That is the modern interpretation of the sin as it applies to us (and I agree with the interpretation), but I'm more interested in understanding how it relates to the Pharisees who had accused Jesus, to whom Jesus' comments were directed.
OK.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of using demonic powers to heal people. Jesus then explains why He isn't doing that. Blasphemy typically refers to irreverence, expressed in a defiant sort of way, with intent. Or attributing evil to God. The Pharisees saw hard evidence that Jesus was performing miracles in God's Name, but claimed that it was demonic. Somehow they believed, or convinced themselves, that a demon-possessed man would have the power to heal the sick, and would have the will to heal the sick and help people who needed it (something demons don't do, of course)
Note that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about *what* the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: *“He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”*
I thought about that as well, but then there wouldn't be any meaningful difference between "speak\[ing\]... against the Son of Man" and "speak\[ing\] against the Holy Spirit". Why did Jesus say the former is forgivable, but the latter isn't?
The Holy Spirit convicts hearts and shows the need for salvation. The Son of Man grants forgiveness. You can repent after accepting the Son of Man, even if you rejected Him before. But you can't repent after continually rejecting the call (The Holy Spirit) and thus *never* accepting the Son.
In the case of the Pharisees, they theoretically still had the chance to repent at the time of their encounter with Jesus. Do you think this means the Pharisees did not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (until the time of their death, assuming they never repented and followed Jesus)?
Well, the answer simply comes from reading the text and understanding why he said what he said. The reference to blaspheming the Holy Spirit comes in response to what the Pharisees said about being possessed by Beelzebul.
Isn't this form of blasphemy simply continued unbelief?
That is the modern interpretation of the sin as it applies to us (and I agree with the interpretation), but I'm more interested in understanding how it relates to the Pharisees who had accused Jesus, to whom Jesus' comments were directed.
OK. The Pharisees accused Jesus of using demonic powers to heal people. Jesus then explains why He isn't doing that. Blasphemy typically refers to irreverence, expressed in a defiant sort of way, with intent. Or attributing evil to God. The Pharisees saw hard evidence that Jesus was performing miracles in God's Name, but claimed that it was demonic. Somehow they believed, or convinced themselves, that a demon-possessed man would have the power to heal the sick, and would have the will to heal the sick and help people who needed it (something demons don't do, of course) Note that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about *what* the Pharisees did to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: *“He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit.’”*
I thought about that as well, but then there wouldn't be any meaningful difference between "speak\[ing\]... against the Son of Man" and "speak\[ing\] against the Holy Spirit". Why did Jesus say the former is forgivable, but the latter isn't?
The Holy Spirit convicts hearts and shows the need for salvation. The Son of Man grants forgiveness. You can repent after accepting the Son of Man, even if you rejected Him before. But you can't repent after continually rejecting the call (The Holy Spirit) and thus *never* accepting the Son.
In the case of the Pharisees, they theoretically still had the chance to repent at the time of their encounter with Jesus. Do you think this means the Pharisees did not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (until the time of their death, assuming they never repented and followed Jesus)?
It seems like they were in the *process* of blaspheming. They were making it a pattern. And Jesus would have known what their ultimate fate would be.
Fair enough, thanks for the discussion.
Yes. They did. That’s what prompted Jesus to say what he said.
Can you explain why you believe they had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
Well, the answer simply comes from reading the text and understanding why he said what he said. The reference to blaspheming the Holy Spirit comes in response to what the Pharisees said about being possessed by Beelzebul.
It isn’t entirely clear- that does seem like an intuitive interpretation, but not necessarily the only possible one.