http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1218
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The "Unpardonable Sin"
Through the years, numerous writers have taken on the task of
explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the “unpardonable
sin”—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From these writings have come
countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations. It
is the purpose of this article to explain what “blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit” is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment
concerning whether it still can be committed today.
Three of the four gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement
made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three
passages read as follows.
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone
who 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 age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).
Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men,
and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against
the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal
condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark
3:28-30).
And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will
not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).
Each of these references to the statement made by Jesus verifies that
Jesus did clearly state that there is a specific sin that “will not be
forgiven.” The American Standard Version describes the sin as an
“eternal sin” (Mark 3:29). Jesus defined that sin as “the blasphemy
against the Spirit.” What, then, is blasphemy against the Spirit?
In order to explain this sin fully, a look at the general context of
the statement is critical. Matthew’s account offers the most detail
concerning the setting in which Jesus’ statement was made. In Matthew
12:22, the text indicates that a certain man who was demon-possessed was
brought to Jesus to be healed. As was His common practice, Jesus cast
out the unclean spirit, and healed the man of his blindness and
inability to speak. After seeing this display of power, the multitudes
that followed Jesus asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23).
Upon hearing this remark, the Pharisees, wanting to discredit the source
from which Jesus received His power, declared that Jesus was casting
out demons by “Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” Jesus proceeded to
explain that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and if He
were casting out demons by the power of demons, then He would be
defeating Himself. It was after this accusation by the Pharisees, and
Jesus’ defense of His actions, that Christ commented concerning the
blasphemy against the Spirit. In fact, the text of Mark clearly states
that Jesus made the comment about the blasphemy against the Spirit
“because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ”
Another critical piece of information needed to clarify Jesus’
statement is the definition of blasphemy. Wayne Jackson wrote:
“Blasphemy is an anglicized form of the Greek term
blasphemia, which scholars believe probably derives from two roots,
blapto, to injure, and
pheme,
to speak. The word would thus suggest injurious speech” (2000). Bernard
Franklin, in his article concerning blasphemy against the Spirit,
suggested:
The word “blasphemy” in its various forms (as verb, noun, adjective,
etc.) appears some fifty-nine times in the New Testament. It has a
variety of renderings, such as, “blasphemy,” “reviled,” “railed,” “evil
spoken of,” “to speak evil of,” etc. Examples of these various
renderings are: “They that passed by reviled him” (Matthew 27:39). “He
that shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:29). “They that passed by railed on him”
(Mark 15:29). “The way of truth shall be evil spoken of ” (2 Peter 2:2).
“These speak evil of those things” (Jude 10). It is evident from these
that blasphemy is a sin of the mouth, a “tongue-sin.” All New Testament
writers except the author of Hebrews use the word (1936, pp. 224-225).
Furthermore, Jesus defined the term when, after referring to blasphemy,
He used the phrase “speaks a word against” in Matthew 12:32.
WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT
With the working definition of blasphemy meaning, “to speak against,”
or “speak evil of,” it is easy to rule out several sins that would not
qualify as the unpardonable sin. Occasionally, murder is suggested as
the “unpardonable sin.” Such cannot be the case, however. First, since
blasphemy is a “tongue sin,” murder would not fall into this category.
Second, several biblical passages show the sin of murder can be
forgiven. When King David committed adultery and had Uriah the Hittite
murdered, the prophet Nathan came to him, informing him that God had
seen that David “killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel
12:9). When David confessed to Nathan and repented, the prophet told
David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (12:13).
And, although David was punished for his iniquity, it was forgiven. The
Bible plainly demonstrates that murder is not the unpardonable sin.
Adultery surfaces as another sin put forward as unpardonable. Yet the
same reasoning used to discount murder as the unpardonable sin can be
used to disqualify adultery. First, it does not fit the category of
blasphemy. Second, David was forgiven of adultery, just as surely as he
was forgiven of murder. The apostle Paul gave a list of no less than ten
sins (including adultery) of which the Corinthian brethren had been
forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Adultery cannot be the unpardonable
sin.
Another sin set forth as the unpardonable sin is blasphemy of any kind,
not specifically against the Holy Spirit. We know, however, that
blasphemy in general cannot be unforgivable for two reasons. First, in
the context of the unpardonable sin, Jesus clearly stated that “whatever
blasphemies” men may utter (besides against the Holy Spirit) could be
forgiven. Second, Paul confessed that before his conversion, he had
formerly been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I
obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief ” (1 Timothy
1:13). These two biblical passages rule out the possibility of general
blasphemy as the unpardonable sin.
We begin to see, then, that we cannot arbitrarily decide which sins we
think are heinous, and then simply attribute to them the property of
being unpardonable, especially considering the fact that even those who
were guilty of crucifying the Son of God had the opportunity to be
forgiven (Acts 2:36-38). Therefore, since the unpardonable sin falls
into a category of its own, and cannot be murder, adultery, general
blasphemy, etc., some scholars have set forth the idea that the
unpardonable sin is not a single sin at all, but is instead the stubborn
condition of a person who persists in unbelief. This understanding,
however, fails to take into account the immediate context of the
“unpardonable sin.” Gus Nichols, commenting on this idea of “persistent
unbelief,” stated: “It is true, great multitudes are going into eternity
in rebellion against God to be finally and eternally lost; but it is
for rejecting and neglecting pardon graciously extended in the gospel
while they live, not because they have committed the unpardonable sin”
(1967, p. 236). Wendell Winkler, under a section titled, “What the
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is Not,” wrote that it is not
postponement of obedience until death. The text implies that those who
commit the eternal sin continue to live while having lost all
opportunity of salvation; whereas those who postpone obedience to Christ
(except those who commit the eternal sin) could have obeyed at any time
previous to their death (1980, p. 20).
IN THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME
Jesus said that blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven “in
this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Certain religious
organizations have seized upon this statement to suggest that Jesus has
in mind a situation in which certain sins will be remitted after
death—but not
this sin. This idea of a purgatory-like state,
where the souls of the dead are given a “second chance” to do penance
for the sins they committed in their earthly life, finds no
justification in this statement made by Christ (nor in any other
biblical passage, for that matter). R.C.H. Lenski stated that Jesus’ use
of the phrase under discussion meant simply “absolutely never” (1961,
p. 484). Hendriksen concurred with Lenski when he wrote:
In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of
the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness
in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the
doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated
sin will never be forgiven (1973, p. 528).
As the writer of Hebrews succinctly wrote, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
It also has been suggested by several writers that the “age to come”
discussed by Jesus refers to the Christian Age. According to this idea,
Jesus made the statement in the Jewish Age, when the Law of Moses was in
effect, and the “age to come” denoted the Christian Age immediately
following, when the Law of Christ would prevail. Putting this meaning to
the phrase often leads the advocates of this theory to conclude that
the unpardonable sin could be committed in the Christian Age, after the
resurrection of Christ. As Winkler surmised, “Thus, since our Lord was
speaking while the Jewish age was in existence, he was affirming that
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in (a) the
Jewish age, nor in (b) the Christian age, the age that followed” (1980,
p. 21). Nichols, after affirming the same proposition, concluded:
It follows that this sin, therefore, could be committed during the
personal ministry of Christ, and was then committed, as we have seen,
and could also be committed under the gospel age or dispensation. They
could have attributed the works of the Spirit to Satan after Pentecost,
the same as before (1967, p. 234).
Two primary pieces of evidence, however, militate against the idea that
Jesus’ reference to the “age to come” meant the Christian Age. First,
in Mark 10:30, the gospel writer has Jesus on record using the same
phrase (“in the age to come”) to refer to the time when the followers of
Christ would inherit “eternal life” (see Luke 18:30 for the parallel
passage). This is a clear reference to life after death, since Paul said
“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians
15:50). Second, Mark’s account of the unpardonable sin describes the sin
as an “eternal sin.” The translators of the New King James Version
recorded that the person who commits the sin “never has forgiveness, but
is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29). Mark’s account, with
its emphasis on eternity, shows that the phrase simply is meant to
underscore the fact that this sin will “absolutely never” be forgiven
(Lenski, p. 484). It is incorrect, then, to use the phrase “in the age
to come” to refer to purgatory. It also is tenuous to use the phrase to
refer to the Christian Age. The best explanation, to quote Hendrickson
again, is that “the expression simply means that the indicated sin will
never be forgiven” (p. 528).
WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS
As was noted earlier, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin
in the Bible that is given the status of unpardonable or eternal. In
fact, Jesus prefaced His discussion of this sin by stating that, “every
sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,”
except for blasphemy
against the Spirit. Using the working definition of blasphemy as
“speaking evil of,” it becomes clear that the sin described by Jesus was
a “tongue sin” that the Pharisees had committed, or at least were
dangerously close to committing.
What had the Pharisees done that would have put them in jeopardy of
committing the unpardonable sin? According to His own testimony, during
Jesus’ time on this Earth He cast out demons by the “Spirit of God”
(Matthew 12:28). When the Pharisees saw that Jesus had performed a
verifiable miracle, they could not argue with the fact that Christ
possessed certain powers that others (including themselves) did not
have. Therefore, in order to cast suspicion on the ministry of Jesus,
they claimed that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of
demons. The name Beelzebub is simply another name for Satan (Franklin,
1936, p. 227), as can be seen from Jesus’ reference to Satan in Matthew
12:26. Even when faced by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit
through Jesus, the Pharisees were, in essence, attributing Jesus’ power
to Satan, and claiming that Jesus was “Satan incarnate instead of God
incarnate. It is this, and nothing else, that our Lord calls the
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or Spirit—KB)”
(Franklin, p. 227). Maxie Boren wrote: “The context of Matthew 12:22ff.
shows clearly that this was indeed the sin of blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit—attributing the miracle done by Jesus to the power of the
devil. Jesus said it was done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (verse 28) but they
(the Pharisees—KB) said it was done by
Beelzebub” (n.d., p. 1). It is clear that blasphemy against the Spirit
was a definite, singular sin, which could be committed by the Pharisees
during the life of Jesus.
IS THE “UNPARDONABLE SIN” THE
SAME AS THE “SIN UNTO DEATH”?
John, in his first epistle, mentioned the fact that “there is sin
leading to death” and “there is sin not leading to death” (1 John
5:16-17). His statement in these verses has been connected by more than a
few people to Jesus’ remark about the “eternal sin.” It is evident,
however, that this connection is based more on opinion than on textual
Bible study.
First, there is no biblical evidence that connects the passage in 1
John with the Pharisees’ accusation. Furthermore, the entire context of 1
John gives the Christian readers hope of forgiveness for
all
sins that they might have committed. John wrote: “All unrighteousness is
sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:17). Several
chapters earlier, he wrote: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness
(1 John 1:9, emp. added). In the scope of John’s epistle, any
unrighteousness committed by his readers could be forgiven if the
transgressor took the proper steps of repentance and confession.
Apparently, the “sin unto death” in 1 John is not a specific sin for
which it is impossible to receive forgiveness, but rather, is any sin
for which a person will not take the proper steps demanded by God to
receive the forgiveness available. On the other hand, blasphemy against
the Spirit was a specific, eternal sin that never would be forgiven.
CAN THE UNPARDONABLE SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?
The next question usually asked concerning this sin is whether or not
it is still possible to commit it today. Opinions on this question
certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The
evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin
cannot be committed today.
First, the circumstances under which the sin is described cannot
prevail today, due to the fact that the age of miracles has ceased (see
Miller, 2003). No one today will have the opportunity to witness Jesus
performing miracles in person (2 Corinthians 5:16).
Second, there is no other mention of the sin in any biblical passage
written after the resurrection of Christ. None of the inspired New
Testament writers refers to the sin in any epistle or in the book of
Acts, and none offers warnings to new converts about avoiding the sin
post-Pentecost. Franklin observed:
If it were possible for it to be committed, would there not have been
some warning against it? Were there any danger regarding it, would the
Apostle Paul, who wrote half the books of the New Testament, have failed
to warn against its commission? Paul does not even mention the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The sin in question was actually
committed in the days of our Lord’s ministry on earth, but it does not
necessarily follow that it could be committed in His absence (p. 233).
In discussing this matter, Gus Nichols wrote: “It seems that all sins
committed today are pardonable, and that all can be saved, if they will”
(1967, p. 239). V.E. Howard, commented along the same lines when he
stated that “there is no unpardonable sin today” (1975, p. 156).
In conclusion, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only
unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, and it is mentioned in the
context of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being possessed by the Devil.
The context indicates that it was a specific sin, and not a series of
forgivable sins, or an attitude of persistent unbelief. After the
resurrection, no inspired writer mentions the sin, and no warnings
against it were recorded. There is no concrete evidence that it can be
committed today. The fact that it is not mentioned after the
resurrection, lends itself to the idea that it cannot still be
committed. In fact, the indication from passages such as 1 John 1:7,9 is
that “all unrighteousness” that a person could commit today can be
forgiven by the blood of Jesus. As Howard said when concluding his
remarks about the eternal sin: “In the same scripture our Lord gave full
assurance that every sin and blasphemy against the ‘Son of man’ shall
be forgiven him. Today the gospel of Christ is to be preached to every
man on earth and any man on earth may be saved by obeying the gospel
(Mark 16:15-16)” [p. 157].
REFERENCES
Boren, Maxie B. (no date), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,”
Class Handout, Brown Trail church of Christ, Bedford, Texas, Lesson 4.
Franklin, Barnard (1936), “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost: An
Inquiry into the Scriptural Teaching Regarding the Unpardonable Sin,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 93:220-233, April.
Hendriksen, William (1973),
The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Howard, V.E. (1975),
The Holy Spirit (West Monroe, LA: Central Publishers).
Jackson, Wayne (2000),
Blasphemy—What Is This Great Sin?, [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/blasphemy.htm.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint),
The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,”
Reason and Revelation, 23(3):17-23, March.
Nichols, Gus (1967),
Lectures on the Holy Spirit (Plainview, TX: Nichols Brothers).
Winkler, Wendell, ed. (1980),
What Do You Know About the Holy Spirit? (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
It
was 2004 when 6-year-old Alex Malarkey was plunged into a coma by
injuries sustained in a car accident. After waking two months later, he
claimed he had seen angels who took him to heaven to meet Jesus. Six
years later, Tyndale published a book by the boy, co-authored with his
father, titled The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, which became
an instant bestseller, even spawning a documentary DVD. Now, at the age
of 16, Alex has retracted his claims and, thankfully, is urging people
to return to the Bible for the only reliable source for information on
the afterlife (Zylstra, 2015).
