Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost

S. Mark iii. 20–30

The popularity of our Blessed Lord was rapidly on the increase. The crowds were becoming so eager to see and hear, so desirous for the relief of their wants and infirmities, that they left Him no time to Himself, not even “so much as to eat bread.”

Hitherto His progress had been impeded only by enemies, but now a new element of opposition springs up. “His friends,” including no doubt His kinsfolk and “brethren,” who had as yet the most inadequate conception of His Mission, tried to interpose. They looked upon His indifference to bodily necessities as a mark of fanaticism, and feared that if it were left unchecked the consequences might be fatal. It is evident, however, from what follows later that their interference was wholly disregarded. But before their objections had been silenced, He was confronted by a deputation of ecclesiastics from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. They had no doubt been carefully prepared with the arguments they were to use, and the line of action to pursue. It would be quite useless to deny His power over evil spirits, because hardly a day passed without some exhibition of it being witnessed. His influence with the people must be secretly undermined, and so they adopted the course of going about amongst them, and by covert insinuation or open assertion leading them to believe that He was in league with Beelzebub.

Who this exactly was is wrapped in some obscurity. Originally perhaps a Phoenician god, he has been variously regarded as the lord of flies, the lord of the dwelling, or the prince of idolatry, as some hold in accordance with Talmudic interpretation. But, whatever may have been the real significance of the appellation, its usage in Holy Scripture is associated exclusively with demoniacal possession. It is quite possible that it is due to this circumstance, that, when that strange phenomenon passed away the use of the title was wholly discontinued.

It does not appear that the Scribes accused our Lord to His face of employing such agency, but He read their thoughts, perhaps heard their whispered innuendos, and, calling them up before Him, began at once to rebut the charge. We cannot fail to be struck by the total absence of personal anger, or pride, or indignation, such as one would naturally expect under such gross misrepresentation. The strength of His position inspired Him with the utmost calm and confidence; and He told them that their suggestion was refuted by the commonest observation. No kingdom, no society, no house nor family, could possibly hold together if its members were disunited. “That goes almost without saying.” If then they carried their thoughts on for a moment from the earthly to the spiritual, from the kingdom of men to the dominion of the Evil Spirit, they would see the inconsistency of their allegation. That kingdom, like every other, was governed by a prince; he had subordinate officers under him to carry out his orders, and see that his rule was obeyed. It was quite inconceivable that he could be found co-operating with any other power for their overthrow. Such an element of disunion must end in dissolution, for a more self-destructive process could not be conceived, than that a man should take up arms and turn them against himself. “If Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.”

He then proceeds to show that their admission that the devils had been cast out by Him was proof positive that He had bound their prince; for unless the strong man had been restrained, he would never have suffered himself to have his goods and spoils taken away from him.

But, although Jesus was able to reason with His opponents in this calm unimpassioned argument, He did not let them go till He had pierced them through with a terrible denunciation and warning against the inevitable consequence of persistence in their present course.

Men rebuked Him again and again for His birth and parentage, “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary?” and there was something to be urged in excuse for their ignorant wonder j but to charge Him with casting out devils by Satanic agency, with doing by the power of evil what He had wrought by the Spirit of God, admitted of no palliation. It was a crime of such gravity, betraying a condition of mind so persistently, so hopelessly wicked, that the man who committed it stood guilty of an eternal sin. The door of mercy was closed against him, and neither on this side of the grave, nor in the unclothed state, was it possible that he should ever hear the words of pardon and peace. Three thoughts, all calculated to inspire us with comfort, arise out of a careful consideration of this tremendous utterance.

Firstly, if our Lord chose to magnify the heinousness of this particular sin by designating it “eternal,” or as we find in the parallel passage from S. Matthew’s Gospel, by assuring His hearers that it should “not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come,” it follows of necessity that there is at least the possibility of forgiveness for some sins after death. It is difficult to believe that He would have run the risk of using an expression so likely to mislead, and so certain to be laid hold of by those who held erroneous doctrine on the subject, and to be employed in a manner destructive of the truth. It would seem, however, from a consideration of primitive testimony, that it was held to apply only to the pardon of sins of infirmity, and the effacement of sinful stains.

Secondly, He did not directly say that the people whom He was addressing had committed the unpardonable sin. They were doubtless on the edge of that awful condition, and if they suffered the malignity of their heart to lead them to a persistent repetition of the charge, after its folly had been exposed, nothing might save them from the abyss of destruction. If His words implied what has been too hastily assumed, it detracts from that readiness to forgive, that free and open offer of pardon for every returning sinner, which we love to associate with the Saviour’s mission.

And, thirdly, we realise the necessity of carefully avoiding any confusion between sin and blasphemy. Men have fallen into a thoughtless way of characterising that which Jesus denounced in such terrible terms as “sin” against the Holy Ghost. All blasphemy is sin, but all sin is not blasphemy; and it is quite clear that He intended to draw the distinction in this passage. “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme” (not he that shall sin) “against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (R.V.)-

The importance of the distinction lies in this: Our bodies are by Baptism made “temples of the Holy Ghost,” and every sin against the body, every act of impurity, and every unhallowed thought, is an offence against Him that dwelleth therein.

Again, the works of the Spirit are “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;” and by every act of consent to those qualities which are antagonistic to these we do despite to Him Who worketh in us.

It has been through confounding such like transgressions with that blasphemy against which the Pharisees were warned, 1 Cf. the Author’s After Death, 71-73 and 1 17-126. that men have yielded to despair, and made shipwreck of their safety. But we nowhere find that any one of these is regarded as such a deadly sin that it should close every avenue of the offender’s soul against the return of grace.

Indeed, it may be doubted whether there is now any such absolutely unpardonable offence possible. It is only too obvious that there is an obstinate persistence in sinful living, which practically deprives a man of power to repent; but this is a very different thing from saying that there is a definite transgression, such as our Lord was speaking of, which at once and for ever excludes the transgressor from the possibility of pardon. Experience shows that we may fall so low by wilfully resisting grace and despising the offer of forgiveness, that there is nothing left but “a fearful looking for of judgment.” We may reach a condition in which, as S. John implies, it will be useless to pray for us. But since an all-sufficient Atonement has been made, we would fain believe that whosoever will, whatever the nature of his sin, may find “a place of repentance,” if he seek it “carefully with tears.”

Note: Beelzebub. The LXX. and Josephus both connect him with flies, Baa fxvtav; perhaps from the Hebrew zebcl, dung, the dung-fly; others from zebul, a habitation, make him oiKo5e<nr6T7]s, S. Matt. x. 25. Others again, from a secondary Hebrew sense of zebel, an idol, interpret the name as the “prince of false gods or idols,” from which the transition to dpxwv t&v dai/AOviiov, “the chief of the devils,” is very natural. S. Luke xi. 15.

Note: It can hardly be doubted that the reading Kpiaeus was substituted for the more difficult ctyiapTT^uaros of the best MSS.

Note: Cf. S. Aug. Serm. lxxi.; Waterland, Serm. xxviii.; Pusey, Serm. Sin against the Holy Ghost, for the opposite view.