“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
Matthew 12:31-32
“But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”
Mark 3:29
“But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.”
Luke 12:10
Three out of five Gospels agree - but what does it mean?
You say that like it means something. Are you aware that these books have so much in common that scholarly thought is convinced that they are not totally independent works? If I copy most of your book, and someone copies mine, then you have three works that “agree” – but does that MEAN anything?
Obviously, blasphemy was considered a very serious crime by priests, and no wonder. Their very reason for power would be poorly supported otherwise.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article on this and other questions concerning the Holy Ghost.
Excerpt follows:
… to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness”, he adds at once: “Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.” With this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the sin “against the Son of man”, that is the sin committed against Himself as man, the wrong done to His humanity in judging Him by His humble and lowly appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might he excused as the result of man’s ignorance and misunderstanding.*
There are a lot of people who are willing to give windy explanations but the truth is that no one really knows exactly what the saying originally meant, and it’s the same with a lot of Jesus’ sayings. Some of the meanings are obscure or lost, and pontificators just insert their own theological biases or assumptions into the sayings.
It’s not only unclear what Mark intended by including the saying (and Matthew and Luke both used Mark as an extensive source for their own Gospels), it’s by no means certain that Mark took the same meaning from it that was intended by Jesus (or whoever the author of the saying was).
Also, it has to be remembered that the concept of a “Trinity” did not yet exist for either Jesus or Mark. Neither of them knew of any other Divine “persons.” There was God, and that was it. Trinitarian theology wasn’t invented until much later. It is not actually found in the Bible.
One possible explanation would be to note that Mark has Jesus say that whoever blasphemes the “Son of man” will be forgiven and to bear in mind that the phrase “son of man” (actually “son of Adam”) was a figurative way to refer to all human beings. Therefore, whoever blasphemes against human beings will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against God will not.
Of course, Mark interpreted “son of Adam” Messianically, but Mark was an adoptionist. He describes the Holy Spirit as “descending” upon Jesus at his baptism and Jesus becoming the figurative (“adopted”) “son of God” at that point. It may be that Mark was attepting to draw a distinction between “blaspheming” Jesus as a human “son of Adam” and blaspheming or thwarting the divine spirit and will which drove his mission.
There are other meanings for “Holy Spirit” in ancient Judaism as well as some other early forms of Christianity (like gnosticism). I don’t want to get into a bunch of alternative explanations but any interpretation of “Holy Spirit” from a trinitarian perspective would be historically anachronistic on the part of either Jesus or the author of Mark.
Oh…and there are four canonical Gospels, not five.
Diogenes the Cynic:There are a lot of people who are willing to give windy explanations but the truth is that no one really knows exactly what the saying originally meant, and it’s the same with a lot of Jesus’ sayings. Some of the meanings are obscure or lost, and pontificators just insert their own theological biases or assumptions into the sayings.
That’s how the cite to the Catholic encyclopedia struck me as well. I’m disappointed, though, that there isn’t a clear answer to something that seems on the face of it clearly worded. I understand words change meanings over the years, but I thought blasphemy is a pretty clear concept (treating the sacred as profane).
Diogenes the Cynic:Oh…and there are four canonical Gospels, not five.
:smack: (counting on fingers…) Matthew, Mark, Luke, John… hey, I still have five fingers. Are you sure? <embarassed />
It was always my understading that if you attributted something (such as good fortune or the sun rising) to something other than God (because “ALL” good things come from God) and truely felt that way in your heart, that you were damed to hell. :eek:
Not just thanking lady luck for your lucky night at the bingo game or such, but actually basing your life on the premise that “evil” is the way to go. Think of the sterotypical hard core “Hell’s Angle” biker type dude.
In his lifetime, Jesus was rejected and condemned by a number of people for a variety of reasons. Were all of those people, therefore, damned? The passages cited indicate that the answer is no. Most of the people who condemned and rejected Jesus probably did so out of a genuine (though, Christians believe, mistaken) belief that he was a lunatic, a blasphemer, a fraud or a troublemaker.
The Gospel passages suggest that people who spoke ill of Jesus (Saul, aka Paul, comes to mind) out of ignorance or error would be forgiven. Only those who recognize Jesus’ divinity and STILL reject or condemn him are beyond rdemption or salvation.
And frankly, I don’t imagine there are many such persons.
