Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Revival's Reason-3)

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

3. There is a sin that Jesus says has NEVER forgiveness in this age or any age but in danger of eternal damnation. This sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29).

I just wanted to discuss the unforgivable sin, point three of your eleven reasons for rejecting evangelical universalism, as cited above. As a rather new universalist and a layperson I don’t expect my understanding to be perfect (or necessarily reflect the “orthodoxy” of universalism here), but I hope by sharing and discussing it, you (and the others here) can help us both grow in our knowledge of Yahweh’s plan for the world, in humility and love. I welcome your corrections (as I welcome the corrections of more learned and seasoned universalists).

There are certainly multiple views on this passage. Hanson (1878) argues that Yeshua is just exaggerating here — that the words “never” and “neither in this world nor the world to come,” do not change the sense of universal forgiveness, “but only strengthen and intensify the Saviour’s meaning that this is of all sins the worst”. This wouldn’t exactly be radical. I suspect that most Christians would believe that, in Christ, any penitent may be forgiven of any sin. My present view, which is always open to review and critique, is more literal.

The two passages you’re referring to are Mark 3:28-29 and Matthew 12:31-32 and are given below:

“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin — because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” — Mark 3:28-29
“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 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.” — Matthew 12:31-32

The charge Yeshua delivered here was directed to the few Pharisees who had attributed the divine power/person of the Holy Spirit to the unclean power of Beezlebub — those who declared that Yeshua “…is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons He is driving out demons.” (Mark 2:22) and that “He has an unclean spirit” (Matthew 12:24). It would seem that few persons have actually committed this sin to begin with — for it certainly wasn’t even the whole Pharisaic party. As Hanson (1878) notes, few non-universalists (depending on their theologies) would take this passage so woodenly anyway, for it clearly says that “all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter”. If it were just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that earned one eternal torture, universalists would probably be in far less contention with the broader Christian community.

From countless verses we know that we cannot ever (or at least, always) translate ***aión***165 (and its derivatives) “eternity”. You simply cannot have a plurality of eternities and nor could you have an eternity to come. ***Aiōnōn***165 is always pertaining to an age of indeterminate length (— though some universalists believe it is sometimes appropriate that this age be eternal). But we still see ***aión***165 forced to mean “eternity” in places like Revelation 14:11 where “the smoke of their torment goes up [for eternities eternal]”(***eis aiōnas***165 ***aiōnōn***165). At present, this wording seems rather redundant, and should read “for ages of ages” as it is done in some literal translations (YLT, CLNT). If the ***aiōni***165 in the Matthean phrase “either in this age or in the age to come” (***oute aiōni***165 oute mellonti) was consistently mistranslated it would be rendered “either in eternity or the next” which obviously doesn’t make sense either. This is probably an inquiry requiring further depth. I appreciate that you are prepared to have further discussions on the Aiōn topic and for that I recommend you start a new thread. I know little about it myself and would enjoy hearing your thoughts and the thoughts of the broader EU community here.

In Ephesians 2:7, Paul writes: “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” This verse teaches us that there is a plurality of ages to come (of which we will be shown the riches of His grace). Though we are not given a definitive quantity, we do know there won’t be a future age, but future ages. We can then be assured that although one mightn’t be forgiven in the next “age to come”, this would not invalidate our hope that (in the fullness of subsequent ages) all of humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ.

The Markan phrase “never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” is likely to be mistranslated. The “never” you drew attention to in capitals, is mistranslated for greater coherency with the mistranslation “eternal sin”. When this is translated “age-lasting sin”, “never” (***ouk***3756) can be understood as the “not” it is most commonly translated as elsewhere in scripture. Therefore, this phrase could be rendered, “does not have forgiveness, but is guilty of an age-lasting sin”. How many ages is this sin not forgiven for? The answer is, of course in Matthew. This sin is not forgiven in “this age or in the age to come.”

If we could rightly discern the ages, (though I rather dislike focusing on eschatology in this narrow way — as Greg Boyd once said, it borders on divination), it could easily be said that Yeshua was speaking of “this age” as the “Israel age” and “the age to come” as the “Church age”, and therefore one may find forgiveness in the very next age to come. It could also mean that after receiving one’s punishment in the next age, pardon could then be sought for other sins in the one that follows — not to atone for that sin (Yeshua is the fullness of atonement); but to refine one’s character for a determinate period of time, perhaps with retributive intentions. While it may be ambigious, the phrasing does not necessitate the view that ultimately one cannot be forgiven for this sin.

In summary, it is in my humble estimation that this verse is of little concern to the universalist position. I am however a pleb, and would appreciate your thoughts and discussion. Godspeed.

[snitzelhoff]

I recently posted a long and systematic defense of UR on another forum, and in the course of it, I discussed some of the primary passages that are thought to make UR an impossibility. This was among them, along with a few other passages (such as the apostasy warning in Hebrews 6). I reject the usual explanations about multiple ages and tend to see the Age to Come as the culmination of all ages–the eternal age–and have examined this set of passages from that eschatological perspective. So here’s that segment of my defense:

I know you’ve all been waiting with bated breath for my next wonderful post full of biblical exegesis (and bonus heresy–for ONE LOW PRICE!). Tonight I’m going to cover one of the most troubling passages in all of Scripture (technically, I’m covering it, two parallels, and at least one other, related passage). Broadly speaking, the theme is the “unforgivable sin.” Jesus refers to it as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” and it is a sin whose nature has held mystery and often fear and trepidation for many, many Christians over the course of the past two millennia. What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is it really something so awful that even Jesus, the one that asked God to forgive the people crucifying Him, cannot bring Himself to forgive it?

So let’s get something out of the way first: “unforgivable” is not a word that’s in literally any of our vocabulary until the moment we start talking about Universalism. I’ve never been to any kind of church, convention, rally, or other invitation to salvation where the preacher said, “No matter what you’ve done, you can have forgiveness–unless you’ve blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Then you’re out of luck.” When we’re telling someone about forgiveness and grace in Jesus, we never even think to include that caveat. Even if someone turns down out offer, it never enters our mind that it may be that the person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit and is, therefore, unsalvageable.

What do we make of that? It’s not an easy question, and it doesn’t have an easy answer. After all, the passages in question appear pretty straightforward on the surface. We have:

“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 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. (Matthew 12:31-32)

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. (Luke 12:10)

From these passages, if their intended meaning is to be understood from their surface meaning, if a person says something bad about the Father, he can be forgiven, and if he says something bad about Jesus, he can be forgiven, but if he says something bad against the Holy Spirit (and “blasphemes” and “speaks against” always appears in the aorist–so if he says something bad even once), he can never be forgiven. Is this what Jesus had in mind? It seems doubtful. Christianity, after all, does not always fit neatly into rational boxes, but God is not arbitrary. Something more is clearly going on.

A number of explanations has been offered as to how best to understand the act of “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps the most common approach is to say that it refers to an outright rejection of the Gospel. However, when Jesus issued the warning, the Gospel was never in view. That is, this is an ad hoc explanation that starts with the question, “What sin might possibly be unforgivable?” and then reading the answer (“denying Jesus to the end of one’s life”) into the text. As it happens, I think that answer is on the right track, but I do not believe it has yet arrived at the right station.

The keyword here seems to be “blaspheme.” “Blasphemy” and “blaspheme” are transliterations of the Greek words in question, not translations of them. The word, in secular Greek, is very broad, meaning “abusive speech,” but in Judeo-Christian literature, it picked up the idea of dishonoring God. Speech was included, of course, but it wasn’t limited to that. In the Old Testament and intertestamental literature, the Gentiles were seen as “blasphemers” because of their manifold sins, their oppression of the people of God, and so forth. The idea of blaspheming appears to be more readily understood generally as an orientation than an isolated action. Although isolated actions certainly constitute “blasphemy,” they always do so from an attitude of the heart (Numbers 15:30, for instance, assumes that blasphemy takes place “defiantly”).

Thus, blasphemy is a violation of God’s honor. To blaspheme is to “dishonor.” It means more than “to speak ill of,” and even if a synonymous phrase is used such as “speaks against,” I think we should understand the background of that to be a background of blasphemous orientation from which the isolated incident occurs. As Jesus says, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34, which, incidentally, makes that statement very contextually relevant to our discussion here). The words in question reflect the heart, which brings us back to the primary question at hand:

What’s the difference between blaspheming the Son and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, such that the former can be forgiven and the latter cannot? If blasphemy refers to the attitude as much as the isolated words that the attitude brings forth, then what kind of attitude does “blaspheming the Son” refer to, and what kind does “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” refer to? The former seems fairly simple. It’s the dishonoring of Jesus. It’s what Jesus’ own family was guilty of when they thought Him insane, what the mockers were guilty of when He asked God to forgive them, and so forth. It is parallel in Matthew’s account with “any sin and blasphemy.” This is why Paul called himself a former “blasphemer” in I Timothy 1:13.

It’s against this background that “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” starts to take shape. What sort of thing is it? Well, we know that blasphemy is an attitude of the heart that manifests itself by the words spoken–words, in this case, against the things the Holy Spirit does. And what does the Holy Spirit do? He convicts the world, as Jesus puts it in John’s Gospel, of sin, and righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). The Holy Spirit testifies of the truth of Jesus (I John 5:6). To be a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit is to turn away from truth that you know to be true. It is not only to believe Jesus is not who He claimed to be, or to doubt the existence of God, but to be convicted of the truth of the Gospel and stubbornly continue to resist it, as the Pharisees did when they accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. And that, both the Universalist and non-Universalist would agree, is an orientation antithetical to salvation, because it is precisely the attitude of not desiring salvation.

This, I think, is why Jesus described this sin–and no other–as aionios. It is, so to speak, an “enduring” sin. It is a sin “of the ages.” It is a sin that keeps on sinning, because it is a sin that, unlike any other, will not allow the person entangled in it to seek forgiveness. By the very nature of the act, a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit will not seek redemption, salvation, grace, or forgiveness. He does not want those things, and God will not force them upon him. And so far the non-Universalists are probably with me. If such a person, with such a bent, were to turn from that attitude and repent, all sins he had ever committed would be forgiven him and he would be no less a child of God for it. And here, also, the non-Universalist would agree with me. So where is the disagreement? It’s in the same place it always is:

Universalists believe death is not the point of no return. They do not believe Hell is the point of no return. They believe that only the total victory of God over sin, death, and condemnation–all of it, in everyone–is the point of no return. So what do we do with these verses? The same thing everyone else does. Universalism understands “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to be an attitude of denying one’s own convictions, of “kicking against the goads.” And this is the position of the apostates pictured in Hebrews 6:4-6:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

They have been enlightened (or illuminated). They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. They have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.

Then they chose to forsake it.

Now, the NASB, which I have quoted above, is a somewhat misleading translation. The words, “since they again crucify to themselves,” are a translation of a participle in Greek that would literally be something like, “recrucifying to themselves,” which can as easily be translated, “while they are crucifying to themselves” as “since.” In other words, the author here is not attempting to argue that such apostates can never, ever come back to repentance–but they cannot while that continues within them. A number of translations include “while” in the footnotes in this verse, including the NASB.

This understanding of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is borne out by Hebrews 10:26-29, in which the warning is applied to those who “go on sinning willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth,” and whose willful rebellion constitutes “insulting the Spirit of grace.”

I have here argued that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is “unforgivable” only because the person doing it does not desire forgiveness, and I think I’m on common ground here with most non-Universalists on the matter. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament puts it, “Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it.” Now, with that said, there is a troubling word in some translations of Mark 3:29’s version of this warning:

“Never.”

As the NASB translates it, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” Now, “never” does not appear in the Greek text, which would literally read, “he does not have forgiveness unto the age.” This attitude of the heart must be let go, whether in this age, or the age to come. The person holding it cannot have forgiveness because, while being a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, he cannot ask for forgiveness and cannot seek forgiveness. He has set himself against forgiveness, and even into the Age to Come, so long as he is oriented against God’s forgiveness, he will not receive it. How can he?

So, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an attitude of rebellion against one’s own Spirit-given convictions. It is that which prevents someone from seeking forgiveness, and that is why it is “not forgiven.” Yet, if a person will turn from that attitude and seek forgiveness “in this Age.” In light of that, there is no reason intrinsic to these verses that the same thing cannot happen in the Age to Come–in other words, if we will argue that such repentance will be impossible in the Age to Come while it is possible in the Present Age (which flies in the face of the “plain meaning” of Matthew 12:32, which appears to preclude either possibility), we must show from other Scriptures that this is so.

So, in the end, this warning by itself no more contradicts Universalism than it contradicts the idea of such a rebel being saved in this life.

[Revival]

3. There is a sin that Jesus says has NEVER forgiveness in this age or any age but in danger of eternal damnation. This sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29).

I just wanted to discuss the unforgivable sin, point three of your eleven reasons for rejecting evangelical universalism, as cited above. As a rather new universalist and a layperson I don’t expect my understanding to be perfect (or necessarily reflect the “orthodoxy” of universalism here), but I hope by sharing and discussing it, you (and the others here) can help us both grow in our knowledge of Yahweh’s plan for the world, in humility and love. I welcome your corrections (as I welcome the corrections of more learned and seasoned universalists).

There are certainly multiple views on this passage. Hanson (1878) argues that Yeshua is just exaggerating here — that the words “never” and “neither in this world nor the world to come,” do not change the sense of universal forgiveness, “but only strengthen and intensify the Saviour’s meaning that this is of all sins the worst”. This wouldn’t exactly be radical. I suspect that most Christians would believe that, in Christ, any penitent may be forgiven of any sin. My present view, which is always open to review and critique, is more literal.

The two passages you’re referring to are Mark 3:28-29 and Matthew 12:31-32 and are given below:

“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin — because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” — Mark 3:28-29
“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 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.” — Matthew 12:31-32

The charge Yeshua delivered here was directed to the few Pharisees who had attributed the divine power/person of the Holy Spirit to the unclean power of Beezlebub — those who declared that Yeshua “…is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons He is driving out demons.” (Mark 2:22) and that “He has an unclean spirit” (Matthew 12:24). It would seem that few persons have actually committed this sin to begin with — for it certainly wasn’t even the whole Pharisaic party. As Hanson (1878) notes, few non-universalists (depending on their theologies) would take this passage so woodenly anyway, for it clearly says that “all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter”. If it were just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that earned one eternal torture, universalists would probably be in far less contention with the broader Christian community.

From countless verses we know that we cannot ever (or at least, always) translate ***aión***165 (and its derivatives) “eternity”. You simply cannot have a plurality of eternities and nor could you have an eternity to come. ***Aiōnōn***165 is always pertaining to an age of indeterminate length (— though some universalists believe it is sometimes appropriate that this age be eternal). But we still see ***aión***165 forced to mean “eternity” in places like Revelation 14:11 where “the smoke of their torment goes up [for eternities eternal]”(***eis aiōnas***165 ***aiōnōn***165). At present, this wording seems rather redundant, and should read “for ages of ages” as it is done in some literal translations (YLT, CLNT). If the ***aiōni***165 in the Matthean phrase “either in this age or in the age to come” (***oute aiōni***165 oute mellonti) was consistently mistranslated it would be rendered “either in eternity or the next” which obviously doesn’t make sense either. This is probably an inquiry requiring further depth. I appreciate that you are prepared to have further discussions on the Aiōn topic and for that I recommend you start a new thread. I know little about it myself and would enjoy hearing your thoughts and the thoughts of the broader EU community here.

In Ephesians 2:7, Paul writes: “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” This verse teaches us that there is a plurality of ages to come (of which we will be shown the riches of His grace). Though we are not given a definitive quantity, we do know there won’t be a future age, but future ages. We can then be assured that although one mightn’t be forgiven in the next “age to come”, this would not invalidate our hope that (in the fullness of subsequent ages) all of humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ.

The Markan phrase “never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” is likely to be mistranslated. The “never” you drew attention to in capitals, is mistranslated for greater coherency with the mistranslation “eternal sin”. When this is translated “age-lasting sin”, “never” (***ouk***3756) can be understood as the “not” it is most commonly translated as elsewhere in scripture. Therefore, this phrase could be rendered, “does not have forgiveness, but is guilty of an age-lasting sin”. How many ages is this sin not forgiven for? The answer is, of course in Matthew. This sin is not forgiven in “this age or in the age to come.”

If we could rightly discern the ages, (though I rather dislike focusing on eschatology in this narrow way — as Greg Boyd once said, it borders on divination), it could easily be said that Yeshua was speaking of “this age” as the “Israel age” and “the age to come” as the “Church age”, and therefore one may find forgiveness in the very next age to come. It could also mean that after receiving one’s punishment in the next age, pardon could then be sought for other sins in the one that follows — not to atone for that sin (Yeshua is the fullness of atonement); but to refine one’s character for a determinate period of time, perhaps with retributive intentions. While it may be ambigious, the phrasing does not necessitate the view that ultimately one cannot be forgiven for this sin.

In summary, it is in my humble estimation that this verse is of little concern to the universalist position. I am however a pleb, and would appreciate your thoughts and discussion. Godspeed.

Hi We are all bothers
Thank you for responding. I too view scripture literally. I believe Jesus meant what He said without the accusations of mistranslations. I’m not saying there are not mistranslations because there are…I use the authorized KJV because I believe it to be the best English translation of the Hebrew and Greek.

Here are the reasons why I use the authorized KJV:

The content of the KJV cannot, by law, be copyrighted; it is considered to be public domain. All other versions of the Bible are copyrighted. According to copyright law, the individual (or group) identified in the copyright is claiming to be owner and source of the written content (let that sink in).

In order for another version of a specific book to be copyrighted (e.g. a different version of the Bible), by law the content must vary from the original by at least 10%; this means that those who produce non-KJV versions of the Bible have to alter what is written by at least 10% (let that sink in).

Out of all of the non-KJV versions of the Bible I have read, I have never found one that did not in some way or another contain a critical error in translation or interpretation!

In Ephesians 2:7, Paul writes: “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” This verse teaches us that there is a plurality of ages to come (of which we will be shown the riches of His grace). Though we are not given a definitive quantity, we do know there won’t be a future age, but future ages. We can then be assured that although one mightn’t be forgiven in the next “age to come”, this would not invalidate our hope that (in the fullness of subsequent ages) all of humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ.

How many ages do you believe there are? Yes, I agree ages is plural…this one and the one to come (eternity). Don’t forget that this epistle is written to the church at Ephesus (who are Christians) The “us” Paul is referring to is himself and the body of Christ ( including the Ephesus church who he is writing to) not the hope of all humanity. If you leave this verse in context with the whole chapter 2 of Ephesians… Paul is explaining who we used to be without Christ, what Christ has done for us, are position in Christ and who we are in Christ. How do you arrive with your interpretation that the “us” is referring to the hope of all humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ? Are you getting this hope from the word “ages”? If so, it would be a huuuge stretch and bad hermeneutics for it would go against the continuity of Chapter 2 and the flow of the whole book of Ephesians. God bless.

[SLJ]

Snitzelhoff,
Excellent post! I’m curious to know how this was received in the other forum you wrote it for.

WAAB and Snitzelhoff between them have covered everything I have to say on this passage, so I’ll just leave it there.

Sonia

[Michael_Thompson]

Interesting posts everyone!
What about our own forgiveness? Maybe we insult the Spirit of grace when we don’t forgive others. I believe Jesus said if we do not forgive others, then our Father won’t forgive us.
In the parable, the forgiven person went on to not forgive someone who had a much smaller debt. He then ended up having to be punished until his own was re payed. so it seems like we can lose forgiveness, but it doesn’t mean the punishment is everlasting.

RE: KJV, they take three different words, Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna, and translate them all with one word, Hell. That is a fatal flaw in my opinion.

[snitzelhoff]

Revival,

I use the authorized KJV because I believe it to be the best English translation of the Hebrew and Greek.

And on what do you base that assessment?

• The content of the KJV cannot, by law, be copyrighted; it is considered to be public domain. All other versions of the Bible are copyrighted. According to copyright law, the individual (or group) identified in the copyright is claiming to be owner and source of the written content (let that sink in).*

That isn’t quite accurate. The KJV is copyrighted under the Crown Copyright–owned by the government of England. But let’s say you were right. Lack of copyright means anyone can legally take any old text they want and slap the label “King James Version” on it. Let that sink in.

In order for another version of a specific book to be copyrighted (e.g. a different version of the Bible), by law the content must vary from the original by at least 10%; this means that those who produce non-KJV versions of the Bible have to alter what is written by at least 10% (let that sink in).

Just updating the language of the KJV to non-archaic English would make it differ by more than ten percent, so that shouldn’t worry anyone. Incidentally, do you have a source for that figure?

Sonia,

Thank you! The people at the forum where I posted it previously generally responded positively, but since it was part of a systematic presentation that I just recently finished, they were holding all specific comments until the end, so nobody has really critiqued it yet.

Michael,

That is an interesting suggestion. I hadn’t thought about it, but right offhand, I would say that the refusal to forgive is a symptom of the attitude of the heart that constitutes blasphemy of the Spirit.

[SLJ]

The content of the KJV cannot, by law, be copyrighted; it is considered to be public domain. All other versions of the Bible are copyrighted. According to copyright law, the individual (or group) identified in the copyright is claiming to be owner and source of the written content (let that sink in).

Actually there are a number of English language Bible versions which are in the public domain:
American Standard Verson
Darby Translation
Hebrew Names Version
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
Webster’s Bible
Young’s Literal Translation

So far as “claiming to be the owner and source…” – well if they did the work of translating, yes, they own that work and are the source of that work! They’re not claiming ownership of the original that they translated from.

I can translate any book from another language (with permission) and have copyright on my translation. That doesn’t mean I claim “authorship” of the work – my claim is on my work of translation.

Copyright info on the KJV from www.blueletterbible.com

Outside of the United Kingdom, the KJV is in the public domain. Within the United Kingdom, the rights to the KJV are vested in the Crown. This Bible is printed and published by Cambridge University Press, the Queen’s royal printer, under royal letters patent. The text commonly available now is actually that of the 1769 revision, not that of 1611. The text used by BLB is the current 1769 edition.

Sonia

[Revival]

Revival,

I use the authorized KJV because I believe it to be the best English translation of the Hebrew and Greek.

And on what do you base that assessment?

• The content of the KJV cannot, by law, be copyrighted; it is considered to be public domain. All other versions of the Bible are copyrighted. According to copyright law, the individual (or group) identified in the copyright is claiming to be owner and source of the written content (let that sink in).*

That isn’t quite accurate. The KJV is copyrighted under the Crown Copyright–owned by the government of England. But let’s say you were right. Lack of copyright means anyone can legally take any old text they want and slap the label “King James Version” on it. Let that sink in.

In order for another version of a specific book to be copyrighted (e.g. a different version of the Bible), by law the content must vary from the original by at least 10%; this means that those who produce non-KJV versions of the Bible have to alter what is written by at least 10% (let that sink in).

Just updating the language of the KJV to non-archaic English would make it differ by more than ten percent, so that shouldn’t worry anyone. Incidentally, do you have a source for that figure?

Sonia,

Thank you! The people at the forum where I posted it previously generally responded positively, but since it was part of a systematic presentation that I just recently finished, they were holding all specific comments until the end, so nobody has really critiqued it yet.

Michael,

That is an interesting suggestion. I hadn’t thought about it, but right offhand, I would say that the refusal to forgive is a symptom of the attitude of the heart that constitutes blasphemy of the Spirit.

Hi Michael

The source is the North American Copy Right Laws. Anyone who wishes to copyright any written material it must be atleast 10% different than anything previously written according to the North American copyright laws. By copyrighting, it establishes the author exclusive rights what has been written. The KJV is not copyrighted.

[Revival]

The content of the KJV cannot, by law, be copyrighted; it is considered to be public domain. All other versions of the Bible are copyrighted. According to copyright law, the individual (or group) identified in the copyright is claiming to be owner and source of the written content (let that sink in).

Actually there are a number of English language Bible versions which are in the public domain:
American Standard Verson
Darby Translation
Hebrew Names Version
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
Webster’s Bible
Young’s Literal Translation

So far as “claiming to be the owner and source…” – well if they did the work of translating, yes, they own that work and are the source of that work! They’re not claiming ownership of the original that they translated from.

I can translate any book from another language (with permission) and have copyright on my translation. That doesn’t mean I claim “authorship” of the work – my claim is on my work of translation.

Copyright info on the KJV from blueletterbible.com

Outside of the United Kingdom, the KJV is in the public domain. Within the United Kingdom, the rights to the KJV are vested in the Crown. This Bible is printed and published by Cambridge University Press, the Queen’s royal printer, under royal letters patent. The text commonly available now is actually that of the 1769 revision, not that of 1611. The text used by BLB is the current 1769 edition.

Sonia

Anyone who wishes to copyright any written material it must be atleast 10% different than anything previously written according to the North American copyright laws. By copyrighting, it establishes the author exclusive rights what has been written. The KJV is not copyrighted.

[Revival]

I recently posted a long and systematic defense of UR on another forum, and in the course of it, I discussed some of the primary passages that are thought to make UR an impossibility. This was among them, along with a few other passages (such as the apostasy warning in Hebrews 6). I reject the usual explanations about multiple ages and tend to see the Age to Come as the culmination of all ages–the eternal age–and have examined this set of passages from that eschatological perspective. So here’s that segment of my defense:

I know you’ve all been waiting with bated breath for my next wonderful post full of biblical exegesis (and bonus heresy–for ONE LOW PRICE!). Tonight I’m going to cover one of the most troubling passages in all of Scripture (technically, I’m covering it, two parallels, and at least one other, related passage). Broadly speaking, the theme is the “unforgivable sin.” Jesus refers to it as “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” and it is a sin whose nature has held mystery and often fear and trepidation for many, many Christians over the course of the past two millennia. What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is it really something so awful that even Jesus, the one that asked God to forgive the people crucifying Him, cannot bring Himself to forgive it?

So let’s get something out of the way first: “unforgivable” is not a word that’s in literally any of our vocabulary until the moment we start talking about Universalism. I’ve never been to any kind of church, convention, rally, or other invitation to salvation where the preacher said, “No matter what you’ve done, you can have forgiveness–unless you’ve blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Then you’re out of luck.” When we’re telling someone about forgiveness and grace in Jesus, we never even think to include that caveat. Even if someone turns down out offer, it never enters our mind that it may be that the person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit and is, therefore, unsalvageable.

What do we make of that? It’s not an easy question, and it doesn’t have an easy answer. After all, the passages in question appear pretty straightforward on the surface. We have:

“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 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. (Matthew 12:31-32)

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. (Luke 12:10)

From these passages, if their intended meaning is to be understood from their surface meaning, if a person says something bad about the Father, he can be forgiven, and if he says something bad about Jesus, he can be forgiven, but if he says something bad against the Holy Spirit (and “blasphemes” and “speaks against” always appears in the aorist–so if he says something bad even once), he can never be forgiven. Is this what Jesus had in mind? It seems doubtful. Christianity, after all, does not always fit neatly into rational boxes, but God is not arbitrary. Something more is clearly going on.

A number of explanations has been offered as to how best to understand the act of “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps the most common approach is to say that it refers to an outright rejection of the Gospel. However, when Jesus issued the warning, the Gospel was never in view. That is, this is an ad hoc explanation that starts with the question, “What sin might possibly be unforgivable?” and then reading the answer (“denying Jesus to the end of one’s life”) into the text. As it happens, I think that answer is on the right track, but I do not believe it has yet arrived at the right station.

The keyword here seems to be “blaspheme.” “Blasphemy” and “blaspheme” are transliterations of the Greek words in question, not translations of them. The word, in secular Greek, is very broad, meaning “abusive speech,” but in Judeo-Christian literature, it picked up the idea of dishonoring God. Speech was included, of course, but it wasn’t limited to that. In the Old Testament and intertestamental literature, the Gentiles were seen as “blasphemers” because of their manifold sins, their oppression of the people of God, and so forth. The idea of blaspheming appears to be more readily understood generally as an orientation than an isolated action. Although isolated actions certainly constitute “blasphemy,” they always do so from an attitude of the heart (Numbers 15:30, for instance, assumes that blasphemy takes place “defiantly”).

Thus, blasphemy is a violation of God’s honor. To blaspheme is to “dishonor.” It means more than “to speak ill of,” and even if a synonymous phrase is used such as “speaks against,” I think we should understand the background of that to be a background of blasphemous orientation from which the isolated incident occurs. As Jesus says, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34, which, incidentally, makes that statement very contextually relevant to our discussion here). The words in question reflect the heart, which brings us back to the primary question at hand:

What’s the difference between blaspheming the Son and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, such that the former can be forgiven and the latter cannot? If blasphemy refers to the attitude as much as the isolated words that the attitude brings forth, then what kind of attitude does “blaspheming the Son” refer to, and what kind does “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” refer to? The former seems fairly simple. It’s the dishonoring of Jesus. It’s what Jesus’ own family was guilty of when they thought Him insane, what the mockers were guilty of when He asked God to forgive them, and so forth. It is parallel in Matthew’s account with “any sin and blasphemy.” This is why Paul called himself a former “blasphemer” in I Timothy 1:13.

It’s against this background that “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” starts to take shape. What sort of thing is it? Well, we know that blasphemy is an attitude of the heart that manifests itself by the words spoken–words, in this case, against the things the Holy Spirit does. And what does the Holy Spirit do? He convicts the world, as Jesus puts it in John’s Gospel, of sin, and righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). The Holy Spirit testifies of the truth of Jesus (I John 5:6). To be a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit is to turn away from truth that you know to be true. It is not only to believe Jesus is not who He claimed to be, or to doubt the existence of God, but to be convicted of the truth of the Gospel and stubbornly continue to resist it, as the Pharisees did when they accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. And that, both the Universalist and non-Universalist would agree, is an orientation antithetical to salvation, because it is precisely the attitude of not desiring salvation.

This, I think, is why Jesus described this sin–and no other–as aionios. It is, so to speak, an “enduring” sin. It is a sin “of the ages.” It is a sin that keeps on sinning, because it is a sin that, unlike any other, will not allow the person entangled in it to seek forgiveness. By the very nature of the act, a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit will not seek redemption, salvation, grace, or forgiveness. He does not want those things, and God will not force them upon him. And so far the non-Universalists are probably with me. If such a person, with such a bent, were to turn from that attitude and repent, all sins he had ever committed would be forgiven him and he would be no less a child of God for it. And here, also, the non-Universalist would agree with me. So where is the disagreement? It’s in the same place it always is:

Universalists believe death is not the point of no return. They do not believe Hell is the point of no return. They believe that only the total victory of God over sin, death, and condemnation–all of it, in everyone–is the point of no return. So what do we do with these verses? The same thing everyone else does. Universalism understands “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to be an attitude of denying one’s own convictions, of “kicking against the goads.” And this is the position of the apostates pictured in Hebrews 6:4-6:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

They have been enlightened (or illuminated). They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. They have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.

Then they chose to forsake it.

Now, the NASB, which I have quoted above, is a somewhat misleading translation. The words, “since they again crucify to themselves,” are a translation of a participle in Greek that would literally be something like, “recrucifying to themselves,” which can as easily be translated, “while they are crucifying to themselves” as “since.” In other words, the author here is not attempting to argue that such apostates can never, ever come back to repentance–but they cannot while that continues within them. A number of translations include “while” in the footnotes in this verse, including the NASB.

This understanding of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is borne out by Hebrews 10:26-29, in which the warning is applied to those who “go on sinning willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth,” and whose willful rebellion constitutes “insulting the Spirit of grace.”

I have here argued that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is “unforgivable” only because the person doing it does not desire forgiveness, and I think I’m on common ground here with most non-Universalists on the matter. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament puts it, “Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it.” Now, with that said, there is a troubling word in some translations of Mark 3:29’s version of this warning:

“Never.”

As the NASB translates it, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” Now, “never” does not appear in the Greek text, which would literally read, “he does not have forgiveness unto the age.” This attitude of the heart must be let go, whether in this age, or the age to come. The person holding it cannot have forgiveness because, while being a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, he cannot ask for forgiveness and cannot seek forgiveness. He has set himself against forgiveness, and even into the Age to Come, so long as he is oriented against God’s forgiveness, he will not receive it. How can he?

So, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an attitude of rebellion against one’s own Spirit-given convictions. It is that which prevents someone from seeking forgiveness, and that is why it is “not forgiven.” Yet, if a person will turn from that attitude and seek forgiveness “in this Age.” In light of that, there is no reason intrinsic to these verses that the same thing cannot happen in the Age to Come–in other words, if we will argue that such repentance will be impossible in the Age to Come while it is possible in the Present Age (which flies in the face of the “plain meaning” of Matthew 12:32, which appears to preclude either possibility), we must show from other Scriptures that this is so.

So, in the end, this warning by itself no more contradicts Universalism than it contradicts the idea of such a rebel being saved in this life.

Hi Snitzelhoff

Being guilty of the unpardonable sin is not the result of one act but a process of living that causes them to forsake the faith and be moved away from the gospel they once heard making it impossible for them to be renewed again unto repentance. Why? because there heart has been hardened to the point of no return. The only way to be presented holy and unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight is to continue in the faith and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. Col 1:22-23.

[SLJ]

Interestingly, while I was researching to try to find this mysterious 10% figure that Aaron keeps throwing out, I came across a similar thread on another forum: christianwebsite.com/forum/s … php?t=3855

A person by the name of “Sadie” makes the same argument there. I suggest anyone interested in discussing this, first take a look at that thread, and judge if it is worth your time.

Aaron, when we allowed you to return, we hoped you had undergone some change and growth, but so far I’m not seeing much.

Sonia

[Revival]

Interestingly, while I was researching to try to find this mysterious 10% figure that Aaron keeps throwing out, I came across a similar thread on another forum: christianwebsite.com/forum/s … php?t=3855

A person by the name of “Sadie” makes the same argument there. I suggest anyone interested in discussing this, first take a look at that thread, and judge if it is worth your time.

Aaron, when we allowed you to return, we hoped you had undergone some change and growth, but so far I’m not seeing much.

Sonia

Sonia
I have done nothing to warrant such a comment. I have been having respectful conversations with everyone… just like I said I would. What I gave you is 100% fact according to the North American copyright laws whether you accept it or not is not my problem. You’re now accountable for what you know. God bless.

[SLJ]

Aaron,

I know you just don’t understand what it is that you do that rubs people the wrong way. I’m sorry.

Right now, what you need to do is provide a link to the “North American copyright law” which says what you are claiming. Repeating the same thing over and over without substantiation will accomplish nothing.

Sonia

[SLJ]

Aaron,

After that, you need to address the fact which others have given, that the KJV is not the only non-copyright protected version of the Bible.

Sonia

[SLJ]

Aaron,
Having respectful discussion with people means engaging with what they actually say, not just saying they are wrong, out of context, etc, and then repeating what you think is right.

For example, in reply to Snitzelhoff, you began your reply with:

Being guilty of the unpardonable sin is not the result of one act

Snitzelhoff made no such claim. Did you even read his post?

Sonia

[Revival]

Aaron,
Having respectful discussion with people means engaging with what they actually say, not just saying they are wrong, out of context, etc, and then repeating what you think is right.

For example, in reply to Snitzelhoff, you began your reply with:

Being guilty of the unpardonable sin is not the result of one act

Snitzelhoff made no such claim. Did you even read his post?

Sonia

I was not implying he made that claim…I was explaining to him how I understand the unpardonable sin as related to Hebrews 6:4-6.

[Revival]

Aaron,

After that, you need to address the fact which others have given, that the KJV is not the only non-copyright protected version of the Bible.

Sonia

I do not recall saying that the KJV was the only non-copyrighted translation of the Bible. I believe I said that all modern versions are copyrighted. God bless.

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

I too view scripture literally. I believe Jesus meant what He said without the accusations of mistranslations. I’m not saying there are not mistranslations because there are…I use the authorized KJV because I believe it to be the best English translation of the Hebrew and Greek.

Here are the reasons why I use the authorized KJV …

We are largely at an impasse. If one rejects the universalist accusation of the mistranslated term aiōn, then we will inevitably disagree. It is central to the argument of universalism. You would have to argue that aiōn is staunchly an ‘eternity’ to convince me that I am mistaken here. For the reasons I cited earlier, aiōn cannot always (or ever) mean an ‘eternity’.

In Ephesians 2:7, Paul writes: “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” This verse teaches us that there is a plurality

of ages to come (of which we will be shown the riches of His grace). Though we are not given a definitive quantity, we do know there won’t be a future age, but future ages. We can then be assured that although one mightn’t be forgiven in the next “age to come”, this would not invalidate our hope that (in the fullness of subsequent ages) all of humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ.
How many ages do you believe there are? Yes, I agree ages is plural…this one and the one to come (eternity). Don’t forget that this epistle is written to the church at Ephesus (who are Christians) The “us” Paul is referring to is himself and the body of Christ ( including the Ephesus church who he is writing to) not the hope of all humanity. If you leave this verse in context with the whole chapter 2 of Ephesians… Paul is explaining who we used to be without Christ, what Christ has done for us, are position in Christ and who we are in Christ. How do you arrive with your interpretation that the “us” is referring to the hope of all humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ? Are you getting this hope from the word “ages”? If so, it would be a huuuge stretch and bad hermeneutics for it would go against the continuity of Chapter 2 and the flow of the whole book of Ephesians. God bless.

I don’t know how many ages there will be. I only know that there will be a plurality of future ages — though I suspect they are innumerable and overlap. Because I presume we live in a ‘Church age’ that would have had to begin at Pentacost (just fifty or so days after Yeshua’s death), I believe that by the time Paul wrote Ephesians (probably thirty or so years after Pentacost), he had to have been writing of at least another two future ages beyond the existing one. It would have been nonsensical for Paul to write of two future ages, one of them being a “future” Church age when he was already addressing a church. What makes you think we have since passed from a future age prophesied by Paul, since his writing to the Ephesians? The destruction of Jerusalem? What age do you think this is?

Our hope lies throughout Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, not just in 2:7. He writes in 1:10, that we as believers, have been made privy to “… the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.”. For we as believers have “obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (1:12). What is the counsel of His will? “…that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.”. We are thus predestined according to the outworking of the fulness of this will. We are ordained as ministers, as co-labourers, of the Great Reconciliation — the gathering together of all things in Christ.

In its context of the whole book, this passage teaches that our hope is for all of creation, both which is in heaven and which is on earth. I hope for the salvation of all spirits and all men and I work for that end. I don’t think it’s a stretch; it seems to me, that it’s the plainest reading of the text.

I currently understand Ephesians 2:7 to say “that in the ages to come He might show us the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness in the Christ, Yeshua” — not that the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness are only directed to us. But I must await confirmation from someone who can properly read the Greek.

I don’t know whether I have responded satisfactorily to your questions, but I am happy to revisit this discussion.

[roofus]

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

They have been enlightened (or illuminated). They have tasted the heavenly gift. They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. They have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.

Then they chose to forsake it.

Now, the NASB, which I have quoted above, is a somewhat misleading translation. The words, “since they again crucify to themselves,” are a translation of a participle in Greek that would literally be something like, “recrucifying to themselves,” which can as easily be translated, “while they are crucifying to themselves” as “since.” In other words, the author here is not attempting to argue that such apostates can never, ever come back to repentance–but they cannot while that continues within them. A number of translations include “while” in the footnotes in this verse, including the NASB.

This understanding of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is borne out by Hebrews 10:26-29, in which the warning is applied to those who “go on sinning willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth,” and whose willful rebellion constitutes “insulting the Spirit of grace.”

I have here argued that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is “unforgivable” only because the person doing it does not desire forgiveness, and I think I’m on common ground here with most non-Universalists on the matter. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament puts it, “Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it.” Now, with that said, there is a troubling word in some translations of Mark 3:29’s version of this warning:

“Never.”

As the NASB translates it, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” Now, “never” does not appear in the Greek text, which would literally read, “he does not have forgiveness unto the age.” This attitude of the heart must be let go, whether in this age, or the age to come. The person holding it cannot have forgiveness because, while being a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, he cannot ask for forgiveness and cannot seek forgiveness. He has set himself against forgiveness, and even into the Age to Come, so long as he is oriented against God’s forgiveness, he will not receive it. How can he?

So, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an attitude of rebellion against one’s own Spirit-given convictions. It is that which prevents someone from seeking forgiveness, and that is why it is “not forgiven.” Yet, if a person will turn from that attitude and seek forgiveness “in this Age.” In light of that, there is no reason intrinsic to these verses that the same thing cannot happen in the Age to Come–in other words, if we will argue that such repentance will be impossible in the Age to Come while it is possible in the Present Age (which flies in the face of the “plain meaning” of Matthew 12:32, which appears to preclude either possibility), we must show from other Scriptures that this is so.

So, in the end, this warning by itself no more contradicts Universalism than it contradicts the idea of such a rebel being saved in this life.

snitzel said: “Now, the NASB, which I have quoted above, is a somewhat misleading translation. The words, “since they again crucify to themselves,” are a translation of a participle in Greek that would literally be something like, “recrucifying to themselves,” which can as easily be translated, “while they are crucifying to themselves” as “since.” In other words, the author here is not attempting to argue that such apostates can never, ever come back to repentance–but they cannot while that continues within them. A number of translations include “while” in the footnotes in this verse, including the NASB.”

Now, I’ve never been able to accept this interpretation, as it seems to be a tautology, as if: “it is impossible to renew them to repentance while they remain unrepentant”. Sounds like: “it’s impossible to lift a man if he remains on the ground” Huh?

[Revival]

I too view scripture literally. I believe Jesus meant what He said without the accusations of mistranslations. I’m not saying there are not mistranslations because there are…I use the authorized KJV because I believe it to be the best English translation of the Hebrew and Greek.

Here are the reasons why I use the authorized KJV …

We are largely at an impasse. If one rejects the universalist accusation of the mistranslated term aiōn, then we will inevitably disagree. It is central to the argument of universalism. You would have to argue that aiōn is staunchly an ‘eternity’ to convince me that I am mistaken here. For the reasons I cited earlier, aiōn cannot always (or ever) mean an ‘eternity’.

In Ephesians 2:7, Paul writes: “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” This verse teaches us that there is a plurality

of ages to come (of which we will be shown the riches of His grace). Though we are not given a definitive quantity, we do know there won’t be a future age, but future ages. We can then be assured that although one mightn’t be forgiven in the next “age to come”, this would not invalidate our hope that (in the fullness of subsequent ages) all of humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ.
How many ages do you believe there are? Yes, I agree ages is plural…this one and the one to come (eternity). Don’t forget that this epistle is written to the church at Ephesus (who are Christians) The “us” Paul is referring to is himself and the body of Christ ( including the Ephesus church who he is writing to) not the hope of all humanity. If you leave this verse in context with the whole chapter 2 of Ephesians… Paul is explaining who we used to be without Christ, what Christ has done for us, are position in Christ and who we are in Christ. How do you arrive with your interpretation that the “us” is referring to the hope of all humanity will eventually be forgiven by God in Christ? Are you getting this hope from the word “ages”? If so, it would be a huuuge stretch and bad hermeneutics for it would go against the continuity of Chapter 2 and the flow of the whole book of Ephesians. God bless.
I don’t know how many ages there will be. I only know that there will be a plurality of future ages — though I suspect they are innumerable and overlap. Because I presume we live in a ‘Church age’ that would have had to begin at Pentacost (just fifty or so days after Yeshua’s death), I believe that by the time Paul wrote Ephesians (probably thirty or so years after Pentacost), he had to have been writing of at least another two future ages beyond the existing one. It would have been nonsensical for Paul to write of two future ages, one of them being a “future” Church age when he was already addressing a church. What makes you think we have since passed from a future age prophesied by Paul, since his writing to the Ephesians? The destruction of Jerusalem? What age do you think this is?

Our hope lies throughout Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, not just in 2:7. He writes in 1:10, that we as believers, have been made privy to “… the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.”. For we as believers have “obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (1:12). What is the counsel of His will? “…that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.”. We are thus predestined according to the outworking of the fulness of this will. We are ordained as ministers, as co-labourers, of the Great Reconciliation — the gathering together of all things in Christ.

In its context of the whole book, this passage teaches that our hope is for all of creation, both which is in heaven and which is on earth. I hope for the salvation of all spirits and all men and I work for that end. I don’t think it’s a stretch; it seems to me, that it’s the plainest reading of the text.

I currently understand Ephesians 2:7 to say “that in the ages to come He might show us the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness in the Christ, Yeshua” — not that the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness are only directed to us. But I must await confirmation from someone who can properly read the Greek.

I don’t know whether I have responded satisfactorily to your questions, but I am happy to revisit this discussion.

I’m astonished of your interpretation of Eph 2:7. I really don’t see how your interpretation is impossible without comitting hermeneutical butchery. I believe what Jesus said about the ages: this age and the one to come. by my calculations that is 2. God bless.