The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

Davo, did you at least grasp the point that there is a difference between the definition of a crime and its penalty?

There may well be a difference… as you full well know, I wasn’t answering to that. I was answering to your notion THAT… “AFAIK the BHS is never properly defined in Scripture,…” — I have provided textual evidence to the contrary. That you refuse to accept the bleeding obvious, as the text make plain, is fine… but trying to divert away from your error to elsewhere is plain for all to see. :unamused:

Earlier you posted:

How is that the - definition - of BHS, as opposed to merely an ‘example’ (of one of billions of conceivable examples) of BHS? If even that.

I started to read all this, but it gets very technical for me, and I’m not sure it needs to be technical.

Who?
Jesus (obviously) is speaking–but who is He and for what was He sent? He is the last prophet of Israel the Son of David/the Son of man/the Son of God, and He was sent to the children of Israel. Gabriel said, “…for He shall save His people from their sins.” Who were His people? When the woman of Cana asked help for her demon possessed daughter, He said, “I am not sent but to the House of Israel” (or something very like that). It was after Israel (as prophesied) turned away from Him that the torch was passed to the Gentiles–that we might also be saved, yes, but also that by our salvation we should make the sons of the kingdom jealous so that they would also turn to Christ.

To whom was He speaking? To the priests and Pharisees who accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul. He was saying, in essence, that the Jews (meaning the religious authorities, which is the way I believe the gospel writers usually used that term) were calling good evil (and the companion of this is to call evil good.) If not directly calling evil good, at the least they were calling Good (the Spirit) evil. We read in the Old Testament “Cursed are they who call good evil and evil good.” I think this is a kind of what we’d call Transference today. That sorry state in which the evil-doer accuses the victim of the evil that he himself is doing. Such a person is certainly cursed since he has deceived his own heart. He truly believes his own accusations. IOW, he’s nuts.

What?
According to Jason (and I think he’s right (you can look it up in his writings if you want his reasoning on this), the demoniac Jesus was performing deliverance on was the same He had earlier delivered from demons. He had left his “house” empty, swept and garnished. Thus the Jews held Jesus to be responsible for the man’s further degraded state. It “didn’t take” and the man ended up worse than at the start. So they said, “He casts out demons by the finger of Beelzebul.” Jesus said to them, “If I cast out demons by the finger of Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.”

Where?
If I recall, this whole thing played out in Jerusalem–but it could have been anywhere in Israel and it doesn’t matter so I’m not going to check. The point is, it happened IN ISRAEL and His words were directed at the Jews. Some theologians insist that no one save the Jews to whom He was speaking even had/has the ability to commit the “unpardonable sin,” but I disagree. It IS important to note, though, that Jesus was not speaking directly to modern people today.

When?
Obviously–in ancient Israel of Jesus’ day. This was not said directly to the person who reads it today. It’s important to remember that–even though yes it does have applications to us today. We so often forget that, when we’re reading the Bible, we are reading someone else’s mail.

Why?
I think Jesus said this as a warning. Clearly the Jews (for the most part) didn’t heed the warning. They were not forgiven in that age (the age before His death and resurrection?) nor in the age to come (the church age?) They died in their sins. In truth, I believe they weren’t able to be forgiven because they had turned their backs on the agent of their reconciliation–the Holy Spirit. They regarded the Spirit as an agent of the devil. They saw themselves as good and Jesus (and the Spirit) as evil. Because of this, how could they possibly be forgiven while in that state?

We can do the same thing today. We can insist that evil is good and that good is evil. I think we see a lot of that in society at large (and no doubt occasionally, to whatever small degree, even in ourselves). To take the classic example, Hitler attributed everything that he saw as evil to the Jews and believed himself to be good and right in his attempted annihilation of not only them, but anyone who supported them and/or opposed him–and also any others who weren’t up to his standards of worthiness (the sick, mentally feeble, physically defective, etc.) Hitler called good evil and he believed that the evil things he did were in fact good. He ostensibly did these evil things (at least partly) in order to perfect the genetic pool of the human race. He was even so confused that he didn’t seem to recognize or somehow managed to overlook (or justify) the fact that he himself did not meet his own physical standards. He apparently truly believed these delusions of his, so how could he be saved in that state?

Some things are merely childish and petty. Things that can be overlooked because of our immaturity (which we will grow out of and in our maturing process, come to abhor) or our ignorance (which will be amended naturally as we grow.) Some things are so destructive that they cannot be overlooked but must be dealt with. Calling good evil and evil good is one of those things. I believe this is at least partly what Jesus was warning the Pharisees and priests (and anyone listening in, like us for a start) to beware of. We need to recognize the difference between evil and good. That is a really, really important thing. If we fail at it, that can’t be overlooked. It won’t get better until it is dealt with. Which may take some time and pain. Maybe a LOT of time and pain.

Well I wouldn’t pedantically separate the two just for arguments’ sake. Jesus said…

Here Jesus both ‘defines’ love in words, and then by way of ‘example’ as we know, matches his actions to his words in doing that very thing, i.e., laying down his life. Thus the ‘example’ confirms the ‘definition’.

A definition of the sin of BHS does not AFAIK appear anywhere in the Scriptures. Neither is it ever stated that anyone has ever committed this sin, or if it is possible for anyone to do so since Christ was resurrected and went to heaven.

Mk.3:28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-" 30 for they said, “An unclean spirit has he.” (CLV)

The NT translation of Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart says:

“But whoever blasphemes against the Spirit, the Holy one, has no excuse throughout the age*, but is answerable for a transgression in the Age**” (Mk.3:29)

  • Or “until the Age [to come]”
    ** An “aeonian transgression”: perhaps “answerable for an age-long transgression.”

(The New Testament: A Translation, 2017, Yale University Press, p.69)

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this AGE, neither in the AGE to come.” (Mt.12:32)

As per the Scripture passages above, the “penalty” for BHS is limited to “this age” & the “age to come”. Since there is at least one age beyond those (Eph.1:21; 2:7; Lk.1:33; Rev.22:5, etc), the passages tell us nothing about the final destiny of those who commit such a sin. [Or if anyone ever committed it]. It does, however, inform us as to the final destiny of all others who didn’t committ that sin, namely forgiveness, or pardon:

Mk.3:28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming

BTW, David Burnfield makes an interesting point re Mt. 25:46:

“None of the sins listed in [the context of] Matt.25:46 can be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.”

He quotes Mt.12:31:

“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” (NASB)

And emphasizes the words “any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people”.

He then says “If we can believe what Christ tells us, then the ‘only’ sin that is ‘not’ forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which obviously does not include the sins listed in Matt.25:34-44.”

Then he quotes from Jan Bonda’s book “The One Purpose of God…”:

“Verse…46, in particular, has always been cited as undeniable proof that Jesus taught eternal punishment. Yet it is clear that the sins Jesus listed in this passage do not constitute the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Assuming Jesus did not utter this word with the intention of contradicting what he said moments before [Matt 12:31], we must accept that the sins mentioned in this passage [Matt 25:46] will eventually be forgiven. This means, however strange it may sound to us, that this statement of Jesus about eternal punishment is not the final word for those who are condemned.”

(Patristic Universalism: An Alternative To The Traditional View of Divine Judgement, 2nd ed, 2016, by David Burnfield, p.220-1)

The aforementioned Bentley Hart translation does not use the words “eternal” or “everlasting” at Mt.25:46, but instead reads “chastening of that Age” & “life of that Age”. Many other versions do likewise, as listed here:

christianforums.com/threads … n.8039822/

christianforums.com/threads … r.8041512/


christianforums.com/threads … t.8041500/

LLC said:

I would say that Jesus took care of sin in the sense that Adam caused sin. All were directly effected by Adams misdeed, and all were effected by Christ’s cross. But in my opinion, the story of Adam *fast forward *to Christ, was a historical one. You have said in the past that the gospel message is for the here and now and not the afterlife. I go a bit further and say the gospel message was about the there and then as in that specific time. :smiley:

As for the OP, I think that the BHS was a warning that was time and circumstance relative also. The very fact that there are so many really smart people on this forum and there are so many different opinions just solidifies to my mind that it was something happening at that time and place and has little or nothing to do with us.

Chad, is there ANYTHING in Christianity that applies to people now? If so, what? If not, then in what sense do you profess to be a Christian? Or DO you?

Actually that is a good question! I think that God continues to be with and work through people, I just feel that there is no more ‘specific’ scriptural basis. So as many of you will look at scripture (bible) to guide you in what you think God would want you to do or not do, I think that most the NT is time specific, and meant for a specific audience, though please don’t get me wrong, I think much of Jesus’ teachings were very special and we would be well served to heed, but we need to discern what is wisdom teaching and what is time appropriate… as in the apocalyptic verses. The savior of the Israel nation was set at the right hand of God. He put all things right between man and God. That works for me. It is Good News :smiley:

Next, the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given power to scorch the people with fire. And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they blasphemed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory.
And the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness, and men began to gnaw their tongues in anguish and blaspheme the God of heaven for their pains and sores; yet they did not repent of their deeds. ~~ Revelation 16:8-11

God is holy. Holiness when applied to God refers to everything that separates Him from His creation and His creatures. It includes moral purity but it’s not limited to that. God is self-sufficient, infinite in wisdom, all-powerful, all knowing, omnipresent. He sees the beginning from the end. We are none of these things. We are finite and limited and imitate God in certain ways but cannot be like Him in every way. He’s holy and in a category all by Himself. He cannot be compared to anything or anybody. To do so is to make a categorical error. Universalists compare God to Hitler because of His fiery hell and therefore blaspheme His holiness. If God has morally sufficient and justifiable reasons for hell then hell isn’t unjust. His holiness remains intact. Because of God’s holiness He’s in a privileged position. As finite and limited creatures we are to depend on Him in humbled trust as we walk in mercy and love. God is holy. He’s no evil monster.

And we can’t really blame God, for the Zombie Apocalypse; - during the tribulation. I would blame it on the Devil. :angry:

Look qaz you either believe God is Love, or you are going to swim in a continual sea of contradictory opinions. You may be looking at the wrong sources if you think otherwise.
good luck :wink:

Where did you read that at?

Check out p.4-6 at:

s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchableri … Spirit.pdf

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. [1 Tim.1:13]

Saul was a serial killer, like Hitler & others. He was an Inquisitor, persecutor & murderer of those of faith in Jesus. He compelled them to blaspheme, both men and women.

Yet he received mercy because he acted in unbelief & ignorance (1 Tim.1:13). Just as millions of others who have already died in such a condition of unbelief & ignorance shall receive mercy.

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, Jesus prayed on the cross.

Like serial killer Inquisitionist Saul, who had not blasphemed the Holy Spirit, neither have those who have died in unbelief and ignorance. Therefore they SHALL be pardoned. Jesus said so:

28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-" 30 for they said, “An unclean spirit has he.” (Mark 3, CLV)

31 Therefore I am saying to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be pardoned men, yet the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be pardoned."
32 And whosoever may be saying a word against the Son of Mankind, it will be pardoned him, yet whoever may be saying aught against the holy spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending. (Mt.12:31-32, CLV)

Since there are Scriptures speaking of multiple future ages (i.e. eons) to come (Eph.2:7; Rev.11:15, etc), there is the possibility that this sin against the Holy Spirit may be pardoned after the coming age. In fact it will be:

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life’s justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

Where does the idea come from that Spirit blasphemers receive retributive “punishment” after they’ve repented?

None of the Spirit blasphemy passages mention “punishment”, but speak of not being “pardoned”. The Greek word can also be translated forgiven, let off, etc. What they will not be “let off” from (or the consequences of such) is not explained.

Their are various ways to interpret the BHS passages in harmony with universalism, e.g. MacDonald, Talbott, Pratt. Personally i wouldn’t go with davey on anything, but everyone’s entitled to be wrong. :laughing:

Not being “let off” the hook for something may not necessarily involve an active “punishment” with torments, but might merely require the loss of a reward. “If you don’t eat your dinner, you get no hot fudge sundae.”

This is simply the quagmire of futurism. When said blasphemy is seen for what it WAS, past tense, i.e., a generational sin and thus cumulative of Jesus’ CONTEMPORARIES just as he PLAINLY said, then all such fear is unwarranted and unnecessary and simply evaporates.

Phew, that’s a relief for me… no guilt by association with Origeney. :laughing:

:laughing: