| by David Flusser[*] |
When I was asked to contribute a scientific study to this volume in honor of Reinhold Mayer, I recalled that I had long wanted to write about the sin against the Holy Spirit, since the impossibility of its forgiveness is something both Judaism and Christianity share in common. I also wanted to point out an important parallel with the Ethiopian Book of Enoch and to treat the whole passage that speaks of the sin against the Holy Spirit in a synoptic fashion. But when I began working, it unfortunately became clear to me that the current state of research on this topic is not very satisfactory. Findings that I took for granted have turned out to be at least unusual—and it was not my intention to appear in this essay as an extravagant innovator. But I still want to analyze the texts according to a consistent philological method in the conviction that its good fruits will promote healthy faith. So let us proceed without worrying about it any further!
With respect to one point, the correct approach has already been taken: scholars have noted that the saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit is found in two versions: the first is in Mark 3:28-29 and the second in Luke 12:10. The form of the saying in Matt. 12:31-32, on the other hand, blends the two versions together.[1] Whereas Matt. 12:31 depends on Mark, the wording of Matt. 12:32 is in a better state of preservation than Luke 10:12. The second version (Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10) has been assigned to the sayings source (“Q”). This is not the place to revisit the whole Synoptic Problem; we are only interested in whether it is possible learn something about the content of the saying itself from the relationship between its two versions. First, however, I would like to ask on what occasion Jesus spoke about the sin against the Holy Spirit. Most scholars have correctly recognized that the context of the saying in Luke cannot be original. There are scholars who consider the saying to be a floating logion, according to the rule: »Was man nicht weiter teilen kann, sehe man für ein Logion an!« (“What cannot be divided any further, should be considered a logion!”). It is difficult to agree with this tendency. The order in Matthew and Mark is probably correct: Jesus concluded his defense against the accusation that he used a spiritus familiaris in his battle against the devil with his words about the sin against the Holy Spirit. To speak against him himself is somehow acceptable, but to blaspheme the Holy Spirit who works in Jesus is unforgivable. Mark 3:30 has Jesus say at the conclusion of the saying: “Because they said that he had an unclean spirit.” These words are certainly not original, but this secondary Markan interpretation is correct.
Let us now return to the saying itself. First, Matthew’s version states:
Whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. (Matt. 12:32)
Mark’s version is certainly not original, but it is important to familiarize ourselves with this secondary variant:
All sins and blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men, as much as they blaspheme; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:28-29)
While according to Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10, blasphemy against the “son of man” can be forgiven, the author of Mark tried to “improve” the saying by referring to a blasphemy for which the sons of men will not be forgiven. But one thing is worth noting about this reversal: the author of Mark believed that the phrase “son of man” in our saying was not intended in an overtly Christological sense, but that Jesus spoke of the “son of man” in the sense of humankind generally. In this the author of Mark was a modernist—as also in Mark 2:27-28 (“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath”). Is it impossible that the author of Mark rightly understood Jesus in both these cases? And if we assume that Jesus did not speak in a sublime Christological way in our saying, but rather in a human way from a sublime humanity, perhaps we have not lost anything, but maybe even gained something.
Understood as purely Christological, the saying is contradictory and opaque, as is sometimes admitted even today. We do not want to speak of an unbearable tension in the Holy Trinity,[2] which can of course be made theologically fruitful through casuistic considerations. But even so it is not clear why one may blaspheme Jesus as the superhuman Son of Man, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. On the other hand, if one dares to understand “son of man” in our saying in the sense of “human being,” then Jesus was still speaking primarily about himself when he said that if a person says something blasphemous against a “son of man,” he has not completely lost hope of divine forgiveness, but if someone speaks against the Holy Spirit and thereby blasphemes God, he cannot be forgiven. Hence those who said that Jesus drives out demons with the help of Beelzebub are guilty of the gravest sin.[3]
If this was the meaning of Jesus’ saying, then it is inseparable from the Jewish world of thought. The interrelationships between turning to God and to one’s fellow human beings form one of the main pillars of Jewish ethical religiosity. Behavior towards one’s neighbor is usually the most important thing, but transgression against God is much more serious. Long before Jesus, Ben Sira wrote:
Does a man harbor anger against another,
and yet seek for healing from the Lord?
Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself,
and yet pray for his own sins?
If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath,
who will make expiation for his sins? (Sir. 28:3-5)
And in the Mishnah Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says:
The Day of Atonement atones for transgressions between a man and the Omnipresent; the Day of Atonement does not atone for transgressions between a man and his companion until he appeases his companion.[4] (m. Yom. 8:9)
Undoubtedly Jesus, in his defense, declared blasphemy to be unforgivable. As we shall see, Jesus was not alone in Judaism in this view. From the many parallels in rabbinic sources[5] it seems that Jesus adopted a more radical stance than theirs on blasphemy, but it also appears that this more stringent view was widespread, or perhaps even predominant, in Jesus’ time. The rabbinic statements, whose tradents lived later than Jesus, give the unmistakable impression that a mitigation of an older view has taken place through casuistry. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in Judaism blasphemy is a particularly blatant case of desecration of the divine name. And since God, who requites all iniquity, will not forgive desecration or blasphemy either in this world or in the world to come, it was thought that God would punish the desecration of his name immediately.[6] Or in an even milder way,[7] and strongly casuistic: If someone has desecrated the name of God and then repents, repentance lacks the power to postpone the punishment, nor can the Day of Atonement atone for him, but repentance and the Day of Atonement together achieve a third of the atonement, and the sinner’s sufferings on the other days of the year bring achieves another third of the atonement, and the day of death brings achieves complete atonement. One can see, then, what an effort must be made to mitigate the bitterness of the punishment, so that blasphemy can at least be atoned for somehow.
According to Judaism, blasphemy is one of the deadly sins.[8] The three cardinal sins were idolatry, sexual transgression and bloodshed. This list was expanded to include robbery and blasphemy, making it the five basic commandments without which the preservation of human order is unthinkable.[9] The same list of the five most serious sins can also be found in the Jewish Two Ways, one of the sources of the Didache (Did. 3:1-6), and it is generally believed, and rightly so, that here an originally independent fragment was inserted into the Two Ways doctrine. At the end of the passage we read: “Child, do not become sullen, for this leads to blasphemy….” So anyone who complains about his fate is in danger of blaspheming God.[10] Since the originally independent teaching fragment was older than the Jewish source of the Didache, it can be assumed that the list of the five original sins already existed in Jesus’ time, and blasphemy was also part of this list. The list of five prohibitions was then expanded to include the commandment of orderly jurisdiction to make up the six Adamic commandments, and finally the prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal was added, and thus the famous seven Noahide commandments were created. Thus it came about that, according to the principles of Judaism, blasphemy is forbidden to non-Jews as a grave sin.
I have dealt with blasphemy in great detail in order to show how Jesus’ saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit was inseparably linked to contemporary Judaism. I have also attempted to show that the dialectic between behavior towards fellow human beings and behavior towards God is a fundamental element of ancient Judaism. Jesus said: If anyone speaks against his fellow human being he can be forgiven, but if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit he will not be forgiven, either in this world nor in the world to come. The Jewish listeners understood this minatory saying well, because the words fit seamlessly into their Jewish worldview.
The closest and most instructive parallel to Jesus’ saying[11] appears where one would hardly have expected to have found it, namely in the Ethiopian Book of Enoch.[12] There (1 Enoch 20:1-7) we find a list of the seven archangels, with each of whom Enoch subsequently undertakes cosmic journeys in turn. The fifth archangel is Sariel,[13] ὁ εἷς τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν πνευμάτων οἵτινες ἐπὶ τῷ πνεύματι ἁμαρτάνουσιν (“one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits who sin against the Spirit”; 1 Enoch 20:6). This is how the description reads according to the Greek text—the Ethiopian translation is corrupt.[14] That the Greek text refers to people who have sinned against the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the information regarding the same archangel, which he gives to Enoch during their cosmic journey:
καὶ εἶπον Διὰ τί ἡ γῆ αὕτη ἡ εὐλογημένη καὶ πᾶσα πλήρης δένδρων, αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ φάραγξ κεκατηραμένη ἐστίν; γῆ κατάρατος τοῖς κεκατηραμένοις ἐστὶν μέχρι αἰῶνος. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται πάντες οἱ κεκατηραμένοι οἵτινες ἐροῦσιν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν κατὰ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἀπρεπῆ, καὶ περὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σκληρὰ λαλήσουσιν. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται, καὶ ὧδε ἔσται τὸ οἰκητήριον.
Then I said: “What is this blessed land for, which is filled with trees, and what is this accursed ravine between them?” [Then ⟨Sariel⟩,[15] one of the holy angels who was with me, answered and said to me:] “This accursed ravine is intended for those who are accursed for eternity; here will be gathered all those who speak improper words in their mouths and who make evil things heard about his glory. Here they will be gathered, and here will be their place of judgment.” (1 Enoch 27:1-2)
From the Ethiopian Book of Enoch we learn that the people who sin against the Spirit are those who “speak improper words with their mouths and who speak evil of his [i.e., God’s] glory.” It is about these same sinners that Jesus spoke when he warned of those who speak against the Holy Spirit. Even the expression is similar down to the details. Jesus further declared that “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come.” The Ethiopian Book of Enoch states that the sons of men who sin against the Spirit are cursed for eternity. The relationship between Jesus’ saying and the Book of Enoch is thus certain.
The various works collected with Ethiopian Enoch originated in the same Jewish religious milieu from which the Essene sect later developed. John the Baptist also belonged to this milieu. At the same time, however, we must not forget that this dualistic and apocalyptic movement and rabbinic Judaism have a common basis. As for Jesus’ saying about the sin against the Holy Spirit, we have seen that it can be explained both on the basis of rabbinic parallels and from a passage in the Book of Enoch. From rabbinic sources we know the distinction between sins against fellow human beings and sins against God, and from these sources we also learn of the extremely heavy burden of guilt with which a person is laden through the mortal sin of blasphemy. But in some cases the similarity with the Book of Enoch is greater. As there, Jesus also says that blasphemy will never be forgiven, even into eternity, and as there, Jesus does not speak about blasphemy in general, but about sinful words against the Holy Spirit. Is Jesus perhaps dependent, through the Baptist, on the spiritual current that also gave rise to Essenism?
But more importantly it is my hope that we have succeeded in better understanding Jesus’ words about the sin against the Holy Spirit. This investigation has also shown once again that Jesus belongs entirely to the Judaism of his time. It is not a bold claim to say that this does not diminish his stature. Personally, I believe that ancient Judaism becomes greater through Jesus’ roots in Judaism, if such a son could be born in it.
Notes
[*] This article originally appeared as D. Flusser, “Die Sünde gegen den heiligen Geist,” in Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer (ed. Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich and Bertold Klappert; Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986), 139-144, and was reprinted in David Flusser, Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament (2 vols.; Neukirchener, 1987-1999), 2:98-104.
[1] In the Didache 1:7 we read: “And every prophet who speaks by the Spirit you should not test or judge. For every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.” K. Wengst, Didache etc. (Darmstadt, 1984), 30, is certainly correct when he postulates dependence on the Gospel of Matthew.
[2] The Gospel of Thomas §4 finally made this mistake: “Jesus said, ‘Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.’”
[3] In Luke 11:15 the accusers remain anonymous, according to Mark 3:22 the critics were “scribes who had come down from Jerusalem,” and according to Matt. 12:24 they were simply the Pharisees.
[4] The translation based on R. Mayer, The Babylonian Talmud (Munich, 1963), 534.
[5] See Billerbeck, 1:36-638 on Matt. 12:32, and E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 356-359.
[6] Sifre Deut. 32:38 (ed. L. Finkelstein; New York, 1969), 379.
[7] The passages are cited in Strack-Billerbeck, 1:638.
[8] For the following see David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, “Das Aposteldekret und die Noachitischen Gebote,” in Wer Tora mehrt, mehrt Leben: Festgabe fur Heinz Kremers (ed. E. Brocke and H.-J. Borkenings; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), 173-192; idem, “The Apostolic Decree and the Noahide Commandments,” trans. H. Ronning, Jerusalem Perspective (2012) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4403/]. The rabbinic material on the Noachide Commandments and their precursors can be found in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922-1928), 3:36-38.
[9] Sifre Lev. 18:4. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 3:36-37.
[10] K. Wengst (see above, note 1), 69 and 71.
[11] The first step was taken by P. Volz, Der Geist Gottes (Tübingen, 1910), 164f.
[12] We use here the annotated German translation by S. Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistische-römischer Zeit (Vol. V, Lfg. 6, Gütersloh, 1984). The following edition is still highly recommended today: Das Buch Henoch (ed. J. Flemming and L. Rademacher; Leipzig, 1901). The Greek texts were edited according to M. Black and A-M Denis, Apocalypsi Henochi Graece (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 1-44.
[13] Concerning whom, see Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962), 237-240.
[14] See the note in S. Uhlig (above n. 12), 552.
[15] Here, due to an oversight in the Greek text, the name of the angel has not been recorded. In the Ethiopian manuscripts, Uriel or Raphael is erroneously written (see S. Uhlig, 563). The speaker is the fifth archangel, Sariel.
Whole Stones 