THEOLOGY & APOLOGETICS

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Part 6: Resolving Fear by Understanding Grace

The Series

How Confusion Thwarts Holiness
Interpreting Context
Being Serious without Fear
Identifying a Hard Heart
Hope in the Journey to Freedom
Understanding Grace

Single Page/Printer Friendly

I think the two possible explanations for what "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" means are 1) a lesser-to-greater rhetorical point distinguishing between Jesus and the God who sent Him to earth ("If you curse me, it's not as severe as if you curse the God who sent and empowers Me" — the context of Luke 12:10, one of the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" verses, is ambassadors on earth representing heaven), or 2) a synonym for rejecting the most clear evidence that He came from God, since the context in Matthew and Mark is Jesus' opponents saying He did miracles by the power of Satan. Jesus didn't say it's fine to insult Him or His disciples, but was addressing His opponents' willful denial that He was doing God's will. Also, Hebrews 12:25 expresses the heaven-earth/lesser-to-greater argument more clearly, which was the main Jewish kind of logic which rabbis such as Jesus were using: "See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him [Moses] who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him [Jesus] who warns from heaven [and is equal with God]."

However, there are numerous ways Jesus' statement gets misinterpreted to the extent it ties some well-meaning people up in fear. Even if we don't have fear about this particular issue, my discussion of the subject is relevant to how we view God's forgiveness and what grace means. Following my writing of the earlier five parts, the person whom I had helped with the fear gained even more fear after he read a slew of counterarguments, which I have adapted into Part 6 here.

One harmful claim is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that can't be "taken back." The way this is worded implies that we have to try to pretend we never did a sin, backtracking or hiding from it. Whoever uses this phraseology fails to see that God's forgiveness is not based on our backtracking ("Oops — I didn't mean to sin; please don't punish me!"), but because He knows we are incapable of pleasing Him in our own strength. Forgiveness is about giving up the right to punish another, which is foundational to reconciliation. God forgives and also reconciles. He doesn't just tolerate us when we come to Him in faith, but responds with warm favor. Sin holds us back, while God wants us to be healed. When we feel like God must hate us, it's because our sin holds us back from receiving His love. Nowhere in the New Testament, just places in the Old Testament, does the attitude come across that God hates someone forever and will never forgive them regardless of whether their hearts change.

In human terms, true forgiveness works this way: If I have committed adultery, I can't undo the pain I've caused. I can help bring about healing if the other people involved are willing to work through the pain with me and not hold a grudge (which is a form of punishment against me), but I can't "take it back." What's done is done. Once you've said a harsh word, sometimes the relationship is over, but that's only if your relationship is weak. Any strong relationship will be able to move past any mistakes. A relationship with God that is based on always saying the right thing in your prayers and never blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be considered much of a relationship, as if it's our responsibility to make sure God likes us. The only thing which would make us unforgivable is our resistance, not His own, for He wants to reconcile with everyone.

I could tell someone, "If you feel scared of committing the unforgivable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit), that's proof that you didn't commit it, because you wouldn't even care about pleasing God if you were truly as spiritually hopeless as Jesus' opponents" — but the counterargument says, "The demons believe also, but they can't be saved," quoting James 2:19. My resolution of this is that fear, in its proper role, helps us see what our sin does to us, but should only be a temporary stage. We should never get to the point of worrying we're like the demons who can't be saved. First John 4:18 is an amazing verse because it is one of the only places in the Bible which says too much fear of God is unhealthy. You don't see that message much in the Bible. It says, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."

Another point the legalists make about "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is that the Pharisees were knowledgeable of the Old Testament but ignorant of Jesus' divinity, and that ignorance didn't excuse them from Jesus' accusation of an unforgivable sin, so you can still blaspheme the Holy Spirit even if you don't do it "on purpose." Ronald Reagan made a similar kind of comment that liberals "know so much that isn't so" (in his breakout speech "A Time for Choosing" in 1964): it's either knowledge that is untrue, or knowledge that is interpreted incorrectly. The data is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong. But this debate about whether ignorance excuses you from the unpardonable sin is an unhelpful tangent. Ignorance is not itself sin; it just leaves people susceptible to false thinking. The Pharisees actually believed the same Bible Jesus believed, but they ignored many salient parts, including about God's love for all of humanity in Isaiah and other psalmic and prophetical literature. Ignorance is dangerous, but it's not an essential part of interpreting "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." It was sinful misinterpretation of the info they were given, not ignorance per se, which was the problem here.

If blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is defined as simply a lack of discernment, then everyone who is opposed to Biblical morality about sexuality and everyone who persecutes or criticizes Christians' piety is guilty of it. Saul of Tarsus wouldn't have become the Apostle Paul if lack of discernment about God was an unforgivable sin. He was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, too, by considering the early Christians evil, even if He didn't witness the early Christians' miracles prior to his conversion — which means it was a forgivable sin after he stopped doing it. It's usually too hard to determine whether ignorance is unintentional vs. willful/hard-hearted. Paul was hard-hearted, but he didn't know the true nature of Jesus. He probably would have said his ignorance was willful. God is willing to save anyone. The only limit is on whether they're willing to be saved!

Continue to Page Two

comments powered by Disqus

Published 3-1-16