INTRODUCTION
Many Bible students and
believers of Scripture have been faced this serious sin and often wondered
several questions: What is the meaning of this? Is it possible today or was
possible only during the time of Christ was on the earth? While all of these
questions cannot be answered in great detail for the sake of space, this paper
will address a number of these questions as well as other aspects that relate
to the meaning of the unpardonable sin.
Reformed theologian view
When Protestant Reformation
came forward, totally new and authentic directions are received in Bible
research. Scripture was exalted during this time and many issues in the Bible were
reexamined in light of an authoritative standard. Luther (1483-1546), in his
commentary on 1 John 5:16, described the blasphemy of the Spirit as, “obstinacy
in wickedness, an assault against the acknowledged truth and impenitence to
the end, of which Matt 13:22 speaks.”[1] Luther elsewhere spoke on
Matthew 12:31-32 stating that, “sinning against the Holy Spirit is nothing
else than blaspheming His work and office.”[2] Luther adds, “It is the
nature of this sin against the Holy Spirit to resist what is known to be plain
truth.”
John Calvin (1509-64) rejects Augustine’s interpretation
of final impenitence and insists that the sin could indeed be committed during
one’s life and not simply at the end of it. Calvin states his own position more
directly when he writes, “they sin against the Holy Spirit who, with evil
intention, resist God’s truth, although by its brightness they are so touched
that they cannot claim ignorance. Calvin reasons that the one’s committing this
continual rejection/blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven because God
hardens their hearts so that they will never desire to repent.[3]
James Arminius
(1560-1609), like Calvin, rejected Augustine’s final impenitence view for the
same reasons Calvin did; namely, Christ’s words would be made void that the sin
would not be forgiven in this age. Arminius defines the blasphemy of the Spirit
as, the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and
hatred against Christ. In other words, the blasphemy of the Spirit is rejecting
Christ even thought it has been made undeniable to the sinner. The sinner does
this for the purpose of fulfilling his or her flesh by indulging in the deeds
of the body rather than choosing Jesus.
BIBLICAL VIEW
Some theologians deny the
existence of an unpardonable sin stating that these words were fabricated by
the early church to support their own endeavors. Such a view is simply to be
rejected on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Augustine’s “end of life impenitence”
has some holes and the chief difficulty, as Combs writes, is “that it has
little correspondence with the historical situation in the Gospels. The
convicting ministry of the Spirit is available to all unbelievers. Thus, “since
all unbelievers end up rejecting the convicting ministry of the Spirit, all
unbelievers also become guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus’
statement is thus stripped of all its solemnity.
The view that
espouses that the unpardonable sin was a possibility limited to the earthly
ministry of Jesus has commendable aspects but is still insufficient in its
explanation. The problem with this is that the biblical record does require
Jesus to be present in order for the sin to be committed. Indeed, Luke 12:10,
in a speech Jesus gives to prepare his disciples for his absence, assumes that
the unforgiveable sin will happen during the ministry of the disciples, even
after Jesus has ascended.
The view that espouses that the sin can still be
committed. Furthermore, since one can never really know if a person has reached
the point of true blasphemy and thus the state of unforgiveness, thus view
virtually becomes synonymous with Augustine’s view.[4]
A PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
Three passages
specifically mention the unpardonable sin: Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; and
Luke 12:10. For the research paper, a brief study of only Matthew’s
account will be studied along with a complimentary word from Mark’s account. Matthew
dividing into four main points that relate to the unforgivable sin.
The Situation (Matt 12:22-23)
First, Matthew explains the
situation in verses 22-23 stating, “Then a demon-possessed man who was blind
and unable to speak was brought to Him. He healed him, so that the man could
both speak and see. It is the view that miracleS authenticate God’s messengers
and the same appear only when God is speaking to His people through accredited
messengers, declaring His gracious purposes.”[5] Thus, the miracles
performed by Jesus and his successors authenticated their message as truly from
God.
Charge of Pharisees (Matt
12:24)
The second main division
is in verse 24. Matthew writes, “When the Pharisees heard this they said, ‘The
man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.’ The most
significant thing to point out is actually a confession of Pharisees that Jesus
had done miracle by Beelzebul
Refusal by Jesus (Matt 12:25-30)
A third
section emerges in verses 12:25-30 is “Jesus’ Refutation”. It should be noted
that Jesus’ refutation consists of four main points. First, Jesus begins his
defense by pointing out the absurdity of the charge of the Pharisees. “Knowing
their thoughts, He told them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is headed
for destruction, and no city or house divide against itself will stand. If Satan
drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom satan?
Jesus makes a second point in his argument by pointing
out the inconsistency of the Pharisees’ argument. In verse 27 Jesus says, “And
if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For
this reason, they will be your judges.” In the first century, exorcism was
accepted and practiced among the Jews, even among the Pharisees. The logic
follows that the religious leaders would have to conclude that their “sons” were
doing the same thing - that is, if the Pharisees wanted to maintain logical
consistency. Jesus’ third main point in his rebuttal to the Pharisees is that
their false charge against him only distorts the truth. The logical and true
explanation that the Pharisees should have concluded was that Jesus was casting
out demons by the Spirit of God. Jesus’ exorcisms were genuine; the Pharisees never
denied that. Since Jesus has shown that a connection with Satan is impossible
(v.25—27), the only conclusion that can be reached is that he is casting out
demons “by the Spirit of God.”[6] Jesus concludes his
argument with a warning in verse 30. He states, “Anyone who is not with me is
against me, and anyone who does not gather with me scatters.
Charge of the Blasphemy
(Matt 12:31-32)
Having finished his rebuttal, Jesus makes one of the harshest, statement
in the gospel. MacLeod puts it well when he writes, “Up to this point Jesus has
responded defensively explaining the importance of the healing he had just
performed with the power of the Holy Spirit. Now he adopts a more offensive
posture.”[7] Jesus says to the
Pharisees, “Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and
blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever
speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever
speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age
or in the one to come.” Several things stand out from the passage and would be
helpful in determining the meaning of this passage. Thus, the implication is
that the blasphemy of the Spirit is equated with the accusation of the
Pharisees.[8]
Second, verse
31 also helps determine what the blasphemy of
the Spirit is not. In this verse
Jesus draws a line between sin in general and a very specific sin, the
blasphemy against the Spirit. Jesus’ wording is very careful. Combs observes,
“the addition of the words ‘and blasphemy’ to those sins which will be forgiven
serves to make even more specific the nature of the sin which will not be
forgiven.”[9] Lastly, verse 32 advances
the thought started in verse 31, bringing it to a sharper point. Warfield
explains, what follows is not merely an illustration of the general principle
or a consequence from it. The “and” has an ascensive force and introduces what
is in effect a climax. It is not merely an instance which is adduced; but the instance, which will illustrate
above every other instance the incredible reach of forgiveness that is
extended, and which will therefore supply the best background up against which
may be thrown the heinousness of blasphemy against the Spirit which cannot be
forgiven.[10]
But why is this sin unforgiveable? Why is blasphemy against the Spirit
unforgiveable as opposed to blasphemy against the Son? It will be argued later
that blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgiveable due to the nature of the sin
itself.
Mark 3:22-30
Mark 3:22-30 is almost
unanimously viewed as a parallel passage to Matthew 12:22-32. The two can be
harmonized with little difficulty; thus, time will not be given to examine the
entire passage, as was the case for Matthew’s. What will be examined, however,
is Mark’s account of the charge of blasphemy (vv. 28—29) and Mark’s unique
explanatory comment (v. 30). First, Mark’s account of Jesus charging the
Pharisees with blasphemy against the Spirit will be examined. Mark records Jesus’
words in verses 28-29, “I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and
whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. But whoever blasphemes against the
Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” The charge
is virtually the same as Matthew’s account. Mark chooses not to record but records
the same conclusion. Whoever blasphemes the Spirit has no opportunity for
forgiveness. It should be noted that the last clause in verse 29, “but is
guilty of an eternal sin,” is confirmatory and not in contrast to what Jesus
has just said. Gundry suggests translating the “but” as “indeed” or “rather.”[11]
The second thing that is necessary that the scribes who
had come down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul in Him!’ and, ‘He drives
out demons by the ruler of the demons!’ Thus, “He has an unclean spirit” in
verse 30 is synonymous with the scribes’ charge in verse 22: “He has Beelzebul
in Him!” This this harsh charge of blasphemy was given as a result of what the
Pharisees said in verses 22 as explained by Mark in verse 30. John Wesley
agrees when he writes, “Is it not astonishing, that men who have ever read
these words, should doubt, what is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: Can
any words declare more plainly, that it is the ascribing those miracles to the
power of the devil which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost.”[12] Verse 30 provides the
student with the cause for why Jesus endeavored in his argument and ultimately
his charge to the Pharisees that they were guilty of blasphemy against the
Spirit. Combs writes, “The reason Jesus issues his solemn pronouncement in vv.
28—29 is because of the blasphemous accusation of the scribes that he was
performing exorcisms by the power of Satan.
CONCLUSION The paper then put forth a proposed
interpretation that defined the blasphemy of the spirit as attributing the
miraculous works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Three concluding remarks to tie
everything together would be helpful at this point.
First, blasphemy of the Spirit, should properly be
understood as blaspheming the miraculous undeniable working of the Holy Spirit
which Pharisees were accusing Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Satan.
Second, what is significant about this specific blasphemy
as opposed to other blasphemies is its nature. This is not merely a one-time
act or some sort of slip of the tongue, as it were. Müller explains, “It is
impossible for a man, as if by mere magic of certain words, which do not spring
from the depth of his heart, to commit the very worst of all sins, and to
abandon himself irremediably to eternal ruin.”[13] Combs wittingly points
out what is going on in the hearts of the Pharisees. He writes, “The charges
made by the Pharisees were not the accusations of well-intentioned men. Jesus’
refutation of the charges made by the Pharisees, as recorded by both Matthew
and Mark, pointedly demonstrate how ridiculous and absurd the Pharisees’
charges were.”[14]
Their charge was an attempt to dispute the indisputable and to deny the
undeniable. Whitcomb observes the purpose of sign miracles when he writes that
they “were presented to human minds with such force and clarity, that no one was
to deny them.”[15]
The Pharisees and scribes had been shown undeniable proof that Jesus’ claims
about himself were true and willfully chose to be ignorant.
Third, it is safe to say
that the unpardonable sin cannot be committed today. It was concluded that the
Pharisees committed the blasphemy of the Spirit when they attributed the
miracle working power of the Spirit to Satan. Therefore, a necessary element
that must be present in order for the unforgiveable sin to occur is
Spirit-worked, sign miracles. Assuming that cessationism is true, which the
present author does, it would follow that the unpardonable sin could not be
committed today.
In conclusion, the blasphemy of the Spirit is the willful
ignorance that attributes the miracle-working power of the Holy Spirit to
Satan. It is knowingly denying the undeniable. It is not an accidental slip of
the tongue nor is it a sin that lacks knowledge of the facts. It is contingent
upon the working of sign miracles, which leave no room for debate. Assuming
cessationism is true, beginning with the death of the last apostle, it is
impossible for the sin to be committed today. This does not mean, however, that
the sin will never be committed again. Possibility exists when, or if, sign
miracles are ever reinstituted in God’s redemptive plan.
[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., The Catholic Epistles, in vol. 30 of Luther’s Works, p. 325.
[5]
Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit
Miracles (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), p. 25-26.
Benjamin B. Warfield, “Misconception of
Jesus, and Blasphemy of the Son of Man,” Princeton
Theological
Review 12 (July 1914): p.
400.
[12] John Wesley, Explanatory
Notes upon the New Testament, 10th ed. (New York: Carlton and Porter,
1856), p. 105.
No comments:
Post a Comment