BeachCast.TV: Bible Exploration, Apologetics and Church History with Dr. Chase A. Thompson:

What, exactly, is gossip? I find that several times over the past year, I have wondered about that, and even been asked about it more than once. Gossip is mentioned less than 10 times in the Bible, 8 times in the NIV and 4 times in the ESV. In the NIV, 6 of those 8 times are in the OT, and all six are in Proverbs. In the ESV, 3 of those 4 times are in the NT, and the one OT reference is in Ezekiel. What does that tell us? I think it tells us that our best Bible scholars don't really have a great grip on wha

Note: The Shownotes and Transcript below are a bit of a trainwork editing wise. I'll polish them up soon!

C.S. Lewis from His essay The Seeing Eye, found in Christian Reflections: 1963, 6 years before the Moon Landing. (Discussing Space travel) a more practical issue will arise when, if ever, we discover rational creatures on other planets. I think myself, this is a very remote contingency. The balance of probability is against life on any other planet of the solar system. We shall hardly find it nearer than the stars. And even if we reach the Moon we shall be no nearer to stellar travel than the first man who paddled across a river was to crossing the Pacific.This thought is welcome to me because, to be frank, I have no pleasure in looking forward to a meeting between humanity and any alien rational species. I observe how the white man has hitherto treated the black, and how, even among civilized men, the stronger have treated the weaker. If we encounter in the depth of space a race, however innocent and amiable, which is technologically weaker than ourselves, I do not doubt that the same revolting story will be repeated. We shall enslave, deceive, exploit or exterminate; at the very least we shall corrupt it with our vices and infect it with our diseases.

We are not fit yet to visit other worlds. We have filled our own with massacre, torture, syphilis, famine, dust bowls and with all that is hideous to ear or eye. Must we go on to infect new realms? It was in part these reflections that first moved me to make my own small contributions to science fiction. In those days writers in that genre almost automatically represented the inhabitants of other worlds as monsters and the terrestrial invaders as good. Since then the opposite set-up has become fairly common. If I could believe that I had in any degree contributed to this change, I should be a proud man.1

The same problem, by the way, is beginning to threaten us as regards the dolphins. I don't think it has yet been proved that they are rational. But if they are, we have no more right to enslave them than to enslave our fellow-men. And some of us will continue to say this, but we shall be mocked.

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 173–174.

This science (astronomy) ought to be the special delight of ministers of the gospel, for surely it brings us into closer connection with God than almost any other science does. It has been said that an undevout astronomer is mad. I should say that an undevout man of any sort is mad,—with the worst form of madness; but, certainly, he who has become acquainted with the stars in the heavens, and who yet has not found out the great Father of lights, the Lord who made them all, must be stricken with a dire madness. Kepler, the great mathematical astronomer, who has so well explained many of the laws which govern the universe, closes one of his books, his Harmonics, with this reverent and devout expression of his feelings:—"I give thee thanks, Lord and Creator, that thou hast given me joy through thy creation; for I have been ravished with the work of thy hands. I have revealed unto mankind the glory of thy works, as far as my limited spirit could conceive their infinitude. Should I have brought forward anything that is unworthy of thee, or should I have sought my own fame, be graciously pleased to forgive me." And you know how the mighty Newton, a very prince among the sons of men, was continually driven to his knees as he looked upwards to the skies, and discovered fresh wonders in the starry heavens. Therefore, the science which tends to bring men to bow in humility before the Lord should always be a favourite study with us whose business it is to inculcate reverence for God in all who come under our influence.

C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 145.

Today's Question: At the very beginning of this podcast, I promised you that we would sometimes delve into wild and wacky areas of the Bible, and today is the day we begin that journey! Most of the time, we will play it straight, but the fact is that there are many interesting/mysterious and downright strange parts of the Bible, and I don't think we should ignore them, nor explain them away with a handwave. Let's embrace the weird! And, by the way, if this topic is interesting to you at all, then please check out my book Monsters in the Bible. It's my bestselling book of this year, which is funny, and from time to time, it ranks in Amazon's top ten for Occult Satanism...which is strange, to say the least, for a southern Baptist pastor. (I did NOT choose that category!)

Vanderbilt astronomer David Weintraub reports that 55 percent of atheists believe in alien life, but only 32 percent of Christians. Weintraub wrote, "Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christian leaders argue quite forcefully that the Bible makes clear that extraterrestrial life does not exist. From this perspective, the only living, God-worshipping beings in the entire universe are humans, created by God, who live on Earth." DOES THE BIBLE REALLY, REALLY MAKE THAT CLEAR??!

Calvary Chapel Church in Roswell, New Mexico (80 miles away from the Mac Brazel ranch, Roswell 1947 incident), would half-way agree. for instance, "Biblically IF there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible and He did not. The Bible never speaks of Aliens from another planet. Further, there is no way they would crash and die here on planet earth. Death entered our world through Adam and effected everything on this planet. If there are Aliens, they would not be exposed to this curse." LOTS OF SUPPOSITIONS HERE THAT AREN'T BACKED UP BY SCRIPTURE. "She smiled at me, therefore she likes me." maybe, maybe not. It's a supposition, but is it supported by fact?? Let's take that first sentence and see how it logically holds up. "If there are aliens, there is no way we would have contact with them or God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not." How about this: "IF Man were to travel to the moon, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not." "If the United States of America would be the dominant superpower of the world in the 21st century, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not." "If atoms were the building blocks of all matter, God would have told us about it in the Bible, and He did not." Such statements suppose that God is OBLIGATED to tell us about everything in the Bible. He is under no such obligation, so we can't assume things that we are left in the dark about. All the love in the world to Calvary Chapel, Roswell, though. I'm a fan.

So, I'm also a fan of podcasts...a podcast connoisseur. I am subscribed to over one 100 podcasts of all shapes and sizes. Many of them are Christian podcasts, but many are not. In case you're curious, here's my current top ten podcasts. I'd love to hear yours too - tweet them to me at @bibleqpodcast. In no particular order:

1. Ask Pastor John - John Piper, excellent biblical counsel.
2. The Omnibus with Ken Jennings and John Roderick. Hilarious and informative.
3. Ryen Russillo podcast - ESPN sports. My favorite sports commentator.
4. SYSK with Josh and Chuck, have been a listener for over ten years.
5. Astonishing Legends with Scott Philbrook and Forrest Burgess.
6. Rainer on Leadership - Thom Rainer
7. The Bible Project with Tim Mackie and Jon Collins
8. Fantasy Focus Football - Matthew Berry (Avengers Endgame)
9. True Crime Garage (warning: swearing)
10. Payne Lindsey Podcasts - Monster, + Up and Vanished.

Anyway...I was listening to one of the above, the Astonishing Legends podcast a few weeks ago. They were talking about a fairly fascinating object called the Betz Sphere that a family in Florida found in the woods in the 70s. The Betz Sphere demonstrated all sorts of unusual properties, and drew the interest of some news organizations and government people, including the former head of Project Blue book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek.

Project Blue Book:(wikipedia): Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. It started in 1952, the third study of its kind, following projects Sign (1947) and Grudge (1949). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices officially ceased in January 1970. Project Blue Book had two goals:

1. To determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and
2. To scientifically analyze UFO-related data.

J.Allen Hynek was the science advisor to Grudge, Sign and Blue Book. Wikipedia: Josef Allen Hynek (May 1, 1910 – April 27, 1986) was an American astronomer, professor, and ufologist.[1]

In later years he conducted his own independent UFO research, developing the "Close Encounter" classification system. He was among the first people to conduct scientific analysis of reports and especially of trace evidence purportedly left by UFOs.[

Anyway, during his time researching the Betz sphere, Dr. J. Allen Hynek became good friends with the Betz family, getting to know them pretty well over the course of several visits. According to the Betz family, Dr. Hynek told them that the U.S. government was aware of several alien encounters/visitations, including Roswell, and had covered up most of them, so that the general public wouldn't freak out. Why would the public freak out? Well, apparently Dr. Hynek believe that, at least in part, that major religions, including Christianity, would have a large negative reaction to the existence of aliens, because that would seemingly contradict the teachings of the church, and the teachings of the Bible. Hynek believed that society might fall apart, if people knew that aliens actually existed.

Now, let me pause for a moment. As much as I'm interested in this sort of thing, today's episode is NOT fundamentally about whether aliens exist and have made contact with us or not. I do actually know the answer to that question, but I can't give it to you now, its classified. ;) In truth, actually, I have no idea. BUT, because I can't help myself, I will say this one thing about the possibility of aliens.

A Washington Post article at the end of April really got my attention:

Recently, unidentified aircraft have entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month, Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for office of the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

He said, "We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again."

Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer, told The Post that the new Navy guidelines formalized the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs, calling it "the single greatest decision the Navy has made in decades."

Elizondo, who ran the AATIP, (This is the multi-million dollar Pentagon program that investigates UFOs and was on the government budget books until 2012, when it was delisted on those budget books) said the newly drafted guidelines were a culmination of many things, most notably that the Navy had enough credible evidence — including eyewitness accounts and corroborating radar information — to "know this is occurring."

"If I came to you and said, 'There are these things that can fly over our country with impunity, defying the laws of physics, and within moments could deploy a nuclear device at will,' that would be a matter of national security," Elizondo said.

With the number of U.S. military personnel in the Air Force and Navy who described the same observations, the noise level could not be ignored.

"This type of activity is very alarming," Elizondo said, "and people are recognizing there are things in our aerospace that lie beyond our understanding."

Before you get excited that this new initiative might finally clue in the public, I need to tell you that the WaPost ran an article the next week that basically said that the Navy was NOT going to be released to the public. Mr. Gradisher said, ""Furthermore, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations. He added, "Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected."""

So yeah, expect to be in the dark a few more years, at least. But today's question is not whether or not the U.S. Government will finally disclose Alien interactions, but whether or not the Bible rules out the existence of aliens at all! Is Dr. Hynek correct - if the Government suddenly announced alien contact of some kind - would that somehow invalidate the Bible?

And the answer is…. I don't think so. Not at all.

But, I could be wrong, and many theologians disagree with me. Let's look at the anti-alien case:

GotQuestions https://www.gotquestions.org/aliens-Christian.html, "We do not believe that aliens exist. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be.

Those who contemplate the existence of aliens and the impact their existence would have on the Christian faith commonly discuss the identity and work of Jesus. God sent His only begotten Son, God incarnate, to save mankind and redeem creation. Does that redemption include life on other planets? Or would God have manifested Himself on those other planets, as well (in the manner of Aslan in Narnia)? Does "only begotten" mean "only physical representation"? Or is it more limited, referring only to the human species? WE DON'T KNOW!!

Another topic of discussion concerning the existence of aliens and Christianity is what it means to be made in the "image of God." Since God has no physical body, we take this to mean a reflection of God's non-physical aspects—rationality, morality, and sociability. Would aliens, if they exist, embody the same characteristics? WHY NOT?

Considering what we know about space and life and the world as the Bible portrays it, we already have an explanation for so-called alien activity on Earth. Reports of "close encounters" describe the ethereal, transient, deceptive, and malevolent. Accounts also record that encounters with supposed aliens can be stopped by a real, authentic call to Jesus. Everything points to the activity of demons, not extraterrestrials. In fact, it is plausible that the "powerful delusion" spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 will involve an alien-abduction theory to explain away the rapture. I actually don't think most UFO reports - reported by seasoned Navy and Air-Force pilots, for instance, really has much in common with demonic episodes we see in Scripture.

The "discovery" of alien life would have no effect on genuine Christianity. COMPLETELY AGREE The Bible stands as written, no matter what secular theories are advanced or discoveries are claimed. The Bible says the earth and mankind are unique in God's creation. God created the earth even before He created the sun, moon, or stars (Genesis 1).

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came and then morning: the first day.

(It actually seems to say that God created the Heavens first...then the earth.) Matt Slick/CARM: The Bible does not mention extraterrestrial or alien life. However, it does mention angels and demonic forces which are, in a sense, not of this world. This is not the kind of alien, extraterrestrial life that most people are talking about when the subject comes up. Nevertheless, the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of aliens from other planets who might be visiting us. Now, Slick goes on from here to argue against alien life being likely, because he believes that the Bible declares all creation on all worlds fallen by what Adam did. That is certainly one way of reading the text, but I don't think that is the necessary way of reading the text. Paul could be speaking of all of creation on the earth. For instance, in Colossians 1:23, Paul writes: This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.What does this mean- that the Gospel has been proclaimed on Pluto? I don't think so. I believe Paul meant that the Gospel had been proclaimed in all of KNOWN creation. Michael Houdmann: Above all, let me say, I do not believe aliens exist. Let's also differentiate between sentient aliens and non-sentient aliens. While I would not necessarily have a theological problem with the concept of non-sentient beings (fish, birds, dogs, etc.) existing on other planets, I do have a huge theological problem with the concept of other sentient beings existing elsewhere. It just does not mesh with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible presents humanity as uniquely created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Angels are not created in the image of God. Animals are not created in the image of God. According to the Bible, we are unique, specifically created to have a personal relationship and connection with God the Creator.

Intelligent/sentient life in other parts of the universe destroys, or at least weakens, this uniqueness. And it raises all kinds of questions. When did God create the aliens? Do the sentient aliens have an eternal soul? Did they fall into sin? Did God reveal Himself to them? Does their understanding of God match what the Bible says? Did God provide them with an alien Bible? Did God provide for and offer them redemption and salvation? If so, how? Did Jesus die for them too?Genesis 1:26 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth." Notice how it doesn't say Let us make man - and man alone in all of the universe - in our Image. Houdmann goes on to say: All joking aside, if God intended for humankind to meet alien life, He would have outlined these encounters in the Bible, along with an answer to what He has done for them regarding sin.I just don't agree with that speculation. I like Houdmann and Got questions a ton, and find them very faithful to the Bible, but this is speculation that I find unbacked by biblical truth. HOW do we know that God would do this? How can we prove such a thing? I just don't think we can. I feel like such speculations are very similar to Lactantius' (an early church father in the 200s) scoffing at the possibility that the earth was round. He could NOT cite a Scripture to prove the earth was flat - as he thought - but he assumed that Scripture taught such a thing, WHEN IT DOES NOT. Similarly, Augustine poo-pood the existence of Antipodes on the other side of the world, thinking that Scripture backed that belief up, but it doesn't, and Augustine was wrong. GIVE ME CLEAR SCRIPTURE THAT SHOWS LIFE ON EARTH IS UNIQUE and I will believe it against all charges...but such a Scripture does NOT exist. TBR Baptist Facebook Group:

Jim I thought this was a serious group Well - He's new. Also, I genuinely think this is a serious topic!

Wes Apparently, some were aliens at one point

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God Similarly Doug Hibbard 1 Peter suggests that *you* are the aliens

Jim Spiritual Wickedness in heavenly places, Rulers and authorities. Demons dressed up like them.

Jacob I think the possibility of aliens falls apart when discussing the fall. As best as we can tell the whole universe is subject to the natural effects of the curse. If that is true, then another rational species, which did not fall, is out there subjected to the consequences of it. Do these aliens have their own Salvation history? Did they, somehow, simultaneously fall alongside Adam, and have their own Jesus? If, in keeping with Scripture, the crucifixion of Christ is a one time event, then another race would be subject to a punishment that they do not deserve with no possible hope for salvation.

Pro Brandon Ambrosino on BBC.Com http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-if-we-made-contact-with-aliens-how-would-religions-react : But how could a believer reconcile this with their faith that humans are the crowning achievement of God's creation?. How could humans believe they were the apple of their creator's eye if their planet was just one of billions?

The discovery of intelligent aliens could have a similar Copernican effect on human's self-understanding. Would the discovery make believers feel insignificant, and as a consequence, cause people to question their faith?

According to the Talmud, God spends his night flying throughout 18,000 worlds

I would argue that this concern is misguided. The claim that God is involved with and moved by humans has never required an Earth-centric theology. The Psalms, sacred to both Jews and Christians, claim that God has given names to all the stars.

Billy Graham as a notable exception, as he was vocal about his beliefs that "there are intelligent beings like us far away in space who worship God."

J. Warner Wallace:

What impact does this question (and even more importantly, the answer to this question) have on the claims of Christianity and the truth of the Christian worldview?

Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist and Christian:

Many people seem to think that discovering life on another planet would mean that naturalism is correct and Christianity is wrong. One thing I found fascinating is that for centuries Christians have thought about the implications of intelligent life in the universe. As I investigated the truth claims of Christianity, I realized that the existence of life of any sort beyond the confines of Earth is a great theological question—without a definitive answer. At this time, I am convinced that any hypothetical discovery of life in the universe will still point to God's creative work and ultimately help us understand God's revelation better.

I'm with Jeff here. Some people do indeed seem to think that finding life on other planets would prove the Bible - or Christianity wrong somehow. To that, I saw - How and Why would such a thing disprove God or the Bible? If God made life on planet Earth - and He did - then why couldn't He make it elsewhere? To those Christians who seem to think that God would only make life on earth - I say, again, why would He do that? Why would He create billions of planets - most outside of our ability to see or observe...and leave them devoid of any inhabitants? In absence of Scripture, or absolute proof of alien life, conjecture proves nothing, but that cuts both ways. Merely speculating that God would not create life on other planets does not prove that it is so. The question we are grappling with today is this one: Does the Bible rule out alien life, and the answer - the CLEAR answer...is NO! It does not. William Lane Craig, 2008 episode of Reasonable Faith: Dr. Craig: Yeah. Well, I think that it's possible. [that there is alien life] One would argue that if there is life on other planets it would have had to be created by God because on a naturalistic basis I think we'd say that the evidence against there being intelligent extraterrestrial life anywhere in the observable universe is extremely great. The probabilities on naturalism that there is extraterrestrial intelligent life is virtually nil. So actually being a theist would be the best grounds for thinking that it could be possible because as a theist you think God created life here on this planet so then you could say, well, maybe God created life as well on some other planet somewhere in the universe. It is really the theist who is, I think, a lot more open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life than the non-theist…. Kevin Harris: This brings up the issue of UFOs and aliens invading earth and all the things that are in pop culture to this day – flying saucer phenomena and things like that. Well, the Vatican astronomer has just said it could be. You can make up your own mind about that. It seems, Dr. Craig, that the Bible is largely silent about this issue.

Dr. Craig: I think it is silent, Kevin. The Scriptures are given to human beings as God's revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn't done that.

Kevin Harris: He says that the possibility of extraterrestrial life does not contradict our faith. In other words, if a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn today, nobody could stand up and say Christianity is false.

Dr. Craig: That is right. That seems to me to be correct. I am puzzled by folks who seem to think that if intelligent life were discovered somewhere else or that if it were to come here that somehow this would be a disproof of Christianity. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow because Christianity simply doesn't speak to the question of whether or not God has created life elsewhere in the universe.

If somebody tells you that there could be no aliens from a Bible/Christian perspective, ask them to show you clear backing for such a thing from Scripture. If you believe that, then please, please, please send me your Scriptural reasons for such a belief. Just Be sure you aren't making VAST leaps in logic. For example, the Bible clearly says Jesus died for our sins, if there are aliens, then how would God redeem them? That's a great question, and I don't know the answer, but it certainly doesn't prove that there are no aliens. Perhaps our hypothetical aliens did not fall, like Adam and Eve did. Perhaps they are indeed redeemed by Christ's sacrifice in a way that we don't understand. Who Knows?! But I do know that I can find no Scripture that clearly denies the possibility of alien life, or that clearly affirms the existence of alien life. I can also find no Scripture, the implications of which would logically rule out either outcome.

Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created. (Ps. 148:1–5)

Are there aliens? I've no idea. I think the wisest and best and most biblical answer is either "Maybe" or "I don't know." To assert otherwise is borderline irresponsible. BUT - if there ARE aliens, does this pose a threat to Scripture? Absolutely not. You can't contradict what isn't there. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin, the first true antibiotic. Did this MASSIVELY IMPORTANT DISCOVERY contradict the Bible? Of course not - because the Bible never discussed nor addressed such a thing. Similarly, the discovery of alien life - if it happens at all - will not at all shake any Scriptural truth in the Bible - NOT A ONE. Will it shake our lives? Maybe so. But, you can't find aliens in the Scripture. Not clearly. Likewise, you can't find the United States in Scripture either, and that 'omission' seems to rightly bother no one. It is not incumbent upon God to reveal to man all important future events in His Word. Ultimately, I stand with Spurgeon, and actually stood with Spurgeon before I knew his position on this question. It took a lot of research to find this quote, but here you go:

What God has done in the eternity which we call the past (but which to him is as the present), we do not fully know. We have no reason to believe that we know much of what God has done. There may be as many other worlds and sorts of beings existent as there are sands upon the sea shore, for aught we know; and the Lord may have been occupied in ages past with ten thousand glorious plans, and economies, as yet unrevealed to man. We cannot tell what he doeth, or what he hath done. We are creatures of a day, and know nothing; we are like insects that are born on a leaf, and die amid our fellows at the setting of the sun, but he lives on for ever. We talk of the "eternal hills," but they are babes that were born yesterday, as far as he is concerned. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God." We say, "Roll on, thou ancient ocean!" but the ocean is not ancient; it is a drop that fell yesterday from the tip of the Creator's finger.

C. H. Spurgeon, "The Eternal Truth of God," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 21 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1875), 651.

Spurgeon: To us, to-day, the coming of Christ to seek and to save the lost is an accomplished fact, a matter of history, most sure and certain. And what a fact it is! You have often thought of it, but have you ever worked your mind into the very heart of it,—that God has actually visited this world in human form,—that he before whom angels bow has actually been here, in fashion like ourselves, feeding the hungry crowds of Palestine, healing their sick, and raising their dead? I know not what may be the peculiar boast of other planets, but this poor star cannot be excelled, for on this world the Creator has stood. This earth has been trodden by the feet of God, and yet it was not crushed beneath the mighty burden, because he deigned to link his Deity with our humanity. The incarnation is a wonder of wonders, but it does not belong to the realm of imagination, or even of expectation, for it has actually been beheld by mortal eyes.

C. H. Spurgeon, "Christ the Seeker and Saviour of the Lost," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 58 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1912), 314. SKIP. INCLUDE IN BOOK. There are also triple stars, or systems, and quadruple systems, and there are, in some cases, hundreds or thousands all spinning round one another, and around their central luminaries. Wonderful combinations of glory and beauty may be seen in the stellar sky; and some of these stars are red, some blue, some yellow, all the colours of the rainbow are represented in them. It would be very wonderful to live in one of them, and to look across the sky, and see all the glories of the heavens that God has made. On the whole, however, for the present, I am quite content to abide upon this little planet, especially as I am not able to change it for another home, until God so wills it.

C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 177.

CLOSE WITH EXTENDED READING OF LEWIS' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION: From Christian Reflections: an essay Called, "The Seeing Eye"

Some people are troubled, and others are delighted, at the idea of finding not one, but perhaps innumerable rational species scattered about the universe. In both cases the emotion arises from a belief that such discoveries would be fatal to Christian theology. For it will be said that theology connects the Incarnation of God with the Fall and Redemption of man. And this would seem to attribute to our species and to our little planet a central position in cosmic history which is not credible if rationally inhabited planets are to be had by the million.

Older readers will, with me, notice the vast change in astronomical speculation which this view involves. When we were boys all astronomers, so far as I know, impressed upon us the antecedent improbabilities of life in any part of the universe whatever. It was not thought unlikely that this earth was the solitary exception to a universal reign of the inorganic. Now Professor Hoyle, and many with him, say that in so vast a universe life must have occurred in times and places without number. The interesting thing is that I have heard both these estimates used as arguments against Christianity.

Now it seems to me that we must find out more than we can at present know—which is nothing—about hypothetical rational species before we can say what theological corollaries or difficulties their discovery would raise.

We might, for example, find a race which was, like us, rational but, unlike us, innocent—no wars nor any other wickedness among them; all peace and good fellowship. I don't think any Christian would be puzzled to find that they knew no story of an Incarnation or Redemption, and might even find our story hard to understand or accept if we told it to them. There would have been no Redemption in such a world because it would not have needed redeeming. 'They that are whole need not the physician.' The sheep that has never strayed need not be sought for. We should have much to learn from such people and nothing to teach them. If we were wise, we should fall at their feet. But probably we should be unable to 'take it'. We'd find some reason for exterminating them.

Again, we might find a race which, like ours, contained both good and bad. And we might find that for them, as for us, something had been done: that at some point in their history some great interference for the better, believed by some of them to be supernatural, had been recorded, and that its effects, though often impeded and perverted, were still alive among them. It need not, as far as I can see, have conformed to the pattern of Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection. God may have other ways—how should I be able to imagine them?—of redeeming a lost world. And Redemption in that alien mode might not be easily recognizable by our missionaries, let alone by our atheists.

We might meet a species which, like us, needed Redemption but had not been given it. But would this fundamentally be more of a difficulty than any Christian's first meeting with a new tribe of savages? It would be our duty to preach the Gospel to them. For if they are rational, capable both of sin and repentance, they are our brethren, whatever they look like. Would this spreading of the Gospel from earth, through man, imply a pre-eminence for earth and man? Not in any real sense. If a thing is to begin at all, it must begin at some particular time and place; and any time and place raises the question: 'Why just then and just there?' One can conceive an extraterrestrial development of Christianity so brilliant that earth's place in the story might sink to that of a prologue.

Finally, we might find a race which was strictly diabolical—no tiniest spark felt in them from which any goodness could ever be coaxed into the feeblest glow; all of them incurably perverted through and through. What then? We Christians had always been told that there were creatures like that in existence. True, we thought they were all incorporeal spirits. A minor readjustment thus becomes necessary.

But all this is in the realm of fantastic speculation. We are trying to cross a bridge, not only before we come to it, but even before we know there is a river that needs bridging.

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, EPub Edition. (HarperOne, 2014), 174–176.

Religion and Rocketry - 1958 RELIGION AND ROCKETRY

In my time I have heard two quite different arguments against my religion put forward in the name of science. When I was a youngster, people used to say that the universe was not only not friendly to life but positively hostile to it. Life had appeared on this planet by a millionth chance, as if at one point there had been a breakdown of the elaborate defences generally enforced against it. We should be rash to assume that such a leak had occurred more than once. Probably life was a purely terrestrial abnormality. We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea that there was a Creator who was interested in living creatures.

But then came Professor F. B. Hoyle, the Cambridge cosmologist, and in a fortnight or so everyone I met seemed to have decided that the universe was probably quite well provided with inhabitable globes and with livestock to inhabit them. Which just showed (equally well) the absurdity of Christianity with its parochial idea that Man could be important to God.

This is a warning of what we may expect if we ever do discover animal life (vegetable does not matter) on another planet. Each new discovery, even every new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching theological and philosophical consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarrassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defence.

But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists, and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism, with the new psychology. So, I cannot help expecting, it will be with the discovery of 'life on other planets'—if that discovery is ever made.

The supposed threat is clearly directed against the doctrine of the Incarnation, the belief that God born of God 'for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was . . . made man'. Why for us men more than for others? If we find ourselves to be but one among a million races, scattered through a million spheres, how can we, without absurd arrogance, believe ourselves to have been uniquely favoured? I admit that the question could become formidable. In fact, it will become formidable when, if ever, we know the answer to five other questions.

1. Are there animals anywhere except on earth? We do not know. We do not know whether we ever shall know.

2. Supposing there were, have any of these animals what we call 'rational souls'? By this I include not merely the faculty to abstract and calculate, but the apprehension of values, the power to mean by 'good 'something more than 'good for me' or even 'good for my species'. If instead of asking, 'Have they rational souls?' you prefer to ask, 'Are they spiritual animals?' I think we shall both mean pretty much the same. If the answer to either question should be No, then of course it would not be at all strange that our species should be treated differently from theirs.

There would be no sense in offering to a creature, however clever or amiable, a gift which that creature was by its nature incapable either of desiring or of receiving. We teach our sons to read but not our dogs. The dogs prefer bones. And of course, since we do not yet know whether there are extra-terrestrial animals at all, we are a long way from knowing that they are rational (or 'spiritual').

Even if we met them we might not find it so easy to decide. It seems to me possible to suppose creatures so clever that they could talk, though they were, from the theological point of view, really only animals, capable of pursuing or enjoying only natural ends. One meets humans—the machine-minded and materialistic urban type—who look as if they were just that. As Christians we must believe the appearance to be false; somewhere under that glib surface there lurks, however atrophied, a human soul. But in other worlds there might be things that really are what these seem to be. Conversely, there might be creatures genuinely spiritual, whose powers of manufacture and abstract thought were so humble that we should mistake them for mere animals. God shield them from us!

3. If there are species, and rational species, other than man, are any or all of them, like us, fallen? This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician.Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. Notice what waves of utterly unwarranted hypothesis these critics of Christianity want us to swim through. We are now supposing the fall of hypothetically rational creatures whose mere existence is hypothetical!

4. If all of them (and surely all is a long shot) or any of them have fallen have they been denied Redemption by the Incarnation and Passion of Christ? For of course it is no very new idea that the eternal Son may, for all we know, have been incarnate in other worlds than earth and so saved other races than ours. As Alice Meynell wrote in 'Christ in the Universe':

I wouldn't go as far as 'doubtless' myself. Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek. Or perhaps—but this brings us to the next wave of assumption. It is the biggest yet and will knock us head over heels, but I am fond of a tumble in the surf.

5. If we knew (which we don't) the answers to 1, 2, and 3—and, further, if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it—is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? Here of course we ask for what is not merely unknown but, unless God should reveal it, wholly unknowable. It may be that the further we were permitted to see into His councils, the more clearly we should understand that thus and not otherwise—by the birth at Bethlehem, the cross on Calvary and the empty tomb—a fallen race could be rescued. There may be a necessity for this, insurmountable, rooted in the very nature of God and the very nature of sin. But we don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies; remedies which we should probably not recognise as such even if we ever heard of them.

It might turn out that the redemption of other species differed from ours by working through ours. There is a hint of something like this in St Paul (Romans 8:19–23) when he says that the whole creation is longing and waiting to be delivered from some kind of slavery, and that the deliverance will occur only when we, we Christians, fully enter upon our sonship to God and exercise our 'glorious liberty'.

On the conscious level I believe that he was thinking only of our own Earth: of animal, and probably vegetable, life on Earth being 'renewed' or glorified at the glorification of man in Christ. But it is perhaps possible—it is not necessary—to give his words a cosmic meaning. It may be that Redemption, starting with us, is to work from us and through us.

This would no doubt give man a pivotal position. But such a position need not imply any superiority in us or any favouritism in God. The general, deciding where to begin his attack, does not select the prettiest landscape or the most fertile field or the most attractive village. Christ was not born in a stable because a stable is, in itself, the most convenient or distinguished place for a maternity.

Only if we had some such function would a contact between us and such unknown races be other than a calamity. If indeed we were unfallen, it would be another matter.

It sets one dreaming—to interchange thoughts with beings whose thinking had an organic background wholly different from ours (other senses, other appetites), to be unenviously humbled by intellects possibly superior to our own yet able for that very reason to descend to our level, to descend lovingly ourselves if we met innocent and childlike creatures who could never be as strong or as clever as we, to exchange with the inhabitants of other worlds that especially keen and rich affection which exists between unlikes; it is a glorious dream. But make no mistake. It is a dream. We are fallen.

We know what our race does to strangers. Man destroys or enslaves every species he can. Civilised man murders, enslaves, cheats, and corrupts savage man. Even inanimate nature he turns into dust bowls and slag-heaps. There are individuals who don't. But they are not the sort who are likely to be our pioneers in space. Our ambassador to new worlds will be the needy and greedy adventurer or the ruthless technical expert. They will do as their kind has always done. What that will be if they meet things weaker than themselves, the black man and the red man can tell. If they meet things stronger, they will be, very properly, destroyed.

It is interesting to wonder how things would go if they met an unfallen race. At first, to be sure, they'd have a grand time jeering at, duping, and exploiting its innocence; but I doubt if our half-animal cunning would long be a match for godlike wisdom, selfless valour, and perfect unanimity.

I therefore fear the practical, not the theoretical, problems which will arise if ever we meet rational creatures which are not human. Against them we shall, if we can, commit all the crimes we have already committed against creatures certainly human but differing from us in features and pigmentation; and the starry heavens will become an object to which good men can look up only with feelings of intolerable guilt, agonized pity, and burning shame.

Of course after the first debauch of exploitation we shall make some belated attempt to do better. We shall perhaps send missionaries. But can even missionaries be trusted? 'Gun and gospel' have been horribly combined in the past. The missionary's holy desire to save souls has not always been kept quite distinct from the arrogant desire, the busybody's itch, to (as he calls it) 'civilise' the (as he calls them) 'natives'. Would all our missionaries recognise an unfallen race if they met it? Could they? Would they continue to press upon creatures that did not need to be saved that plan of Salvation which God has appointed for Man? Would they denounce as sins mere differences of behaviour which the spiritual and biological history of these strange creatures fully justified and which God Himself had blessed? Would they try to teach those from whom they had better learn? I do not know.

What I do know is that here and now, as our only possible practical preparation for such a meeting, you and I should resolve to stand firm against all exploitation and all theological imperialism. It will not be fun. We shall be called traitors to our own species. We shall be hated of almost all men; even of some religious men. And we must not give back one single inch. We shall probably fail, but let us go down fighting for the right side. Our loyalty is due not to our species but to God. Those who are, or can become, His sons, are our real brothers even if they have shells or tusks. It is spiritual, not biological, kinship that counts.

But let us thank God that we are still very far from travel to other worlds.

I have wondered before now whether the vast astronomical distances may not be God's quarantine precautions. They prevent the spiritual infection of a fallen species from spreading. And of course we are also very far from the supposed theological problem which contact with other rational species might raise. Such species may not exist. There is not at present a shred of empirical evidence that they do. There is nothing but what thelogicians would call arguments from 'a priori probability'—arguments that begin 'It is only natural to suppose', or 'All analogy suggests', or 'Is it not the height of arrogance to rule out—?' They make very good reading. But who except a born gambler ever risks five dollars on such grounds in ordinary life?

And, as we have seen, the mere existence of these creatures would not raise a problem. After that, we still need to know that they are fallen; then, that they have not been, or will not be, redeemed in the mode we know; and then, that no other mode is possible. I think a Christian is sitting pretty if his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms.

If I remember rightly, St Augustine raised a question about the theological position of satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human creatures. He decided it could wait till we knew there were any. So can this.

'But supposing,' you say. 'Supposing all these embarrassing suppositions turned out to be true?' I can only record a conviction that they won't; a conviction which has for me become in the course of years irresistible.Christians and their opponents again and again expect that some new discovery will either turn matters of faith into matters of knowledge or else reduce them to patent absurdities. But it has never happened.

What we believe always remains intellectually possible; it never becomes intellectually compulsive. I have an idea that when this ceases to be so, the world will be ending. We have been warned that all but conclusive evidence against Christianity, evidence that would deceive (if it were possible) the very elect, will appear with Antichrist.

And after that there will be wholly conclusive evidence on the other side.

But not, I fancy, till then on either side.

SPURGEON: I suppose you are all aware that among the old systems of astronomy was one which placed the earth in the centre, and made the sun, and the moon, and the stars revolve around it. "Its three fundamental principles were the immobility of the earth, its central position, and the daily revolution of all the heavenly bodies around it in circular orbits."

Now, in a similar fashion, there is a way of making a system of theology of which man is the centre, by which it is implied that Christ and his atoning sacrifice are only made for man's sake, and that the Holy Spirit is merely a great Worker on man's behalf, and that even the great and glorious Father is to be viewed simply as existing for the sake of making man happy. Well, that may be the system of theology adopted by some; but, brethren, we must not fall into that error, for, just as the earth is not the centre of the universe, so man is not the grandest of all beings. God has been pleased highly to exalt man; but we must remember how the psalmist speaks of him: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" In another place, David says, "Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away." Man cannot be the centre of the theological universe, he is altogether too insignificant a being to occupy such a position, and the scheme of redemption must exist for some other end than that of merely making man happy, or even of making him holy. The salvation of man must surely be first of all for the glory of God; and you have discovered the right form of Christian doctrine when you have found the system that has God in the centre, ruling and controlling according to the good pleasure of his will. Do not dwarf man so as to make it appear that God has no care for him; for if you do that, you slander God. Give to man the position that God has assigned to him; by doing so, you will have a system of theology in which all the truths of revelation and experience will move in glorious order and harmony around the great central orb, the Divine Sovereign Ruler of the universe, God over all, blessed for ever.

C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students: The Art of Illustration; Addresses Delivered to the Students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle, vol. 3 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1905), 149.

What does the Bible say about the possibility of alien life and UFOs? Could there be aliens??

Episode 4: What is the Unforgivable sin?? It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable - unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in!

The Didache First century - RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night's lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

(7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35

Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265.

ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf?

And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future.

Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius's Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit,

Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person's body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression "sparing devoutness") the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain - 1700s, Greek Orthodox church.

Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes.

19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress.

St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions,

Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ.

68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him

Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed.

Spurgeon - Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God's Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, "Man-traps and spring gun set here." We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, "there is a sin unto death;" we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That "sin unto death" may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life.

C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74.

Billy Graham:

The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit's witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity.

Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God's mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins.

Augustine of Hippo, "The Enchiridion," in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed.

Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen

What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. - John Piper. Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one "unpardonable sin" that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers.

Jacob Arminius defined it as "the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ".

Nancy Hardesty "Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

Pope John Paul II writes "'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross", and "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished.

SO - What is The unforgivable sin?? - is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest - the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths? Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself? Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don't stifle the Spirit. 20 Don't despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.)

Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn't appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let's begin there in seeking our answer.

Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, "The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons."

25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come.

Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul in Him!" and, "He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!"

23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished!

27 "On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man's house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— 30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

Luke 12: 8 "And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically. What does the CONTEXT of the usage of 'unpardonable sin' tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us?

We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. "Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit." The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 "31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things - specifically driving out demons - by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God.

Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.)

Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don't have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples:

1. Pushed over at Brownsville.
2. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG.
3. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc. Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT - we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God's spirit would do, and wouldn't do. For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded - quite frankly - ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn't of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things - at best. HOWEVER...a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God - a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble. I still don't know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It's outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus - there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you're right before doing such thing...and you'd better ask the question - HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can't answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about.

What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment….

Side question - is Beelzebul = Satan?? It's a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…'maybe.' Beelzebub ("Lord of the flies") and Beelzebul ("Lord of the skies/heavenly realms") both refer to the same entity.

In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text. Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ring that was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael.

The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: "Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury." 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: 'You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.'" Then Elijah left. The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, "He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!" 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities.

My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity.

What exactly is Blasphemy?

Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction - anyone who 'speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.' but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come.

Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23

Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!

The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, 'to HURT' and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like 'reputation.' So, etymologically, the word has a root meaning of injuring somebody's fame, or good name. The word can mean 'defame' or 'revile' and isn't always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being 'defamed' or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do. 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings.

So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that - or coming dangerously close - when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself.

R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: "You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you." He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit.

Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?!

AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it

Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48.

I'm worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin??

Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit.

Sproul: Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit.

As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit.

I don't share Graham and Sproul's assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such...just a sober warning.

I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it:

Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."

Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God's justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God's patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven.

They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, "I can fly to safety in an instant." And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever.

Another of the devil's fiery darts is this, "You have committed the unpardonable sin." Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, "I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God's Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin."

C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim's Progress:

My close - God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble:

I don't want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that - if you are worried you've committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven't because only the Spirit's work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness...so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that's ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose.

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 2:5

you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God.

Proverbs 10:27

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short.

Rev 14:6 6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J) 7 He spoke with a loud voice: "Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."

The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR.

Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this:

4 "And I say to you, My friends, don't fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren't five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows!

Treat the Holy Spirit with great - remarkable sobriety - fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don't be afraid to trust Him - He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it.

Here's the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us.

The prophets of Ba'al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: "Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren't getting my attention. Slash yourself!" So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone's affection.

False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment.

At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God's justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God's love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, "Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you."

Episode 4: What is the Unforgivable sin?? 
It's a terrifying reality: Jesus warned His disciples and the Pharisees that there was a sin that could be committed that was unpardonable - unforgivable for all eternity. People have speculated and worried about this teaching of Jesus for hundreds of years. What precisely is the unpardonable sin? How can we know whether or not we've done it? Let's dive in!

The Didache First century - RIGHT after the NT: Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. (4) Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. (5) But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. (6) And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night’s lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

(7) Also, do not test or evaluate any prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.35

Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 263–265.

ANDREAS Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637) : It is the sin of heresy, or of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which leads to death. If one man sins against another, pray for him. But if he sins against God, who is there who can pray on his behalf?

And if even after all this, our opponents are still unwilling to learn and still unable to understand, they should at least stop speaking evil. They should not divide the Trinity lest they be divided from life.82 They should not classify the Holy Spirit with the creatures, lest, like the Pharisees of old who ascribed the works of the Spirit to Beelzebul,83 they too, on account of equal audacity, incur along with them the punishment which is unpardonable both now and in the future.

Athanasius Works on the Spirit: Athanasius’s Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, 

Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person’s body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression “sparing devoutness”) the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable.2

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain - 1700s, Greek Orthodox church. 

Swearing is a dreadful and harmful thing; it is a destructive drug, a bane and a danger, a hidden wound, a sore unseen, an obscure ulcer spreading its poison in the soul; it is an arrow of Satan, a flaming javelin, a two-edged sword, a sharp-honed scimitar, an unpardonable sin, an indefensible transgression, a deep gulf, a precipitous crag, a strong trap, a taut-stretched net, a fetter that cannot be broken, a noose from which no one escapes.

19. Are these enough, and do you believe that swearing is a dreadful thing and the most harmful of all sins? Believe me, I beg you, believe me! But if someone does not believe me, I now offer proof. This sin has what no other sin possesses. If we do not violate the other commandments, we escape punishment; on the other hand, in the matter of oaths, we are punished just the same both when we guard against transgressing and when we transgress.

St. John Chrysostom, 300s AD St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions, 

Hilary of Poitiers actually points us in a more biblical direction, in discussing the unpardonable sin: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.67 With a very grave qualification, he condemns the view of the Pharisees and the perversion of those who also think like them. He promises pardon of all sins but refuses pardon for blasphemy of the Spirit. While other words and deeds are treated with a generous pardon, there is no mercy if it is denied that God is in Christ.

68 And in whatever way one sins without pardon, he is gracious to us and reminds us again that sins of every kind can be completely forgiven, though blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. For who is so completely beyond pardon as one who denies that Christ is of God, or repudiates that the substance of the Spirit of the Father resides in him

Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. 

Spurgeon - Nobody knows what that sin is. I believe that even God’s Word does not tell us, and it is very proper that it does not. As I have often said, it is like the notice we sometimes see put up, “Man-traps and spring gun set here.” We do not know whereabouts the traps and guns are, but we have no business over the hedge at all. So, “there is a sin unto death;” we are not told what that sin is, but we have no business to go over the hedge into any transgression at all. That “sin unto death” may be different in different people; but, whoever commits it, from that very moment, loses all spiritual desires. He has no wish to be saved, no care to repent, no longing after Christ; so dreadful is the spiritual death that comes over the man who has committed it that he never craves eternal life.

C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan's Immortal Allegory (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 73–74.

Billy Graham: 

 The sin of the religious leaders, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, was a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him… Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit’s witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity.

Billy Graham is echoing the Augustinian (300s AD) view: Now the man who, not believing that sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of God’s mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins.

Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. 

Augustine was reflecting the Origen view (early 300s): The Spirit dwells in those who live by faith. But those who once having been counted worthy to share in the Holy Spirit and then having finally and decisively turned their backs from grace are by this act said to have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (ORIGEN  Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness, but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness—either in the present world or in that which is to come. Origen

What then is it? The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. - John Piper. 
Lee ann penick MODERN: There is only one “unpardonable sin” that can separate us from God for eternity. It is the ongoing, willful refusal to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and the forgiveness He offers.

Jacob Arminius defined it as "the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ".

Nancy Hardesty  “Ultimately the refusal to allow women to fully use their gifts in the church and in the world is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” 

 Pope John Paul II writes "'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross", and "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished.

SO - What is The unforgivable sin?? - is it, as Origen, Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul 2 Lee Ann Penick suggest - the rejection of the Holy Spirit/not becoming a follower of Jesus?? Is it, as John Chrysostom claimed, swearing oaths?  Is it the robbing of graves in a thieving manner? Is it not letting women use their spiritual gifts in the church? Is it Heresy? Is it, as Athanasius and many other church fathers declared, being wrong on the Trinity and calling the Holy Spirit a created being, rather than God Himself?  Is it testing prophetic utterances of prophets?? (NO! - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 Don’t stifle the Spirit. 20 Don’t despise prophecies, 21 but test all things. Hold on to what is good.)

Confused? You should be!! People talk about this issue all of the time, but it doesn’t appear that all of them get their views from the Bible, so let’s begin there in seeking our answer. 

Matthew 12:24 24 When the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man drives out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”

25 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 How can someone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. 30 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come.

Mark 3: 22 The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul in Him!” and, “He drives out demons by the ruler of the demons!”

23 So He summoned them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rebels against himself and is divided, he cannot stand but is finished!

27 “On the other hand, no one can enter a strong man’s house and rob his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he will rob his house. 28 I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Luke 12: 8 “And I say to you, anyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God, 9 but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.10 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

So, I see two major ways we need to answer this question. Contextually and grammatically.  What does the CONTEXT of the usage of ‘unpardonable sin’ tell us, and what does the grammar/word meanings tell us?  

We find a massively important clue in Mark 3:30, where Mark tells us precisely WHY Jesus warned the Pharisees and Scribes about this sin. “Because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.”   The exact same situation is described in Matthew 12:31 “31 Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven”  The scribes and pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miraculous things - specifically driving out demons - by the power of Beelzebul rather than by the power of God. 

Therefore, we know at least this: Ascribing something like an exorcism that is factually done by the power of God and His Holy Spirit to Demonic influence is AT BEST dangerously close to Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and could, in fact, be blaspheming the Holy Spirit. (Jesus does not make it crystal clear that the scribes and pharisees were actually committing this sin, or merely getting close to committing it. It would seem like the latter is the best option.) 

Practically speaking, what does this mean?? It means we need to be extremely careful about stating confident opinions on spiritual matters that we don’t have 100 percent clarity from Scripture on. Let me give a couple of examples: 

1. Pushed over at Brownsville.
2. Charles Carrin praying for us at GVAG.
3. Flamboyant preachers on tv wadding up their coats and throwing them on people, who pass out. Blowing on people, who pass out. Etc.  Most of this is probably fraudulent, some of it horribly so. BUT - we should be incredibly careful about pronouncing opinions on what God’s spirit would do, and wouldn’t do.   For instance, there was a revival going on in the 90s that became very well known and reached a lot of people. I heard about some of the things going on at that revival that were disturbing, and sounded - quite frankly - ridiculous. So, I assumed that the movement wasn’t of God, but was just flaky people doing flaky things - at best. HOWEVER...a few years later, I met the leader of the movement, and spent some time with him. He struck me as a genuine follower of God - a man who loved Jesus, and who was humble.  I still don’t know what to think about that revival. God does, and I leave it to Him. It’s outside of my realm of influence. According to Jesus - there is grave danger in ascribing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. You better be 100 percent sure you’re right before doing such thing...and you’d better ask the question - HOW Do i Know FOR SURE that my opinion is right on this matter? If you can’t answer that question with extreme clarity, then be careful saying what the Holy Spirit will or will not do, and be careful saying whether or not something is of Satan, or not. Contextually, that is at least a large part of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is about. 

What is blasphemy, exactly? More on that in a moment….

Side question - is Beelzebul = Satan??

It’s a great question, and I have a fairly lame answer…’maybe.’  Beelzebub (“Lord of the flies”) and Beelzebul (“Lord of the skies/heavenly realms”) both refer to the same entity. 

In the Testament of Solomon, 1st century, non-Scripture, pseudoepigraphic text.  Beelzebul (not Beelzebub) appears as prince of the demons and says (6.2) that he was formerly a leading heavenly angel who was (6.7) associated with the star Hesperus (which is the normal Greek name for the planet Venus (Αφροδíτη) as evening star). Seemingly, Beelzebul here is synonymous with Lucifer. the text describes how Solomon was enabled to build his temple by commanding demons by means of a magical ring that was entrusted to him by the archangel Michael. 

The Bible reference comes from 2 Kings 1: 1 After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2 Ahaziah had fallen through the latticed window of his upper room in Samaria and was injured. So he sent messengers instructing them: “Go inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, if I will recover from this injury.” 3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Go and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?’ 4 Therefore, this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not get up from your sickbed—you will certainly die.’” Then Elijah left.


The name also appears in Luke 11, where we can see the clearest connection between Beelzebul and Satan: Luke 11:14 Now He was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul,the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, He told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

So, Jesus mentions Satan and Beelzebul in the same context, but not in a way that indicates that they are the same entities. 

My best guess is that Beelzebul is a separate entity from Satan, but I confess that I do not know, and my guess is based on the fact that the Bible never clearly identifies the two as the same entity.

What exactly is Blasphemy? 

Luke 12:10 points us in the right direction - anyone who ‘speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven.’ but the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Matthew 12:32 makes it even more clear: 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come.

Similarly: Isaiah 37:23 Isaiah 37:23

Who is it you have mocked and blasphemed? Who have you raised your voice against and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!

The Word itself, Greek Blasphemos, is a combo of two words. Blaptō, which means, ‘to HURT’ and Pheemay, which means fame, report, or something like ‘reputation.’ So, etymologically, the word  has a root meaning of injuring somebody’s fame, or good name. The word can mean ‘defame’ or ‘revile’ and isn’t always used of a deity. Paul speaks of being ‘defamed’ or blasphemed by people for being an apostle. Paul commands the church in Titus 3:2 not to slander/Speak evil of (or BLASPHEME) any person, which is a command that Christians would do well to take far more seriously than we do.  2 Peter 2:10 and Jude vs 8 both warn against blaspheming angels, demons, and other spiritual beings. 

So- blasphemy is speaking evil of someone. Hurting them with your words, harming their reputation. Thus, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is speaking evil of Him, reviling Him, defaming Him, seeking to harm His reputation. The Pharisees and Scribes were doing that - or coming dangerously close - when they said that it was Satan/Beelzebul empowering Jesus, when it was factually the Spirit of God Himself. 

R.C. Sproul: Their statements were directed against Jesus. So, He said to them: “You can blaspheme Me and be forgiven, but when you question the work of the Spirit, you are coming perilously close to the unforgivable sin. You are right at the line. You are looking down into the abyss of hell. One more step and there will be no hope for you.” He was warning them to be very careful not to insult or mock the Spirit.

Is it really unforgivable, and WHAT IF I HAVE COMMITTED IT?! 

AUGUSTINE: It is not that this was a blasphemy which under no circumstances could be forgiven, for even this shall be forgiven if right repentance follows it

Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 48.

I’m worried that I have committed the unforgivable sin?? 

Graham: Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin. Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit.

Sproul:  Humanly speaking, everyone who is a Christian is capable of committing the unforgivable sin. However, I believe that the Lord of glory who has saved us and sealed us in the Holy Spirit will never let us commit that sin. I do not believe that any Christians in the history of the church have blasphemed the Spirit.

As for those who are not sure they are saved and are worried they may have committed the unpardonable sin, I would say that worrying about it is one of the clearest evidences that they have not committed this sin, for those who commit it are so hardened in their hearts they do not care that they commit it. Thanks be to God that the sin that is unpardonable is not a sin He allows His people to commit.

I don’t share Graham and Sproul’s assurances, though I respect them both deeply. The Bible NEVER says a believer is unable to commit the unpardonable sin. Jesus NEVER indicates that, and I see no other passage that promises such...just a sober warning. 

I think Piper strikes a better balance when talking about it: 

Piper: The fact that there is an unforgivable sin — that there comes a point in a life of sin after which the Holy Spirit will no longer grant repentance — that fact should drive us from sin with fear and trembling. None of us knows when our toying with sin will pass over into irrevocable hardness of heart. Very few people feel how serious sin is. Very few people are on the same wavelength with Jesus when he said in Mark 9:43, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.”

Instead, many professing Christians today have such a sentimental view of God’s justice that they never feel terror and horror at the thought of being utterly forsaken by God because of their persistence in sin. They have the naïve notion that God’s patience has no end and that they can always return from any length and depth of sin, forgetting that there is a point of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power, leaving them never able to repent and be forgiven.

They are like the buzzard who spots a carcass on a piece of ice floating in the river. He lands and begins to eat. He knows it is dangerous because the falls are just ahead. But he looks at his wings and says to himself, “I can fly to safety in an instant.” And he goes on eating. Just before the ice goes over the falls he spreads his wings to fly but his claws are frozen in the ice and there is no escape — neither in this age nor the age to come. The Spirit of holiness has forsaken the arrogant sinner forever.

Another of the devil’s fiery darts is this, “You have committed the unpardonable sin.” Ah! this arrow has rankled in many a heart, and it is very difficult to deal with such cases. The only way in which I argue with a person thus assailed is to say, “I am quite certain that, if you desire salvation, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, and I am absolutely sure that, if you will now come and trust Christ, you have not committed that sin, for every soul that trusts Christ is forgiven, according to God’s Word, and therefore you cannot have committed that sin.”

C. H. Spurgeon, Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress: 

My close - God the Holy Spirit is all powerful. Tremble: 

I don’t want to blunt the warnings of Jesus with false assurance. It is likely that - if you are worried you’ve committed the unpardonable sin, that you haven’t because only the Spirit’s work in your life would make you fear the Lord. But the way that Jesus addressed this is with the highest level of seriousness...so must we. This passage RIGHTLY inspires fear in us, and that’s ok, it should. It is obviously recorded in the Scripture for that purpose. 

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 2:5

you will understand the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God.

Proverbs 10:27

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked are cut short.

Rev 14:6  6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead,(I) having the eternal gospel to announce to the inhabitants of the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people.(J) 7 He spoke with a loud voice: “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

The word for fear there has the same meaning as our word fear. It means FEAR.  

Luke 12: In the same breath that Jesus speaks about the unpardonable sin, He says this: 

4 “And I say to you, My friends, don’t fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will show you the One to fear: Fear Him who has authority to throw people into hell after death. Yes, I say to you, this is the One to fear! 6 Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight. 7 Indeed, the hairs of your head are all counted. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows!

Treat the Holy Spirit with great - remarkable sobriety - fear and wisdom. Fear the Lord, as Jesus said, and don’t be afraid to trust Him - He who knows all of the sparrows and numbers our hairs, counts us as of great worth and Loves the World enough to send His son to rescue it. 

Here’s the good news: GREEAR: False gods mutilate us; the true God mutilated himself for us.

The prophets of Ba’al begin by dancing around their altar. They end by slashing at themselves until their blood runs (1 Kings 18:28). False gods always push us toward destruction: “Work harder. Do better. Obtain more. You still aren’t getting my attention. Slash yourself!” So we slash at our bodies by going through crash diets to attain that perfect figure. We slash at our families by overworking to make extra money. We slash at our souls by compromising our integrity to get someone’s affection.

False gods push us to mutilate ourselves, because we desperately want to win their approval. But only one God was ever mutilated for us—Jesus Christ. This story ends with a magnificent fire coming from heaven, but as Jesus himself points out to his first disciples, the fire was not intended for sinful humanity (Luke 9:51–56). It was ultimately intended for him: of all the characters in this story, Jesus is not Elijah, calling down fire; he is the sacrifice who receives the fire of judgment.

At the cross, Jesus took into his body the fire of God’s justice so that we could take into our lives the fire of God’s love. Other gods demand dancing, slashing, mutilation. But Jesus Christ is the only God who was slashed and mutilated for us. As Tim Keller has said, “Every other god will make your blood run; only the true God bleeds for you.”

Interested in this topic? You might enjoy my book: Monsters in the Bible

Our focus on this show is on the Bible, and how interesting it is. Sometimes the show will be straight up Bible Q and A - down to earth topics with answers solidly grounded in the biblical text. Sometimes the show topics will be a little more - out there, shall we say. Like today. Today's topic is Unicorns, and it is dedicated to my daughter, Phoebe - who is a huge unicorn fan. You might be wondering what Unicorns have to do with the Bible, but if you are a King James only kind of person, you probably already know that the word 'Unicorns' appears in the KJV version of the Bible 9 times in the 1611 KJV and 9 times in the updated 1769 Standard version.

At some point in the show, we will probably do a podcast solely focused on the 1611 KJV and King James Version only people. It's an interesting topic for me in particular, because most people in the KJV Only camp would reject the more Catholic associated apocryphal books of the Bible, and yet the 1611 KJV contains 14 apocryphal books, in addition to the OT and the NT. But I digress. One day soon, I think we will cover both the 1611 KJV AND the Apocrypha, but today is not that day.

Today is the day, however, that we cover unicorns. You might not know that unicorns are actually in the Bible - but they are. Sort of. In the Bible. Let's take a look:

Psalm 22: 19 But be not thou farre from mee, O Lord; O my strength, hast thee to helpe me. 20Deliuer my soule from the sword: my darling from the power of the dogge. 21Saue me from the lyons mouth: for thou hast heard me from the hornes of the vnicornes. 1611

So - let me say this. As I mentioned in the trailer for the show, I believe that the Bible is faithful and true - inerrant in its original language and absolutely trustworthy. Therefore, I believe that the Bible is speaking of a real animal here and is not putting forward some sort of myth, or what have you. Does that mean unicorns are/were real creatures? Not necessarily. Believing in the trustworthiness of the Bible, we have two options here for our KJV Unicorns.

#1 - Unicorns actually existed, but they are probably extinct now.

#2 - The KJV translators of the Bible did not properly or exactly translate the Hebrew word for 'unicorn.'

We will take a long look at both options, but first, let's take a look at the Hebrew word itself.

Re'em, Reh·ām' Reh-Aim from the Verb rä·am' (Rah-Am), which means to 'Raise up.' All 9 times Reh-Aim appears in the Old Testament, the 1611 and 1769 translators of the KJV used the word 'unicorn.'

Here are all of the appearances of the word in the Bible. Let's pay attention to any physical descriptions to determine if the word Reh-Aim actually refers to the equine/horselike creature of fantasy and legend, or perhaps some other creature:

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Isaiah 34: And the Unicornes shall come downe with them, and the bullockes with the bulles, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatnesse.8 For it is the day of the Lords vengeance, and the yeere of recompences for the controuersie of Zion. KJV 1611

Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalms 22:21 Already read.

Psalms 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

So some interesting passages, to be sure. The KJV Bible seems to indicate that God has the strength of a unicorn, That his horns are like the horns of the unicorns, and that God is coming with unicorns and bulls on the day of judgment.

So, wow - what in the world is going on here? Here's what we learn from these passages, remembering that the actual Hebrew word in question is reh-Aim . Reh-Aims are powerful, they are difficult to control or tame, they have at least one horn (more on that later) and they are quite wild and untamable, Unfortunately, that description fits many wild animals, and doesn't really tell us exactly what creature the authors of the OT were referring to, though we can safely remove three toed sloths, dung beetles, and platypodes from consideration.

The Bible's mention of unicorns was not lost on the leaders of the early church, who also puzzled over these passages.

Origen, an early church father living in the 200s, wrote this : "other prohibitions such as that to eat of the unicorn (τραγέλαφος), a creature which has no existence" Source: Frederic William Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886), 192.

Jerome, however, seems to have believed in the reality of these beasts, writing, "There are beasts of this sort in the desert of the East, but they are never seen by human beings or captured by them." (circa 400 A.D.)

Source: John Cassian, John Cassian: The Conferences, ed. Walter J. Burghardt, John Dillon, and Dennis D. McManus, trans. Boniface Ramsey, vol. 57, Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1997), 578.

Theoderot also writing in the 400s, seems to take the Unicorn as symbolic, in a way, used by the biblical writers as a sort of euphemism: "They say the unicorn is equipped with one horn, and the Law gave instructions for adoring one God; so it was right for him to liken the one Temple, dedicated to the one God, to a unicorn."

Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms: Psalms 73–150, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 102, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 39.

So - lots of information so far, but no answers. Back to our original question: Does the Bible proclaim the existence of unicorns?

Here are our two options:

Yes, the Bible teaches that Unicorns, the fantastical beasts of legend, exist, or once existed, or no - the word Reh-aim means something different.

On the yes side, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, writing for Answers in Genesis, says this:

Modern readers have trouble with the Bible's unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God's menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength.

The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.) Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes "a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one's arm, and at the base about as thick. . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin." SOURCE

Dr. Mitchell goes on to mention a few other possibilities for the Reh-Aim, but does clearly seem to favor an equine, mono-horned solution - much like what we would call a unicorn. She does mention some evidences scattered about for such a creature as well, including drawings and eyewitness accounts from Africa of possible unicorn sightings.

This brings to mind that cryptid from the Congo in Africa that many talk about - the Mokele Mpembe. " "one who stops the flow of rivers" A German explorer, Captain Ludwig Von Stein, wrote this as a description of the Mokele Mpembe: The animal is said to be of a brownish-gray color with a smooth skin, its size is approximately that of an elephant; at least that of a hippopotamus. It is said to have a long and very flexible neck and only one tooth but a very long one; some say it is a horn. A few spoke about a long, muscular tail like that of an alligator. Canoes coming near it are said to be doomed; the animal is said to attack the vessels at once and to kill the crews but without eating the bodies. The creature is said to live in the caves that have been washed out by the river in the clay of its shores at sharp bends. It is said to climb the shores even at daytime in search of food; its diet is said to be entirely vegetable. This feature disagrees with a possible explanation as a myth. The preferred plant was shown to me, it is a kind of liana with large white blossoms, with a milky sap and applelike fruits. At the Ssombo River I was shown a path said to have been made by this animal in order to get at its food. The path was fresh and there were plants of the described type nearby. But since there were too many tracks of elephants, hippos, and other large mammals it was impossible to make out a particular spoor with any amount of certainty

Is such a thing possible? I've no idea. It makes for a great campfire tale, but the lack of fossilized remains does seem to be a bit of a strike against the creature.

Likewise, the lack of fossilized remains seems to be a strike against the existence of an equine-style unicorn. In fact, I think, barring evidence to the contrary, it's likely that such a creature has never existed. Perhaps a horse or other horse-like animal with one horn has been seen - such mutations occasionally happen, but I'd like to see more evidence for a mythical unicorn before I sign on enthusiastically.

So that brings us to option #2 for Unicorns in the Bible. And that option is that the translators of the KJV, like the translators of the Latin Vulgate upon which much of the KJV is based on, mistranslated the word 'Reh-Aim'.

Michael Heiser, Logos scholar in Residence - the difficulties of Bible Translation.

SOURCE: http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation

A famous Italian proverb declares "traduttore, traditore," which means, "Translator, traitor." Those who assume this is true are unaware how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text.

A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called "formal equivalence," which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is "word-for-word" or "literal" translation. The second is called "dynamic equivalence." This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is "thought-for-thought" translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy.

First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard.

ESV: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

NASB: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

NIV: "It is good for a man not to marry."

TNIV: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

NLT: "It is good to live a celibate life."

The most "word-for-word" of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb "touch" (ἅπτοµαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous "touch" to "have sexual relations with" (ESV, TNIV).

The most controversial renderings are the NIV ("It is good for a man not to marry") and the NLT ("It is good to live a celibate life"). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means "touch" to these options?

The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Cor 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined "present distress" (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT.

These translations are certainly plausible, but still problematic. While Paul notes a "present distress" in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul's mind, then the ESV and TNIV are more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself.

Translation isn't just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process.

SOURCE:Of the above): http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/2/28/treason-translation

This doesn't mean that we can't understand the Bible, of course - but what we are dealing with in this question of the unicorn, and what we are dealing with when we read some of the more thorny issues in Paul's letters is largely the same thing - the difficulty in translation. It's not an insurmountable difficulty, but it does require some careful study and thought.

Back to Unicorns. I believe the best way to handle the unicorn/Reh-Aim issue is to realize that the writers of the KJV likely used a word, 'Unicorn' which is a less than ideal translation. I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that these KJV translators themselves believed in the mythical unicorn. So, going with the thought that 'Unicorn' isn't the best translation or meaning of Reh-Aim, what is? I suggest three Three possibilities, and then conclude with what I think is the best option:

1. Siberien Unicorn Elasmotherium sibiricum four metres long, 2.5 metres high, weighs 3.5 metric tonnes and has a preposterously large horn in the middle of its face? For you American listeners, we're talking 14 feet long, almost 9 feet tall, and beefier than your'e uncle Bubba carrying a four by four tire.

The Elasmotherium Sibircum is A really massive unicorn, that's what….Despite its huge size it was lithe and seemed adapted to running across its homelands of central Asia: Kazakhstan, western and central Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and possible areas of Mongolia and China. This animal GREATLY matches the biblical description of the Reh-Aim. It was large, powerful, had an incredible horn, but was also agile and fast. According to Cosmos Magazine, "Until now, E. sibiricum had been thought to have gone extinct about 200,000 years ago as part of the natural extinction rate that preceded the arrival of humanity," The radiocarbon dating yielded some surprising results, suggesting that the unicorn was still kicking until 39,000 years ago.

So, science up until late last year, was off on the extinction of the Elasmotherium by about 160,000 years. What if they are still off by a few more thousand years - what if Elasmotherium lived until Old Testament times? Not very likely, but a distant possibility. I rank this as the 3rd most likely explanation of Reh-aim.

2. Our second most plausible explanation is that the Reh-aim is actually what we would call a rhinoceros. There's a few solid reasons to go in this direction. For one, The Latin Vulgate says "rinocerotis" in Deut 33:17 and "rinoceros" in Job 39:9. The noble rhino would, like the Siberian 'unicorn' Professor Allen H. Godbey wrote an extended article on the biblical 'unicorn in 1939. In that article, he notes that Pliny's Natural History records that in roughly 62 B.C., a rhinoceros was exhibited during the games of Pompey the Great. That rhinoceros had white skin, was roughly the size of an elephant, and that it had a single horn on its nose. Though we would hesitate to think of a rhino as graceful, they can be quite powerful, and fast, and undoubtedly have a large and powerful horn. Would that writers of the Old Testament be familiar with the rhino? It is possible, though nowhere near certain.

3. Finally, I would suggest that the most likely explanation for the Reh-aim would be either the extinct aurochs, or an animal very similar. I realize, of course, that an aurochs does not merely have one horn, but two, and that is okay. It does not appear that the original Hebrew word Reh-aim, demands a one-horned animal. Indeed, one way of translating Numbers 23:22, the way that the NASB, ESV and CSB translations choose, is to say ""God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox." The Hebrew for "horns" tow'apaha (also translated strength or glory) is indeed plural. That means that the mighty aurochs ticks all of the boxes off for the old testament description of a Reh-aim. It is large, and powerful. Difficult to tame, and quick, and has very imposing horns. In addition, unlike our options above, the aurochs appears to have inhabited Israel during the time of the Old Testament. Sadly, it would appear that the last aurochs died out in a forest in Poland in 1627. Happily, I think, there are several genetic projects underway right now to reintroduce the aurochs, though I can indeed imagine a sort of mammalian Jurassic Park scenario here that doesn't necessarily end well. Julius Caesar himself was quite familiar with the aurochs (whom he called an 'urs,' and described him thusly in the first century:

"Those animals which are called uri. These are a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, colour, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. These the Germans take with much pains in pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise, and practice themselves in this sort of hunting, and those who have slain the greatest number of them, having produced the horns in public, to serve as evidence, receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments." Source: Gallic War Commentaries, Chapter 6.28

One more reason to support the candidacy of the mighty aurochs as the Biblical 'unicorn' comes from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:

The allusions to the "re'em" as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian "rimu," which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns.

Finally, Dr. Allen H. Godbey, who probably studied this question more than anybody in history, concludes: "The decisive factor came with the deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions... reaching back four thousand years earlier than any Hebrew text that we have, [the texts] give the word rimu repeatedly... It is a gigantic wild ox. The cuneiform ideogram confines him to the mountains." Source: The Unicorn in the Old Testament, 1939

Ultimately, though I am team aurochs, I think that recognizing the ambiguity of the term and preserving it, is the best approach here, because even though the aurochs checks all of our boxes, the evidence for it is circumstantial, at best. Therefore, we should probably do what most modern Bible translators do with the passage, which is similar to how they handle another passage of mystery, Genesis 6:4. In the KJV, Genesis 6:4 reads, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." What the translators did there is render the Hebrew word Nephilim as 'Giants,' a very interesting translation, to be sure, but quite a problematic one.

Let's look at a more modern translation. Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men."

Yes, it's a bit of a cop-out, but in the absence of compelling evidence that the best translation of Nephilim is 'giants,' I think it might be a good cop-out, especially given that we have almost no idea whatsoever a Nephilim actually is. More on this in a future episode of this podcast.

Given all of the above, Numbers 23:22 would have been better rendered by the translators of the King James Version as, "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of a great horned beast." In doing that, though we have slightly elongated the text, we have faithfully translated it in a better and much less problematic way. A rendering that preserves clarity while translating re'em Reh-Aim accurately and understandably in a way that avoids guessing about what exact animal the original authors of the Old Testament were referring to. That doesn't solve the mystery, of course, but it is our best and safest option. Of course, we could also simply say, "He hath, as it were, the strength of a re'em.

Unfortunately, it means that we'll have to file this mystery in our 'cold case' file. The identity of Reh-aim will remain a secret to us, and is likely to remain so until the Second Coming. Alas.

Well, that's all for this episode. I'm grateful that you took the time to listen - thank you for that! If you are particularly interested in this topic, I'd like to point you to my (in progress) book, Monsters in the Bible. I am editing the book, and adding lots of material to it, and should have a second edition out very soon. Please also check out our website, Biblemysterypod.com. You can leave us a voice mail there, and ask your own question. Finally, and probably most important, I'd love for you to subscribe to the show and share it with your friends. Nothing is more helpful to an indie podcaster like myself than word of mouth. Thanks again, and see you soon.

Today’s topic is Unicorns, and it is dedicated to my daughter, Phoebe - who is a huge unicorn fan. You might be wondering what Unicorns have to do with the Bible, but if you are a King James only kind of person, you probably already know that the word ‘Unicorns’ appears in the KJV version of the Bible 9 times in the 1611 KJV and 9 times in the updated 1769 Standard version. So - what gives? Does the Bible really teach that unicorns were running around among the people of Israel?

The notes for this episode aren't exactly show notes. For more reasons to believe, please check out my book Easter: Fact or Fiction, 20 Reasons to Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead (click here) OR: Check this post out on my writing blog: Top Ten Reasons to Believe Jesus Rose from the Dead.

Recap: 1 Corinthians 15: 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead"? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is without foundation, and so is your faith.

But, as Paul goes on to tell us in 1 Corinthians 15, the Resurrection of Jesus DID, in FACT, Happen!

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Let's look at another passage on RAMIFICATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION. RAMIFICATIONS - ONE OF MY FAVORITE WORDS. It means - a consequence of an action or event

Romans 6:3 Are you unaware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in a new way of life.5 For if we have been joined with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of His resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that sin's dominion over the body may be abolished, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin, 7 since a person who has died is freed from sin's claims. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him, 9 because we know that Christ, having been raised from the dead, will not die again. Death no longer rules over Him.

Reasons to Believe:

Apologetics is one of my favorite fields of Theology. When I first heard the term, I assumed Apologetics had something to do with apologizing for our faith - like, being all nice about it. "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but apart from Jesus, you will die and go to hell….I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, and I'm sorry if that offends you."

I also thought that Silicon Valley, when I was a teenager, was a valley with a lot of sand in it. I sort of new that silicon could be refined out of sand, so I assumed Silicon Valley was the place where they got the sand to make the computer chips and all of the computer companies just built up around that sandy valley.

I was pretty good at assuming when I was younger. However, apologetics does not have anything to do with apologizing, and everybody with half a brain knows that Silicon is not merely sand, but a tetravalent metalloid used in the production of silicon, and that Silicon Valley is more of a euphemism than an actual place valley filled with sand.

SO - what is Apologetics? We get that word from 1 Peter 3:15

Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. 16 However, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are accused, those who denounce your Christian life will be put to shame.

The Greek there for the word 'defense' is: Apologian, and it means to defend OR to Answer. Literally it means to Answer from Words, or answer with Words. What Peter is saying is that we Christians MUST - it is a command - Be Ready to DEFEND/ANSWER our Beliefs with Words. (Eat that, Francis of Assisi...who never actually said "Preach the Gospel, if Necessary, use words.")

Apologetics is the field of Christian Endeavor that is focused on following the Biblical Command in 1 Peter 3:15 - HOW DO WE GIVE AN ANSWER FOR BELIEVING THE GOSPEL - and the CENTRAL CLAIM OF THE GOSPEL, THE RESURRECTION.

Think of it this way - Apologetics is like the crowbar that opens the door, and The Gospel is like the Grenade that you toss in. The Gospel is the thing with the POWER OF GOD IN IT. (Romans 1:16 "16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes") I thought of that illustration this week, and was immediately kind of excited, almost proud of it, but then I realized, it is kind of violent and boyish. Let me try again:

Apologetics is like the wind that blows away the fog, so you can see an incredible view. The view is the powerful, breathtaking thing, but the wind helps to open eyes to the view.

Apologetics - Answering/Defending our faith - is like the flavoring and sweetness in the medicine. The flavoring/sweetness doesn't actually heal you, but it does make people more willing/eager to open their mouths and take in the medicine. A spoonful of apologetics makes the Gospel go down? Not quite - It is the Spirit that makes the heart receptive to the Gospel - but Apologetics has been ordained by God to help open eyes.

PROVING something that happened historically is quite difficult, depending on what you mean by 'proof.' We don't have video of the Battle of Camden, for instance, and maybe not many of you have heard of it. It was the bloodiest battle of the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, if you were rooting for America during the Revolution - WE LOST BADLY in this battle. It took place in 1780 just north of Camden, South Carolina. 2000 Brits against 4000 Americans commanded by Horatio Gates. According to American Officer Otho Holland Williams, referring to the British charge, "the impetuosity with which they advanced, firing and huzzaing, threw the whole body of militia into such a panic that they generally threw down their loaded arms and fled in the utmost consternation. The unworthy example of the Virginians was almost instantly followed by the North Carolinians." Takeaway - one way to win a battle old school is to do a lot of huzzaing!

Furthermore, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, then governor of Virginia, "picture it as bad as you possibly can and it will not be as bad as it really is."

HOW DO WE KNOW, KNOW, KNOW this happened? Well - we don't have video, or pictures, or surviving witnesses. But virtually no historian alive doubts the major facets of the above narrative about the battle. How do we know it happened?

1. Reliable Eyewitness testimony in writing.
2. We see the historical impact of the battle.

So, how can we KNOW, KNOW, KNOW that something so important - and incredible - like Jesus' claimed resurrection FACTUALLY and HISTORICALLY Happened? Well, I think there is several ways to know, and please note that I am not merely saying the way we know is because the Bible says so.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible, but I am thinking of our skeptical friends. That might not be enough for them - so we want to use apologetics to open the door, so we can get the Good News and the truth of the Bible in.

1. Last Week - Appearance of Jesus Argument. By most testimonies, including Isaiah 53:2, Jesus' physical appearance was quite unimpressive. Not tall and imposing, possible monobrow/hooked nose, not handsome or striking. And yet, scientifically and verifiably, Jesus is the most famous person to ever live. HOW COULD THIS BE? I argue that the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible argument to explain the undoubtable fame of Jesus.

Two More Reasons to Believe This Week:

1. Female Witnesses: Luke 24: 9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. 11 But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. Why is this a big deal? Misnah, one of the Rabbis found within testifies that, due to their menstrual issues, "women are not competent witnesses to be relied on…they are not halakhically admissible as reliable witnesses….JOSEPHUS: "But let not a single witness be credited; but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth"

– Jewish/Roman historian Josephus, pointing out the belief that women of his day should not testify in court

"In dealing with a crowd of women at least, or with any promiscuous mob, a philosopher cannot influence them by reason or exhort them to reverence, piety and faith; nay, there is need of religious fear also, and this cannot be aroused without myths and marvels"[2]

– Strabo, a first century philosopher sharing a quite common view of women at the time: that they were immune to reason and comparable to a "promiscuous mob."Women, in the first century, were NOT viewed as reliable witnesses, and yet, they are the FIRST witnesses to the MOST CENTRAL and CRUCIAL claim of Christianity. Far from undermining the Central Claim of Christianity - That Jesus Rose from the Dead - I believe this ENHANCES it. In a sexist environment like the first century, why have women as your witnesses unless it actually happened that way?? IF the disciples fabricated the story, why do it this way? If the story was legendary, WHY HAVE THE WOMEN AS THE FIRST WITNESSES?!!? 2. The Stigma of Crucifixion. Can you think of a single person ever crucified other than Jesus? Perhaps Peter was, but we tend to think Crucifixion was rare in the first century. BUT IT WAS NOT! It was extremely common. Probably hundreds of thousands of people were crucified, and it was a horrible, ignominious way to die. Seneca the younger, a Roman statesman who lived during the time of Jesus, described crucifixion this way:

"I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a forked gibbet. I see cords, scourges, and instruments of torture for each limb and each joint"

There would likely be a large and very upsetting amount of blood spilling from Jesus. The crown of thorns, with one inch or more protrusions, would make deep holes in an area that is absolutely filled with blood vessels. His back would be bleeding profusely from the lashing with the cat of nine tails. The nail wounds on Jesus' wrists and feet would also be bleeding, as first century nails would not be quite as sharp and clean-edged as the nails we have now. And, as noted by Seneca above, it is conceivable that Jesus was stuck through with sticks. All of this blood would be highly upsetting to behold and also incredibly obvious and visible, because the majority of the time the Romans crucified their victims without any clothing whatsoever. Think of the embarrassment and agony of that situation: bleeding profusely, wracked with muscle cramps and pain beyond the ability of the toughest person to endure, having to push up on strained and shredded muscles to just simply get a single breath…and doing it all NAKED. How utterly astounding that the king of the universe would stoop so low. THE DISCIPLES SAW ALL OF THIS!!! WOULD THEY WORSHIP SOMEBODY WHO BARELY SURVIVED IT?

Consider also Willie Francis. Whom, you might ask? One of the first things you will note about Willie Francis is that millions of people don't worship him, and yet he shares a few things in common with Jesus. Willie was convicted of murder in Louisiana in 1945 for an act that he allegedly committed when he was 15. Despite the fact that he was underage; despite the fact that he was not tried by a jury of his peers (his jury was all white); despite the fact that most of the physical evidence against Willie disappeared; and despite the fact that the gun used to kill the victim actually belonged to a deputy sheriff that had threatened to kill the victim in the past – despite all of those things, Willie Francis was convicted and electrocuted in May of 1946. Only, he didn't die. Francis was one of the few people that have ever survived a round with the electric chair, and he did so due to a drunk guard setting things up improperly. Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't cruel and unusual to re-execute a teenager, and Francis was re-executed in May of 1947.

I have studied the historical records of 1946 to see if there arose a religion around Willie Francis...but found NOTHING. WHY WOULD I? Well - he survived execution, right? That's What Jesus did?! The idea of worshipping Willie Francis is absurd, despite the fact that he was unjustly and brutally killed. We can cry for his death, but nobody has the instinct to worship an executed man, even one who survived?

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS RIDICULOUS TO HAVE WORSHIPPED JESUS IN THE FIRST CENTURY IF ALL HE DID WAS MERELY SURVIVE, BARELY, THE CROSS. It is incredibly strange to worship the survivor of an execution and torture. UNLESS THAT PERSON ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND PROMISED ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL WHO BELIEVED IN HIM. ONCE AGAIN, THE RESURRECTION BEST FITS THE FACTS OF HISTORY!

1 Corinthians? Now brothers, I want to clarify for you the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. 2 You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you—unless you believed for no purpose. 3 For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. 6 Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time;

Author, Professor and Pastor Chase A. Thompson shares about his journey from disbelief to assurance in the resurrection of Jesus.. Of 20 reasons to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was historical and real, this episode covers the #1 cost compelling reason of all. Resource: Easter: Fact or Fiction 20 Reasons to Believe Jesus Rose from the Dead by Chase A. Thompson

Welcome to episode ZERO of the Bible Mystery Podcast - this is the trailer. In this episode, pastor, author and professor Chase A. Thompson discusses the motivations for the Bible Mystery Podcast and future topics for the show, including:

• How can we know that Jesus FACTUALLY rose from the dead?
• What are demons - are they fallen angels?
• What happens when we die?
• Did Angels actually mate with humans in Genesis 6?
• What sort of sea creature swallowed Jonah (or was that story a myth)?
• How can people know the Bible is reliable, or is Dan Brown correct that the Bible was changed many times by early Christians?
• Is the Shroud of Turin the real, miraculous burial cloth of Jesus, or was it a medieval forgery?

And many, many more - Please subscribe today!