careful what you say
I’ve decided to pull this post for the time being until I’m entirely satisfied with my interpretation of the Unpardonable Sin.
A fantastic interpretation by Mark Horne can be found here. It doesn’t completely satisfy me, but I think it’s elegantly succinct, and helps to clear up most of the questions surrounding this passage of Scripture.
tags: caution, jesus, judgment, loose jaw, Pharisees, unpardonable sin
July 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I want to clarify your position before going further. Your post is fairly long, but I feel like your point is simple.
If someone dismisses, jests about, mocks or condemns the activities of the Holy Spirit, they have committed the unforgivable sin?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Yes. Christ says this:
“but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.”
I think that there might be some grace if we “dismiss” things or in the moment don’t believe something is from God when it is – we can’t always know everything. We make mistakes… but better safe than sorry! Christ’s words are pretty stern.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I have never heard this view point before and I’d would honestly like to hear of proponents of it elsewhere. My thinking about this and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but that this passage is referring to the fact that ultimately, a speaking against or blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is when the unbeliever is confronted with the truth of Christ (Which is ultimately the main job of the spirit, all other activities culminate towards repentence and salvation) and then denies that truth. How does one speak against the Spirit, by speaking against what it does, but I don’t think that also means how it does it. If the point of the Holy Spirit aiding a human in say, writing a song, is to bring people to Christ how would one speak against the Holy Spirit in that case? To say the song sucks or to deny Christ as He is presented to the believer THROUGH the song. That’s my 2 cents.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Sorry, I meant presented to the UNBELIEVER.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
That’s a valid point: after a life of saying no to the Spirit, you essentially die, unforgivable.
Consider though: Christ had not yet been crucified and risen – He had not yet atoned for sins. Therefore, salvation by Belief in His Godhood was not yet possible in the way that it is for us. So the only believers were the Chosen People.
Now, who Christ is speaking to: Pharisees. The MOST pious and holy “believers” at the time.
Christ was talking to believers here.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Ben,
Do you know of any major NT commentator who affirm(ed) this view? To be honest I can’t think of any. Of course that doesn’t make your view right or wrong, but backing your claims up with citations from the best and brightest would lend more weight to your claims.
B.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Also,
From a pastoral perspective - this theology would be downright suicidal for people of a certain disposition - who are typically the people pastors deal with 90% of the time (from what I’ve heard).
B.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
As always Keith, great questions. I value your input, along with anyone else that takes the time to respond.
And sorry if my reply seems hardnosed. I feel really strongly about this, not that I’m SURE I’m right, but that we need to speak very carefully and thoughfully – the Proverbs admonish us in this, and we’ve become very lax in what we say about our Brethren and our Lord. This is serious.
I think we can both agree that scholarship only gets us so far… every point of view has its proponents. Every movement in history has been based on what the “best and brightest” had to say. Christ has left us the Helper and He is the tutor. We are each capable of understanding. Agreed? This isn’t an argument for my point, just for what the rules of the game are. Let’s just deal with the arguments and with the text. Forget who said what. The best and the brightest are only such because we declare them to be so, as suits our preferences. The appeal to authority just doesn’t wash with me, except insofar as it reveals what is actual. So, what is actual?
“but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
What is your reading of Christ’s words? Let’s remember the events that led up to this, and who He is addressing…
Slightly OT: We need to come to terms with something very frightening: the Brethren has fewer members in it than we would like to think it does – the Bride is thinner than we would like to believe her to be. When one really takes at face value the traits that mark a Believer and the behaviours that reveal one is Born Again, we see when surveying the Church that there are few Faithful to be found.
We need to reevaluate what our standards are and what our understanding of God’s standards for us are. There is so little love, so little grace, so little forebearing and service and consideration – there is so much Flesh and so little Fruit. We need to wake up. We’ve been lax in so many areas.
Primarily with regard to the control of our tongues and the charges we bring against each other. People have much to fear, and this is not taught.
Christ’s words seem clear to me, and abiding by them would certainly seem to be the more prudent course, no?
July 19th, 2008 at 12:51 am
1) You don’t seem to be able to clarify in an exegetical way the meaning of “speaking against the Holy Spirit” and what its is defined as. It seems pretty vague without context. I believe I did so.
2) You are correct the context of Christ’s discussion with the Pharisees was pre crucifixion and resurrection.
i) In terms of application now, that point is irrelevant to our condition now.
ii) Even in old testament terms the re-occuring issue between The Lord and His people was their disbelief. It wasn’t grumbling, pride or arrogance that left a generation of Jews to die in the desert, it was the fact that all those things lead to them to not believe in God love and power(in various capacities). The sacrificial system existed for the purposes of atoning for sins.
I just think that it doesn’t make sense. The glorious infinite God, whose plan of salvation was in existence before the foundations of the earth were laid, who can atone for an infinite amount of sins but one. That one sin, that any unbeliever could commit, even unknowlingly. If someone can commit that sin for critiquing a worship song or tongues, every one of your friends and even you are going to hell.
But I don’t believe that to be true.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:52 am
In regards to Keith’s question is there anyone?
July 19th, 2008 at 12:57 am
I also really disagree with you on this, but I’m not trying to be dismissive or mean or any of the stuff that got us mad before so I hope you don’t read this in a way that makes you think I’m being an asshole because thats not my intention.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
No way man. This is a forum for debate. When everyone stays as respectful as they can, it works. The point is to have thinking refined – otherwise I wouldn’t post for the world to see!
And pardon me if this comment gets long: you asked some important questions, and they deserve thoughtful, complete answers. Just bear with me broseph!
I’ll investigate and let you know what other have thought. But again, as Keith himself said, agreement with authority doesn’t make me right or wrong, but might add more weight and acceptability to my point. I’ll grant that.
Ok. I can see that I might have assumed people would make the same leaps through the passage that I did, and can appreciate that I might not have taken enough time to iron out some things. I will attempt to do that here.
Let’s put our Exegete-o-trons on!
One thing that will help is to condense the narrative, not leaving anything significant out, so that we can make sense of how everything in the passage is relating to each other:
- A demon possessed man is brought to Jesus.
- Jesus exercises the demon.
- The Pharisees believe that Christ did so by the power of Satan.
- Christ said that doing so is impossible – only God can.
- Then Christ says to the Pharisees blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable; speaking against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable
Ok, so we learn two very important things:
1) Not only is Jesus talking to the covenant people, but He is talking specifically about the most educated and devout – Christ is talking about people that should have known better. They should have known that He was the Messiah, and they should have known in who’s Name He had come.
We can establish then that this Unpardonable Sin is something that can only be committed by those who should know better – Believers. This does not extend to the thoughtless comments of one who is outside the Faith. This extends to those who should have known better.
2) Blaspheme. Speaking against. What does this actually look like? Is it a few glib words, or is it some thing more?
Blaspheme means to blame. To speak to with irreverence. To abuse. The greek is, no surprise, blasfemia. It means the same thing: slanderous or wounding speech.
Speaks against means what it means; there is nothing cloaked here. Christ’s use of the term parallels the preceding statement: speaking against and blasphemy are congruous concepts.
As far as Christ is concerned, speaking against – using defamatory, destructive, woundful, disrepesctful speech against – the Holy Spirt, is unforgivable.
I would ask how you would interpret the passage differently. Is this not plain?
However, there is an alternate conclusion we can arrive at.*
The point is not irrelevant. Christ was speaking to His covenant people. This is important. Christ came first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. So in the same way that His words to His covenant people were important, so too are those same words important to us today as the New Israel. My only point is that Christ’s words are for us. How is that irrelevant?
Yes, it’s a hard message, and I want to soften it a little here.* But before I do, this reasoning can be dangerous. It’s bringing a presupposition to the exegesis. With the same reasoning we can say, “The glorious infinite God who was capable of making the Universe, will send good people to Hell just because they didn’t believe that a man 2000 years ago was the Christ?” We can’t do that. We just have to let the passage speak to us, whatever it says. Christ’s burden is light, but His truths are sometimes very weighty.
* So, I said I would soften things a bit. One alternate interpretation of the passage is that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means associating the Spirit with Satan. That is, not simply offering a nonchalant comment in ignorance – we’ve all done that – but actually saying, as the Pharisees did, “That person is doing what they do by the power of Satan,” when in fact it is the Spirt at work.
This of course comes with the same warning – be cautious. The most “righteous” men within the Covenant people got it wrong! They had Christ before them and took Him to be in service of Satan. We can fall in to this same trap: that man speaking in tongues is possessed. Dangerous. Not a line I want to try and play fast and loose with.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
One thing at a time I guess.
1) In regards to your comments to Keith. I think that appealing to a higher authority is a biblical and rational thing to do. If I come up with a doctrine with my limited biblical knowledge, the whole reason we have deacons, elders and other Christians is so that their expertise or wisdom can test the genuiness of that doctrine and don’t take this the wrong way, but I feel when you say “appeal to authority just doesn’t wash with me” is a cop out. So you can be dismissive of effective counter-arguments. I think that after 2000 years of Christianity and you still can’t find another person who shares your view is telling.
2) I feel like my original arguement relating to the Old Testament (exodus) still stands, that the issues we’re dealing with still boils down to unbelief.
3) “This does not extend to the thoughtless comments of one who is outside the Faith. This extends to those who should have known better.”
Ahhhh, so you’ve made your point more clear to me and I think I understand what you mean, but in doing so I think you’ve weakened your point about what the unforgiveable sin is.
I think in context of that passage and the scriptures as a whole that this differenciation you’re making bewteen believers and non-believers isn’t valid. As said in Romans, no one is without excuse for sin. Sin is sin believer or not. the believer just has repentance and Christ’s sacrifice to save them. Again the issue is unbelief.
4) I feel like the practicality of this doctrine or belief can’t work. No one would ever question false prophets or the demon possessed, just in case they could be wrong, they could go to hell. Sometimes we can be wrong about what God is doing, the jews did it all the time, that is their story! But all throughout God is coming back to them, offering love, forgiveness and another chance to work with him. The same is true for us.
5) The argument can be made that though the pharisees were wise, they were not believers at all and that is their sin. Jesus is saying “I am the One, I am your God, I can forgive your sins and my power on earth is because of the manifest presense of The Holy Spirit. If you continue to deny these truths and die not knowing who I really am, you are doomed.”
Now I get to see a B- Movie YEAH!!!!!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
[...] is the unpardonable sin? All comments relevant to this post, should be made at this chap’s blog. It’s only fair. He started [...]
July 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I posted on this at City of God but I redirected all the comments here. Sorry for posting at my blog but I didn’t want a huge comment on your blog.
All comments should be done here though. I’m not going to steal the traffic.
Cheers.
p.s. I’m going to Orlando for a few days so I won’t be able to respond anyways.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
You mean a BEE movie? B-? What did you see?!
Dismissive? If that was true, I’d have turned off the commenting feature!
Who did Paul appeal to when he schooled Peter on joining the party of the circumcision? Who did Luther appeal to for authority when hiding out in Wartburg?
I agree, it’s wise. But not doing so does not make a point less true.
I agree. You’ve helped me realize that I need to pull back a little bit. Obviously there’s a bit more to the story, and it takes quite an act to commit this sin. So thanks for that.
That said, we still have Christ’s words to deal with…
While this is true, this is not at all what Christ says. It’s simply not what’s in the passage at all. What you are describing here is a state of affairs that renders our sins unpardonable – it is not, however, an unpardonable sin.
Let’s be honest with Christ’s words. The Pharisees speak, and Christ proclaims that their speaking against – their blaspheming – the Spirit is wrong. He does not say unbelief is unpardonable. He says blasphemy is.
You have to remember that during Christ’s entire ministry, He was surrounded by unbelief, and unbelief that people would carry to the grave with them. Yet, He chooses to teach about the Unpardonable Sin at this particular point in time. Why?
So, again, what is your interpretation of the passage? I get the feeling that perhaps you are parroting some arguments you’ve heard, but I don’t feel like you’re getting into the text itself, on your own. Let’s forget what we’ve heard. Let’s deal with the Word ourselves.
Explain what you take from the passage and why. Show how you extract what you extract.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I’ll do one better and say what I extract from the over-arching message of Christ and the various authors of the NT. Christ is not prepared to bust people on technicalities - that was the pharisees’ game (cf: healing, harvesting grain on the Sabbath). The idea that this sin could happen out of carelessness seems antithetical to Jesus’ approach to religious commands.
In the meantime I fear this sort of talk threatens to be despairing to many.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Most sin happens out of carelessness.
Now, I do agree in part Dan. I really do: God’s not ignorant to our ignorance. But you do not extract that from this passage… the simple truth is that for many, the Gospel is a source for despair: I’m a sinner? I’m going to perish? I’m but dust? Yes, obviously, there is hope. But hope only comes after depspair.
Despair or “hurt feelings” do not negate the truth.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I mean, if you want to talk despair…
Do we not preach that those who do not accept Christ, even in ignorance, will not perish? Do we not preach that instead of squashing tragedy before it starts, God actually uses it? Do we not preach that the Way is narrow?
Where do you establish this “overarching” message? It is no more overarching than the message, “We are under a curse, God is just, and destruction is coming.” You need to strike a balance, and I don’t read that in your comment.
Would you care to offer an interpretation of that particular passage? It has something to teach us! What’s your take on Matt 12:32? Where does it fit in to your theology.
I’m actually asking.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
It was the worst movie of all time. Called Star Crash, made a year after star wars in the 70’s. Terrible.
“Who did Paul appeal to when he schooled Peter on joining the party of the circumcision? Who did Luther appeal to for authority when hiding out in Wartburg?”
THE SCRIPTURES! Your instances are so radically unusable! Peter and Paul were at the top of the heirarchy, there was no one higher to appeal to. As well both of them believed in power of elders and deacons. If thats how you see yourself then you have bigger problems. Luther was a rebel but what was he rebelling against?, only things that were not scriptural. These examples are not applicaple to our discussion.
“He does not say unbelief is unpardonable. He says blasphemy is.”
And I believe that the blasphemy is unbelief. I haven’t cited anyone else.
28 “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
I feel like this means when you are witness to the Holy Spirit at work, and He is presenting the truth of God’s Kingdom, the sin against the spirit is to deny that truth. If one denies that this presentation is of God, the only alternative whether spoken or not is that is of somewhere else, as Christians we know that that alternative is satan and his kingdom.
Again to me, all of this can be connected to damnation through disbelief. The hardening of one’s heart is not an instantaneous act, but a gradual defiance of the Holy Spirit. Saul once loved and followed The Lord, but his heart was hardoned and he fell away from God. These are the pharisees with Christ. They were His people, He did many miracles before them, to show them that he was their King and could save them. In this instance Christ told them what the result of their defiance would be, the unforgiveable sin.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Of course I don’t. I’m simply saying authority doesn’t equal rightness, and many people apply authority wrongly! I get the impression you are evaluating my position through that criteria – I’ll find sympathetic support, but can we just focus on the argument for now?
Ok. And I believe that criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand is sin, and I believe this is a passage that speaks into our tendency to run off at the mouth. What’s the difference?
It’s fine that you believe this… but it’s wrong. It’s like saying, “I believe hot dogs are vehicles.” Blasphemy has a specific definition, and that definition is not “unbelief.” Christ actually gives us the definition – speaking against. We know this because of proximity and parallel sentence structure. The words used in the original, “speaks against,” mean just that; using words against. The definition is not a mysterious or debatable one. Blasphemy means, and has always meant, using defamatory, disrespectful, and irreverent speech. That’s what it means!
What are you using to justify your alternate definition of the word and how does the passage, or any other source, support it?
Ok, THIS was a great insight Jay. Puts a fresh spin on things.
This actually fits in with something I said earlier: the rule Christ discloses applies to those who should know better. When demons are being cast out, sight being restored, and people being raised from the dead, any by-stander really should know better! Good observation.
I want you to also consider things are they are now: these miracles aren’t happening every day, and yet we know the Spirit is at work. So how does this apply?
As Believers, Jesus has promised us the Helper – the Spirit. So, arguably, our potential to discern should be heightened. Our understanding and insight into the spiritual should be greater. We then do not need the same degree of evidence to know whether the Spirit is at work or not. Essentially, we have less of an excuse. The Kingdom is in our midst.
But did Christ didn’t tell them this? You’re assuming a certain definition of blasphemy that is entirely unsupported.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I can’t see how you say so concretely that my position is wrong when you haven’t even established why yours is right. My definition of blasphemy is wrong while you don’t even have a definition or at least a definition to constitute the unforgivable sin. You said one thing, then changed it, then changed it again yet I am wrong and NO ONE shares your view.
“Ok. And I believe that criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand is sin, and I believe this is a passage that speaks into our tendency to run off at the mouth. What’s the difference?”
The difference is, ok ya speak into our lives, but is “criticizing the Brethren, mocking their sincerity and cutting down that which we do not fully understand” the unforgiveable sin? No.
“The definition is not a mysterious or debatable one. Blasphemy means, and has always meant, using defamatory, disrespectful, and irreverent speech. That’s what it means!”
No, and thats what you don’t get. The speech is the by -product of unbelief and an attitude of hatred against God. God’s concern has alwasys been the heart of the person. What if one those pharisees present was Paul? Hypothetically, what if a prarisee that Christ was talking to became a TRUE believer in the kingdom presented by the Holy Spirit, was their salvation already forfeit? I don’t think so.
I think we’re both hitting but it needs to be a combination, I see what your saying about the actual use of words but there is an attitude behind those words that is essential for the sin to be commited because then there is no seperation between the accidenal and intentional statements. The unforgivability doesn;t come from any lack in God’s grace, but from the pharisees choice to reject God’s means of forgiveness.” You;re right, true believers or not
they were in a position to know to better and in spite of this knowledge and in spite of being witness to these miracles they;re words are not just ignorant or prideful but are intentionally slanderous against God. A heart that speaks such words, in such outright rebellion they will never accept The Father;s only Son.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“I agree. You’ve helped me realize that I need to pull back a little bit. Obviously there’s a bit more to the story, and it takes quite an act to commit this sin.”
I think what you’re looking for is the attitude behind the words that makes the difference.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Fully agreed! That’s why I post things to a blog! Your input has really helped me sort through this topic. Happy times.
My view has always been simple: blasphemy – speaking against – the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. What that actually means practically is changing – I’m figuring this out like all of us are. But the core principal has gone unchanged for my part.
Now, when you say that “no one” shares my view, do you mean no one you know? No one you’ve read? You can’t have read EVERY commentary ever produced on this passage. Kind of a strong statement, don’t you think?
In a way, you’re actually saying what I’ve always believed: that the heart that is turned off of God will inevitably commit such a sin. As Keith mentioned on City of God, if you’re worried that you might have committed the Unforgivable Sin you probably haven’t, because if you had, you wouldn’t care.
But the whole point for writing on this and exploring the topic in the way I am is because as the church moves through times of change and as various doctrines dominate and recede, sometimes we forget important teachings – we sacrifice some truth for the sake of other truth.
So, does God look at the heart? Yes. Christ also says that those who love Him obey Him – faith without works is dead. So God, while looking at the heart, also judges and evaluates what we actually do.
So, whether it’s glib speak or the pronouncement, “Blank blank blank, the Holy Spirit!” I believe Christ made it clear that we can utter, with our mouths, a blasphemy that nullifies and voids our salvation.
What other issues are connected to this, and what this sin practically looks like, we can continue to explore. But I think we need to understand the importance of what we actually do – words create and words destroy. We do not understand the power they have, though as you have reminded me, words come from some place within.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Using that definition makes it difficult to criticize even the obvious hucksters preying on the faithful (Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff). I mean I’m pretty sure that what they are doing is ungodly and greed-motivated but I wouldn’t bet my life on it though it seems clear they do more harm than anything. There is a lot of fakery and self-importance infesting Christendom if you haven’t noticed - with your definition it will flourish.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“Now, when you say that “no one” shares my view, do you mean no one you know? No one you’ve read? You can’t have read EVERY commentary ever produced on this passage. Kind of a strong statement, don’t you think?”
Hey man, it’s up to you to produce, I can’t produce evidence for something doesn’t exist.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:13 am
Absolutely. I’m the first person in line to remind people that we are actually called to judge fellow believers, and test the spirits. In fact, I’ve discovered that I have gifts of discernment, and often am able to tell “what’s up” far earlier than most people around me.
So to me, it’s a matter of resolving the tension, because on the one had, I can’t just set aside what I feel Christ’s words are telling me. On the other, is a whole smattering of practical implications that need to be accounted for.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Hey dude,
I saw that you posted some questions on Horne’s website. I don’t think he checks theologia anymore. It hasn’t been updated in years methinks.
Why don’t you try his blog or tumblr? He should have an email on there somewhere.
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
Cheers,
K.