Something About the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

One reader wants to know more about “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,” and another text that frequently comes into play, here, is Hebrews 6:4-6; let's see if we can unpack this a bit . . .

Matthew 12:31,32 (= Mk. 3:28-30) insists that “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” cannot be forgiven. That makes us stop in our tracks and wonder, “Have I ever committed this? And, if I have, what does that look like?!”

On the surface, we might think this to be some kind of slur against God or taking His name in vain, but there's actually a context, here, that needs to be considered. It's true that “blasphemy” means “to speak against,” but that still won't help us exhaustively. Let's pursue this a bit more . . .

Some of the antagonists of Jesus had accused His ministry of being done by the power of the Devil; they were reducing Him (Jesus, the very Son of God) to being nothing but an errorist, a false teacher (Mk. 3:20-22). But, Jesus, rightly, raised the question about how that might make sense – why would Satan (in Jesus) be fighting his own agents, demons? Why would Satan be fighting himself (Mk. 3:23-27)?

Instead, Jesus insists that His ministry is not demonic – and, labelling Him/His ministry as such (“demonic”) certainly is to “blaspheme” (“speak against”) His (God's/Jesus') very ministry. But, was it merely a single moment of “being against” God that qualified as “speaking against the Holy Spirit”? Ehh . . . Not quite . . .

In fact, if we're attentive readers, we might have recognized (in Matthew 12:31,32) that “blasphemy against the Son of Man” could be forgiven – now, that forms an obvious contrast with “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” which can not be forgiven. Hmm . . . Now, that makes us wonder: “Why might 'blasphemy against the Son of Man' be worthy of forgiveness but 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' not be? Hmm . . .”

Here's part of the answer . . .

Right now, in Jesus' ministry, prior to His glorification (death, burial, resurrection, ascension, enthronement), some are “blaspheming” Him – they are reducing His ministry to “demonic” . . . however, there's coming a day (after His glorification) when some of them will “repent” and turn to Him as the Jewish Messiah, seeing that this really is/was God's work. In fact, that's precisely what we find in Acts 2 – some who were guilty of having killed the Messiah end up requesting forgiveness in His very name (cf. Acts 2:36-38). This is a case where some who had “blasphemed” the Son of Man (in His personal ministry) are now, in the era of the Holy Spirit (after the Son of Man's glorification), deciding not to “blaspheme” the Holy Spirit.

Here's a brief interjection . . .

After Jesus' “glorification,” His human identity undergoes a change. You'll have noticed that the Spirit hadn't been given (in some sense!) prior to His glorification (cf. Jn. 7:37-39 [esp. vs. 39])? You'll also have noticed that the Holy Spirit is always “the Spirit of God” prior to the glorification of the human Jesus, but, after His glorification, “the Spirit of God” becomes “the Spirit of Christ” consistently across the New Testament (cf. Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Pet. 1:11; 3:18; etc.). Prior to the glorification, the Holy Spirit was not the “Spirit” of the human Jesus, but, after the glorification, His identity has undergone a transformation. Now, by virtue of His undergoing the human drama, Jesus (still a human!) is now the “glorified human” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5)! He is the mediator, the man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)! And, so, it makes sense that Jesus' ministry (“the Son of Man”) becomes the ministry of the Holy Spirit after the glorification. And, wouldn't you know that this is precisely the “era” in which we find ourselves, on this other side of “the cross”? Wouldn't you know that we're no longer in the era of “the Son of Man” but in the era of “the Holy Spirit”? He did tell the disciples as much – He said that He wouldn't leave them as “orphans” but would come to them by the medium of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:18,23). I'm not interested, here, in discussing the mechanics of all of this – I'm simply insisting that this is the way that the New Testament maps it out.

So, let's return to our original inquiry . . .

The phrases in our text under consideration, then – phrases like “the Son of Man” and “the Holy Spirit” – refer to eras or time periods. Jesus is saying that one might reject Him (as Messiah) in His personal ministry, but under the post-glorification era (the era of “the Holy Spirit”), one would have an opportunity (just like those in Acts 2:36-38) to find forgiveness. However, for one to reject God's work in the Messiah, now, in this era (of “the Holy Spirit”) on this side of the Messiah's cross, would not be followed with another “era” or another opportunity to submit to God in another time. In other words, there is no “fourth member of the Godhead” coming to undergo a “glorification” that might provide forgiveness after the era of the Holy Spirit. The Messiah has been glorified, and now, making a correct verdict on Him, is imperative. Prior, one might've rejected the Messiah in His personal ministry and then come around; now, one can't get this wrong – His identity as God's final work is conclusive and to be decided on.

So, what does it mean to “blaspheme the Son of Man” or to “blaspheme the Holy Spirit” – well, both mean “to speak against,” but there's a context that needs consideration – and, this explains why one could “blaspheme the Son of Man” and receive forgiveness but “blaspheme the Holy Spirit” and not receive such. The text certainly isn't saying that it wasn't as important or less important to abstain from “blaspheming the Son of Man” – it's merely calling attention to the fact that there would be another opportunity for some to change views, make the right verdict on Jesus – one could, under the post-glorification era of the Holy Spirit, find forgiveness, having had rejected the Son of Man in His personal ministry earlier. Now, however, for one to reject (“blaspheme”) God's work is a full denial without another era – “blaspheming” is more than just a single ill word – it's a full “speaking against,” a rejection, even a reducing God's work in His Messiah to something like “demonic.” And, when that's our final verdict on God's work in this era (now, post-glorification of the Messiah, characterized as “the Holy Spirit”), there's no forgiveness to be found.

No, the text isn't saying that one can sin in this life and reach the point of no return while alive – some have incorrectly tried to read it just this way! – the text is actually saying just the opposite! One doesn't reach “the point of no return” until one's life ends in a full rejection, a reduction, a “blasphemy” against God's work in the Messiah. The decision in view is the final verdict on Jesus – should one's life end with the final verdict on Jesus being that He was not God's Son, that His ministry is not legitimate and etc. – well, read John 14:6 and see where that leads . . .

So, that might handle Matthew 12:31,32 (= Mk. 3:28-30), but another text in view quickly becomes Hebrews 6:4-6 . . . What should we understand it to say?

I suppose the concerning line is when Hebrews 6:4-6 says, “It is impossible in the case of those who have been enlightened (vs. 4) . . . and have fallen away to restore them again to repentance (vs. 6).” Go ahead, open up your translation, cut the interjecting phrases (all the way from 6:4b-5) and see how it reads. It really does say, in paraphrase, “It is impossible for Christians who have fallen away to repent.” That really is what the text says. It's of little help or value to hear explanations that end up saying that the text doesn't say that when it really does. Hmm . . .

But, doesn't context mean something?

How'd you feel if you, without context, overheard me passionately say, “He's an idiot!” You'd probably think less of me, I'd perhaps hope? But, what if the whole discussion were framed with context? What if I were actually quoting somebody else rather than making that remark myself? What if you found out that the person under consideration really did fit the bill? Ouch?!

All I'm saying at this point is that context matters.

One of the things that we mustn't do, in order to be responsible Bible readers, is jump right into the middle of an extended argument – which is usually how Paul, in any case, works – and start prodding the text with questions that might be outside of the actual context. Often, people come to Hebrews 6:4-6 with a set agenda, haven't followed the argument and then start explaining without having all of the relevant data (or any of the relevant data?!) before them.

Let's see if we can do better than that . . .

“Hebrews” is a text written to persuade Jewish Christians not to abandon Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. There are (at least) three texts in the New Testament written against a serious set of antagonists . . . Galatians, 2 Corinthians and Hebrews are all written against “opponents” or “antagonists.” These three texts, while similar, are quite different, too . . .

In Galatians, the antagonists want to blend Judaism with Christianity – they're not pushing to ditch Christianity; they simply want to fuse it into Judaism and hold both viewpoints simultaneously – Paul insists that the idea is counter-intuitive, contradictory, and ultimately violates the Messiah's work, even per the Old Law itself. In 2 Corinthians, the antagonists aren't interested in upholding the Old Law at all – they're simply interested in transforming New Testament Christianity into “externalism” – to modernize, they think that being a “strong” Christian amounts to being an ideal, worldly person, so, if you were tall, had white teeth, a good smile, an Ivy League degree, a nice car and a large house, you'd probably qualify for being a “strong” Christian. (Thank God we never do that!) In 2 Corinthians, they appeal to Moses and Jesus as earlier “power hitters” or “externalists” – they've forgotten that Moses suffered, was rejected and had human weakness and only pay attention to His having powerful artifacts (like a staff or a set of stone tables) and have forgotten that Jesus suffered, was beaten and rejected, died and had human weakness, paying attention only to the fact that He walked on water, fed the multitudes miraculously and resurrected. In both of these cases (Galatians and 2 Corinthians), the antagonists have been fine with seeing Jesus as the Messiah – now, they've certainly misread the meaning of “Messiah-ship” – they think that “being Messianic” is not what Jesus insists it is (as taken primarily from Isaiah 53 [cf. Mk. 10:32-45]) – but, they're fine with Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah. But, in Hebrews . . .

In Hebrews, a full rejection of Jesus as the Messiah is underway . . .

In 2:8b, they're assessing the world (in light of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, as being preached by the apostles) and concluding, “Hmm . . . Nothing's changed. All things still aren't subjected to Him, under His dominion. I guess He's not the real Messiah after all.” Sure, it's a physical worldview or viewpoint, but isn't that how we often see it? Don't we see poverty, hunger, thirst, strife, suffering, evil and etc. in the world? And, in light of that, haven't (at least!) some of us concluded, “God really hasn't made good on His promise(s) to be in control of the world?” Haven't some of us doubted the kingship of Jesus?

“Hebrews” makes its' own contribution to the New Testament (as do other texts, of course) about the identity of Jesus. So, while some are assessing “Jesus as Messiah” and scoring Him on “physical” or “worldly success,” the New Testament (Hebrews included, especially) is countering not only the “assessment results” but the very means by which the assessment was conducted. Not only was the final score on Jesus “off” but the very means by which Jesus is being judged as “Messiah” is misguided – that's what “Hebrews” (and other texts) say/s.

See, in “Hebrews,” we aren't dealing with individuals that struggle with moral issues, have Bible questions, struggle to attend church or etc. – we're dealing with a group that is considering abandoning Jesus as the Messiah altogether. In fact, the whole argument they're raising, in light of ever-present world troubles, is that they just go right back to Judaism and await for the appearing of the real “Messiah,” because, they think, “Jesus obviously isn't He.”

Oooohhh . . . When the writer of Hebrews (I still think it's Paul – see my other piece, here: https://cadleonard.com/blog/matters-around-hebrews) catches wind of this drive among this assembly, he responds.

Here's my point . . .

“Hebrews” is a response to a full reversion back to Old Testament Judaism; it's a response to the full belief that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. That's quite a bit different from the texts of Galatians and/or 2 Corinthians, now, isn't it!

When we come to Hebrews 6:4-6, then, we're not dealing with a moral struggle or a failure to attend church enough (hmph!) – we're dealing with a view that is presently on the brink of considering leaving Jesus as the Messiah altogether! So, I'm cutting through some of the details, but 6:4-6 says this: “If you leave Jesus as the Messiah, there's no way to find 'repentance' or 'forgiveness' apart from Him!” It's saying, “As long as you 'fall away' and stay apart from the Messiah, there's no forgiveness to be found. You'll not await for a(nother) real Messiah and actually find one – this is it!”

One more text, in Hebrews, that helps, I think is 10:26; it says, “If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins . . .” One fellow once mentioned to me that he needed to be re-immersed because he had sinned after he had obeyed the gospel. Look, Peter didn't know to tell the sorcerer that when he needed post-baptismal forgiveness (cf. Acts 8:13-24) – the New Testament knows nothing of a need for re-immersion when (not “if”) one sins after obeying the gospel! (Acts 19 needs detailing, but it doesn't tell us that people need to be immersed every time they sin – it does tell us that we need to make sure that our actual immersion is appropriate.) I think that Hebrews 10:26 actually is emphasizing the same point as Hebrews 6:4-6: if one engages in the context-specific “sin” of rejecting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and looks for another to fulfill that task/office, he looks in vain – there is “no sacrifice for sins” to be found apart from Jesus of Nazareth.

So, here's the similarity of Matthew 12:31,32 (= Mk. 3:28-30) and Hebrews 6:4-6 (and 10:26) . . .

Both texts detail two different (yet similar) cases where people might be making either the correct or incorrect verdict on Jesus as the Messiah. To end with the final verdict of Jesus as not being God's work, God's Messiah, is misguided and offers no forgiveness or salvation; to end with the final verdict of Jesus' being exactly who and what He claimed, God's work and God's Messiah, is where forgiveness and salvation is found.

Neither Matthew/Mark nor Hebrews says anything about falling away to the point where there is an impossibility for one to “come home”; in fact, both are actually pulling us to see that we reach the right verdict on Jesus while we have life so that we don't end in a state where we've become guilty of having reached an incorrect final verdict on Jesus and end life with a result of having “blasphemed the Holy Spirit.”

There are a few other texts, like Ephesians 4:19 and 1 Timothy 4:2, that mention becoming “past feeling” or having a “seared conscience” – some think that these passages might talk about the possibility of one moving past the possibility of repentance. I suppose that's true, but how would we (human beings) know that? That'd certainly be from God's angle, now, wouldn't it? I mean, even putting a person under a microscope isn't going to reveal if they've already reached their final verdict on Jesus, now, would it? So, what do we do?

I suppose we do what the New Testament tells us to do. We proceed on the assumption, from our angle, with our knowledge, that “as long as there is life, there is hope” (Ecc. 9:4).