Introduction
There are a number of sins spoken of in the NT
but none so grave as that of which the Lord said “it shall not be
forgiven” (Luke 12: 10)—the sin against the Holy Spirit. Now we also
read of a “sin to death” (1 John 5: 16) and both Peter and Paul
exercised apostolic power (see Acts 5: 1–10; 1 Cor. 5: 1–5) against
sin of that character. Again, Paul also delivered two individuals to
Satan that “they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme” (1
Tim. 1: 20). Interestingly, the Greek word used there for
blaspheme
(blasfhmew)
is the same verb that is used in relation to
the unforgivable sin (where it is translated
speak injuriously). This
word is used not only of God (see Rom. 2: 24), but also of man (see
Acts 18: 6). Paul himself confesses that in his unconverted days he
“was a blasphemer” (1 Tim. 1: 13) and that he compelled others to
blaspheme (see Acts 26: 11) but mercy was shown him because he “did
it ignorantly, in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1: 13). Now all these sins were
extremely serious but they were not the sin “against the Holy
Spirit” (Matt. 12: 32) which “has no forgiveness” (Mark 3: 29).
Sadly, down the ages, many believers have agonised over whether they
have committed this unforgivable sin. Certainly, Christians can
“grieve” (Eph. 4: 30) and even “quench” (1 Thess. 5: 19) the Holy
Spirit—such is the lowliness of His service—but, as I hope to show,
to commit the sin against the Holy Spirit
now is simply just not
possible.
To the Jew
Much of the genuine heartache and depth of
anguish felt by many true believers in this solemn matter could be
avoided if, instead of isolating particular verses, the relevant
Scriptures were considered
in the context in
which they are set. The sections of Scripture involved are Matt. 12:
22–37; Mark 3: 20–30; and Luke 11: 14–26; 12: 10, to which some
would add Heb. 6: 1–8; 10: 26–31. Now the first point to grasp very
firmly is that in all these Scriptures
all those involved and
addressed were Jews. In the Gospel passages, the Jews
involved were those who, in the light of irrefutable evidence,
refused the testimony to Jesus as the Messiah; in the Hebrew
epistle, the Jews involved were those who had outwardly accepted
that testimony but appeared to be in danger of giving it up and
going back to the Judaism they professed to have left. I shall look
at the Gospel passages first.
The Age to Come
and its Powers
The synoptic Gospels give the history of the
presentation of the millennial Kingdom to Israel and the features
that would mark it. When that Kingdom is established in the “age to
come” (Heb. 6: 5), Satan will be “bound” for “a thousand years”
(Rev. 20: 2) and Christ will reign supreme (see v4). John says “To
this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the
works of the devil” (1 John 3: 8). So when the Lord was here and was
casting out demons—Satan’s emissaries—He was exercising “[the] works
of power of [the] age to come” (Heb. 6 5). It was thus a
foretaste of that age.
Many of the maladies that inflicted men were identified with demon
possession. The incident that gave rise to the Lord’s pronouncement
of this unforgivable sin was His deliverance of a man “possessed by
a demon, blind and dumb” (Matt. 12: 22). In response, the crowds
asked “Is this [man] the son of David?” (v23), rightly linking the
incident with the advent of the Messiah. This infuriated the
Pharisees (see v24). There was no challenge from them as to
what the Lord did,
rather the challenge was to
how He did it. They
said “This [man] does not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, prince
of demons” (v24)—they attributed the exorcism to Satan. Before
pronouncing this sin unforgivable, the Lord presented an irrefutable
argument to them supplemented by “parables” (Mark 3: 23).
The Lord’s
Response to the Accusations
Each of the synoptic writers orders events
suited to their presentation of Christ. As Matthew writes with the
Jew in mind and the matter before us only involved Jews, I will
largely follow his order. No one doubted that demons were under
Satan’s authority and
thus identified with him.
This is expressed by the Lord saying “If Satan casts out Satan” with
the logical conclusion “he is divided against himself; how then
shall his kingdom subsist?” (Matt. 12: 26). The Pharisees claimed
their sons cast out demons. Whether or not the claim was justified
is immaterial. The Lord tellingly asks “by whom do they cast [them]
out?” knowing they would not dare to answer, and so follows this up
by saying that “they shall
be your judges” (v27). He then gives a parable “Or how can any one
enter into the house of the strong [man] and plunder his goods,
unless first he bind the strong [man]? and then he will plunder his
house” (v29). The strong man is Satan. The “goods” were those bound
by him such as the woman having a spirit of infirmity “whom Satan
has bound … [these] eighteen years” (Luke 13: 16) and the man that
occasioned the confrontation here, who was “possessed by a demon,
blind and dumb” (Matt. 12: 22). Limiting Satan’s power by casting
out demons was binding the strong man and curbing his power—a
foretaste of the Kingdom when he will be bound in the abyss for a
thousand years and rendered completely powerless. The Lord was
plundering Satan’s house.
In keeping with this the Lord had said “But if
I by [the] Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of
God is come upon you” (v28). Now the expanded expression for the
Kingdom throughout Matthew is the
kingdom of the heavens.
However on just five occasions it is changed to
the kingdom of God (Matt.
6: 33; 12: 28; 19: 24; 21: 31, 43), each time by the Lord Himself.
The term kingdom of the
heavens is the outward aspect of the Kingdom that has a
moral dimension to
it—darnel and good seed, wicked and just (see Matt. 13: 38, 49). The
term kingdom of God
expresses the
spiritual aspect of
the Kingdom which the kingdom
of the heavens does not. Thus new birth is essential even to
“see” the kingdom of God (John 3: 3). Casting out unclean spirits
demanded the exercise of
spiritual power and
was thus a singular proof that the spiritual authority of the
Kingdom was then present—“But if
I by the Spirit of God
cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you”
(Matt. 12: 28).
The Eternal
Character of the Sin and its Enormity
The sin against the Holy Spirit is only spoken
of by the Lord Himself. Furthermore, though it is recorded by each
of the synoptic writers, it is not spoken of elsewhere. In Matthew
we have “whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy
Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the
coming one” (Matt. 12: 32). Now Matthew wrote with the Jew in mind,
and they knew of only two ages encompassing the whole of time: the
present one of law, and the coming one when Messiah would reign.
Mark’s record is “whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy
Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of
an everlasting sin;—because they said, He has an unclean spirit”
(Mark 3: 29, 30). The words “to eternity” encompass the whole of
time, and sins not forgiven in time are “everlasting”. Luke’s
account is briefest of all: “whoever shall say a word against the
Son of man it shall be forgiven him; but to him that speaks
injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven” (Luke
12: 10). The overall testimony is clear:
this sin has no forgiveness.
Now as the Son of Man, (which is the Lord’s
universal title—that is, as a man among men), the Lord would endure
“every sin and injurious speaking” (Matt. 12: 31)—He was attacked as
an eater and a wine drinker, and called a friend of tax–gatherers
and sinners (see Matt. 11: 19; Luke 7: 34). All this was what could
be observed
outwardly and could be forgiven. What could not be forgiven
involved what was
inward, namely calling the Holy Spirit within the Lord (see Luke
4: 1), an unclean spirit. The enormity of the sin was identifying
the Holy Spirit in the Lord with Satan himself. This was unique and
could never be repeated. But had not others cast out demons? What
about the Twelve? Could not ascribing the works of power carried out
through them to the Devil also be a case of sinning against the Holy
Spirit?
The Sending out
of the Twelve
Previously the Lord had sent out the Twelve and
“gave them power and authority over all demons, and to heal
diseases” (Luke 9: 1; see also Matt. 10: 8; Mark 3: 15) with the
warning “[It is] sufficient for the disciple that he should become
as his teacher, and the bondman as his lord. If they have called the
master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his
household?” (Matt. 10: 25). The result of their service was that
“they cast out many demons” (Mark 6: 13). Furthermore, unless the
Lord’s prophetic word failed, Beelzebub would be credited with their
service. They thus did what the Lord did and suffered the same
accusations that the Lord experienced. Yet there is no record that
the unforgivable sin is identified with
their service—it is
only recorded in connection with
what the Lord Himself did.
We must ask why?
While John the Baptist and Zacharias his father
were filled with the Holy Spirit (see Luke 1: 15; 67),
no such statement is ever made concerning the Twelve. Indeed the
Lord told them that while the Holy Spirit at that time was “with
you”, in future He “shall be in you” (John 14: 17). Indeed Scripture
testifies clearly that they had not yet received the Holy Spirit
(see John 7: 39; 20: 22). The disciples were in the position of the
OT saints through whom the Holy Spirit spoke (see Matt. 10: 20; Mark
13: 11; Luke 12: 12). The power they had was not by the Holy Spirit
within them but directly from the Lord Himself—“he gave them power
over unclean spirits” (Matt. 10: 1, my emphasis). The Lord was not
only indwelt by, but was full of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 4: 1);
the Twelve were not. Hence while the charge of acting through
Beelzebub could be levelled against them, the sin against the Holy
Spirit could only be identified with what the Lord Himself did. It
was “because they said, He has an unclean spirit”
(Mark 3: 30, my emphasis). However, this was not the first time that
the Lord had faced this accusation. Why then did the Lord not speak
about the unforgivable sin previously?
The Lord’s
Previous Service
An almost
identical occasion to that recorded in Matt. 12: 22–32 occurred
earlier when the Lord had cast a demon out of a dumb man (see Matt.
9: 32, 33). On that occasion the Pharisees also said “He casts out
the demons through the prince of the demons” (Matt. 9: 34). Yet only
the later incident in Matthew 12 brought out the warning concerning
the unforgivable sin. Why? What had changed between the two
incidents?
The cities of Israel “in which most of his
works of power had taken place” (Matt. 11: 20) had not repented at
Christ’s preaching.
For the first time the Lord spoke of
“this generation” (Matt. 11: 16) which He would later describe as
wicked,
adulterous,
unbelieving, perverted,
and sinful. But the most
telling incident is when we read “But the Pharisees, having gone
out, took counsel against him, how they might destroy him” Matt.
(12: 14, see also Mark 3: 6). Notice the wording. It was
how they might destroy
him—they had
already determined His
fate. The ecclesiastical elite in the nation met together with only
one item on their evil agenda and that was how to do it. They had
witnessed “his works of power” (Matt. 11: 20, 21, 23), unmistakable
testimony to His Messiahship and to the fact that “God was in
Christ” (2 Cor. 5: 19), and the result was only to bring out their
inveterate hatred. The die was cast. Accordingly, the Lord continued
to heal (see Matt. 12: 15) but now charged the crowds “that they
should not make him publicly known” (v16). His public service to
Israel was effectively over. Thus the very next time a demon was
cast out and the charge of the Pharisees was repeated, the Lord
pronounced the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.
But there are four Gospels. What has John to
say about this sin? As I shall show in a moment his testimony is
indisputable proof that such a sin could not be committed today.
John’s Gospel
Scan this Gospel from beginning to end and you
will find no mention of the sin against the Holy Spirit. This
omission is given even more weight when we discover that John
records the Lord being accused of having a demon several times (see
John 7: 20; 8: 48, 52; 10: 20)—but
with no mention of the unforgivable sin. Again, not one of
John’s eight recorded miracles, always described as signs, involved
casting out a demon. Why? Because such “works of power” (Matt. 11:
20, 21, 23) belong to the Kingdom—spoken of over 100 times in the
Synoptics but only twice in John and then only in its spiritual
aspect (see John 3: 3–12; 18: 36). All hope of the Kingdom being
established in power on earth had gone when John wrote. While the
Synoptics trace the gradual rejection of the Kingdom and Israel’s
Messiah, John begins with it saying “He came to his own, and his own
received him not” (John 1: 11). All else in John hinges on this one
simple fact. The word Jews occurs 16 times in the Synoptics but is never once identified
with hostility; in John it is employed over 60 times and is always
identified with antagonism towards the Lord. In the Synoptics the
sphere of testimony is largely Israel (see Matt. 10: 6; 15: 24), but
in John it is the world with the Jew being viewed as just a part of
it. As mentioned already, the Lord often speaks of “this generation”
in the Synoptics describing it as
wicked,
adulterous, unbelieving,
perverted, and
sinful, particularly in connection with the matter we are
considering (see Matt. 12: 41, 42; Luke 11: 29, 30 etc.). But the
phrase this generation is absent from John’s pages. Why? Because
John wrote late, at a time when that generation—the generation that
rejected their Messiah and had committed the unforgivable sin—had
passed away. But what about the Scriptures in the Hebrew epistle?
The
Scriptures in Hebrews
While the Scriptures in Hebrews (Heb. 6: 1–8;
10: 26–31) form a serious parallel with those in the Synoptics, the
parallel is not exact. In both cases the people involved were
Jews—an important fact in itself. Certainly, we have solemn words:
“For it is impossible to renew again to repentance …” (Heb. 6: 4)
and “has insulted the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10: 29)—although the
word used for insulted is
not
blasfhmew but
enubrizw,
albeit of similar meaning. But there the
parallel ends. The Jews in Hebrews were professed believers, while
those in the Synoptics were decidedly not, and were wilfully blind
to the most powerful testimony that God could give. Now the
crucifixion of Christ was put on the basis of a sin of
ignorance—“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”
(Luke 23: 34) so that Peter could offer repentance and exhort the
Jews to “Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2: 40). It
was on this ground that Paul, even though a blasphemer, was saved
(see 1 Tim. 1: 13). Now those addressed in Hebrews
had accepted Peter’s
offer. They had received the five external blessings the apostle
lists in Heb. 6: 4–6: They had been “enlightened”—divine light had
shone upon them, not necessarily in them; they had tasted both the
“heavenly gift” and “the good word of
God”, but taste is not consumption; they
had been made “partakers of [the] Holy Spirit”—that is beneficiaries
of His outward service; finally, they had experienced “[the] works
of power of [the] age to come”—powers that belonged to the
establishment of the Kingdom upon the earth. Furthermore they now
had the ministry of the writer of Hebrews regarding the present
position of the Lord and the superiority of Christianity over
Judaism. After all this, to apostatise and return to Judaism would
be to “sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth” so
that “there no longer remains any sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10: 26).
There could only be certain judgment ahead as they would have
“trodden under foot the Son of God, and esteemed the blood of the
covenant, whereby” they have “been sanctified, common” and “insulted
the Spirit of grace” (v29). As it is the goodness of God that leads
us to repentance (see Rom. 2: 4) and as God had expended everything
for their blessing they would have
put themselves in a
position where it was impossible to “renew again to repentance”
(Heb. 6: 4). Such is apostasy! While the dreadful end result would
be the same, this was not the sin in the Synoptics—for you can only
apostatize if you have first claimed to believe.
Conclusions
The fact that there is no mention of the sin
against the Holy Spirit in the Gospel by John, and that it is
likewise absent from the Epistles, should erase all such disturbing
thoughts about the sin against the Holy Spirit from the mind of
Christians. However, while unbelieving men today cannot commit this
sin, they can still put themselves in the position of no
forgiveness. Man has always had a testimony from God to which he is
responsible to respond in faith, even if that testimony is no more
than just creation itself (see Rom. 1: 20). But God is sovereign. If
man hardens his heart, there comes a time in the ways of God when
God will harden the heart of man so that he
cannot repent and
believe. He is then beyond forgiveness. Terrible state! Reader, it
is a solemn thing to wake up in time in the realisation that one is
lost, but it is a far worse thing to realise that awful truth in
eternity. “Behold, now [is the] well–accepted time; behold, now
[the] day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6: 2).
