Teachings
Introduction
Literal View
Contextual View
Doctrinal View
Final Thoughts
Printer Friendly
The Unpardonable Sin
The topic of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit appears three times in the New Testament.
Jesus discussed this sin when he rebuked the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:20-30. In Luke 12:8-12 Jesus mentioned blasphemy after warning his disciples about the "leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1).
These passages have perplexed many Christians. Scholars admit this is a difficult topic, and offer various interpreta-tions. For clarity their interpretations can be classified into three schools of thought:
| • | Literal - These apologists base their conclusions on the literal meaning of the word "blasphemy" in its strictest sense. |
| • | Contextual - These expositors interpret blasphemy within the context that Jesus discussed this sin. |
| • | Doctrinal - These interpreters integrate other scriptures, outside the contextual accounts, to form their conclusions. |
The above distinctions are not black-and-white. And the views are not mutually exclusive. Most scholars blend ideas from these schools of thought.
Literal View
Thayer applies the following definitions to the Greek word translated “blasphemy”: to slander, to rail at or revile, to speak evil of, contemptuous speech, impious or reproachful speech injurious to the divine majesty.
In Matthew's account of this sin, the author clarified Jesus' use of the word “blasphemy” with a parallel phrase. After writing, “blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven,” he continued with, “whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:31-32).
Make no mistake; the external manifestation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is verbal. The context supports this view, as Matthew 12:33-37 shows. Jesus continued by speaking about words and character, concluding with the statement, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Did Jesus’ critics commit this sin?
Some in the literal school believe the Pharisees and scribes committed this sin when they accused Jesus of casting out demons “by the ruler of the demons” (Matthew 12:24).
Others assert they did not commit this sin, but rather Jesus was warning them not to speak further evil. Each view is explained below.
The Affirmative Answer
Those who believe Jesus’ critics committed this sin cite several scriptures. The Holy Spirit led Jesus (Luke 4:1). Jesus had the power of the Spirit without measure (Luke 4:14, John 3:34). God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). So the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus.
Jesus’ accusers said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:22, 30). Since the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus, these critics were guilty of calling the Holy Spirit unclean, Beelzebul (Satan), and “the ruler of the demons” (Mark 3:22). They slandered the Holy Spirit who indwelt Christ.
Many who believe Jesus’ accusers sinned point to the miracles. The apostles worked miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-24, Romans 15:18-19, 1st Corinthians 12:9, 1st Thessalonians 1:5). In like manner, they argue that Jesus wrought miracles through the power of God and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:22).
So Jesus’ critics not only denigrated the Holy Spirit, they slandered the works of the Holy Spirit, to which they were eyewitnesses. They attributed the miracles they witnessed to the power of Satan (Matthew 12:24-27).
The Dissenting Answer
Others believe that Jesus did not charge his critics with this sin. Rather, Jesus warned them not to go too far in their accusations.
Up to that point they had sinned by speaking against Christ. Some reason that they had not yet spoken against the Holy Spirit because the Spirit had not yet been sent.
The Promised Spirit
In the final dispensation, Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit who would guide the apostles into all the truth (John 16:5-15). This the Holy Spirit did. The truth is revealed in the New Testament, which was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (2nd Peter 1:20-21, 2nd Timothy 3:16).
The Holy Spirit glorified Jesus (John 16:13-15), and was the final divine authority to bear witness of him (1st John 5:5-7).
Men who rejected Jesus while he was living could find forgiveness. Case in point; Jews who crucified Jesus repented on the day of Pentecost, were baptized, and were added to the church (Acts 2:23, 7-41).
However, those who blasphemed and rejected the Holy Spirit, Christ’s final witness, could never find forgiveness. In rejecting the witness of the Holy Spirit, they rejected the only source of forgiveness.
Literal Conclusions
Those in the literal school of thought draw very different conclusions.
Some believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could only be committed by those who were eye-witnesses of the divine miracles. Consequently, today’s Christians need not worry about committing this sin.
Some espousing the literal view believe it can be committed by today’s Christians. The sin is eternal because one who rejects the Holy Spirit can never be renewed to repentance (Hebrews 6:6).
Others draw a more distressing conclusion. They believe that a single slip of the tongue, an impious remark or evil comment against the Holy Spirit can eternally separate a Christian from the redemptive power of Jesus’ blood.
While few scholars accept this last view, many conscientious Christians have worried that they may have committed the “unpardonable sin.” The word “unpardonable” does not appear in scripture. Those in the contextual and doctrinal schools do not ascribe to this view.
The literal view is worthy of mention because of the gravity of its conclusion. Eternal damnation for a rash word is a weighty sentence indeed.
Contextual View
The contextual view seeks to explain the meaning of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit primarily by analyzing the verses that precede and follow the passages in question.
Contextual scholars submit that understanding of this sin can be achieved by examining the context in which it is presented.
Prelude to this Teaching
The synoptic accounts of Matthew and Mark begin with Jesus healing a demon possessed man before the multitudes. Amazed witnesses wondered aloud if Jesus was the “Son of David” (Matthew 12:22-23).
Upon hearing this, the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem accused Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul (Satan), and of casting out demons by the ruler of the demons (Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22).
Response of Jesus
Jesus responded with a series of logical statements that exposed the absurdity of their accusations. To summarize these arguments:
| • | It’s against Satan’s interests to cast his own demons out because it divides his kingdom. |
| • | If Jesus exercised demons by Beelzebul, then by whom did the sons of Israel cast them out? |
| • | If in fact the source of Jesus’ power was divine, then God’s kingdom was present. The unstated implication being that they should repent. |
Jesus concludes this rebuttal with a parable (Matthew 12:29). A strong man cannot be robbed unless he is first bound. In an ironic twist, Jesus symbolized the thief in this parable, and Satan the strong man. In effect, Jesus plundered Satan’s kingdom by robbing him of a demon possessed victim.
The messianic prophecy in Isaiah 49:24-26 illuminates this parable (emphasis added):
Can the prey be taken from the mighty man,
Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?"
Surely, thus says the LORD,
"Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away,
And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued;
For I will contend with the one who contends with you,
And I will save your sons.
"I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh,
And they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine;
And all flesh will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?"
Surely, thus says the LORD,
"Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away,
And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued;
For I will contend with the one who contends with you,
And I will save your sons.
"I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh,
And they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine;
And all flesh will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
Mark’s Insightful Postscript
Up to this point, Matthews account provides most of the prelude to this teaching. Following Jesus’ statements about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mark adds an insightful explanation that reveals Jesus’ motive for introducing the subject, “because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean Spirit’” (Mark 3:30).
This remark correlates with the previous accusations from Matthew 12:24 and Mark 3:22. Jesus’ critics had accused him of having an unclean spirit. As Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), this was a slanderous accusation indeed.
Analysis
Some contextual analysts argue that a sin of this magnitude could only be applied to the eye-witnesses who beheld the miracles of Christ. The Pharisees and scribes who witnessed this miracle were guilty of calling “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Matthew 12:33-34 agrees with this character assessment, when Jesus says, “how can you, being evil, speak what is good?”
Still others cite Luke’s account to show that this sin was not limited to first century witnesses of Jesus’ miracles. Luke’s parallel account of the events from Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:20-30 do not correspond with Luke’s mention of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Luke’s parallel account of these events is in Luke 11:4-28. Luke presents blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in chapter 12, within the context of Jesus warning his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees (Luke 12:1).
Since this teaching is lifted outside the contexts of Matthew and Mark, they conclude that the sin is not limited to first century eye-witnesses, but that it could apply to Christians today.
Contextual Conclusion
To summarize, contextual scholars believe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit directly relates to the act of attributing works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Some conclude this only applied to first century eyewitnesses, while others state this could be applied to Christians today.
Doctrinal View
Doctrinal apologists base their analysis on verses found beyond the immediate context of the blasphemy passages. They believe a correct understanding of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can be achieved through the inclusion and proper application of related scriptures.
Key External Verses
Beyond the blasphemy passages, the most frequent verses they cite are 1st John 5:16 and Hebrews 6:4-8. John advised Christians not to pray for one who commits a sin “leading to death.” The Hebrew writer, discussing fallen Christians, stated it was “impossible to renew them to repentance.”
These verses point to the obvious conclusion that sin which is not repented of is not forgiven. Furthermore, one can become hardened to the truth beyond the point of repentance. For such a person penitence is unthinkable.
Of course all have sinned (Romans 3:23). Even the most faithful stumble (1st John 1:8). Yet those who walk in the light, even though they occasionally stumble, are cleansed by the blood of Jesus (1st John 1:7).
Hardening of the Heart
Hardening of the heart is a progressive process. Sin grieves the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). Repeated sin, without repentance, sears one’s conscience and eventually hardens one into resisting the Holy Spirit (1st Timothy 4:2, Acts 7:51).
The hardened person exchanges the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25); resulting in God giving such a one up to his own impurity and depraved mind (Romans 1:24, 28). One so hardened receives a spirit of stupor, having closed eyes and deafened ears to the truth (Romans 11:8, Matthew 13:14-15).
Insulting the Spirit of grace, the hardened one ultimately disregards the blood of Christ – the only source of redemption (Hebrews 10:29, Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, 1st Peter 1:18-19).
The hardened person, whose final response to the Spirit of truth is one of rejection, never receives forgiveness because he never repents. The sin leads to eternal death because it’s never confessed. Un-repented sins of one walking in darkness are never pardoned.
Contents of the Heart
After discussing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, “For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart” (Matthew 12:34). A man’s words reveal his spiritual condition. One who outwardly speaks against the Holy Spirit has inwardly rejected the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The verbal rejection reveals the inward rejection.
Jesus’ warning, “for by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned,” ring true because words reveal the contents of the heart (Matthew 12:35-37).
Mission of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit was sent to convict the world of sin, and bring men to Christ, whom he glorified (John 16:7-15). One who rejects the Spirit’s testimony of Christ, rejects the only grounds for forgiveness. Final, utterly complete rejection of Christ and the testimony of the Holy Spirit results in eternal death.
Doctrinal scholars interpret blasphemy against the Holy Spirit not as one sin, but as a class of sins that are spiritually fatal. Sin leads to spiritual death (Romans 5:12, 6:16, James 1:15). Paul wrote, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23). Un-repented sin is spiritually fatal.
Doctrinal Conclusion
The conclusion of those inclined to this view is comforting. A Christian who utters a rash statement in an unbelieving moment can be forgiven if he repents. According to 1st John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from unrighteousness.”
So the despondent Christian who fears he has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit need not worry. His conscience has not been seared. His own words of confession reveal that his heart is not hardened to the truth.
Final Thoughts
Many learned men have applied their minds to understanding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It’s readily apparent that they arrived at a variety of conclusions.
Three Schools of Thought
The three schools in this article provide an effective means to explain the various viewpoints. Admittedly, they are artificial.
Each emphasizes a different aspect of interpreting scripture over another. The literal view emphasizes the definition of the word “blasphemy.” The contextual emphasizes the context of the passages. And the doctrinal view emphasizes integration of related scriptures.
Each school has elements of merit. They are not mutually exclusive. It’s important to accurately define “blasphemy,” to correctly understand the context, and to properly apply other scriptures to this topic. Most scholars use elements from each school to form their individual conclusions.
Conclusion
Doubtless there are other arguments and conclusions regarding this sin. The analysis presented here is a fair representation of viewpoints expressed by many scholars.
This author’s intent was not to persuade you to accept a specific point of view. Rather, the goal was to carefully examine blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and to provide related scriptural references.
Back
Teachings
| Updated 4/7/2008 | www.LifeofChrist.com |
| © 1998-2008 Ken Palmer | |
| About Us | Legal & Copyright | Sitemap |  |