Skip to main content

Watch the Tower: Blasphemy!

Image
By

In Reasoning from the Scriptures p.409 the question is asked:
'Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?'


The Watch Tower brings a role call of familiar proof texts, and we may address them in future, but the one I want to look at is:

'Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of Man ill be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come' Mt.12:31,32

'If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God,’ they insist, ‘this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the 'Spirit' belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.'

Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable but speaking a word against the Son is not? Is the Spirit greater than Jesus? Do the words of Jesus demonstrate the Father is greater than Jesus?

This Matthew text, and its equivalent in Luke 12, is one of the sayings Jesus most misunderstood by Christians. Many have, over the years, worried they have committed the ‘unforgivable sin’ because of something they have said or done.

Roots and Fruits

Because they focus on the Trinity doctrine the Watch Tower totally
misses the point of what Jesus is saying and haven't begun to properly exegete the passage they inexcusably use as a prooftext. They are not reasoning from the Scriptures. The context is one of fruit in someone’s life:

‘Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’ (vv 33,34)

This echoes the Baptist’s words in the Jordan:

‘But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance…’ (Mt.3:7,8)

Fruit is a major theme in Matthew (3:8,10; 7:15-20; 12:33; 13:23; 21:43). In the passage we are considering he says, ‘For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’ The Pharisees have already labelled Jesus a blasphemer who is working hand in hand with Beelzebul (v24). This is itself a blasphemy and demonstrates Jesus’ point; the sin against the Holy Spirit is a persistent and unrepentant rejection of the witness of the Holy Spirit. We see this again at the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7:

‘You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your Fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.’ (vv 51-53)

Jesus’ words echo those in Numbers:

‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD… ‘ (Numbers 15:30,31)

There is a defiance in the work of one who sins against the Holy Spirit, an unrepentant persistence in violently rejecting the prophets. This sin is the fruit of a wicked and unregenerate heart. It is unforgivable because it is not repented. The fruit is bad because the root is rotten.

A Word Against the Son

How does Jesus’ teaching on every sin and blasphemy against the Son being forgiven (Mt.12:31) compare with the above? Does this make Jesus less important than the Spirit? Consider Peter’s denial of Jesus (Mt.26:69-75) and how, ‘he went out and wept bitterly.’ (v75). You will remember how later, in John’s gospel, we read that Jesus restored Peter (Jn.21:15-17) charging him, ‘feed my sheep.’

Peters bitter tears were the fruit of a regenerate man weeping over his terrible fall, his restoration was the restoration of a true believer who experienced the joy of a burden lifted. His tears and joy demonstrate that Peter had good roots, was a good tree. His heart was for Jesus, even though his words betrayed a cowardice he bitterly regretted.

A blasphemer is not someone who, in the moment, speaks and acts in ways afterwards regretted. It is someone who defiantly and persistently rejects the witness of the Holy Spirit, railing against the God who came to save, refusing the conviction of sin the Holy Spirit brings (Jn.16:8). As long as someone rejects the Father’s offer, through the Spirit, of forgiveness in the Son they stand outside the generous mercy offered ‘as long as it is called today.’ (Hebrews 3:12,13)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more