Sinning Against the Spirit
In this month’s TV Broadcast on tv.jw.org, the speaker, Ken Flodine, discusses how we can grieve God’s spirit. Before explaining what it means to grieve the holy spirit, he explains what it does not mean. This takes him into a discussion of Mark 3:29.
“But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever but is guilty of everlasting sin.” (Mr 3:29)
No one wants to commit an unforgivable sin. No sane person wants to be condemned to eternal death. Therefore, properly understanding this Scripture has been of major concern for Christians down through the centuries.
What does the Governing Body teach us about the unforgivable sin? To explain further, Ken reads Matthew 12:31, 32:
“For this reason I say to you, every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. 32 For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.” (Mt 12:31, 32)
Ken acknowledges that blaspheming the name of Jesus can be forgiven, but not blaspheming the holy spirit. He says, “One who blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, forever. Now why is that? The reason is that holy spirit has God as its very source. The holy spirit is expressive of God’s own personality. So saying things against, or denying, the holy spirit is the same as speaking against Jehovah himself.”
When I heard this, I thought it was a new understanding—what JWs like to call “new light”—but it appears I missed this change of understanding some time back.
“Blasphemy is defamatory, injurious, or abusive speech. Since the holy spirit has God as its Source, saying things against his spirit is the same as speaking against Jehovah. Unrepentantly resorting to speech of that kind is unforgivable.
(w07 7/15 p. 18 par. 9 Have You Sinned Against the Holy Spirit?)
For purposes of comparison, here is our “old light” understanding:
“So, the Scriptures make it clear that sin against the spirit involves acting knowingly and deliberately against the undeniable evidence of the holy spirit’s operation, as did the chief priests and certain Pharisees in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. However, anyone who may in ignorance blaspheme or speak abusively of God and Christ can be forgiven, provided that he is genuinely repentant.” (g78 2/8 p. 28 Can Blasphemy Be Forgiven?)
So we could blaspheme Jehovah and be forgiven under the old understanding, though even then it had to be done in ignorance. (Presumably, a willful blasphemer, even if subsequently repentant, could not be forgiven. Not a comforting teaching this.) While our old understanding was closer to the truth, it still missed the mark. However, our new understanding reveals how shallow our Scriptural reasoning has become in recent decades. Consider this: Ken claims blaspheming the holy spirit means blaspheming God because the “holy spirit is expressive of God’s own personality.” Where does he get that from? You will notice that in keeping with our modern method of teaching, he provides no direct Scriptural evidence to support this statement. It is enough that it comes from the Governing Body via one of its Helpers.
According to the Organizations interpretation of the four living creatures of Ezekiel’s vision, Jehovah’s cardinal attributes are said to be love, wisdom, power and justice. This is a reasonable interpretation, but where is the holy spirit depicted as representing those qualities? It could be argued that the spirit represents God’s power, but that is only one facet of this personality.
In contrast to this unsubstantiated assertion about the holy spirit expressing God’s character, we have Jesus, who is called the image of God. (Col 1:15) “He is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Heb 1:3) Additionally, we are told that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father. (John 14:9) Therefore, to know Jesus is to know the personality and character of the Father. Based on Ken’s reasoning, Jesus is far more the expression of God’s personality than is the holy spirit. It therefore follows that blaspheming Jesus is blaspheming Jehovah. Yet Ken acknowledges that blaspheming Jesus is forgivable, but claims blaspheming God is not.
Ken’s claim that the holy spirit is expressive of God’s personality stands in conflict to what our own encyclopedia has to say:
it-2 p. 1019 Spirit
But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—Compare Ac 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, Int and other interlinear translations.
Ken’s view differs from what was once taught in the publications.
“By speaking abusively of the Son, Paul was also guilty of blaspheming the Father whom Jesus represented. (g78 2/8 p. 27 Can Blasphemy Be Forgiven?)
So why would the Governing Body abandon a perfectly good explanation for another that can so easily be defeated scripturally?
Why Does the Governing Body Adopt this View?
Perhaps this is not done consciously. Perhaps we can put this down to a product of the peculiar mindset of Jehovah’s Witnesses. To illustrate, on average, Jehovah is mentioned eight times as often as Jesus in the magazines. This ratio is not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures in the NWT—the JW translation of the Bible. There the ratio is reversed with Jesus occurring approximately four times as often as Jehovah. Of course, if one drops the insertion of Jehovah into the text which the NWT makes as part of their policy of contextual emendation (the divine name does not appear in even one of the over 5,000 NT manuscripts in existence today) the ratio of Jesus to Jehovah is approximately a thousand occurrences to zero.
This emphasis on Jesus makes Witnesses uncomfortable. If a Witness in a field service car group were to say something like, “Isn’t it wonderful how Jehovah provides for us through his Organization,” he would get a chorus of agreement. But were he to say, “Isn’t it wonderful how the Lord Jesus provides for us through his Organization,” he’d be met with an embarrassed silence. His listeners would know that scripturally there was nothing wrong with what he had just said, but instinctively, they would feel uncomfortable with the use of the phrase “the Lord Jesus”. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jehovah is everything, while Jesus is our model, our exemplar, our titular king. He’s the one Jehovah sends out to do things, but Jehovah is really in charge, Jesus is more of a figurehead. Oh, we’d never openly admit that, but by our words and actions, and the way he is treated in the publications, that is the reality. We don’t think about bowing down to Jesus, or giving him our complete submission. We bypass him and refer to Jehovah all the time. In casual conversation when one might refer to how they have been helped through difficult times or when we express a desire for guidance or divine intervention, perhaps to help an erring family member back to “the truth”, Jehovah’s name always comes up. Jesus is never invoked. This is in stark contrast with the way he is treated in the Christian Scriptures.
With this pervasive mindset, we find it hard to believe that blaspheming Jesus or God are equal and thus both forgivable.
Ken Flodine next goes into some detail about the religious leaders of Jesus’ day as well as Judas Iscariot, claiming these sinned the unforgivable sin. True, Judas is called the “son of destruction”, but whether that means he sinned the unforgivable sin is not so clear. For example, Acts 1:6 refers to Judas as having fulfilled a prophecy penned by King David.
“. . .For it is not an enemy who taunts me; Otherwise I could put up with it. It is not a foe who has risen up against me; Otherwise I could conceal myself from him. 13 But it is you, a man like me, My own companion whom I know well. 14 We used to enjoy a warm friendship together; Into the house of God we used to walk along with the multitude. 15 May destruction overtake them! Let them go down alive into the Grave” (Ps 55:12-15)
According to John 5:28, 29, all those in the grave get a resurrection. So can we really say for sure that Judas committed the unforgivable sin?
The same goes for the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. True, he does rebuke them and warn them about blaspheming the holy spirit, but can we say that some of them sinned unforgivably? These same ones stoned Stephen, yet he implored: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60) He was filled with holy spirit at that point, viewing a vision of heaven, so it is hardly likely that he was asking the Lord to forgive the unforgivable. The same account shows that “Saul, for his part, approved of his murder.” (Acts 8:1) Yet Saul, being one of the rulers, was forgiven. Additionally, “a great crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith.” (Ac 6:7) And we know that there were even those of the Pharisees who became Christians. (Acts 15:5)
Yet, consider this next statement by Ken Flodine that demonstrates the level of reasoning that is pervasive these days amongst those who publicly proclaim they are God’s exclusive channel of communication:
“So blaspheming against the holy spirit is related more to the motive, the heart condition, the degree of willfulness, more so than to a specific type of sin. But that is not for us to judge. Jehovah knows who is worthy of a resurrection and who is not. Well, clearly, we do not even want to come close to sinning against Jehovah’s holy spirit as did Judas and some of the false religious leaders in the first century.”
In one sentence he tells us we must not judge, but in the next he passes judgment.
What Is the Unforgivable Sin?
When we challenge a teaching of the Governing Body, we are often asked in a challenging tone, “Do you think you know more than the Governing Body?” This implies that the Word of God can only be sounded down to us from the Wise (discreet) and Intellectual ones among us. The rest of us are mere babes. (Mt 11:25)
Well, let us approach this question as babes, free from prejudice and preconception.
When asked how often he should forgive, one of Jesus’ disciples was told by the Lord:
“If your brother commits a sin give him a rebuke, and if he repents forgive him. 4 Even if he sins seven times a day against you and he comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”” (Lu 17:3, 4)
In another place, the number is 77 times. (Mt 18:22) Jesus was not imposing an arbitrary number here, but showing there is no limit to forgiveness except—and this is a key point—when there is no repentance. We are required to forgive our brother when he repents. This we do in imitation of our Father.
It therefore follows that the unforgivable sin is the sin for which no repentance is shown.
How does the holy spirit factor in?
- We get God’s love through the holy spirit. (Ro 5:5)
- It trains and guides our conscience. (Ro 9:1)
- God gives us power by means of it. (Ro 15:13)
- We cannot proclaim Jesus without it. (1Co 12:3)
- We are sealed for salvation by it. (Eph 1:13)
- It produces fruits for salvation. (Ga 5:22)
- It transforms us. (Titus 3:5)
- It guides us into all the truth. (John 16:13)
In short, the holy spirit is the gift God gives to save us. If we slap it away, we are throwing way the means by which we can be saved.
“How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?” (Heb 10:29)
We all sin many times, but let a bad attitude never develop in us that would cause us to reject the very means by which our Father can extend us forgiveness. Such an attitude will manifest itself in an unwillingness to acknowledge we are wrong; an unwillingness to humble ourselves before our God and beg for forgiveness.
If we do not ask our Father to forgive us, how can he?
1. Do we really think God appointed Christ to appoint a bunch of WTBTS money tracking CEOs to be the ONE AND ONLY guides of ALL global anointed Christians? Does the Pope not make the exact same claim? 2. Can we really trust that these lost men in the GB, can appoint and judge themselves as FAITHFUL well before a true judgment of God Almighty who makes such determinations? Of course, the answer is NO, to both questions. And we see who it is that has now sinned against the holy spirit. Far be it from them to admit they… Read more »
Meleti, this is another outstanding article, I really appreciate the effort you put into these. You really show some great insights and provide much food for thought. I don’t always have the time to comment but I just have to on this occasion. One of the things that lead to me “waking up” in 2014 was a reconsideration of the resurrection and who will be resurrected (more importantly perhaps who has the right to judge.) Of course, I conducted my research solely in Watchtower publications to begin with, afraid to venture out to sites like this that might be “apostate.”… Read more »
Just reading your thoughts 1984, to my mind the watchtower fil bon both judgement and the ressurection teachings , on judgement the bible is very clear that if we judge others then we stand self condemned for we are all sinners . Its part the bargain that god will forgive our sins if we forgive others , 2 As regards the ressurection do not the witnesses teach that the vast majority of their adherants (the great crowd ) do not need a ressurection . For they say they will never die but live on through armageddon and work towards perfection… Read more »
Thanks again Meleti, Good observations about our Lord,something I’m more conscious of is to mention him in conversation or comments at Meeting, and it’s seems somewhat foreign to our brothers as you rightly mentioned everything revolves around Jehovah. Not that I’m saying that’s wrong. My eyes were opened to Our Lord in the early nineties, I attended a pioneer school and ons subject was about Jesus. We all loved that subject, we had no idea, the depth and breadth and length of who Christ is and role. Eph 3:17-19 it’s great you highlight our Lord, it’s a good reminder .
So the Holy Spirit IS a person. He is the personified love,wisdom,power and Justice of Jehovah. Not the craziest thing that I heard I guess. I am sure that’s not that was not their intention. The HS is grieving all with of us that religious leaders acknowledge the works of the Spirit who is living. The Spirit hovered over darkeness during creation and can hover in dark places in our heart if we receive. The Spirit is performing a testifying and sanctifying work and cannot be stop by men. May we be humble enough to receive the outpouring, the anointing… Read more »
Some points about this…… 1. This Ken Flodine brother, was the same person who said about 2 months ago that was David Splaine said was Masterful about This Generation Overlapping…. Yup, so who is hurting the spirit. 2. This Ken Flodine was talked at our recent convention about what are Cult are they a true thing…I ain’t kidding, Amazing. Not for the right reasons. 3. Blasphemy against the spirit, first of all the bro ( that is how I am calling him now ) gave no current things what the the Guardians of Doctrine think it means. Cause in my… Read more »
Ok, now I have read it. Thanks Meleti, If I look at the context and in particular verse 30, to me it is obvious that it all has to do with accepting Jesus, His role, His powers, His history, His authority etc. The Pharisees said that not Jesus but Beelzebub was the source of Jesus power (vs 24). Jesus explains what that means (25-30). And then Jesus gives the counsel found in verses 31 and 32. In my view, it means that when someone consciously and purposely says the works of the Holy Spirit (works done by/via Jesus) are the… Read more »
I would agree, Menrov, with one proviso. A single incident, or even a series of incidents that fit the criteria you list does not make the sin against the spirit. If it were that way, then even if the person were to repent, he could not be forgiven. So the sin against the spirit isn’t a particular type of sin or a particular incident or even a series of incidents. Rather what we might take as the cause of the sin are really its symptoms. The unforgivable sin occurs when a line is crossed in the heart which will no… Read more »
In simple terms though looking at what jesus said the problem was that the pharisees deliberatly rejected the unmistakable prescence of the holy spirit by saying it was satanic .
I agree.
They attributed the visible manifestation of the holy spirit to Satan.
Joshua
Because of this attitude in the organization concerning Jesus that you have brought into the glaring light, shouldn’t we consider just who the present day Anti-Christ is? The desire to follow “Jehovah’s organization” over following Christ is made obviously clear through words and actions. This carries through in the teaching that no worship can be given to Jesus. Heb 1:6; Matt 28:9,17 Just as Christ has his own presence, (Matt 24:3; Rev 1:4) so does the Anti-Christ – of which both need to be recognized. In Rev 17:8…”the beast which you saw, once was, now is not, comes from the… Read more »
Anon, If the leaders of the Pharisees acted in ignorance, are not their sins forgivable? Acts 3:17: “Now fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.” 1 Cor 2:8: “None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Matt 10:33: But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. The prerequisite for being “disowned” by Christ is that one must first be legitimately “owned” by him. The Pharisees were a sect of the Jewish religion that was… Read more »
Hello Sopater what about Matthew 28:11-15 ? Knowingly misleading people about Jezus.
Kind regards,
Willy
Also we have to add john 3:2
The teaching of the “antichrist” was addressing a problem current in the first century and not a prophecy for the times we live in. To be viewed as an antichrist one would have to first be a Christian, then leave Christ, and claim he never came in the flesh. The Witnesses do not fit this profile. Some Christians may like to believe former Christians turned atheists fit the profile but neither do they since most Christians who have left Christ did so because of the gross hypocrisy, hardheartedness, wicked acts, and continuous stream of lies coming from the very religious… Read more »
Hi Anon and Sopater, I understand that my basis seems radical. The Pharisees were part of Israel, acting as priests, thus wouldn’t they be considered under the Mosaic covenant? They were deaf to the sound of truth in Jesus’ words because of their heart’s desire. John8:27,43,47; Eze.3:4,5,6,7; Matt.13:14; Acts28:26,27 “As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father. “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we… Read more »
Hi Anon,
1Jn 4:2 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;”
“Come in the flesh” is referring to Christ coming as a man in the first century and did not merely “appear” to be a man as apparently some tried to teach.
Joshua
Hi Joshua, I see what you’re getting at; but also, when I look at the word “is come” (G2064), it can be used in many different ways, allowing us to see that its use can include, ” to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively):—accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go” (Strong’s) “to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning” (Thayer’s) “And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two women stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of… Read more »
Hi Anonymous, Although you’ve presented an interesting possibility, I think Joshua’s explanation of the Antichrist is correct. Both in his gospel and within his epistles, John takes great care to emphasize the flesh (SARX) of Christ and what it represented. As the last of the apostles – and the last Biblical writer – he witnessed the beginning of early Christian doctrinal corruption. Some of this corruption was manifested in first century proto-gnostic views in general, and within the seeds of what would grow to become the early Docetic movement in particular. Given this context, it is no wonder that John… Read more »
Thank you, Vox Ratio, you make good points that I must agree with. Although, knowing the verb usage makes me tend to think the scripture can apply both to Jesus’ initial coming and his return. Also, this does not negate the broader meaning of Anti-Christ which reflects on the heart condition, this one scripture cannot be the sole factor in making the identity, can it? 1 John 4:6 speaks of two spirits; one of truth, one of error. Of course, it would be the spirit of truth that would be recognized as “of God”. “We are of God. He who… Read more »
Not so sure about this word (as coming) in the flesh . Some commentators suggest it also refers to jesus 2nd coming but as far as i could see the word has to do with an event that happened over a period of time in the past . I get the impression that the point john was making that the gnostics were denying the human incarnation of christ when on this earth . Im not so sure he had in mind the 2nd coming here . However who knows what type of body hes going to appear in at his… Read more »
I still have to read it all but for now, just like to ask why the NWT reads FOR EXAMPLE in Matt. 12:32 meaning a clarification of the comment in verse 31 whereas all others have AND, meaning a new, addition comment, in addition to what Jesus said in verse 31.