Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Full Version: What are the Unforgivable Sins?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The Unforgivable Sins

Christians are very familiar with Jesus’ response to a question that was posed to him regarding what he thought were the two greatest commandments in the Sinai covenant code: to love God completely and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:28-31; Deut. 6:4-5; Lev. 19:18). For a change of pace, however, the present essay will explore the other end of the spectrum. What, in Jesus’ mind, were the two greatest sins? Mind you, Jesus was never directly asked that question, nor did he on one occasion make a declaration as to what the two greatest sins were. However, he did, in his sermons, single out two sins as particularly reprehensible and emphasized the absolute need to avoid engaging in them. Every now and then, it is worthwhile to focus on the negative in order to say something positive.

The Catholic Church, at least from the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), has distinguished seven “deadly” sins, which it believed were capital crimes and merited damnation. They are pride, envy, anger, avarice, sadness, gluttony, and lust. These sins could not be forgiven without the help of the sacraments and Confession. Interestingly, the two that Jesus highlighted, although connected potentially in some way, are not even on this list.

Now one might think that if Jesus singled out two great commandments, then it naturally follows that the two greatest sins would be the transgressions of those two great commandments. The sins would therefore be to hate God and to hate one’s neighbor (or at least not to love them). Yet it is interesting that both of the terrible sins that Jesus highlights have to do with one’s treatment of other people and are therefore related only to the second of his two great commandments. He does not discuss sins having to do with the first great commandment, the hatred of God, perhaps because all sins could be considered forms of hatred of God, or because it goes without saying that hatred of God is evil. Either way, Jesus seems more interested in discussing how one should treat other people. The two sins are specific ways that a lack of love for one’s neighbor might be manifested.

These two sins are remarkable in that they are the only two about which Jesus says there can be no forgiveness.

The first unforgivable sin is mentioned right after the Lord’s prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), in which Jesus shows that it is proper to ask God for forgiveness for our debts (sins), just as we forgive others. He explains further: “For if you forgive people their wrongdoing, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you don’t forgive people, your Father will not forgive you your wrongdoing” (Matt. 6:14-15). Now, it should be acknowledged that in this passage the wrongs that are done to a person (for which he might not forgive someone) are not specified. They are not important to the point. The emphasis is on the person’s response to the wrongs done against him. Note that any wrongs committed by a person would be forgiven by God if the person who committed them were forgiving of other people. Yet the fact that a person would not forgive others is cause for God to withhold his own forgiveness from that person. So the real sin here is the reluctance or refusal to forgive. In a word, those who do not forgive are committing an unforgivable sin.

The second unforgivable sin is highlighted by Jesus right after an interesting encounter he has with the scribes. When Jesus is performing miracles, some religious leaders of his day attribute his actions to the Devil (Mark 3:20-22). Here is one of the things Jesus says about it: “Truly I say to you that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin” (Mark 3:28-29). Here Jesus implies that the sin of the scribes (to attribute Jesus’ works to Satan) is an unforgivable sin. We know this for sure, because Mark says: “This, because they were saying: ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (Mark 3:30). The offense they committed was to take someone’s good actions and call them evil. This is what Jesus calls a sin “against the holy spirit.” Since it is by God’s spirit that all good comes forth from a person, then to impugn such actions and judge them to be evil is to blaspheme the spirit. The lesson here is not to be so quick to condemn. In other words, we humans are not to be the judges of a person’s spiritual or ethical status before God. By calling into question someone’s goodness, we are maligning God’s spirit and placing ourselves in the judgment seat that belongs only to God.

The sin against the holy spirit is a transgression against an instruction that Jesus gives in his sermons: “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:1-2). This formulation is very similar to the one he uses in reference to forgiveness and is in Jesus’ typical style. It is also reminiscent of his “golden rule”: “Whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same to them” (Matt. 7:12).

Now some might recall a passage in Hebrews that seems to describe another sort of unforgivable sin:

"For if we sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. Of how much more severe a punishment, do you think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? For we know him that said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will recompense'; and again: 'Jehovah will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of [the] living God" (Hebrews 10:26-31).

This rather scary passage contains the expression "no longer any sacrifice for sins left," which is usually taken to mean "no forgiveness for sins left," since it is understood that Jesus' sacrifice is what forgives people of their sins. So here the writer seems to say that there is no forgiveness for any willfull sin whatsoever.

The main problem with this interpretation is that there are very few sins that people commit that are not willfull. Every one of us has sinned when we know that the act is wrong. This is a willfull sin. Often we do these sins over and over again. Is it possible that we will never be forgiven for these? How many would actually end up getting God's forgiveness? Anybody?

And so we have to ask ourselves whether the writer is referring to all and any sins here. Is it possible that he has specific sins in mind when he says this?

He describes the willfull sinners as 'trampling upon the Son of God and esteeming as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraging the spirit of grace with contempt.' This hardly sounds like just any old sin practiced willfully.

But to what sort of sin does it refer?

The expression "outraging the spirit of grace with contempt" sounds very close to the expression "blaspheming the holy spirit" used by Jesus. Is it not, then, reasonable to suppose that the sin against the holy spirit spoken of by Jesus is the same willfull sin alluded to by the writer of Hebrews?

We should note that Hebrews 10:26 begins with the word "for" (or "because"). Clearly the writer is in mid-thought. So let us look at the full context:

"And let us consider one another to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near. For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left."

Ah, now the passage has more meaning. The writer is speaking about inciting others to love and fine works and encouraging them. And then he continues: "for if we practice sin willfully" (i.e., if we do not incite to love and fine works or encourage one another, and in fact, do the opposite), "there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left."

Thus it would seem that there is definitely a connection between Jesus' "sin against the holy spirit" (which is to condemn others), and the "outrage of the holy spirit" here (which is to discourage others). It seems to be the same basic sin.

So we are still left with only two unforgivable sins: 1) not forgiving others who have wronged us and 2) judging/condemning others.

What did Jesus mean when he said these two sins would not be forgiven? In the case of the first, the message is clearer. People who do not forgive will not be forgiven. For as long as they withhold forgiveness, God will withhold his forgiveness from them. But as soon as they forgive, then God will forgive them. I believe the same principle holds true with reference to the second sin. Granted, Jesus says that those who sin against the holy spirit have “no forgiveness forever” and are “guilty of everlasting sin.” However, as he says, such applies not to those who commit blasphemy against the spirit, but to those who blaspheme the spirit. The verb is in the present tense. In other words, just as in the case of the first sin, the blasphemy is presented as an ongoing sin, rather than as a one-time offense. Thus, for as long as a person blasphemes the spirit (i.e., judges a good person to be bad), there can be no forgiveness forever. Such would be the case until the end of time. However, if that person ceases to blaspheme the spirit (i.e., if the judgment that they have made is retracted), I would venture to say that forgiveness would then be possible in Jesus’ point of view.

What is interesting about Mark 3:28-29 is that, in it, Jesus assures his audience that, apart from the sin against the spirit, “all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit.” In this statement, Jesus makes no mention of the need for people to first repent before the sins can be forgiven. In the case of the two sins highlighted here, he does. Thus he is clearly making a differentiation between the one sort of sin that requires a person to cease doing it before forgiveness can come and another that God will forgive freely. This emphasizes the importance of the two sins discussed. If a person does not actually refrain from these sins, it is impossible for such a one to have a good relationship with God.

Thus we see that the two greatest sins, in Jesus’ mind, were the withholding of forgiveness of others and the negative or condemnatory judgment of others, particularly when they are in truth doing the will of God. Of all the possible sins to judge harshly, it is very interesting that Jesus would choose these. However, as we have seen, this is what we might expect from the person who called the love of neighbor the second greatest commandment and whose teaching often dwells on our treatment of fellow humans.

donbodo Wrote:
The offense they committed was to take someone’s good actions and call them evil. This is what Jesus calls a sin “against the holy spirit.” Since it is by God’s spirit that all good comes forth from a person, then to impugn such actions and judge them to be evil is to blaspheme the spirit. The lesson here is not to be so quick to condemn. In other words, we humans are not to be the judges of a person’s spiritual or ethical status before God. By calling into question someone’s goodness, we are maligning God’s spirit and placing ourselves in the judgment seat that belongs only to God.

So we are still left with only two unforgivable sins: 1) not forgiving others who have wronged us and 2) judging/condemning others.

Thus we see that the two greatest sins, in Jesus’ mind, were the withholding of forgiveness of others and the negative or condemnatory judgment of others, particularly when they are in truth doing the will of God.


If this is true(and I'm not saying it isn't), then JW's are in trouble every time they label someone a "goat". Especially those who are actually doing good- like helping the poor, etc.

According to what Jesus himself stated:

(Matthew 12:31-32) j(NWT)31 “On this account I say to YOU, Every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. 32 For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.


In other bible versions, it reads this way:
(NIV)
31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.


KJV
32And 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.

You can look in other bible versions as well. In all versions, no matter how you slice it, Jesus says the same exact thing:
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - which is the speaking against the Holy Spirit -- is the only unforgiveable sin.

Therefore, so long as we don't speak against God's Holy Spirit, we haven't committed the unforgiveable sin. Jesus makes it clear and conscise. Since the bible has all the information we need to know (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and this is the only thing in the bible that tells us such a thing, this is the thing we need to know:
Speaking against the Holy Spirit is THE unforgivable sin. Therefore, if we haven't spoken against the Holy Spirit, we are covered under Christ's Sacrifice.

If I am in error with this, I need to be shown.

Love,
Tami
And how does one speak against the hs? In Jesus' example - his opposers had declared he used Satan's power instead of God's holy spirit to perform miracles, right? Micah kind of hit on my thought, that it's when someone says a godly person(He knows His own and it's why WE aren't supposed to judge one another's spirituality) is led by a satanic force instead of recognising good works for what they are - good works=fruits of the spirit. I've often thought that maybe I've blasphemed the spirit in my previous arrogant attitude about other religions - I was pretty high-and-mighty about it all and yes, we talked a lot about goat-like people at the door - who could've been the most godly people, yet we judged by their rejection of a different gospel.... man... :(
"Speaking against the holy spirit" must be an expression, an idiom. Surely, it is not to be taken literally. I mean, we certainly can't be understanding this to mean that if someone says, "Hey, holy spirit! You stink!" then he is guilty of everlasting sin. The holy spirit isn't even a person. It must be an idiomatic expression. And I agree with Willa that it needs to be understood in the context of the passage.
HI Don,

I don't see it the way your article presents it. the only place I have found to address this is

mark 3:29
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."


You are in my opionion making a leap with matthew and saying becuase we are not forgiven by God that that is the exact same thing as the "eternal sin"
I think that in my mind is saying be carefull for you will be judged according to your own level of forgiveness. and just will be dealt to you in that manner.

Where as the other script plainly states it will not be forgiven.

I reserve the right to be wrong LOL
Hi Td,

If one is not forgiven, then the sin doesn't go away. Right? It isn't erased until forgiveness takes place.
Options

Track this topic
Email this topic
Print this topic
Download this topic
Subscribe to this forum
Display Modes
Switch to: Outline
Standard
Switch to: Linear+
Untied
Sep 28 2006, 05:41 PM
Post #1


Unregistered







Hi Family,

I posted this a couple of months ago at the other Board. It deals with blasphemy. Hopefully it helps.



Greetings folks,

I wonder how much of the biblical doctrines I had learned through the Watchtower is still dear and inviolable to me. The more I examine the scriptures carefully, the more those dear " truths " melt down by the heat of the scriptures so much so, that currently, I am left with true and dear Watchtower doctrines so few that I could write them down in a post card.

Especially when it comes to interpreting Prophesy, it seems as if there is a curse up on the Watchtower that nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, they say fits to the scriptures and developments in the world.

As an example, please consider the following:

The Watchtower interpretes the last of the seven headed beast of revelation as the Anglo-American world power. I believe this is just one grand error the Watchtower made by its arbitrary interpretation of the book of Revelation.

Let?s take one identifying mark of the beast; the fact that the beast has blasphemous names on its heads, and examine it whether it really represents the Anglo- American world power.

The Watchtower argues that because we for example read " in God We Trust " on the dollar while the US is promoting policies that are contrary to trusting in God, America is blaspheming God.

First of all though, what is blasphemy?

The Greek word is a combination of " blaplein", meaning `to injure,? and " pheme ", meaning `reputation.?

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God.

It denotes any kind of malicious, false statement or accusations, or evil speaking, or abusive pronounciation.

The Catholic encyclopedia defines it as follows.

" Blasphemy signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.... Any kind of malidiction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. "

Further down in that same encyclopedia, examples are given that show how blasphemy is commited. Accordingly, to say " God is cruel and unjust " , " The noblest work of man is God " or " Away with God " is to blaspheme.

The old testament contains an incident where a person blasphemes against God and, taking that incidnet as a precedent, God provided a death sentence on the blasphemer. Following the accusation that the man had blasphemed, we read what was decided upon at Leviticus 24:14, " Let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head and let all the congregation stone him. "


The Christian Greek Scriptures are full of examples that teaches us what precisely blasphemy is. For example Jesus was accused of blaspheming against God because he claimed to be the son of God. Jesus himself once warned those religious leaders not to commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the holy spirit, when they attribute to Satan the spirit by which he was healing people. " I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of eternal sin." ( Mark 3: 28-29)

Both the secular and biblical meaning agree in defining blasphemy as an expression, a statement or utterance of insult, curse or mockery against the holy name of God.

It is important to note here that blasphemy remains an utterance. It is not an act of sin. It is a transgression one commits through words using his mouth. For example, as we saw at Leviticus 24:14 the man who was accused of blasphemy was to be stoned after those " that heard him " testify. A clear example that the man was to pay for what he said, not for what he did. Similarly, the pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy, because he " said " he is the son of God. " He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look now you have heard the blasphemy. " ( Matt. 26:65 )

Blasphemy is a spoken sin. It is a sin of the tongue. It can not be commited through action.

This leads us to our original discussion.

Can we reasonably agree that the Anglo-American dual power is blaspheming God? Has anyone of us heard of blasphemous statements declared by the two governments that brought reproach upon the holy name of God? Is the statement " In God We Trust " blasphemous?

We can resonablly accuse both the US and Britain of waging numerous unjust wars and spiling so many innocent blood. We can in good concience blame both of being responsible for the uneven distribution of resources and for the entire global economic system that benefits the rich than the poor. Both are responsible for enslaving entire nations, for massacring and evicting indegenious people and still treating them as " illegal aliens ".

Human rights violations and double standard define their foreign policies.

They can be accused of Hypocrisy, because they claim to be christian, while their actions confirm otherwise.

But do they really blaspheme?

Hardly!

All the above mentioned transgressions, regardless of the reproach they bring upon God?s name because they are either commited in his name or the people who commit them are proffessed christians, they still are not uttered sins. They are not sins of the tongue.

Infact we will never find a single country in history like the US, where God is praised without let up . Doesn?t the very people who try to restore the original name of God came from America? Which nation in the world send so many missionaries to the exteremities of the earth to teach the Gospel Of Christ like England and the US? Which country on earth donate and help people who fall victim to natural disasters like America and the American people?

On the contrary, the US once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press. In the American decisions ( vol:V, 335 ) we read that " christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at common law."

The Massachusettes General Law still contain a chapter thich declares blasphemy as a crime. Section 36 reads as follows:

" Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail...."

The same can be said of Great Britain. The legal notion of blasphemy in Britain goes back centuries. Offending God was thought to threaten the very fabric of society, because faith in England was considered as being the heart of soicety. Infact as late as 1922, a man by the name John William Gott was sentenced to 9 months hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown.

Indeed, if there is a register containing a list of countries who blaspheme against God, I doubt we find the names America or England there.

Remember, upon observing his wayward nation of Israel being hypocrites, God didn?t accuse them of blaspheming against his name just because they were hypocrites. He told them through Isaiah that they are going to pay for precisely what they have done. " These people come near to me with their mouth and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intellignece of the intelligent will vanish." ( Isaiah 29: 13-14 )

For this very reason that the Anglo- American world power never blasphemed the holy name of God, it is not represented in the seven headed wild beast of Revelation chapter 13 or 17 at all. By the same token, we can conclude that the Anglo-American power is not the seventh world power afterall, because blasphemy against God is what that Beast did from its inception.

Humbly presented for your consideration,

Your takes are appreciated!

Untied
Thanks, Untied! That's some good research, and I fully agree that blaspheming the holy spirit is a verbal sin. In particular, as I say in my article, it is seeing the good works of the holy spirit and calling them evil.
I am just trying to say that yes God may not forgive us for any sin we are not willing to forgive another..  Yet that doesn't make it equal in my mind as deserving eternal death..  why Adam sinned and got death.
He was punished. Our wages of sin is death... we die. I am seeing it from the stand point that they we're not forgiven they were punishments.. for the sins.  as the ternal sin you don't have a chance to get off with just punishment...

I hope that made my viewpoint clearer
Oh, I agree with you on that. If we have died, we have paid the price of our sin, right? I don't think "everlasting sin" means that the sin lasts after our death. It lasts only as long as we are committing it.

donbodo Wrote:
Oh, I agree with you on that. If we have died, we have paid the price of our sin, right? I don't think "everlasting sin" means that the sin lasts after our death. It lasts only as long as we are committing it.


Death pays for sin, not the act of dying.
Jesus Christ will redeem a person from the grave.
Once redeemed, willful sin will be a problem after a person has the understanding. Right now, willful sin is only held against the Church.

This is for the Church now, and the world later:
Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.

I won't be arguing the matter though. I can see I am not wanted here.

God bless.

Dear Watcher,

What makes you think you are not wanted here?
Nice job Dondodo! I liked many of the points you brought out.

"The verb is in the present tense. In other words, just as in the case of the first sin, the blasphemy is presented as an ongoing sin, rather than as a one-time offense. Thus, for as long as a person blasphemes the spirit (i.e., judges a good person to be bad), there can be no forgiveness forever. Such would be the case until the end of time. However, if that person ceases to blaspheme the spirit (i.e., if the judgment that they have made is retracted), I would venture to say that forgiveness would then be possible in Jesus’ point of view."

This makes sense to me and agrees with the judgment of both the chosen ones and the sheep and goats. If anyone sinned against the spirit it was Mannesah! . "He did on a large scale what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, to offend him." There wasn't a thing this guy didn't do in the name of God! But Jehovah forgave him because he repented.

2 Chron 33:12 And as soon as it caused him distress, he softened the face of Jehovah his God and kept humbling himself greatly because of the God of his forefathers. 13 And he kept praying to Him, so that He let himself be entreated by him and He heard his request for favor and restored him to Jerusalem to his kingship; and Ma·nas´seh came to know that Jehovah is the [true] God.

One thing I though that could be unforgivable is lying. Not all lying but some like the lie of Ananias and Sapphira.

5 However, a certain man, An·a·ni´as by name, together with Sap·phi´ra his wife, sold a possession 2 and secretly held back some of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and he brought just a part and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: “An·a·ni´as, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field?

I have a few more thoughts but it is getting late.
Bro watcher,,
I am going to stick my neck out their..
I think you are being to sensitive... I personally feel that you come across to strong and maybe some other do to.. you are very sure of yourself while the rest of use are trying to figure out what happened.. we are going over and back through what we once beleived and it is very disheartening...

You are placeing more emphasis on what you say and how you beleive..then in the discussion part. that is where I think some might have an issue.. once bitten twice shy.. We are trying to make sure of all things.. within the context of what we understand.

Just my view... I could be way offffffffffff

It is hard hiting to learn that what some here have believed for many decades might be wrong. and it is somewhat based on what you currently hold as beleifs... not totally but very close...

sorry in advance
Reference URL's