Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

[Silence]

Hello Everybody!
I'm new here and don't know where to post this, so I am posting it and if the topic already has a thread you can move it there. I tried doing a search but got so many entries and I wasn't sure how to get to any of them.

Yesterday I was having a discussion with an old friend about universalism and he brought up an article by Matt Slick on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and how this proves that not all can be saved. When I started looking into the verses involved I noticed some things that I don't recall reading about at the scholar's corner here at tentmaker, so I decided to register here at the forum to see what I could learn. The following two excerpts in italics are from an e-mail I sent him today. In them are some questions about the word translated as "not" or "never" in most bible translations of the verses involved, as well as a question about whether there is a difference between "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit and "speaking against" the Holy Spirit. I would appreciate any insights people here might have or direction to resources that can help me answer these questions.

This issue is not as simple as Mr. Slick would have us believe and it didn't take long to see the clues. There are several, but the one that seems most foundational and that raises the most questions for me is the usage of the Greek word 'ou' or 'ouk' (ou is how it is spoken if it precedes a word beginning with a consonant, ouk if it precedes a word beginning with a vowel, like "a towel" and "an apron" in English) to denote the word "never" in all of the verses having to do with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Thayer plainly states in his lexicon that this word has many forms of meaning, and can be a simple term, a relative term, or take an absolute and emphatic form. If it is meant to be taken as an absolute, then over the "u" in 'ouk' there will be what looks like a double apostrophe very similar to quotation marks in english - " . If it has any other sense it will have a single apostrophe - ' over the u. It is also possible to put the absoluteness of this word beyond a doubt by repeating it twice in a row (ouk,ouk) or by combining it with a word that in Greek letters looks like an exaggerated  combination of the English letters 'un'. It is #3361 in Strong's concordance and is pronounced 'mah'.  My first question would be - Why do all of the Greek texts have a single apostrophe over the 'ouk' in all of the verses that deal with the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I'm sure those who wrote the bible knew that there was a way to emphasize the certainty of not being forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and that was to either put the double apostrophe over the 'ouk', to state it twice consecutively 'ouk,ouk', or to combine it with the funny looking 'un' word pronounced 'mah'. They did none of these things. In Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 'ouk' has the single apostrophe. It is interesting that Matt Slick didn't bring Luke 12:10 into the discussion. Maybe he thought it would be repetitive and unnecessary.
 
Mr Thayer also says that if 'ouk' with the single apostrophe is joined to a finite verb, it simply denies that the verb applies to the subject of the sentence. In the three passages about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, 'ouk' is joined to a finite verb, 'forgive' (forgive must be, by definition a finite verb because once you forgive something it is over, otherwise you haven't really forgiven), so in all three of these passages, forgiveness does not apply to the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit. The "ouk"  in all of these passages also has only one apostrophe over it and so is not emphatic and absolute. So it must "simply" deny forgiveness to the one in question. I wonder why Thayer used the word "simply" ? Is that implying that the matter is plain and simple? If so, why is there also an "emphatic and absolute" form of this word? Or does "simply" mean that this is a weak form of the word that can be affected by other considerations or modifiers? I am ignorant of Greek, so I don't know, but I think it's better to ask questions and find out, so I plan on sending an e-mail to some websites that deal with biblical words to find out what the case is. But it seems strange to me that something that is as serious as this penalty did not warrant the use of the strongest word possible.


But does scripture say that the scribes and Pharisees had blasphemed the Holy Spirit? Mark 3:30 is the only verse that directly connects the two and it says that Jesus spoke the words in 3:28-29 "Because they said "He hath an unclean spirit".  Mark 3:30 doesn't read "Because they  blasphemed, saying 'He hath an unclean spirit' ". You may say I'm being nit-picky, but It would have been easy to make it clear whether Jesus considered what they had said blasphemy or not. If they did blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Jesus was not giving them a warning in these passages, but was pronouncing a sentence. It is also interesting that in Matthew 12:31 the bible uses the terms "all sin and blasphemy" and "blasphemy against the Spirit"  while in 12:32 it is "speaks against the Son of Man" and "speaks against the Holy Spirit". Is there a difference between blasphemy against the Spirit and speaking against Him? I don't know.

Thanks for giving me a place to look for answers,
Chris

[Quaesitor]

I do not have any answers but I like your questions a lot!
 

[thinktank]

I do not have any answers but I like your questions a lot!
 

Silence!   

[Paul Hazelwood]

I don't have answers to you specific questions but I will point out something about blasphemy. 


Seems most problems with blasphemy stem from one thing, the realization that EVERYONE commits it.  This realization then causes the poor teachings about it to mess with everyones head, I mean if your saved, but commit blasphemy, then your salvation is made null and void.  But once saved always saved,  God wills that all mankind be saved, you can lose your salvation, but you can get it back and it all swirls in a big black pit of nonsense.


If it is unforgivable and that unforgivness equals eternal damnation then we have a real problem, for you could be sorry that you comitted it, and you love and worship God, but then if it is unforgivable and that unforgivness equals eternal damnation then it doesn't matter what your theological position is, it throws a wrench in it all.

So, then from all sides of the equation we get teachings that are not likely the truth about it because everyone is simply finding loopholes by reading into the passage what is not there.


So if we realize the fact that everyone commits blasphemy, then what does that mean?   

Well first we have to realize and believe once and for all that Jesus took care of all sin and that includes blasphemy of the holy spirit.

Secondly we have to realize and believe that other scriptures and the passage of blasphemy itself shows us the nature of blasphemy

And lastly we have to realize and believe that being unforgiven of a sin will not change your salvation, it affects your journey.

For instance,  if you are headed to church in your sunday best but your running late and you exceed the speed limit, you are in danger of the penalty for that act.

If you get pulled over, your journey to church has taken a turn for the worst,  you get a ticket and if you are not forgiven of that act, then you must pay the penalty,  none of that prevented you from getting to church at some point, even if it next week or a month later.

That analogy may not be exact or precise,  but it is only making the point that blasphemy is concerning what we are held accountable for, the passage itself says so.


Mt 12:32 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 12:33  "Either make the tree ideal and its fruit ideal, or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known.

 Mt 12:34  "Progeny of vipers! How can you be speaking what is good, being wicked? For out of the superabundance of the heart the mouth is speaking.

 Mt 12:35 The good humanman out of his *good treasure is extracting good things; and the wicked humanman out of his wicked treasure is extracting wicked things.

Mt 12:36 Now I am saying to you that, for every idle declaration which humanmen shall be speaking, they shall be rendering an account concerning it in the day of judging.

 Mt 12:37 For outby your words shall you be justified, and by your words shall you be convicted."


The next problem is that traditional interpretations will have us connect a dot between Matthew 12:37 and the word "convicted" and have us believe that this means eternal damnation.   But then that is where you have to remain in your trust that Jesus has taken care of all sin, in this case, taking care of the sin of blasphemy simply means that God has made provision for you to pay the fine.


I speak from my own experience, I have committed blasphemy,  I  can't go into detail. but it involved walking into a situation knowing full well the holy spirit told me to leave,  I "suffered the consequenses"  and I almost ruined my marriage.  I was not "Forgiven" of that,  I suffered loss.   But fortunatly I am still saved because Jesus took care of ALL sin.

[PaoloNuevo]

I speak from my own experience, I have committed blasphemy,  I  can't go into detail. but it involved walking into a situation knowing full well the holy spirit told me to leave,  I "suffered the consequenses"  and I almost ruined my marriage.  I was not "Forgiven" of that,  I suffered loss.   But fortunatly I am still saved because Jesus took care of ALL sin.

Nice insights there. 

J.W. Hanson writes that it doesn't support eternal damnation nor is the word "never be forgiven" to be taken literally... but I think some sins bear greater punishment than others and ALL OTHER sins are easily forgiveable compared to blasphemy of the Spirit...

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, and self-control... should we say the Spirit of grace can be angered forever and ever because someone has committed blasphemy?

Yup, Jesus paid for all sin, great or small (1 Jn 2: 2 ) and it should be knowledge of that love that will turn us away from sinning and desecrating God in the first place. 

[WhiteWings]

If they did blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Jesus was not giving them a warning in these passages, but was pronouncing a sentence.

I think not because:
^YLTJohn 3
17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

It is also interesting that in Matthew 12:31 the bible uses the terms "all sin and blasphemy" and "blasphemy against the Spirit"  while in 12:32 it is "speaks against the Son of Man" and "speaks against the Holy Spirit". Is there a difference between blasphemy against the Spirit and speaking against Him? I don't know.

Maybe but it's sure there is a difference in how easy it will be forgiven.

"And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming."

Do you have a link to Matt's article?

Few links:

http://home.online.nl/spamfree/the%20unpardonable%20sin.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/blasphemy%20against%20the%20holy%20spirit.htm
http://home.online.nl/spamfree/matthew%2012_31-32.htm

[micah7:9]

http://godfire.net/eby/unpardonable.html

[PaoloNuevo]

Mark 3: 29 in the Hebrew interlinear is:

"liable of eonian judging" ... a far far far far far cry from "in danger of eternal damnation" (KJV)... why oh why do the King James translators have a fetish for perdition. 

http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar3.pdf

YLT:

Mark 3:29 (Young's Literal Translation)

 29but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'

-------------------------

There are those who equate blasphemy of the Spirit to sinning deliberately AFTER having received the knowledge of truth, so here are the consequences:

Hebrews 10 (YLT)

 26For we -- willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth -- no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice,

 27but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers;

 28any one who did set at nought a law of Moses, apart from mercies, by two or three witnesses, doth die,

 29of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite?

 30for we have known Him who is saying, `Vengeance [is] Mine, I will recompense, saith the Lord;' and again, `The Lord shall judge His people;' --

He will recompense according to what one has done NO MORE NO LESS! Even the worst sin will earn a just punishment...

[CHB]

This is just my thoughts on this subject.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

This was only possible while Christ was on earth.  Notice it says this blasphemy will not be forgiven in THIS AGE nor in the AGE TO COME. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees. These Pharisees were saying that Jesus was using the prince of devils to cast out devils. They were calling the Holy Spirit that Jesus had a Devil. These Pharisees that blasphemed the Holy Spirit were not forgiven in that age neither will they be forgiven in this age. They will have to wait till Christ comes back.

CHB

[nes]

I think that CHB is correct

When it says that you will never be forgiven, that excludes the next age (time) after death.  So this age and the next refers to the covenant they were under and the current covenant we are under.  Remember that it says in this age or the age to come.

I read bible passages to determine what they mean, I don't read articles that tell you what they mean.

The bible isn't trying to trick you, jesus didn't try and trick the pharisees.  The warning that jesus gave was relevant to the situation and the bible even re-iterates this as he did it in reaction of hearing their thoughts and by saying that he said this because of what they had said.  The pharisees were either in danger of committing blasphemy of the holy spirit or already did.  What the pharisees was doing is well documented, they were saying and there thoughts were that the spirit of jesus (holy spirit) was satan.  And since the spirit of satan is an evil spirit, they were also saying that the spirit in him was evil and sinful.

John 10:30-33 helps explain what blasphemy is as well.
30 I and the Father are one."
 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
 33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."


The bible even says that ALL sins and blasphemes will be forgiven except for the blasphemy of the holy spirit.  Notice the word will, this is unconditional, however some bible versions use the word can instead such as ESV while NIV 2010 uses the word will, even so both words indicate that all (other) sins are forgivable.  It also goes along well with other bible verses that say ALL sins will be "forgiven" if someone believes in jesus.  Keep in mind that believing in jesus also means trust.  If you believe that what jesus has said is wrong, then you do not believe in a jesus that does exist.

It's possible that the unforgivable sin is unforgivable because after you believe in jesus, you become a new creature.   So the sin never gets "forgiven", it dies/condemned/destroyed.  Now this is where the exact definition for the word forgiven is important.

[WhiteWings]

The bible even says that ALL sins and blasphemes will be forgiven except for the blasphemy of the holy spirit.

in this age or the age to come.

After the age to come that sin will be forgivven also.

[nes]

in this age or the age to come.

After the age to come that sin will be forgivven also.

I think not, the bible simply says that the sin will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.  It does not say whether it will be forgivable or not forgivable in the next age from now.

[thinktank]

If this age is the age of Christ, and the age to come is the age of 1000 millenium iron rule of christ, then the next age after that would be the new heavens and earth where new Jerusalem coming down from heaven in rev 21. In rev 21 the book still speaks about a lake of fire, so those who still lie, or blaspheme partake the lake of fire. (assuming the book is not talking about the lake of fire in general, rather than the lake of fire that exists in that chapter, because if it is in general then it means the lake of fire will no longer exist in the third age, because it says " no more death")

[jabcat]

in this age or the age to come.

After the age to come that sin will be forgivven also.

I think not, the bible simply says that the sin will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.  It does not say whether it will be forgivable or not forgivable in the next age from now.

Because of the errors mainstream has taught us, I honestly understand why our initial reaction would be "I think not".  It's how we've been programmed - we/I often pre-suppose, automatically viewing through that lense.   However, digging beyond orthodoxy, there are other scriptures that describe the reconciliation of all, the consummation (all in Christ) when God becomes ALL in ALL.


Something got ahold of me
yes something got ahold of me
I went there to fight but oh my that night
God surely got ahold of me     
(hank williams)

[WhiteWings]

in this age or the age to come.

After the age to come that sin will be forgivven also.

I think not, the bible simply says that the sin will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.  It does not say whether it will be forgivable or not forgivable in the next age from now.

Good point.
UR people think that's clearly thaught in the Bible. But let's ignore that for now and just look at the verse.
You are right that the verse doesn't add something like "but after that age they will be forgiven"
But for me that's a logical conclusion. I'm the first to admit some bias.
It would be more logical to say shall never be forgiven.
When a earthly judge sends you to jail for two years (this year and the year to come) that judge means you are a free man after those 2 years. It isn't a riddle like 2 years and a unknow number of extra years.
Imo the only way that verse can be read as never been forgiven is to make the last age without an end.
Then strickly speaking you are still forgiven after that 2nd age. But because it never ends that will be never.
(I do believe that 2nd age ends)