Shoot, and I just wrote elsewhere that it’d probably be a while before I posted anything, but I have to ask this.
This verse has always troubled me:
“Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.“
How are we to understand this verse? In particular, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and why is it unforgivable – the sole unforgivable sin, in fact?
Vincent said
Shoot, and I just wrote elsewhere that it’d probably be a while before I posted anything, but I have to ask this.This verse has always troubled me:
“Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.“
How are we to understand this verse? In particular, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and why is it unforgivable – the sole unforgivable sin, in fact?
Good question and one I’d like to see answered especially when The Creed of Athanasius (still recited in Lutheran churches) makes very clear God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.
Vincent said
Shoot, and I just wrote elsewhere that it’d probably be a while before I posted anything, but I have to ask this.This verse has always troubled me:
“Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.“
How are we to understand this verse? In particular, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and why is it unforgivable – the sole unforgivable sin, in fact?
In fact you quote only 28-29. If you include verse 30, it becomes clear that it fits into the maxim of forgiving your (Jesus enemies in this case) enemies. However, according to this pericope, forgiveness is not extended to blasphemes against the most holy. Assuming that this really goes back to Jesus, I don’t think he was any profound thinker.
gavriel said
Assuming that this really goes back to Jesus, I don’t think he was any profound thinker.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The big problem is precisely tracing anything back to Jesus. The Jesus Seminar ran up against this wall. As Professor Robert Miller described it “In assessing the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar shouldered a burden of proof: to accept as authentic only those sayings it could demonstrate to be such.” Hence the seemingly odd results.
As to profundity, Not sure, we should attribute originality to all his reported statements. That is, if Jesus ACTUALLY said it, we don’t know if he was simply repeating something he was taught or may have been impressed with upon hearing it.
Judith! From back in 2016!
That’s an interesting idea, of a creed as a paradox, like a Zen koan or even a mantra, designed to simulate the spiritual intelligence to a higher level. I’ve always rather viewed the doctrine of the Trinity in this way. Not as a fact to be understood but as a concept to be meditated upon. The funny part is that this process works even if you’re not a believer. I think about the Trinity a lot.
As I think about the Holy Spirit. (What does it mean that I think about this stuff a lot more as a non-believer than I did when I actually believed?) The commenter is correct. The Holy Spirit is the active emanation of god. In Christianity this emanation became a more or less independent actor. Still, he’s mysterious and in many ways ungraspable. The Father and the Son are relatable. Not always so the Spirit. When he is present people tend to wig out.
The passage is a simple tautology. Saying that all sin and blasphemy cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit comes forth from both the Father and Son simultaneously because the Son has the closest relationship with the Father and the two cannot be separated.
Years ago when out on my daily three-mile walk, I memorized The Creed of Athanasius with the hope of being able to understand it better.
I came to see its words on the Trinity as similar to the way we could say “a table is perfectly still” and yet – if we had some knowledge of electrons, protons, etc. – we could also say “a table is not perfectly still at all.” We are now capable of comprehending the paradox that a perfectly still table is also in constant motion: both are true simultaneously depending on what exactly you mean when you’re talking about the table.
Imagine someday when we learn more about “heavenly things” (John 3:12), The Creed of Athanasius making perfect sense in describing God as the Trinity.
If we had come along as far in the spiritual world as the physical world, we might already be able to understand it.
@Judith
Wow. Thats a lot to memorize. I still remember having to memorize Bible verses as part of primary school (Calvinism private grade school) and secondary school (Calvinism:medieval seminary:high school) but nothing more than 40 words. And the next week I couldn’t remember anymore, probably because there’s not music involved.
As I think about the Holy Spirit. (What does it mean that I think about this stuff a lot more as a non-believer than I did when I actually believed?) The commenter is correct. The Holy Spirit is the active emanation of god. In Christianity this emanation became a more or less independent actor. Still, he’s mysterious and in many ways ungraspable. The Father and the Son are relatable. Not always so the Spirit. When he is present people tend to wig out.
In the Pentecostal Church I was a part of, the movement of the Spirit was almost always accompanied by swaying, raised hands. Other times there were tongues, dancing, and even times when people were slain in the Spirit.
Feeling the Spirit was an extremely moving experience.
Reading through the thread made me curious as to how the Spirit was perceived in Judaism, so I thought I’d ask Claude* for books on the topic.
The Holy Spirit in Judaism by Rachel Elior is a scholarly work that examines the concept of the Holy Spirit (ruach hakodesh) through Jewish theological and historical perspectives.
Just what I was looking for! The only problem is that it doesn’t exist.
If anyone has read or knows of anything, please let me know.
*I don’t want to weigh down this post with the exchange but will share at least some of it on one of the threads about chatbots.
Interesting. I found this author on Melcat, but not this particular title. Mostly, she writes in the Hebrew and the subjects seem to cover the developing Hassidism, Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism.
Another author that came up is Jorg Frey who with John R. Levison writes on the Ancient through Middle Ages e.g. Holy Spirit, Inspiration and cultures of antiquity.
Robert you are correct, sir!
Thanks Jill! I look forward most to the no doubt luscious bibliography in the book. (In many journeys the hardest part is the search for a way in.) And the whole Ekstasis series looks interesting. But most astoundingly, a reasonably priced edition from De Gruyter!!! I swoon. Isn’t this one of the signs of the apocalypse? Will I have time to get the book and read it before the Trumpet roars and the sky rolls back like a scroll?
Commissioner Gordon, it’s time to pick up the Bat Phone!
Am I the only one who prefers the groovy goofiness of the 1960s era Batman to its cheerless contemporary psychopathic iterations? I once even came yay close to buying the box set on DVD. But I would only watch it once and probably never again. I can say though without fear of being contradicted that Julie Newmar was the best Cat Woman!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert