THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN?

by Ivan Maddox

Atlanta, GA

Sometimes we get the wrong answer because we ask the wrong question.

In studying the unforgivable sin, most people start with the question, "What is the unforgivable sin?" and go from there. In this study I want to take a different approach, and start with a question that I think goes right to the heart of the issue.

What sin is the shed blood of Jesus Christ not sufficient to atone for? What sin was not covered by the death of Jesus Christ.

Most of us answer the above questions in one of two ways. Either we say that Christ died to pay for all sins except the unforgivable sin, or we say that Christ died to pay for all sins, period. Either way, the key issue concerning the unforgivable sin has become clear. If any sin is unforgivable, the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient to pay for any and every sin, and Jesus cannot save to the uttermost. If no sin is unforgivable, there is a serious problem with our understanding of the passages of scripture that deal with the unforgivable sin.

It is my understanding from scripture that Christ died to pay for all our sins, with no exceptions. This study is intended to set before you my reasons for believing this way, so that you can judge my position by the sure light of God’s written Word.

There are two passages of scripture that are usually used in teaching about the unforgivable sin. The first is found in Matthew 12.

In this passage Jesus heals a man who is both blind and mute because of a spirit that is afflicting him. Jesus heals him by casting out the spirit. The people rejoice at the man's deliverance, judging it to be the work of God and a validation of Jesus' ministry. But the Pharisees, to themselves, charged that Jesus was casting out devils by the ruler of the devils. Jesus responded vigorously to this charge, culminating in his statements about blasphemy in verses 31 and 32.

After he spoke, certain of the scribes and Pharisees asked him for a sign, and Jesus responded by telling them that the only sign this generation would receive would be the sign of the prophet Jonah. And at the end of the chapter, his mother and brothers waited outside the area where he was teaching and sent for him. Jesus responded with his famous statement that whoever did the will of his Father is his brother, sister and mother.

The second of these passages is found in Mark 3:20-30.

This passage seems to be describing the same incident as is recorded in Matthew, though different details are recorded in each.

Mark's record begins with friends of Jesus coming to "lay hold on him" because they thought that he was losing his mind. This parallels Matthew 12:46. Next, Mark records the charge by scribes who came from Jerusalem that Jesus had a devil, and was casting out devils by means of this. Jesus' response comes next, including his words on blasphemy. Finally, in verse 30 we are told why he spoke these words: "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."

From these two passages, and particularly in light of Mark 3:30, many people have concluded that the unforgivable sin consists of attributing to the devil the work of the Spirit of God. Some have gone so far as to teach that a person who is born again of God can lose his or her salvation if they do this. But is this really the case? Can a person who is not born of God’s spirit lose forever the opportunity to accept Christ as Lord, because he asserted that something done by the spirit of God was actually done by the devil? And can a Christian lose his eternal life, and lose the spirit of God in him, by claiming that something done by the power of God was a counterfeit of God’s power?

There are several things we need to note carefully about these passages. First we need to ask ourselves: What penalty is stated in these passages for blasphemy against God, the Father? Most people teach these passages as if they say that blasphemy against God, the Father, is forgivable, and blasphemy against Jesus Christ is forgivable, while blasphemy against the Spirit of God is not forgivable. However, this is not what these passages say. Blasphemy against the Father is, it appears, not specifically mentioned at all, while blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is said to be unforgivable. Why is blasphemy against the Father, which should be the natural starting point in a discussion on blasphemy against God, not so much as mentioned?

Second, Jesus was speaking to Jews, who were under the Law of Moses. The Law was the legal standard given by God to the people of Israel.  The Law defined sin for the people of Israel.  If something was not identified as sin in the Law of Moses, the people of Israel were not responsible to God for knowing it or obeying it.

What Jesus taught them before his resurrection was supposed to be consistent with the Law, which he came to fulfil. However, there is no mention in the Law of Moses about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." How could God have not warned His people about so serious a sin — an UNFORGIVABLE sin — in the written code of law He gave them, or during the more than 1500 years He conversed with them and revealed to them His will?

Third, most people read and teach this passage as if the speaker were a Trinitarian speaking to Trinitarians. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people Jesus was speaking to were Jews, who knew only of God the Father as God. They knew of the Spirit of God, but not as a "person" distinct from God the Father. To them, the Spirit of God, as revealed in the Old Testament scriptures, was the power or the arm of God, not the Third Person of the Trinity. Had Jesus meant to speak to them of the Trinity, or of the Third Person of the Trinity, he would have had to teach them about Him first. However, he did not do so here; nor had he taught them about the Spirit before this.

Who, then, was the "Holy Ghost," or Holy Spirit, that Jesus was referring to? If Jesus was referring to the Third Person of the Trinity, we have a problem; because in that case Jesus is introducing a sin which is foreign to the Law of Moses, because Jesus is introducing a sin that Israel previously knew nothing about; because the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking knew of no Trinity; because Jesus mentioned this sin without teaching them about either the Trinity or God the Holy Spirit, and because Jesus failed to mention a sin that logically should have been mentioned here: blasphemy against God, the Father. If by "the Holy Ghost" Jesus meant merely the power of God, we still have a problem; because Jesus is still introducing a sin that Israel previously knew nothing about, and because Jesus still failed to mention blasphemy against God, the Father.

If, however, by "the Holy Ghost," or "the Holy Spirit," Jesus meant God, his Father, this passage suddenly makes a great deal of sense. The contrast is not between blasphemy against the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity, but between blasphemy against the Messiah, the man Jesus Christ, and blasphemy against God, the Father.

Understood in this light, this passage also fits beautifully with all the revelation already given to Israel in the Old Testament.

There is one other record that covers the events recorded in the two passages we have examined, but it is not usually looked at when people study the unforgivable sin, because it makes no mention of it. This record is found in Luke 11.

This record is important to our study not because of what it says - or doesn't say - about blasphemy, but because of the light it sheds on what is meant by "the spirit of God" in the parallel records. In Matthew 12:28 Jesus said "…if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…," while in Luke 11:20 he says "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils…" In this context, then, "the spirit of God" is equivalent to "the finger of God." The "finger of God" is clearly a reference to God's power and ability. So also, in this instance, is "the Spirit of God."

Since the two refer to the same thing, blasphemy against the Spirit of God is the same thing as blasphemy against the finger of God. Now if someone blasphemes against the finger of God, it is clear that they are not blaspheming against a being distinct from and separate from God, but against God Himself. If, then, we want to understand what is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, we must look at what the scriptures say about blasphemy against God.

In Leviticus 24 we have a record of an incidence of blasphemy against God.

There are several things here that shed light on the gospel passages about blasphemy. First, we get an indication of what constitutes blasphemy. In this instance, this individual both spoke evil of God, and cursed him. Second, we see that both of these were capital offenses under the Law of Moses. The third point is less obvious, but very important in light of the gospel records. The individual who had committed blasphemy was put to death WITHOUT BEING GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE FORGIVEN OF HIS SIN. The blasphemer in this record died without forgiveness.

This verse in Hebrews is not specific to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; it was applicable to a wide range of sins. The individual who worshipped other gods was to be put to death without mercy. The individual who despised the Sabbath law was to be put to death without mercy. The individuals who committed adultery were to be put to death without mercy. The individual who committed murder was to be put to death without mercy. In each case, no provision was made for the individual to offer a sacrifice for his sins before being put to death. He was to be put to death without forgiveness.

One thing that causes some confusion about this to those of us who have been redeemed by Christ is the fact that we can be forgiven by confessing our sins to God and asking for forgiveness in the privacy of our hearts. We forget all too easily that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission," that the only reason we can be forgiven so easily is the fact that Jesus died in our place to pay for our sins. While forgiveness of sins without sacrifice was certainly available under the Law on the basis of the future death of Jesus Christ, this was not the norm while either the Tabernacle or the Temple were standing. Forgiveness of sins required the death of a substitute. Putting a man to death without making provision for him to offer a sacrifice for his sins emphasized the fact that he was dying without forgiveness from God.

This, then, is the truth of the matter: There was not one unforgivable sin under the Law; there were several. Jesus was not making reference to a uniquely unforgivable sin; he was pointing to one of many. Jesus was not revealing to the Jews something new and completely different from what God had revealed to them before about blasphemy; he was reminding them of something they already knew.  And Jesus was not accusing the Pharisees of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; he was accusing them of blasphemy against himself, which he identified as a forgivable sin, in contrast to blasphemy against God, which, under the Law of Moses, was an "unforgivable sin."

What constitutes blasphemy against God? In II Kings 19, Hezekiah, King of Judah, complained to the Lord about the words of Rabshakeh, an emissary from the King of Assyria, against God.

Rabshakeh blasphemed God, and God judged him, his master, and his nation’s army for this sin. But what was his blasphemy?

Rabshakeh blasphemed God by:

• Contending that God was no different from the gods of other nations;
• Warning God’s people not to trust in Him for deliverance in their time of trouble;
• Questioning the ability of God to deliver His people from trouble;
• Claiming falsely that God had sent him to destroy Jerusalem.

When we compare this record with what we see going on around us every day, we see that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not uncommon at all. The man or woman who equates the God of the Bible with the gods of other religions has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. The individual who warns God’s people not to trust Him for deliverance in time of trouble, or the person who teaches God’s people not to trust Him for their healing, has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.  The man or woman who belittles God or ridicules God has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

In the record of Nathan's confrontation of David for his sin in the matter of Uriah see another example of blasphemy against God.

According to the King James Version, the sins of David in this matter caused the enemies of God to blaspheme. However, this is one of the areas where the scribes who copied the Old Testament scrolls admitted that they changed the text, preserving both the original text and their changes. The original text is reflected in the NRSV translation:

From this we can see that it was not the enemies of God who blasphemed God; it was David. When he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah murdered, he was blaspheming God.

But we see something else here, even more important. By all rights, one who blasphemed God was to die without mercy. But that is not what happened to David. He was punished severely by God for his sins -- and his punishment included the death of his new son; but he was allowed to live. Even more important, he was forgiven by God for his sins, and he did not lose the spirit of God that he had been anointed with by the prophet Samuel..

God, it appears, reserves the right to forgive "unforgivable" sins; for if He can forgive even one person of such a sin, He can forgive all of them. The problem with unforgivable sins is not that God is unable or unwilling to forgive them; it is that under the Law, no provision was made for forgiveness to be obtained before the sentence was carried out.

Jesus made the point in Matthew 12:30 that if one blasphemes against the Holy Ghost, "it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age), neither in the world (age) to come." While the part about being forgiven in this age seems pretty clear, the part about being forgiven in the age to come requires a bit of explanation.

Most Protestant Christians believe that righteousness or justification before God is something that must be taken care of in this life, in this age. As a general rule, I believe that this is the case, both under the Law of Moses and under the grace we have obtained through Jesus Christ. But in at least one instance the scriptures imply that forgiveness can be received from God after death.

This record deals with the judgment of the nations, also known as the Gentiles. In this instance, these Gentiles are judged not on their own righteous or unrighteous works, but on how they treated the brethren of the Lord. While no mention of forgiveness of sins is made in this record, it is clearly implied. Jesus' words in Matthew 12 seems to set a limit on this type of blanket forgiveness. One who has blasphemed God may not be eligible for the same type of mercy as one who has not.

The key thing for us to remember, though, when reading these records about the "unforgivable sin" is that Jesus was speaking as one under the Law of Moses to others under the Law. We have already seen that things that were "unforgivable" under the Law could be forgiven under certain circumstances. But even if that were not the case, we who have received grace through Jesus Christ are no longer under the Law. Therefore, the fact that something may not have been forgivable under the Law does not mean that it is unforgivable now. Consider the testimony of the Apostle Paul on this matter.

Through Christ, we can be made righteous even from sins that were unforgivable under the Law of Moses!

There is a very important reason for this.  Often, when studying at the unforgivable sin, we forget that there is a difference between having your sins forgiven and having your sins paid for.

Not all sins are forgivable.  All sins, however, will have to be paid for.  There will come a day when each man and each woman will be raised from the dead and will stand before God to be judged.  Those declared righteous by God will receive life in the ages to come.  Those who are not declared righteous by God will pay for their sins with their lives.  This is what is called "the second death" in the Bible.  The death of the sinner will constitute full payment for their sins.

When Jesus died on the cross, he died to pay the debt that you and I owe God for our sins against Him.  Jesus did not merely arrange for the forgiveness of our sins.  He did something far, far greater:  He paid the full price for our sins.  He died in our place so that, if we receive him as our Lord, our sins are paid for in full.

The whole issue of the unforgivable sin is demolished by the death of Jesus Christ in our place, as full payment for our sins.

Sometimes we receive the wrong answer because we ask the wrong question. When we ask, "What is the unforgivable sin?," we are presuming that there is such a thing. When we ask, "What sin is there that has not been fully paid for by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross?," we realize that there can be no such thing, for we have a savior who saves to the uttermost.

I hope and pray that those who read this article will study this matter out for themselves, and determine to their own satisfaction whether or not Jesus saves to the uttermost.