Loading...Important question this week!
QUESTION:
I wondered if you have written a blog which talks specifically about the ‘unpardonable sin’.
RESPONSE:
Well, it’s been a while. But I get asked this question a good bit, and almost always it is a fearful request – by someone who is afraid they’ve committed it. So it’s worth addressing the issue again. I think the NT is pretty clear on the matter, even though few people actually look carefully at what it says about it.
In a famous passage in Matthew, Jesus talks about the “unforgiveable sin”: “Therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven; and whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven, either in this age or the ages to come.” (Matthew 12: 31-32).
As you might imagine, over the Christian centuries there have been numerous interpretations of what that *one* sin was, especially by concerned believers who were worried to death that they had already committed it and so are destined to hell. I’ve heard all sorts of suggestions, some of them rather bizarre (It’s premarital sex! It’s masturbation!), and others not bizarre but equally scary (It’s any sin committed by a Christian after they have been filled with the Holy Spirit!).
As with most passages of the New Testament, the surest way to provide an interpretation of what Jesus is talking about is …
The rest of this post is for blog members only. If you don’t belong yet, it takes very little time to join, and costs less than fifty cents a week. That’s the best fifty cents you’ll spend in your adult life. And every penny goes to charity. So join!
Question regarding Matt 12:31-32.
What does the term “Holy Spirit” mean to a Jewish peasant-preacher-teacher in circa 30 C.E. ??
It’s hard to say. It would have been called “The spirit of holiness” in a Semitic language, and I suppose it would be understood to be the most sacred spirit that has been sent from or that represents God (as in the OT: Genesis 1)
I read in Barclay’s commentary that Jesus would have been been speaking of the Holy Spirit in an Old Testament sense, where the Holy Spirit is what revealed truth to people. Thus, in blaspheming you are rejecting the revealed truth. Is that an accurate understanding?
Well, it’s part of it. But the immediate context is most important.
Thank you for a great post!
I have a question about the Holy Spirit in general. How did this concept evolve into a separate person within the Trinity, equal to the Father? Was it a byproduct of the development of the concept of Jesus as God? Back in my Christian days, this third person in the Trinity always seemed to me like something unnecessary to the doctrine, more like a quality/emanation of God that by some accident was assigned personified existence.
It starts already in teh NT, when Xns began saying that when jesus left God sent his “replacement” termporarily, his “Spirit (either God’s or Jesus’s) to be with the disciples; thus e.g., John 14, 16; Acts 2; Romans 8, etc. Eventually they were thought to be distinct beings but equal, but since there can only be one God, the three must “be one.” Hence the trinity.
Thank you!
I had been taught that after a Christian is confirmed and, thereby, received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that to reject the Christian faith, i.e. to commit the sin of apostasy, is unforgiveable. Since that act amounts to rejecting the Holy Spirit and, hence, to reject all three persons of the Trinity. It is the ultimate weapon of fear and guilt that the Christian Church wields to keep believers from leaving the faith.
It’s the Christian Church going nuclear on someone who even thinks about leaving the faith. Of course, this occurs strictly on the imagined supernatural level regarding Christian apostates. Islam ratchets up the punishment for apostacy by going thermonuclear and making execution the punishment for that sin on our actual level of existence.
Bart: “… whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven … Speaking a word against the Spirit, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, means attributing the power in Jesus to the Devil rather than to the Spirit. It is rejecting the truth that Jesus comes from God and is empowered by God, insisting instead that his work is the work of a force opposed to God. The unforgivable sin is rejecting the divine source for Jesus’ life and work or, in short, rejecting Jesus. … ”
So why will people be forgiven for speaking against the Son of Man???
Is it because no one could possibly be expected to know who the heck Jesus was talking about when he referred to בר אנשא?
Yeah, I’ve wondered that too. Maybe he means something like “I don’t like the cut of your jib”… Ok, but seriously, the saying is obviously not dominical but derives from early Xn missionary efforts. Somehow that has to figure into the equation, but I’ve never figured out how.
There’s an interesting similarity between that Hebrew expression and the name of the one who stood with Jesus, son of Miriam, at the direction of Pilate before the Sanhedrin.
Professor, what is your assessment of the likelihood any of the passages in Mathew 12 “go back to Jesus lips”?
If they do it would strongly support Jesus belief he was the messiah. But, the whole thing also reads like a story to hang eternal damnation on the Pharisees. That “ The unforgivable sin is rejecting the divine source for Jesus’ life and work or, in short, rejecting Jesus.” Is just a bit too convenient.
I don’t think this story can go back to Jesus, no; it is a saying that evolved int he context of followers of Jesus having trouble convincing fellow Jews that he was the Son of God.
Bart, why do you think this saying does not go back to Jesus? Is is attested to in 3 of the Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. Thanks.
Sorry — you’ll need to repeat the saying here before asking your question, or no one will know what you’re asking about.
That’s makes sense. Just like religion over the past 2000 years threaten people w eternal damnation unless they believe everything the leaders say.
Dr. Ehrman,
When you say, “the demonic powers” you’re paraphrasing I suppose. Was this Jesus’s view of the Roman Empire?
Probably. But he would have thought it really was controlled by supernatural divine but malevolent powers
“For some interpreters, THAT suggests that atonement for sin can come after death.” Oftentimes back in my Mormon days, this interpretation was strongly believed. That someone like Hitler, has a chance to be redeemed and forgiven after he died through atonement (personal cleansing/ suffering) and then he too may be exalted.. That is one reason baptism for the dead is huge among Mormons, They believe those who died in sin, still have a chance and will be saved on behalf of the living person who proxies that work for them.. I concur, the only unforgivable sin was/is blaspheming the Holy Spirit still today. Many believe murder, but I think when you look at Gen.4;15, and how Cain was protected from God even though he killed Abel, murder, although serious, and today, in some places, punishable by the death penalty, has a redemptive chance through some personal and serious cleansing and grace from God through Christ. Good post.
Off topic but I have a question about a crazy comment I heard today and do not know where else to ask it. The comment was John 21 is the original ending of Mark but redacted for that community . I have never heard this before. I read John 21 a few times and I cannot see for the life of me how anyone could see a connection between John and Mark. Is there something to this of is it just crazy talk?
Yeah, I’ve heard that before too. Yeah, there’s nothing to support it and ten thousands things against it. Writing style, vocabulary, theology, and continuity with the rest of the Gospel, just to pick four….
Bart I found a spelling error in your new book! Can I check the next book, or better yet come to the next dinner if it’s in Ontario????!!! 😉
Ha! It would be more likely if they were rare. 🙂
wow! You are a surgeon with scripture and I can sense the Holy Spirit in the truth you are speaking. An atheist speaking words empowered by the holy spirit. How long has your blog been up? You must have converts! (my word does not return void) Calling all converts on Barts blog–share with Bart the exact word or words that he used that caused your conversion to Jesus and explain how God spoke through him..
“The unforgivable sin is rejecting the divine source for Jesus’ life and work…” why did you add ” in short, rejecting Jesus.”? Why didn’t you leave it with an ambiguous “rejecting the Holy Spirit” ( oh you were asked for an answer–sorry). As you said the context is clear he is speaking to the religious leaders and to them “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is very specific (has nothing to do with Jesus!). Is Heb 6 a acceptable source for clarification?
Because the point of the passage is that Jesus’ opponents claimed that what *he* was doing was not by the psirit.
umm….. the claim is that what he was doing was by a “different” spirit. The religious leaders know the spirits and are therefore condemned.
Is the ‘mortal sin’ (NRSV translation) that is spoken of in 1Jn5:16-17 related to this unforgivable sin? It seems like it is just as serious, and implied that non-mortal sin can be prayed for and God will return life to that sinner, but for the mortal sinner…. not so much.
I’d say they’re unrelated, since they are by different authors who didn’t know what hte other was saying….
So what consequences would committing the unforgivable sin have? It could still be atoned for, right?
I think the idea is that the person who commits it would never be allowed into the kingdom of God.
With reference to my post below, I allow myself to disagree with you, Sir.
This passage was even an integral and important part of the Gospel of Thomas, but the unification is essential and vital througout the Gospel, and in addition to this, as the saying 49 says ,,, “” For you come from it (and) will return to it. “.
If they percieved it correctly,,,,it seems that it is hope for even me 🙂
I don’t think we can use the Gospel of Thomas to interpret the Gospel of Matthew. Try to do it for the whole of the two Gospels, and notice what you’ll come up with!
As you’ve pointed out, the Matthew gospel is the most jewish gospel, and trying to connect Jesus to David/Moses and even Abraham, and seemingly in many ways, Judaism. The literal and on the surface practising of the jewish Law, the Hebrew scriptures, one could get a quick fix (forgiveness) for all sins through their practice/rituals on the on the Day of Atonement,,,yeah,,an easy quick fix “formula”.
From the deeper persepctive, you still might “miss the goal” (sin) for connecting to the source (from where you came from,,according to Thomas). This non forgiveness, in heaven (Thomas) or “age to come” (Mt.) who might be this transition to the perfected world beyond is for me that Jesus (in Matthew) is attacking the religious establishment (Pharasees) for their interpretation of this practise or understanding of sin. From this persepctive, it seems to me that Jesus emphacize that there is no quick fix to transform/evolve or develope a closer relationship (transform/come closer/get to the kingdom- to the devine source/God (the “spirit” would then be the “bridge” to the “transcendental home”).
From this persepctive, I find similarities between Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas, and it gives me basically similar meaning.
The unforgivable sin is unmitigated cruelty, precipitated by a pathological condition which renders the soul irredeemable.
Compassion, charity, fasting, forgiveness and prayer sustains the soul.
Is the reference to the Holy Spirit in these verses (of Matthew 12) a reference to the Trinity? I think I remember reading that the Gospel of John is the only source for the doctrine of the Trinity. Thank you.
No, the doctrine of the Trinity didn’t exist yet.
(possible typo in the 4th from last paragraph: “is talking about” -> “isn’t talking about”)
So…who (or what?) is the “Holy Spirit” in this context? Looked at through a trinitarian lens it is capitalized as a proper name, but Matthew certainly didn’t think of the HS in Nicaean terms. What does Matthew mean when he uses the term? A divine quality or attribute? An emanation of God that assumes a separate existence perhaps? Where are we here in the development of the concept of the Holy Spirit?
Thanks
He appears to mean the Spirit that comes from God (as in the OT, say Gen. 1:2).
Greetings Bart. Blog hopping today. Hope you will allow me an off topic question. Just finished reading a post from your colleague, James Tabor (Taborblog), where he’s wondering about the actual origin of Paul’s “received” information. Did it come from Paul’s conversations with Jesus’ original apostles and other early Christians or, as Paul sometimes indicates, did it come directly from Jesus? This is especially important when considering Paul’s understanding of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23). If Paul believes Jesus told him the story of the Last Supper during some mystical connection, then would that not throw all the NT’s later Last Supper traditions into doubt? Tabor goes on to wonder if, perhaps, all of Paul’s gospel (and his apocalyptic predictions) is based on his mystical connection with Christ and not on real world events. Interested in your thoughts. Thank you.
Yup, they are interesting questions. My sense is that Paul heard it from others and assumed that Jesus was talking through them (as happens all the time, still today, among Christians).
1. Do you think these words actually go back to Jesus? 2. There is a South Park episode where the boys become convinced that if they die before confessing their latest sins they will go to Hell. Sure enough, Kenny is run over and killed on their way to confession. I think the idea of your sins being forgiven in the age to come is meant to cover this: no one is perfect, don’t sweat it! Unless you’re blaspheming against the HS. 3. I recently noticed in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus performed no miracles in Jerusalem, where he was under close scrutiny. Perhaps Jesus’ statement about blasphemy against the HS was meant to squelch skeptics? Even today many believers seem hesitant to question questionable miracle stories.
1. No 2. Right! 3. Interesting point.
“The unforgivable sin is rejecting the divine source for Jesus’ life and work or, in short, rejecting Jesus.”
Does that mean that a Christian who becomes an atheist has committed “the unforgivable sin”?
I suppose so.
But, if that ex-Christian goes back to the faith, would he be forgiven (again)?
If you browse Reddit Christianity, there are “ex-atheists” there.
That’s a theological question. I’m only talking about what the term originally meant. The author of the text doesn’t say more than he says! All he says is that attributing the works that Jesus did through the Spirit to the Devil is unpardonable.
Gospel of Thomas line 44. I know the word for line in Greek as well.
hate the tree.”
(44) Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.”
Jesus
Blasphemes
Father forgiven
Blasphemes
Son forgiven
Blasphemes
Holy
Not Either
Either not
Holy
Blasphemes
Forgiven son
Blasphemes
Forgiven father
Blasphemes
Jesus
Bart, have you heard of
THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF FREEMASONRY
THE LEGEND OF THE DIONYSIAC ARTIFICERS
Dr Ehrman
Blasphemy is an English word. What is it in Aramaic or hebrew?
I have seen the term , Holy spirit, Holy Ghost, and God in different Bible versions / translations ( better word).
The semetic language translation means to : reject , cut out, rid yourself or cover. Hence, the unforgiven sin is to deny, reject or cut out God.
I’m not sure (rather doubt) that the words go back to Jesus (in Aramaic); we have them only in Greek , and there the word happens to be the very work that gets put into English as “Blasphemy,” Greek βλασφμηία (spelled in English letters: BLASPHEMIA).
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Is the converse true? If attributing the power in Jesus to the Devil rather than to the Spirit is the unpardonable sin, then attributing the power in the Devil to Jesus rather than to the powers of darkness is the unpardonable sin.
Or is it simply a one-way street?
Thanks
Great question! He doesn’t say!
au con·traire… Mark 9:38
A great discussion!
First of all, I can’t understand the holy spirit outside of the “oneness”, just fascetts of the “one” which makes it for me difficult to understand from a surface perspective.
I also see that the “unforgiven sin” is quoted in the Gospel of Thomas 44, even though the basic storyline is a reunification of the soul to the origin. I also see that a kind of unforgiven sin is included in the Aphocryptic of John, if you have the truth and then leave the truth.
Seeing it from a Thomas perspective (saying 44), “Forgiven on earth and in heaven in this context has to be understood through the ideas of “heaven” in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 3.11.18.20.22 and 24) and it seems not to have any exclution for ex. saying 49 “For you come from it (and) will return to it.”. If this could be used as a basis for understanding, the Spirit (a part of the One” as what unifie the physical with the spiritaual source, basically denying the essens of truth. A sin which looks away from the essence of truth, can’t be excused, because in its essence it is an oposite way.
Even my view on htis is from the persepctive out of the Gospel of Thomas, it wouldn’t surprise me if Matthew had exactly the same ideas
,,,to emphazise what I wrote above, as found in the Gospel of John “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”(me: the holy spirit is just a fascett of the “One)”, which as I read it, is a bridge to the truth. A decline of this “bridge” or accept this “bridge” can’t be forgiven, because it is the “bridge” to in my understanding, the devine source.
At least, that is how I have understood it so far.
“I go to prepare a place for you”.
“Eye has not seen nor ear has heard for those who love God”.
Maybe a question for another topic. Is this why people treat Jesus as God, even though Jesus is the son of God? I’ve always been curious as to why modern Christians say they worship God yet hold Jesus at a place that seems above God.
There’s a very long answer to that; it’s what my book is about: How Jesus Became God
IMHO Jesus’ observation/caution here is perfectly straightforward. Repudiating the (Holy) Spirit of God, i.e., rejecting the opportunity to become one with the Father, is the one — and ONLY — blasphemy that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or the ages to come.” Q.E.D.
Convolutions arise from viewing it through the distorting lens of contextual preconceptions. But as you frequently note, pericopes were in oral circulation for decades before being assembled by the gospel authors into a narrative. Why think that the ‘unforgivable sin” remark literally followed (or even occurred proximate to) a dispute with Pharisees over the source of Jesus’ power or, for that matter, anything else?
The orthodox apologist sifts all of Jesus’ teachings through the presupposition filter that his mission was to pay the penalty for Adam’s disobedience on behalf of all mankind by dying on the cross, the scholar within the paradigm of teachings appropriate to an apocalyptic prophet.
What if we set all of that aside and simply take this “unforgivable sin” teaching at face value? Might this not simply be the warning of a divine emissary of the fatal danger in rejecting God’s invitation to become one with Him?
You can certainly say that. But it does not appear to be what the Gospel story is saying.
I assume this pericope about an exorcism — including the accusation that Jesus “casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons” that prompted his “house divided against itself” observation (so frequently and annoyingly misattributed to Abraham Lincoln) — originally came from Mark and was incorporated, essentially verbatim, by both Luke and Matthew.
If so, Matthew has clearly inserted the quote about “the unforgivable sin” at that point in his narrative. This teaching, though apparently unknown to Mark, Luke or Q, must be both authentic and independently circulated since it WAS known to Thomas and IS attested in that gospel. So why think this “unforgivable sin” pericope connects to the exorcism and the resulting disagreement with Pharisees?
While the version in Thomas (saying 44) takes an even more sweeping form by beginning “whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven,” both gospels concur on Jesus having explicitly stated: “whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven.”
Doesn’t that make Jesus’ upbraiding of Pharisees — not for blaspheming him (forgivable) but for blaspheming the Holy Spirit that empowered him (unforgivable) — a distinction without a difference? Or might this, like Mk 10:17-18, also be intended to clarify potential messenger-for-message confusion?
I know, it does kinda seem that way!
I was taught that the unpardonable sin was sinning willfully after being converted to Christianity. This was based on Hebrews 4.
Hebrews 10:26-31
King James Version
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Did the author of Hebrews have a different understanding of the unpardonable sin than Jesus?
Definitely, yes. Read what Jesus says. It ain’t this!
Yes, the kingdom to come/age to come, yes yes, but I say it is the coming kingdom of the church.
A side point. If I were to ascribe a proper name to the satan/devil I think this passage makes it clear that in that time the devil was the demonic figure known as Beelzebul/b. What would you say the devils name was?
That’s one of his names, but he didn’t have an “official” name.
The unforgivable sin verse is stated in 3 of the Gospels in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Do you think Jesus actually said this since it is repeated 3 times? It is my understanding that it is definitely from Jesus in red letter in the Bible, but I may be wrong.
Since Matthew and Luke both got their story from Mark, there is only *one* source for the saying, not three. ANd so whether Jesus said it or not needs to be evaluated on other grounds. My view is that it probably does not go back to Jesus, but to his early followers (or at least one of them)
I have been living in debilitating fear after I believe I committed this unforgivable sin when I was questioning things one night after reading parts of Revelation . It was along the same line as the Pharisees said, but I said it in a “what if” type of way. It’s not fun being doomed to hell while still alive. I didn’t know there was an unforgivable sin as I thought one of the main ideas of the NT is forgiveness for all sins, and I thought it was good to question things from all possible angles. I found out that is not the case after learning about the unforgivable sin. Do you think this sin is still applicable even if it does not go back to Jesus directly, but instead to one of his followers?
Really, don’t worry. You haven’t committed it. Jesus is saying that what is unpardonable is attributing the works he does through the Spirit to the Devil. If you’re not doin’ that, you’re fine. (I don’t believe Jesus himself actually said, this, btw; it was put on his lips by later Christians who were upset that so many people were rejecting their message about Jesus)
If the unpardonable sin is attributing the works of Jesus through the Spirit to the devil, I am guilty. I had weird thoughts one night after reading verses in Revelation and was thinking what if we’ve been tricked and Jesus is the evil one? Weeks later I was having discussions with my sister about what to believe in Christianity. I committed the blasphemy portion when I stupidly blurted out after several drinks “What if Jesus is the anti-*****? Wouldn’t that be a great deception and what if we’ve all been tricked?” I may have mentioned the miracles, but I don’t remember. I realize now the logic doesn’t even make sense..conspiracy theory mode. Looks like I am doomed based on definition as I did just as the Pharisees did, if not worse. I’m holding onto the hope that this statement didn’t actually come from Jesus, but came from a later Christian influence like you mentioned above. Your blog is helping me to learn more about the real teachings of Jesus. I was just starting my journey of reading the NT for the first time, and within a few days found out I’ve already damned myself from the passage in Matthew.
Look, you really don’t need to be worried. There *is* no unpardonable sin.
I just want to thank you, Bart. Your work has brought relief to the trauma I have endured for years in my past church. They (including my family members) rejected and isolated me because I’m gay. I’m sorry for 1 month subrscription only because I’m poor and had to borrow my friends credit card just to read this post. But I’ll read as much educational blogs in that month. I hope to contribute more in your charity by watching your youtubes video and not skipping the ads. Again, thank you for letting my heart breath.
Thanks James. Send me an email and we’ll give you a full year subscriptoin.
Thank you so much, Sir! This made my heart jump with joy. I promise to save money so that next year I can subscribe for another year – if I’m still alive 🥹🥹🥹