In a few of my posts regarding universal reconciliation Michael has raised the issue of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as the "unforgivable sin." Truth be told, I haven't thought much about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but some people online, as I've been poking around, see it as a sort of test case for universalism. So it seems that something should be said about this. My thanks to Michael for raising the issue and spurring me to think about it.
The relevant texts are these (ESV):
Matthew 12.22-32Now let me be clear. I don't have any great pearls of wisdom on this. I've not studied these texts in detail, but I plan to. So for this post I'd just like to share some impressions. My goal is simply to show how someone with my theological sensibilities might read these texts.
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons." Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Mark 3.22-30
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." And he called them to him and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.
"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"—for they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
My first impression: the text seems odd to me. One of those textual anomalies sprinkled throughout the Old and New Testament. Like baptism for the dead:
1 Corinthians 15.29That isn't to say we should ignore these textual oddities. Just to say, given their strangeness, that a Midrash seems appropriate. In light of that, if my reading of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit texts seems a bit "creative" that is because I think texts like these encourage such creativity.
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
Besides, creative exegesis isn't unknown in the New Testament. Consider how the Apostle Paul reads the Old Testament. For example, look at Galatians 4:
Galatians 4.21-31First, note that Paul explicitly states that Scripture is speaking non-literally: "These things may be taken figuratively." Really? Says who? Paul, I guess. The point is, if Scripture can speak "figuratively" I don't think literal readings are always the gold standard of exegesis. At least not for Paul.
Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
But it's more than just figurative. It's a quite forced figurative reading. Paul starts obviously enough: Sarah represents promise/freedom and Hagar represents law/slavery. But then, in an unusual move, Paul states that Hagar, the historical mother of the non-Jews, is actually representative of the Jews. Conversely, Sarah, the historical mother of the Jews, is actually the mother of the non-Jews.
Lets be clear, there is no way the Genesis writer had this meaning in mind. Further, no one until Paul would have even considered reading the story in this way. The women just don't match up with who they are supposed to match up with.
And it gets even more strange. Paul goes on to say that Hagar is Mount Sinai. Again, where does he get this? To quote from the note in my study bible: "The equation of Hagar with Mount Sinai has no basis in the Genesis story."
All this is exceedingly strange reading of Genesis, but we can see what Paul is trying to do: He's trying to get the symbol of slavery--Hagar--aligned with the Law/Sinai, Jerusalem, and the Jews. This alignment frees Sarah up to be the mother of promise and get her aligned with the Gentiles and a Jerusalem from "above."
In the end, Paul's analogy is well taken. But what is shocking, even disturbing by some accounts, is his use of Scripture.
I've gone into this detour because I'd like to create some wiggle room as I approach an odd text. There's some strange texts in the bible and strange readings of texts. So strangeness, it seems to me, isn't always to be taken as a sign of wrongness. Even the Apostle Paul floated some extraordinarily strange readings of the bible. Let us follow his example.
Now back to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit texts.
To start, what exactly is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Both stories, Matthew and Mark, center on a case of exorcism. In both stories the opponents of Jesus attribute his power over demons to the Devil. Jesus responds with some logic--How can Satan be opposed to Satan?--and concludes with comments about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
My take from these stories is that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit seems to be attributing a work of the Spirit to the work of the Devil. And, I'd guess, vice versa: Attributing the work of the Devil to the work of the Spirit.
If this is an accurate description I think we can see how Jesus would characterize this as being the very worst of sins. I think of a compass pointing in the exact opposite direction. North is South and South is North. Good is Evil and Evil is Good. The Spirit is the Devil and the Devil is the Spirit.
In short, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit represents the complete disintegration of the moral compass. No, that's not quite right. Because disintegration implies a sort of random brokenness. But what Jesus seems to be talking about is polar opposition. Not randomness. Directionality. And pointing in the exact opposite direction.
And so Jesus says that this sin will not be forgiven.
And what might that mean?
Well, what is forgiveness? One way to think of it is as the opposite of punishment. If you don't forgive someone you choose to have them face the punishment or consequences. They get no grace from you.
Okay, so Jesus says every sin will be forgiven, every sin will receive grace, except one sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What this seems to suggest to me is that there is some location in the moral universe that can't receive grace. This location where Good is Evil and Evil is Good, a place we might describe as total depravity or ultimate rebellion against God.
I think someone like a Hitler is either in or very close to this space. Someone whose moral compass was completely upside down.
But let me pause. Is Hitler fully in this space? Was he the complete negation of God? Was there no overlap between Hitler and God? My hunch is that even Hitler had a modicum of virtue in his life. That he was capable of some sympathy and pity, if only toward people he cared for.
And this makes me wonder if anyone, even the most evil amongst us, can ever get to the point Jesus warned about. If not, then what we see in Jesus' teaching is a use of hyperbole to offer a warning, a presentation of the worst case scenario, even if unrealistic, to make a point. Jesus posits the limit case to make a diagnosis about the upside-down moral sensibilities of the scribes and Pharisees. He's saying, look down the road you're heading. See where it goes?
But let's say someone actually could blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Why would such an act be unforgivable?
Well, let's remember how I think of God. A universalist thinks every act of God is an act of love, for the benefit of the creature. Even if this act is punishment (think of a parent punishing a wayward child). So imagine a person going in the exact opposite direction from God. How could God forgive that? That place in the moral universe, a space as bad if not worse than Hitler, isn't anything that could be forgiven. Which means that the only option is punishment, to the max.
That seems to make sense. If we posit the worst offense we expect little by way of grace. Rather, here we'd expect punishment to the max. And most, I figure, would assume that this is what someone like Hitler should get. Not a bit of grace but a lot of punishment.
So it seems straightforward: The worst sin gets full punishment. No forgiveness.
So is that incompatible to the doctrine of universal reconciliation?
Not the way I see it. Again, punishment for a universalist isn't antithetical to the love of God. Punishment is a manifestation of the love of God. And it seems, per Jesus's teaching, that the love of God can only reach the very worst of us (if this sin truly is possible and not hyperbole) through pain. I seems that at the worst part of the moral universe forgiveness would make the situation worse (I'm assuming because what is being forgiven here is completely antithetical to God). So no forgiveness is given at this location. Those in this space will only be saved by carrying the full wight of punishment.
So that's what I think. For today at least. The very worst sin reaches the nadir of grace where the love of God exists only as wrath. I'm not sure if this space exists, or if humans can reach it. But if we can I think the logic at work in Jesus's teaching is fully compatible with the inescapable love of God.
Richard, I appreciate the consideration in your response here. Certainly, "the exception proves the rule" and must be considered carefully. As I've said before, we share more agreement than disagreement.
I will make one note that you draw out Hitler as an example. Might I be so bold as to say that Hitler is NOT the extreme test case. To use Jesus' phasing "it will be better for him on that day" than say the Pharisees who knew much about God's grace, yet still resisted the Spirit.
I understand. But I wonder if that computes, that Hitler could be forgiven for six million torturous deaths but that the Pharisees, in making a one-time mistaken attribution about an exorcism, could not. I just can't see the moral calculus at work in such a scenario.
Regardless, I appreciate you pushing me to think about all this. Take this post as the highest complement I could give you! :-)
Thought-provoking... In my current study on the Book of Exodus, I've been pondering on the element of fire that God used as a vehicle to reveal Himself (Ex. 3 - burning bush; Ex. 19:16-19 - Mt. Sinai), and New Testament references to inward encounters of spiritual transformation (Matt. 3:11-12 - baptism w/the Holy Spirit and fire; Heb. 12:18-29 - God is a consuming fire). God's wrath poured out is for a restorative vs. retributive purpose? God wages "holy war" on that in each of us which needs to go, in order to make it possible to be refined (transformation). I keep having this odd thought that, after all the dualistic indoctrination on heavenly vs. hellish destinations, with hell characterized by fire and gnashing of teeth, etc., etc. (*not* the place one would want to be going), wouldn't it be crazy if God appeared to us as a consuming fire. Who would come close to that? Would we be afraid like the Israelites were at the base of Mt. Sinai? "Inescapable love of God," might, at times, look and feel like a consuming fire?
Richard, I did take it as a complement. I was both honored and humbled to see it. Your approach to theological dialogue is breath of fresh air.
As for the moral calculus, my statement was not really about what he did. I am certainly not one to minimize the Holocaust. You even alluded to the problem of the difference between a broken compass and a completely rebellious one. I believe that Hitler was more on the broken side, though yes very powerful.
"An upside down moral compass..." Such a great point. I've never heard it quite put that way. I agree.
I think we need to be very careful when we start putting limits on God (not that He doesn't have them, it just isn't our place to remind Him). We need to remember that with Him "all things are possible." (Luke 1:37). The blood of Christ can save anyone. But that person has to be willing to be saved. Even Saul of Tarsus, who was in the process of killing Christians wholesale, once he was presented with the glory of God through Jesus, he gave himself over to it. The difference here is that these men, when presented with that same glory attribute it to Satan's power, showing not only their unwillingness, but their inability to see past their own agenda.
It's not that they can't be forgiven. It's that they won't be. These are two different things.
Thanks for sharing this post.
Hi Susan,
Your thoughts track with George MacDonald's chapter on The Consuming Fire in Unspoken Sermons. Here's a link, if you're interested. http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/2/
Patricia
I think the issue can be simplified further. It's all about evidence.
Anyone can be excused for ignoring God, because God is invisible.
Anyone can be excused for ignoring Jesus, because he was not the messiah they expected.
But see someone experience a miraculous healing, and call that a bad thing, and what else could convince you? What else is there in heaven or on earth that could possibly change your mind about anything?
As you point out, this doesn't mean eternal torment, or even that these pharisees can't change their minds. It just means that historically speaking, they don't get excused for their mistake. The other blasphemies were understandable, this was not.
As a matter of point, this doesn't apply to anyone today. You can't commit this error, because you don't have access to the evidence they did.
I suspect that it would be helpful to look at the different sorts of fire and burning mentioned in the OT, especially in connection with the sacrificial system. Some fire focuses upon the idea of ascension to God in sacrifice (the ascension or whole-burnt offering). Other fire serves as a sign of God's presence (burning bush -> tree-like tabernacle lampstand -> lampstand in the night-vision of Zechariah -> the lighting of the lamps of the Church at Pentecost). Still other fire serves as a sign of destruction (the burning of the flesh of the sin offering outside of the camp -> the Valley of Hinnom -> hell). The idea of being consumed by divine fire is not a bad thing per se. The ascension (whole burnt) offering is about the offerer symbolically being consumed (the play on words is significant here) from God's table as the offerer offers himself to God and is taken into his presence. The pattern of ascension by fire can more clearly be seen in 2 Kings 2, as Elijah is symbolically washed like a sacrifice as he crosses the Jordan before being taken up into the divine presence by the chariots of fire.
Just as water can serve as a very positive and very negative symbol (something that people need to reflect on more when thinking about the meaning of baptism - the water of baptism doesn't just have a single meaning), so fire can have highly positive and extremely negative meanings, and we should be careful not to confuse these. However, on the other hand, I believe that we are not without justification in seeking a deeper way in which to unify symbolisms. The fire of God in judgment seems to be related to the fire of God's presence and the fire of ascension in certain contexts. For instance, fire coming from heaven is a means of judgment throughout Scripture, but also a sign of ascension and acceptance in other context. The fire of God's presence is the fire of judgment in Leviticus 10:2 and elsewhere, as God burns up and destroys those who profane his sanctuary. The destruction of cities in areas claimed by God for his presence can be seen as sacrificial, such as the fire from heaven on Sodom, the holocausts of the cities of Canaan, and the burning of the city in Revelation. All of these destructions occur in the presence of God, and are seen to bring glory to God in some sense.
In Revelation 6 the saints are beneath the altar, calling for God to avenge them. I think that we should see a connection here. They are calling for God's fire to be cast to earth. While the fire tarries, they remain beneath the altar and the altar is unlit. When the fire comes, they ascend, and the wicked are utterly burnt up. Christ's ministry is about bringing fire to earth. This fire lights the lampstand of the Church (at Pentecost), but utterly destroys the wicked. The fire is that which discerns and separates - it causes the righteous to be purged and ascend, and the wicked to be destroyed. In this sense, the fire of judgment and the fire of ascension and deliverance are one and the same thing.
The new heavens and new earth is a time when God's consuming fire presence will cover the whole world, as the entire creation becomes one huge altar - the great table of God. It is a time when the works of all will be tested, and the spiritual quality of all things discovered. All that is wicked will be utterly destroyed and the righteous taken into God's presence. In this sense, the fires of hell and the consuming fire of God's loving presence are not two different things, but the same thing viewed from different perspectives. Song of Solomon 8:6 might be helpful background here: 'For love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave; its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame.' God's love for his creation is a jealous love, unwilling to see it hurt or spoiled. The vehemence of God's fiery love leads to a vehemence of fiery wrath against all that seeks to destroy that which he loves.
As someone whose mother experienced a period of deep depression because she thought she had committed the "unforgivable sin", I always appreciate creative and thoughtful approaches to these verses. I agree with you that these verses are strange, and it seems to me that we need to be very careful when speculating about who, if anyone, has crossed that line.
Some how I think this joke applies here-
Ralph, a severe masochist and jonesing for some pain, races to his friend Joe's place, who he knows as a strident sadist:
"Joe I'm hurtin man; I need some of your best hurtin- bad"!!!!
Joe studies Ralph and gets a clear read of his condition. Then Joe takes a step back, non-chalantly crosses his arms and as he looks down his nose at Ralph just smirks and says "no".
"Moral calculus"? I read you every day, but just when I think I am making some sort of headway, something akin to jibber-jabber comes out.
What about Joseph Stalin? He systematically exterminated 50,000,000 Russians. In a "calculated" way with lists each morning before breakfast.
All I ask for is logic. As *micah* says below, "It's all about evidence". Why try to assign levels or degrees of sin? No matter what your theology, it always comes down to moral equivalences based on assumptions, based on an obscure text. It's days like today when I feel hopeless.
Not that it matters; but, I truly respect your intellect and sincerity in seeking the truth. Nevertheless, I see a serious mistake here (and, of course, it could just be my mistake).
You say: "These things may be taken figuratively." Really? Says who? Paul, I guess."
Paul, even though a truly brilliant man, does not do creative exegesis of the OT. If that is how we read the NT letters, then we are sorely misguided. If this is not revelation from God, then ignore it and certainly don't take it as license to do the same with other texts.
And, one last thought at no cost to you. I do not sense any hyperbolic hypothetical in Jesus' discussion of the 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.' OTOH what I am surprised at is that you make no mention of His statement that 'any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people.' For, this could easily (though I fear erroneously) be taken as supporting universalism.
Thanks for this. From my artist's mindset, I find this bit the most interesting:
"If this is an accurate description I think we can see how Jesus would characterize this as being the very worst of sins. I think of a compass pointing in the exact opposite direction. North is South and South is North. Good is Evil and Evil is Good. The Spirit is the Devil and the Devil is the Spirit."
I've been studying classical story structure for the past year (specifically with regards to film-making) and what you've described here is actually what the best storytellers try to achieve for the antithesis their theme intends to counteract - the idea of villainy, masquerading as good. It is not enough to have a villain who enslaves people, you must try to create a villain who enslaves people - AND convinces them they are free. And cetera.
Wait... is there an OPTION to charge Dr. Beck for our thoughts!?! Frick! I've been giving him my thoughts for free for over a year, now. What a ripoff!
I'll admit that my take on this doesn't fit neatly into the text that is the context for the quote, but I've always seen it as something like this:
The action of the Holy Spirit is the conduit, or the mechanism, by which we receive God's love and forgiveness. Or even more precisely, by which we open ourselves to God, since God doesn't withhold those things from his side, all we can do is cut ourselves off from experiencing them.
Anything we do, any fault, any sin, any "blasphemy," anything we do that we feel cuts us off from God, as long as we remain open to the working of the Holy Spirit, we can experience love and forgiveness for, because it is there for the asking.
If we cut ourselves off from the Holy Spirit, we don't have the tools to experience that love, which is still there regardless of what we do.
Kind of like handing someone the key to the door and saying, "No matter what you do in this room, no matter how you feel about it, you can get out anytime you want, with the single exception of throwing the key out the window." It's not so much that it's the ultimate sin as that it's throwing away the key.
I also feel that we are talking about "actual" blasphemy in it's strongest sense - some form or destroying within ourselves the capacity for feeling connected to God through God's spirit within us. I refuse to believe we're talking about some childish, "Nyah, nyah, the Holy Spirit is a poopy-head!" sort of thing, or even a solid intellectual conviction of atheism. Things like deliberate choices for despair, a life lived by conscious decision to directly harm others, and so on. And that one can only cut one's self off from God, not cut God off from us, and that like the Prodigal, all we have to do is ask to receive that connection again.
Thanks for your thoughts; it's a valuable midrash. It does, however, make me wonder if you have missed the particularity of what Jesus is saying--and I find this very particularity very, very relevant to the question of universalism. Jesus seems to say that God is doing something at his specific point in time, in his specific ministry, that someone cannot oppose without grave danger to their ability to ever reconcile with God. I think that "translating" Jesus' claims into the language of a "moral compass" creates the danger of missing this radical claim. I keep wondering whether your last two posts, which take some of Paul's most allegorical language and apply it to the question of universalism, are unfaithful to that which is not able to be allegorized in Christianity (and, for that matter, Judaism). Granted that there are rocks everywhere, granted that God's love is a very big space, are there ever actions of God that are for one thing and against something else, and (on that basis) are people in clear and direct opposition to God?
Jesus said something very deep and very true there. He evoked the scariest metaphysical scenario possible--eternal guilt of sin--and didn't explicitly explain what offense caused it.
You'll know it when you see it. You can miss it.
Perhaps what Hitler did and what the pharisees did was exactly the same thing. They both took the love of God lightly and took their own moral judgements seriously. Perhaps everyone who does not submit to Christ is blaspheming the Spirit. Jesus didn't say. His teachings did make people say, "Who then can be saved?"
Is the common man so morally distant from Hitler and Stalin? Whose to say what we are capable of given the right set of circumstances? In most situations Hitler would have been limited or disposed of by society. In his case he was encouraged and protected by those around him. Would the pharisees have done differently? Would you?
Anyway, just musing. There is an additional problem in my mind--the aspect of time and eternity. Is the blasphemy Jesus speaks of a single act ("speaks a word against the Son" would imply this) or is it one's status? Like could someone blaspheme then later not blaspheme? I once was a blasphemer, but now I honor the Spirit? So the unforgivable sin would be remaining a blasphemer, but til what time? I'm out of my depth. Back to work...
Interesting discussion, a lot of food for thought.
Salvation through punishment or pain is certainly a concept that can be found in many religions, but is it compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Isn't it by his stripes that the world is healed and not by our own pain and suffering? Isn't he the Lamb of God that takes sin and all of the consequences and effects of it (including the pain) *away*, not pay a penalty for, but actually removes it from our reality? By creating a new reality.
Jesus is not punished instead of us and therefore purchases God's forgiveness on our behalf. So why would an individual who has committed an "unforgivable" sin "only be saved by carrying the full weight of punishment?" Do they have to earn their salvation through their pain? Where does this idea of forgiveness requires punishment come from?
Is God's justice fulfilled and revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus a matter of reward/punishment or of healing and new creation? Didn't Jesus experience through the godforsaken dereliction of the cross that which "is completely antithetical to God?" And if he has gone into that state of non-being and endured the unendurable for all of those who could not, then is that not sufficient to bring the Life of YHWH to them also? Even to those who may blaspheme the Holy Spirit for he has gone to that place where even the Spirit is not present but by his death has entered into even that place of the nothingness, the antithesis of God, which will allow the life giving Spirit of YHWH to fill that godforsaken space. The ages (aion) are temporary and penultimate what Jesus has accomplished at Golgotha is the foundation of the ultimate reality of God being all in all where the antithesis of God can not be.
The Third Reich killed:
Jews approx. 5.9 million
Soviet POWs approx. 2–3 million
Ethnic Poles approx. 1.8–2 million
Romani approx. 220,000–1,500,000
Disabled approx. 200,000–250,000
Freemasons approx. 80,000
Slovenes approx. 20,000–25,000
Homosexuals approx. 5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses approx. 2,500–5,000
For a total of approx. 10.2 - 12.8 million deaths.
A personal pet peeve of mine as a historian is when this number is lowballed as 6 million. And as today is All Saints Day in the triduum of Los Dias de los Muertos, where traditionally we celebrate those martyred for faith*, I think accuracy is necessary.
*As I'm a wishy washy kind of person, I embrace 'martyred for faith' to mean those killed for any faith, or for none.
That is most certainly a lot of deaths... a lot of sinning going on... and nothing to be taken at all lightly.
but "where sin abounds grace abounds all the more."
Despite what horrific actions we humans can take against our fellow man I am confident that we cannot out sin God's grace... that He can restore and redeem all of His creation. If not, then salvation is most certainly by works - who sins the least - and not by the grace of God.
For what it's worth, Sam, I think you are absolutely right to knock a few angels off this particular pinhead (the discussion, not the Bible text). I am so grateful to have been brought into a hope that rests on the character of God, rather than theology. I hope it's OK if I commend you, not to the rules of logic, but to the everlasting arms for a big hug. They say it's darkest before the dawn.
Solidarity (if only via the ether) and here's to a better day tomorrow.
I'm reminded of Steven Pressfield's "The War of Art" wherein he points out that Hitler initially intended to be an artist, not President of Germany. Addressing the fear-to-create that many artists combat, Pressfield says that it was easier for Hitler to invade Poland than to put brush to canvas.
Maybe this hints at some cousin of what you're talking about. The rejection of our innermost calling - an act of self-hate - might lead to a rejection of any consistent application of Love in the grand scheme of things.
I'm also reminded of an interpretation of "taking the LORD's name in vain" where this meant ascribing evil things to the will of God. The enemies of Jesus in the stories you mention are doing the opposite of this. They take a good thing and call it bad. Like, oh, I don't know, like saying that making sure everyone has access to a doctor regardless of income level is somehow bad. This, too, would be a form of or derivation of blasphemy. Not that anyone does that.
I have a slightly off topic question you may have addressed before, Richard: which study Bible do you use? Just curious.
The text quote says, "all sins will be forgiven the children of man," and that gives me pause right there. Jesus includes human blasphemers, with "and whatever blasphemies they utter." Humanity is "the children of man." "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness." Might this not refer to something other than human? Given that the reference is the pharisees trying to credit the devil with a good miracle of Jesus to discredit Jesus, then is it not a plausible theory that the "whoever" could be the devil himself?
Thank you, Andrew. My greatest fear is that I will begin my genetically predisposed descent into mental incompetency before I resolve the issue of God.
Mike Gantt (my favorite universalist) tells me that in order to know the mind of God, one must first revert to the mind of a child. Soon we shall see. What will he do with those who only feel and can no longer think?
Thank-you for your reply (which has since disappeared) and your honesty - I feel privileged to share in a tiny part of your journey. I think you have such a valuable voice here, Sam, and your story cuts like ice across debates about free will, God's will and God's love. That said, I recently decreed on this blog that there'll be pubs in the age to come - I look forward to finding out some of the answers to the hard questions you pose over a pint.
Hi Patricia,
That is a good observation
and I think you're on the right track. I would just add that the concept of
"never" or "everlasting" is not in the text. Eternity, as
in everlasting time, is not a Hebraic concept and would not be understood to be
so by Jesus or the people he is talking to. Age, from the Greek aion, simply
means a distinct period of time of indeterminate duration. Besides, Jesus said
that blasphemy against the Son of Man is forgiven always and he is the Lamb of
God who takes away the sins of the world--all of them. So I would also take
that to mean blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
It is really tragic how
this particular text has been used by some to find the one exception that can
be used as a trump card to negate the universality of the Good News of what
Jesus has endured to take away all of the sin of the world. This only serves to
create anxiety in many and tarnishes the character of God, which undermines the
very purpose of Jesus coming into the world: to reconcile us to God; to allow
us to see the true character of God in the face of Jesus. In Jesus we find God
to be approachable; near and not aloof; compassionate and not vindictive. Not the almighty celestial shylock, not the
holier than thou cosmic potentate, but the all-bountiful (El Shaddai: the mighty
teat) giver of life who will go into the abyssal depths of hell to seek after
the most reprobate and lost and free them and give them a new birth
(resurrection).
Hi Patricia,
That is a good observation and I think you're on the right track. I would just add that the concept of "never" or "everlasting" is not in the text. Eternity, as in everlasting time, is not a Hebraic concept and would not be understood to be so by Jesus or the people he is talking to. Age, from the Greek aion, simply means a distinct period of time of indeterminate duration. Besides, Jesus said that blasphemy against the Son of Man is forgiven always and he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world--all of them. So I would also take that to mean blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
It is really tragic how this particular text has been used by some to find the one exception that can be used as a trump card to negate the universality of the Good News of what Jesus has endured to take away all of the sin of the world. This only serves to create anxiety in many and tarnishes the character of God, which undermines the very purpose of Jesus coming into the world: to reconcile us to God; to allow us to see the true character of God in the face of Jesus. In Jesus we find God to be approachable; near and not aloof; compassionate and not vindictive. Not the almighty celestial shylock, not the holier than thou cosmic potentate, but the all-bountiful (El Shaddai: the mighty teat) giver of life who will go into the abyssal depths of hell to seek after the most reprobate and lost and free them and give them a new birth (resurrection).
Hi Patricia,
That is a good observation and I think you're on the right track. I would just add that the concept of "never" or "everlasting" is not in the text. Eternity, as in everlasting time, is not a Hebraic concept and would not be understood to be so by Jesus or the people he is talking to. Age, from the Greek aion, simply means a distinct period of time of indeterminate duration. Besides, Jesus said that blasphemy against the Son of Man is forgiven always and he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world--all of them. So I would also take that to mean blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
It is really tragic how this particular text has been used by some to find the one exception that can be used as a trump card to negate the universality of the Good News of what Jesus has endured to take away all of the sin of the world. This only serves to create anxiety in many and tarnishes the character of God, which undermines the very purpose of Jesus coming into the world: to reconcile us to God; to allow us to see the true character of God in the face of Jesus. In Jesus we find God to be approachable; near and not aloof; compassionate and not vindictive. Not the almighty celestial shylock, not the holier than thou cosmic potentate, but the all-bountiful (El Shaddai: the mighty teat) giver of life who will go into the abyssal depths of hell to seek after the most reprobate and lost and free them and give them a new birth (resurrection).
The main one I use is the Harper Collins NRSV.
I'd be cautious about making it seem that there is a high bar for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but I think you are on the right track. I agree that Jesus seems to be saying that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is seeing the work of God as the work of the Satan, a polarity reversal of the moral compass.
As for the unforgivableness of sin, I wonder if it has to do with 2nd Temple assumptions about atonement. Could Jesus be saying that no animal sacrifices or Yom Kippur is going to remove such a transgression? You are stuck with it until the final judgment and then you will have to own up to it.
In the end, the universal restorationist in me reads such a text and hopes (and prays) that it is a bit of paternal hyperbole to establish a taboo. Sort of like God in Garden telling Adam and Eve they will die if they eat from the fruit, but then, through His grace, sets them out of the Garden instead.
Peace
David
Sam, are you talking about my use of the phrase "moral calculus"? If you are I don't see how I could have caused offense. I was pointing out, to Michael, that the death of six million Jews doesn't "balance", as in a moral calculus/accounting, with what the Pharisees did in the stories in Matthew and Mark. Seem like a pretty obvious point.
Thanks!
“Imagine a person going in the exact opposite direction from
God.”
Jesus imagined this, and told us what happens, in his story
about the lost sheep.
“If we posit the worst offense we expect little by
way of grace. Rather, here we'd expect punishment to the max. Not a bit of grace but a lot of punishment. The worst
sin gets full punishment. No forgiveness. The very worst sin reaches the nadir of grace where the love of
God exists only as wrath.”
I thought for a moment you were going to continue by
correcting that concept – we might expect it, but we’d be wrong because YHWH
doesn’t do things the way we would. After
all, Paul said, where sin abounded, grace did MUCH MORE abound. In other words, the very worst sin receives
the greatest abundance of grace.
And surely, when Jesus was crucified, he carried the full
weight of all evil and its consequences – that means no weight left for anyone
else.
Hello Everyone,
Thanks for all the comments, thoughts, and observations.
Let me add, as a clarifying remark, one of the theological ideas that I'm working with in this post as it presents a contrast with a lot of other Christian thinking. Namely, is punishment bad and always to be avoided?
The default assumption in a lot of Christian thinking is the bifurcated view of God's love and wrath/justice, that punishment (bad) sits on one side and forgiveness (good) sits on the other side and that the point of Christian salvation is to provide the mechanism for you to get switched from one side to the other.
But universalists of my ilk don't see punishment as the antithesis of God's love, as an either/or. It's often a both/and. Simple observations of parenting reveal this to be the case. As will a reading of the bible. And if this is so, the notion of an "unforgivable sin" is cast in a new light. The point being, an "unforgiveable sin" is only a problem for universalists if you are working with a bifurcated view of God's love and justice. But it's just this view that universalists reject.
Richard,
I agree that their is no conflict between God's love and justice. That is, If you are using the Hebrew concept of justice (sadaq) which is restorative and reconciling and not the western concept derived from Roman law which is retributive. But punishment in no way can be seen as restorative and healing, it is decidedly punitive and retributive.
Perhaps the word "punishment" is not the best word to use to then.
"Punishment"
a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatmentI realize that many universalists do hold to a "tough love" concept that is resorted to when dealing with "unbelievers" or the incorrigibly reprobate. But the only "tough love" that is consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the experience of Jesus on the cross for us. Not that Jesus was punished instead of us but that he instead took away all of the sin and pain of the world to remove it from our history and experience. Life on this planet has an abundance of pain and suffering, their is no need for God to add to it, even for supposedly a loving purpose. Instead,YHWH has repented from all that and has acted to remove it from our experience forever, not by judicial application of corrective punishment but by unconditional and unbounded generosity and kindness. When that final eschatological moment arrives and the light is turned on that reality will be fully realized. We are now entering into the pre-dawn darkness (when it is its coldest and darkest) but the sunrise of Christ's liberating justice is just over the horizon. The beginning is near.
"My greatest fear is that I will begin my genetically predisposed descent into mental incompetency before I resolve the issue of God."
No worries, my friend. God has already resolved the issue:
Rom. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
A different word from "punishment" is likely needed. When I use the word I'm less thinking about crime and punishment (an impersonal legal sense) than the interactions between a parent and child (a relational loving sense).
"Moral calculus" (to me, at least) implies a hierarchy of sins (and punishments). That bothers me. I have difficulty with the concept of "love" in terms of that which is offered and that which is received, either between humans, or ourselves and God.
If you will permit, I found this essay today on one of the blogs I follow. Most fortuitous. I like what Dr. Leap has to say about how sorrow is our default state, and what he has learned about that.
http://edwinleap.com/blog/?p=1927&cpage=1#comment-451199
Yes, unfortunately, we have a legal system that mirrors (and which both prefigured and set the stage for) reformed theology. Offences are reckoned to have been committed against the (divinely appointed) king and payment (not forgiveness) is required (because the crown was feeling particularly greedy at the time). A system of restorative justice which asks: "Who has been harmed?" and "What can be done to put things right?" helps us to envisage a much more universalist (relational) understanding of God's justice. This has created a circular argument within reformed theology which takes western justice systems as a model of divine justice. Perhaps a cliche-free word for 'atonement' is needed.
Yes, unfortunately, we have a legal system that mirrors (and which both prefigured and set the stage for) reformed theology. Offences are reckoned to have been committed against the (divinely appointed) king and payment (not forgiveness) is required (because the crown was feeling particularly greedy at the time). A system of restorative justice which asks: "Who has been harmed?" and "What can be done to put things right?" helps us to envisage a much more universalist (relational) understanding of God's justice. This has created a circular argument within reformed theology which takes the very model of monarchy that inspired it as a model for divine justice. Perhaps a cliche-free word for 'atonement' is needed.
Sorry for duplication - Disqus (or my computer) playing up several times recently.
Richard Rohr takes the opposite approach to the unforgivable sin question in today's Daily Meditation: "Only contemplative prayer touches the deep unconscious, where all of our real hurts, motivations, and deepest visions lie. Without it, we have what is even worse—religious egoic consciousness, which is even more defensive and offensive than usual! Now it has God on its side and is surely what Jesus means by the unforgivable “sin against the Holy Spirit.” It cannot be forgiven because this small self would never imagine it needs forgiveness. It is smug and self-satisfied."
What further adds confusion to this is that Paul said that Satan can masquerade as an angel of light.
I was thinking the same sort of thing. It wasn't until after the event in question that Jesus brought forth a "New Covenant" for the forgiveness of sins.