Don Preston on 2 Thes 1:9

[qaz]

Talbott doesn’t post any more.

[Origen]

Talbott doesn’t post any more.

I’'m aware he hasn’t posted in almost 3 years. Or so it seems, according to his profile. I don’t recall him ever posting since i’ve been here. Maybe one day he’ll make a comeback, like others who’ve been away. In any case, even if he doesn’t return, i’m hoping others might have some insights to explain Mk.3:29 & other passages in light of his interpretations. If they could harmonize them with his perspective, then, as you say, it would be a way to avoid some gymnastics. I wonder if any of Talbott’s remarks on the blasphemy of the Spirit might address the phrase “eternal sin”.

[qaz]

Why don’t you email Talbott? I emailed him once and he wrote back!

[JasonPratt]

Leaving aside the preterism question, my main critique of DP’s interpretation is that Paul is referencing individual judgment in the OT verses he’s citing or alluding to in that passage (Jeremiah directly, Isaiah a little less directly but with verbal similarities).

Considering that the Thessalonian verses themselves do not obviously read as a judgment only of the nation per se (nor is the nation or government, as such, in view as the persecutors of Christians), I infer individual judgment is intended here, specific persecutors being wholly ruined – yet coming to honor/value their eonian whole-ruination from God. (Which is topically part of the Isaiah prophecy being referenced, and which is not at all an idea foreign to Jeremiah even though he isn’t talking about restoration of punished sinners in the prophecy Paul is directly citing.)

[qaz]

I wonder if any of Talbott’s remarks on the blasphemy of the Spirit might address the phrase “eternal sin”.

Talbott’s writing on the unforgivable sin in TILOG was IMO the weakest part of the book. He kind of avoided expounding the blasphemy against the spirit texts. Maybe someone here can ask him to clarify?

[Origen]

Are Talbott’s views similar to that of Barclay which states:

“To take the word aionios, when it refers to blessings and punishment, to mean lasting forever is to oversimplify, and indeed to misunderstand, the word altogether. It means far more than that. It means that that which the faithful will receive and that which the unfaithful will suffer is that which it befits God’s nature and character to bestow and to inflict—and beyond that we who are men cannot go, except to remember that that nature and character are holy love.— Barclay, New Testament Words, 37.”

Indeed Very Many: Universalism in the Early Church

In light of that remark, how does/would Barclay interpret the phrase “guilty of an aionion sin”? A penalty which “it befits God’s nature and character to bestow and to inflict—and beyond that we who are men cannot go, except to remember that that nature and character are holy love”? But aionion modifies sin, not penalty. So the question still remains, what is an “aionion sin”? Is it a sin which “it befits God’s nature and character to bestow and to inflict—and beyond that we who are men cannot go, except to remember that that nature and character are holy love”? Do Barclay’s writings ever comment on the BHS passages, in particular Mk.3:29? Yes, he states:

“If we are to understand what this terrible saying means we must first understand the circumstances in which it was said. It was said by Jesus when the Scribes and Pharisees had declared that the cures he wrought were wrought not by the power of God, but by the power of the devil. These men had been able to look at the incarnate love of God and to think it the incarnate power of Satan.”

“We must begin by remembering that Jesus could not have used the phrase the Holy Spirit in the fun Christian sense of the term. The Spirit in all his fullness did not come to men until Jesus had returned to his glory. It was not until Pentecost that there came to men the supreme experience of the Holy Spirit. Jesus must have used the term in the Jewish sense of the term. Now in Jewish thought the Holy Spirit had two great functions. First, he revealed God’s truth to men; second, he enabled men to recognize that truth when they saw it. That will give us the key to this passage.”

“(i) The Holy Spirit enabled men to recognize God’s truth when it entered their lives. But if a man refuses to exercise any God-given faculty he will in the end lose it. If he lives in the dark long enough he will lose the ability to see. If he stays in bed long enough he will lose the power to walk. If he refuses to do any serious study he will lose the power to study. And if a man refuses the guidance of God’s Spirit often enough he will become in the end incapable of recognizing that truth when he sees it. Evil to him becomes good and good evil. He can look on the goodness of God and call it the evil of Satan.”

“(ii) Why should such a sin have no forgiveness? H. B. Swete says, “To identify the source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a moral wreck for which the Incarnation itself provides no remedy.” A. J. Rawlinson calls it “essential wickedness,” as if here we see the quintessence of all evil. Bengel said that all other sins are human but this sin is Satanic. Why should all this be so?”

“Consider the effect of Jesus on a man. The very first effect is to make him see his own utter unworthiness in comparison with the beauty and the loveliness of the life of Jesus. “Depart from me,” said Peter, “for I am a sinful man.” (Luke 5:8.) When Tokichi Ishii first read the story of the Gospel he said, “I stopped. I was stabbed to the heart as if pierced by a five-inch nail. Shall I call it the love of Christ? Shall I call it his compassion? I do not know what to call it. I only know that I believed and my hardness of heart was changed.” The first reaction was that he was stabbed to the heart. The result of that sense of unworthiness and the result of that stabbed heart is a heartfelt penitence, and penitence is the only condition of forgiveness. But, if a man has got himself into such a state, by repeated refusals to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, that he cannot see anything lovely in Jesus at all, then the sight of Jesus will not give him any sense of sin; because he has no sense of sin he cannot be penitent, and because he is not penitent he cannot be forgiven.”

“One of the Lucifer legends tells how one day a priest noticed in his congregation a magnificently handsome young man. After the service the young man stayed for confession. He confessed so many and such terrible sins that the priest’s hair stood on end. “You must have lived long to have done all that,” the priest said. “My name is Lucifer and I fell from heaven at the beginning of time,” said the young man. “Even so,” said the priest, “say that you are sorry, say that you repent and even you can be forgiven.” The young man looked at the priest for a moment and then turned and strode away. He would not and could not say it; and therefore he had to go on still desolate and still damned.”

“There is only one condition of forgiveness and that is penitence. So long as a man sees loveliness in Christ, so long as he hates his sin even if he cannot leave it, even if he is in the mud and the mire, he can still be forgiven. But if a man, by repeated refusals of God’s guidance, has lost the ability to recognize goodness when he sees it, if he has got his moral values inverted until evil to him is good and good to him is evil, then, even when he is confronted by Jesus, he is conscious of no sin; he cannot repent and therefore he can never be forgiven. That is the sin against the Holy Spirit.”

Mark 3 Commentary - William Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Perhaps his comments at the same site on the parallel BHS passages (Lk.12:10; Mt.12:31-32) will reveal more about his interpretation of “aionion sin” (Mk.3:29).

Another conceivable possibility is that the allegedly “best MSS” are wrong & the right translation is “aionion judgement”, not “aionion sin”:

"In danger of eternal damnation.—Better, eternal judgment, the Greek word not necessarily carrying with it the thoughts that now attach to the English. The best MSS., however, give, “in danger of an eternal sin”—i.e., of one which will, with its consequences, extend throughout the ages. It is, of course, more probable that a transcriber should have altered “sin” into “judgment,” substituting an easier for a more difficult rendering, than the converse."http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/3-29.htm

However Vincent states:

“Eternal damnation (αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος)”

"An utterly false rendering. Rightly as Rev., of an eternal sin. So Wyc., everlasting trespass. The A. V. has gone wrong in following Tyndale, who, in turn, followed the erroneous text of Erasmus, κρίσεως, judgment, wrongly rendered damnation."http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/3-29.htm

[qaz]

Origen, have you considered emailing Talbott about blasphemy against the spirit? If you don’t, maybe I will.

[Origen]

Origen, have you considered emailing Talbott about blasphemy against the spirit? If you don’t, maybe I will.

Feel free. I haven’t emailed him.

[Origen]

What would an “eternal sin” be. A sin that one commits eternally? A sin that has eternal consequences? What consequences? Loss of existence, peace, or a reward?

[davo]

John’s “sin unto death” (1Jn 5:16) references a known criminal offense where that under Jewish law ‘the death penalty’ was the ultimate outcome for the most heinous of crimes, i.e., the “sin unto death” was notably any capital offense, as per the likes of…

Deut 21:22 If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree…

This is the most direct and least complicated understanding of John’s “sin unto death” — thus when “eternal” is attached to it such shows the gravity, magnitude or totality of the crime.

[qaz]

Davo, John said we shouldn’t pray for people who commit it. Why?

And how do you explain Jesus in Mark’s gospel saying blasphemy against the spirit is an “eternal sin”?

I emailed Talbott but no response.

[Origen]

The CLV has:

29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-

But is there any justification for that translation? Perhaps it is explained in the U.R. magazine which is free online & has references to what issues Mk.3:29 is referred to here:

Unsearchable Riches

Unsearchable+Riches+Indexes+Volumes+1-108.pdf

If the explanation isn’t there, then perhaps an email to James Coram would be answered sooner or later, depending on his priorities, how busy he is, etc.

See also the Concordant Greek Text re Mk.3:29.

[maintenanceman]

Davo, John said we shouldn’t pray for people who commit it. Why?

Because in that time the culture was set and redemption of an offence was crystal clear.

[davo]

Davo, John said we shouldn’t pray for people who commit it. Why?

If this is as I suspect… a capital offense, and believers were to follow the law/rule of the land (Rom 13:1; 1Pet 2:13-14) then that would explain why John wouldn’t suggest any move (prayer) against or concerning this — thus this is relevant to his own historical context and doesn’t require a royal “we” being attached to it.

And how do you explain Jesus in Mark’s gospel saying blasphemy against the spirit is an “eternal sin”?

Have a read through my responses HERE.

[Origen]

There’s additional opinions on Mark 3:29 here:

Is It Mental Gymnastics To Interpret the Greek as Long Lasting/Age-Long Correction?

Good question. Can a sin be eternal, or even long lasting? The CLV translates the verse as: 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin- Or more literally: has no pardon into the eon, but is liable to the eonian sin. If (1) has “no pardon into the eon” & (2) is “liable to the eonian sin” are parallel, with “no pardon into the eon” implying a “penalty”, then arguably the CLV addition of the word …

Would not the CLV translation of Mark 3:29 harmonize with the Talbott-Barclay universalist perspectives re aionios as “eternal” (i.e. “everlasting”)?

[hollytree]

The eternal sin is when the heart is separated from God’s common mercy/grace. As a result it hardens. People who commit the eternal sin hate God with the passion of a thousand suns. They don’t want God. That is, they have no desire for God. All motivations of their heart are to desecrate, scorn, and belittle the infinite worth of God’s glory as they blaspheme.

[Origen]

This is the most direct and least complicated understanding of John’s “ sin unto death ” — thus when “ eternal ” is attached to it such shows the gravity, magnitude or totality of the crime.

“The word “eternal” is what Ramsay termed a ‘qualifier’ which serves as a directive to understand the model in a special way (…). The qualifier is not simply a literal description of the noun but a reminder that it is being used in a non-literal sense (cf. such expressions as “heavenly Father”, “infinite love”). Similarly the phrase “eternal sin” (Mk.3:29) does not mean an endless sin but one which has dimensions and ramifications beyond the present life” (“The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”, NIDNTT, Vol.3, p.99, ed. Colin Brown).

Or, in a Talbott-Barclay interpretation, perhaps, an “eternal sin” is one which has (1) Divine dimensions and/or ramifications or (2) Divine ramifications and/or dimensions beyond the present life or (3) in the present life?

[davo]

This is the most direct and least complicated understanding of John’s “ sin unto death ” — thus when “ eternal ” is attached to it such shows the gravity, magnitude or totality of the crime.

“The word “eternal” is what Ramsay termed a ‘qualifier’ which serves as a directive to understand the model in a special way (…). The qualifier is not simply a literal description of the noun but a reminder that it is being used in a non-literal sense (cf. such expressions as “heavenly Father”, “infinite love”). Similarly the phrase “eternal sin” (Mk.3:29) does not mean an endless sin but one which has dimensions and ramifications beyond the present life” (“The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”, NIDNTT, Vol.3, p.99, ed. Colin Brown).

Exactly

[Origen]

Following are Jason Pratt’s remarks re Mark 3:29 & the phrase “eonian sin” from:JRP’s Exegetical Compilation: Matthew 12:22-45

**** On “Eonian Sin” ****

The most serious problem left over, is Mark 3:29 which reads in most ancient Greek texts “eonian sin”. The evidence from textual copies (not only in Greek but other ancient translations and applications of GosMark) that “sin” was the original reading here is very strong, even though there is disagreement about the precise grammatic form of the word; and there is no disagreement at all about {aiôniou}. This would be the only time sin is called “eonian” in the New Testament.

An impressive number of other Greek texts, some early, as well as other languages (some early) feature “crisis” {kriseôs} here instead (with a couple of texts using another term for judgment from which we now derive “crime”, and a couple using both “crisis” and “sin”, and a couple using “kolasis” instead as in Matthew 25.) The textual evidence in itself is about equal either way, although either way (eternal sin or eternal crisis) the term would be unique in the New Testament; but the majority existence of an odd form of the term for sin {hamartêmatos}, with a few Greek texts and most translations from Greek witnessing to the more expected form {hamartias} instead, is hard to explain if “sin” was not the original reading.

If “punishment” or “crisis” (judgment) was the original reading, then certainly that would come uniquely from God, and so the term would be entirely neutral to the question of whether or not the sin (and thus the punishment) ever ends. Such variants themselves actually testify to the notion that “eonian” was understood to mean that the noun described by the adjective comes uniquely from God, which would be theologically shocking if “sin” was the noun! But fairness requires me, at this time, to acknowledge “sin” as, most likely, the original reading.

What does the phrase “eonian sin” necessarily imply, if so? By the evidence of surrounding context, the other Synoptic accounts of the saying, and the usage of the term elsewhere in both the OT and the NT, nothing fatal to universalism.

1.) The argument previously given, from story details, about Jesus’ intention in talking about the sin against the Holy Spirit, still stands on its own merits, over-against a hopeless interpretation of the phrase. This in itself might be considered decisive! – unless a case can be made for a hopeless meaning which does not involve charging God with having no intention or no capability of saving those who have been plundered by the Plunder-possessor (against Jesus’ own sarcastic retorts to the criticisms of the Pharisees). Which interpretation gathers the most with Christ, and which interpretations involve scattering instead? – and does gathering with Christ or scattering instead involve being for or against Christ?! Which interpretations involve bringing shame onto the Holy Spirit, even defying salvation “into the Holy Spirit” (as Mark puts it, as into the face of the Person of God Who convicts sinners of sin) and which does not? Any Christian should carefully consider the varieties of options, whether Calvinistic, Arminianistic, or universalistic.

2.) In Mark’s report, the grammar is very strange in any case. Jesus says whoever blasphemes against (or rather into) the Holy Spirit, is not having pardon into the eon (which is clear enough grammar, regardless of what “into the eon” may or may no mean), “but a liable-one is sin-effect of eonian.” In other words, in that last clause (which is a small independent sentence in itself) “a liable one” or “the liable” one (or the guilty-one, or the one obliged one, or the one held fast like the prisoners Christ just talked about rescuing from Satan) is the subject of the verb “is”, and “sin-effect” is the object of the verb, or more accurately the predicate nominative. {Hamartêmatos} isn’t the object of the preposition implied by {aiôniou} which is in the genitive form.

In other words, the grammar doesn’t read “X is guilty of-sin”, so doesn’t read “X is guilty of-eonian-sin” either. In English terms, the grammar is more like “the-guilty-one”, that which is under judgment, “is sin of-eonian”. If this doesn’t mean God, the Eonian One, is guilty of sin-effect (which would be ridiculous), it would mean eonian sin-effect itself, not the sinner, is what is bound for judgment!

No doubt this is why some Greek texts, and many translations into other languages from Greek, replace the term either with {hamartias} which is a genitive noun to fit with the “of-eonian” (thus matching the usual translation “of eonian sin”), or with {kriseôs} which is also a genitive noun to fit the prepositional phrase as “of-eonian-judgment”. But notice then that the one who is guilty, is the one who insists on eonian judgment, or who insists on an eonian sin-effect! (The guilty-one is of-eonian-judgment, or is of-eonian-sin-effect. The phrasing matches that for identifying someone who holds to a particular party, or who follows a person, or comes from a certain place. For example, St. Paul’s complaint of factions disputing because “I am of Apollos!” “I am of Paul!”)

Putting it another way, the actual strange grammar of the end of Mark 3:29 fits the idea that the ones being condemned of sin against the Holy Spirit are those who insist on some eonian effect of sin in a way that insults the reputation of the Holy Spirit before men, a way that involves rejecting (as the work of Satan not of God) Christ’s salvation of the man whose latter state was worse than his former, and a way that involves scattering instead of gathering with Christ. That way would not be Christian universalism, obviously!

Admittedly, the grammatic issues here are extremely difficult, and so perhaps open to other interpretations. (Possibly there is an underlying Aramaic grammatic issue here explaining the oddity in some other way, for example.) But the difficulties of the grammar do provide at least some evidence in favor of a more hopeful reading of the text, in conjunction with the various contextual details around the text.

Assuming, then, that these two points are not sufficient to carry the rebuttal against using “eonian sin” as testimony of a hopeless result, I will continue with some other observations about the situation, first by clarifying a point previously mentioned:

3.) As I indicated previously, the peculiar form of the term in GosMark, {hamartêmatos}, which agrees with Jesus’ previous extremely strong statement one verse prior about all sins and blasphemies being forgiven, indicates a result of the action of the sin with the {-ma} type of suffix. This explains why “eonian” can be used to describe the noun: the sin is not “eonian”, the results of the sin are “eonian”, and the results are (at least) judgmental punishment uniquely from God (thus explaining substitutions in many texts with “crisis”). On the theory that “eonian” in the NT refers to things which come uniquely from God, this term still fits (not referring to sin coming uniquely from God!) Whether the crisis or the punishment/kolasis continues never-endingly is a whole other question.

4.) On the other hand, at least once indisputably in the New Testament (at Romans 16:25), and often in the Greek Old Testament, the term “eonian” refers to something which has an end. Whether that applies in this example or not, is admittedly a question of contextual evidence; but this is why I have given the topical and thematic contextual argument first!

5.) In Luke’s report of the saying (probably intended to represent a later time in Jesus’ ministry), Jesus doesn’t use any emphatic statements about a lack of forgiveness. But in Matthew’s report, Jesus says such sin {ouk aphethêsetai}, shall not be being pardoned, and {ouk aphethêsetai aut(i)ô oute en tout(i)ô t(i)ô aiôni oute en t(i)ô mellonti}, shall not be being pardoned to him neither in to this eon nor in to the coming one. And in Mark’s own report (not present in a few Greek copies of the text, though respectable ones) Jesus says that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit {ouk echei aphesin eis ton aiôna} is not having pardon into the eon.

The phrasing here opens up the possibility that Jesus is talking about the eonian sin-effect or sin-penalty (per Mark’s account) being restricted to this age and then to only one of the following ages to come. But to be fair, all the ages of ages to come may also be regarded as one overarching Age-Day of the Lord, so even a limited distinction of ages might involve continuing forever in the never-ending grand Age to come.

It could be replied that, if so, it’s odd that Luke (or Jesus Himself by report) doesn’t include this emphasis in Luke’s account; but a lack of detail somewhere doesn’t count against an inclusion of detail elsewhere.

Much relevantly, the term (in two forms) {aphesis} has a primary meaning of being released from bonds or imprisonment; thus also (more commonly in the NT) by metaphor, being released from imprisonment and other effects of sin or rebellion against an authority.

All three Synoptic authors connect this incident (though Luke for whatever reason disconnects the sin against the Holy Spirit warning from this incident and reports a saying of it later) to general reports of exorcism, and for Matthew and Luke to a specific case of Jesus setting people free from demons. Matthew and Mark also connect it to saving people on the sabbath (the man with the withered hand), whereas Luke connects it to the material about how we ought to expect good things from God, not harmful things. Matthew does, too, with the denunciation that a “brood of vipers” expects bad fruit from an ideal tree, and that a wicked man is pulling forth wicked things from the overflowing superabundance of his heart. All three reports connect it to Jesus’ pun on plundering the Plunder-possessor, raiding the chief of raiders to tie him up and take his things from him, which in context of Matthew and Luke’s report of the healing of the mute and deaf demented man (which is explicitly treated as an exorcism) must refer to freeing the prisoners of the bandit chief.

The nearby context for all three Gospels (though it’s more specifically obvious in GosMatt and GosLuke), is about Jesus being called the servant of Satan for releasing people from bonds or imprisonment. In retort to that accusation, Jesus says such people shall not be set free from their bonds or imprisonment neither in this age nor the age to come.

It could be replied that Jesus is talking about God imprisoning such people and so naturally no one can rescue them from God’s imprisonment – which is true – and that God has no intentions of setting them free, thus they can never be set free. But this means they are imprisoned by God in their sins and so God either fails or chooses not to save them from their sins! The position comes back around to being that criticized by Jesus here! – to take the position that God would not or could not save someone from his sin, earns this denunciation! Besides which there are many scriptures speaking of God releasing prisoners and reconciling with them, whom He Himself has imprisoned for their sins.

Matthew’s account, being the fullest, makes this point even stronger by saying that “this wicked generation” who seeks a sign that, in effect, God can and does save sinners whose later state is worse than their former, the deaf-mute man being the explicit example (and shown earlier by Matthew in his former condition, with responsive language calling forward in connection to this incident), and will punish those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by insisting only Satan saves the worst sinners, not God, shall be put into the position of the man whose later state was worse than his former: “And the last state of that person is becoming worse than the first. Thus will it be to this wicked generation also!”

At best they were using Jesus’ second salvation of that man as evidence that His healing, being imperfect, must come from Satan not from God – although Jesus’ denunciations indicate it wasn’t the need to heal again which was the problem but the idea that God would keep on trying to save the sinner until He gets it done. Consequently, in a very typical judgment saying of Jesus (and of God in the OT), they shall have done to them what they wanted to hopelessly condemn in others.

But if we insist their imprisonment is hopeless because God is the one imprisoning them, we put ourselves in their place in turn!

Relatedly, “If I in the Spirit of God am casting out the demons, consequently the kingdom of the God {ephthasen eph humas} overruns you!” (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20) The primary verb there involves moving ahead or moving beyond; and combined with a prepositional phrase “upon / over you”, when applied against enemies, tends to involve punitive authoritative action: the metaphorical idea would be of a king running down his opponents on the field of battle. Thus talking of the same kind of people in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets: “They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all people, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to overrun them!” Why? Because they are not pleasing to God and are hostile to all men. How? In insisting that those outside should not be saved by God!

Satan doesn’t keep at saving people from sin even when they relapse. Satan hinders people from being saved from their sins at all. That has a parallel at 1 Thess 2, too, verse 18, “For we wanted to come to you [in Gentile lands for the Gentile mission], I Paul more than once, yet Satan hindered us,” like the false Jewish teachers, hindering evangelization of the Gentiles so that they may be saved.

(1 Thess 2:16 also says the wrath, of God implicitly (and so added in a few texts), overruns them {eis telos} into completion. What that completion is, could be strongly connected to how the term is used in universalistic evidential texts elsewhere, though nothing in the immediate context points that way.)

6.) If the final clause of Mark 3:29 doesn’t mean that (especially in context) that the idea of hopelessly final sin is what Jesus is judging against presently, but rather that the persons themselves who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (whatever that means) are guilty of an eonian sin, or bound for an eonian sin-effect, the grammar at least indicates that those who do so are presently this moment (when they do it) under judgment (like His Pharisee opponents at that moment, who are insulting His reputation before men by claiming that salvation of those they deem unsavable is the work of Satan not of God). This would also fit Jesus’ double-emphasis reported by Matthew in the same scene: shall-not-be-forgiven in this eon (nor in the eon to come). The sin is already active now. But even most non-universalists in Christian history have acknowledged that those currently guilty of this sin can be forgiven if they repent; otherwise they have trouble accounting for the example of Saint Simon Peter, chief of apostles, who rebelled so hard that he called curses against Himself in order to deny Christ the night before the crucifixion, and who at another time (in denial of the coming crucifixion) was denounced by the name of Satan by Jesus Himself! Or else, if somehow those didn’t count as sins against the Holy Spirit but “only” as blasphemies and sins against the Son of Man, it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what would count as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – not without schisming between the Persons of God (as if the Spirit could be blasphemed against apart from blasphemy against the Son), or schisming the two natures of Christ (as if someone could sin against Christ’s humanity and not against the divinity of Christ). This was most likely why in late texts (much too late to be counted as evidence in favor of an original reading) some Church authorities interpretatively changed the reading here at Mark to say that the one sinning against the Holy Spirit “is in danger of” eonian sin.

(This cannot be the original text, based on the evidence of the manuscripts, so I cannot use this variation as a mitigating option. Notice that this would be another way of “fixing” the strange grammar where the sin of-eonian is itself what is being bound for judgment, or what is guilty, in contrast to {alla} the sinner against the Holy Spirit.)

But if a person can be freed from the sin against the Holy Spirit, and its eonian sin-effect, despite being guilty of it now, and despite the sin not being forgiven in this eon (per GosMatt’s account), there is nothing in the saying or its context which locks the sinner from repenting and being forgiven in the age to come either.

7.) Relatedly, the term for forgiveness (here in Mark, and in the Synoptic parallels) is {aphesis}, remitting the sin, sending the sin away from the person, freeing the person from the sin, not merely passing by the past sin {paresis}. No sin can be sent away from the person if the person insists on holding to it. But if someone stops holding to their sins, and cooperate with the Holy Spirit, God will send their sin away. Whether God fails, or never even tries, to lead someone to stop holding to their sin, is a whole other question. But people (like the Pharisee opponents in this scene) who deny God can or does send away sins for someone, are at least acting against the notion that God can or does send away their own sin, too.

This accounts for most of the conversions between Arminian and Calvinist soteriologies, not incidentally. Former Arminians worried that God might give up on them or be defeated by some sinner, or worried that they haven’t done quite the right things to convince God to keep persisting for them, but not worried that God intends to save them (since that is the great assurance of Arminianism), find Calvinism (or its Catholic analogs) a great relief. Former Calvinists worried that God might not have ever intended to save them, or even that their feelings of assurance (or their “human logic” about their assurance) may be self-deception (or even a divine deception where God sends pitfalls for His enemies etc.), but not worried that God will succeed in His salvation of sinners from sin (since that is the great assurance of Calvinism), find Arminianism (or its Catholic analogs) a great relief.

Each convert is still holding to the former great assurance, at least in regard to themselves if not for other people; and each convert is gaining the signature great assurance of the other system, at least in regard to themselves if not for other people. But a lack of assurance in either great assurance about other people, leaves open a technical possibility of doubt about assurance in one’s own salvation, too.

Yet even in this hard saying from Jesus (reported by all three Synoptic authors, in somewhat different ways), there is hopeful assurance that God can competently and does intend to save the sinners whom religious authorities declare would be a sin for God to save.

Beyond all this, I will add that no Calvinist anywhere at any time should be particularly comfortable appealing to this incident as evidence in favor of hopeless punishment, because Calvinist soteriology either reduces the warning to nonsense, or the warning voids Calvinistic soteriology. Who is this warning supposed to apply to? It cannot apply to the Calvinistic elect, not and mean a warning about hopeless punishment which on the terms of the warning (especially in GosMatt) may still be avoided. On the other hand, what is the point of warning the non-elect about some kind of special sin which is unforgiveable? – on Calvinistic notions of the non-elect, God not only never intended to forgive any of their sins at all, but never even intended to give them the ability to not sin, much less to repent of sin! Every sin is a hopelessly unforgiveable sin to the Calvinistic non-elect in several ways; no sin is hopelessly unforgiveable to the Calvinistic elect. This is a major criticism by Arminians vs Calvinists (and their Catholic analogues either way), too. It is at least a major problem, not to be lightly dismissed except perhaps by appeal to inscrutable mystery – and if that appeal can be made with expectation of acceptance, then the Calvinist ought to be prepared (at least in fair play principle) to accept a similar appeal by Christian universalists against an argument for salvific hopelessness and final unrighteousness.

(For further discussion of the incident of the sin against the Holy Spirit, in reply to a popular internet Calv apologist attempting to marshal the incident against Christian universalism, you may refer to the pdf or doc file appended below, which also features a link to the Calv article by Matt Slick. My reply to him dovetails a little on the exegetical side as already discussed, but is more about the principles involved since that’s what he focuses more on.)

JRP vs Matt Slick on Unforgivable Sin.doc (66 KB)
JRP vs Matt Slick on Unforgivable Sin.pdf (132 KB)

Naturally these verses get discussed a lot, here on the forum and elsewhere, as they’re important testimony one way or another for God’s intentions and/or capabilities. Members are invited to comment below, and are especially encouraged to provide links to other sites, or threads on this forum, where these verses are discussed.

[Origen]

And for another comment by Jason Pratt, in reply to Paidon, re “eonian sin” (Mk.3:29), from:JRP’s Exegetical Compilation: Matthew 12:22-45

JRP's Exegetical Compilation: Matthew 12:22-45

From Paidion over in a recent thread on the topic:

Paidion:

[snipping other topics] [A]t this time in this thread, I would like to suggest that “ἁμαρτηματος” may be a normal genitive after all. This precise form is used as a genitive in Lev 4:29 in the septuagint where the following phrase occurs:

“ἐπι την κεφαλην του ἁμαρτηματος αὐτου”

I understand why you would think it may not be a genitive, since the genitive of “ἁμαρτια” is clearly “ἁμαρτιας”. But the word may be not a genitive of “ἁμαρτια” at all, but the genitive of a related word “ἁμαρτημα”. Kuinoel’s idea was that this word which occurs in some form in the LXX a number of times, means “punishment for sin”.

Strong’s dictionary (or the abbreviated version in my NASB) also suggests that the noun {hamartêma} (which it gives Mark 3:28 but not 29 as an example, though the lack of v.29 isn’t relevant) describes a “properly concrete” sin, and the noun {hamartia} describes the idea of sin or in the abstract.

However, I’m not sure appealing to {hamartêma} helps, although it’s an option that ought to be reckoned with, since that term has neutral gender (doesn’t it?) but the adjective form of eonian is feminine. Which naturally explains why alternate terms in the textual record, like {hamartias} and {kriseôs}, are genitive singular feminine to match with the adjective.

“Eonian punishment-for-sin” (or perhaps “sin-effect” as I followed some translators up in my analysis) would certainly make better intrinsic sense, considering the various ancient meanings of “eonian”, than “eonian sin”: the punishment is divine, it lasts for an age (whichever age that is), etc.