Paul's Letters And Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit

February 15, 2016

This is something that came up briefly in my first post on this site about a year ago, and I am curious as to what others think. I need to first give the background before moving to my question. In the Gospel of Matthew, the author tells of Jesus casting out demons from a blind and mute man. The Pharisees think that Jesus got his power to cast out the demons from Satan. Jesus admonishes the Pharisees and goes on to state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV, and NRSV throughout this post) states, “31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

In reading various Christian websites and commentary, I see different interpretations of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and whether or not the sin can still be committed. Some treat blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a sin that everyone living today needs to avoid. Some indicate that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can still be committed today, but committing the sin is not possible for a true believer. Some state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can still be committed, but anyone who is worried or concerned about committing the sin has not done so - because that means the Holy spirit is still working within them.

But other Christian sources state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is no longer a sin that can be committed, because Jesus was only speaking to the Pharisees who were present. Or that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was only in effect as a possible sin while Jesus was alive, so committing this sin is no longer possible today. I find it hard to see how this explanation is supported, however. In verse 32, Jesus makes a distinction between blaspheming against the Son of Man (can be forgiven) and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (cannot be forgiven). I understand there could be different interpretations of exactly who the Son of Man is in some instances within the Bible, but in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus seems to refer to himself as the Son of Man in several places (e.g., Matthew 8:20, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 20:18, 20:28). If the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was only in effect while Jesus was alive (as a human), then why would Jesus state that speaking against the Son of Man, or blasphemy against Jesus, can be forgiven? That seems to indicate that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin not directly related to Jesus. There does not seem to be anything in the context of Matthew 12 to suggest that Jesus was only speaking to a temporary sin. In verse 32, Jesus states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, not only in the present age, but also in the age to come. If the concept of the Trinity is in effect, then this is supposed to be God in three persons or states, with two as Jesus and the Holy Spirit, considered by Christians to be alive and active in the world now. The age to come has apparently not arrived yet, if this is Jesus returning to defeat Satan and establish his new earthly kingdom. So this means we are still living in "this age". Also, it seems odd for a sin to only be in effect for such a short time (maybe 1 - 2 years, or even less?), between the time Jesus spoke these words until he was crucified. From a God perspective, why even document this scene and Jesus’ statement about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Matthew, if, by the time the gospel was written, the sin would no longer apply to anyone reading the gospel?

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

If blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could no longer be committed after Jesus died, then my question is essentially not applicable. But if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would still be a possible sin after Jesus died, why would Paul not remind the Gentile readers of his letters that they can never commit this sin? I believe Jesus would have spoken Matthew 12:31-32 sometime around 27 - 33 C.E. The scholarly dating of the Gospel of Matthew is something like 75 - 90 C.E.? So for 40 years or more, the only way for Gentile converts to Christianity to learn about this sin would have been via oral transmission. Paul spends considerable time in his letters discussing sins and admonishing against committing them. Here are some examples: Romans 1:28-31 (28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.); Galatians 5:19-21 (19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.); 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.); Ephesians 5:3-5 (3 But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.).

At the end of the day, the readers (and hearers) of Paul’s letters who were committing the sins he described could stop these sins, and they would be forgiven for them. However, when it came to the one sin that the readers and hearers of Paul’s letters could commit and never be forgiven for, Paul never mentions this sin in his letters - thus, relying completely on oral transmission for these Christians to be warned against committing the unforgivable sin? Would be interested in what others may think.

February 15, 2016

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

It's a marketing ploy: "I have the ultimate secret. Only I have it. You need to listen to me and treat me with respect when I visit. Want to support my ministry?"

If Paul actually cared about people and there was one thing that magically made God's Atonement magically not work anymore then the logical thing would be to announce it loud and clear. But that isn't how Christians use "the unforgivable sin". Even today Christians use it as a hook to keep people in the church through fear. Of course that was Paul's intent when he invented it. Naturally, a generation or two later when someone else tried to capitalize on Christianity they would use the same marketing ploy when they wrote the Gospel of Mark. And the author of Matthew copied from Mark.

Edit:

When I was a teen I was scared out of my mind about the unforgivable sin. And that meant I had to meet with a pastor (authority figure) and he assured me that I had not commited the unforgivable sin. And that made me feel reassured that this authority was guiding me and looking after me. Was it a coincidence that I gave him tithing money? I stayed with that church for about ten years (would have been longer if I had not been forced to move to a new area) and I gave that pastor all the money I could spare. Looking back at all the financial struggles I went through in my teens and early twenty I probably gave him far more money that I should have. But that was small price to pay for having an authority protect me from the (imaginary) unforgivable sin.

February 15, 2016

When a former believer, through study & research, realizes the Bible is a collection of fictional stories with fictional characters what the Bible says becomes irrelevant. It will become clear then too that sin is something that only exists in religion. It will also dawn on the former believer there is no such thing as hell or heaven. There is this reality that we live in & that's all there is.

February 15, 2016

This ties in with my de-conversion. I was told to re-read the bible (Yet AGAIN?!?), but to start at Revelations and work my way back. As soon as I was going through Galatians, the "wheels fell off" completely. Paul was so into making his own religion, and that was included in the bible? In my prayers to the Spirit that came to me, I prayed that the ONLY TRUE holy spirit was Her, and NO other. I "blasphemed" the bible spirit on purpose.

February 15, 2016

Fear of having blasphemed the Holy Spirit is what landed me here at ex-C to begin with. I would like to say that Geezer is right, but the Bible was never relevant to me in the first place, yet it has caused me great anxiety none the less.

February 15, 2016

This is a weird sin. Blowing up a schoolbus full of kids can be forgiven, but saying, "The Holy Spirit Sucks" can't be.

February 15, 2016

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

It's a marketing ploy: "I have the ultimate secret. Only I have it. You need to listen to me and treat me with respect when I visit. Want to support my ministry?"

If Paul actually cared about people and there was one thing that magically made God's Atonement magically not work anymore then the logical thing would be to announce it loud and clear. But that isn't how Christians use "the unforgivable sin". Even today Christians use it as a hook to keep people in the church through fear. Of course that was Paul's intent when he invented it. Naturally, a generation or two later when someone else tried to capitalize on Christianity they would use the same marketing ploy when they wrote the Gospel of Mark. And the author of Matthew copied from Mark.

Edit:

When I was a teen I was scared out of my mind about the unforgivable sin. And that meant I had to meet with a pastor (authority figure) and he assured me that I had not commited the unforgivable sin. And that made me feel reassured that this authority was guiding me and looking after me. Was it a coincidence that I gave him tithing money? I stayed with that church for about ten years (would have been longer if I had not been forced to move to a new area) and I gave that pastor all the money I could spare. Looking back at all the financial struggles I went through in my teens and early twenty I probably gave him far more money that I should have. But that was small price to pay for having an authority protect me from the (imaginary) unforgivable sin.

Thanks for sharing mymistake. I found myself worried about the unforgivable sin for a while, too. Blasphemy against the Holy spirit is like the ultimate fear that one can use to scare a person into behaving differently, and it is so vague as to lend itself to various interpretations on what committing the sin really is. I find it inconceivable how, if Paul knew Jesus stated this while he was alive, that Paul would have never reminded his readers to not commit the sin. Seems like Paul should be warning over and over his letters, like "Remember that you can never blaspheme against the Holy spirit..."

February 15, 2016

When a former believer, through study & research, realizes the Bible is a collection of fictional stories with fictional characters what the Bible says becomes irrelevant. It will become clear then too that sin is something that only exists in religion. It will also dawn on the former believer there is no such thing as hell or heaven. There is this reality that we live in & that's all there is.

Agreed Geezer. Sin is just relative to a religious doctrine or interpretation. And within Christianity, there are so many different interpretations of what is considered today to be a "sin" (can you work on the Sabbath, can women hold a position of authority in the church, etc.)

February 15, 2016

This ties in with my de-conversion. I was told to re-read the bible (Yet AGAIN?!?), but to start at Revelations and work my way back. As soon as I was going through Galatians, the "wheels fell off" completely. Paul was so into making his own religion, and that was included in the bible? In my prayers to the Spirit that came to me, I prayed that the ONLY TRUE holy spirit was Her, and NO other. I "blasphemed" the bible spirit on purpose.

That's interesting nightflighter. I remember once hearing someone say read the Bible by starting at Revelations and reading backwards, but cannot recall the source. The more I've read the gospels, Paul's letters, and James more closely, the more it strikes me as rather odd that so much of Christianity hinges on Paul being right, and Paul having this authentic vision of Jesus.

February 16, 2016

This is a weird sin. Blowing up a schoolbus full of kids can be forgiven, but saying, "The Holy Spirit Sucks" can't be.

I don't think that's the way people interpret it however. I checked both Orthodox, Catholic and Baptist sources, and none of them seemed to think that the "Unforgivable Sin" was thinking or saying something bad about the Holy Spirit, but rather, the act of denying it with ones heart, whatever that means.

EDIT: Or attributing works of the Holy Spirit to the Devil/evil spirits, which is exactly what the Biblical example with the Pharisees is about.

February 16, 2016

EDIT: Or attributing works of the Holy Spirit to the Devil/evil spirits, which is exactly what the Biblical example with the Pharisees is about.

Which is quite the double bind. Since there is never any objective evidence that these "works" even happened how could we ever know which ones were by the Holy Spirit? We always get the information through hearsay. And if doubting the legitimacy of the genuine ones is *the unforgivable sin* then that would mean we must always take it on faith.

It probably doesn't work so well on the modern mind because we have seen too much photoshop. But the ancient people from the Iron Age were much more superstitious. They didn't know anything about science. They thought disease was caused by evil spirits, deformities and bad luck were punishments from the gods and so on. Imagine somebody who is that superstitious and now they also think God will hold a grudge forever if you think God's work might have been done by some other kind of spirit. Better assume the Holy Spirit did it just in case.

February 16, 2016

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

The whole thing is essentially an argument from silence. So we have to assume that if Paul knew about it and it was simply just so important and he has some reason to tell everyone about this rule then he just has to do it. But this isn't always the case. Maybe he knew but just never said a word in the writings we have. That seems strange but could be the case. Maybe some of the first words out of "Paul's" mouth (whoever Paul may have really been) when you met him in person was "Don't blaspheme the holy spirit" so he just didn't write about it.

But given what Paul did and didn't write about it seems he did concern himself with some things people ought not to do. And if he knew this rule it seems he might touch on it in some way. So a better idea might be that he just didn't know the rule.

Maybe the rule hadn't been invented yet or maybe it existed but in some other branch of xianity where he was unaware of it or, he knew of it, but didn't acknowledge it. It's impossible to know and some of this depends on what time line you accept for much of the early religion. The basic idea is easy enough to grasp though.

Anyhow, we're just left to speculate why Paul, or pretty much anyone, doesn't write most anything. Sometimes there are clues to help figure it out but usually not. Paul (the collective), to our knowledge, didn't write about it because Paul didn't write about it.

mwc

February 16, 2016

This is something that came up briefly in my first post on this site about a year ago, and I am curious as to what others think. I need to first give the background before moving to my question. In the Gospel of Matthew, the author tells of Jesus casting out demons from a blind and mute man. The Pharisees think that Jesus got his power to cast out the demons from Satan. Jesus admonishes the Pharisees and goes on to state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV, and NRSV throughout this post) states, “31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

In reading various Christian websites and commentary, I see different interpretations of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and whether or not the sin can still be committed. Some treat blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a sin that everyone living today needs to avoid. Some indicate that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can still be committed today, but committing the sin is not possible for a true believer. Some state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can still be committed, but anyone who is worried or concerned about committing the sin has not done so - because that means the Holy spirit is still working within them.

But other Christian sources state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is no longer a sin that can be committed, because Jesus was only speaking to the Pharisees who were present. Or that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was only in effect as a possible sin while Jesus was alive, so committing this sin is no longer possible today. I find it hard to see how this explanation is supported, however. In verse 32, Jesus makes a distinction between blaspheming against the Son of Man (can be forgiven) and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (cannot be forgiven). I understand there could be different interpretations of exactly who the Son of Man is in some instances within the Bible, but in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus seems to refer to himself as the Son of Man in several places (e.g., Matthew 8:20, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 20:18, 20:28). If the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was only in effect while Jesus was alive (as a human), then why would Jesus state that speaking against the Son of Man, or blasphemy against Jesus, can be forgiven? That seems to indicate that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin not directly related to Jesus. There does not seem to be anything in the context of Matthew 12 to suggest that Jesus was only speaking to a temporary sin. In verse 32, Jesus states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, not only in the present age, but also in the age to come. If the concept of the Trinity is in effect, then this is supposed to be God in three persons or states, with two as Jesus and the Holy Spirit, considered by Christians to be alive and active in the world now. The age to come has apparently not arrived yet, if this is Jesus returning to defeat Satan and establish his new earthly kingdom. So this means we are still living in "this age". Also, it seems odd for a sin to only be in effect for such a short time (maybe 1 - 2 years, or even less?), between the time Jesus spoke these words until he was crucified. From a God perspective, why even document this scene and Jesus’ statement about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Matthew, if, by the time the gospel was written, the sin would no longer apply to anyone reading the gospel?

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

If blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could no longer be committed after Jesus died, then my question is essentially not applicable. But if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would still be a possible sin after Jesus died, why would Paul not remind the Gentile readers of his letters that they can never commit this sin? I believe Jesus would have spoken Matthew 12:31-32 sometime around 27 - 33 C.E. The scholarly dating of the Gospel of Matthew is something like 75 - 90 C.E.? So for 40 years or more, the only way for Gentile converts to Christianity to learn about this sin would have been via oral transmission. Paul spends considerable time in his letters discussing sins and admonishing against committing them. Here are some examples: Romans 1:28-31 (28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.); Galatians 5:19-21 (19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.); 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.); Ephesians 5:3-5 (3 But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.).

At the end of the day, the readers (and hearers) of Paul’s letters who were committing the sins he described could stop these sins, and they would be forgiven for them. However, when it came to the one sin that the readers and hearers of Paul’s letters could commit and never be forgiven for, Paul never mentions this sin in his letters - thus, relying completely on oral transmission for these Christians to be warned against committing the unforgivable sin? Would be interested in what others may think.

Paul was a cunt, even he knew that.

February 16, 2016

I always assumed that, based on the context, it was to do with seeing the clear, unmistakable outworking of the power of God the holy Spirit and still attributing it to something else because you didn't want to believe it. So, as Jesus was saying, it could only be the power of God expelling a demon because Satan wouldn't work against his own ends in casting out his own. And, by since it's the Holy Spirit convicting people of sin, if you reject the Holy Spirit you are rejecting the mechanism by which you can be saved, or such. Speaking against Jesus had to happen because otherwise he wouldn't be put to death.

So, essentially a total refusal to believe. (Kind of what we're doing here? Or rather, what it would be if it were true.) But it was still something that bothered me if I even thought blasphemous thoughts or (more to the point) judged a true prophecy to be false (as mentioned in the apocryphal Diadache, 11:7- 'Do not test or examine any prophet who is speaking in a spirit, "for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven."' [Lake translation]) Eventually I got sick f worrying and realized it would make a lot more sense if the whole thing was false. Have I burned my bridges, mewonders?

February 16, 2016

What if someone disbelieves in the Holy Spirit and then repents? Why should they be denied forgiveness. There are many non-believers in Christ who are forgiven when they accept Christ. Does this verse mean that non-believers in tounges go to hell even if they repent.

February 17, 2016

EDIT: Or attributing works of the Holy Spirit to the Devil/evil spirits, which is exactly what the Biblical example with the Pharisees is about.

Which is quite the double bind. Since there is never any objective evidence that these "works" even happened how could we ever know which ones were by the Holy Spirit? We always get the information through hearsay. And if doubting the legitimacy of the genuine ones is *the unforgivable sin* then that would mean we must always take it on faith.

It probably doesn't work so well on the modern mind because we have seen too much photoshop. But the ancient people from the Iron Age were much more superstitious. They didn't know anything about science. They thought disease was caused by evil spirits, deformities and bad luck were punishments from the gods and so on. Imagine somebody who is that superstitious and now they also think God will hold a grudge forever if you think God's work might have been done by some other kind of spirit. Better assume the Holy Spirit did it just in case.

I think that's a good point on the difference between the modern human mind and the way ancient men thought. Even though you can still find people today who are superstitious like that, we have far more scientific and technological advances that provide explanations for natural events and phenomena that the ancients would have believed were punishments from the gods. As someone living in that time period, that may make it even more striking that Paul never wrote to remind his followers to not commit the unforgivable sin.

February 17, 2016

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

     The whole thing is essentially an argument from silence. So we have to assume that if Paul knew about it and it was simply just so important and he has some reason to tell everyone about this rule then he just has to do it. But this isn't always the case. Maybe he knew but just never said a word in the writings we have. That seems strange but could be the case. Maybe some of the first words out of "Paul's" mouth (whoever Paul may have really been) when you met him in person was "Don't blaspheme the holy spirit" so he just didn't write about it.

     But given what Paul did and didn't write about it seems he did concern himself with some things people ought not to do. And if he knew this rule it seems he might touch on it in some way. So a better idea might be that he just didn't know the rule.

     Maybe the rule hadn't been invented yet or maybe it existed but in some other branch of xianity where he was unaware of it or, he knew of it, but didn't acknowledge it. It's impossible to know and some of this depends on what time line you accept for much of the early religion. The basic idea is easy enough to grasp though.

     Anyhow, we're just left to speculate why Paul, or pretty much anyone, doesn't write most anything. Sometimes there are clues to help figure it out but usually not. Paul (the collective), to our knowledge, didn't write about it because Paul didn't write about it.

          mwc

Right, it's impossible to know and an argument from silence. I'm sure there are other examples of teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels that Paul never wrote about. I tend to think that the most probable explanation is that Paul did not know about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin, and that the gospel writer could be the source it originated from.

February 17, 2016

I always assumed that, based on the context, it was to do with seeing the clear, unmistakable outworking of the power of God the holy Spirit and still attributing it to something else because you didn't want to believe it. So, as Jesus was saying, it could only be the power of God expelling a demon because Satan wouldn't work against his own ends in casting out his own. And, by since it's the Holy Spirit convicting people of sin, if you reject the Holy Spirit you are rejecting the mechanism by which you can be saved, or such. Speaking against Jesus had to happen because otherwise he wouldn't be put to death.

So, essentially a total refusal to believe. (Kind of what we're doing here? Or rather, what it would be if it were true.) But it was still something that bothered me if I even thought blasphemous thoughts or (more to the point) judged a true prophecy to be false (as mentioned in the apocryphal Diadache, 11:7- 'Do not test or examine any prophet who is speaking in a spirit, "for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven."' [Lake translation]) Eventually I got sick f worrying and realized it would make a lot more sense if the whole thing was false. Have I burned my bridges, mewonders?

Thanks for this explanation on the context. I remember reading something along these lines before.

It would sometimes bother me as well, because how could I truly know when a "spirit" was holy or unholy. This would be something I could not see or hear. What if Satan disguised himself as a priest or temporarily entered the spirit of a pastor and performed an act - how would I know whether or not that occurred.

It seems as though with Satan as a supernatural being able to tempt humans, if a person did attribute an act of the Holy Spirit to Satan or to something else, how can we know that person was acting in free will to blaspheme? Like Judas for example. In John 13:27, Satan enters Judas and Jesus commands Satan to facilitate Judas' betrayal. So how could this be free will on Judas' part? Or in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra, and Paul healed a crippled ,who was able to stand up and walk. But the crowds believed that the man was healed by the Greek gods, and Acts 14:12 indicates that they believed that Barnabas was Zeus, and that Paul was Hermes. So did those in this crowd who identified Paul's act as coming from Hermes instead of from the Holy Spirit blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Before Paul healed the man, did he warn the crowd not to attribute the healing to Zeus, Hermes, Satan, demons, etc., or perhaps they did not blaspheme because they were responding in ignorance? Seems to get rather sticky in how to interpret the sin.

February 18, 2016

So that leads to my question: Why does Paul never mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in any of his letters (whether the letters with undisputed or disputed authorship)?

     The whole thing is essentially an argument from silence. So we have to assume that if Paul knew about it and it was simply just so important and he has some reason to tell everyone about this rule then he just has to do it. But this isn't always the case. Maybe he knew but just never said a word in the writings we have. That seems strange but could be the case. Maybe some of the first words out of "Paul's" mouth (whoever Paul may have really been) when you met him in person was "Don't blaspheme the holy spirit" so he just didn't write about it.

     But given what Paul did and didn't write about it seems he did concern himself with some things people ought not to do. And if he knew this rule it seems he might touch on it in some way. So a better idea might be that he just didn't know the rule.

     Maybe the rule hadn't been invented yet or maybe it existed but in some other branch of xianity where he was unaware of it or, he knew of it, but didn't acknowledge it. It's impossible to know and some of this depends on what time line you accept for much of the early religion. The basic idea is easy enough to grasp though.

     Anyhow, we're just left to speculate why Paul, or pretty much anyone, doesn't write most anything. Sometimes there are clues to help figure it out but usually not. Paul (the collective), to our knowledge, didn't write about it because Paul didn't write about it.

          mwc

What also makes this stand out to me is that for all the sins that Paul does address in his letters, those sins could be addressed after the person commits the sin. The person can stop, repent, ask for forgiveness, and be forgiven. But for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the person needs to be warned ahead of time to not commit the sin, because once the sin is committed, the person cannot be forgiven. In my mind, I'm thinking, technically, Paul does not need to write any letters...but if Paul is going to write letters (and apparently be directed by God to write these letters) and warn these gentile Christians about sins, why would Paul NOT include blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That seems to be the most important sin to warn them about. We can only speculate why.

February 18, 2016

Most likely, Paul or whoever wrote the books attributed to him, wasn't aware of the Unforgivable Sin. There was no Bible canon to fall back on that early.

February 18, 2016

What also makes this stand out to me is that for all the sins that Paul does address in his letters, those sins could be addressed after the person commits the sin. The person can stop, repent, ask for forgiveness, and be forgiven. But for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the person needs to be warned ahead of time to not commit the sin, because once the sin is committed, the person cannot be forgiven. In my mind, I'm thinking, technically, Paul does not need to write any letters...but if Paul is going to write letters (and apparently be directed by God to write these letters) and warn these gentile Christians about sins, why would Paul NOT include blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That seems to be the most important sin to warn them about. We can only speculate why.

A quick look shows that Paul does mention blasphemy:

1 Timothy 1

¹³even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief

If we accept this then he gets away with it since it wasn't yet a believer. Apparently, this is all that matters. The rules don't apply to non-believers (at this point in time).

Now, he admits he's a blasphemer, which as a Jew has a specific meaning:

Leviticus 24:16

One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death.

But whether or not this narrow meaning is used I can't really say since others places in the bible (and elsewhere) use a wider definition. For example in Ezekiel 20:27:

Therefore, mortal, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: In this again your ancestors blasphemed me, by dealing treacherously with me.

As far as I know rabbinic Jews tend to stick with blaspheming the name but that doesn't mean that this what Paul or any other xian was writing about here.

Now, I could see someone retroactively getting this idea in their head if they used some "name" then came to the conclusion some time after using it that using that word was blasphemy and declaring themselves a blasphemer to their audience. As a Jew he never said anything about YHWH, for example, but said something about the magical holy spirit then later decided that was blasphemy. It's impossible to know what he's referring to here but if this is the sin of blaspheming the holy spirit then he could have an opportunity to speak to it around this point.

This seems like something that any sort of group might however. At some point certain things seem to enter the forbidden. Like the Nomina Sacra in the texts. For some reason it's fairly ubiquitous even across competing sects. I would guess that these things grew to be off limits over time and as the rules developed they came out in the writings essentially after the fact. So the holy spirit grew to be off-limits and that author made sure Jesus said it to cement it rather than Jesus said it and so it was off-limits. Same with Paul (or "Paul" as the case may be).

mwc

February 19, 2016

What also makes this stand out to me is that for all the sins that Paul does address in his letters, those sins could be addressed after the person commits the sin. The person can stop, repent, ask for forgiveness, and be forgiven. But for the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the person needs to be warned ahead of time to not commit the sin, because once the sin is committed, the person cannot be forgiven. In my mind, I'm thinking, technically, Paul does not need to write any letters...but if Paul is going to write letters (and apparently be directed by God to write these letters) and warn these gentile Christians about sins, why would Paul NOT include blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  That seems to be the most important sin to warn them about. We can only speculate why.

     A quick look shows that Paul does mention blasphemy:

1 Timothy 1

¹³even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief

     If we accept this then he gets away with it since it wasn't yet a believer. Apparently, this is all that matters. The rules don't apply to non-believers (at this point in time).

     Now, he admits he's a blasphemer, which as a Jew has a specific meaning:

Leviticus 24:16

One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death.

     But whether or not this narrow meaning is used I can't really say since others places in the bible (and elsewhere) use a wider definition. For example in Ezekiel 20:27:

Therefore, mortal, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: In this again your ancestors blasphemed me, by dealing treacherously with me.

     As far as I know rabbinic Jews tend to stick with blaspheming the name but that doesn't mean that this what Paul or any other xian was writing about here.

     Now, I could see someone retroactively getting this idea in their head if they used some "name" then came to the conclusion some time after using it that using that word was blasphemy and declaring themselves a blasphemer to their audience. As a Jew he never said anything about YHWH, for example, but said something about the magical holy spirit then later decided that was blasphemy. It's impossible to know what he's referring to here but if this is the sin of blaspheming the holy spirit then he could have an opportunity to speak to it around this point.

     This seems like something that any sort of group might however. At some point certain things seem to enter the forbidden. Like the Nomina Sacra in the texts. For some reason it's fairly ubiquitous even across competing sects. I would guess that these things grew to be off limits over time and as the rules developed they came out in the writings essentially after the fact. So the holy spirit grew to be off-limits and that author made sure Jesus said it to cement it rather than Jesus said it and so it was off-limits. Same with Paul (or "Paul" as the case may be).

          mwc

Thanks for your insights here mwc, and for pointing out the Nomina Sacra. Right, it appears that the Leviticus and Ezekiel passages are speaking to blaspheming the name of God/Yahweh. I can also see how as time went on, certain concepts or practices could have became off-limits or considered forbidden, then retroactively reflected by the gospel authors.

I think there may be some indicators that suggest Paul is not speaking to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin, as portrayed by Jesus in Matthew 12:31-32. First, just with the fact that Paul believes he is now redeemed (and I'm looking at it on face value), and as you point out in 1 Timothy 1:13, he gets away with it (or was forgiven for it) due to his ignorance and unbelief. If Paul's previous blasphemy had been against the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus described in Matthew, then Paul could not have been forgiven for it. In 1 Timothy 1:15-17, Paul goes on to describe how God had mercy on him and how Jesus is using him as an example to the other sinners, so that the sinners can believe in Jesus and have eternal life. Paul never commands Timothy here to warn everyone of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin.

There are a couple of other references to blasphemy in 1 Timothy (1:20, 6:1). The reference at 1:20 is to two individuals, Hymenaeus and Alexander, who have deliberately violated their consciences and lost their faith, and Paul says he is turning them over to Satan so that they would learn not to blaspheme God. This last statement (so that they would learn not to blaspheme God) seems to suggest that there is a path to forgiveness or redemption for them for their blasphemy, because they can learn not to do so. If so, then that means Hymenaeus and Alexander did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or else they could not be forgiven. But it is rather open ended in a sense, as Paul does not specifically say they can be made right again. In 6:1, the context is Paul telling Timothy that slaves should respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching will not be blasphemed. Again, the name of God, and not the Holy Spirit (as singled out by Jesus in Matthew 12).

Another indicator could be that this letter Paul wrote to Timothy was, at least in its original state (and assuming Paul actually wrote 1 Timothy), a personal letter addressed specifically to Timothy, rather than one of Paul’s letters addressed to one of the church communities as a whole. It seems as though if Paul intended to address a community of believers and admonish them against committing sins, he would have mentioned blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as unforgivable sin in one of those letters (again, assuming Paul's authorship).

Paul also mentions blasphemy in Romans 2:24, but this was part of a larger context of speaking to the Jews in Rome and attempting to explain that they are not saved by being circumcised or by keeping the law, but rather through faith in Jesus. Paul is loosely quoting Isaiah 52:5. In context, though, this section of Isaiah 52 is Yahweh questioning how his people were once oppressed by Assyria and now enslaved by the Babylonians. And Yahweh appears to be referring to the Babylonians, who are the ones shouting/howling in exultation, blaspheming his name.

February 19, 2016

Thanks for your insights here mwc, and for pointing out the Nomina Sacra. Right, it appears that the Leviticus and Ezekiel passages are speaking to blaspheming the name of God/Yahweh. I can also see how as time went on, certain concepts or practices could have became off-limits or considered forbidden, then retroactively reflected by the gospel authors.

I think there may be some indicators that suggest Paul is not speaking to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin, as portrayed by Jesus in Matthew 12:31-32. First, just with the fact that Paul believes he is now redeemed (and I'm looking at it on face value), and as you point out in 1 Timothy 1:13, he gets away with it (or was forgiven for it) due to his ignorance and unbelief. If Paul's previous blasphemy had been against the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus described in Matthew, then Paul could not have been forgiven for it. In 1 Timothy 1:15-17, Paul goes on to describe how God had mercy on him and how Jesus is using him as an example to the other sinners, so that the sinners can believe in Jesus and have eternal life. Paul never commands Timothy here to warn everyone of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin.

Exactly. If we simply assume the standard time line that all xians wish us to accept then jesus uttered those words and Paul was doomed if his blasphemy was against the holy spirit. And had he blasphemed god in the presence of other Jews, well, he should have been killed according to that law. So what did he mean exactly? Did he blaspheme YHWH and just get away with it? Or jesus but that held no punishment? Or the spirit with the unknowns it has? Some combination of these or something else entirely? His Jewish background indicates blasphemy should have something to do with the name so it seems strange to be able to blaspheme an unnamed spirit (I don't see Holy Spirit as a proper name per se).

There are a couple of other references to blasphemy in 1 Timothy (1:20, 6:1). The reference at 1:20 is to two individuals, Hymenaeus and Alexander, who have deliberately violated their consciences and lost their faith, and Paul says he is turning them over to Satan so that they would learn not to blaspheme God. This last statement (so that they would learn not to blaspheme God) seems to suggest that there is a path to forgiveness or redemption for them for their blasphemy, because they can learn not to do so. If so, then that means Hymenaeus and Alexander did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or else they could not be forgiven. But it is rather open ended in a sense, as Paul does not specifically say they can be made right again. In 6:1, the context is Paul telling Timothy that slaves should respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching will not be blasphemed. Again, the name of God, and not the Holy Spirit (as singled out by Jesus in Matthew 12).

Well, I don't know if it suggests they didn't blaspheme the spirit. We can't know that. If we assume that this community knew of this rule then we can further speculate that they then did not blaspheme the holy spirit since it falls within our parameters but it's not really what it stated. It simply talks about blasphemy and we really don't know what is meant.

Let me put it another way. Let's assume everything is true as written and the time line is the standard time line. Jesus is in that room and mentions blasphemy. A few people are around to hear it. Now, when does it get codified? Paul would have to know that information to act upon it. So it gets written down at some point and/or it is spread by word of mouth. It's importance also depends on how the people who initially heard it took it to be. Did they understand who and or what the holy spirit was and what it meant to blaspheme it? It not, it probably wasn't considered important. It's only when this information is understood as important that it would come to the forefront. According to the story the holy spirit didn't really even come until Pentecost (even though that's debatable but I said we'll do the standard time line) so no one would know what this was until jesus or later someone who was familiar with the spirit brought it up. It just wasn't some common idea as they try to present it but yet they present it as common (since the holy spirit was already known to the authors when they wrote about it after the fact).

Okay, so Paul and all those people play around with the magical powers that the spirit gives them (he talks about them) and this eventually gets put into jesus mouth as a rule to not blaspheme the holy spirit. These are the same powers that Greek oracles (among others) have had for ages (there is even one, maybe two, Jewish oracles). Now, the holy spirit gives xians these powers but pretty much everywhere and not just special places. It's a racket. And one they want taken seriously. Again, this is what Paul talks about (and makes rules about). We can see that the stories in Acts talk about the holy spirit as something quite amazing even though it's clearly nothing like that. But they can't have people talking poorly about this snake-oil they're selling.

mwc

February 20, 2016

Thanks for your insights here mwc, and for pointing out the Nomina Sacra. Right, it appears that the Leviticus and Ezekiel passages are speaking to blaspheming the name of God/Yahweh. I can also see how as time went on, certain concepts or practices could have became off-limits or considered forbidden, then retroactively reflected by the gospel authors.

I think there may be some indicators that suggest Paul is not speaking to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin, as portrayed by Jesus in Matthew 12:31-32. First, just with the fact that Paul believes he is now redeemed (and I'm looking at it on face value), and as you point out in 1 Timothy 1:13, he gets away with it (or was forgiven for it) due to his ignorance and unbelief. If Paul's previous blasphemy had been against the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus described in Matthew, then Paul could not have been forgiven for it. In 1 Timothy 1:15-17, Paul goes on to describe how God had mercy on him and how Jesus is using him as an example to the other sinners, so that the sinners can believe in Jesus and have eternal life. Paul never commands Timothy here to warn everyone of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as an unforgivable sin.

     Exactly. If we simply assume the standard time line that all xians wish us to accept then jesus uttered those words and Paul was doomed if his blasphemy was against the holy spirit. And had he blasphemed god in the presence of other Jews, well, he should have been killed according to that law. So what did he mean exactly? Did he blaspheme YHWH and just get away with it? Or jesus but that held no punishment? Or the spirit with the unknowns it has? Some combination of these or something else entirely? His Jewish background indicates blasphemy should have something to do with the name so it seems strange to be able to blaspheme an unnamed spirit (I don't see Holy Spirit as a proper name per se).

There are a couple of other references to blasphemy in 1 Timothy (1:20, 6:1). The reference at 1:20 is to two individuals, Hymenaeus and Alexander, who have deliberately violated their consciences and lost their faith, and Paul says he is turning them over to Satan so that they would learn not to blaspheme God. This last statement (so that they would learn not to blaspheme God) seems to suggest that there is a path to forgiveness or redemption for them for their blasphemy, because they can learn not to do so. If so, then that means Hymenaeus and Alexander did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or else they could not be forgiven. But it is rather open ended in a sense, as Paul does not specifically say they can be made right again. In 6:1, the context is Paul telling Timothy that slaves should respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching will not be blasphemed. Again, the name of God, and not the Holy Spirit (as singled out by Jesus in Matthew 12).

     Well, I don't know if it suggests they didn't blaspheme the spirit. We can't know that. If we assume that this community knew of this rule then we can further speculate that they then did not blaspheme the holy spirit since it falls within our parameters but it's not really what it stated. It simply talks about blasphemy and we really don't know what is meant.

     Let me put it another way. Let's assume everything is true as written and the time line is the standard time line. Jesus is in that room and mentions blasphemy. A few people are around to hear it. Now, when does it get codified? Paul would have to know that information to act upon it. So it gets written down at some point and/or it is spread by word of mouth. It's importance also depends on how the people who initially heard it took it to be. Did they understand who and or what the holy spirit was and what it meant to blaspheme it? It not, it probably wasn't considered important. It's only when this information is understood as important that it would come to the forefront. According to the story the holy spirit didn't really even come until Pentecost (even though that's debatable but I said we'll do the standard time line) so no one would know what this was until jesus or later someone who was familiar with the spirit brought it up. It just wasn't some common idea as they try to present it but yet they present it as common (since the holy spirit was already known to the authors when they wrote about it after the fact).

     Okay, so Paul and all those people play around with the magical powers that the spirit gives them (he talks about them) and this eventually gets put into jesus mouth as a rule to not blaspheme the holy spirit. These are the same powers that Greek oracles (among others) have had for ages (there is even one, maybe two, Jewish oracles). Now, the holy spirit gives xians these powers but pretty much everywhere and not just special places. It's a racket. And one they want taken seriously. Again, this is what Paul talks about (and makes rules about). We can see that the stories in Acts talk about the holy spirit as something quite amazing even though it's clearly nothing like that. But they can't have people talking poorly about this snake-oil they're selling.

          mwc

Good points. I think we are on a similar page, and had not considered the day of Pentecost in Acts earlier. The theory you lay out on how things could have played out, with Paul and the other gentiles believed they had special powers given to them by the Holy Spirit and this belief evolving to a point where the gospel writers document Jesus stating that blasphemy against it becomes unforgivable, is very plausible. Also plausible if assuming everything is true with the timeline of when Jesus could have made the statement, and the time it may have taken for the statement to spread and for people's interpretations to evolve.

February 20, 2016

There are a couple of other references to blasphemy in 1 Timothy (1:20, 6:1). The reference at 1:20 is to two individuals, Hymenaeus and Alexander, who have deliberately violated their consciences and lost their faith, and Paul says he is turning them over to Satan so that they would learn not to blaspheme God. This last statement (so that they would learn not to blaspheme God) seems to suggest that there is a path to forgiveness or redemption for them for their blasphemy, because they can learn not to do so. If so, then that means Hymenaeus and Alexander did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or else they could not be forgiven. But it is rather open ended in a sense, as Paul does not specifically say they can be made right again. In 6:1, the context is Paul telling Timothy that slaves should respect their masters, so that the name of God and his teaching will not be blasphemed. Again, the name of God, and not the Holy Spirit (as singled out by Jesus in Matthew 12).

Well, I don't know if it suggests they didn't blaspheme the spirit. We can't know that. If we assume that this community knew of this rule then we can further speculate that they then did not blaspheme the holy spirit since it falls within our parameters but it's not really what it stated. It simply talks about blasphemy and we really don't know what is meant.

Right, I understand the passages indicate blasphemy and not necessarily the meaning of what that blasphemy is. Moreso looking at what might be able to be indirectly inferred about the type of blasphemy, based on the context of these passages.

Sign In

Paul's Letters And Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit

Recommended Posts

readyforchange

mymistake

Geezer

nightflighter

rjn

megasamurai

readyforchange

readyforchange

readyforchange

rjn

mymistake

mwc

onesteak

TheLyniezian

megasamurai

readyforchange

readyforchange

readyforchange

readyforchange

rjn

mwc

readyforchange

mwc

readyforchange

readyforchange

Main Blog

Browse

Activity

Subscriptions

Contact

Social

Blogs of Former Pastors

Important Information