The Unforgivable Sin

In Matthew 12 and Mark 3 Jesus speaks of an "unforgivable sin." Both stories involve an exorcism Jesus has performed. Attempting to account for Jesus' power over demons, the Pharisees say that Jesus is in league with Beelzebul, the prince of demons, and that it's through this power that Jesus casts out demons. Jesus responds by asking and observing, "Can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Jesus then concludes by describing an "unforgivable sin":

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

What is this "unforgivable sin"? It is someone who "speaks against the Holy Spirit." In context this seems to describe a person who ascribes the work of God to the work of the Devil. That is, instead of viewing the exorcism as the work of God Jesus' critics view it as the power of Beelzebul. This misattribution is "speaking against the Holy Spirit" and "will not be forgiven."

The passage is a puzzle, and there is no consensus among Biblical scholars as to what the passage might mean. A minimalist interpretation is clear enough: You are at serious hazard if you think good is evil, if you think the work of God in the world is the work of Satan. A moral confusion of this magnitude--good is evil and evil is good--is the absolute spiritual nadir.

That speaking against the Holy Spirit is morally catastrophic seems clear. But what does it mean that such a sin is "unforgivable"?

Such a notion of an "unforgivable sin" poses special challenges for me in light of my hopeful eschatology. The existence of an "unforgivable sin" seems to imply eternal separation from God for anyone who commits such a sin.

To start in on an exploration, let me pose a thought experiment. Consider if this had happened in the gospel story. After Jesus offers his rebuke to the Pharisees about how they explained the exorcism, imagine one of them feeling convicted. Jesus' answer stings, and this Pharisee reconsiders: "Perhaps I have been too quick to judge. This man has been set free from demonic power. Jesus is correct. Clearly this is the work of God!" The Pharisee repents in his heart for speaking against the Holy Spirit.

Now, if this had happened, and I think it's possible it could have happened, would this man be forgiven? Just a moment ago he committed the unforgivable sin by speaking against the Holy Spirit. But now he has reconsidered and repented. He's changed his mind. In fact, he might be one of the very Pharisees who, like Paul, would later come to follow Jesus. If so, was his unforgivable sin, committed while under the sway of Pharisaic dogma, forgiven?

I think, yes, he was (or would have been) forgiven. And if this is the case, then it seems to me that when Jesus says the sin "will not be forgiven" he's speaking less about some act so grievous it is beyond the mercy of God than about human rebellion and moral confusion. That is to say, anyone so morally confused as to describe the work of God as satanic cannot be forgiven. Not because of God couldn't forgive any sin we repent of, but because to forgive someone in such a state would be inappropriate. What is necessary in such a state is repentance, not pardon. Rebellion and moral confusion, especially of this magnitude, cannot be pardoned while actively ongoing. Pardon will be offered, but only after turning around and coming to rightly see and embrace the actions of God. Simply, "forgiveness" isn't about God's capacity (or lack thereof) but describes our present moral posture before God. Current rebellion cannot be forgiven and stands under judgment. Past rebellion will be forgiven, like the prodigal son coming home.