(29 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...Since I’ve been posting now on the role of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, I’ve been getting a number of questions about what it means to “blaspheme the Holy Spirit.” In some cases the question is urgent, from someone who fears she or he has committed the sin. That would be a problem. Jesus says that THAT sin is the only one that is unforgivable. Forever. Serious stuff.
My view is that anyone who is concerned they’ve committed it almost by definition has not committed it. But that will take a bit of explaining. I looked it up and I have posted on this a couple of times over the years, including just a year ago — but since it keeps reappearing as a question, I thought I should go over the topic again.
So here’s the deal. The earliest reference to the idea of the “unforgiveable sin” comes to us in the Gospel of Matthew (it is taken from the so-called Q source): “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
There are few passages of the entire Bible that have caused more consternation than this one. Want to see what it’s about? Join the blog! It won’t cost much, you get five posts of this substance every week, and every penny you pay goes to charity. Click here for membership options
Before Matthew’s diatribe on God’s Chosen Servant, Jesus and Beelzebub, and the the unforgivable sin… Jesus responds to pharisaic critics saying that the law states that the priests profane the Sabbath but are blameless (MT 12:5). My classical Hebrew granted – not great, but where is he getting this from in Torah? It would seem this would be Matthew creating a backstory to indicate just as contemporary Judaism handed on sayings to he effect that wherever two or three discuss the words of Torah they are attended by divine presence, so also Matthew’s church proclaims that when it gathers in the name of Jesus, Christ is present as well. I don’t know….maybe some a little inspiration from Q?
See Numbers 28:9-10.
I think Jesus is less than completely accurate in this pericope. He’s right that the priests are blameless, but the Torah passage does _not_ say they profane the Sabbath. They are blameless because they perform the sacrifice in obedience to God’s specific command and because the usual Sabbath restrictions don’t apply inside the Temple. Indeed, in the post-exilic era, the rabbis explained that the categories of actions listed as Sabbath-prohibited work for ordinary Jews are defined precisely as those required for the construction of the Tabernacle and the performance of worship (including sacrifices) there and, later, in the Temple. See the Wikipedia article on “39 Melachot” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_Melachot
Yep. Sorry I was working off memory. I meant 12:3. When Jesus and his disciples are accused of breaking the sabbath, he excuses himself by referring to a scripture in which priests who “profaned the sabbath” were blameless. I understand the reverence to Num 28 for Instructions for Sabbath Sacrifices, but where was the sabbath profaned with a hall-pass?
I think the idea is that they are instructed to do something on the Sabbath that was not allowed to be done otherwise, and since God is the one who instructed them then there are indeed things that God approves being done on the Sabbath.
Mark, in Matthew 12:3, Jesus excuses his disciples by citing 1 Samuel 3-7. He says, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests.”
That makes it sound like David & Co. just sneaked into the Tabernacle and took the bread unlawfully. That’s incorrect. First, Samuel tells us that David _asked_ the priest Achimelech for bread. Second, the bread was not the current shewbread but the previous batch that had completed its week on display. That bread was Achimelech’s by right and he could pass it on to anyone else who was ritually pure. So David did not break the law.
If you believe that Jesus would have been familiar enough with Temple procedure and the food rights of priests not to make this error, that could be evidence that the story was invented or embellished by the author of Matthew.
Hi Moshe….I think you are referring to 1 Sam 21:1. And it wasn’t “David and Co” as the verse says ” Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?”…..Just a point of clarification. The “incident” as cited in the synoptics does have David with others which is a contradiction to the actual passage…..hence my belief that Matt is not entirely familiar with not only the original Hebrew text (as he constantly cites the LXX) but doesn’t quite grasp the rabbinic machinations of deeming an act “profane” when it would be required.
It would be hard to call something “profane” if that’s what the priests were *obligated* to do according to Lev 6:12-13. Perhaps Matthew’s (via Jesus) unfamiliarity with the passage? This wasn’t a violation of the law at all and their is no instance of this occurring anywhere.
Apparently Bart committed the sin halfway through the post…
Yup, got zapped on the spot.
Mr. Ehrman, I’m currently reading (and utterly enjoying) “How Jesus Became God”. In it, you write that Paul’s exact understanding of Jesus had evaded you for decades.
My question is this: apart from believing he was a preexisting angel being, do you think there was an aspect of Jesus that evaded Paul?
Many, I’m sure. We all know only a little bit about whatever we know about….
Phew, that’s a relief Dr Ehrman. I ‘tuned in’ earlier and saw that the post ended abruptly in mid sentence so I naturally assumed that you had fallen foul of the holy spirit. I’m glad to see that all is well after all 😉
I used to belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that’s where I first heard of this sin.
As you may know, JWs believe that the “Great Tribulation” will destroy all government on Earth and replace it with one ruled over by God (Jehovah), and all those who are on his side will live on a restored Earthly paradise in perfect, immortal bodies. So far it sounds like what early Christians and Apocalyptic Jews believed. But they also believe that 144,000 will be taken up into heaven and rule beside God. One signified this by partaking of the “Lord’s Evening Meal” (i.e. the Last Supper) which is their only observed holiday. This was very few people, since it was believed that a large number of the elect were already dead. If one of the elect either left the religion or got themselves booted out, they then they had, “sinned against the spirit,” and would not be forgiven in this world or the next. Otherwise there was literally nothing anyone who was not among those 144,000 could do that was not, theoretically, forgivable.
Do you think the imagery in Matthew (e.g. Matthew 5:26 and Matthew 18:34) of people in debt being handed over to harsh treatment until they pay off the debt is imagery that is more suggestive of something like purgatory, as opposed to the freely-given forgiveness you discuss?
That’s how it came to be taken in the later middle ages, but I don’t think it was in Matthew’s mind, no.
Did Jesus know there was a deeper truth, and was only talking to his audience (Trinitarian or Gnostic view?), or was he a human of his times that God had adopted, but he still only understood part of the message (Islamist or Arian view?).
Definitely a man of his time.
Isn’t Matthew describing an anti-Trinity here?
If Beelzebul casts out demons then “Satan casts out Satan” and “he is divided against himself”. His kingdom cannot stand.
In contrast God is not divided against himself if Jesus works by the Spirit of God, and the Kingdom of God has come upon them.
No, I don’t think he sees the Devil and his demons as an alternative Trinity, if htat’s what you’re asking.
Matthew 12:26 “if satan casts out satan he is divided against himself”
The author is showing awareness of the concept of multiplicity-in-one.
I think he’s asking if Matthew’s position here is explicitly incompatible with the Trinitarian understanding of God.
“The earliest reference to the idea of the “unforgiveable sin” comes to us in the Gospel of Matthew (it is taken from the so-called Q source)”.
So what of Mark 3:29 “.. whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin; for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”” ?
The perils of pedantry; but otherwise; spot on!!
Damn. Sorry — I was sure it was in Mark but I looked in the wrong place in my Gospel Parallels! Yikes…
Just got on the blog yesterday and in my first read I saw that. Mark’s my favorite. No surprise that it was quickly noted. My name is Greg and I’ve followed you for a long time since I was teaching NT at a Jesuit High in Tampa. Your were kind enough to respond to my emails about your books long ago and I met you at USF about 6 years ago. Looking forward to following the blog. Growing up Catholic in the early 70’s we were taught that the sin against the HS was two-fold: presuming God’s grace and despairing of it.
Great! Welcome!
But what do you think it means? I was terrified of committing this in my early teen years growing up in a fundamentalist southern Baptist church. Would you kindly write another post on what you think it is.
Sorry — I thought that’s what my post was about, explaining what it means.
Good to know that I haven’t committed the unforgivable sin. Even though I don’t think Jesus was God, I also don’t think he’s from the devil either! Whew…that was close…
Your interpretation makes sense but why do you think that Mark generalized the pardonable sins while Matthew and Luke personalized it to words spoken against the son of man? Presumably the personalization came from Q but did it reflect Q’s view that the holy spirit was more important than the man Jesus in bringing about god’s plan? Basically I am trying to interpret your interpretation of the verses. 😉
I wouldn’t say Mark generalized it but that Q concretized it, not to make the Spirit more important but to stress that the works of Jesus were done by the Spirit sent from God.
Dr. Ehrman, Some Christians today believe that the biblical character “The Angel of the LORD” was the pre-incarnate Son of God, Jesus. And this belief contributed to the formalization of the Trinity.
From a Jewish Biblical historical perspective, was the “The Angel of the LORD” ontologically equal in nature with the Jewish God YHWH? or was “The Angel of the LORD” an inferior created being?
Yes, you can trace that view back to Justin Martyr, around 150 CE. In the Bible, the Angel of the LORD is a created angel who has God’s full authority and so in that sense represents God himself.
Unrelated. Are there any good, in-depth analyses about how the vocabulary differs between the various Pauline letters? How are vocabulary differences used in debates about the authenticity of the disputed letters?
Yes, lots of studies, many ofthem complicated. I go into many of the details, letter by letter, in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Hi Bart, I agree with you about the definition of the “unforgivable sin,” but I also believe that Jesus expressed great anger and used hyperbole while even blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable after genuine repentance. Or perhaps it could be atoned for if it is literally unforgivable.
Is this something like a real Jesus saying, or is it an opinion put on the lips of Jesus by the early missionaries, to strengthen the message? (“If you don’t listen to me , there will be no pardon”)
I think it was a saying put on Jesus’ lips by later story tellers.
What is the most obvious reason / best argument to think that this were the case?
Because it presupposes that Jesus is the way to salvation, as proved by his miracles, which is not what Jesus himself taught, so far as we can tell. He taught that a person had to turn back to God in repentance and follow God’s law.
Thanks Bart, that’s what I am especially interested in. Maybe because this saying started my journey away from a literal understanding of the bible to metaphorical and to a rather agnostic view.
BUT, isn’t that very saying something the early christians wouldn’t have made up, because it is so odd and hard to explain? Isn’t it in parts diametrical to which picture of Jesus they would have wanted to paint?
Adding to this, that this very saying seems deeply rooted in an apocalyptic world view, expecting the end very soon.
Wouldn’t these points qualify for authenticity?
I would love to understand why you opt for this being rather a later addition (edition 😉 ), than a original saying.
I would have thought especially this saying being that ‘strange’, that it would easily qualify as authentic.
I think it’s usually understood that the early Christians believed that outsiders who said Jesus was not from God despite all that he did would never be forgiven, so I think it lines up with what they would put on his lips. I also don’t see anything in the saying to suggest the end was coming right away, but even it there was, that too was a beliefe of th earliest Christians.
It works, now to the article. In online debates this chapter in Matthew (and similar verses, Mk. 3:29, Lk 10:10, as well as Rev. 21:8) is often cited as proof of biblical hatred towards atheists, regardles of personal moral virtues. Perhaps the question could be more general: prof. Ehrman, did Jesus (or does the Bible) hate atheists?
I don’t think either Jesus or the Bible had ever heard of atheists in the modern sense. THere were very few in antiquity, and then only among the very upper crust philosophers, so far as we know.
Thank you for a great post!
With an external theology cosmology, this is for me still difficult to comprehend. I don’t know If I even can comprehend it statement from even an inner theological concept.
I assume that Gods spirit is the state where God expresses his will, his energy, his presence/”breath”. And like all energy, it is basically a process, a movement. An energy-process, is in principle irreversible and is therefore directed towards a certain goal, perhaps a state of rest (awakening, harmony, fulfillment). Per definition this devine process can not be changed or loose its goal, its destination, it has to be completed.
From an «inner/spiritual persepctive», the more ancient and largest religion, Hinduism reflects much on this, where this motion, the initial motion into «being/existence» is called Altman. This Altman is a unified “Self”, (and still is in perfect existence with their creator divinity (Brahman) )where everybody is a part of and have its destiny. Their concept of «spirit» in symbol of the feminine dity «Shaki» is equally an energy toward the final reawakening which can not be violated, because a violation is basically a violation against ones own «self». This sin has to be corrected by ourself, over lifetimes, and can not be “forgiven”.
When consider the Christian Gospel of Thomas, s. 44 and consider its view of the (internal) «kingdom» this “sin” against the «holy spirit»,,,or perhaps the devine energy,,,or perhaps «shekhina» in rabbinic litterature,,,,or perhaps (from the same sum of all devine spirit, in Hinduiam, «Shaki»), can for me point to the same as mention above, that we have to deal with it ourself ourself.
Looking at this from gnostic the Apcryphon of John, the first expression of One”, the immeasurable light, is the emination of the female counterpart called Barbelo (btw this has much in common with the female sum of all devine spirit, “Shaki”). All this is also inner /spiritual depictions. Like John phrase it about Barbelo:
«This is the first power which was before all of them (and) which came forth from his mind, She is the forethought of the All – her light shines like his light – the perfect power which is the image of the invisible, virginal Spirit who is perfect.»
And with creation of the «son» the motion of reality started.
Also here I get the notion of the same force, energy, which will seek its destiny, its goal, like all energy processes, which cannot be violated, but rather we self have to correct it (and even for some gnostics, over several lives).
So, an inner and more spiritual conception like perhaps suggested in Thomas, among gnostic views, and in particular, (and not very different concept) Hindusim, it seems for me that a sin against the holy spirit would be a sin against our own core, and which we alone have to adress.
Just a reflection!
This would be slightly more compelling if it were couched in terms of entropy , rather that energy (potential energy is defined in terms of NO MOTION). I’ve never understood the perceived need for a prime mover, when the condition of no-motion would be much more of a challenge; why not posit a PRIME STOPPER to describe creation?
Dr. Ehrman
Why do you think the author of matthew
found it necessary to contrast the
blasphemy against the holy spirit
with blasphemy against son of man?
in many places son of man
refers to Jesus, so in verse 32 the author
both elevates and lowers Jesus’ status ?
I guess he’s saying that you could say something offensive about Jesus himself (his manners or whatever), but if you denied that his miraculous deeds were from the Spirit of God, that was serious.
I saw another commentator reflect that the work of the Spirit was the work of advancing the Kingdom of God. The Son of Man is engaged in that very work, ruining any easy understanding. So, perhaps your refinement is accurate; say whatever you want about Jesus, but don’t oppose the advancement of the Kingdom of God, i.e. don’t stand against the fulfillment of God’s will.
Bart, simply denied his deeds were from God, OR specifically attributed his deeds to Satan? Thank you.
Yes, the author sees those as the two alternatives.
Thanks for explanation Bart!
The work of the Spirit is the work of pneuma (breath/life). Jesus’ healing is certainly a prime example of Spirit work. But I think Jesus is speaking more broadly than just himself. We see this in Mt 12:32: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” _Any_ slander of the work of breath/life, sacred in Jesus’ faith, amounts to in one’s life being divided against life, denying life, and being unconcerned about if not implicitly condoning the opposite, death. A culture of anti-breath/life, pro-death is indeed pretty unforgivable, IMO. That said, the word eternal here (aeonian) is not forever and ever in the original. There will be harsh consequences in this eon and in the eon to come, but eons come to an end. In the meantime, the painful work of atonement will happen. (Yes, I am a Universalist.)
“But Jesus is talking about that here.”
Isn’t?
Right!
Acts 19:2 seems to suggest that there was a division among early Christians over the very existence of the Holy Spirit…
What an incredible post! Thank you for exploring the implications of forgiveness in the age to come. I have often wondered why that never gets talked about.
Lately I have been trying to pull together sources that explain Jesus use of Gehenna. I keep noticing that the Old Testament provides very little support for the New Testament doctrines of hell, and so everybody concludes Jesus just brought them out from mystery by revelation.
But I began to stumble on intertestimental rabbinical commentary in the so called “silent years” and lo and behold there is a very well developed image of Gehenna in the rabbinical tradition. It was a purgatorial punishment that was only 12 months in duration at the most, depending on how bad a sinner one might be. After that the sinner was released to enter “the age to come”. Another phrase born in the silent years apparently, but littered all over the New Testament.
If Jesus was dipping his paint brush in traditions outside the canon to paint these pictures, what does that say about 1. the literalness of the hell images or 2. the canon itself in that it excludes texts Jesus was drawing from?
These rabbinic texts are many centuries after Jesus and so don’t help us much in knowing what he himself said. I have a pretty full discussion of Jesus’ teachings on Gehenna in my book Heaven and Hell, if you’re interested.
Tenho interesse no livro Heaven and Hell
I don’t believe it’s been translated into Portuguese. But hope springs eternal.
Thank you, professor, for revisiting this crucial question. I’m not surprised that you routinely have hundreds of students enroll in your classes. You epitomize one of the most essential — and under-appreciated — qualities of truly excellent and effective educators: the patient sufferance to spend so much of your time in the Department of Redundancy Dept. without ever losing your enthusiasm for your subject or good humor with us benighted seekers.
Before getting to what Jesus might have meant by “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,” we must first ask whether or not he even said that.
So, a couple of preliminaries WRT provenance:
1. This saying is in all of the synoptics as well as Thomas. The usual supposition is that Matthew and Luke both copied Mark, and thus are not independent sources. Still, Mark plus Thomas makes it doubly-attested. But you are making an attestation 3-point shot by crediting Q as the source for Matthew and Luke. Why the departure from convention (if it wouldn’t take a PhD dissertation to explain it)?
2. Given that the saying IS in Mark, where did that author acquire it, and how could Matthew, nevertheless, be considered the earliest source?
Yeah, I botched that. For some reason I had Matthew on the mind, but yes, it is Triple tradition. Mark is the earliest form. Mark acquired it from early story tellers, as he acquired all his material.
No worries. Frankly, it is amazing to hear anyone from either of the realms Miss Manners dictates are not to be raised at dinner parties admit to even a misstatement as insignificant as this one (and I never before heard anyone in either of the unspeakable fields say, “Yeah, well, I changed my mind about that” — in front of God and everybody! 🙂)
Okay, so if the saying in all of the synoptics traces to Mark, how can we know that Q had it as well? Or if we don’t, doesn’t that put us inside the 3-point line?
There are instances of Markan sayings that appear in the same alternative form in both Matthew and Luke (which therefore they both got from their other source); these are called Mark-Q overlaps.
In the immortal words of august philosopher, Kyle Broflovski, “I learned something today!” (Or was it Stan Marsh?)
How many such instances of Mark-Q overlaps have been theorized, and is there any commonality among these to suggest what might lead both Matthew and Luke to (independently) opt for the Q over the Markan versions?
In any case this means that the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” saying is in Mark, Q (Matthew/Luke) and Thomas — making it TRIPLY-attested! Plus, the embarrassment of “every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven” in two of the three sources certainly makes it the poster child for dissimilarity.
Is there something in textual or redaction scholarship that impels skepticism about its authenticity? Because I don’t see any “Sitz im leben” relevance — and with that we are, as far as I know (note BTW that I used up another four of my 200 words to avoid being acronymious 🙂), out of criteria.
So what am I missing here?
No, the blasphemy passage is from Mark, it’s not a Mark-Q overlap. So the sources are Mark and Thomas. The reason for being skeptical about it is because it stands at odds with other things Jesus appears to have said historically but coincides well with views of early CHristians.
I’ve never tabulated teh overlaps or paid a *lot* of attention to them; but I doubt if there’s any pattern (since I imagine I would have heard of it) (or or at least remembered hearing of it!).
I noted “In ages to come”
I remember when I was younger and I was going to church the priest was saying that “if you say: if I don’t go to church one Sunday or a holy day it’s okay, God will forgive me he’s a good guy, that’s an unforgiveable sin, it’s never going to be forgiven, on this life or the next”. Guess he was wrong.
quote:
The contrary does make sense, it is by the power of the Spirit of God that Jesus does what he does. And if that’s so, people need to be alert and aware, “The kingdom of God has come upon you”
by whom do the Jewish people drive out the demons?
matthew 12:27
Good question. My sense is that he is speaking rhetorically: you think some of your own people cast out demons; but if you say the only way to do that is through Beelzebub, then how do *they* do it?
You say: “The unforgivable sin is rejecting the divine source for Jesus’ life and work or, in short, rejecting Jesus.”
So, is the Unforgivable Sin very specific (i.e. thinking “Jesus’ power came from Satan”)?
Or is the Unforgivable Sin more general (i.e. thinking “I don’t believe Jesus was literally the Son of God”)?
That “rejects” Jesus too, doesn’t it?
In the context of the Gospel accounts it is the specific meaning. Whether the general one is true or not would be a theological decisions.
Bart, Is either the sin unto death in 1 John 5:16–17 and/or the inability to restore one to repentance in Hebrews 6:4–8 the same as this unpardonable sin? If not, what are those verses referring to? Thank you.
They may lead to condemnation, but they are not teh same thing that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are talking about (if that’s what you’re asking); each specifies what it is referring to, and each on is different. 1 John’s is the most vague: it’s some kind of activity that could lead to a person’s death. But that doesn’t mean it could not be forgiven afterward, as is the case with the “unpardonable” sin.
“But Jesus *is* talking about that here. He’s talking about sins being forgiven in the age.”
Typo? Should *is* be *isn’t* ?
Yup. Scribal corruption of the text.
I can appreciate the importance of context WRT the gospel authors. In applying “consider the source” wisdom I would in fact submit ‘Spin Doctor’ Matthew as Exhibit B (behind only John.) He provides irrefutable evidence of theologically-driven emendation within the very canon itself. Compare, for example, the prefatory exchange between Jesus and the Rich Young Man: Mark’s original text (Mk 10:17-18), the faithful transcription by Luke (Lk 18:18-19), and the conspicuously doctored version by Matthew (Mt 19:16-17).
In the quest to separate the wheat of Jesus’ authentic teachings from scribal chaff the work of the authors qua authors (e.g., the nativity tales) may reveal how theological bias affected their essential role as editors.
Editorial decisions are, to be sure, colored by whatever agenda editors bring to the task — as the MSM plainly demonstrates in our own time. But what of use can be gleaned from how the gospel authors (for our purposes, editors) juxtaposed material that came to them in the form of disconnected pericopes? Is there evidence to show that the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus was empowered by the dark side of the Force and his statement about the ‘Unforgivable Sin” actually circulated as a unit?
No, it simply shows how Matthew interpreted the saying. But we don’t have it in contexts other than the contexts we have it in, and so we have no way of what it would mean in no context. I doubt if Jesus said it, so it doesn’t help for me to ask what he himself may havemean by it. (You may want to avoid acronyms — MSM; WRT; etc. — since some folk, like me, may not know what htey mean) (BTW)
Indeed, fastidiousness on this is especially indicated with the author of Matthew — who was so comfortable in that role that he unabashedly corrected what he perceived to be Jesus’ mistakes: rewriting his exchanges with seekers (e.g., Mt 19:16-17), adding what he thought were important disclaimers (e.g., Mt 19:9) , and even concocting from whole cloth explanatory incidents for which there could not possibly be any actual evidence.
I can see the value of placing a specific pericope within the larger context of the full gospel as this can reveal how an author’s theological agenda might have colored his account.
Indeed, fastidiousness on this is especially indicated with the author of Matthew — who was so comfortable in that role that he unabashedly corrected what he perceived to be Jesus’ mistakes: rewriting his exchanges with seekers (e.g., Mt 19:16-17), adding what he thought were omitted disclaimers (e.g., Mt 19:9) , and even concocting from whole cloth explanatory incidents for which there could not possibly be any actual evidence (e.g., Mt 3:14-15).
While John is the most fanciful the canonical gospels that is obvious to any objective reader. Matthew is the hands-down most insidious. My hope FWIW (for what it’s worth) is in fact to see THROUGH “how Matthew interpreted the saying.”
Neither of the other synoptic authors has anything approaching the temerity of Matthew — who shamelessly remakes the Jesus of his sources wherever and whenever he sees fit.
To be perfectly candid I have serious reservations about interpreting ANY pericope “in context,” i.e, vis-à-vis adjacent ones. Any compilation is — by its very nature — an artificial construct of the editor.
I am plainly out of my depth on this. But I appreciate your making me aware of the “Mark-Q overlap” — a new consideration for me that will certainly inform synoptic comparisons going forward.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I’ll happily settle for double attestation of the Unforgivable Sin teaching. Especially given the inescapable awkwardness of Jesus’ explicit contradistinction that speaking “against the Son of Man” ain’t it!
This saying appears in all three synoptics, is independently attested in Thomas, and has to be a frontrunner for the Dissimilarity blue ribbon. So, despite feeling a tad impertinent, I must beg to differ with you on this one, professor.
But I am heartened to leave off with glad tidings of great joy for those trepidatious fellow bloggers who share my belief that Jesus did, indeed, warn of blaspheming the Holy Spirit as THE uniquely soul-damning sin.
Concerns that they might have “already committed it and so are destined to hell” are entirely misplaced. It doesn’t take a Thomas Aquinas to recognize that a sin so egregious that it “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” is not one that could possibly be unknowingly committed.
Jesus as Atonement for Sins
Forgiveness of Sins
Cleansing/Purging of Sins in Purgatory
Dr. Ehrman, aren’t you leaving out Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement for cleansing misdeeds) as a way God provided a way for dealing with sin?
= = =
Bart Ehrman
Blog Entry: June 3rd, 2021: You Don’t Want to Blaspheme the Spirit! What’s It Mean?
Steefen
Jesus died only for the sin/s that required further (extra strength) atonement, not the ones that could be
1) forgiven
2) purged
3) atoned for on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)
That is the implication of your post, Professor Ehrman.
What sin could not be handled by the above three methods? Only the sin of contributing to the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus died so his friend Judas could be atoned for?
Jesus died so Caiaphas could be atoned for?
Jesus died so Pilate could be atoned for?
Jesus died for the Wicked Tenants who killed the Landowners’ servants and son?
Jesus died so his friend Judas could be atoned for?
Jesus died so Caiaphas could be atoned for?
Jesus died so Pilate could be atoned for?
Jesus died for the Wicked Tenants who killed the Landowners’ servants and son?
I personally don’t leave it out, no. One of the puzzles of the NT is why the authors don’t seem to take it into account as a provision by God for sin. I suppose they think that since the perfect sacrifice has been made, a YEARLY sacrifice is no longer necessary.
It’s extremely unfortunate verses like these are in the Bible. Along with others that support slavery and view women as chattel or as subordinate to men.
I have a friend I went to college with who is a counselor and told me he has had several people over the decades tell him them were very afraid they had committed the unpardonable sin. It was literally ruining their life.
I read a Billy Graham column a long time ago in the newspaper (showing my age) where he attempted to answer this and basically said there was no unpardonable sin (other than not being a Christian). So this has long been a point of confusion and unnecessary mental anguish ironically among believers.
Once I get my DeLorean time machine going I’ll take care of it…
As a child, I once, for the thrills, spoke aloud the words “I curse the Holy Spirit”. Later I became Christian (for a while), and I never told anyone about this memory of childhood rebellion, but it was definitely in the back of my mind from time to time. I wasn’t stupid. I knew that Jesus’ words had to have some deeper meaning. But there is always the superstitious part of the mind that whispers in the dark.
Eventually I read William Barclay’s explanation, which satisfied me. Barclay says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means rejecting God’s truth repeatedly over time to the point that you lose the capacity to recognise that truth, and in particular you lose the capacity to repent.
Some years ago there was a big online fuss where certain atheists, based on a translation that renders the sin as _denying_ the Holy Spirit, recorded themselves saying the words “I deny the Holy Spirit”. My own childhood utterance was more sensible than that. “Deny” is not a performative word in the same way that “curse” is, and there is also the ambiguity between, say, denying the Spirit’s existence versus denying the Spirit access to your personal bank account…
I am inclined to accept as authentic the incident in which someone (Mark says “scribes,” Matthew says “Pharisees,” Luke just says “some people”) claimed that Jesus was “possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (Mk 3:22//Mt 12:24//Lk 11:15)
I am persuaded that Jesus’ warning that “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mk 3:29//Mt 12:31-32//Lk 12:10//Th 44)
You have said that you are dubious about the authenticity of the ‘unforgivable sin’ quote. Are you similarly skeptical of the historicity of the scribe/Pharisee/people accusation that Jesus was possessed?
Also, aside from the editorial comment by the author of Mark (Mk 3:30) which would, of course, have been uncritically embraced by both Matthew and Luke, is there anything to suggest that these were originally a single pericope, i.e., that Jesus was referencing the slanderous accusation (by whomever) as a specific example of the only ‘unforgivable sin’? Or might that implication have been created by the author’s deliberate juxtaposition of two pericopes that came to him independently?
Frankly, explanatory addenda tend to get my spidey-sense tingling.
I’m not sure if the charge of “possession” was or would have been leveled against Jesus. My guess is that most Jewish leaders had never heard of him and weren’t much bothered, so that it’s a latter charge imagined by his followers after his death. And yes, the two passages may well have been put together by the author of the Gospel.
The “possession” charge sounds like the kind of scornful attack you’d expect from self-righteous authorities on an amateur upstart who lacks their bona fides.
But you are undoubtedly correct that an itinerant, peasant rabbi wandering among rural villages would hardly merit any official notice at all. If someone was sewing tares in Pharisee wheatfields, it would have been the renowned John the Baptist.
You also made a compelling argument in one of your Teaching Company lectures that early (and increasingly antisemitic) Christians may well have intentionally recast the Pharisees as Public Enemy #1. Following the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, it was they who became Jewish officialdom’s “last man standing.”
Also, notwithstanding all the contentiousness with Pharisees recounted in the gospels, it was only after Jesus ran afoul of the Sadducees — by disrupting business in the Temple during the biggest selling season of the year (“He won’t haggle!”) — that his public ministry was terminated with extreme prejudice.
In any event it makes no sense to attach so general a warning to so narrow an offense as misattributing the power of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebul.
Is that the ONLY blasphemy so grievous that it can NEVER be forgiven?
It’s the only one specified, yes.
Disregarding Mark’s attempt to connect the Pharisees’ pre-channeling of the SNL Church Lady (“Could it be Satan???”) with Jesus’ dire warning to anyone who “blasphemes against the Holy Spirit” allows a more objective consideration of what this “eternal sin” might be.
Multiple attestation plus (glaring) dissimilarity persuades me of the authenticity of the saying. Though I may disagree with you on this point, professor, I hasten to add that my Christian fellowship here makes for especially strange bedfellowship.
While I can enthusiastically second the insightful observation that “If God made anything better than sex, He must have kept it for Himself,” I have long been nonplussed by Christian obsession with all things sexual.
Everyone who has premarital sex “NEVER has forgiveness”? Yikes!
Even worse, if masturbation is the eternal, unforgivable sin, it raises the “Then who can be saved?” bar into the stratosphere! Forget camels. It would be easier for a Blue Whale to SWIM through the eye of a needle!
The Pharisee slander is a better candidate for being unforgivable than some sexual indiscretion. But wouldn’t it make more sense to work BACK from the hellfire consequences to figure out what irredeemable offense Jesus had in mind?
I recall from my days at St. Jude’s elementary that committing suicide is an automatic bar to being interred in the consecrated ground of a Catholic cemetery because THAT is, indeed, an unforgivable sin.
The logic here is that murder is, obviously, a “mortal” sin, i.e., an offense of such gravity that, for the unrepentant it brings eternal damnation. This is in contradistinction to lesser, “venial” sins which can be expunged for even the unrepentant by a chastising — but limited — stint in purgatory.
Since suicide is a murder where the perpetrator is also the victim there is perforce no opportunity for repentance. Thus it is an offense for which one “never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
Thing 1: Wouldn’t this be a better candidate for what is unforgivable than either the Pharisee accusation that Jesus invoked the dark side of The Force or some mere sexual peccadillo?
and
Thing 2: Wouldn’t “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in any case more likely be a category of transgression rather than any specific sin?
(If so, I will again be parting company with my Christian brothers who, I suspect, will be hell-bent on nominating “sex” as the perdition-worthy class. 🙂)
As it turns out, suicide was not considered a sinful act until Augustine, long after the Gospels were written. If you would like to see an intriguing discussion, see the book by Arthur Droge and James TAbor, A Noble Death. In response to your specific question, it’s a little hard to know what you’re asking. If you’re asking what the “unforgiveable sin” means in the NT, you have to explore how it gets discussed in the NT, where it is never in the context of suicide but only in teh context of Jewish leaders rejecting Jesus. If you are asking what it REALLY is, that’s a whole different thing. THe answer will depend on whom you ask. If you ask me, I’ll say that it doesn’t exist.
Interesting that the conception of suicide as a sin started with Augustine. Of course, his was the generation immediately after Nicaea. The creedal statement as it emerged from the first ecumenical council was comprised entirely of sweeping generalities, leaving numerous doctrinal blanks to be filled in.
However, I did not mean to suggest that suicide was the sin Jesus had in mind when he warned about the eternal consequences of “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”
IMHO the approach of casting about for which sin is presumptively unforgivable and, therefore, must have been the one Jesus meant is back asswards. But it makes for an interesting thought experiment. So let’s follow this train of thought to see if/where it derails.
First, I think my nomination of “suicide” should remain on the table. You and I may be fastidious about anachronisms. But our orthodox apologist friends are not similarly troubled. The Holy Spirit might have bestowed inspired inerrancy on St. Augustine (who, needless to say, qualified by never having committed ANY kind of blasphemy.)
If a single act brings eternal hellfire, I submit that suicide is certainly a far better candidate than pre-marital sex (and, frankly, the mind boggles at the prospect of it being masturbation!)
Of all Jesus’ sayings none is more ominous — or cryptic — than his warning against “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”
The importance of this pericope to the earliest Christians is incontestable. It was preserved by both Mark and Thomas. It was incorporated by both Matthew and Luke. In fact if the latter authors got it from Q rather than Mark, it is independently attested in THREE sources!
By going on to explicitly contradistinguish “blaspheming the Son” in Matthew and Luke (Q?) and BOTH “blaspheming the Father” AND “blaspheming the Son” in Thomas this saying should take the blue ribbon for Dissimilarity.
While surviving decades of oral transmission intact might call into question the authenticity of some pericopes, is it reasonable to count this one among them? It is very succinct, powerfully startling, frighteningly enigmatic, multiply attested and blatantly dissimilar to the Christian agenda.
If the nature of this transgression and what makes it the one and only unforgivable sin “gets discussed in the NT” — by anyone, anywhere — please share the cite because I missed it.
Other than Mark’s (frankly, suspicious) editorial comment, what evidence is there to connect this caution against “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” with the “Jewish leaders rejecting Jesus”?
Just the idea that in the early CHrsitian tradition anything can be forgiven, except for not accepting God’s way of providing salvation.
Yes! And not just the early tradition. Two millennia later and that is EXACTLY what I take it to mean, as well.
Why warn all of us about so narrow a transgression as accusing Jesus of sorcery? Or even the not much wider one of slandering the power of the Holy Spirit as actually having demonic sources?
Likewise, fundamentalist interpretations (based on their peculiar sexual obsessiveness) render the warning pointless for the opposite reason. If Jesus was saying that premarital sex is unforgivable, half the population is headed for eternal damnation. And if he meant masturbation, they’ll be joined by the other half!
The very reason we tread this mortal coil is to become one with the Father. All we need do is simply heed the Word of salvation that is manifested in this world — and our individual lives — through the power of the Holy Spirit.
It is willfully spurning God’s offer that is “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.” And THAT is what “never has forgiveness” precisely because anyone who does so is perforce “guilty of an eternal sin.”
(FWIW — since there isn’t a denomination around that wouldn’t regard me as being a heretic… with a capital “H.” 🙂)
Bart, I have a question, In the gospel of John, Jesus said in various accounts, that He is the way of salvation, Portraying himself as the only way to God. This gospel is entirely different from the other three. Do you think that this gospel was influenced by the letters by Paul?
That used to be a widely held view, but the views of John are so different from Paul’s that now usually scholars think not. The idea that Jesus was the way to salvation was, of course, widely held throughout early Christianity.