In reply to Covenant In Blood
Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand, and that if He was casting out demons by the prince of demons, by whom were the sons of the Pharisees casting out demons? The Pharisees were well aware that Satan does not cast out Satan. Blasphemy of the Spirit involves an awareness that the Spirit is at work, and maliciously attributing His work to Satan.
And is this supposed to prove that the Pharisees believed in Jesus, or that He were casting out demons by the Spirit of God? Why would Jesus have to tell them this if this were already in their minds? Jesus exposed a flaw in their reasoning, showing that they were wrong. It was Christ who made this argument, and not the Pharisees, and there is nothing in the text to indicate that the Pharisees had thought of it before Christ said it.
Not in the least, because it involves just what the offense spoken of is! The offense involves an awareness of Who is doing the work.
This is hopeful eisegesis, and not something that comes from the text. Let us look at the verse in question:
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Jesus said that ‘whosoever’ spoke a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. He did not qualify His statement by making an exception for those who did so in ignorance, or those who lived in the first century. Nor did he say that this teaching only applied to those who saw the miracles He Himself performed. Instead of limiting this principle, he expands it, declaring that such a person will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come.
I know that some theologians, including Jonathan Edwards (the real one, not the poster here) believed that one had to have full knowledge to be guilty of blaspheming the Spirit. I suppose they get this idea from the following verses.
I Timothy 1
13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Paul was a blasphemer, but notice that the passage does not say that he spoke against the Spirit of God. Jesus said “whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him”.
If we take Christ’s word as true, we must acknowledge that whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come? This is an uncomfortable, possibly even scary teaching. But do we really want to give an account on the day of judgment for arguing that Christ really did not mean what He said, just to make His teachings more acceptable to our ears and more comforting to others?
Here is the earliest interpretation of the verse I can find, from around the turn of the first century, speaking of prophets in those days:
11:10 And any prophet speaking in the Spirit ye shall not try neither discern;
11:11 for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.
(I do not agree with way this is worded, btw, but it illustrates that those chronologically close to Christ took His teaching literally on this issue. This document purports to be the teaching of the 12 apostles.)
There is also the quote above from Irenaeus that he believed a certain group, possibly the Montanists or certain of their number, of commiting the irremissible sin by sinning against the Spirit.
Christ said what He did on this issue. What should we believe, the words of Christ, or complicated theological arguments that say He did not really mean what He said?
