UNPARDONABLE SIN ?

 INTRODUCTION

 

                Many Bible students and believers of Scripture have been faced this serious sin and often wondered several questions: What is the meaning of this? Is it possible today or was possible only during the time of Christ was on the earth? While all of these questions cannot be answered in great detail for the sake of space, this paper will address a number of these questions as well as other aspects that relate to the meaning of the unpardonable sin.

Reformed theologian view

                  When Protestant Reformation came forward, totally new and authentic directions are received in Bible research. Scripture was exalted during this time and many issues in the Bible were reexamined in light of an authoritative standard. Luther (1483-1546), in his commentary on 1 John 5:16, described the blasphemy of the Spirit as, “obstinacy in wickedness, an assault against the acknowledged truth and impenitence to the end, of which Matt 13:22 speaks.”[1] Luther elsewhere spoke on Matthew 12:31-32 stating that, “sinning against the Holy Spirit is nothing else than blaspheming His work and office.”[2] Luther adds, “It is the nature of this sin against the Holy Spirit to resist what is known to be plain truth.”

            John Calvin (1509-64) rejects Augustine’s interpretation of final impenitence and insists that the sin could indeed be committed during one’s life and not simply at the end of it. Calvin states his own position more directly when he writes, “they sin against the Holy Spirit who, with evil intention, resist God’s truth, although by its brightness they are so touched that they cannot claim ignorance. Calvin reasons that the one’s committing this continual rejection/blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven because God hardens their hearts so that they will never desire to repent.[3]

James Arminius (1560-1609), like Calvin, rejected Augustine’s final impenitence view for the same reasons Calvin did; namely, Christ’s words would be made void that the sin would not be forgiven in this age. Arminius defines the blasphemy of the Spirit as, the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ. In other words, the blasphemy of the Spirit is rejecting Christ even thought it has been made undeniable to the sinner. The sinner does this for the purpose of fulfilling his or her flesh by indulging in the deeds of the body rather than choosing Jesus.

BIBLICAL VIEW

                    Some theologians deny the existence of an unpardonable sin stating that these words were fabricated by the early church to support their own endeavors. Such a view is simply to be rejected on the basis of insufficient evidence.

         Augustine’s “end of life impenitence” has some holes and the chief difficulty, as Combs writes, is “that it has little correspondence with the historical situation in the Gospels. The convicting ministry of the Spirit is available to all unbelievers. Thus, “since all unbelievers end up rejecting the convicting ministry of the Spirit, all unbelievers also become guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ statement is thus stripped of all its solemnity.

The view that espouses that the unpardonable sin was a possibility limited to the earthly ministry of Jesus has commendable aspects but is still insufficient in its explanation. The problem with this is that the biblical record does require Jesus to be present in order for the sin to be committed. Indeed, Luke 12:10, in a speech Jesus gives to prepare his disciples for his absence, assumes that the unforgiveable sin will happen during the ministry of the disciples, even after Jesus has ascended.

            The view that espouses that the sin can still be committed. Furthermore, since one can never really know if a person has reached the point of true blasphemy and thus the state of unforgiveness, thus view virtually becomes synonymous with Augustine’s view.[4] 

A PROPOSED INTERPRETATION

                     Three passages specifically mention the unpardonable sin: Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; and Luke 12:10.   For the research paper, a brief study of only Matthew’s account will be studied along with a complimentary word from Mark’s account. Matthew dividing into four main points that relate to the unforgivable sin.  

The Situation (Matt 12:22-23)

                First, Matthew explains the situation in verses 22-23 stating, “Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and unable to speak was brought to Him. He healed him, so that the man could both speak and see. It is the view that miracleS authenticate God’s messengers and the same appear only when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers, declaring His gracious purposes.”[5] Thus, the miracles performed by Jesus and his successors authenticated their message as truly from God.

 Charge of Pharisees (Matt 12:24)

The second main division is in verse 24. Matthew writes, “When the Pharisees heard this they said, ‘The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.’ The most significant thing to point out is actually a confession of Pharisees that Jesus had done miracle by Beelzebul

Refusal by Jesus (Matt 12:25-30)

A third section emerges in verses 12:25-30 is “Jesus’ Refutation”. It should be noted that Jesus’ refutation consists of four main points. First, Jesus begins his defense by pointing out the absurdity of the charge of the Pharisees. “Knowing their thoughts, He told them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divide against itself will stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom satan?

            Jesus makes a second point in his argument by pointing out the inconsistency of the Pharisees’ argument. In verse 27 Jesus says, “And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason, they will be your judges.” In the first century, exorcism was accepted and practiced among the Jews, even among the Pharisees. The logic follows that the religious leaders would have to conclude that their “sons” were doing the same thing - that is, if the Pharisees wanted to maintain logical consistency. Jesus’ third main point in his rebuttal to the Pharisees is that their false charge against him only distorts the truth. The logical and true explanation that the Pharisees should have concluded was that Jesus was casting out demons by the Spirit of God. Jesus’ exorcisms were genuine; the Pharisees never denied that. Since Jesus has shown that a connection with Satan is impossible (v.25—27), the only conclusion that can be reached is that he is casting out demons “by the Spirit of God.”[6] Jesus concludes his argument with a warning in verse 30. He states, “Anyone who is not with me is against me, and anyone who does not gather with me scatters.  

Charge of the Blasphemy (Matt 12:31-32)                                                                                            

Having finished his rebuttal, Jesus makes one of the harshest, statement in the gospel. MacLeod puts it well when he writes, “Up to this point Jesus has responded defensively explaining the importance of the healing he had just performed with the power of the Holy Spirit. Now he adopts a more offensive posture.”[7] Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 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, either in this age or in the one to come.” Several things stand out from the passage and would be helpful in determining the meaning of this passage. Thus, the implication is that the blasphemy of the Spirit is equated with the accusation of the Pharisees.[8]

Second, verse 31 also helps determine what the blasphemy of   the Spirit is not. In this verse Jesus draws a line between sin in general and a very specific sin, the blasphemy against the Spirit. Jesus’ wording is very careful. Combs observes, “the addition of the words ‘and blasphemy’ to those sins which will be forgiven serves to make even more specific the nature of the sin which will not be forgiven.”[9] Lastly, verse 32 advances the thought started in verse 31, bringing it to a sharper point. Warfield explains, what follows is not merely an illustration of the general principle or a consequence from it. The “and” has an ascensive force and introduces what is in effect a climax. It is not merely an instance which is adduced; but the instance, which will illustrate above every other instance the incredible reach of forgiveness that is extended, and which will therefore supply the best background up against which may be thrown the heinousness of blasphemy against the Spirit which cannot be forgiven.[10] But why is this sin unforgiveable? Why is blasphemy against the Spirit unforgiveable as opposed to blasphemy against the Son? It will be argued later that blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgiveable due to the nature of the sin itself.

Mark 3:22-30

                Mark 3:22-30 is almost unanimously viewed as a parallel passage to Matthew 12:22-32. The two can be harmonized with little difficulty; thus, time will not be given to examine the entire passage, as was the case for Matthew’s. What will be examined, however, is Mark’s account of the charge of blasphemy (vv. 28—29) and Mark’s unique explanatory comment (v. 30). First, Mark’s account of Jesus charging the Pharisees with blasphemy against the Spirit will be examined. Mark records Jesus’ words in verses 28-29, “I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” The charge is virtually the same as Matthew’s account. Mark chooses not to record but records the same conclusion. Whoever blasphemes the Spirit has no opportunity for forgiveness. It should be noted that the last clause in verse 29, “but is guilty of an eternal sin,” is confirmatory and not in contrast to what Jesus has just said. Gundry suggests translating the “but” as “indeed” or “rather.”[11]

            The second thing that is necessary that the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul in Him!’ and, ‘He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!’ Thus, “He has an unclean spirit” in verse 30 is synonymous with the scribes’ charge in verse 22: “He has Beelzebul in Him!” This this harsh charge of blasphemy was given as a result of what the Pharisees said in verses 22 as explained by Mark in verse 30. John Wesley agrees when he writes, “Is it not astonishing, that men who have ever read these words, should doubt, what is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: Can any words declare more plainly, that it is the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost.”[12] Verse 30 provides the student with the cause for why Jesus endeavored in his argument and ultimately his charge to the Pharisees that they were guilty of blasphemy against the Spirit. Combs writes, “The reason Jesus issues his solemn pronouncement in vv. 28—29 is because of the blasphemous accusation of the scribes that he was performing exorcisms by the power of Satan.

                                                                  CONCLUSION                                                                                                                                          The paper then put forth a proposed interpretation that defined the blasphemy of the spirit as attributing the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Three concluding remarks to tie everything together would be helpful at this point.

            First, blasphemy of the Spirit, should properly be understood as blaspheming the miraculous undeniable working of the Holy Spirit which Pharisees were accusing Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Satan.

            Second, what is significant about this specific blasphemy as opposed to other blasphemies is its nature. This is not merely a one-time act or some sort of slip of the tongue, as it were. Müller explains, “It is impossible for a man, as if by mere magic of certain words, which do not spring from the depth of his heart, to commit the very worst of all sins, and to abandon himself irremediably to eternal ruin.”[13] Combs wittingly points out what is going on in the hearts of the Pharisees. He writes, “The charges made by the Pharisees were not the accusations of well-intentioned men. Jesus’ refutation of the charges made by the Pharisees, as recorded by both Matthew and Mark, pointedly demonstrate how ridiculous and absurd the Pharisees’ charges were.”[14] Their charge was an attempt to dispute the indisputable and to deny the undeniable. Whitcomb observes the purpose of sign miracles when he writes that they “were presented to human minds with such force and clarity, that no one was to deny them.”[15] The Pharisees and scribes had been shown undeniable proof that Jesus’ claims about himself were true and willfully chose to be ignorant.                                                                     

                    Third, it is safe to say that the unpardonable sin cannot be committed today. It was concluded that the Pharisees committed the blasphemy of the Spirit when they attributed the miracle working power of the Spirit to Satan. Therefore, a necessary element that must be present in order for the unforgiveable sin to occur is Spirit-worked, sign miracles. Assuming that cessationism is true, which the present author does, it would follow that the unpardonable sin could not be committed today.

            In conclusion, the blasphemy of the Spirit is the willful ignorance that attributes the miracle-working power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. It is knowingly denying the undeniable. It is not an accidental slip of the tongue nor is it a sin that lacks knowledge of the facts. It is contingent upon the working of sign miracles, which leave no room for debate. Assuming cessationism is true, beginning with the death of the last apostle, it is impossible for the sin to be committed today. This does not mean, however, that the sin will never be committed again. Possibility exists when, or if, sign miracles are ever reinstituted in God’s redemptive plan.  

---

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., The Catholic Epistles, in vol. 30 of Luther’s Works, p. 325.

 

[2] Edward M. Plass, comp., What Luther Says, 3 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959),

 

John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, 3 vols., Baker, 1979), 2:77. 

[5] Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), p. 25-26.

     Combs, “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,” 76.  

 

    Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel Accor

    Combs, “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,” 77.

    Benjamin B. Warfield, “Misconception of Jesus, and Blasphemy of the Son of Man,” Princeton

Theological Review 12 (July 1914): p. 400.

   Robert H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 176.

 

[12] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, 10th ed. (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1856), p. 105.

   Jullius Müller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, trans. William Urwick, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1885), 2:419.

   Combs, “The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit,” 94.

   John C. Whitcomb, “The Limitations and Values of Christian Evidences,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (January-March 1978): p.   

   25. 

The Image of GOD in Man

 INTRODUCTION

            What is man? Answering this basic question requires a prior understanding of the biblical doctrine of the image of God in humanity, and Christian theologians have wrestled with the task of formulating this doctrine for thousands of years. This paper will argue that man images God and is thus like him. Poor exegesis and uncritical philosophical-theological integration have often exacerbated these problems. This paper will argue that the image of God in man has been defined too narrowly than the biblical data will allow.

Evaluation of St. Irenaeus (C.130-C.200) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

            The problems with the rationality view as presented by Irenaeus and Thomas are many; two major criticisms will suffice for our purposes. First, if only the likeness was lost at the fall and not the image, reason remains untarnished, thereby allowing man to work his way to God apart from supernatural grace. The Bible is clear, however, that no one seeks God on her own (Rom 3:11, Ps 14:1-3) and that the wisdom of the world is insufficient for true knowledge of the gospel (1Cor 1:21). Rather, the Bible indicates that the extent of the fall was radical, not nominal, affecting the inner (Jer 17:9) and outer persons (2Cor 4:16) as well as the natural creation itself (Rom 3:10–18, 8:18–25). Thus, Thomas’ natural theology does not square with the clear teaching of Scripture. Second, the exegetical distinction between image and likeness is hardly defensible.  As our Biblical study has shown these two words are used virtually as synonyms. Their usage in the OT itself bears out this conclusion. For now, it will be sufficient to note that most scholars interpret the second term to be either synonymous with the first or epexegetically to it.  

            Anthony A. Hoekema in his book “Created in God’s Image” in the Chapter History Survey, We find Irenaeus saying that though man was created in the image of God, he lost the similitude or likeness to God in the Fall. Christ, however, showed us in his own person what the image of God truly was. Furthermore, Christ also restores the likeness of God in those who belong to him by making them one with God the Father.

         We appreciate the distinction Thomas makes between the image of God as still retained by man after the Fall and the image as it is spoiled by sin and restored in those who are the recipients of divine grace. We may also appreciate Thomas's insistence that apart from the grace of God humans today cannot properly image God—can neither know, love, nor serve God as they ought. We must, however, object to Aquinas's understanding of the image of God on some points.

Evaluation of Luther (1520-1575)

            Because of Luther’s commitment to Scripture as the normative source for theology, one is tempted to avoid a critique. But church history is of any benefit in theological formulation, it is certainly not infallible. Luther was right to interpret the image from the standpoint of the NT, because it is only in Christ, the very Image of God (Col 15:1; Heb 1:3),

that the image is clearly seen and through him is restored (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).  He was also right to break free from the exegetical distinction his Medieval forerunners.

            One question must be asked of Luther, however. If the image is solely original righteousness, in what sense does the image remain? Luther himself answers the question by stating that the image of God remained intact in fallen human (only the likeness is lost) and what is unitary view of the Image of God Luther held that all aspects of the Image of God in humans have been corrupted, what is left is a relic or remnant of the image -note certain qualities but fragments, as it were, of all of what constitutes the likeness of God. For either 1) original righteousness is lost, thus the image, or 2) the image remains in some degree, along with original righteousness.

valuation of Calvin John Calvin (1509–1564)

            Like Luther, Calvin is to be praised for his excellent exegetical work. His reading of Genesis 1:26 is essentially correct, as well as his integration of the NT texts. He is right to place the imago dei in the context of the doctrines of sin and salvation. Calvin is inconsistent when he speaks about the image of God in fallen man and he says that the image of God is destroyed, obliterated or blotted out by sin and other times she says image is totally destroyed. Calvin holds that man dominion over the earth is not part of the image of God. Yet as we have seen this dominion is present as a aspect of the image of God.

Erickson, Christian Theology, 512. Erickson writes that far from establishing a connection between the two, the text itself actually distinguishes the two. But we are not claiming that the image of God in man consists in his having dominion, for we have already seen that to seek the image of God in a certain faculty, activity, or relationship is wrong-headed. Rather, we are contending that by virtue of his bearing the image of God, man is like him in a multiplicity of ways, one of which includes his dominion over the creation.

This ambiguity in his writings raises questions about the Reformed conception of the image.  Second, in making the image ontological rather than functional, Calvin altogether rejected any association of the image with dominion. While Scripture nowhere specifically equates one with the other, the Genesis account does at least establish a connection between the two, even if it does not expound on its content.

Karl Barth (1886–1968)

            Barth correctly noted the close association of image with relationship in the Genesis account and rightly looked to Jesus to determine the nature of the image. But while we will see that a close reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 1 supports male-female relationship as a part of image, he was undoubtedly wrong to reduce the image to relationship alone. Moreover, if image is closely associated with relationship in Genesis, it is also relatively closely associated with dominion as well, a notion Barth rejects.

            The above are relatively minor objections to Barth’s theology of the image, but Hoekema has leveled a far more serious charge against the father of Neo-Orthodoxy. In his own words: The image of God is surely more than a mere capacity [for relationship and encounter]. Are not Satan and the demons also beings in encounter with each other and with

God?” Moreover, Hoekema writes that Barth fails to sufficiently reckon with the severity of the Fall and the biblical teaching that the image is in need of restoration. Thus, Barth’s definition of the image is somewhat narrow; does not relate coherently to the doctrines on man.

 

          Hoekema in his book (created in the Image of God) has mentioned that since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again enabled to use these powers in right ways.

 

 

In the NT: Image Renewed and sanctification

The OT teaches that man images God by being like him. By ruling over the earth in the context of relationship with God and others, man represents God on earth. The OT itself gives no clear indication that the condition of the image was affected by the fall ( Gen 5:1, 9:6).

We need not go as far as Luther, who argued that fallen man bears the image of Satan rather than that of God. But if the NT teaches anything about the image of God in man, it is that it has not remained unaffected by sin, and is thus in need of renewal. This is seen in passages like Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, and 2Cor 3:17. Both Col 3:10 and Eph 4:24 include commands to avoid what is contrary to the “old self/person” and put on what is proper to the “new self/person,” which is being renewed. This “new self” in Col 3:10 is explicitly said to be renewed according to the image of its Creator, but Eph 4:24 is less clear. Like the OT texts, these NT passages do not define the image. If anything, they assume the OT conception, adding only that it needs renewal and that, for the believer, such renewal is progressively taking place.

But while the NT assumes the OT conception of the image and informs us that sin has defaced it, this statement does not exhaust the NT teaching on the image. Just as in the OT, the NT nowhere defines the content of the image, but closely associates it with two things: 1) holiness and 2) knowledge. As seen above, in Eph 4:24 Paul argues that the “new self/person” is being renewed in accordance with the “righteousness and true holiness of  God”. This makes explicit what was implicit in the OT: it is expected that the one who images God and is thus like him will conform to the nature of the one he represents. As God

                   Hoekema has mentioned in his book (created in God’s Image) has mentioned that  Since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again

is holy, just, merciful, and righteous, etc., so must be his earthly image ( Mic 6:8). There is thus a strong connection between the content of the image and the communicable attributes of God. As for knowledge, Col 3:10 almost mirrors Eph 4:24 but substitutes true knowledge of the Creator for righteousness and holiness (Col 1:15; cf. also John 1:3 Heb 1:2).

 

The NT: Renewed Image

          The renewal of image of God in described in New Testament in various ways. One of these we have looked at “taking off” and “putting on” of the new self. This new life means holding fast the word in an honest and good heart, bringing forth fruits and patience (Luke 8:15). The new life means being transformed by renewing the mind (Rom 12:2) and living by the spirit and producing the fruit of the spirit (Gal.5:16). It means living a new life of Love (Eph.5:2), walking in the truth (2 John 4), living not for the self but for Christ (2 Corinth 5:15). Being renewed in the image of God means further that we become more and more like God , that God becomes more and more visible in our words and deeds.  Because Christ is the perfect mage of God, becoming more like God also means becoming more like Christ. Gal.3:17 calls the putting on the new life of clothing ourselves with Christ (Rom: 13:14). To put on Christ means new existence as a new member of the Christ’s body ( 1 Corinth 12:12-13); believers therefore images God as one who belongs to the body of that Christ who is uniquely God’s image. Renewal of the image as we observe is not completed during the life time of the person. It is the process that continue as long as one live. We should never forget that the present life believers are genuinely new but not totally new but they are incomplete new person until rapture. Then only we shall God imaged perfectly by a glorified human kind.

Hoekema has mention that since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again enabled to use these powers in right ways.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

            At the outset of this paper, it was stated that theologians have traditionally sought the image of God in one aspect of man: reason/free-will, original righteousness, or relationship/capacity for relationship. This was shown by surveying the thought of Irenaeus/Aquinas, Luther/Calvin, and Barth. It was also shown how alien philosophical assumptions and, sometimes, poor exegesis exacerbated the problem rather than aiding its solution. It was then argued that, while each contributed important insights to our understanding of the image–insights incorporated in the formulation presented in this paper–the approach employed by these theologians was wrong-headed. Their mistake lay in defining the image too narrowly. It was then argued that the image should be understood Godly, just as our doctrine of God is broad. That the phrase “in the image of God” is adverbial rather than adjectival supported this conclusion.  Theologians have made discussion of the Biblical notion of the  “image of the God”  is that this image has a corporate dimension and there is no human being who can fully bear of manifest all that involved in the image of God so that there is a sense that image is collectively possessed, The image of God as it is were parceled out among people of the earth. By looking at different individual and groups we get glimpse of different aspects of the full image of the God. If fallen human image-bearers represent Christ poorly, and redeemed image-bearers represent him with ongoing improvement, those glorified possess his image completely and perfectly. “Beloved, now we are the children of God; and it was not yet revealed what we shall be. But we know that if he is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1John 3:2; also Rom 8:29 and 1Cor 15:49).

 

                 Recall, Calvin’s statement, that the goal of regeneration is the restoration of the image of God in man.

 

                 At least one implication is inevitable: while Scripture plainly teaches that all man image God, it cannot be true that all men image him to the same degree. This does not, however, undermine the dignity and worth of human beings, for though the image is corrupted in sinful humanity, in at least two places Scripture grounds proper conduct toward fellow human beings on the defaced but remaining image (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9).