New Thoughts (12/21/06-12/23/06)
The first thing I need to consider from these verses is the nature of forgiveness. It is interesting that Jesus says that any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven, not that it can be forgiven. There is a definiteness in that statement. Forgiveness is spoken of in the indicative mood, which speaks of certainty. In spite of that forgiveness being spoken of as a future event, it remains something we could think of as already realized. Indeed, that forgiveness which God offers to man is so certain that even as we look for it, we can know that it is ours.
Does this, then, make for some sort of universalistic view of the Gospel? Does this mean that in the end everybody gets saved, no matter what? If forgiveness is a certainty, after all, what’s the point of all this fuss we go through? Here is a case where Scripture must be allowed the opportunity to explain itself. It is a point at which we must not seek to establish the point on this one verse alone. John writes that He is faithful to forgive us, and that forgiveness is an act of righteousness for Him (1Jn 1:9). However, that statement is prefaced with a condition we must understand. This certainty of God’s response comes as a response only if we confess our sins. There is no requirement placed upon this to indicate who must hear our confession. Quite frankly, whoever else may hear it, God hears it, and that’s the critical issue. It can safely be said that He hears not just the words, for that matter, but the heart. If we are mouthing empty confessions, apologies we don’t feel we owe to Him, then I see no reason to expect the promised response. We have not yet truly confessed until we have truly repented.
Real confession cannot come without real repentance. The confession, the verbalized acknowledgement that we have fallen short of God’s standards once again, is but the start. It may prove helpful to make this confession before a trusted fellow believer, but I don’t find that an absolute necessity. It may make us feel better to confess out loud, even if there is no other human being around to hear, but that is not really the point. The confession that God seeks is that of a heart broken by the realization of what it has allowed to happen. Peter’s broken heart spoke to God before Peter ever admitted his failure to the others. For that matter, Judas’ broken heart spoke loudly, as well.
What made the difference? There are countless messages preached on this point. The thing that stands out to me as determining God’s reaction, in as much as we can speak of man’s actions determining God’s reaction, is that Peter recognized God’s nature well enough to understand what we find John speaking. He recognized that if he was true in not only confessing his sin, but also turning away from that sin with determination, God’s nature was such that He would surely forgive and restore Peter. Judas, while heartbroken over his sin, still thought of God as little different than those he had dealt with at the Temple. They found no reason to do anything but condemn him, and Judas’ understanding of God was poor enough that he could not fathom God being any different. He saw no hope for forgiveness from a God that he had as much as fashioned after his own image. He would not forgive one who had done such a thing to his family, and his understanding of God placed Him no higher in His capacities.
Forgiveness, while assured, must be sought. It is on condition that we confess our sins, admit our wrongs, and repent, turning away from those wrongful ways to seek the paths of righteousness, that we have this assurance. It’s as though we had worked out a plea bargain with God, although He is the one who has worked it out on our behalf. If you will but admit to the truth, He declares, I will not hold this crime against you. If you have learned, the lessons need not continue. Forgiveness is certain when repentance is earnest.
Now, I turn to the concern that we ought to have as to the unforgivable sin. This passage is, after all, touching on that sin which cannot be forgiven. It seems most probable that this is the same sin which John speaks of as leading to death (1Jn 5:16), the one sin which, being found in a brother, does not require our prayers for that one’s forgiveness and restoration. Isn’t that something? To a mankind whose motto is so often, “I am not my brother’s keeper,” come these instructions to pray for our brother in sin, knowing that the Giver of Life will give life to that one in response to our prayers! Indeed, we are called to be our brothers’ keepers!
At any rate, let us consider this unforgivable sin, lest we fall into it. Whomever blasphemes the Holy Spirit, Jesus says, cannot, will not, be forgiven. It is an eternal sin. Now, I know many theologians will remind us that all sin, being a crime committed against an eternal God, is eternal sin. This, however, must be understood to be in a completely different category. Our sins, being eternal, required an eternal atonement, an atonement that only the Christ Jesus could provide on our behalf. That is the theological point. Here, I see Jesus declaring an official limit upon His atonement. It shall not be applied to those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. It shall not be applied to those who attribute the works of God to the devil.
Wow! A few thoughts come to mind at this point. The first concerns the nature of those misattributed works. Jesus is, in this instance, doing what all can recognize as good. Nobody looks upon a healing as an evil thing to have done. There are any number of things in regards to which we may find cause to debate morality, but this is not one of them. It is a universally recognized act of goodness, and to attribute such a thing to the evil one, rather than the Giver of every good and perfect gift is just plain perverse. No wonder God is so angered by such libelous speech! What I wonder, though, is whether that same truth doesn’t apply to those actions that we don’t like to attribute to God’s goodness.
There are so many things that the Christian will declare to be the work of the devil. Any opposition that comes against their perceived course of action is immediately chalked up to the enemy, without further thought or prayer. Yet, Paul’s example was never thus. When he found his way opposed, he understood that it was simply God’s redirecting of his efforts. How often do we misinterpret the good, directing hand of the Good Shepherd as being the unholy interference of the evil one? When we do this, are we not running the risk of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? It is at least worthy of our consideration, I think.
Here is one piece of the issue. We will ourselves to forget that Satan remains, willingly or not, subject to God’s command. God sets the boundaries of what that one can and cannot do, who he may or must not harass, and how far he can go in doing so. That is one of the lessons to take from the book of Job. It is not, then, unreasonable to attribute the harassments to this enemy of our soul. Yet, to do so without considering what God’s purpose is, that He is allowing such troubles to perplex us, is terribly short-sighted. Paul could have blamed the devil for getting in his way as he sought to go where he supposed he was to go. He could have stood there shouting, “Satan, I rebuke you!” But, he didn’t. He waited upon God, recognizing that opposition as a redirection from his Lord and Master. Thus was Macedonia given opportunity to hear the Gospel.
Blaming the devil in such instances may well be something short of blasphemy in these cases. It is still worth having a bit of caution, though. Of course, it would be just as blasphemous to attribute a truly evil act to the working of the Holy Spirit. God who is good cannot act in an evil way. God who is so holy that He cannot so much as tolerate the presence of unholiness is incapable of unholy action. The action may be permitted in the pursuit of His good and perfect plan, but that does not make the action good. That point is made well by Joseph as he reconciles his brothers. “You meant it for evil.” The action was not good, because your intention was not good. What came of that action does not change the nature of the action, as it applies to yourselves. “But, God intended it for good.” That light and momentary affliction which was Joseph’s enslavement, led to the preservation of life for many. Without the persecution of his brothers, without that evil which was inflicted upon him, he would not have been in position to serve God’s good purpose.
It’s a hard thing to look upon persecution as a good thing, and it would doubtless be a terrible blasphemy to claim that it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the persecuting. That would be impossible. It is a sin to blame God for the evils in our life, as if He were the author of it. This is where we get confused, and where we tend to confuse the unbeliever. The author of evil actions remains the devil, although he is only allowed to pursue those actions with God’s permission. The devil remains the author in large part because his intentions for these actions is entirely evil. He seeks only to rob, kill and destroy. God, however, has His own reasons for allowing that one’s plans to go forward. He is not unaware of the devil’s purposes. There is no blind spot in His thinking. Indeed, He knows full well what is planned, and He has already set in motion all that must transpire to bring His own good purposes to fruition through the intended evil.
Another aspect of this message lies in its application to our assessment of those who come to us as men of God. We are called to be discerning, to reject the false teaching and the false teacher. There is no room for doubt in that regard. John is particularly explicit in telling us we should not so much as greet such a one (2Jn 10-11), lest we be counted as working alongside him. Well, I have heard teachers whose teachings were clearly off base to the point of heresy defended on account of the works that accompanied them. “Look at the good they are doing. When you have done as well, feel free to criticize.” That sounds all holy and righteous, but it finds no basis in God’s Word. Sorry. It doesn’t. Quite frankly, every least member of the true Church of God, every adopted son in His household has done as well, which is only to say our rags are as filthy as that one’s. The works prove nothing about the man, because the works are not of the man. The works are of the Holy Spirit of God. That is what makes the works good.
This does, however, set a boundary for us. It is right and good that we pay close heed to the teaching we receive, testing it always against the revealed Word. That is our minimum duty as sons of the kingdom. However, where there is a good work being done, however much the man around whom those works occur may deserve rejection, the works do not. Consider, by way of example, Balaam. Balaam spoke by the Holy Spirit when he was called upon to curse Israel. He was sufficiently aware to know that he could not speak to any purpose except God were to provide the message. He could only prophesy as God gave the words. This did not, however, make him a prophet of God. His intentions, as history would bear out, were still against Israel, but his intentions could not shape or contain the activity of the Holy Spirit any more than Satan’s best efforts can thwart the purpose of God. Neither was the prophecy any less true and accurate for having come through the mouth of Balaam.
We ought to understand from this that the message and the messenger do not automatically share in authenticity or commendation. Balaam is not recommended to us as a model to follow after. Quite the opposite. He is put forth as a model of deception, a spirit of destruction. Yet, if the historians are correct, it is because of Balaam and his prophecy that the magi understood the significance of the star that appeared. It is because of Balaam’s prophecy that they were looking for the King who would arise in Israel, and understood that at his appearance they must surely come and submit to His rule. Still, Balaam’s reputation is not reclaimed. Only the message is true. The man remains a lie.
So, where do we arrive with this? First, we must sort out the conundrum that arises when we first hear Jesus declare that those who are not with Him are against Him, and then find Him saying that whoever is not against us is for us (Mk 9:40). Well, as much as these are worded in opposing fashion, they are both reflections of an absolute divide. They are a declaration that there is no middle ground. You are either united with the Christ in active fellowship and participating in His purposes, or you are just as actively opposing what He would have accomplished. You cannot claim neutrality. There are no innocent bystanders. For or against, working with or fighting to oppose; you are counted in one camp or the other, whether you think of yourself in that light or not. What remains is to determine the marks of the one who is with the Christ, the marks of fellowship.
Well, surely, the one who is in fellowship with Jesus, united in active pursuit of His agenda, will live in such a way that his life reflects that association. Faith, as James reminds us, is dead and useless if it has no manifest evidence of its existence (Jas 2:20). Yet, the works alone prove nothing about the man. Works without faith is an equally dead thing. Good works are the works of a good God, whose good Spirit may, as it did with Balaam, even convince a bad man to do a good thing. This goes far in proving just how abundantly good God is, that He will even turn the worst impulses of mankind towards a good end. It does nothing to prove the man.
Now, when Jesus declares that those who are not against us are for us, He also instructs us not to hinder them (Lk 9:50). Looking at Mark’s coverage of that lesson, I see Jesus add this point: “No one who performs a miracle in My name will soon afterwards be able to speak evil of Me” (Mk 9:39). Isn’t that something? It is not required, in this situation, that the worker truly understands what he is doing or even how. It is not a question of his saying all the right things, making all the right gestures. It is not even about his having received the proper training. He is simply performing miracles in Jesus’ name, upon claim to His authority. Does Jesus say this proves the man is His coworker? Not at all. He says only that the one through or around whom these things are occurring will not be able to speak evil of Him any time soon. It may or may not be the case that the man in question is a true believer, but this much is assured: he will not speak in opposition to the Christ while he is making claims to working with the Christ. Again, it is no proof of the man, only of the power of Him who wills and works within us for His own good pleasure.
The test of belief remains the same: adherence to, faith in, and insistence upon the Truth of God as He has chosen to reveal it in the Word of His testimony. The proof of the teacher continues to be that he teaches the true Gospel of Christ. He does not come with a different gospel, with vain imaginations, or with titillations. He comes with Truth. It is Truth that allows the man of God to preach with power. That power may not manifest in impressive visual displays. Legs may not mend on the spot, cold and flu may persist in spite of exhortations regarding healing. Yet, where the Gospel is preached by the power of God, the real miracle that is salvation will come. The real miracle that is the rebirth and reshaping of a fallen life into the testimony of a living sacrifice will be found.
Let us not be deceived by the things that impress our fallible senses. Let us be moved by the Truth. Let us not hinder the work that the Holy Spirit is accomplishing, nor fall into attributing His good and perfect works to some lying devil. No, do not hinder Him. But, neither accept the lying prophet, the false teacher, the spreader of another gospel. Don’t forget that even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2Co 11:14), his servants as servants of righteousness. The proof is not in the appearance. The proof is in the adherence to the Truth of God.
