The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

“Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy
against the Spirit will not.…either in this age or in the age to
come (Mt. 12:31-32; Mk. 3:29-30). This is saying that every sin
and blasphemy will be forgiven in the age to come except this sin.
If not, what is the point of singling out one sin in particular as an
exception? This is powerful testimony from the lips of Christ
Himself for hope after death! Because a particular sin will not be
forgiven at a given time does not require that the penalty be infinite.
Also, God‘s justice in judgment does not change! (Mal. 3:6).
All judgment is measured and with a purpose. Either a just penalty
will be exacted (He. 2:2), or its forgiveness must await a subsequent
age. (Scripture alludes to ―ages to come- Ep. 2:7). We can
rest assured that the Father‘s chastising penalty for this sin will be
just, and righteous, and in character with His loving heart for all.”

Assuming the dead are not conscious & the age to come is a period of 1000 years commencing at Christ’s future return, those who committed this sin, if any, after dying would sleep through that future age (the millennium) & be resurrected at the GWT judgement spoken of in Revelation. From that point on they could be pardoned of this sin.

“αφεσις,” the word that is sometimes translated as “forgiveness” entails much more than mere pardon.
I want to comment on this more thoroughly in a later post. Meanwhile you might want to consider George MacDonald’s chapter on Luke 12:20 from “Unspoken Sermons Volume 1”:


The following is a paragraph from near the end of the article:

It Shall Not Be Forgiven


Are these examples of unpardoned or unforgiven sins:

Isa 22:14
New American Standard Bible
But the LORD of hosts revealed Himself to me, “Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven you Until you die,” says the Lord GOD of hosts.

Matthew 6:15New International Version (NIV)
15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

No not really, at least not according to this rendition… as you can see said forgiveness would take place at death (until you die), but not before. According to Paul… “the wages of sin is death” NOT ECT. Paul further says… “For he who has died has been freed from sin.

And here’s an example of THAT very thing…

Jesus’ “you” was the audience to whom he spoke, i.e., Israel.

What if the resurrected sinner continues sinning & blaspheming upon his resurrection? Will he need to die again for those new sins?

LK.12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

If the Spirit blasphemer will “not be forgiven”, how can he ever be saved?

To answer my own query:

Lk12:10 says it will not be forgiven/pardoned, just like Isa.22:14 below, though Isa.22 puts a limit to it, i.e. till death.

Isa 22:14 But the LORD of hosts revealed Himself to me, “Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven [purged/atoned] you Until you die,” says the Lord GOD of hosts.

Lk 12:10, OTOH, unlike Isa.22:14, does not state the length of time the person will not pardoned/forgiven/let off, whether it is till death, forever, or for this age & the next, etc. We have to look to other Scriptures to determine that, such as the parallel passages (Mk.3:28-29 and Matthew 12:31-32) which limit the penalty for this sin to two ages, “this” age & the coming age.

Since there are Scriptures speaking of multiple future ages to come (Eph.2:7; 1:21; Rev.22:5, etc), there is the possibility that this sin against the Holy Spirit may be pardoned after the coming age.

Also, in light of the following words we may believe that the sin against the Holy Spirit will surely be pardoned:

Mark 3:28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies,
whatsoever they should be blaspheming,

If such a horrific thing as eternal punishment were the idea in Mt.12:31-32 & MK.3:28-29, would Christ have used the ambiguous words aion & aionios? No. He would have used words such as eternal (aidios, Rom.1:20; Jude 6), endless (aperantos, 1 Tim.1:4), no end (Lk.1:33), unlimited (apeiron, by Philo). Since He never used such words, He did not teach endless annihilation or torments.

Some other verses from the gospel of Luke:

Fear not, said the angel who announced it, for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Luke 2:10.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2:14.

Luke 3:5 Every valley shall be filled,
and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall be made straight,
and the rough ways made smooth;
Luke 3:6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Luke 6:35

Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, 4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Lk. 17:4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to say, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

“The Scripture never declares that the punishment imposed upon any sin is that of endless punishment. And, neither in Matthew
12, Mark 3, Luke 12, or any other chapter of Scripture, are we told that penalty which includes unending divine wrath even as
interminable human misery, shall accrue to those who blaspheme the spirit.”

“Wherever we read that sin shall not be pardoned, or
forgiven, the sense is simply that whatever the just pen
alty may be for such a misdeed, it will not be remitted, or
let go. It does not follow, however, from the phrase, con
cerning him “that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost,”
that “it shall not be forgiven” him (Luke 12:10, AV), that
that from which he shall not be “forgiven” (i.e., released)
is a penalty consisting of abiding estrangement from God
in the presence of eternal burnings.”

"Where we read in this verse, as in the Concordant Ver
sion, that “the one who blasphemes the holy spirit shall
not be pardoned the implicit idea, conveyed through the
figure of ellipsis, is that such a one shall not be pardoned
from the penalty which justly accrues to this sin. From
a literary standpoint, it is simply incorrect to interpret such
texts as if their sense were, “shall not be pardoned,” from
a penalty consisting of or incorporating a specific woe,
namely, that of eternal separation from God.”

“Such verses say nothing as to the nature of the pen
alty for such disobedience; to claim that they do man
ifests a deficiency of reading comprehension. Or, in the
case of any who are aware that these texts, indeed, do not
reveal the nature of the penalty which accrues to this sin
and yet argue as if these texts did contain such informa
tion, the error then becomes that of circular reasoning,
assuming what is at issue as if it had been proved. Such
an error is exacerbated by making such arguments on the
basis of our texts under consideration (i.e., Matt. 12:31,32;
Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:8-10), ones which are incapable of
answering such a question.”

“The Blasphemy of the Spirit and Overwhelming Grace, and “Unpardonable” Sin” booklet, p.11-12) … Spirit.pdf

Here is something for [tag]Origen;[/tag] [tag]Paidion[/tag] or anyone else.

Matthew 12:31-"Therefore * I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
Matthew 12:32-"Whoever * speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever * speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12:31 links with verse 32 with the conjunction και(and). Here are some questions:

1.In verse 31 it mentions blasphemy(βλασφημια)against the Spirit and in verse 32 it mentions speaks against(ειπη κατα)are these two different since the conjunction has one verse saying one thing and another verse saying another?
2.Why would Jesus use βλασφημια in verse 31 and ειπη κατα in verse 32 if they mean the same thing? Why not use one or the other? Jesus wouldn’t repeat himself if he uses the and(και)conjunction.
3.If they are different types of insults against the Spirit does both verses tie into “in this age or in the age to come”?

James, according to the two verses above, whether one blasphemes against the Spirit or speaks against the Holy Spirit, neither will be forgiven. However, “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people.” Blasphemy is defined as “the offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; desecration.” From this definition, blasphemy itself is speaking against God or “against the Spirit” which says it shall be forgiven people.
Again, it says, “Whoever speaks against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.” Considering Jesus was the Son of Man and the Spirit of God was in Him, then blaspheming, or speaking against Him would still be speaking against the Spirit, and according to Matthew,’'it shall be forgiven him."

I am not sure of this one. But I would like to point out that the Greek verb “αφιημι” (aphiāmi) has many different meanings. “Forgive” is only one of them. Another one of the meanings is “allow” or “permit”.

I am thinking that the following might have been what Jesus actually said:

I am not taking any definite position on this, but I am looking at possibilities. I noticed that “people” is in the dative case. That is why I placed the preposition “to” before it. The same with “him” in the following verse.

“Forgiven to people” doesn’t seem to make good sense grammatically, but “allowed to people” does.

To allow some one do something doesn’t mean that their action is condoned. It may indicate only that you will require no adverse consequences.

If my suggestion is correct, then blasphemy against the Spirit is not allowed and WILL have consequences.

Ok but doesn’t that beg the question if it’s not allowed in this age or the age to come does it mean it’s allowed after those ages?

Also “every sin and blasphemy will be allowed to people” so according to this translation every sin and blasphemy is allowed? So we can sin and blasphemy all we want so along as it’s not against the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps they might be the ones, who experience the tribulation? And the Zombie Apocalypse, as illustrated in the linked video? All before being pardoned - of course.

It may lead to that question; I don’t know whether or not it would imply that it’s allowed after those ages.
By the way, “begging the question” has never been used in the way that you used it until relatively recently. In the study of logic, “begging the question” is assuming that the conclusion of an argument is true, and then making that conclusion one of the premises.

I think I dealt with that objection in my post that you quoted.

However, as I think about it, that doesn’t seem in accordance with God’s character. Surely everyone who does any kind of wrong act needs correction—including Christians. Our characters must be changed so that we will choose the good and reject the bad. So it may well be that my suggestion for translating the word as “allowed” is incorrect. Yet, if it is translated as “forgiven” your objection still stands.

So we are back to forgiven for the correct translation? If so then we still need to figure out why kai is being used. Is it being used:

1.To link the two verses together suggesting that there are two unpardonable sins and if so does both coordinate with the ages to come?
2.As an adverbial conjunction? Such as indeed(since that is one definition of kai)if so then Jesus is repeating Himself as a way to emphasize the action in the previous verse(verse 31).

Well… I am not back to anything being the correct translation. I was but offering another possible translation.
The only reason I referred again to “forgiven,” is that the objection you raised concerning “allowed” applies equally well to “forgiven.”

Yep qaz davo’s point makes mucho sense but only if you view the context in the proper way. That is the rub, EVERYONE wants to read the gospels (and all of scripture) as if it was written to them. :open_mouth:

Context is everything :laughing: