What is the unpardonable sin?
All comments relevant to this post, should be made at this chap’s blog. It’s only fair. He started it. 
In a recent post, this author interpreted Matthew 12:32 as meaning:
It was not the Pharisees’ criticism of Christ that was the problem – it was their criticism of the Power by which Christ did what He did; the same Power by which Believers are to move in (and, according to Christ in John 14:12, in more remarkable ways than even He moved in – this is a message for today).
So, when a brother “speaks in a tongue, writes a song, donates to charity,” etc and you judge falsely you could “surrender your seat for a few ill thought and fool-hardy words.”
I have serious problems with this interpretation. Some assorted points:
1) I find it at odds with NT exhortations to judge false teachers and for shepherds to guard their flocks. We are all fallible. Our leaders are fallible. There has to be some margin of error allowed for judging error. If not, wouldn’t all leaders who take the NT commands to shepherd their people seriously be in danger of hell?
2) If this interpretation is correct then we’re all screwed. Who here has not mocked a Christian author, movement or belief? And this even as Christians. What about before we knew Christ? Who hasn’t mocked Christ and the Spirit’s work? Isn’t the cross a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Greek?
3) How does Paul factor into this? Consider Acts 8:1-3 and 9:1-20. Paul clearly did what this author is exhorting us not to do. Yet, I’m pretty sure Paul is hanging with Jesus right now.
4) Look at the parallel account in Luke 12 where the unpardonable sin is seen as denying Christ. What do we do then with the repentant Christ-denying Peter?
5) Interpretation of this text needs to make clear the significance of why it is ok to speak a word against Christ but not the Spirit. Steve Hays is right to suggest that this probably has something to do with corroborated and uncorroborated testimony. There is an OT principle taken up and affirmed by Jesus that one shouldn’t believe something without corroborating evidence (Deut. 9:15; Matt. 8.16). This is why it’s more heinous to reject the Spirit because it’s the Spirit who corroborates Christ’s self testimony.
6) What are the similarities between Christians who struggle with texts like these and the Pharisees? Not much. Consider – we’re not people who never accepted the claims of Christ. Also, there is no evidence as to whether the Pharisees ever fretted over whether they had committed this sin, unlike the many Christians who are frightened by this text.
7) One commenter had it right on Hays blog: As John Frame says in his Intro to Systematic Theology book (Salvation Belongs To The Lord), if you’re worried that you’ve committed the unforgivable sin, you can be assured that you probably haven’t.
8. So who does this text apply to? Both texts that speak of the unpardonable sin have two descriptions in common: a) the person should have known better; b) the sin has to do with public testimony. Considering all the other texts I briefly looked at it seems Hays is right (again) to conclude that the text most probably applies to: “an apostate, a public enemy of the faith, and/or someone who never made profession of faith, but is in a position to know better.”
9) One of the most important thing to remember in discussing things like this from a pastoral perspective is the importance of this promise from 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Well, I like to start with what’s plain and what’s obvious. That way, we can unshackle ourselves from the murk of our own agendas.
The Pharisees make defamatory speech toward the source of Christ’s power.
In response, Christ says that speaking against – blaspheming – the Holy Spirit, is unforgivable sin.
In Christ’s estimation, speech that defames the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. We know this because He tells us so.
Now, how this practically fits into the rest of the NT, well, that’s a very hotly-debated topic. But let’s not wash away Christ’s words.
I mean, point 9 of your post is a truism… but Christ Himself said that something was unforgivable. How can you throw scripture at Him when He’s being blunt as nails?
Yes. For this reason I’m re-evaluating what level of speaking against would be blasphemy.
The concern expressed, however, does not change Christ’s teaching. I take Jesus at His word, but, what qualifies and meets the criteria, I’ve always been somewhat unsure about.
If your interpreatation is correct, then how are you going to decide what constitutes commiting the sin? I feel like something like can’t be so subjective.
You’re right!
There’s a piece missing. Though I write confidently, I’m not claiming to have the corner on truth.
As I said on my blog, you’re helping fill in some pieces.
Some sense needs to be made of the fact that there are apparently different standards of forgiveness for blasphemy against the first two persons and the third person of the Trinity. Ontologically speaking, they are of equal worth (and if one were going to justify the ranking of severity based on ontological worth stated in the biblical text, one would probably lean towards making blasphemy against the Father the worst).
In addition, economically (i.e., salvation-historically), the works of the Trinity are inseparable and equally necessary. There is nothing in Scripture which somehow ranks the works of the persons in order of importance (if there was, one might be inclined to make it the work of Christ, as the work of the Spirit is simply to point back to Him).
This inclines me to think the reason that blasphemy against the Spirit is treated more severely than that against the Father and Son is because of the work appropriate to the Spirit being somehow the only hope we have of forgiveness. It is not because of its importance somehow in abstraction, but because of the fact that the Spirit’s work is the work in us (unlike the Father’s and Christ’s, which are objective/historical), and if we don’t have that we cannot be saved.
It doesn’t make sense to me that Jesus would be making blasphemy against the Spirit more severe for no particular reason, and the reason can’t be the worth of the persons or their work, since they are equal in that regard. It must be because of something like it’s being “our last chance”.
Thus I think it makes the most sense to view it this way: blasphemy of the Spirit is unforgivable because it expresses a heart condition which is, for whatever reason in God’s purposes, beyond saving. It’s not the words itself that merit the severest penalty, since considering the ontological and economic equality of the persons, they are equally deserving of respect. It’s the condition of the heart (which according to Jesus is the source of all blasphemies) which merits that penalty.
This has the added benefit of fitting with another passage people bring up in this context: Hebrews 6:4-6. Here the author says that these people are “impossible to renew to repentance” since “they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” Apparently in this case the unforgivable sin is unforgivable because of something they do to the Son. Thus it seems to me the problem is not with the particular Person being blasphemed in the words, but the heart which is expressing the blasphemy.
There is also another plausible interpretation which makes this whole discussion largely moot:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/blasphemy-against-the-holy-spirit
“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is not to be explained in terms of some difference in being or eternal status between the Son and the Holy Spirit so that curse words involving Jesus’ name are forgivable, but not expletives involving the Spirit. Rather, it refers to the historical framework of Jesus’ work in his own generation. The rejection of Jesus, as serious as that is, does not bring immediate condemnation. Forgiveness is still available. But after rejecting the second witness of the Spirit after Pentecost, time runs out for that generation of Israel. There is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Spirit—the rejection of the second witness.”
Now that I notice the details Horne explains well, I think his reading is more plausible than the one I previously gave…
One thing he didn’t mention but which also confirms his point: doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus would bother warning/speaking to the Pharisees about committing a sin which could not be forgiven, if they had just committed it? It makes more sense to see him as warning about what Horne says than about something else…
Wow. I think Horne’s reading nails it. Way better than the sort of reading I proposed via Hays.
Well, Hays did pick up on something right: the second-witness aspect. My other reading did too: the general application is about people who continually refuse to repent. Just putting it into the historical context makes everything fall into place, as usual
I just wrote a three-part follow-up that touches on this.
I think what you cited is good – even correct. But I don’t know if we are more justified in reading a future-looking pronouncement on the part of Christ. He exercised the demon there and then; there and then, being empowered by the Spirit, and there and then addressing the Pharisees remarks.
If we’re all in agreement that the words reveal a heart posture, then they were probably already in violation; they had been for sometime, unreachable. I don’t think it unusual for Christ to use these men who were already a lost cause to teach us, warn us, not to follow in their folly.
“But I don’t know if we are more justified in reading a future-looking pronouncement on the part of Christ. He exercised the demon there and then; there and then, being empowered by the Spirit, and there and then addressing the Pharisees remarks.”
But if it is a warning, which it certainly appears to be, then we would actually presume that it is future looking. It would be based on his then-present activity because his activity there was by the Spirit, and so will the church’s be, so there was an analogy/continuity. Further, it fits more with Jesus’ theme of judgment in the Gospels, which is overwhelmingly about judgment on Jerusalem (which was fulfilled in 70 AD), and explains well why blasphemy against the Son would be less punished than blasphemy against the Spirit (and why that is apparently not the case in Hebrews 6).
When one takes the Lukan context into context, where the next line is about being dragged before rulers and synagogues, I think the conclusion is irresistible: it’s about judgment on the whole people of Israel, because of their treatment of the church. Matthew’s context also points in that direction: the answer to the request for a sign is a warning/judgment on “this evil generation.”
“If we’re all in agreement that the words reveal a heart posture, then they were probably already in violation; they had been for sometime, unreachable.”
Perhaps; you do have some support from the Matthean parallel’s context. But I’m not sure that Jesus meant to imply the Pharisees had no chance to repent, only that they would likely not do so. Jesus does seem to leave the door open, even for the Pharisees, to enter the kingdom, at least during his lifetime. Consider the parable of the Prodigal Son. After telling the part of the story about the elder son’s (=the Pharisees’) objections, he gives the father’s (kind) response to the son, and then ends the story, so as to leave open the opportunity for change. It doesn’t make it seem like he believed they had already condemned themselves irrevocably to hell. Neither does, for example, his prayer to the Father on the cross that He “forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
Perhaps the way to reconcile those two points is to say: the destruction of the city was made certain by the rejection of Jesus, but everyone still had a chance to be a part of the group of Jesus’ followers who were instructed to flee when the city was about to fall; they all still had a chance to repent. If they rejected the church’s witness, however, their destruction was certain.
Of course. I simply meant an impending prophesy vs what was happening there and then.
I agree with this. God uses the actual as analogy… but the miracle of this is that the actual is actual. Meaning, though Christ’s was quite possibly pointing to something more wide-spread and imminent, He is still speaking out what is actual, in that moment.
I’m not sure, prophetic aside, how we can get around that in that moment, a blasphemy was being uttered. Christ said this was so.
This is an attractive point, and again, by and large, I really don’t disagree with your observations.
This is the issue for me: if we can for a moment set aside the broader picture of rebellion and repentance, and look at the moment. What Christ had to say about blasphemy of the Spirit was in response to an actual situation that had just taken place. The Pharisees said something and Christ rebutted what they said. There is causality here. There is relation between one word – the blasphemous – and another – the Truth. I don’t think we’re fully honoring this passage if we just ignore the actuality of what happened in that moment in favour of a more prophetic narrative.
Of course, as I’ve said, I fully agree that the prophetic is certainly taking place, but not in lieu of the literal – I feel as though both must be honoured.
“This is the issue for me: if we can for a moment set aside the broader picture of rebellion and repentance, and look at the moment. What Christ had to say about blasphemy of the Spirit was in response to an actual situation that had just taken place. The Pharisees said something and Christ rebutted what they said.”
I didn’t set it aside; my point is that a) Jesus is warning them about what they did in that moment because it is analogous with the sin he is warning them against, and if they persist in acting like they did in that moment they would end up committing that sin, b) Jesus does not say they had actually committed the unpardonable sin; he speaks more generally: whoever does so will never be forgiven.
I should also add: every work of Christ was also a work in the power of the Spirit, so that any blasphemy of the Son would for that reason also be a blasphemy of the Spirit. This should also indicate to us that the blasphemy of the Spirit that was unforgivable was Israel’s wholesale rejection of the witness of the church (the age of the Spirit, where the church would “do greater works than” Jesus, as you pointed out) which resulted in the judgment on Jerusalem, not simply one isolated blasphemous sentence.
He didn’t have to say it in these words because He was talking to people who were already there.
The Pharisees spoke against the Spirit, Christ said speaking against the Spirit is unpardonable. His commentary was regarding something that had just happened. I think, if place ourselves in that situation, the connection “Pharisees just did this, Jesus says the act is unpardonable, therefore what they just did is unpardonable” would have been self-evident.
If you drove through a red light, and I said, “Driving through a red light is against the law,” I don’t need to go one step further and say, “You have broken the law.”
- the Pharisees spoke against the Holy Spirit
- Christ says speaking against the Spirit is unpardonable
- the Pharisees are unpardonable
This is just a basic syllogism.
“the connection “Pharisees just did this, Jesus says the act is unpardonable, therefore what they just did is unpardonable” would have been self-evident.”
Would it? Jesus does not treat the Pharisees as unpardonable throughout his ministry. Peter preaches after Pentecost that the men who crucified him should repent.
My reading also fits with what he said, but better fits with the salvation-historical context that has been brought up. It also makes more sense of the connection between the work of the Son and the Spirit, AND offers an equally good explanation of the fact that Jesus does not turn to them directly and say “You have just sealed your fate forever.”
As Horne points out: Jesus’ work is the first work of the Spirit in the Gospels, and the church’s work is the second work of the Spirit. Blasphemy against the Son during his ministry is just as much, on a theological level, blasphemy against the Spirit as blasphemy against the work of the church, but the latter is the second witness and thus the last chance. They Pharisees did blaspheme the Holy Spirit in one sense when they said what they did about Christ, but not in the sense that is unforgivable; it is only by ignoring the historical, political, and salvation-historical context (not to mention the apparent arbitrariness of making bad words spoken against one of the persons worse than bad words spoken against the others, when they are all supposed to be worshipped equally) of Jesus’ comments that one can make that deductive leap.
I fail to see how being plain with His words as they would have been heard in the moment requires any sort of leap. Again, I do not disagree with your broader interpretation, and of course, context helps us in interpretation. But gleaning from the passage itself, and respecting the sort of absolute language Christ uses (”anyone who speaks against,” and “by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned”) I find it somewhat unfair that there is no room left for the simple fact that Christ is making a declaration, there and then, for that moment.
Back to the original issue, what are your thoughts on the concept of the utterance? Of course we are by and large looking at a heart eternally set against God, but Christ makes a special point of letting us know that the act of the word has significance. I’m not sure how justified we are in reading this “speaking against” as some some sort of metaphor or signifier. I feel that there was intentionality and plainness to Christ’s use of the term blasphemy and His qualification (speaks against) of it.
“I fail to see how being plain with His words as they would have been heard in the moment requires any sort of leap.”
Because my reading is also being plain, but doesn’t run into the problems yours does (i.e., it makes no sense that blasphemy against the Spirit would be worse than blasphemy against the Son, given that they always work together and are of equal worth, UNLESS Jesus is talking about two phases of witness to the Jews).
“I find it somewhat unfair that there is no room left for the simple fact that Christ is making a declaration, there and then, for that moment.”
I’ve already explained how his comments were related to that moment.
“I’m not sure how justified we are in reading this “speaking against” as some some sort of metaphor or signifier. I feel that there was intentionality and plainness to Christ’s use of the term blasphemy and His qualification (speaks against) of it.”
Words, as Jesus tells us, express the inner heart. This is why they are important. It doesn’t make sense, again, to see isolated words against the Spirit as somehow worse than isolated words against the Son, if it is not about an attitude expressed in spite of not just one, but two testimonies (enough to convict).
Does it really make sense to you that Jesus would have meant expletives against the Spirit are somehow more weighty, in themselves, than expletives against the Son (and what about the Father)? The asymmetry here strongly begs to be read in some way besides the most surface reading. Horne’s explanation of the context gives that better reading.
I’m not sure how useful it is to continue, as I’m pretty sure we’ve just said the same thing over and over for the last three comments or so.
You’re right. I want to try and take this in a different direction now since there are some things we really do agree on… please forgive my tenacity.
I feel like your summation of the “why” is entirely accurate:
It’s a reason I’ve kind of dance around, and I love your wording. Thank you. Of course as I wrote this morning, Heb 6 interprets this condition for us.
This, however, does not in anyway excuse the Pharisees, or anyone else that might buck the Spirit prior to Pentecost. Here’s something we haven’t explored:
we can gather that some, if not all, of these Pharisees already stood condemned.
They are called vipers three times in Matthew: once by John the Baptist, again in Matt 12, and finally in Matt 23. Firstly, the association here is clear: the term is used to associate them directly with The Viper – the embodiment of evil and rebellion toward God. Secondly, and further to this point: each time the term is used it is accompanied by language that frames them as a group faced with unescapable judgment:
John the Baptist says the axe is already at the root.
In Matt 12 Christ says that they are evil, so how can the speak what is good? By their words they will be condemned (their words revealing that they are, in fact, evil).
In Matt 23 Christ toughens the language substantially. He asks a rhetorical question: how will you (Pharisees) escape the sentence of Hell? The answer of course is that they will not. Christ then says that He will send prophets and wise men so that they, being righteous, will be killed by the Pharisees, in order “the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth” will fall upon them.
It seems fairly certain that the Pharisees (since John the Baptist’s ministry, if not earlier) stood irrevocably condemned. Christ implies that they are beyond forgiveness, and even says He will see to it that more blood be on their hands to ensure a harsher judgement visit them.
* * * * *
So do you believe it would have been impossible to commit the Unpardonable Sin prior to Pentacost?
A lot of unconditionally worded threats in the OT had implicit conditions; I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing was going on here, especially given his forgiving attitude toward them on the cross. A sort of “unless you repent…” warning.
I think that might justifiable.
Thanks for your thoughts Andrew.
FWIW, here’s an article which lays this out in a scholarly way, “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions”: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:GheNRyP_0ioJ:www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/81968~5_24_99_9-21-50_PM~Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.pdf+Richard+Pratt,+conditional+prophecy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1