We undergo a miraculous exchange at the center of our being once we have the spirit of Christ. Who we were in Adam is no longer there. We become a new person because we are now a child of God who is in Christ. The key event causing this exchange is a death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. This miraculous exchange is not figurative or symbolic, but literal and actual.
The spiritual part of every Christian has literally and actually been crucified, buried, and raised with Christ. The fact that this occurs spiritually and not physically doesn’t make it any less real. So what happens to the old self that was in Adam? The old self is entirely obliterated once the spirit of Christ enters the Christian.
The Bride of Christ
There is a lot of confusion in Christendom concerning the “Bride of Christ.” Some people say it's Israel, others say it's the Christian Church, others say it's both, and so forth. The two primary reasons for the confusion on the subject of the bride are failure to carefully read what the Bible actually says, and failure to identify and understand important figures of speech God uses in the Bible. We will start our study on the bride by studying the figures of speech of comparison, because we will never be able to understand why Israel is called a “virgin” a “daughter” a “bride” or “wife” unless we understand those figures of speech.
In the Bible, three common and important figures of speech of comparison are simile, metaphor, and hypocatastasis. A simile (pronounced 'sĭm-ĭ-lee) is a comparison by “resemblance” usually using words such as “like” or “as.” If a person is noisy and sloppy when he eats, a person might look at him and say, “You eat like a pig.” The sloppy eater is said to “resemble” a pig, and that kind of comparison is a “simile.” Psalm 1:3 uses a simile when it says a righteous person is like a tree planted by the water.
A metaphor is a comparison by “representation.” In a metaphor, one noun represents another, usually by using the verbs “is” or “are.” If the pig example above is made into a metaphor, instead of saying, “You eat like a pig” the person would compare the man to a pig by representing him as one and saying “You are a pig.” Jesus used a metaphor when he said to his disciples “I am the vine; you are the branches…” (John 15:5 NIV).
A hypocatastasis (pronounced hī-poe-cä-'täs-tä-sis) is a comparison by “implication.” The comparison is not directly stated, but it is implied. If we turn the pig example into a hypocatastasis, someone at the dinner party would simply look at the sloppy man and say “Pig!” Just saying “Pig” effectively communicates the implied comparison between the man and a pig. The flexibility in language and figures allows for hypocatastasis to import meaning in more ways than just factually stating the implied image. For example, at a dinner party of family members who were used to poking fun at one another, instead of saying “Pig” one person might just look at the other and say, “Oink, oink.” Doing that would effectively communicate the implied meaning of “pig.” A linguist might point out that what seems to be going on in that example is that the sound the pig makes is put for metonymy for the pig itself, which is then being imported by hypocatastasis. However, linguistic expressions are often unique and fluid enough that they cannot be easily put into tightly defined boxes, and hypocatastasis seems to handle the “oink, oink” example well on its own. A hypocatastasis using “pigs” in the Bible is when Jesus said not to “throw your pearls in front of pigs” (Matthew 7:6). In the biblical culture, pigs were unclean, and so a “pig” was a godless, unclean person.
The figures metaphor and hypocatastasis can be confusing because the figure can be missed and people think that the figure of speech is literal. An example of this happening with metaphor is when Christ took the bread at the Last Supper and said “This is my body.” He meant “This bread represents my body.” An example of hypocatastasis being missed is Genesis 3:1 when the Devil is called the “serpent” by hypocatastasis. The comparison should be clear because literal snakes cannot talk. The Devil is referred to as the serpent in other verses of Scripture (Revelation 20:2) and when 2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV) says that “the serpent” beguiled Eve, the context is Satan and his ministers (Genesis 14, 15). Nevertheless, many people miss the hypocatastasis and think that the “serpent” in Genesis was some kind of actual snake, and artists do not help much when they paint pictures of a snake with Eve in the Garden of Eden. The artists would have been more helpful to our understanding of the Bible if they had painted Eve with the Devil, appearing as a shining spiritual being.
As well as the figures of speech of comparison mentioned above, we also need to understand the figure of speech personification. “Personification” occurs when something that is not a person is described as a person. We humans relate so well to other humans that referring to something as a person often makes it easy to understand. There are many examples of personification in the Bible. Wisdom is portrayed as a woman calling out for people to listen to her (Proverbs 8:1). Ethiopia is portrayed as a woman stretching out her hands to God (Psalms 68:31 KJV, ESV, NASB). Ethiopia is “Cush” in some versions). In Joel 1:10 the ground is “mourning” because the weather has been bad and the grain, grape, and olive crops failed. Also, of course, the nation of Israel is portrayed as a woman many times, which is the subject of this study on the Bride.
The figures of comparison and personification do a good job of communicating information and emotion. For example, saying the people of Israel broke their covenant with God gives us information but does not communicate much emotion. In contrast, referring to Israel as a woman and saying she committed adultery with her pagan lovers brings up a lot of different emotions. In the Bible, Israel is personified as a woman, and then that personification is intertwined with the figures of comparison when “she” is called a virgin, daughter, wife, etc.
Although Bible teachers know Israel is not a woman, they are confused about the words “bride” or “wife” and invest more literal meaning into those terms than they are meant to communicate. Furthermore, because those teachers do not understand that “bride” is simply a comparison, they try to figure out who is the bride and when the marriage occurs. We do not get confused when Israel or Judah is called a lioness (Ezekiel 19:2), a horse (Jeremiah 5:8), a vine (Jeremiah 2:21), a camel (Jermiah 2:23), or a wild donkey (Jeremiah 2:24). In a similar way, we should not get confused when God calls His people a “daughter” or “virgin” or “bride” or “wife.” There are so many spoken and unspoken emotions, expectations, and commitments between a man and a woman that it is more succinct and powerful for God to occasionally refer to His people as a “daughter” or “virgin” or “wife” than to try to describe the relationship in a large paragraph.
The female figurative terms that God uses to describe His people include “daughter” (Micah 4:8), “virgin daughter” (Jeremiah 14:17), “virgin” (Jermiah 18:13; 31:4, 21; Amos 5:2), “sister” (Ezekiel 16:45, 52; 23:11), “espoused” or “bride” (Jermiah 2:2), “wife” (Ezekiel 16:8, 32; 23:4, Isaiah 54:6; Jermiah 3:1-14; Hosea 2:7), and “mother” (Ezekiel 16:20, 36; 23:4; Hosea 2:2). These terms do not just refer to the women of Israel, but to both men and women collectively. It's misunderstanding the figures of comparison for a man to think that when God’s people are called a “virgin daughter” the meaning God is importing into the text does not apply to him because he's a man. Similarly, women should realize they are included when God’s people are called “sons.” When God calls His people a “vine” we know the term applies to both men and women, and similarly when God uses hypocatastasis and refers to Israel as a “bride” the term includes both men and women.
It also helps to realize that sometimes the biblical vocabulary is not clear. Reading Jeremiah 2:2 in different versions shows that some versions use the word “bride” and some do not. The problem is in part caused by the original languages, because the word for a newly married woman in Hebrew and Greek also had other meanings. The Hebrew word kallah כַּלָּה) meant a daughter-in-law, a bride, or a wife (recently married or married long before). The Greek word numphē νύμφη) referred to an engaged woman, a recently married woman, a young wife, and a daughter-in-law. Thus, whether or not the verse in question should be translated “bride” or “wife” or “daughter-in-law” had to be determined by context.
There are many ways we can tell that the female terms God uses to describe His people are figures of speech. One of them is by comparing the terms themselves. It's not possible for Israel to literally be a virgin daughter and also God’s wife at the same time. Furthermore, in the Old Testament God married Israel and Judah, and although He divorced Israel, He is going to be married to her again in the future under the New Covenant (Hosea 2:16-25). But in the Four Gospels and the book of Revelation, Jesus Christ is the bridegroom, not God (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29; Revelation 21:9). This should catch our attention because in the Law of Moses a person could not have sexual relations with his father’s wife, so legally Jesus cannot be the “bridegroom” and marry his Father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8, 15; 20:11, 12). The solution to that “problem” is that the marriages are not literal, they are figures of speech used to describe the personal relationship that both God and Christ will have with the people.
Another problem that would be created if the marriages were literal and not figures of speech is that Israel and Judah are called “sisters” but God marries them both and even has children by them both (Ezekiel 23:4). Yet the Law of Moses forbids a man from marrying women who are sisters (Leviticus 18:18). God cannot break His own Law! Furthermore, the Law says a person could not marry his daughter or granddaughter (Leviticus 18:6, 10), but Israel is called God’s virgin daughter and yet He married her, which again would be breaking His own law.
Still more evidence that the female terms that God uses to describe Israel are figurative comes from the fact that there is no orderly chronological progression in the use of these terms in the Old Testament. If they were meant literally in some way, Israel would start as a daughter, a virgin, and then become espoused (engaged), then get married, then be a mother. Instead, there is no flowing chronology to the use of the terms. Note the following chronology as Israel goes from being a wife to a virgin to a daughter back to a wife, and note how especially confusing things would be in books such as Jeremiah if the terms were literal.
More evidence that the female terms used of Israel are figurative comes from the fact that Israel is sometimes not called a woman at all, but a man. Israel is called God’s “son” (Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1; 13:13). Hosea 7:9 refers to Israel as a man with gray hair, and Hosea 12:7-8 refers to Israel as a merchantman who has become rich by dishonesty. In Malachi 2:11 Judah is portrayed as a husband who has married the daughter of a foreign god. Isaiah 61:10 uses the figure simile to compare Israel to both a bride and bridegroom in the same verse! Obviously, Israel is not both a man and a woman, or a bride and bridegroom, in any literal way.
The key to recognizing the seemingly confusing references to Israel as a man or woman is realizing that each reference is a figure of speech and each reference stands on its own. In each case, God is using a specific illustration to make a point, just as He does when He calls His people a “vine” or “wild donkey” or “sheep” or “camel.” When God compares Israel to an animal or plant, we do not try to build a chronology, as if Israel could evolve from a vine to a donkey. Similarly, we should not try to build a chronology when God calls Israel a virgin or wife. Each term imports into the text a picture and a meaning that is important to the point that God is trying to make in that specific context, and each term stands on its own.
When God calls Israel a “virgin” or “daughter” He is placing the emphasis on attitudes and behaviors that were important to young women in that culture, such as purity, chastity, modesty, and obedience. When He calls Israel a “wife” He is emphasizing things such as fidelity, commitment, love, and respect. When God calls Israel a “son” He is emphasizing the intimacy of the relationship, family love and pride, and obligations and privileges of the family. When God portrays Israel as a man with gray hair, He is pointing out that through bad decisions Israel has become old and weak. When God portrays His people as a husband who has married a foreign woman, He is lamenting the covenants that His people have made with idols.
When God calls Himself a husband, He is emphasizing His love for Israel, His commitment to her, His expectations, and His disappointments with her behavior. When the Bible refers to Jesus as the “bridegroom” it's highlighting the intimate relationship between Jesus and his people, their obligations to each other, and what they can expect from each other. The Bible says that both God and Christ marry Israel, not as a contradiction, but because both God and Christ have a relationship with Israel and want and deserve the love and devotion from the people that a husband should have from his wife.
The most dominant comparison in the Old Testament that is used of God’s people is the figurative portrayal of Israel as God’s wife. This figurative imagery is very deeply embedded in the text and it's expressed in many different ways: sometimes by calling God a “husband” and Israel a “wife” sometimes referring to the “marriage” sometimes calling Israel a “whore” for her unfaithfulness and referring to it as “adultery” sometimes noting that the couple got a divorce, and so forth. In fact, there are so many verses that in some way make reference to the marriage that it would be difficult to catalog them all.
God’s “marriage” to Israel occurred on Mount Sinai after God gave some of the Law to Israel and the people made a covenant to obey Him. Ezekiel describes this in figurative terms. Ezekiel 16:8 Now when I passed by you and looked at you, behold, your time was the time for love; and I spread the corner of my garment over you, and covered your nakedness. And I swore to you, and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord Yahweh, and you became mine.
The context of Ezekiel 16:8 is important to the subject. Ezekiel 16:3 refers to the pagan ancestry of Israel, which is accurate because Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia. Ezekiel 16:4-5 says that when Israel was born she was despised. Exactly when God considered Israel to be “born” is not stated, likely because her “birth” is not literal but is part of the personification of Israel as a woman. Interestingly, although God refers to Israel as His daughter in other places, He does not do so here because He certainly did not despise her on the day of her birth. We know from history and the Bible that as Abraham’s descendants multiplied, they were in fact despised while they were in Haran, Canaan, and Egypt. Nevertheless, God pitied Israel and made her to grow and flourish (Ezekiel 16:6-7).
When God brought Israel out of Egypt, He made a blood covenant with her (Exodus 24:3-8). Bulls were sacrificed, and half their blood was sprinkled on the altar (representing God) and half on the people. We commonly refer to that blood covenant as “the Old Covenant” or “the Old Testament” but God figuratively refers to it in Ezekiel 16:8 as His marriage covenant with Israel. After that covenant, when the Israelites sinned against God, He often referred to their behavior as “adultery.” When God uses words like “adultery” (Jeremiah 3:6, 8, 9; Ezekiel 16:32; 23:37; Hosea 1:2; 4:15), or accuses Israel of “whoredom” or calls her a “whore” or “harlot” (KJV: Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20; 3:9; 13:27; Ezekiel 16:15, 33; 20:30; Hosea 2:2-5; 5:3), He is clearly indicating that He had married her and she was His wife. When versions such as the NIV say “prostitution” usually the Hebrew word can refer to prostitution or adultery. Since God was married to Israel, “adultery” is usually a better description than “prostitution.”
God tolerated Israel’s spiritual adultery only so long, and then He “divorced” her, abandoning her to her enemies (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8). Nevertheless, God promised to remarry Israel in the last days and never be separated from her again (Hosea 2:16:23. For her part, Israel will repent of her wickedness and return to God, her husband, saying “I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now” (Hosea 2:7). God will be glad, saying “In that day... you will call me my husband" (Hosea 2:16). This “marriage” is still future, and represents the time, after the Second Coming of Christ, when God’s people will be faithful to Him. Just as the first “marriage” was a covenant (the Old Covenant) this new marriage will be associated with the New Covenant, and it will last forever (Jeremiah 31:31-33).
The figurative use of the bride not only fits Israel, it fits the Christian Church. This makes sense because what God and Christ want from people does not change over time and is well represented by figuratively using the term “wife” love, devotion, and fidelity. Thus, the Church is clearly compared to a bride or wife twice in Scripture. One of them is in 2 Corinthians 11:2 (NASB) For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
In this verse the husband is Christ and the engaged virgin is the Church. The point of the verse is that the Church is to be a “pure virgin” for “one husband” who is Christ. In the Old Testament, Israel was to give herself only to God, and when the people worshiped other gods it angered Him and He called her actions “adultery.” In the New Testament, the figure of the virgin bride is again used to effectively communicate how Christians are to be devoted to Christ and not be led astray to another lord or another Gospel. The personification of the Church as a wife helps us relate to what Jesus did for “her” and what we are to do for him, as well as instructing Christian husbands and wives on how to relate to each other in a godly way.
Ephesians 5:25-27
25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26) to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27) and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
The figure personification helps us understand how Christ gave himself for the Church, and effectively communicates the actions, commitments, and expectations of Christ with minimum words but maximum impact. In Revelation 21:9-11, the bride of Christ is specifically identified as the New Jerusalem. The verse refers to the New Jerusalem as both the “bride” and “wife” of Christ. Of course, the wife of Christ is not the city, but the city figuratively represents all the people who live there. Thus, in the book of Revelation, we see that the wife of Christ is neither Israel nor the Christian Church, but rather is every saved person who has ever lived, all of whom will live forever in the New Jerusalem.
Portraying all the saved people as the wife of Christ shows us the love and devotion that will exist into eternity between Christ and the people he died for. Also, we must recall that the Old Testament prophecies foretold that God would also be married to these saved people, and as God’s wife they would also give Him the love and devotion that He deserves forever and ever.
Comparisons such as “son” or “virgin” or “bride” and “wife” import a host of meaning into the text. We are thinking rightly about the comparison when we focus on the meaning it is importing into the text and ask ourselves why God is using the illustration and what lesson He wants us to learn from it. God wants and deserves love and devotion from His people, and the human terms God uses to describe us illustrate that well. As God’s sons, let us take our family pride and our responsibility to love, provide for, and protect our own fellow family members seriously. As husbands, let us keep our covenants pure and not develop relationships with God’s rivals and enemies. As virgins, let us diligently keep ourselves pure and unspotted from things that ruin our, or our Father’s, reputation. As daughters let us be diligent in our work to better ourselves and our family. As brides and wives, let us be loving and devoted to God and Christ, and show them true fidelity, making sure they are the most important things in our lives. These concluding illustrations of sons, husbands, virgins, daughters, and brides and wives, should be understood in terms of the biblical culture. Gender role models are often significantly different today, but it is important for us to understand the meaning of figures as God intended them to be understood.
Only for the eyes of Richard
1 Samuel 2:12
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.
Holy Smokes... they were the sons of the High Priest.
“people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven.” These words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; and Luke 12:10 are very direct: “every” sin and blasphemy will be forgiven except one, a sin he referred to as “blasphemy” or to “speak against” the Holy Spirit. The definition of “blasphemy” includes slander, speaking against God, or verbal abuse, and it's clear from comparing the above two verses that Christ is defining blasphemy as “speaking against” something.
Jesus said there is one form of blasphemy against God that will never be forgiven, and he was referring to a specific blasphemy, not just speaking against God in general. Many people have at some time been angry at God due to the horrific circumstances of this fallen world, and many have spoken very harshly about God and or to Him. In fact, it's safe to say that most people have even cursed at God, and yet when they ask for forgiveness, He forgives them. The same is true of other kinds of sin. Many people sin horribly against God but are later forgiven. But there is a blasphemy that will not be forgiven.
What we learn from the scope of Scripture is that the blasphemy that cannot be forgiven is a person saying, and truly meaning in the depths of their heart, that Satan is the true God. The Bible reveals that the Devil can have “children” that is, people who have a unique relationship with him that makes them different from other sinners whose sins can be forgiven. People who are children of the Devil have sinned in such a way that they are no longer redeemable, that is, they cannot be forgiven, and it's not possible for them to be saved. The world is full of sinful people, and some of those sinners do very horrible things. Nevertheless, in the spiritual world, there is a difference between people who sin and can be forgiven and people who cannot be forgiven because in their heart of hearts they have taken the Devil as their god and have become his “children” and are true enemies of righteousness.
The Bible has much evidence of the “unforgivable sin” which leads to the everlasting death of the individual who commits it. 1 John 5:16 (KJV): If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. This verse reveals the same basic truth Jesus spoke about: there are sins that are “not unto death” and there is a sin that is “unto death.” The Word of God directs us not to pray for those who have committed the sin unto death because they cannot be forgiven.
Scripture shows a link between the unforgivable sin and those referred to as “children of the Devil.” When speaking to some of the religious leaders, Jesus said “You are of your father the Devil” (John 8:44 NASB). These leaders were in a different category than “regular” sinners like the prostitutes and tax collectors, whom Jesus never referred to as “children of the Devil.” Jesus always reached out to sinners like prostitutes, tax collectors, and even the thief on the cross. He actively tried to win them to salvation and to living a life of righteousness. In contrast, there is no evidence Jesus attempted to evangelize those he referred to as being fathered by the Devil. Instead he told his disciples “Leave them alone! They are blind guides” (Matthew 15:14). Jesus’ teaching does show us that a person can be “religious” and be a child of the Devil, but upon examination, it can be seen that the person’s so-called religion is hurtful, oppressive, and contradicts the heart of God.
The apostle Paul also encountered a child of the Devil. Confronting the false prophet Bar-jesus, he said by revelation: “You are a child of the Devil and an enemy of everything right” (Acts 13:9-10). Paul confronted many stubborn, sinful, hard-hearted people on his journeys, but this was the only man he called a child of the Devil. The fact that the text tells us that Paul was filled with the holy spirit when he spoke alerts us to the fact that this was not just his opinion, but came from the Lord. Those people who commit the unforgivable sin become children of the Devil.
Interestingly, there is a lot of folklore about people who “sell their soul to the Devil.” The folklore usually goes something like this: a person wants something really badly, like money, power, fame, or love. So the Devil comes to him and says “I will give you what you want at a very reasonable price—your eternal soul.” The person, blinded by desire, makes the deal with the Devil and then at the end of his life has to go to “hell” with no chance of “heaven.” Most folklore has some basis of truth in it, and this folklore is no different. Throughout history, many people have sensed that, in contrast to the majority of sinners who are simply caught up in their sin, some people are truly evil to the core and are somehow connected to evil spiritual forces, and many of those people are indeed “children” of the Devil, just as Christ said.
Some people so strongly lust for what they want that in their heart they make Satan, or one of his many fronts or idols, their “true” god and provider, and thus become his “children.” These self-centered people turn to Satan in order to quickly gain their desires, and in so doing turn away from the true God. The Bible does not describe exactly what a person does to become a child of the Devil, but it gives us some important information. Because Christ categorized it as a form of blasphemy, we know it is something that is said, either audibly or by speaking to oneself, but it cannot simply be saying, “I hate God” or “I love the Devil” or something such as that. It has to be fully believed in the heart as well as in the mind. From what we see in Scripture, it occurs when someone completely turns away from God, and confesses and believes in their heart that Satan, or one of his many forms—such as money, power, fame, or love—is the true “god” by being their sustainer, provider, or the “lord” of their life.
The Bible makes it clear that committing the unforgivable sin is a decision of the heart, not just something people say or act out without being heart-committed to it. The world is full of many kinds of egregious sinners—murderers, rapists, and much more—who later repent and get saved. That includes many people who dabble in the black arts, magic, spells, divination, and such. We know from Acts 19 when Paul was in Ephesus that many of the people who had been involved in magic got saved (Acts 19:18-20). Although some people are frightened that because of the sins they have committed they might not be able to be saved, the scriptural evidence is that if a person wants to be saved, or is concerned about not being saved, then they have not committed the unforgivable sin. The people in the Bible who had committed the unforgivable sin, such as Cain, the religious leaders Jesus was talking to in John 8:44, or Elymas the sorcerer, had no desire to humble themselves to God and get saved. In contrast, Simon the sorcerer got saved despite his background in magic arts because he had never made a heart commitment to Satan (Acts 8:13).
In the context of the unforgivable sin, it is important that Christians understand “god” in its more basic meaning of sustainer, provider, something that is worshiped or idealized, and something considered of supreme value. To blaspheme God does not mean one has to believe that the Devil is actually the Christian God and Father. Nor does it mean a person has to know that the Devil is a fallen angel who opposes the true creator God. To commit the unforgivable sin a person only has to truly take the Devil or one of his fronts as his own true god and provider. For example, it is unlikely that the Pharisees who were children of the Devil had taken “the Devil” per se as their god, but rather that they so highly valued their prestige, power, and position that they had in their hearts made that their god, and in doing so completely turned away from the true God and turned to the Devil via one of his fronts.
The unforgivable sin can be committed by believing and saying in your heart that Satan or one of the forms he hides behind and supports is the true sustainer, provider, or object of supreme value in one’s life. No doubt that was what Satan was asking Jesus to do when he offered him all the power of the world if Jesus would worship him (Luke 4:6). The Devil was not asking Jesus to think that God did not exist or that Satan somehow was, in fact, God, but rather that Satan would be Jesus’ true sustainer and provider, the true god of his life. The Devil wanted Jesus to become a child of his, which would have been the ultimate coup, but to do so Jesus would have had to “worship” the Devil, not just in form, but in the depths of his heart.
It's not specifically stated in Scripture what happens to a person spiritually, mentally, and physically when he becomes a child of the Devil such that he is unable to repent and be saved. We have no way of knowing what actually happens, but one possibility is that when a person commits the unforgivable sin, a demon enters them and gains access to, or perhaps even takes control of, the portion of the brain that controls freedom of choice, and the demon continually blocks the person’s ability to repent. It's also possible that the Devil could neurologically rewire part of the person’s brain. The Devil has the power to alter the genetic characteristics of plants and animals (Genesis 3:16-17), and so genetic manipulation is not beyond his ability. The Bible has a lot to say about the people who have committed the unforgivable sin and become God’s enemies, and it can be found throughout the Scripture. Cain committed the unforgivable sin and was a child of the Devil and so were the sons of Eli the High Priest (1 Samuel 2:12).
Some people who have greatly sinned or been very angry with God are afraid they have committed the unforgivable sin, so it is worth repeating that if a person desires to repent and follow Jesus then they have not committed that sin. In the Bible, the children of the Devil are enemies of God and they reflect the Devil’s nature. They are envious, murderers, liars, and show no genuine godly concern for humankind (Genesis 4:8-9; 1 John 3:12). They lead people away from God and into idolatry or false systems of worship (Deuteronomy 13:13); they rape, murder, and instigate wars (Judges 19:22-28; 20:11-14); they blaspheme God and the things of God (1 Samuel 2:12-17); they lie (1 Kings 21:10, 13), and they resent godly leadership and work to weaken it (1 Samuel 10:27; 2 Samuel 20:1); they sow division (1 Samuel 30:22; 2 Chronicles 13:7). They do the works of the Devil (John 8:44) and try to pervert the ways of God (Acts 13:10), and they work to make it hard for people to obey God (Matthew 15:3-9; Luke 11:46). Children of the Devil will never repent, so believers should follow Christ’s guidance and leave them alone. In contrast, if a person wants to repent and follow Jesus, they are not a child of the Devil.
“blasphemy...blasphemy” The Greek noun blasphēmia (#988 βλασφημία), and the verb blasphēmeō (#987 βλασφημέω) are transliterated (not translated) from the Greek into English as “blasphemy.” “Blasphemy” in English has a different meaning than blasphēmeō and blasphēmia do in Greek. In English, “blasphemy” is only used in reference to God. It's insulting God or a god, insulting something considered sacred (like defacing a cross or statue of Jesus) or falsely claiming to be God or a god in some way. However, in Greek, blasphēmia and blasphēmeō did not have to refer to God or a god, but were common words that were used of someone speaking against another, slandering or insulting them. The primary meaning of them as they were used in the Greek culture was showing disrespect to a person or deity, and or harming his, her, or its reputation. In the honor shame society of the biblical world, that was even more heinous an act than we would think of it today because honor and reputation were at the very core of societal status and were the basis of all social interaction.
If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it
Jesus spent time telling his disciples about the new relationship he would have with them after he would be resurrected (John 14:1-4, 18, 28; 16:5-7, 16). For example, he told them they could ask him for things, that he would not leave them as orphans, and he would now call them “friends” not servants. One of the clearest points of Scripture that supports prayer to Jesus is John 14:14. Jesus taught “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” The manuscript evidence supports the word “me” in John 14:14 being in the original text. Modern textual scholars have concluded that scribes left the word "me" out of the text or changed “me” to “the Father" and this explains why “me” is not in the King James Version because the manuscripts used in making the King James did not have the word “me” in it. However, the weight of the manuscript evidence supports the word “me” being original, which is why almost all modern versions include it. Jesus telling his disciples that they could ask him for anything after his resurrection certainly fits with the scope of Scripture, since Jesus knew that he was about to be given great authority as the Son of God. Jesus telling his disciples they could ask him for things after his ascension is clearly seen in both Acts and the Epistles.
Another reason to pray to Jesus is because he's now both Lord and Christ (Acts 10:36; Romans 10:12), and the very essence of “lordship” is being in charge and running things. That is why the Greek word for “Lord” was used for rulers, landowners, and heads of households. Jesus is Lord because he is God’s “right-hand man” and is directly in charge of the Church. To be able to do that job, God gave him all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). In order for Jesus to be our “Lord” in any meaningful sense of the word, we have to be able to communicate with him and ask him for stuff. And this is why it is written that we should have “fellowship” with him “…and indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The word “fellowship” in the Greek is [koinōnia] and it's used in several different ways in the New Testament. Fundamentally, it refers to a close association involving mutual interests and sharing; a close relationship characterized by involvement and sharing (Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:3).
Jesus told his followers they are his “friends” [philos] (John 15:13-15). He emphasizes his point by saying that slaves and servants do not know what the Lord does, but friends do. What Jesus said has huge implications for Christians, because Jesus has opened the door for us to be “friends” with him. One of the hallmarks of genuine friendship is that we can ask friends for things. It's quite inconceivable that Jesus would say that those disciples who followed him would be his “friends” but could not be in touch with him. Regular and intimate communication is part of friendship, and it makes perfect sense that we can ask our Lord, Head, Shepherd, and Friend, for whatever we need.
The Greek word [koinōnia] translated into English as "fellowship" has sometimes been defined as “full sharing” which has been more fully explained as “intimate joint participation.” In the Scriptures where people “fellowship” with each other, we can sometimes clearly see there is intimate joint participation. For example, in Acts 2:42, the people were meeting together, eating together, praying together, giving their possessions to one another, and following the apostles’ teaching. In a similar vein, Galatians 2:9 says that James, Peter, and John extended the “right hand of fellowship” to Barnabas and Paul, meaning they jointly and fully shared things among themselves. Also, 1 John 1:3 shows that John told the disciples all about Jesus so they could have “fellowship” intimate joint participation with John and the other apostles who had seen the Lord. In contrast, light has no “fellowship” with darkness because there's no intimate joint participation (2 Cor. 6:14).
Fellowshiping with Jesus Christ deals with “knowing” him (Philippians 3:8, 10). In Philippians, Paul wrote about knowing Jesus, and there is a huge difference between “knowing about” Jesus and actually knowing him. Paul did not just want to “know about” Jesus. In fact, he said he counted any position he could claim in the world to be just dung compared to knowing Christ. Really knowing someone involves personally interacting with the person. In fact, it's difficult to imagine how we could really “know” Christ without personal interaction with him. Christians can personally interact with the Lord Jesus Christ, via the gift of the holy spirit, and part of that interaction certainly includes feeling free to ask him for stuff.
Written by: John W Schoenheit
Edited: by me