son of man" became "Son of man" at the hand of some other than the original authors?)
But beyond that, it clearly makes more sense to distinguish between blasphemy (slander) against a fellow human being and blasphemy against God than it does to distinguish between blasphemy of one or another face or aspect of God (Jesus and Holy Spirit). I mean, it seems to me that either it is a sin to blaspheme God or it isn’t. Dividing God into parts, and suggesting that it is semi-okay to blaspheme one part but not another, has never worked for me.
As for the harsh sentence imposed by the Gospels upon those who blaspheme God (“will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, “an eternal sin”), here's my take. In order to blaspheme God (or anyone/anything else), I must perceive Him (or it) as separate from “me”. That is, in normal usage of the word, it is not possible for me to blaspheme myself, only others. Thus, blasphemy is an activity of the separate and separative ego (“I am me, and you aren’t me”).
In Truth, God does not exist as an entity separate from me; He does so only in Stefan’s mind, and there only as an illusion, however attractive and comforting it may be. Thus, Stefan’s perception and conviction that he and God are separate entities is a slander upon the Truth, blasphemy.
And as such, it is a sin (error) whose effects are felt (lived) for as long as Stefan perceives himself as Stefan – or, forever … meaning, for as long as there is time. After all, in the absence of "time", the concept "forever" is meaningless; there is only Now.
Or, in Self-Realization (“thou art not thou, thou art He without thou”), the perception of self evaporates, and with it the perception of a separate “God”. There, blasphemy does not signify.
I am nearing half way through the book. It is nicely written, with lots of scholarly references, and reasonably considered conclusions. I am glad to recommend it to those who have an interest in the who/why/how/when of the world’s spiritual traditions.
As I wrote earlier, it will not really matter to me – as a seeker – whether the book concludes that Jesus did or did not exist as a historical personality or even whether the man Jesus, if there was such a man, was the source of most or all of the Gospels Teachings, or whether the authors of the Gospels gathered them from other sources or even made some of them up themselves, and simply attributed them to Jesus. That is, as a seeker, what matters to me is that the Teachings exist, and that along my path, I came across them. Here, I embrace Ramakrishna: “(Whatever the appearances) God alone is the Guru”.
So, again, my interest in this book, and in others like it, is curiosity. I enjoy reading this stuff for its own sake.
That said, I understand why it would – and does – make others uncomfortable, and so this post is in The Sand Box.
Here’s an interesting item from the book –
For a long time, the Gospels’ warning against blasphemy (Matthew 12.32, Luke 12.10) has been confusing to me. Here’s how it reads in Luke (RSV): “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”. Matthew toughens the warning by adding, “… will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (in other words, I suppose, never).
Why is it sort of okay to blaspheme “the Son of man” (Jesus) but not “the Holy Spirit”?
Here the book writes,
Once one understands the biblical/Hebrew idiom "son of man" as meaning simply "human being" (as in Psalms 8:4), the saying makes eminent sense: Everyone who speaks a word against a fellow human being will be forgiven, but who blasphemes against God will not be forgiven.
Similarly, Mark 3.28: “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”.
Notice that, in Mark, the “Son of man” is absent, but the phrase “sons of men” appears – and in that context pretty clearly means you and me.
I don’t know when “son of man” became “Son of man” and came to mean “Jesus” as opposed to “human beings”. The book promises to address that question “in a later chapter”; I’ll try to remember to post it here when I come to it. But until then, I confess, I have never understood the phrase “Son of man” as an epithet for Jesus. I suppose it is intended to suggest that he is at once Divine and "one of us", the purpose for which I can understand. I can think of other guru-traditions which make that case. (I remember reading somewhere that in the original Hebrew and Greek biblical texts, there was no capitalization, so presumably "son of man" became "Son of man" at the hand of some other than the original authors?)
But beyond that, it clearly makes more sense to distinguish between blasphemy (slander) against a fellow human being and blasphemy against God than it does to distinguish between blasphemy of one or another face or aspect of God (Jesus and Holy Spirit). I mean, it seems to me that either it is a sin to blaspheme God or it isn’t. Dividing God into parts, and suggesting that it is semi-okay to blaspheme one part but not another, has never worked for me.
As for the harsh sentence imposed by the Gospels upon those who blaspheme God (“will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”, “an eternal sin”), here's my take. In order to blaspheme God (or anyone/anything else), I must perceive Him (or it) as separate from “me”. That is, in normal usage of the word, it is not possible for me to blaspheme myself, only others. Thus, blasphemy is an activity of the separate and separative ego (“I am me, and you aren’t me”).
In Truth, God does not exist as an entity separate from me; He does so only in Stefan’s mind, and there only as an illusion, however attractive and comforting it may be. Thus, Stefan’s perception and conviction that he and God are separate entities is a slander upon the Truth, blasphemy.
And as such, it is a sin (error) whose effects are felt (lived) for as long as Stefan perceives himself as Stefan – or, forever … meaning, for as long as there is time. After all, in the absence of "time", the concept "forever" is meaningless; there is only Now.
Or, in Self-Realization (“thou art not thou, thou art He without thou”), the perception of self evaporates, and with it the perception of a separate “God”. There, blasphemy does not signify.