The holy spirit can be blasphemed

THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN BE BLASPHEMED
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
First we look at the text in Matthew and the commentaries and sermons on that text. Then
we will go to Mark and then Luke and do the same thing to get the full picture of what Jesus
said about the unforgivable sin. This material comes from
BIBLEHUB.COM. Following these messages we look at individual studies.
Matthew 12:31-32 31And so I tell you, every kind of
sin and slandercan be forgiven, but blasphemy
againstthe Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who
speaks a word againstthe Son of Man will be forgiven,
but anyone who speaks againstthe Holy Spirit will not
be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
sermons
H. W. Beecher.
1. This is not a sin which one can commit by accident, and without
knowing it. This is an alleviation to many who are in great distress.
They fear that they have committed the unpardonable sin. It is the
closing of a long series of wickednessed.
2. No man need fear that he has committed the unpardonable sin
who is deeply alarmed and anxious about it; for the very nature of
that sin is moral insensibility.

3. Ordinary procrastination, the putting aside of things right on
account of the superior attraction of some worldly good — these
things though dangerous, are not the sins which our Saviour
marked. Many persons are grieving the Divine Spirit, who are not
properly to be called blasphemers against the Holy Ghost.
4. Is this perversion frequent? Men are not likely to fall into it
suddenly. This moral perversion may be the result of physical
dissipation. Constant resistance of good- impulses may lead to it.
(H. W. Beecher.)
The sin against the Holy Ghost
J. Tillotson.
I. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPEAKING
AGAINST THE SON OF MAN AND SPEAKING AGAINST THE
HOLY GHOST? By speaking against the Son of Man is meant here
all those reproaches which they cast upon our Saviour's person, the
meanness of His birth, without reflecting upon that Divine power
which He testified by His miracles. By speaking against the Holy
Ghost is meant their blaspheming the Divine power whereby He
wrought His miracles.
II. WHEREIN THE NATURE OF THIS SIN OR BLASPHEMY
AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST DOTH CONSIST. Some have
supposed it to be final impenitency, because that is unpardonable;
but why that, it is hard to say. Others place the sin in obstinate
opposition to the truth; but it is hardly imaginable that a man will
oppose the truth when he is actually convinced that it is truth. The
Pharisees are the persons guilty of this sin. The ground of complaint

is clear (Mark 3:28, 29): they charged Christ with being a magician.
They would rather deny the reality of Christ's miracles than own
Him to be Messiah.
III. IN WHAT SENSE IS IT SAID TO BE PECULIARLY
UNPARDONABLE?
IV. HOW IT COMES TO PASS THAT THIS SIN ABOVE
OTHERS IS INCAPABLE OF PARDON?
1. Because by this sin men resist their last remedy, and oppose the
best and utmost means of their conviction. Can God do more for a
man's conviction than work miracles before his eves.
2. Because this sin is of such a high nature, that God is therefore
justly provoked to withdraw His grace from such persons; and it is
probable, resolved so to do: without which grace they will continue
impenitent.
V. MAKE THIS DISCOURSE USEFUL TO OURSELVES.
1. To comfort some very good and pious persons who are liable to
despair, upon an apprehension that they have committed this great
sin. I cannot see how any person now is likely to be in those
circumstances as to be capable of committing it. Total apostasy from
Christianity comes nearest to it (Hebrews 6:4-6).
2. To caution men against the degrees and approaches of this sin —
profane scoffing at religion. Be ready to entertain the truth of God
whenever it is fairly propounded.
(J. Tillotson.)
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

W. Reid, D. D.
I. THE SIN SPOKEN OF IN THE TEXT IS DESCRIBED AS
BLASPHEMY. It is common to speak of the sin against the Holy
Ghost; Jesus does not call it sin, but blasphemy. Nor are they the
same. All blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is sin; but all sin
against the Holy Ghost is not blasphemy. This narrows it to a
particular sin. What are we to understand by it? When abusive
words are uttered against God wilfully, knowingly, and malignantly,
it is blasphemy.
II. THAT THIS BLASPHEMY IS DESCRIBED AS A SIN
SPECIALLY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Why this, and not a
sin against the Father or the Son? Not because He is more sacred
than the Father or the Son. The Persons of the Trinity are all equal
in glory. But because that in revilingly opposing the gospel the work
of the Holy Spirit is specially opposed. It is the Divine Spirit who
takes of the things of Christ, and through the Word presents them
to the mind. It is a defiance of His peculiar prerogative.
III. THE CROWNING FACT CONNECTED WITH THIS SIN IS
ITS UNPARDONABLENESS. Why, when there is forgiveness for
all sin, is there none for this? What sin could be more heinous? It
cannot be because of any inadequacy in Christ's atonement — "His
blood cleanseth us from all sin." Nor that the mercy of God cannot
reach to such a sin; it is infinite. Nor that the gospel is unable to
overcome such obduracy. The truth is there is no sin in itself
unpardonable. This would contradict ver. 31. The reason is found
not in its turpitude, but in its nature, as it discovers a heart
resolutely opposed to the Spirit and the truth. If the Spirit be
scorned, it follows, pardon is impossible. An earthly parent cannot
forgive a child till it has exhibited sorrow for its offence; and as

sorrow for sin is unknown to those guilty of blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, their salvation is impossible.
IV. MAY THIS SIN BE STILL COMMITTED? I think it may. It is
common with those who hold that these Pharisees had committed
the unpardonable sin, and that its commission was limited to their
time, to argue as if Jesus had performed this miracle by the power
of the Holy Spirit, and that the sin consisted in ascribing the power
by which it was performed to Satan. Our Lord does not say "If I
cast out devils by the Holy Spirit," but "by the Spirit of God," and
St. Luke has it " finger of God" — a figure significant of power.
Christ uniformly speaks of His miracles as if the power that
performed them was His own, or that of His Father — "The works
which I do in My Father's name," etc. The power of working
miracles was not conferred on Christ; by virtue of His Divinity He
required no such endowment. It is important to keep this in view, in
order to see that there is no ground for the allegation that He
wrought the miracle before us by the Holy Spirit, and that,
therefore, these Pharisees were guilty of blaspheming Him. The fact
that three of the evangelists quote this narrative is significant.
Observe, that our Lord specifies two sins — speaking against the
Son of Man, and speaking against the Holy Ghost. Now, on looking
at the narrative, it appears that the sin, committed in the present
instance, was that of speaking against the Son of Man. He it was
who wrought the miracle; and He wrought it, as we have seen, by
His own power; and He it was against whom the malice of the
Pharisees was aimed. Now, had they been actually guilty of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Jesus would doubtless have said
so. Does He not, however, rather intimate — by the antithesis which
He presents between blasphemy against the Son of Bran and that
against the Holy Ghost, and by the pardonableness of the one and

the unpardonableness of the other — that it was blasphemy against
Himself of which they had been guilty? Why speak of blasphemy
against the Son of Bran if the sin which they had committed was
actually blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? And why speak of the
pardonableness of blasphemy against Himself, if they had
committed another sin which was unpardonable? Would that not be
to tantalize? But such a supposition is utterly at variance with what
we know of the tenderness of the Saviour's character. We regard
Jesus as, in effect, saying — "Dreadful as it is to speak disparagingly
of the Son of Man in this the day of His humiliation, when His true
character is veiled, there is a day coming, when the evidence of My
Divine commission will be complete, not only through the
miraculous outpouring of the Spirit, but by the conversion of
thousands to the gospel; and, when that day comes, they who treat
the work of the Spirit as they now treat Me, shall, even in this life,
pass from the sphere of mercy to that of inevitable doom." One fact
identifies this saying of Christ with the outpouring of the Spirit,
beyond all dispute. If you turn to Luke 12:10-12, you will read —
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall
be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven. And when they bring you unto the
synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought
how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy
Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." These
words seem to have been spoken on a different occasion from the
present. From the first verse, we learn they were addressed to
disciples; and from this fact we infer that the sin in question may be
committed, not only by Christ's avowed enemies, but by those who
confess His name. Observe then, that while, in the 10th verse, He
repeats in substance the words of our text, in the 11th and 12th

verses He predicts what actually took place immediately after the
dispensation of the Spirit had began on the day of Pentecost. For,
when Peter and John were brought before the council, it is stated
that, on Peter rising to speak, he was " filled with the Holy Ghost"
(Acts 4:1-8). And what was that but a literal fulfilment of what
Christ predicted in immediate connection with the text as given by
Luke? "For the Holy Ghost," he said, "shall teach you, in the same
hour, what ye ought to say," — conclusively showing that it was the
dispensation of the Spirit which Christ had more particularly in
view when He uttered the awful words of our text. So far, then, from
thinking, as some have done, that this sin consisted in ascribing the
miracles of Christ to Satanic agency, and that it could only be
committed during the period of Christ's earthly ministry, I rather
conclude, on these grounds, that the Saviour specially pointed to
that future which is our present, as the season of its commission.
V. Before concluding, IT MAY BE PROPER TO ASK IF WE CAN
FIND, IN OUR CONDUCT OR IN THAT OF OTHERS, THE
IMAGE OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS SIN?
1. There are the Jews. No people so privileged; None have so sinned.
2. Another form in which this sin against the Holy Ghost now
presents itself is that of scornfully resisting conscientious
convictions.
3. Perhaps it is in the annals of infidelity we must seek in our day for
the grossest forms of this sin. How different all this from the spirit of
those who dread the very possibility of having committed this
offence!
(W. Reid, D. D.)

The sin against the Holy Ghost
T. Secker, LL. D.
I. WHAT THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST,
MENTIONED BY OUR SAVIOUR, IS.
II. WHAT IS THE TRUE SENSE OF OUR SAVIOUR'S
DECLARATION THAT THIS ONE SIN SHALL NOT BE
FORGIVEN?
III. WHY HE PASSED SUCH A SEVERE SENTENCE UPON
THIS ONE SIN.
IV. WHAT SINS DO OR, DO NOT, APPROACH TOWARDS
THAT WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE TEXT?
1. The case of unbelievers.(1) Unbelievers ignorant of the gospel, or
its proper evidence, are not blameable for their unbelief: nor surely
inexcusable, though they should add reproachful words to it,
speaking evil of things they know not.(2) But such unbelievers who
through contemptuous negligence refuse to consider the doctrine of
Christ, or from a vain opinion of the sufficiency of their own reason,
reject it, put themselves in the high road towards the sin here
condemned.(3) If they have, since they came to a full use of reason,
deliberately confessed Christianity, and then forsaken it and become
scoffers at it, this case is worse than if they had never believed.
2. The case of believers. Some have maintained that any deliberate
sin amounted to it. This against Scripture. Sometimes good men
have entertained irreverent thoughts; but this when under
disturbance of mind, and had not command of their thoughts.

(T. Secker, LL. D.)
Disease fated because the remedy is rejected
T. Secker, LL. D.
Suppose the providence of God had so ordered it, that all diseases
should be curable by some one particular course of medicine; still,
whoever despised and ridiculed that course, instead of taking it,
must perish. And in like manner, though all sins would else be
pardonable through the grace of the gospel: whoever scorns the
utmost efforts of that grace, must fail of it. And our Saviour
foreseeing that these persons would, pronounces their doom. Every
advantage, that any others ever were to enjoy, they had enjoyed to
the full, without effect: and it was not suitable to the honour of
God's government, or the holiness of His nature, to strive with such
by still more extraordinary methods; and do for the worst of men
what he had not done for the rest. Their condition, therefore, was
not that they should be denied pardon though they did repent; but it
was foreknown that they would not repent.
(T. Secker, LL. D.)
Things we never got over
Dr. Talmage.
There are sins which though they may be pardoned, are in some
respects irrevocable:
1. The folly of a misspent youth.

2. In the category of irrevocable mistakes I put all parental neglect.
3. The unkindness done to the departed.
4. The lost opportunities of getting good.
5. The lost opportunities of usefulness.
(Dr. Talmage.)
The unpardonable sin
J. Leifchild., T. Raffles, D. D.
I. LET US ENDEAVOUR TO REMOVE SOME MISTAKES
RESPECTING THIS SUBJECT. Many sins supposed to be of the
nature of the one here denounced have been remitted, therefore
cannot be irremissible.
1. Sins against great light, conviction and knowledge.
2. Sins after real and high experience of the Divine favour are also
improperly supposed to be of this character.
3. The sin of opposing the truth daringly has also been mistaken for
the dreaded sin under consideration.
II. DESCRIBE THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE
BLASPHEMY WHICH OUR LORD HERE PRONOUNCES
IRREMISSIBLE.
1. It appears that some among the Pharisees had committed the sin;
they applied to the Holy Spirit the diabolical name.
2. The Pharisees heard their conduct described without being the
least affected.

3. Men may approach near to this sin now, but cannot complete it.
III. EXHORTATION AND CAUTION.
1. The reverence due from all of us to the Divine Spirit.
2. We should do all in our power to promote that religion which is
the offspring of the Holy Spirit.
(J. Leifchild.)
1. The nature of the sin itself is such as to preclude the possibility of
forgiveness.
2. When there is any desire for salvation you have not committed
this sin.
I. ALL MEN HAVE SIN AND BLASPHEMY TO BE FORGIVEN.
II. THAT IT IS TO MAN ONLY THAT ALL MANNER OF SIN
SHALL BE FORGIVEN.
III. THAT IT SHALL BE FORGIVEN TO ALL MEN WHO SEEK
FORGIVENESS BY THE METHOD WHICH THE GOSPEL HAS
ANNOUNCED.
(T. Raffles, D. D.)
J. Vaughan, M. A.
We might expect that the best gift of the Holy Ghost would have
some corresponding awfulness attaching to it. We have in the Bible
four separate sins against the Holy Ghost laid out in a certain order
and progression — grieving, resisting, quenching — these have been

forgiven. But there is a fourth stage when the mind, through a long
course of sin, proceeds to such a violent dislike of the Spirit of God,
that infidel thoughts and horrid imaginations come into the mind.
They become habitual. This sin against the Holy Ghost does not lie
in any particular act or word; it is a general state of mind. It is
unpardonable, because the mind of such a man cannot make one
move towards God.
(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
1. How a man may shut against himself all the avenues of
reconciliation.
2. There is something mysterious in the process. They choose not to
repent; and this choice has been made so often and so perseveringly
that the Spirit has let them alone.
3. There is nothing in it to impair the freeness of the gospel, or the
universality of its calls.
The amplitude of Divine forgiveness
Dr. Chalmers.
A king publishes a wide and unexpected amnesty to the people of a
rebellious district in his empire, upon the bare act of each
presenting himself, within a limited period, before an authorized
agent, and professing his purposes of future loyalty. Does it at all
detract from the clemency of this deed of grace, that many of the
rebels feel a strong reluctance to this personal exhibition of

themselves, and that the reluctance strengthens and accumulates
upon them by every day of their postponement; and that, even
before the season of mercy has expired, it has risen to such a degree
of aversion on their parts as to form a moral barrier in the way of
their prescribed return that is altogether impassable? Will you say,
because there is no forgiveness to them, there is any want of
amplitude in that charter of forgiveness which is proclaimed in the
hearing of all; or that pardon has not been provided for every
offence, because some offenders are to be found with such a degree
of perverseness and of obstinacy in their bosom, as constrains them
to a determined refusal of all pardon? The blood of Christ cleanseth
from all sin; and there is not a human creature who, let him repent
and believe, will ever find the crimson inveteracy of his manifold
offences to be beyond the reach of its purifying and its peace-
speaking power.
(Dr. Chalmers.)
The Late Grandpierre, D. D.
I. What is this sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? This
assertion of the Pharisees discloses three odious sentiments.
1. A deceitful contradiction.
2. An unutterable perversity of heart.
3. A terrible blasphemy.
II. Why is this sin, and this sin only, unpardonable either in this
world or in the next?

1. Would it be too great, too odious, to find grace before God?
2. Could the reason of this exception be found in a special decree of
God, who, from motives unknown to us, would have blotted this
particular sin from the list of those He is disposed to pardon?
III. Was this sin peculiar to the times of Jesus Christ, or are we still
liable to become guilty of it? Materially, no; virtually, yes.
(The Late Grandpierre, D. D.)
commentaries
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(31) The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.—Better, against the
Spirit, the word “Holy” not being found in any MSS. of authority.
The question, What is the nature of the terrible sin thus excluded
from forgiveness? has, naturally enough, largely occupied the
thoughts of men. What, we ask, is this blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost? (1.) The context at least helps us to understand something of
its nature. The Pharisees were warned against a sin to which they
were drawing perilously near. To condemn the Christ as a
gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, as breaking the Sabbath, or
blaspheming when He said, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” was to
speak a word against the Son of Man. These offences might be sins
of ignorance, not implying more than narrowness and prejudice.
But to see a man delivered from the power of Satan unto God, to
watch the work of the Spirit of God, and then to ascribe that work

to the power of evil, this was to be out of sympathy with goodness
and mercy altogether. In such a character there was no opening for
repentance, and therefore none for forgiveness. The capacity for
goodness in any form was destroyed by this kind of antagonism. (2.)
We dare not say, and our Lord does not say it, that the Pharisees
had actually committed this sin, but it was towards this that they
were drifting. And in reference to later times, we may say that this is
the ultimate stage of antagonism to God and to His truth, when the
clearest proofs of divine power and goodness are distorted into
evidence that the power is evil. The human nature in that extremest
debasement has identified itself with the devil nature, and must
share its doom.
Benson Commentary
Matthew 12:31. All manner of sin and blasphemy — The word
rendered blasphemy: denotes injurious expressions, whether against
God or man. When God is the object, it is properly rendered
blasphemy. It is evident that, in this passage, both are included, as
the different kinds are compared together: consequently the general
term detraction, or injurious speech, ought to be employed, which is
applicable alike to both; whereas the term blasphemy, with us, is not
used of any verbal injury that is not aimed directly against God.
Shall be forgiven unto men — That is, on condition of true
repentance, and faith in the mercy of God through Christ; or, as the
words evidently mean, may be forgiven unto men; for we are not to
understand our Lord as asserting that every such sin shall actually
be pardoned, but that it is, in the divine economy, capable of being
pardoned. But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men — By the blasphemy here spoken of, we are

evidently to understand injurious or impious speaking against the
Spirit of God, such as the Pharisees were now guilty of; that is,
attributing to the devil those miracles which Christ gave full proof
that he wrought by the Holy Spirit. That this, and nothing but this,
is the sin here intended, is manifest from the connection in which the
words stand in this place; and more especially still from the parallel
passage, Mark 3:28-30, in which the evangelist, assigning the reason
of our Lord’s making this declaration, adds, Because they said, He
hath an unclean spirit; that is, “hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of
devils casteth out devils.” This, then, and this only, is the sin, or
blasphemy, as it should rather be called, (and as the Scriptures
always call it,) against the Holy Ghost. It is an offence of the tongue;
it is committed not by thinking, but by speaking, by evil-speaking,
by belying, slandering, or reviling the Divine Spirit, by which our
Lord wrought his miracles, ascribing them to the devil: which in
fact was calling the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of the one living and
true God, the devil: a more heinous crime than which is not to be
conceived.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
12:31,32 Here is a gracious assurance of the pardon of all sin upon
gospel terms. Christ herein has set an example to the sons of men, to
be ready to forgive words spoken against them. But humble and
conscientious believers, at times are tempted to think they have
committed the unpardonable sin, while those who have come the
nearest to it, seldom have any fear about it. We may be sure that
those who indeed repent and believe the gospel, have not committed
this sin, or any other of the same kind; for repentance and faith are
the special gifts of God, which he would not bestow on any man, if
he were determined never to pardon him; and those who fear they

have committed this sin, give a good sign that they have not. The
trembling, contrite sinner, has the witness in himself that this is not
his case.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
In this place, and in Mark 3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of
the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against
the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league
with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the
"spirit" or "power" of God, but by the aid of the prince of the
devils. It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking
against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his
miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is
clear from Mark 3:30, "because they said he had an unclean spirit."
All other sins - all speaking against the Saviour himself - might be
remitted. But this sin was clearly against the Holy One; it was
alleging that the highest displays of God's mercy and power were
the work of the devil; and it argued, therefore, the deepest depravity
of mind. The sin of which he speaks is therefore clearly stated. It
was accusing him of working miracles by the aid of the devil, thus
dishonoring the Holy Spirit.
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven - That is, only on
condition that people repent and believe. If they continue in this sin
they cannot be forgiven, Mark 16:16; Romans 2:6-9.
Blasphemy - Injurious or evil speaking of God. See the notes at
Matthew 9:3.
A word against the Son of man - The Jews were offended at the
humble life and appearance of the Saviour. They reproached him as
being a Nazarene - sprung from Nazareth, a place from which no

good was expected to proceed; with being a Galilean, from Galilee, a
place from which no prophet came, John 7:52. Jesus says that
reproaches of this kind could be pardoned. Reflections on his
poverty, on his humble birth, and on the lowliness of his human
nature might be forgiven; but for those which affected his divine
nature, accusing him of being in league with the devil, denying his
divinity, and attributing the power which manifestly implied
divinity to the prince of fallen spirits, there could be no pardon. This
sin was a very different thing from what is now often supposed to be
the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was a wanton and blasphemous
attack on the divine power and nature of Christ. Such a sin God
would not forgive.
Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word "ghost" means
"spirit," and probably refers here to the "divine nature" of Christ -
the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence
that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of
the whole passage may be: "He that speaks against me as a man of
Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc.,
may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature,
charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the
power of God manifestly displayed "by me," can never obtain
forgiveness."
Neither in this world, nor in that which is to come - That is, as Mark
expresses it, "hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal
damnation." This fixes the meaning of the phrase. It means, then,
not the future age or dispensation, known among the Jews as the
world to come, but it means that the guilt will be unpardoned
forever; that such is the purpose of God that he will not forgive a sin
so direct, presumptuous, and awful. It cannot be inferred from this

that any sins will be forgiven in hell. The Saviour meant simply to
say that there were "no possible circumstances" in which the
offender could obtain forgiveness. He certainly did "not" say that
any sin unpardoned here would be pardoned hereafter.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men—The word "blasphemy" properly
signifies "detraction," or "slander." In the New Testament it is
applied, as it is here, to vituperation directed against God as well as
against men; and in this sense it is to be understood as an
aggravated form of sin. Well, says our Lord, all sin—whether in its
ordinary or its more aggravated forms—shall find forgiveness with
God. Accordingly, in Mark (Mr 3:28) the language is still stronger:
"All sin shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies
wherewith soever they shall blaspheme." There is no sin whatever, it
seems, of which it may be said, "That is not a pardonable sin." This
glorious assurance is not to be limited by what follows; but, on the
contrary, what follows is to be explained by this.
but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto
men.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on "Matthew 12:32".
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Wherefore I say unto you,.... This shows, that what follows is
occasioned by what the Pharisees had said, concerning the miracles
of Christ; imputing them to diabolical influence and assistance,

when they were done by the Spirit of God, of which they themselves
were conscious;
all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: not
unto all men, for there are some, who, as they are never truly
convinced of sin, and brought to repentance for it, so they never
have the remission of it; but to such to whom God of his free grace
has promised, and for whom he has provided this blessing, in the
covenant of his grace; for whom the blood of Christ was shed, for
the remission of their sins; and who, by the Spirit of God, are made
sensible of them, and have repentance unto life given them, and faith
in Christ, by which they receive the forgiveness of them: the sense is,
that all kind of sin, whether committed more immediately against
God, or man, the first or second table of the law, or against any of
the divine precepts; be they sins small or great, secret or open, sins
of heart, lip, or life, or attended with whatsoever aggravating
circumstances; and all kind of blasphemy, or evil speaking of men,
or of angels, or of the name of God, but what is hereafter excepted,
there is forgiveness of in the grace of God, through the blood of
Christ, even for all sorts of men and sinners whatever. The Jews
have a saying (z), that God pardons all sins,
, "except lasciviousness".''
But this is not excepted by Christ, only what follows,
but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven
unto men: by which is meant, not every ignorant denial of, and
opposition to his deity and personality; nor all resistance of him in
the external ministry of the word; nor every sin that is knowingly
and wilfully committed; but it is a despiteful usage of the Spirit of
grace, an opposing, contradicting, and denying the operations

wrought, or doctrines revealed by him, against a man's own light
and conscience, out of wilful and obstinate malice, on purpose to
lessen the glory of God, and gratify his own lusts: such was the sin of
the Scribes and Pharisees; who, though they knew the miracles of
Christ were wrought by the Spirit of God, yet maliciously and
obstinately imputed them to the devil, with a view to obscure the
glory of Christ, and indulge their own wicked passions and
resentments against him; which sin was unpardonable at that
present time, as well as under that dispensation then to come, when
the Spirit of God was poured down in a more plenteous manner.
(z) Tanchuma apud Buxtorf. Heb. Florileg. p. 126.
Geneva Study Bible
Wherefore 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.
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 12:31. Διὰ τοῦτο] refers back to all that has been said since
Matthew 12:25 : On this account—because, in bringing such an
accusation against me, Matthew 12:24, you have as my enemies
(Matthew 12:30) resisted the most undoubted evidence of the
contrary (Matthew 12:25 ff.),—on this account I must tell you, and
so on.
ἁμαρτ. κ. βλασφ.] Genus and species: every sin and (in particular)
blaspheming (of sacred things, as of the Messiah Himself, Matthew
12:32).

ἡ τοῦ πν. βλασφ.] Blaspheming of the Spirit (Mark 3:29; Luke
12:10) is the sin in question, and of which that allegation on the part
of the Pharisees, Matthew 12:24, is an instance, so that it is probably
too much to say, as though the new birth must be presumed, that it
can only occur in the case of a Christian,—a view which was held by
Huther, Quenstedt, and others. As, then, in the present instance the
Pharisees had hardened themselves against an unmistakeable
revelation of the Spirit of God, as seen in the life and works of Jesus,
had in fact taken up an attitude of avowed hostility to this Spirit; so
much so that they spoke of His agency as that of the devil: so in
general the βλασφημία τοῦ πνεύματος may be defined to be the sin
which a man commits when he rejects the undoubted revelation of
the Holy Spirit, and that not merely with a contemptuous moral
indifference (Gurlitt; see, on the other hand, Müller, Lehre v. d.
Sünde, II. p. 598, ed. 5), but with the evil will struggling to shut out
the light of that revelation; and even goes the length of expressing in
hostile language his deliberate and conscious opposition to this
divine principle, thereby avowing his adherence to his anti-spiritual
confession. This sin is not forgiven, because in the utterly hardened
condition which it presupposes, and in which it appears as the
extreme point of sinful development, the receptivity for the
influences of the Holy Spirit is lost, and nothing remains but
conscious and avowed hatred toward this holy agency. In the case of
the Christian, every conscious sin, and in particular all immoral
speech, is also sin against the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30); but what
is meant by blaspheming the Spirit in the passage before us, is to go
to the utmost extremity in apostasy from Christ and πρὸς θάνατον (1
John 5:16, and Huther’s note). See Grashoff in the Stud. u. Krit.
1833, p. 935 ff.; Gurlitt, ibid. 1834, p. 599 ff.; Tholuck, ibid. 1836, p.

401 ff.; Schaf, d. Sünde wider d. heil. G. 1841; Jul. Müller, l.c.; Alex,
ab Oettingen, de pecc. in Sp. s. 1856, where the older literature may
also be found, and where the different views are criticised.[444] For
the way in which the blaspheming against the Spirit is supposed to
coincide, as far as the Christian is concerned, with the falling away
mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6, see Delitzsch On the Hebrews, p. 231
ff.; Lünemann, p. 205 ff.
οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται] should not have its meaning twisted by supplying
“as a rule,” or such like; nor, with Grotius, is οὐκ to be taken
comparatively (more heinous than all other sins). The simple
impossibility of forgiveness is just to be sought in the man’s own
state of heart, which has become one of extreme hostility to God.
[444] At p. 87, Oettingen defines the sin thus: “Impoenitentia
perpetua atque incredulitas usque ad finem, quae ex rebellante et
obstinatissima repudiatione testimonii Sp. s. evangelio sese
manifestantis et in hominum cordibus operantis profecta
blasphemando in Sp. s. per verbum et facinus in lucem prodit.”
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 12:31-32. Jesus changes His tone from argument to solemn
warning.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
31–37. Blaspheming against the Holy Ghost

31. Wherefore] The conclusion of the whole is—you are on Satan’s
side, and knowingly on Satan’s side, in this decisive struggle
between the two kingdoms, and this is blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost—an unpardonable sin.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 12:31. Βλασφημία, blasphemy) The most atrocious kind of
sin. He who insults the majesty of an earthly king by injurious
language, is much more severely punished than he who steals many
thousands of gold pieces.—ἀφεθήσεται, shall be forgiven) so that the
punishment may be remitted to the penitent.—ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος
βλασφημία, the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) Sin against the
Holy Spirit is one thing, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is
another. The word ἀμαρτία, sin, is not repeated here. The sinner
injures himself by sin: the blasphemer affects many others with
irreparable harm. And the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit,
not in a mere ordinary holy man, but in the Messiah Himself.
Pulpit Commentary
Verses 31, 32. - Parallel passages: Mark 3:28-30 (where the verses
immediately follow our ver. 29) and Luke 12:10 (where the context
is not the same, he having passed straight from our ver. 30 to our
ver. 43, vide infra). It is to be observed that all three accounts differ
a good deal in form, though but slightly in substance. The
Apostolical Constitutions contain what is probably a mixture of
these verses with 2 Peter 2:1 and other passages of the New
Testament. Resch ('Agrapha,' pp. 130, 249, etc.), in accordance with
his theory, thinks that the Constitutions have preserved a genuine
utterance of the Lord, of which only different fragments are
presented in various parts of the New Testament. A few words of

introduction to these difficult verses. It has been strangely forgotten,
in their interpretation, that our Lord spoke in language that he
intended his hearers to understand, and that probably not a single
one of those who stood by would understand by the expressions, ,,
the Spirit" (ver. 31), "the Holy Spirit" (ver. 32), a Person in the
Godhead distinct from the First Person or the Second (cf. Matthew
1:18, note). At most they would understand them to refer to an
influence by God upon men (Psalm 51:11; cf. Luke 11:13), such as
Christ had claimed to possess in a special degree (Luke 4:18). In
inquiring, therefore, for an explanation of our Lord's sayings, we
must not begin at the Trinitarian standpoint, and see in the words a
contrast between "blasphemy" against one Person of the Trinity,
and "blasphemy" against another. The contrast is between
"blasphemy" against Christ as Son of man, Christ in his earthly
work and under earthly conditions, the Christ whom they saw and
whom they did not understand, and "blasphemy" against God as
such working upon earth. "Blasphemy" against the former might be
due to ignorance and prejudice, but "blasphemy" against the latter
was to speak against God's work recognized as such, against God
manifesting himself to their consciences (cf. vers. 27, 28); it was to
reject the counsel of God towards them, to set themselves up in
opposition to God, and thus to exclude from themselves forgiveness.
Just as under the Law there were sacrifices for sins of ignorance and
minor offences, but none for wilful disregard of and opposition to
God, so must it be at all times even under the gospel itself. Observe
that the "blasphemy" is understood by our Lord as showing the
state of the heart (cf. Acts 7:51). What the effect of a change of
heart, i.e. of repentance, would be does not enter into our Lord's
utterance. All other sin is venial, but for heart-opposition there is no
forgiveness. As Tyndale says ('Expositions,' p. 232, Parker Society),

"Sin against the Holy Ghost is despising of the gospel and his
working. Where that bideth is no remedy of sin: for it fighteth
against faith, which is the forgiveness of sin. If that be put away,
faith may enter in, and all sins depart." (Cf. also Dorner, ' System,'
3:73; 4:91.) Verse 31. - Wherefore (διὰ τοῦτο). Referring primarily
to ver. 30, and to be joined closely to "I say unto you." Because such
is the terrible effect of what you think mere indifferentism, I say this
solemnly, Beware of committing the great sin. Luke's connexion of
our ver. 43 with ver. 30 gives a good but a weaker sense - Become
fully decided, lest the devil return to you stronger than ever.
Matthew's connexion is - Become fully decided, for the legitimate
outcome of want of decision is the sin that will not be forgiven. I say
unto you (Matthew 6:25, note), All manner of; every (Revised
Version); πᾶσα. Sin and blasphemy. Genus and species (Meyer).
Blasphemy passes in this verse from its wider meaning of open
slander and detraction in the first clause to its now commoner but
restricted meaning of speech against God in the second clause. Shall
be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;
the Spirit (Revised Version), thus making it more possible for the
English reader to see the connexion of thought with the phrase in
ver. 28. Shall not be forgiven unto men. The words, unto men, must
be omitted, with the Revised Version. They weaken a statement
which in itself may apply to other beings than those that are on
earth.
Mark 3:28-3028Truly I tell you, peoplecan be
forgiven all their sins and every slanderthey utter,

29but whoever blasphemes againstthe Holy Spirit will
never be forgiven;they are guilty of an eternal sin."
30He said this becausethey were saying, "He has an
impure spirit."
SERMONS
The Unforgivable Sin
Mark 3:28-30
A.F. Muir
I. AN ACTUAL OFFENCE. It is not mentioned again in the Gospel,
but the warning was called forth by the actual transgression. There
is no mere theorizing about it therefore. It is an exposure and
denunciation. This gives us an idea of the fearful unbelief and bitter
hatred of those who opposed him. The manifestation of light and
love only strengthened the antagonism of some. They consciously
sinned against the light.
II. WHY IS IT UNFORGIVABLE?
1. Bemuse of the majesty of the crime. It identifies the
Representative and Son of God with the devil - the best with the
worst.
2. the nature of the spiritual state induced. When a man deliberately
falsifies his spiritual intuitions, and corrupts his conscience so that
good is considered evil, there is no hope for him. Such a condition

can only be the result of long-continued opposition to God and
determined hatred of his character. The means of salvation are
thereby robbed of their possibility to save.
III. THE LIKELIHOOD OF ITS BEING REPEATED. As it is an
extreme and final degree of sin, there is little danger of its being
committed without full consciousness and many previous warnings.
1. It is therefore, a priori, improbable in any. Yet as increasing light
and grace tend to throw into stronger opposition the spirit of evil, it
must be regarded as:
2. A possibility of every sinner. Necessity for self-examination and
continual recourse to the cleansing and illuminating power of
Christ. - M.
Great sin not unpardonable, but continuance in it
G. Petter.
There is great comfort to be derived from this statement, for such as
are tempted by Satan to think their sins are too great to be forgiven.
Thus thought wicked Cain, and thus many good though weak
Christians are tempted to think still. Let such be assured, that there
is no sin so great but God's mercy is sufficient to pardon it, and the
blood of Christ sufficient to purge away the guilt of it; neither is it
the multitude or greatness of sins simply, that hinders from pardon,
but impenitency in sins, whether many or few, great or small.
Therefore look not only at the greatness of thy sins with one eye, as
it were, but look also, with the other, at the greatness of God's
mercy and the infinite value of Christ's merits; both which are
sufficient to pardon and take away the guilt of thy most heinous sins

if truly repented of. Look therefore at this, that there be in this a
great measure of godly sorrow and repentance for thy great sins;
and labour by faith to apply the blood of Christ to thy conscience
for the purging of thy sins, and thou needest not doubt but they shall
be pardoned. Whether thy sins be many or few, small or great, this
makes nothing for thee or against thee as touching the obtaining of
pardon; but it is thy continuing, or not continuing in thy sins
impenitently, that shall make against thee or for thee. To the
impenitent all sins are unpardonable; to the penitent all sins are
pardonable, though never so great and heinous. Yet let none abuse
this doctrine to presumption or boldness in sinning, because God's
mercy is great and sufficient to pardon all sins, even the greatest,
except the sin against the Holy Ghost. Beware of sinning that grace
may abound; beware of turning the grace of God into wantonness,
for God has said He will not be merciful to such as sin, presuming
on His mercy. Besides, we must remember that, although God has
mercy enough to pardon great sins, yet great sins require a great
and extraordinary measure of repentance.
(G. Petter.)
Blasphemy
G. Petter.
In that our Saviour, setting out the riches of God's mercy, in
pardoning all sorts of sins, though never so great (except that
against the Holy Ghost), doth give instance in blasphemy, as one of
the greatest; hence gather, that blasphemy against God is one of the
most heinous sins, and very hard to be forgiven. This sin is
committed in the following ways.

1. By attributing to God that which is dishonourable to Him, and
unbeseeming His Majesty; e.g., to say He is unjust, cruel, or the
author of sin, etc.
2. By taking from God, and denying unto Him that which belongs to
Him.
3. By attributing the properties of God to creatures.
4. By speaking contemptibly of God. Pharaoh (Exodus 5:2);
Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:15).
(G. Petter.)
Remedies against this sin of blasphemy
G. Petter.
1. Consider the fearfulness of the sin. It argues great wickedness in
the heart harbouring it.2. Consider how God has avenged Himself
on blasphemers, even by temporal judgments.
3. Our tongues are given us to bless God and man.
4. Labour for a reverent fear of God in our hearts.
5. Take heed of using God's Name irreverently, and of common
swearing.
(G. Petter.)
The man who will not be forgiven, cannot be forgiven
H. R. Haweis, M. A.

In one place Jesus seems to speak of this sin as an action, at another
time He calls it speaking a word against the Holy Ghost. Is there any
one word or action that a man or woman can perpetrate which will
forever cut them off from God's mercy and pardon? Not one! Study
this phrase of the scribes, that Jesus cast out devils by Beelzebub,
for it was the phrase which brought them under sentence for sin
against the Holy Ghost, and you will understand what that sin of
theirs really was. The word spoken is nothing apart from the state of
heart which it reveals. It has only power to save or damn, because
out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh. It bears witness
to that. The sin is not a word or an action, then, but a state — a state
of heart; the state which sees good and denies it; which turns the
light into darkness; which can look on Jesus and still lie. Such a
state is the unforgiven and unforgivable sin in this world — in the
eternity that now is or in that which is to come. Pardon is between
two parties; he who will not be forgiven cannot be forgiven. In the
hardened state above described — the state which is sin against the
Holy Ghost — you will not, therefore you cannot, be forgiven. As
long as you are so, that will be so, but it is nowhere said that you
shall never be lifted out of that state; converted — awakened —
aroused — saved — just as a man lying down with the snow torpor
upon him, which means coming death, may be kept walking about,
or lifted out of that torpor and saved; but as long as he is in it he
cannot be saved — he must die.
(H. R. Haweis, M. A.)
The unpardonable sin indescribable
Joseph Parker, D. D.

Explanation of this mystery there is probably none. It best explains
itself by exciting a holy fear as to trespass. Another step — only one
— and we may be over the line. One word more, and we may have
passed into the state unpardonable. Do not ask what this sin is; only
know that every other sin leads straight up to it; and at best there is
but a step between life and death. From what the merciful God does
pardon, we can only infer that the sin which hath never forgiveness
is something too terrible for full expression in words. He pardons
"abundantly." He pardoned Nineveh; He passed by the
transgression of the remnant of His heritage; where sin abounded,
He sent the mightiest billows of His grace; when the enemy would
have stoned the redeemed, by reminding them of sins manifold, and
base with exceeding aggravation, behold their sins could not be
found, for His merciful hand had east them into the sea. Yet there is
one sin that hath never forgiveness! As it is unpardonable, so it is
indescribable. If it be too great for God's mercy, what wonder that it
should be too mysterious for our comprehension? My soul, come not
thou into that secret.
(Joseph Parker, D. D.)
Irreclaimable
J. H. Godwin.
Those who make the best things effects of the worst are
irreclaimable.
(J. H. Godwin.)

The unforgivable sin
Vita.
If you poison the spring, the very source, you must die of drinking
the water, so long as the poison is there. And if you deny and
blaspheme the very essence from which forgiveness springs and
flows, forgiveness is killed (for you) by your own hand. There can be
no remission, no healing for that, since it is in fact — "Evil, be thou
my good; good, thou art evil!" How significant it is that it is the
attributing goodness, righteousness of word, life, action, "good
works" in short, to an evil source, which is the unpardonable sin —
not the converse; not the ascribing unworthy things to the source of
good; not the having faulty conceptions of Him. If it were that, who
among us would escape?
(Vita.)
Sin against consciousness greater than against sight
J. Parker, D. D.
Christ taught that a word spoken against the Son of Man would be
forgiven, but that a word spoken against the Holy Ghost would not
be forgiven: by which He probably meant that in His visible form
there was so much that contravened the expectations of the people,
that they might, under the mistaken guidance of their carnal
feelings, speak against One who had claimed kingly position under a
servant's form; but that in the course of events He would appear not
to the eye but to the consciousness of men; and that when He came
by this higher ministry, refusal of His appeal would place man in an
unpardonable state. The vital principle would seem to be, that when

man denies his own consciousness, or shuts himself up from such
influences as would purify and quicken his consciousness, he cuts
himself off from God, and becomes a "son of perdition." Speaking
against the Holy Ghost is speaking against the higher and final
revelation of the Son of Man.
(J. Parker, D. D.)
God wilt vindicate His honour
During the prevalence of infidelity in America after the reign of
terror in France, Newbury, New York, was remarkable for its
abandonment. Through the influence of "Blind Palmer," there was
formed a Druidical Society, so called, which had a high priest, and
met at stated times to uproot and destroy all true religion. They
descended sometimes to acts the most infamous and blasphemous.
Thus, for instance, at one of their meetings they burned the Bible,
baptized a eat, partook of a mock sacrament, and one of the
number, with the approval of the rest, administered it to a dog.
Now, mark the retributive judgments of God, which at once
commenced falling on these blasphemers. In the evening he who had
administered this mock sacrament was attacked with a violent
inflammatory disease; his inflamed eyeballs were protruded from
their sockets, his tongue was swollen, and he died before the
following morning in great bodily and mental agony. Another of the
party was found dead in his bed the next morning. A third, who had
been present, fell in a fit, and died immediately; and three others
were drowned a few days afterwards. In short, within five years
from the time the Druidical Society was organized, all the original
members met their death in some strange or unnatural manner.

There were thirty-six of them in all, and of these two were starved to
death, seven drowned, eight shot, five committed suicide, seven died
on the gallows, one was frozen to death, and three died
"accidentally." Of these statements there is good proof; they have
been certified before justices of peace in New York.
C. Hedge, D. D.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity, both as
a system of doctrines and as a religion. We stand in special relation
to the several persons of the Trinity. All sin as against the Father or
the Son may be forgiven, but the sin against the Holy Ghost can
never be forgiven.
I. ITS GENERAL CHARACTER.
1. That there is such a sin which is unpardonable.
2. It is an open sin, not a sin merely of the heart. It is blasphemy. It
requires to be uttered and carried out in act.
3. It is directed against the Holy Ghost, specifically. It terminates on
Him. It consists in blaspheming Him, or doing despite unto Him.
II. ITS SPECIFIC CHARACTER. This includes —
1. Regarding and pronouncing the Holy Ghost to be evil; ascribing
the effect which He produces to Satan or to an evil, impure spirit.
2. The rejection of His testimony as false. He testifies that Jesus is
the Son of God. The man guilty of this sin declares Him to be a man
only. He testifies that Jesus is holy. The other declares He is a

malefactor. He testifies that His blood cleanses from all sin. The
other, that it is an unclean thing, and tramples it under foot.
3. The conscious, deliberate, malicious resistance of the Holy Spirit,
and the determined opposition of the soul to Him and His gospel,
and a turning away from both with abhorrence.His sin supposes —
1. Knowledge of the gospel.
2. Conviction of its truth.
3. Experience of its power.It is the rejection of the whole testimony
of the Spirit, and rejection of Him and His work, with malicious and
outspoken blasphemy. It is by a comparison of Matthew 12:31, and
the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, with Hebrews 6:6-10, and
Hebrews 10:26-29 that the true idea of the unpardonable sin is to be
obtained.
III. THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS SIN is reprobation, or a
reprobate mind.
IV. IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR VIEWS OF THIS SUBJECT.
1. Because erroneous views prevail, as(1) That every deliberate sin is
unpardonable, as the apostle says "He who sins wilfully."(2) Any
peculiarly atrocious sin, as denying Christ by the lapsed.(3) Post-
baptismal sins.
2. Because people of tender conscience often are unnecessarily
tormented with the fear that they have committed this sin. It is hard
to deal with such persons, for they are generally in a morbid state.
3. Because as there is such a sin, every approach to it should be
avoided and dreaded.

4. Because we owe specific reverence to the Holy Ghost on whom
our spiritual life depends.
(C. Hedge, D. D.)
H. W. Beecher.
I. Now, WHAT IS FORGIVENESS? It is the remission of the
consequences of a violation of law, and of pains and penalties of
every kind which arise from having broken a law. It may be
considered as, first, organic. In other words, far away from human
society the Divine will expresses itself in natural law. Thus a man, by
intemperance, by gluttony, by excess of activity, by violation of
physical law, may disarrange his whole structure. His head may
suffer, his chest may suffer, any part of his body may suffer.
Violence may fracture a limb, or some sprain may distort a tendon
or a muscle; and everywhere man, as a physical organization, is in
contact with God's organic law in the physical world in which we
live.
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF FORGIVENESS RUNS THROUGH
CREATION. That is to say, all violations of law are not fatal. They
may inflict more or less pain; they may bring upon a man suffering
to a certain extent; but so soon as a man finds that the derangement
of his stomach has arisen from eating improper food, although the
knowledge and the reformation do not take away the dyspepsia, yet,
if he thoroughly turns away from the course he has been pursuing,
and pursues wholesome methods, in time he will recover. Nature has
forgiven him. Throughout the physical world you may cure fevers,

dropsies, fractures, derangements of vital organs; you may violate
all the multiplied economies that go to constitute the individual
physical man, and rebound will bring forgiveness; but there is a
point beyond which if you go it will not, either in youth, in middle
life, or in old age. Many a young man who spends himself until he
has drained the fountain of vitality dry in youth is an old man at
thirty years of age; he creeps and crawls at forty, and at fifty, if he is
alive, he is a wretch. Nature says, "I forgive all manner of iniquity
and transgression and sin to a man who does not commit the
unpardonable sin."
III. FOR THERE IS AN UNPARDONABLE SIN, PHYSICALLY
SPEAKING, THAT IS POSSIBLE TO EVERY MAN. If a
thousand-pound weight fall upon a man so that it grinds the bones
of his leg to powder, like flour, I should like to see any surgeon that
could restore it to him. He may give him a substitute in the form of
wood or cork, but he cannot give him his leg again. There is an
unpardonable sin that may be committed in connection with the
lungs, with the heart, or with the head. They are strung with nerves
as thick as beads on a string; and up to a certain point of excess or
abuse of the nervous system if you rebound there will be remission,
and you will be put hack, or nearly hack, where you were before you
transgressed nature's laws; but beyond that point — it differs in
different men, and in different parts of the same man — if you go on
transgressing, and persist in transgression, you will never get over
the effect of it as long as you live.
(H. W. Beecher.)

H. W. Beecher.
I. What are the SIGNS? This I speak by way of relief to many and
many a needlessly tried soul. The inevitable sign of the commission
of the unpardonable sin is a condition in which men are past feeling;
and if a man has come into that condition in which he is
unpardonable — incurable — the sign will be that he does not care.
If you find a person who is alarmed lest he is in that condition, his
very alarm is a sign that he is not in it. I know not what was the
particular case that led to the request that I should preach on the
subject; but if there be those that are suffering because they fear
that they have committed the unpardonable sin, in the first place, it
is not a single act, it is a condition that men come into by education;
and, in the second place, that condition is one in which there is a
cessation of sensibility. It is a want of spiritual pulse. It is a want of
the capacity of spiritual suffering. Therefore, if you do not suffer at
all, it may be, it is quite likely, that you are in that condition. Those
who are in that condition are never troubled about their spiritual
state. But where persons are anxious on the subject of their spiritual
state, and are in distress about it, and talk much respecting it, they
are the very ones that cannot be in the unpardonable condition.
What would you think of a man who should anxiously go around
asking every physician if he did not think he was blind, when the
reason of his anxiety was that he had such acuteness of vision that
he saw everything so very plainly and continuously? Acuteness of
vision is not a sign of blindness. What would you think of a man that
should go to his physician to ascertain if he was not growing deaf,
because his hearing was so good? The symptoms of deafness do not
go that way. And how incompatible with the condition in which one
has committed the unpardonable sin is fear lest one has committed

it. That condition is one in which a person is past all feeling, and is
given over to his wickedness.
II. This subject will lead us to make an IMPORTANT
DISCRIMINATION — one which we may all of us need — whether
we are in a sinful state or are beginning to lead a Christian life.
There is a tendency to fear great sins, and a tendency to be
indifferent to little ones. Now, there are certain great sins that, being
committed, may give such a moral shock to a man's constitution as
to be fatal in their effects; but these are not usually fallen into. Men
are not very much in danger of great sins. They are ten thousand
times more in danger of little ones. Men are not in danger of
committing perjury as much as they are of telling "white lies," as
they are called. Men are not so much in danger of counterfeiting as
they are of putting on little minute false appearances. Men are not
so much in danger of committing burglary as they are of committing
the myriad infinitesimal injustices with which life is filled. Any
particular act, to be sure, such as I have alluded to, which of itself is
simply as a particle of dust, is not so culpable as a great sin; but
what is the effect on the constitution of a series of these offences that
are so small as to be almost imperceptible? It is these little sins,
continued and multiplied, that by friction take off the enamel of a
man's conscience. It is these numberless petty wrongs that men do
not fear, persisted in, that are the most damaging. I should dread
the incursion into my garden, in the night time, of rooting swine, or
trampling ox, or browsing buffalo; but, after all, aphides are worse
than these big brutes. I could kill anyone, or half a dozen, or a score
of them, if they came in such limited numbers; but when they swarm
by the billion I cannot kill one in ten thousand of them — and what
can I do? Myriads of these insignificant little insects will eat faster
than I can work, and they are the pest and danger of the garden, as

often my poor asters and roses testify. There is many and many a
flower that I would work hard to save, but the fecundity of insect
life will quite match and overmatch, any man's industry. Weakness
multiplied is stronger than strength. Now, that which does the
mischief is these aphides, these myriad infinitesimal worms, these
pestiferous little sins, every one of which is called white, and is a
mere nothing, a small point — a mote, a speck of dust. Why, many a
caravan has been overtaken, smothered and destroyed by clouds of
dust, the separate particles of which were so minute as to be almost
invisible. Many men are afraid that they will be left to some great
sin — and they ought to fear that; but they have not the slightest
fear of that which is a great deal more likely to bring them to
condemnation — the series of petty violations of conscience, and
truth, and duty, with which human experience is filled. Here is
where every man should most seriously ponder his condition, and
ask himself, "What is the effect of the conduct that I am day by day
evolving? Am I educating myself toward moral sensibility, or away
from moral sensibility?"
III. This leads me to say THAT EVERY MAN SHOULD TAKE
HEED TO THE WAY IN WHICH HE TREATS HIS
CONSCIENCE. If the light in him be darkness, how great is that
darkness! When we put a lighthouse on the coast, that in the night
mariners may explore the dark and terrible way of the sea, we not
only swing glass around it to protect it, but we enclose that glass
itself in a network of iron wire, that birds may not dash it in, the
summer winds may not swoop it out, and that swarms of insects
may not destroy themselves and the light. For if the light in the
lighthouse be put out, how great a darkness falls upon the land and
upon the sea. And the mariner, waiting for the light, or seeing it not,
miscalculates, and perishes. Now, a man's conscience ought to be

protected from those influences that would diminish its light, or that
would put it out; but there are thousands of men who are every day
doing their utmost to destroy this light. When they do wrong, their
conscience rebukes them, and they instantly attempt to suppress it
and put it down. They undertake to excuse themselves and palliate
the wrong. The next day, when they do wrong, the same process goes
on, and they make a deliberate war against their conscience; for it is
a very painful thing for a man to do wrong and carry the hurt, and
he feels that he must overcome this tormentor if he would have any
peace, a great many men not only are making war against the light
of God in the soul, but are beginning to feel the greatest
complacency in their achievements. They come to a state in which
they can lie and not feel bad. They come to a state in which they can
do a great deal of injustice, and not have it strike them any mere as
injustice. Men that have got along so far in this moral perversion
that their conscience has ceased to trouble them, and they think of
wrong-doing merely as a thing that is in the way of business, are
sometimes surprised as their mind strikes back to the time when
they were more sensitive to right, and they say, "I recollect that, ten
or fifteen years ago, when I first began to do such things, I used to
be so troubled about them that I lay awake nights; but, it is a long
time since they have given me any trouble." They muse, and say,
"How queer it is. I used to shrink from things that were not just
right, and to be afraid to deviate in the least from the strictest
rectitude; but I have got over it. Now I do not feel so. How is it? I
wonder what has happened to me." Oh, yes; you wonder what has
happened to you. There has been death in your house. The cradle is
empty. Souls die. The moral element of your soul is dead. Why,
many and many a man, who used to be sensitive to purity, whose
cheek used to colour at the allusion to impurity, has got so now that

the whole literature of impurity is familiar to him. Impure scenes,
impure narratives, the whole morbid intercourse of impure minds,
they now never feel any shrinking from. Their moral nature is
seared as with a hot iron. There are men that come not only to be
wicked, but to be struck through and through with wickedness, so
that they love men that are, wicked, and hate men that are not. They
come to have a great contempt for anything that is not wickedness,
and to have a great regard, if not respect, for wickedness itself. And
this they come to not at a plunge. Men never go down such a moral
precipice headlong. They go down by degrees. The decline from a
state of moral sensitiveness is very gradual — so gradual that it does
not seem to men to be on the downward way. Flowers are round
about their feet, the path is shaded and pleasant, and they go far
down before they begin to have any sense of an approaching change.
The way from right to wrong is a deceptive way, and a fatal way,
and on it men go far along toward destruction before their
suspicions are awakened.
(H. W. Beecher.)
COMMENTARIES
Great Texts of the Bible
An Eternal Sin
Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of
men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never
forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they said, He
hath an unclean spirit.—Mark 3:28-30.
I shall never forget, says Dr. Samuel Cox,1 [Note: Expositor, 2nd
Ser., iii. 321.] the chill that struck into my childish heart so often as I
heard of this mysterious sin which carried men, and for ought I
knew might have carried even me, beyond all reach of pardon; or
the wonder and perplexity with which I used to ask myself why, if
this sin was possible,—if, as the words of our Lord seem to imply, it
was probable even and by no means infrequent,—it was not clearly
defined, so that we might at least know, and know beyond all doubt,
whether it had been committed or had not. And, since then, I have
again and again met with men and women of tender conscience and
devout spirit who, by long brooding over these terrible words, had
convinced themselves that they had fallen, inadvertently for the
most part, into this fatal sin, and whose reason had been
disbalanced and unhinged by a fearful anticipation of the doom they
held themselves to have provoked. The religious monomaniac is to
be found in well-nigh every madhouse in the kingdom; and in the
large majority of cases, as there is only too much ground to believe,
he has been driven mad by the fear that he has committed the
unpardonable sin: although the man who honestly fears that he has
committed this sin is just the one man who has the witness in himself
that he cannot possibly have committed it.
I was as silent as my friends; after a little time we retired to our
separate places of rest. About midnight I was awakened by a noise; I

started up and listened; it appeared to me that I heard voices and
groans. In a moment I had issued from my tent—all was silent—but
the next moment I again heard groans and voices; they proceeded
from the tilted cart whore Peter and his wife lay; I drew near, again
there was a pause, and then I heard the voice of Peter, in an accent
of extreme anguish, exclaim, “Pechod Ysprydd Glan—O pechod
Ysprydd Glan!” and then he uttered a deep groan. Anon, I heard
the voice of “Winifred, and never shall I forget the sweetness and
gentleness of the tones of her voice in the stillness of that night.… I
felt I had no right to pry into their afflictions, and retired. Now
“pechod Ysprydd Glan,” interpreted, is the sin against the Holy
Ghost.1 [Note: G. Borrow, Lavengro, chap. lxxiii.]
I
The Occasion of this Warning
It was a time of spiritual decisions, when the thoughts of many
hearts were being revealed. For nearly two years the Gospel had
been proclaimed in the land, and for nearly a year Christ had been
teaching in Galilee. All eyes were upon the new Prophet. His words
were with authority, His deeds were of amazing power, though as
yet no dazzling “sign from heaven” had appeared. Public opinion
was divided. The multitudes were heard saying, “Can it be that this
is the Son of David? We fear not! Why is no great deed done for the
nation’s deliverance? This Messiah, if He be the Messiah, forgives
sins and heals the sick, but that will not drive out Herod from

Tiberias nor the Romans from Jerusalem.” Our Lord’s own
brothers, hearing the reports brought to them, made up their mind
that He was deranged. On the other hand there were many, though
but few compared with the great majority, who could already say
with Nathanael and Peter: “Thou art the Son of God; thou art the
King of Israel.” But in high ecclesiastical circles another theory was
heard which had its part in shaping public sentiment: “He is a false
prophet, possessed by Satan.”
The immediate occasion of the discourse was the healing of a
peculiarly afflicted demoniac. It was in the house at Capernaum,
soon after Christ had returned from an extended evangelistic tour,
accompanied by the Twelve and many other disciples. A sad
picture—this man brought before Him in the midst of the pressing
crowd—dumb, blind, and possessed by an evil spirit; a soul
imprisoned in silence, shut away into hopeless darkness, reached by
no ray of earth’s light and beauty, and, what was still more terrible,
subject to that mysterious “oppression of the devil” by which an evil
presence from the unseen world was housed within him, and
rendered his inner life a hideous and discordant anomaly. With
what unutterable joy must this man have gone forth from the
Saviour’s presence, with unsealed lips, with eyes looking out upon
the world, and in his right mind.
Every such miracle must of necessity have raised afresh the question
of the hour, Who is this Son of Man? Jesus must be accounted for.
The scribes are ready with their theory—plausible, clear, and
conveniently capable of being put into a nutshell. Jesus is Himself a

demoniac, but differs from all other demoniacs in this respect, that
it is no ordinary demon, but the prince of all the evil spirits, that has
taken possession of Him; hence His control over all inferior demons:
“by the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils.”
I was greatly perplexed about the second lesson I should read in the
conducting of a Sabbath morning service. It seemed an utter
impossibility to fix my mind upon any chapter. In this uncertain
state I remained until the singing of the last verse of the hymn
preceding the lesson. I prayed for direction. A voice said, “Read
what is before you.” It was the twelfth chapter of St. Luke. At the
tenth verse (similar to Mark 3:28-29) I paused, read again the verse,
“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it shall be
forgiven him, but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost
it shall not be forgiven.” Then I asked: “What is this sin against the
Holy Ghost?” I explained it as attributing the works and words of
Christ, His influence, spirit, and power to Satanic agency. Just then
I turned to my right, and noticing a beautiful bouquet which some
one had placed on my table, I took the bouquet in my hand, saying,
“There are bad men in this district, but I do not think there is one so
depraved as to say that the growth, the beauty, and the fragrance of
these flowers are the work of the devil. In the lower sense that would
be sinning against the Holy Ghost.” Then I continued my reading.
The result was that the following Tuesday the gardener’s daughter
called to thank me, saying her father had found the Saviour the
preceding Sabbath. She said he had long thought he had sinned
against the Holy Ghost, but that illustration about the flowers set
him at liberty. Going down the garden, standing before a rose bush
in full bloom, he said, “Bad as I have been, I have never said these

flowers were the creation of the devil. No, my Father made them
all.”1 [Note: C. G. Holt.]
II
The Language
1. “Verily I say unto you.” This is the earliest occurrence of the
phrase in St. Mark, and therefore in the Gospels.
2. “All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men.” As if He
shrank from the saying that is to follow, He prefaces it with a fresh
and loving proclamation of the wideness of God’s mercy. There is no
shortcoming in the bestowal of the Divine mercy, there is no
reluctance to pardon sin. Equal, abundantly equal, to the human
need is the Divine provision. “For as the heaven is high above the
earth”—and we have no line to measure that distance—“so great is
his mercy toward them that fear him.” “All their sins”—not one of
them shall be put down as unforgivable; they may all be taken away,
though they be red like crimson. The very thief upon the Cross, the
vilest at whom the world hisses, may appeal in his last desperate
hour for mercy, and receive the assurance of it from the lips of
Christ. It is a very tender proof of the love and longing of Christ for
men’s souls that He speaks thus ere He lets fall the most solemn
warning that ever came from His lips. “All their sins shall be
forgiven unto the sons of men.” What more do we want to hear? Is

not this enough? “He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities”;
“the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” But
there is more.
3. “And their blasphemies.” What is meant by blasphemy? It is
hardly necessary to explain that the word blasphemy means
primarily injurious speech, and, as applied to God, speech
derogatory to His Divine majesty. When our Lord said to the palsied
man, “Thy sins are forgiven,” the bystanders complained that the
words were blasphemous, for no one but God had the right to say
them. To blaspheme is by contemptuous speech intentionally to
come short of the reverence due to God or to sacred things; and this,
according to Jesus, was the offence of the Scribes and Pharisees.
What He says is occasioned by their charge that He had an evil
spirit, that is, that the power acting in Him was not good but bad.
Their offence lay in their failure to value the moral element in the
work of Jesus. They saw what was being done; in their hearts they
felt the power of Christ; they knew His words were true, and that
His works were good works. Rather than acknowledge this, and own
Christ for what He was, they chose to say that the spirit in Him was
not God’s Spirit but the spirit of the devil, involving a complete
upsetting of all moral values, and revealing in themselves a
stupendous and well-nigh irrecoverable moral blindness.
4. “But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.” From
this the sin is often and properly described as “Blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit,” though the popular title, taken from what follows,
is “The Unpardonable Sin.”

5. “Hath never forgiveness.” Literally “hath not forgiveness unto the
age” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The phrase is used in the Septuagint for the
Hebrew le’olam, which means “in perpetuity” (Exodus 21:6; Exodus
40:15), or with a negative, “never more” (2 Samuel 12:10; Proverbs
6:33). But in the New Testament it gains a wider meaning in view of
the eternal relations which the Gospel reveals. It signifies “this
present world” in Mark 4:19, the future life being distinguished
from it as “the world to come” (αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος) in Mark 10:30. In
the passage in Matthew about the blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost, corresponding to the present passage in Mark, the two words
are “neither in this world, nor in that which is to come” (Matthew
12:32).
6. “But is guilty of an eternal sin.” The passage is in no case easy to
understand, but it is made much harder in the Authorized
translation than it is in the original. The Greek word (κρίσις), which
in the reading adopted by the Authorized Version, ends the 29th
verse of the chapter, is not “damnation” or even “condemnation,”
but simply “judgment.” It is now, however, universally allowed that
the word in the original manuscripts is here not “judgment” at all,
but “sin”—“is guilty of (or “liable to”) an eternal sin.” Some early
commentators, not understanding the expression, inserted
“judgment,” as more intelligible, in the margin, from which it crept
into the text.
The word here translated “eternal” (αἰώνιος) is the adjective formed
from the word “age” or “world” (αἰών) of the previous phrase. In a

great many places where this adjective may be rendered
“everlasting,” it is impossible not to feel that this does not give the
whole or the exact meaning. This is very noticeable in such profound
sayings of our Lord as “Whoso eateth my flesh hath eternal life,”
“This is life eternal, that they might know thee”; “He that hath my
word, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is
passed from death into life”; “Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
All such expressions rather convey a thought somewhat like that of
St. Paul’s “Hidden with Christ in God,” life not of the world, but
above and beyond temporal and worldly things; not so much the
endlessness of eternity, as its apartness from time. Something in the
same way, “an eternal sin” can hardly mean an everlasting sin, but
rather a sin which has in it a living power of evil, the bounds of
which cannot be prescribed.
We regard the argument against endless punishment drawn from
αἰών and αἰώνιος as a purely verbal one, which does not touch the
heart of the question at issue. We append several utterances of its
advocates. The Christian Union: “Eternal punishment is
punishment in eternity, not throughout eternity; as temporal
punishment is punishment in time, not throughout time.” Westcott:
“Eternal life is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of
which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the
idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used,
but we must not transfer them to realities of another order.”
Farrar holds that ἀίδιος, “everlasting,” which occurs but twice in
the New Testament (Romans 1:20 and Judges 1:6), is not a synonym

of αἰώνιος, “eternal,” but the direct antithesis of it; the former being
the unrealisable conception of endless time, and the latter referring
to a state from which our imperfect human conception of time is
absolutely excluded. Whiton, Gloria Patri, 145, claims that the
perpetual immanence of God in conscience makes recovery possible
after death; yet he speaks of the possibility that in the incorrigible
sinner conscience may become extinct. To all these views we may
reply with Schaff, Church History, ii. 66—” After the general
judgment we have nothing revealed but the boundless prospect of
æonian life and æonian death.1 [Note: A. H. Strong, Systematic
Theology, iii. 1046.]
III
The Meaning
1. How is it that sin against the Son of Man may be forgiven, while
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost may not? The Son of Man, says
Dalman,2 [Note: The Words of Jesus, 254.] here refers to the
Messiah in His estate of humiliation. “The primary form of the
utterance is seen in Mark, who merely contrasts blasphemy in
general with blasphemy against the Spirit which inspired Jesus
(Mark 3:28 f.). Luke 12:10 speaks of blasphemy of the ‘Son of man’
and of the ‘Spirit’; Matthew 12:32 is similar, but the statement to
this effect is annexed to another, which corresponds to the form
found in Mark. It is impossible that Matthew and Luke should here
intend to make a distinction between two Persons of the Godhead, as

if it were a venial sin to blaspheme the ‘Son.’ The distinction is
between Jesus as man and the Divine Spirit working through Him.
Invective against the man Jesus may be forgiven; blasphemy against
the Divine power inherent in Him is unpardonable, because it is
blasphemy against God.”
2. How then may one be guilty of this unpardonable sin of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? The conditions of obtaining
pardon are three, namely—Confession, i.e. acknowledgment of sin;
Repentance, or hearty sorrow for sin; and Faith, or trust in the
sinner’s Saviour. Now, how can these conditions be fulfilled? How
are we brought into a state in which we can realise the willingness to
acknowledge our transgressions, the hearty sorrow which breaks us
down on account of our sin, and the trust which helps us to believe
that Jesus can forgive? We can be brought into this condition only
by one Power, through the agency of one Person, the Holy Spirit of
God. The Holy Spirit of God must teach our consciences, the Holy
Spirit of God must gain control over our wills; and only through the
teaching of the Holy Spirit in our souls are we made able or willing
to acknowledge our sin, repent of our sin, and believe in our
Saviour. This Holy Scripture teaches us. But it is possible for us to
reject and blaspheme the whole testimony of the Spirit of God; it is
possible for us, not only to reject what the Holy Spirit teaches us,
but even to say, in the wilfulness of our depraved nature, that what
the Holy Spirit says is truth is untruth, and what the Holy Spirit
says is light is darkness. Progression along this awful pathway is
marked in Bible language by three words. First, there is “Grieving
the Spirit of God.” The second stage is “Resisting the Holy Spirit.”
Then, thirdly, there comes the awful state in which the Spirit of God

is “quenched.” Grieve, resist, quench! These three sad words mark
the progress along this path of evil, this path of sin, which ultimately
brings men into a state where their sin is unpardonable. When that
is done, and not until that is done, the unpardonable sin has been
committed. Here, then, we see the nature of this sin. It is a stubborn
and conscious unwillingness to fulfil the conditions of pardon. If a
man brings himself into a state in which he at first will not, but
which ultimately becomes a state in which he cannot, fulfil the
conditions of pardon, how can he be pardoned? It is not that God is
unwilling to pardon him; it is not that God’s forgiving grace is
incapable of bringing him forgiveness; it is that he has brought his
own soul into such a state that it is impossible for him to fulfil those
conditions upon the fulfilment of which alone God can grant
forgiveness.1 [Note: W. A. Challacombe.]
3. The Freedom of the Will.—Those who hold that the will of man is
absolutely free, should remember that unlimited freedom is
unlimited freedom to sin, as well as unlimited freedom to turn to
God. If restoration is possible, endless persistence in evil is possible
also; and this last the Scripture predicts. Whittier:
What if thine eye refuse to see,
Thine ear of Heaven’s free welcome fail,
And thou a willing captive be,

Thyself thy own dark jail?
Swedenborg says that the man who obstinately refuses the
inheritance of the sons of God is allowed the pleasures of the beast,
and enjoys in his own low way the hell to which he has confined
himself. Every occupant of hell prefers it to heaven. Dante, Hell, iv.:
All here together come from every clime,
And to o’erpass the river are not loth,
For so heaven’s justice goads them on, that fear
Is turned into desire. Hence never passed good spirit.
The lost are Heautontimoroumenoi, or self-tormentors, to adopt the
title of Terence’s play.
The very conception of human freedom involves the possibility of its
permanent misuse, or of what our Lord Himself calls “eternal sin.”1
[Note: Denney, Studies in Theology, 255.]

Origen’s Restorationism grew naturally out of his view of human
liberty—the liberty of indifference—an endless alternation of falls
and recoveries, of hells and heavens; so that practically he taught
nothing but a hell.2 [Note: Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ii. 669.]
It is lame logic to maintain the inviolable freedom of the will, and at
the same time insist that God can, through His ample power,
through protracted punishment, bring the soul into a disposition
which it does not wish to feel. There is no compulsory holiness
possible. In our Civil War there was some talk of “compelling men
to volunteer,” but the idea was soon seen to involve a self-
contradiction.3 [Note: J. C. Adams, The Leisure of God.]
A gentleman once went to a doctor in London to consult him about
his health. The doctor told him that, unless he made up his mind to
give up a certain sin, he would be blind in three months. The
gentleman turned for a moment to the window, and looked out.
Clasping his hands together, he exclaimed, “Then farewell, sweet
light; farewell, sweet light!” And turning to the doctor, he said, “I
can’t give up my sin.” He was blind in three months.4 [Note: Henry
Drummond.]
4. The Irrevocable.—How easy it is after a time to lose the sense of
sin in this world; to substitute for it outward propriety of conduct,
to transgress which is immorality; to substitute the opinion of the
world, good or bad, to go against which is bad taste; to look at the
world around us as affecting duty, benevolence, and the like; and to

make our relationships towards this the test of character, whereby
we may be known as good or bad.
Thou little child, yet glorious in the might
Of heaven-born freedom on thy being’s height,
Why with such earnest pains dost thou provoke
The years to bring the inevitable yoke,
Thus blindly, with thy blessedness at strife?
Full soon thy soul shall have her earthly freight,
And custom lie upon thee with a weight
Heavy as frost, and deep almost as life!1 [Note: Wordsworth.]
Taught in the school of propriety, reared on utility, and pointed to
success, by degrees the sense of sin may become faint and dim to
him, until out of the ruins of respectability and the desolation of his

inner life, he is brought face to face with an eternal sin. The figures
of existence have deceived him; he has made the addition of life,
omitting the top line, and not allowing for deductions—he is face to
face with an utter loss, an eternal sin.2 [Note: W. C. E. Newbolt.]
The laws of God’s universe are closing in upon the impenitent
sinner, as the iron walls of the mediæval prison closed in, night by
night, upon the victim,—each morning there was one window less,
and the dungeon came to be a coffin. In Jean Ingelow’s poem
“Divided,” two friends, parted by a little rivulet across which they
could clasp hands, walk on in the direction in which the stream is
flowing, till the rivulet becomes a brook, and the brook a river, and
the river an arm of the sea, across which no voice can be heard and
there is no passing. By constant neglect to use our opportunity, we
lose the power to cross from sin to righteousness, until between the
soul and God “there is a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26).
Whittier wrote within a twelvemonth of his death: “I do believe that
we take with us into the next world the same freedom of will as we
have here, and that there, as here, he that turns to the Lord will find
mercy; that God never ceases to follow His creatures with love, and
is always ready to hear the prayer of the penitent. But I also believe
that now is the accepted time, and that he who dallies with sin may
find the chains of evil habit too strong to break in this world or the
other.” And the following is the Quaker poet’s verse:
Though God be good and free be Heaven,

No force divine can love compel;
And, though the song of sins forgiven
May sound through lowest hell,
The sweet persuasion of His voice
Respects thy sanctity of will.
He giveth day: thou hast thy choice
To walk in darkness still.
As soon as any organ falls into disuse, it degenerates, and finally is
lost altogether.… In parasites the organs of sense degenerate.
Marconi’s wireless telegraphy requires an attuned “receiver.” The
“transmitter” sends out countless rays into space: only one capable
of corresponding vibrations can understand them. The sinner may
so destroy his receptivity, that the whole universe may be uttering
God’s truth, yet he be unable to hear a word of it. The Outlook: “If
a man should put out his eyes, he could not see—nothing could

make him see. So if a man should by obstinate wickedness destroy
his power to believe in God’s forgiveness, he would be in a hopeless
state. Though God would still be gracious, the man could not see it,
and so could not take God’s forgiveness to himself.”
Lowell’s warning to the nation at the beginning of the Mexican War
was only an echo of a profounder fact in the individual life of the
soul:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or
blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever ’twixt that darkness and that light.1
[Note: Lowell, The Present Crisis.]
Throughout the physical world you may cure fevers, dropsies,
fractures, derangements of vital organs; you may violate all the
multiplied economies that go to constitute the individual physical

man, and rebound will bring forgiveness; but there is a point
beyond which if you go it will not, either in youth, in middle life, or
in old age. Many a young man who spends himself until he has
drained the fountain of vitality dry in youth is an old man at thirty;
he creeps and crawls at forty; and at fifty, if he is alive, he is a
wreck. Nature says: “I forgive all manner of iniquity and
transgression and sin to a man who does not commit the
unpardonable sin,”—for there is an unpardonable sin, physically
speaking, that is possible to every man. If a thousand pound weight
fall upon a man so that it grinds the bones of his leg to powder, like
flour, I should like to know the surgeon that could restore it to him.
He may give him a substitute in the form of wood or cork, but he
cannot give him his leg again. There is an unpardonable sin that
may be committed in connection with the lungs, with the heart, or
with the head. They are strung with nerves as thick as beads on a
string; and up to a certain point of excess, or abuse of the nervous
system, if you rebound there will be remission, and you will be put
back, or nearly back, where you were before you transgressed
nature’s laws; but beyond that point—it differs in different men,
and in different parts of the same man—if you go on transgressing,
and persist in transgressing, you will never get over the effect of it as
long as you live. So men may go so far in sinning that there can be
no salvation for them, their case being hopeless just in proportion to
the degree in which they become moral imbeciles.1 [Note: Henry
Ward Beecher.]
IV

The Use
1. There are three ways in which this sin may be regarded at the
present day.
(1) As a Great Mistake.—It is part of that almost automatic
punishment of sin (automatic, i.e. unless checked) in which God,
who can release, unbind, and forgive, stands on one side, and allows
the sin to work itself out. Surely we are face to face with the
possibility of a great mistake, where a man gets so entirely out of
sympathy with God that, where there is God, he can see only an evil
spirit; where there is goodness, he can see only malignity; where
there is mercy, he can see only cruel tyranny. The great mistake! It
begins, perhaps, in the will. Life is presented with all its fascinating
material; there is the deadly bias of disposition, while there is the
make-weight of grace; and the will gives in, appetite after appetite is
pressed into the service, present enjoyment, present gratification,
are everything; the world is one great terrestrial paradise of
enjoyment, indiscriminated, unchecked. And the dishonoured will
now seeks to justify its degradation by an appeal to the intellect. Sin
is decried as an ecclesiastical bogey. It is easy to get rid of grace by
saying that it has been dangerously patronised by an enslaving
priestcraft. Enjoyment must be scientifically sought, and that means
sometimes at our neighbour’s expense by acts of unkindness,
malignity, or incredible meanness. And then from the intellect it
goes to the heart. “My people love to have it so.” This is looked upon
as a sufficient account of life. Nothing more is desired, nothing more
is looked for. “I will pull down my barns, and build greater.” This is

the extent of the heart’s ambition. See how the great mistake has
spread! Self has deflected all the relations of life until the man has
become denaturalised. What can the Holy Spirit do for him? The
claims of religion are a tiresome impertinence; the duties to society
are a wearisome toil. The thought of death is a terror, and the other
world a blank. He has made a great mistake—his relations to the
world, to God, to self, are inverted unless God interferes, i.e. unless
the man allows God to interfere; he is guilty of an eternal sin, in the
sense of having made an irreparable mistake, and missed the object
for which he was created, the purpose for which he was endowed.
(2) As a Great Catastrophe.—Whereas the lower animals are almost
mechanically kept in bounds by instinct, man owes this to the
sovereignty of his will, that in every action he does, he must
command and be obeyed as a free man, or submit and be controlled
like a conscious slave. And from the early days of his history there
has been a tendency to dissolution and catastrophe in the injury
known as sin. Sin means a defeat; it means that the man has been
beaten somewhere, that the enemy has swept over the barrier, and
laid siege to the soul; it means a revolution, that the lower powers
have risen up and shaken off control; and this in the end means
injury; if persisted in, an eternal prostration of the soul. It is an
awful moment for a man when he feels he cannot stop, when the will
utters a feeble voice, and the passions only mock; when habit winds
its coils tighter and tighter round him like a python, and he feels his
life contracting in its cruel folds. What a terrible consciousness to
wake up to the thought that the position which God has given us, the
talents, the intellect, the skill have been abused by a real perversion
of life, and that we have been doing only harm when we were meant

to be centres of good! See how an eternal sin may mean an eternal
catastrophe, where the forces of life have become mutinous and
disobedient; where self-control has gone for ever, and anarchy or
misrule riot across life—where there is the perversion of blessings,
which reaches its climax in the fact that man is the great exception
in the order of Nature; that while every other living thing is striving
for its own good, man alone is found choosing what he knows to be
for his hurt. There is no ruin to compare to it, no depravity so
utterly depraved as that which comes from a disordered and
shattered human nature. There it floats down the tide of life, a
derelict menacing the commerce of the world, an active source of
evil as it drifts along, burning itself slowly away down to the water’s
edge, once a gallant ship, now a wreck; once steered in the path of
active life, now drifting in the ways of death—an eternal sin.
(3) As a Great Loss.—“I do not wonder at what people suffer; but I
wonder often at what they lose.” You see a blind man gazing with
vacant stare at the glorious beauty of a sunrise or sunset, when the
changing light displays ever a fresh vesture for the majesty of God.
It is all blank to him, and you say, “Poor man, ah, what he has lost!”
You see one impassive and unmoved at the sound of splendid music,
where the notes ebb and flow in waves of melody about his ears; one
who can hear no voice of birds, no voice of man, in the mystery of
deafness; and you say again, “Poor man, what he has lost!” But
there is a loss of which these are but faint shadows. The loss of God
out of life, which begins, it may be, with a deprivation, and is a
disquieting pang; which, if it is not arrested, becomes death; which,
if persisted in, becomes eternal, becomes utter and complete
separation from God; which becomes what we know as hell—the

condition of an eternal sin. A mortal sin as it passes over the soul is a
fearful phenomenon. And yet it has been pointed out that the little
sins play a more terrible part than we know in the soul’s tragedy. A
great sin often brings its own visible punishment, its own results; we
see its loathsomeness; but the little sins are so little we hardly notice
them. “They are like the drizzling rain which wets us through before
we think of taking shelter.” The trifling acts of pride or sloth, the
unchecked love of self, the evil thought, the word of shame, the
neglect of prayer—we never thought that these could kill down the
soul and separate from God, and suddenly we wake up to find that
God has, as it were, dropped out of our lives. To measure the cost of
sin, little or great, we have but to look at two scenes. Let us
reverently gaze at the form of our blessed Lord in His agony in the
Garden, bent beneath the insupportable weight of the sins of the
world, and see in the sweat of blood and the voice of shrinking dread
the anguish of the weight of sin which could extort a groan which
the pangs of the Cross failed to evoke. Or listen again to that word
of mystery which echoed out of the darkness of the Cross into the
darkness of our understanding—“My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?”1 [Note: Canon Newbolt.]
Without forming any theory about sin, Jesus treats it as a blindness
of the soul. If only the eye were in a healthy state—that is, if the
organ of spiritual sense were normal, the light of God would stream
into the soul as it did with Him. But here lies the mischief. The
centre of life—the heart—is wrong. In vain the light from without
solicits entrance; it plays on blind eyeballs. The light within is
darkness. The goodness which passes muster among the Pharisees,
or the religious philosophy of the Scribes, is no better than the

The holy spirit can be blasphemed

The holy spirit can be blasphemed

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie The holy spirit can be blasphemed

Ähnlich wie The holy spirit can be blasphemed (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

The holy spirit can be blasphemed