Unforgivable

The Bible Study class at UPC asked for my thoughts on the "unforgivable sin" in Mark 3:28-30. Here are my thoughts.

To the members of the Bible study class,
Grace to you and peace from God our Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ (by the time I finished writing, this had turned into a bit of an epistle, so I figure I should start it properly). I've been told that you are less than satisfied with the interpretation of Mark 3:28-30 put forward by Richard Diebert, and are interested in some alternative interpretations.

Let me start off by saying that you are not the first to be confounded by Jesus enigmatic declaration in Mark 3:29. Jesus gives no further commentary on the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Luke does not include the passage, though he used Mark as a primary source (Matthew does include it, more on that later). The saying is at best obscure. For centuries, commentators have used the lack of clarity in the passage to identify the enemies with the unforgivable sin. A cursory Google search shows that this is still largely the case.

The context of the passage from 3:19b-35 sets up a conflict between Jesus and Satan (called the Strong Man in v.27, literally translated from late Hebrew as the Accuser). The authorities who have come to test Jesus propose that his power and authority come from an alliance with the demonic. Jesus responds to this first with the parable of the house divided (famously interpreted by Abraham Lincoln, though out of context). Rather than he house being divided, Jesus is the one who enters the house of the strong man, binds him, and plunders his property. This is a shocking image of Jesus for us. There is a certain apocalyptic dualism (see I did pay attention in seminary) in Jesus parable, which is used to highlight the contrast between Jesus, the powers of this world, and his opponents. Jesus comes into the world, which belongs to Satan, binds Satan, and plunders the house. By plundering the house, Jesus is liberating the world from the domination of evil and death. The Christus Victor stream of Christology embraces this concept of the work of Christ.

Vs. 28-30 then serve as commentary on the parable. More precisely, they comment on those who witness Jesus binding the strong man, entering and plundering the house, and perceive Jesus as the evil one. They see the liberation brought by Christ as the act of evil. The unforgivable sin then, is identifying the Kingdom of God which comes in Christ, with the kingdom of Satan. By implication, then, they also identify the Kingdom of Satan as the Kingdom of God. In the context of the passage, those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those how see Jesus' good works (miracles and exorcisms) and attribute them to the power of Satan. It is extremely difficult to apply this passage for our own time and context, partially due to the severity 'unforgivableness' and obscurity of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit would mean in a modern context. When encountering this passage, many are concerned that they may have inadvertently committed the unforgivable sin. I don't think this is something that can be done by accident. The nature of an unforgivable sin is problematic because it implies no possibility of change or transformation. Sorry, but I don't have a good, definitive answer to what exactly constitutes the unforgivable sin. The closest I can come is something along the lines of seeing what you know to be good and intentionally deceiveing yourself into believing that it is evil. ASs on liberation theologian put it, "the real sin against the Holy Spirit is refusing to recognize, with' theological joy', some concrete liberation that is taking place before one's very own eyes." (Juan Luis Segundo, as quoted in Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man). As a Calvinist, anything beyond this is likely to be self-serving. The ultimate Good News is that whatever Jesus meant, judgment is made by a God who loves and redeems out of pure grace.

A strange footnote to this passage is an atheist group called on people to make YouTube videos in which they 'denied the existence of the Holy Spirit' as a way of intentionally committing the unforgivable. It was targeted at young people, and seemed a particularly sad and misguided chapter in the current culture wars between extremists on both sides of the religious/anti-religious divide.

As an aside, Matthew includes the passage as, "Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 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." (Matt. 12:31-32) This phrasing is even more problematic, because it separates blasphemy against the Holy Spirit from the person and work of Christ. So those are my thoughts (to the best of my knowledge, at this moment).