WHAT IS THE UNPARDONABLE SIN? By Jismyl Lam INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 WHAT IS THE UNPARDONABLE SIN? By Jismyl Lam INTRODUCTION The unpardonable sin mentioned in Matt 12:31-32, Luke 12:10, and Mark 3:28-29 has perplexed many believers, and different interpretations have been given applying it to both Christians and non-christians. It has also been linked to the sin unto death mentioned in 1 John 3:9, as well as to Heb 6:4-6; 10: 26, G. Campbell Morgan aptly cautions that, Jesus opens here before the mind a sphere into which if a man ever enter, his case is absolutely hopeless.... Such solemn words as these demand our careful attention... first, in order that we may place no untrue emphasis on them; and, secondly, that we may by no means minimize their terrible meaning. 2 In order to properly understand the nature of the sin, it is necessary to examine the context in which the sin was mentioned, and to correctly identify who is in danger of committing the unpardonable sin. THE CONTEXT IN MATTHEW 13:22-37 The Miracle that was performed The occasion involves the healing of a demoniac, one who was blind and mute. His healing is evident by the fact that he was able to see and speak. This was one of those miracles that Jesus commonly performed (Matt 9:32-33; Luke 11:14-23). The Response of the Crowd Although this was not an uncommon miracle performed by Jesus, clearly the miracle impacted the crowd. It is recorded in verse 23 that the crowd was amazed and they responded by asking if Jesus was the Son of David. This was essentially a question regarding the authority of Jesus and His claim as the Messiah, and they were beginning to wonder if Jesus was the Messiah. 3 The Response of the Pharisees The Pharisees considered Jesus a rival because they were fully aware that wherever Jesus went large crowds followed Him. They have also observed how the crowd responded to His teaching and were impressed with all the miracles He performed. The Pharisees were not able to disprove the miracles performed by Jesus, and were concerned that they were losing their authority as religious leaders. 4 In an attempt to turn the people from Christ, they accused Him of performing miracles by demonic powers. Morgan suggests that either the Pharisees were lying or that their moral nature 1 Arno. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, pp G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Matthew, p Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, no. 33A, p Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, p Morgan, p

2 were so degenerated that they were unable to distinguish between good and bad. 5 One thing was certain, this was not the first time that they linked Jesus ministry to Satan (Matt 9:34). The Response Given by Jesus Jesus response involved a refutation of their charge followed by a declaration. This appears to be one the rare times that Jesus answered false accusations raised against him. Jesus refutation. Jesus showed the Pharisees that their logic was faulty because no kingdoms could withstand the presence of internal conflict. Therefore it is not logical for Satan to undermine his own work. Also, they were essentially accusing other Pharisees of casting demons by diabolic powers. 6 Campbell succinctly summarizes Jesus refutation: He revealed in His answer, first, the folly of their suggestion; secondly, the inconsistency thereof; thirdly, the wilful rebellion that induced it; fourthly, the blindness which caused it; and, finally, their complicity with Satan as the secret of it. So that commencing by denying His own complicity with Satan logically, and in such a way that they could not reply, He ended by inferentially charging upon them complicity with Satan. 7 Jesus declaration. Jesus declared that the true source of His power is the Spirit of God, and as a result the people have now come face to face with the Kingdom of God. To deny Christ s claim that His power comes from the Spirit of God is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, which is unpardonable (Matt 12:28-32). 8 Some commentators say that the Pharisees were guilty of this sin. 9 Others claim that the Pharisees were not guilty. 10 THE UNPARDONABLE SIN The Different Views Concerning the Unpardonable Sin Resistance to the work of God through Jesus. According to Bruner, the sin is committed when one resists the mission of God at work in Jesus. 11 During the earthly ministry of Christ, it was to intentionally speak against the work of the Spirit manifested through Christ. Now, it involves hostility to the church s message of Jesus. 12 As such, Bruner claims that Christ s teaching of the unpardonable sin is similar to all his warnings of judgment, and any rejection of Christ simply invites damnation Ibid. 6 Blomberg, Craig L., Matthew, NAC, vol. 22, p Morris, p Campbell, p Hagner, p Matthew, BSC, p. 242; 9 Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, p. 178; Hagner, p. 347; H. N. Ridderbos, 10 Morgan, p. 131; Gaebelein, p. 249; David Thomas, The Gospel of Matthew, p Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, vol. 1, p Bruner, pp Ibid, p

3 Rejection of God s salvific activity. Hagner considers the sin to be an outright rejection of the saving power of God through the Spirit. 14 He claims that the Pharisees had committed the unpardonable sin because they have outrightly rejected the saving work of Christ in overthrowing the kingdom of Satan, and anyone could be in danger if they reject God in this fundamental way. 15 However, he also adds that, any person who is genuinely worried about having committed the unforgivable sin against God, by virtue of this concern, can hardly be guilty of such blasphemy or denial. 16 Rejecting the Holy Spirit. Blomberg thinks that the sin is nothing more than unrelenting rejection of the Holy Spirit s advances, and as such the Pharisees had rejected the Spirit of God in Christ. He further warns that this should make believers extremely cautious about attributing the actions of other professing Christians to the devil, because, in his opinion one of the most unfortunate violations of this principle is the common charge that certain spiritual gifts prominent in the charismatic movement actually come from the devil. 17 A. A. Hodge who holds a similar view, groups this sin together with that which is mentioned in Heb 6:4-6; 10: 26, 27; and in 1 John 5:6. He argues that the sin is unpardonable not because its guilt transcends the merit of Christ, or the state of the sinner transcends the renewing power of the Holy Ghost, but because it consists in the final rejection of these. 18 Hendriksen takes it further and asserts that the blasphemy against the Spirit is progressive. It starts with grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30), followed by resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51), and finally quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19). This leads to the unpardonable sin. 19 The sin is limited to a charge against Christ. Gaebelein argues that this sin is only limited to the time of Christ s ministry on earth. It was committed only by those who had seen the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through Christ in the miracles He performed and had attributed them to Satan. 20 THE NATURE OF THE UNPARDONABLE SIN It Was a Sin Against the Spirit Jesus clearly defined that any other sin or blasphemy can be forgiven, including the sin of speaking against the Son of Man, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable (Matt 12:32). 14 Hagner, p Ibid, p Ibid, p This is also the opinion held by Blomberg, p. 204, and Hobbs, p Blomberg, pp A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p William Hendriksen, Matthew, NTC, p A. Gaebelein, p

4 So Christ has explicitly pointed out that the Spirit is the object of this blasphemy, and it relates to the Spirit s work in Him. However, Jesus was not saying that other sins and blasphemies were less serious even though they are forgivable. It was to emphasize the seriousness of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 21 Neither is the first sin prebaptismal, and the second postbaptismal. 22 The Meaning of blaspheme The meaning of the word blaspheme is to slander, or defame. 23 In the New Testament the word is usually used in a religious sense, with direct or indirect reference to God (with the exception of Jude 9). Blasphemy against God amounts to words or conduct injurious to God s honor and holiness. 24 However in the context of Matt 12:31, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more than just naming the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. 25 Brown suggests that the best exegetical explanation for the sin of blasphemy in this context is that one has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. 26 Schlatter succinctly concludes that: He who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. 27 During the early ministry of Christ, He was presenting Himself as the Messiah and offering the Kingdom to the nation of Israel. The miracles He performed authenticated His Kingship. Therefore, the powers which the Pharisees were beholding were clear evidences of the nearness of the kingdom, and a demonstration of Christ s messianic authority. 28 However the Pharisees have refused the work of the Spirit in their lives and have chosen to attribute Christ s work to Satan. They were clearly working against the Holy Spirit, and was charged with the unpardonable sin. 29 The Consequence of the Sin The consequence is severe because what was manifestly and unmistakably a work of Divine power was ascribed to diabolic power. It was not a sin of ignorance, but one done knowingly and 21 Morris, p D. A. Carson, Matthew, in EBC, vol. 8, p Colin Brown, H. Währisch, New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid. Brown, p A. Schlatter, Matthew 12:32, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament I, trans. and qtd in 28 Toussaint, p Ibid. 4

5 deliberately. 30 Motyer explains this well in his argument: Jesus picks up the Numbers 15 passage about blasphemy in his famous saying about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit... Numbers 15:22-31 distinguishes between unintentional sin committed in ignorance (for which forgiveness is possible), and defiant sin, called blasphemy, for which there is no forgiveness.... Insults thrown at the Son of Man may be forgiven because they are committed in ignorance of who he really is: his heavenly glory does not appear on earth. But to ascribe obvious manifestations of the Spirit to the devil s agency is much more serious offense not committed in ignorance. 31 The sin is unpardonable not because God s grace is insufficient, nor is there a withdrawal of God s grace. It is because individuals guilty of this sin have withdrawn themselves from all possible contact of God s grace. 32 As a result forgiveness under such circumstances will never come in this age and therefore will never come in any age (including the one to come), since man s eternal destiny is determined in this present life. 33 It Involves a Unique Situation The situation which lead to Christ s declaration of this particular sin is closely tied to the offer of the kingdom. 34 Since the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit involves a conscious and deliberate rejection of the work of the Spirit through Jesus words and deeds, the occurrence of the sin must therefore be limited to the situation when Christ was still on earth. 35 Also in this age of Matt 12:32 is a reference to the period of Christ earthly ministry on earth, and the context involves the offer of the Kingdom by the King which was rejected by the religious leaders of the nation of Israel. CONCLUSION From a consideration of the context of Matt 12:29-32 and the nature of the sin, the circumstances which led to the unpardonable sin are closely related to offer of the kingdom to the nation of Israel, when the claims of the kingdom were made, and the power of the kingdom was demonstrated by the King through the power of the Spirit. The Old Testament prophets had prophesied that when the Messiah comes to establish the kingdom, He will perform great miracles (Isa 53: 5-6). Therefore the power that Jesus demonstrated clearly evinced His messianic authority and the nearness of the kingdom 36 For the Pharisees to attribute Christ s work to the devil was not only to question the regal credentials of Christ but a blasphemy of the Spirit, which was unpardonable. 30 Broadus, p Stephen Motyer, Blasphemy, in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p Ibid. 34 Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p Ryrie, p Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King, p

6 The severity of the sin is further made clear by the fact that the Pharisees were involved here. They were religious leaders who should have understood the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. They should have known that when He comes to establish the kingdom, He will be performing great miracles (Isa 53). Also, it has been prophesied that the Spirit of God would be upon the King (Isa 42:1, 4). McClain aptly explains how the rejection of Christ s Messianic claims relates to the blasphemy of the Spirit: The great miracles of our Lord, which attested to His person and Messiahship, were actually the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. It follows, therefore, that the ascription of these works to the kingdom of evil men that the speakers had identified the Third Person of the Godhead with Satan, the prince of demons. 37 As a result, this sets the unpardonable sin in Matt 12: apart from that which is mentioned in 1 John 3:9, and Heb 6:4-6; 10: 26, 27, since the context in these verses do not refer to the period of Christ s earthly ministry. 38 Also, the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the rejection of the Spirit s demonstration of the meaning of the kingdom, and the power of the King. Since the offer of the kingdom have been withdrawn after it was rejected by the nation of Israel (Matt 22: 43-44; 23: 37-39), the circumstances involved are no longer available for the sin to be committed. Broadus also pointed out that the Spirit of God in verse 28 represents Divinity in general, so this is not just an insult to a man, but a malignant insult to God. 39 Broadus is right in his claim that this sin does not refer to an unbeliever resisting the Spirit, since the blasphemy does not at all refer to the gracious work of the Spirit in calling and regenerating, but manifestly and simply to his miraculous work. 40 Furthermore it is specifically mentioned to be directed at the Holy Spirit, and does not apply to one s rejection of the gospel which is essentially a sin of unbelief in Jesus. This is also different from the sinning believer who grieves and quenches the Spirit. Although the fellowship with God is broken as a result of disobedience, one s salvation is secured and will not be lost again (Rom 8:33). In conclusion, the unpardonable sin is the deliberate and malicious accreditation to Satan what is manifestly the supernatural work of God through Christ and is therefore limited to Christ s earthly ministry since the circumstances which made it possible are not reproducible today. Although there is reasonable doubt that the unpardonable sin can be committed today, one should be mindful that we are accountable for what we say (Matt 12:36-37). 37 McClain, p W. Robert Cook, Hamartiological Problems in First John, BibSac 123, no. 491 (1966): Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, p Ibid. 6

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary. Vol. 22. Nashville, Broadman, Broadus, John A. Commentary on Matthew. Philadelphia: American Baptist Pub. Society, Brown, Colin. Gen. Ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew. The Christbook Matthew Vol. 1. Dallas: Word, Carson, D. A. Matthew. In The Expositor s Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein. Gen. Ed. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Elwell, Walter A. Ed. Evangelical Theological Dictionary. Grand rapids: Baker, Emerton, J. A. Gen. Ed. Commentary on Matthew. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, Ferguson, Sinclair B., David F. Wright, J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew. New York: Loizeaux, Gaebelein, Frank E. Gen. Ed. The Expositor s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Glasscock, Ed. Matthew. Moody Gospel Commentary. Chicago: Moody, Hagner, Donald A. Matthew Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33A. Dallas: Word, Hendriksen, William. Matthew. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, Hobbs, Herschel H. An Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. Chatham, Kent: Mackays, McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Chicago: Moody Press, Reprint of the 1 st edition, Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming Revell, n.d. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Motyer, Stephen. Blasphemy. In Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Walter A. Elwell. Ed. Grand rapids: Baker, Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Ridderbos, H. N. Matthew. Bible Student Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

8 Ryrie, Charles C. The Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody Press, Schlatter, A. Matthew 12:32." Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament I Translated and quoted in Colin Brown. Gen. Ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Thomas, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, Reprint of the 1873 edition. Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King. Portland: Multnomah, Periodicals Cook, W. Robert. Hamartiological Problems in First John. Bibliotheca Sacra 123, no. 491 (1966): Lindsell, Harold. Universalism Today. Bibliotheca Sacra 122, no. 485 (1965): Saucy, Mark. The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew. Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April-June 1994):