Like Button

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Unpardonable Sin

The "unpardonable sin" ... what is it? Growing up, I was taught, "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior. It is the only unforgivable sin." Unbelief ... that was it. It's a comfortable position. It makes God seem "broad-minded" and grace seem large. But when I read the text in which we find the reference to the unpardonable sin, it doesn't seem to fit, and, worse, when I begin to analyze it, I run into serious problems.

First, the text:
22A demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons" (Matt. 12:22-24)
Jesus was causing a stir among the people. The Pharisees had to shut it down. So they accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This gives rise to a famous saying that Jesus gives in response:
25And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 12:25-28).
"A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln used it to explain why we had to fight against the South seceding from the Union. And Jesus, in the context of the accusation of the Pharisees and His assurance that their accusation is impossible, speaks of a sin that cannot be forgiven here or in the afterlife:
"29Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31 Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:29-32).
There you have it. Other translations use the term "blasphemy." The NASB here uses the term "speaks against," which is the general meaning of "blasphemy." Jesus here appears to caution the Pharisees. He appears to say, "Be careful, guys ... you are really close to putting yourself in a category without hope. You've spoken against Me, and that can be forgiven, but you are right on the edge of speaking against the Holy Spirit, and that is unforgiveable." There appears, from the context, to be an unbreakable link between the accusation of the Pharisees and the sin we call "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

It doesn't seem that the context supports the idea that "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior." Instead, it appears to be that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more like attributing to Satan the actions of the Holy Spirit. I can't see how "not accepting Jesus as Savior" fits anything in the context of the statement.

Beyond that, it becomes problematic when you analyze it. If the unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior, everyone is guilty of that sin at some point. Everyone has a time frame in which they did not (read "refused to") accept Jesus as Savior. (Oh, how I hate that phrase. But let's move on.) No one is innocent of refusing Jesus as Savior at some time in their life. So it would seem that if this was an accurate representation of the unpardonable sin, then it must require more clarification. The standard addendum is "for life" -- "The unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus as Savior ... for life." In other words, no one can commit this sin until they die. Now, trying to fit that into the context of Jesus's warning to the Pharisees gets even more difficult. If that was what He intended to say, it is extremely obscure. "You Pharisees be careful! Don't die with that attitude of rejecting Me." Further, if the sin is dying without having received Christ, then the fix is ... self-help. "Do it yourself." I avoid committing the unpardonable sin by receiving Christ. The problem here is that if the only thing that can keep me from Heaven is that one thing, and I accomplish (or rather avoid) that one thing, how have I not earned Heaven?

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. Context doesn't seem to support it. Reason doesn't seem to support it. I like the idea, to be sure, but I cannot bring myself to agree with it. From my perspective, it makes God quite narrow-minded, and grace becomes totally dependent on my choice ... nullifying grace. I can only conclude that the unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- assigning to Satan the acts performed by the Holy Spirit. Anything else just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

4 comments:

Samantha said...

Wow. Never thought of it like that. I always assumed it meant "not accepting Jesus" (a phrase I hate too).

I'll have to study this more (not that I disagree...I just don't want to take man's word over God's...I do that too often)

:D

Scott Arnold said...

Hi Stan-

I think it is important to point out when dealing with this question that the term "unpardonable sin" (like the term "free will") is not Biblical. Nowhere in the Bible is this term used (at least that I can find). I don't believe there is truly an "unpardonable sin".

Also, the text does not say that a person who commits this sin cannot be forgiven, but that they will not be forgiven - a big, big difference. All sin is "pardonable" (I think Scripture on the whole speaks to this), but in my opinion Christ spoke these specific words in the context of knowing that those who committed this sin would never place their faith in Him.

My view is that this blasphemy is an outright rejection of Christ, and those who commit it are those that will never be believers. The Pharisees were not just "speaking against Christ", they rejected Him outright, they attributed his works to that of an evil spirit.

Not something I've studied at length mind you, just my take on it.

Stan said...

Scott,

The term "unpardonable sin" is not biblical ... like the term "Trinity". But the statement is certain: "it shall not be forgiven him." Perhaps it can be said that it can be pardoned, but if a certain sin will not be pardoned, then the point is moot, isn't it?

This is my problem. "My view is that this blasphemy is an outright rejection of Christ." We have all been guilty of this. Even believers started out outright rejecting Christ. Further, while we might argue that it is a sin to outright reject Christ, to call that "blasphemy" is playing loose with the term. The term is literally "to speak against." It is a stretch to suggest that rejecting Christ is "to speak against the Holy Spirit."

Maybe I'm wrong. It just doesn't seem to line up at all.

Scott Arnold said...

I agree, just because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean the concept isn't true. But for you and me, the idea of Trinity is found throughout the Bible (some deny that), others think they find "Free Will" (where, with your help, I don't), you may find an "Unpardonable Sin" in these passages - whereas I instead find an "Unpardoned Sin".

I don't think the point is necessarily moot. I believe Christ was speaking to those Pharisees in particular, and to those who will eventually reject Him in general. I have huge problems imagining any sin that Christ's death didn't cover. That's why I believe that the only act that will not be "pardoned" is that of ultimately rejecting Him.

With regard to your comment on "outright rejection", I am referring to the end result - not to the overt and covert rejection that all of humanity is guilty of.

It's an interesting study.

Blessings,
Scott