14 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI certainly see that folks interpret those verses in Matthew the way you describe now. The trouble is that the verses seem ultimately meaningless in that light.
From what I understand, the one sin which God cannot forgive is the one sin which precludes the perpetrator from ever coming to repentance. Christ has made provision for the forgiveness of the most vile sins imaginable in his death on the cross; provided, of course, the sinner repents. God's mercy and grace cannot break forth into the life of a sinner ...[text shortened]... involved, when a person is created anew in Christ he or she cannot be 'uncreated'.
Do you think that the original audience would have understood it the way theologians do now?
We know that the gospel writers selected stories already in circulation to include in their gospels. Presumably, each of them constructed their respective biographies of Jesus toward a particular end. Put another way, the author of Mark intended for his gospel to be used in a particular way by his audience. Same goes for the authors of Luke, Matthew, and John. They don't all have the same emphases with respect to the portrait of Jesus; that would presuppose different rhetorical intents among the authors.
So, if this episode in Matthew 12 was supposed to be used by early xians, how would such a verse been used?
14 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdDo you think that the original audience would have understood it the way theologians do now?
I certainly see that folks interpret those verses in Matthew the way you describe now. The trouble is that the verses seem ultimately meaningless in that light.
Do you think that the original audience would have understood it the way theologians do now?
We know that the gospel writers selected stories already in circulation to include in their gospe episode in Matthew 12 was supposed to be used by early xians, how would such a verse been used?
You suppose a deliberate rhetorical bent, however what seems more probable to me is that Jesus simply revealed himself differently to each separate apostle, e.g. John had a different Spirit-induced insight into the significance of Jesus than Matthew, Luke or Mark did. I believe Jesus really did say the cryptic remarks that he is recorded as saying, whether or not his audience or even the apostles understood what he was saying. Maybe, though, Christ's words were easier to grasp the meaning of for those in his immediate physical presence. Perhaps the heinousness of calling Jesus 'demon-possessed' was more apparent in the obviously joyful and holy presence of God's Son. To me, limiting the unforgivable sin to something only possible during Christ's earthly lifetime is almost if not entirely untenable.
So, if this episode in Matthew 12 was supposed to be used by early xians, how would such a verse been used?
Again, I don't believe any of this is calculated for any human purpose. God's word, in my mind anyway, is meant primarily as a revelation of himself. I'm not even sure the authors were privy to the full significance of some of the things they were saying under the power of the Holy Spirit. If it was supposed to be used in a certain way, though, I'd have to say for the purpose of warning people not to rush to judgment, since "by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matthew 12:37).