74 Timothy M. Willis is regarded as a more serious offense than murder (see Matt 12,31). This progression exposes the ultimate magnitude of blasphemy, because it is the outermost offense presented in the chiasmus. It seems, then, that the primary goal of the passage is to clarify the gravity of the sin of blasphemy and/or cursing. There is hardly any mention of blasphemy in ancient Near Eastern texts, and I am aware of only one that refers in an indirect way to the sort of punishment one might expect for such an offense (9). The present text strongly implies that “cursing Yahweh” is to be regarded as a graver offense than murder. Murder is an affront against a life, but it is likely that, in the writer’s mind, cursing the Lord is an affront against life itself. The Lord is the creator and sustainer of life. To mention his “name” is to recall all that he is and all that he has done. It is to recall his life-giving essence (implied in Gen 1–2, especially 2,7; cf. 9,4-6; Job 12,10; 27,3; 33,4), and it is to recall his mighty acts that provide and sustain life (again, for example, note the oft-repeated clause, “I am the Lord…” in Lev 18–22). To curse the Lord is to reject who he is and what he does. It is to deny his essence and his power, and it is to refute the reality of his life-giving and holy acts (10). At the same time, the use of chiasmus to verbalize the judgment and its underlying principle suggests to the reader that the prescribed response to the offense is balanced and therefore reasonable. The structural balance in the corresponding phrases throughout the literary unit mirrors the moral balance of the legal response to the offense. Thus, the writer has chosen a literary style for this unit that reinforces the legal principle that lies at the heart of the unit and the sense of inherent justice that intends to permeate the divine judgment in this case. Religion Division Timothy M. WILLIS Pepperdine University Malibu, CA 90263, USA SUMMARY The verbal divine response to a case of blasphemy/cursing of God is presented as a lengthy chiasmus in Lev 24,13-23. One aspect of this that has gone unnoticed is how the structure suggests that blasphemy is a more serious offense than murder. This observation shows how the pericope fits well thematically in Lev 18-26, where there are repeated examples of the divine self-declaration formulas (“I am the Lord…”) and references to holiness. (9) MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27, 2120. (10) For some similar conclusions, see S.E. BALENTINE, Leviticus (Interpretation; Louisville, KY 2002) 188-190.