065. Chapter 6 - The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
Chapter 6 - The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit Matthew 12:22-37;Mark 3:19-30 Limitations of Our Knowledge A statement of knowledge on any subject may well be prefaced humbly by an admission of the partial character of that knowledge and an admission of the existence of the vast unknown. The more one knows about a topic, the more keenly he realizes the limitations of his knowledge. When we begin to reflect upon the proposition “What Christ Taught about the Holy Spirit,” we find that the best answer and, in fact, the only adequate answer is to hand a person a copy of the Bible. We should always keep in mind that wise maxim “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Where can one find a theme in consideration of which it is more appropriate to remind oneself of this maxim? The efforts of human creeds and the technical terminology of theological speculation should but spur us back to renewed study of the text of the Bible itself. Any effort to write a discussion of such profound topics invites the writer to substitute his own ideas and theories in the place of the declarations of the Scripture. But we cannot avoid the consideration of the difficult topics, else our devotion to the teaching of the Scripture is lacking in thorough consecration. The Holy Spirit The consideration of the theme of what Christ taught about the Holy Spirit is a necessary preliminary to discussion of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. At first sight we might think that a study of what Christ taught limits us to the Gospel narratives, Acts, and the Epistles. But we also find that it thrusts us back into the Old Testament. Jesus constantly based the final revelation He brought upon an intelligent knowledge of the revelation that God had given through the prophets. From the very first verses of Genesis we find the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Old Testament as active in creation as He brooded over the face of the waters, and as inspiring the messages of the prophets. The incisive manner in which Jesus quoted in His first recorded sermon the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 61:1 immediately directs one back to the multitude of passages in the Old Testament where the prophets declared they were miraculously inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor” (Luke 4:18). The Bible The very mystery of the topic should drive us to remain the more closely to the knowledge of the Bible. But we should not imagine that the Holy Spirit is the only topic clothed in mystery. Consider God, Christ, one’s own self — the soul, for instance; what mystery! Many things known, but how many unknown! Consider death and eternity; what mystery! The promise of Acts 2:38 makes clear that the comforting gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to every penitent believer at baptism. But just how does the Holy Spirit dwell in our hearts? how guide and comfort us? These questions cannot be answered by logic and mathematics. But consider the equally great mystery of the abiding presence of Jesus in our hearts and lives and in the midst of even two or three gathered in His name. Just how does Jesus dwell in us and guide us? Certainly not in contradiction to the revealed Word He has given to us, but in harmony with it. And the admonition to study zealously and constantly that revelation which the Holy Spirit has given to us in the Scripture is paramount in importance. More foolish ideas have been propagated to the square inch about the Holy Spirit and His presence and method of operation in our lives than any other theme one might suggest. Therefore it is the more imperative that we keep the Bible in hand. This is not to say that we offer a person the Bible instead of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is a person. It is a great improvement in translation when the a.s.v. refers to the Holy Spirit as “He.” The translators of the a.v. had been misled by the gender of the Greek noun for “spirit” when they gave the translation “it.” But the fact that the Greek word was neuter does not impinge in the slightest degree upon the actuality of the divine Person, the Holy Spirit. When we insist on constant reference to the Scripture in considering this theme, we need only to remind ourselves that we are permitting the Holy Spirit to speak, for He inspired the writers.
Central Passages The central passage one would quote in this whole discussion of what Jesus taught concerning the Holy Spirit is Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20, “But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” If suffering the handicap of being permitted to cite but one passage, this passage should be chosen, for it places the feet on the terra firma of the historic fact of divine revelation, our present possession of that which the Holy Spirit has revealed. Alongside this passage we could assemble a great number of other similar declarations of the miraculous inspiration of the apostles, and their associates upon whom they had laid their hands conferring the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament church the only persons who worked miracles were the apostles or those on whom the apostles had laid their hands, thus conferring this miraculous power. The comforting gift of the Holy Spirit, promised to all Christians, is clearly distinguished from the miraculous gift. On the basis of the inspiration of the Scriptures, we may turn to the start of the history recorded in the New Testament and see how the Holy Spirit begot the Son of God of the Virgin Mary when Christ left heaven and came to earth to take on the form of a man. We find that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. We naturally reflect upon how much more this was true of the Son of God. We find the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus bodily in the form of a dove at His baptism and henceforth leading Him actively in the campaign to overcome the devil and save lost mankind. We have all this before we quote one word from the lips of Jesus on the subject of the Holy Spirit. The Miraculous Gift and the Comforting Gift
There are two main lines of promise in the teaching of Jesus: (1) the miraculous presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the establishment of the church; (2) the presence and comforting guidance of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of the Christians. in approaching the topic of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit it is most important to observe that the central task of the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ and make His divine Person known, His saving mission triumphant. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [Advocate, Helper, Paraclete], that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:16, John 14:17). “These things have I spoken unto you, while abiding with you. But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, lie shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:25.). The Filioque Controversy of the early centuries was concerned with the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by both the Father and the Son. The Spirit did not send the Son; the Son sent the Spirit; the Father sent both. The Holy Spirit and the Son The work of the Holy Spirit is intertwined with the work of the Son. In giving the miraculous information and inspiration to the chosen leaders who have in turn given us the New Testament, even as they led in the establishment of the church, the Holy Spirit was at every point glorifying and explaining the Person and work of Christ. “It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority. But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:7, Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit was especially to empower the chosen messengers to present the gospel to the world: “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment….Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you” John 16:7-14).
It is most important to keep in mind the entire teaching of the Scripture concerning the Person and work of the Holy Spirit when we attempt to study the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is axiomatic that we should have before us all the passages which throw light upon this sin. It is a common fault to take simply the two parallel passages in Matthew and Mark and refuse to consider the entirely different occasion and context of the warning recorded in Luke. It is also imperative that we seek light from related passages in the New Testament. it was the climax of vituperation when the Pharisees, unable to deny that Jesus was working miracles, charged that He was actually casting out demons by the power of the devil. By this charge they were identifying the Holy Spirit with the devil. They were assailing Christ, but in so doing were offering the greatest of insults to the Holy Spirit. Again we see how closely the work of the Son and the Spirit is associated. And yet in a study of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit we are faced with the task of trying to discriminate between a word spoken against the Son and speaking against the Holy Spirit.
Three Interpretations
“Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come” (Matthew 12:31, Matthew 12:32). “Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30). Here are the two central passages. Three general interpretations are advanced: (1) The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was committed by these Pharisees when they spoke the word that Jesus was in league with the devil and was casting out demons by the power of the devil. Those who hold this view usually maintain that it is not a sin which is committed today, but was simply this charge made against Christ during His ministry. (2) It is the sin of rejecting the invitation of Christ to become His follower. It is committed by everyone who refuses to believe and obey when he hears the gospel. (3) It is the sin of continuous, malicious attacks upon Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is not a single word of insult, but a continuous assault whether by word or deed.
It is plain that (1) and (2) stand at opposite extremes, as (1) would limit the sin to the few who made this vicious charge against Christ during His ministry, while (2) would blanket every person who rejects the invitation of the gospel with this sin. It is also clear that there is a line of agreement between (2) and (3) in that both views maintain that it is not a single word spoken which, once spoken, can never be retracted by repentance, but that it is a continuous sin which envelopes the whole life.
Against View (1)
Against the first view it must be urged that it seems to be counter to the entire New Testament to hold that a person can speak a single, dreadful word and then never be able to repent of it and reconstruct the life, no matter how great is the desire for forgiveness and redemption. “Whosoever will, may come” is the heart of the gospel. Acts is the inspired interpreter of the Gospel accounts. When we study the scene at Pentecost, did Peter offer a limited gospel invitation? He boldly charged his hearers with the murder of the Son of God. The most vicious enemies of Christ must have been present in the throng watching and listening. When the outcry of the overburdened conscience was, “Brethren, what shall we do?”, the answer of Peter was not, “That depends on what you have done. To those who have spoken the blasphemous word against Christ that He was in league with the devil, there is no hope. But to all others the gospel of redemption is offered.” We have no record of any such limited invitation ever being offered. The whole history of the church records memorable cases of conversion of vicious enemies of Christianity. These men, whether hostile outsiders or apostates, made the most shocking, malicious, blasphemous attacks upon the Holy Spirit, the Son of God, and the Father. But finally they repented and gave themselves to Christ in years of glorious service, even unto martyrdom. The interpreters who insist that this sin is a single declaration spoken on a certain occasion from which the person can never repent and find forgiveness would have to repudiate these extraordinary cases of conversion and deny the actuality of the repentance and the validity of the redemption, or they would have to maintain that, while speaking every vicious attack these enemies of Christ could conceive, they had not actually used the precise attack which is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is the most important case which can be cited. But if a person maintains here is a sin so dreadful that when a person goes so far as this he will never repent and seek forgiveness, then the gospel is not limited. It is still offered to all who will come. But these will not come. In other words, we have here a type of sin of which the charge that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil, instead of the Holy Spirit as He claimed, is an example. It is an “eternal sin” which “shall not be forgiven” not because God will not forgive no matter how much man repents, but because man will not repent, no matter how much God pleads. When position (1) is shifted in this fashion, it becomes position (3).
Against View (2)
Against interpretation (2) it should be pointed out that it completely ignores the word blaspheme, which means to rail against, to assail, to insult with vicious attacks. Furthermore, it completely rubs out the sin itself, since it holds that everyone commits the sin who rejects Christ. Unforgiven sin becomes unforgivable at death. This makes a strong basis for appeal in a revival meeting, but as an interpretation of the Scripture it denies the existence of such a specific sin. And it is a discrimination which should not be hard to make when one compares the attitude of an “almost persuaded, but lost” person in a revival who hesitates to take the critical step and accept Christ, but who would not for all the world say a word against Christ or the Holy Spirit, and the attitude of the bitter foe of Christ who assails Him with a multitude of insulting epithets and charges. Certainly the context of the charge the Pharisees were making against Christ cannot be overlooked as illustrating what this sin is like. Those who hold to position (2) are want to ask what difference it makes as to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit since all who reject Christ have the same fate of doom in eternity. But it is a different road which Is traveled. One follows a slow, winding path of continual failure to accept Christ. The other way is the wild leap off the precipice. Mere passive failure to accept Christ does not fit the description of malicious attacks upon Christ and the Holy Spirit. The rich young ruler is a clear example of passive failure to accept by one who revered Christ. The title “The Unpardonable Sin” is often given to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This is not a Scriptural term. It suggests that the word spoken is so dreadful that God will not forgive the person no matter how much he seeks forgiveness. If this term is used, it calls for explanation as to why the sin is unpardonable.
Mark 3:22 declares that this blasphemous attack was made by “the scribes that came down from Jerusalem.” These were the learned scholars who were the leaders of the Pharisees in the capital. This same vicious charge was made in the temple about a year later at the Feast of Tabernacles: “Say we not well thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon” (John 8:48); “Now we know thou hast a demon” (John 8:52); “He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him” (John 10:20). The Pharisees who made these attacks were the very persons who arrested, tried, and tortured Jesus, condemned Him to death, and then compelled Pilate to crucify Him. They walked back and forth in front of the cross as Jesus was dying and hurled every blasphemous insult at Him which their wicked minds could invent. And yet Jesus prayed: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:24). It is impossible for God, who is perfect in His holiness, to forgive a man who stubbornly maintains his defiant wickedness and refuses to repent. It is plain that Jesus was praying that the Pharisees might repent in order that God could forgive them. He was praying that their lives might be spared until Pentecost to hear the full gospel of God’s plan to redeem man by the death of His Son on the cross. They did not know what they were doing because they had not yet heard a clear proclamation of the gospel plan of salvation. The very fact that Jesus offered this prayer for these Pharisees who had made and were now making these blasphemous attacks upon Him is strong proof that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a continuing sin. It is not a single statement which once uttered can never be forgiven no matter how much a man repents.
Dispensations, the Key
One of the most difficult questions involved in this discussion is the distinction between speaking “a word against the Son of man” and speaking “against the Holy Spirit.” Was this vicious attack which the Pharisees had just made upon Christ speaking “a word against the Son of man,” or was it also “against the Holy Spirit”? Was Jesus saying to the Pharisees that they had now gone too far, that they had committed the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? In what way is it worse to blaspheme against the Spirit than to make a vicious attack upon the Son? In our preliminary study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit we have seen how the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit are intertwined. It would seem that the only discrimination that can be made here is one of time. There have been three grand dispensations: (1) the age of the Father (the Old Testament period); (2) the age of the Son (the incarnation and ministry of Christ); (3) the age of the Holy Spirit (beginning at Pentecost and extending to the judgment). To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is worse than speaking against the Son of man during His ministry because this is now man’s last opportunity to repent. The Holy Spirit is now the Spokesman through the revealed will of God in the Scriptures. An attack on the Son of God is an attack on the Holy Spirit, just as it is an attack upon the Father. Thus it seems the only discrimination which can be made is one of time. This view emphasizes the fact that the sin is a continuous sin. A Broken Sentence
Those who hold to position (1) offer Mark 3:30 as their cardinal proof, “Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” They point out that thus the Scripture itself records that this specific charge of being in league with the devil is declared to be the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Certainly no one should attempt to separate the sin from this context. But those who insist this is a positive proof overlook the fact that this is a broken sentence. What is the connection in grammatical structure? To what shall we relate the words because they said? Does this mean that the entire discussion arose because they had said Jesus was in the possession of the devil? or does it affirm an absolute identification of the sin?
Luke’s Record A most powerful argument against those who would limit this sin to this specific charge the Pharisees made and to the apostolic age is the account of Luke when on an entirely different occasion and with a different context Jesus repeated this awesome warning concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All the pertinent passages must be considered. Luke records the charge of the Pharisees against Jesus (Luke 11:14-26), but he says nothing at that time concerning this warning.
Luke 12:1-12 gives a sermon Jesus delivered especially to His disciples, although it was heard by a vast multitude. The sermon commits to His followers the great task of preaching the Gospel in a hostile world where persecution and death for Christ will be commonplace. “And I say unto you, every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God. And every one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven. And when they bring you before the synagogues, and the rulers, and the authorities be not anxious how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say” (Luke 12:8-12).
If we had only this passage in Luke, we would immediately conclude that this is a sin which can be committed only by Christians who turn against Christ and assail Him and the Holy Spirit. It would be just as one-sided a view of the matter with the New Testament in our hands, to hold that this is the sin of virulent apostasy, committed only by former Christians, as it is to hold that this was only the sin of the Pharisees who had never made any pretense of accepting Christ. Our view of this sin must be enlarged to take in both these contexts and both occasions on which we know that Christ delivered this solemn warning. Reflecting upon this passage in Luke, one is inclined to take a second look and wonder how clearly this warning was imbedded in the mind of Peter and whether after his denials in the palace of the high priest, the words of this fearful warning kept coining to him. Was it for this reason that Jesus sent to Peter the special message (how comforting it must have been to have this explicit assurance that he was forgiven and was still considered one of the disciples) after the resurrection, “Go tell his disciples and Peter”? (Mark 16:7). Before leaving this passage in Luke, it is important to observe the close connection which Jesus established between the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the inspired testimony which the apostles were to give to the world concerning Christ. Immediately the New Testament comes into view and the attitude which men take toward this testimony. The Book of Acts As we turn from the Gospel accounts to the Book of Acts with the thought that Acts is the inspired interpreter of the Gospel narratives, we look for some passage in which the apostles are reminded of this solemn warning Jesus had given and tell us that here is an example of the sin Jesus condemned in such terrible language. We find no such passage. This is most significant. It should warn us that if it were necessary for us to be able to identify absolutely this sin when it is committed, we would have been given such definite information. But this is God’s work, not ours. He is the Judge of the world. It is right and proper that we should seek to understand all that Jesus has said, but we must beware of setting up our opinions and conclusions as authoritative.
Although no explicit definition of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is given in Acts, there are three instances which naturally come to mind for investigation. Four people were involved, and both those who had become Christians and one who had been persistently hostile, just as the Pharisees had been, were included. Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart?” (Acts 5:3). In what sense was Ananias lying to the Holy Spirit? In harboring the thought and intent that he would be able to deceive Peter and the other apostles, was he not attacking with vicious insult the specific claim of the Holy Spirit to have inspired the apostles so they would be able to read the human heart and the hidden things of life? Here was a sin from which Ananias and Sapphira did not repent; death was their immediate punishment. The sin of Simon the sorcerer of Samaria was a direct assault upon the Holy Spirit as he imagined he could buy with gold and for his own selfish commercialism the conferring of the miraculous power of the Spirit. Peter condemned Simon in such fearful language as makes us think of Jesus’ warning. But the account gives us no definite information as to the outcome of Simon’s proposed repentance and his appeal for mercy. The language of Peter makes us wonder whether the actual identity of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in every case was not even revealed to the apostles, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). The third instance which comes into view is that other sorcerer Elymas of Cyprus, who openly assailed the truth of Paul’s preaching. Observe how Luke reminds us that Paul was especially inspired by the Holy Spirit, “Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season” (Acts 13:9-11). Again no other information is given as to the further course of Elymas except to describe his helpless condition under the curse of blindness. In publicly attacking as false the truth the Holy Spirit had revealed and that Paul was preaching, Elymas was making the sort of attack which the Pharisees had made.
Epistle to the Hebrews
There are two related passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews which appear to refer directly to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In fact, Paul uses the very language, to offer vicious insult to the Holy Spirit, to treat shamefully. The Greek verb enubridzo is a very strong verb meaning to treat with contumely or scornful insolence. Furthermore, Paul piles up descriptive phrases of this dreadful sin; when this description is placed side by side and edge to edge to what Jesus said in His warning about the sin against the Holy Spirit, the statements coincide. Paul makes it clear that he is talking about a dreadful sin which may be committed by those who once were Christians and now have become enemies of Christ. This pairs off with the context of Jesus’ warning in Luke 12:1-12. The two passages in Hebrews are as follows: “For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:4-6). “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged 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 done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-30). The Sin Defined
Paul first declares that this is a sin which is committed deliberately or wilfully, and then he proceeds to define what the sin is. He uses again this Greek verb enubridzo, “to make a vicious attack” upon the Holy Spirit. He also combines this description with malicious attacks upon the Son of God, “hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing.” The insulting attacks which the modern enemies of Christ make against Him and against the Holy Spirit immediately come to mind. They start out by denying the virgin birth and offering the vicious slander that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and Joseph or Mary and some imaginary Roman soldier stationed in Palestine. They sneer ‘it Christ as an ignorant person of the first century who represents the uninformed age in which He lived. They deny His miracles and His claims. They do not charge that lie was in league with the devil and possessed of a demon; they deny that there is any devil or any demons. They not only deny that He was empowered of the Holy Spirit, they deny that there is any such Person as the Holy Spirit. They present their atheism in a new dress with the cynical sneer, “God is dead.” The Death of Christ As the death of Christ for the sins of the world is the center of the gospel, so their attacks come to a climax in their ridicule of the proposition that the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse from sin. They attempt to make out that the death of Jesus was no more than the death of any other person. They even charge that Jesus “got just what He deserved when He was put to death. He should have remained in the provinces where he belonged and not come to the capital and attempted to break up the meat trust” (cleansing of the temple). The word used by Paul, “and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing” carries a footnote indicating it can also mean “common.” if the meaning “common” is used, then the declaration is that these enemies of Christ declare His death is no different from that of any other person. To say that His blood was “unholy” is to charge that Jesus was a sinner and received His just reward at crucifixion, since He had been a meddler in other men’s affairs. Both of these lines of attack have been made against Christ from the earliest days of Christianity until now. When one reads the vulgar, hate-inspired attacks of the Jews of the early centuries as recorded slyly in the Talmud, and then places these alongside the modern attacks of today, they are found parallel to one another and to what Paul describes.
Insult to the Holy Spirit
Inasmuch as Christ declares that the great work of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Son, it is important to see how Paul Unites together the attacks which these apostates from the faith make upon Christ and upon the Holy Spirit. Both the a.v. and the a.s.v. use the language “done despite unto the Spirit of grace.” In light of the fact that this is coupled with the deliberate effort to trample the Son of God into the mire and to ridicule the idea that His death is for the sins of the world, this malicious attack upon the Holy Spirit cannot refer to a mere refusal to submit to the gospel and to the guidance of the Spirit. Paul solemnly declares that “there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins”; they deny and assail the sacrifice for sins which Almighty God has ordained; there is no other. A Continuing Sin The passage in the sixth chapter of Hebrews brings out very clearly that this is a continuing sin, and not a single word that could be uttered and then forgiveness never granted no matter how much the person might repent. Paul heaps up clauses to make sure it is clear to the readers that he is describing persons who were once Christians and enjoyed the redemptive blessings of the gospel. He emphatically introduces the proposition that they had once been partakers of the Holy Spirit. The aorist tense of the verb is particularly emphatic, “and then fell away”; they actually fell away in a dreadful downfall of faith and Christian living. Curiously enough the a.v. translates this “if they shall fall away.” The translators were desperately trying to maintain their theory of “once in grace, always in grace”; “If they shall fall away” (which, of course, they not do if they have really become Christians, is the implication). If the reader, uninformed on Greek grammar, wonders how the two groups of translators could have translated the same passage, one, by an assertion, the other, by a condition — an “if clause,” the explanation is that this is a participle in the Greek. A circumstantial participle can take on the following shades of meaning: time, cause, manner, means, purpose, condition, concession, attendant circumstance. Nine times out of ten a circumstantial participle will mean “time”; so the a.s.v. has “and then fell away.
Why Impossible? When Paul declares that it is impossible to renew such an apostate to repentance, he explains why this is so, “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Seeing means “since.” Since they reject the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and ridicule the offer of redemption which God extends to lost mankind, there is no other gospel, no other means of forgiveness, no other basis for repentance. This is the reason it is impossible to renew them to repentance. This is also a participle in the Greek text, “seeing they crucify.” After having taken the Usual meaning of time for a participle in the phrase “and then fell away,” it is very strange that the a.s.v. translators did not also take the Usual meaning of a participle in “seeing they crucify,” or “because they crucify.” The Greek Text
Evidently there was a strong division of opinion among the translators at this point for the view of the minority of the translators is listed as a footnote, “the while.” In other words, here is the coloring of time given to the participle; it is impossible to renew them to repentance the while they crucify. This becomes the more powerful when one observes that this is a present participle. The elemental meaning of the present tense is continued action. Thus the passage, given its natural rendition, reads, “It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; while they continue to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh.” This makes the passage perfectly clear and throws most important light on the entire question of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The very thing which makes this such a dreadful sin is that they assail the very source of light and truth. They must needs then walk in the darkness. So long as they insist on assailing the gospel of Christ, there is no other means for their redemption. The phrase to themselves is a dative of advantage or disadvantage. They crucify Jesus afresh by their vicious attacks to their own eternal disadvantage. If it is advantage, then the suggestion is that they betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver to gain the favor of the world. The present tense of the verb and the time element in the participle unite to show that this is a continuous sin which Paul is describing. It is the sin of deliberate, malicious, final apostasy from which there is no repentance because they deny the very divine basis of repentance. “The point of no return” is reached by those who commit this sin. Only God knows when a person has gone to this extreme from which he will not return. Luke 12:8-12 fits perfectly with the declaration of Paul in these two passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Sin unto Death The First Epistle of John is filled with the most urgent warnings against false teachers who deny the deity of Christ or the actuality of His incarnation. In concluding his warnings against apostasy, John informs his readers that there is a sin unto death. This sin is different from the ordinary sins that are committed. This sort of discrimination immediately reminds us of the warnings of Jesus concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:6, 1 John 5:7 introduces the fact that belief in Jesus as the Son of God is the strong basis for the victorious life of the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is the One who bears witness to the deity of Christ. Following this line of argument through the intervening verses, John writes in 1 John 5:16, 1 John 5:17, “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.” One of the ways in which the prayers of Christian friends assist is to lead them to help bring the fallen brother to repentance. The providence of God may also change the circumstances of life so that the sinful person will change attitude and repent. The reason the sin unto death is fatal is that it is of such dreadful variety the man will not repent. If he is denying the very divine basis upon which repentance rests, as the context suggests, then it is not possible for him to repent so long as he assails Christ and the Holy Spirit.
It should be noted in this passage that John does not forbid a Christian to pray for another who is sinning the sin unto death. He simply says he does not urge the Christian to pray for such a one. If John had forbidden the Christian to pray for one committing the sin unto death, then it would have been necessary for a Christian to have identified and recognized the sin unto death. This we cannot do. It may seem to us that a person has gone so far that he will never repent, and we therefore turn our prayers and efforts to those who appear to be more fruitful ground in which to sow, cultivate, and harvest. A certain Christian might have personal reasons for continuing to pray for a person who had made himself a particularly vicious enemy of Christ; for instance, he might be related by blood to such a person. John does not forbid it. He simply does not urge prayer for these venomous enemies of Christ. The depraved Roman emperors, such as Nero, come to mind as we think of their terrible persecution of Christians. In modern times we think of a Hitler, Stalin, or a cruel Chinese communist like Mao Tse-Tung.
Conclusions
Summing up conclusions: (1) The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a deliberate, vicious, continuous attack upon Christ and the Holy Spirit. Since the chief work of the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ, an attack upon Christ is an attack upon the Holy Spirit. Mere passive failure to accept Christ is to be distinguished from railing against or assailing the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the passive failure of any person to become a Christian cannot be the sin to which Jesus refers. (2) The reason Jesus distinguishes between a word spoken against the Son and blasphemy against the Spirit is that at Pentecost, when the church was established, the Holy Spirit became the Leader in the grand campaign to save the lost world. This is now man’s last opportunity to be forgiven and be saved. (3) Any definition of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit should be broad enough to cover all the passages which throw light upon the subject. The passages in Matthew and Mark point directly to venomous enemies of Christ who have never made any pretense of believing in Him. In Luke 12:1-12 Jesus directs the warning against apostates. (4) The passages from Hebrews show clearly it is a continuing sin. The passage from 1 John confirms our conclusion that we cannot identify the sin absolutely, but that God knows.