Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:28 pm
May I interrupt for a moment? I'm not even gonna go all Domitian 'n all that stuff. Doesn't get any traction here anyway.
There's another verse (or 2) that figures into this:
Mark 3: 29 - 30 (RSV):
[29] but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --
[30]
for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."
Compare with:
John 2: 19 - 21 (RSV):
[19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21]
But he spoke of the temple of his body.
Verse 21 has generated all kinds of mischief. "So Jesus is...FORTY SIX YEARS OLD???"
*
It appears that at the End of John's Redactions someone had to tie up loose ends and had to insert verse 21, lest someone else figures it out. It appears to be an insertion.
So we get back to Mark and we might as well add verse 28:
[28] "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter
With this idea, we see that some spoil sport has to add something, as in John. "You can't just let EVER'BODY in for Chris'sake!!!" There is something of a Deep Structure to this as well:
"ALL sins will be forgiven..."
"Even Melvin's? He once said..."
"Yes...Even Melvin's"
...
"WAYDAMMINIT! The Holy Spirit is PERFECT! If you utter a Slur against the HS, then there is a Logical Tie between the Slur and the HS and that cannot be!!" By the mere assertion that the HS is Unclean, the HS cannot be Clean.
This deserves some more unpacking but the implication here is that the Entities are Perfect. Even "Jesus":
1 Peter 3: 22 (RSV):
[22] He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
So we pull back to Mark 3 and we find:
"
for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."
WHO HAS THE UNCLEAN SPIRIT? "HE". Who is "HE"?
[22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el'zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."
It is "Jesus" who is possessed by the Unclean Spirit, according to the Scribes. The claim is not made against the Holy Spirit! Are the Scribes aware that there IS a Holy Spirit? I don't think so, though Theologically, we have the afternoon and night blocked out for discussion.
Verse 29 reveals itself as addition. It's purpose for being is to deflect from a shorter Original.
Mark 1: 8 (RSV):
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this is immediately forgotten, since, in the Hillbilly Country of old, only the Baptism of John is known.
"Holy Spirit? Never heard of 'im. Whas'ee look like?"
The "Holy Spirit" is added.
CW
* This "...46 years..." goes back to the ascension of Herod. The Priest is stating that Herod can be overthrown. This Story is dated to 8/9 CE.
Well, it's possible that those are insertions, but I think we must definately think that the scribes and all the other Jews in the stories know the existence of the holy spirit? And if so, we must also think that they would never in their lives even consider for a second speaking badly about it.It also appears in Scripture. Consider Ps 51 in connection with Mark 1:4-11.
You point to some important aspects of the incident in Mark 3, I think:
They are indeed levelling an accusation against Jesus, but Jesus makes it about the HS, not him. Cf. Matt 12:32: "
Whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks a word against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
I.e.:
'I think that Jesus guy is full of shit' (he's slandering Jesus)
'You're wrong, he is the messiah with authority from God, because I have seen the evidence in the miracles he's doing'
'Oh, that, that's nothing, it's the work of the devil, therefore that doesn't prove he's the messiah' (now he's "slandering the HS")
'Really? Wow, ok, thanks.' (his soul will perish now because he doesn't have faith in Jesus, because his friend "slandered the holy spirit", i.e the deeds of Jesus, not Jesus himself: the tree must be known by its fruits, Matt 12:33, in Jesus' case, 'the fruits of the spirit')
And the slandering the scribes are doing, like this bad friend above, is not the straightforward sense of the concept, it is some kind of indirect, unintentional slandering, where they don't
intend to slander the holy spirit, they don't even
know they're doing it.
I mean, "slandering the holy spirit" in the
straightforward sense would be:
'Hey guys, I saw Melvin being cured from lameness yesterday by the holy spirit, but let me tell you, the holy spirit sucks big time'
However, the act of "slandering the holy spirit" that we find in Mark 3 is this:
'Hey guys, I saw an unclean spirit cure Melvin from lameness yesterday, and by the way, the holy spirit is God's perfect spirit, praise be to it''
Mark is saying that this latter act of "slandering the holy spirit" is unforgivable. But they don't even know they have done it! So by the very logic of Mark 3:22-30 this has to :
If you want to avoid committing the unforgivable sin, then make sure that you don't utter your opinion that Jesus' exorcisms are done by an unclean spirit. If you simply
hold that opinion within yourself, but not
utter it, then you can be fine, God can forgive you in the end somehow. Because slander is by definition an act of
expression not of thinking, so merely holding the opinion is not part of this definition of the unforgivable sin.
That's one reason I think my understanding of 3:29 is viable: There is
only one way people can come to faith, and that is by the expressions of the holy spirit (in this case Jesus' exorcisms). It is this expression that can potentially make people come to faith as they are
convinced when see/hear that expression. God's plan is a game of convincing minds, 'sowing the Word'. Therefore the unforgivable sin is a counter-expression to the expressions of the holy spirit. By annulling the effect which the expressions of the holy spirit has on the minds of the onlookers/hearers, you are causing their souls to perish forever.
Now, can one imagine commiting a sin worse than that? Causing your neighbour's soul to perish in hell? Isn't that worse than, say, killing your neighbor? Absolutely, because that's just killing the flehsly body, who cares. There is no greater sin than causing your neighbour's soul to perish forever, how can you harm your neighbour more than that? Can't be done, that's the greatest harm, i.e. sin, which the
humans are capable of doing (cf. "the sons of men", Mark 3:28). Who cares about the fleshly body and all the harm you can do to your neighbour, i.e. sin, which only has to do only with earthly, corruptible things. Humans cannot kill other humans' souls, they can only harm eachother's outer beings. Except, now with the coming of Jesus, the commencement of God's salvation scheme, you can
cause your fellow human's soul to be killed by God. That's some power all of a sudden! The stakes have been raised, be careful you don't do that now!
For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.
For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?
Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
(Mark 8:35-37)
Matt 10,28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.