Q&A 46: When were the Gospels written?
Vern Peterman · Nov 28, 2010
Questions & Answers, No. 47
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926220357932

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Today is one of those days when we have a trio of questions. Oh, by the way, answers, too. OK, just so you know. A trio of questions and answers. The trio of questions and answers, we'll have it on the handout at the bottom of the page. Q&A 46, when were the Gospels written? Q&A 47, why did Jesus tell the disciples to ask anything that will be done? And then Q&A 48, what is blasphemy? It doesn't matter how loud I yell, if the microphone isn't turned on, it just doesn't work. Okay, all right. So we have that trio of questions here. Let's take a look at the first one. When were the Gospels written? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John don't have a date written on them.

Our system of dating, known as the Gregorian calendar, didn't come about until recent centuries and wasn't widely and universally accepted until actually less than a century ago. Interestingly enough. Now, can you think of a reason why would the Gregorian calendar take so long to be universally accepted? Such that even in the last century, there was not universal acceptance. Who is Gregory? a Pope, right? And does everybody listen to what the Pope says? Are there those who are motivated to say, Pope said it? And it is, in fact, while having some objectivity, is also just an arbitrary standard. And so you could understand why there would be some resistance to just simply embracing the calendar.

Nonetheless, there wasn't any such thing, and so Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew and then put his name at the end and put a date within our system, because it didn't even exist. Nonetheless, there is a date or range of possible dates for authorship assigned to each Gospel, and it does become a biblical issue. What would be the problem, for example, if I said that the Gospel of Matthew was not written until after 100 A.D.? What would be the biblical issue there? Yes, the original Apostle Matthew would almost certainly not be alive after 100 A.D., right?

And so that means that instead of being document written by Matthew an eyewitness of most or many of these things. Instead what would you have? You would have somebody who is pretending to be Matthew. You would have somebody who was writing things that were not eyewitness testimony and wouldn't necessarily have a basis in eyewitness testimony. See the difference there? So that's the That's the issue. If we date them much later, you're not talking about eyewitnesses.

And the claim of the Gospels, they're written as if they were written by those who are either eyewitnesses or who had access to the eyewitnesses. So that is why dating the Gospels later becomes a biblical issue. because it gets to the point of what is historical, what is truth, what is actually taking place and what was witnessed. So any date of any gospel that would place that gospel outside the range of drawing on eyewitness testimony would undermine the historical veracity and truthfulness of the gospel account.

The one gospel that does not portray itself as being written by a direct eyewitness but by someone who spoke to eyewitnesses and drew upon historical documents is the Gospel of Luke. Dr. Luke, quite probably the only Gentile author of any part of scripture, of any book of scripture. Dr. Luke who wrote over a quarter of the New Testament between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. writes this in the first four verses of Gospel of Luke chapter 1. In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

Now, does that sound like someone who was relying on eyewitness accounts? Hm? Okay, relying on eyewitness accounts. Yes, right? Say, relying on eyewitness accounts, yes. He didn't, in this case, claim to be an eyewitness, but he checked things out carefully. Was Luke saying, I'll take anybody who says anything about Jesus and write it down? Is that what he was saying? No. And why not? What did he do? He investigated everything carefully.

John Mauck, who is an attorney in the Chicago area, wrote a book in which he puts forth this idea, and I think it has some backing, although it's not universally accepted. About ten years ago, John Mock wrote a book in which he put forth the idea that Theophilus, and by the way we know nothing of Theophilus aside from these two books, Luke and Acts, Theophilus was a Roman legal official. And Dr. Luke was writing the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts as a legal defense on behalf of Paul. Very interesting.

So that would fit with carefully assessing everything because everything could be checked out. In other words, if Luke wrote something that was demonstrably false, then his support of Paul through these documents would be pitched, right? It would end up being for nothing. So instead, what did he do? He started off his letter saying we have checked out everything carefully. He didn't claim to be an eyewitness, but he did talk about carefully examining everything.

As someone with some degree of professional training, he was a medical doctor by training, Carefully examining all the documents, talking to people personally, in the Book of Acts we even have a quote of a Roman military letter which indicates that he quoted from this Roman military letter from the centurion in Jerusalem to the Roman officials over in Caesarea. So Dr. Luke appears to be one who has checked everything out carefully.

This is what we find in the first few verses of the epistle of 1 John. So this is 1 John, not the Gospel of John, although there are some comparisons. It reads this way. What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands concerning the word of life and the life was manifested and we have been seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also so that you too may have fellowship with us and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

These things we write so that our joy may be made complete. It's certainly clear, especially towards the end of those words, that John has a spiritual motivation and purpose for his writing. But what else do you gather from reading John's words there in 1 John? What do you gather about the character of what he writes so far as its reliability and value as testimony?

Yeah, he witnessed it. And not only he witnessed it, but what pronoun do you keep seeing in there? Pardon? Yeah, we. Our, right? He is not saying, this is what I saw, and just simply leaving it at that. But he puts in pronouns repeatedly that make reference to the idea of multiple eyewitness testimony. Okay.

There are those of course, as I'm looking at the last paragraph on that first page, there are those of course who are motivated by their underlying belief systems, that is they are, as we've said in the past, minimalists. to conclude that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by those who had access to eyewitness testimony. Those who hold to a minimalist belief system are therefore strongly inclined to date the Gospels late enough to preclude content based upon access to eyewitness testimony. Let me ask you this.

If you are someone who believes from the outset, there is no way you are going to be convinced that Christ rose from the dead. That's not going to happen, right? Are you going to date the Gospels and have an assessment of the Gospels that is consistent with people testifying as eyewitness testimony of Christ's resurrection? You are going to be motivated by your assumption, which by the way is unverifiable, right? You're going to be motivated strongly by your assumption to provide a date for the Gospels that keeps those Gospels from being eyewitness testimony.

And your assumption, which cannot be scientifically verified, that there is no possibility of a resurrection, will drive your dating. Because you could not possibly allow that multiple eyewitnesses, as many as Paul said, 500, were witnesses to Christ as a resurrected being. You could not allow that. So the only way that you're going to be able to date the Gospels is to date them way after the times that they claim so that there's no eyewitness testimony.

Now, is that based on science and evidence? No, it is not. It is based on the assumption and everything you conclude after that, no matter how technical it appears and no matter how sophisticated it may seem to be, everything will be driven by your unverifiable assumption. Everything.

And so you're going to come up with a date that fits with the idea that there is no way. No way that these people are actually testifying as eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. And you would have no choice if you're given that assumption. The problem comes that that person who expresses that won't come to you and tell you honestly, that's what I'm assuming. What they will do is come to you and tell you there's no way that these are valid historical testimony. And it'll all be based on their assumptions, which can never be scientifically verified, not upon the evidence. Okay, let's take a look at page two. What I have on the top of page two are a few different date assignments for each of the Gospels. And let me go over who each of them are. Charles Ryrie is, last I heard, still alive. I met him a few years ago. And these are dates that he's put in the Ryrie Study Bible. He is a scholar of both American and British training.

And so these are the dates that he gives for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. except for Luke, he tends to give a range of dates. F.F. Bruce, Frederick Fivey Bruce, a University of Manchester professor, a Christian, who's now home with the Lord, assigned these dates 40, 45, and 54. And then Wenham is another British scholar, assigned similar dates, very consistent with F.F. Bruce. J.A.T. Robinson, some of you may recall, there was a theme that came out a few decades back, God is Dead. You remember that? Some of you may. He is the author of that book.

However, In looking at the dates for the Gospels, he said, aside from anything else, there is this significant fact that the New Testament documents, Gospels included, do not seem to reflect, with the Gospel of Luke being one exception, they do not seem to reflect the impact of the Roman invasion of Israel and Jerusalem. They don't even seem to be written as if that had taken place. And there were a number of changes that took place as a result of that that aren't reflected there.

Therefore, Robinson, who was not a conservative, just simply said, based on that historical observation and fact and what we know, he gave actually fairly early dates for the Gospels, even though he was a theological and historical liberal. more of a minimalist in mindset. Nonetheless, here are the dates that he gave.

My own inclination is to look towards earlier dates. I don't see a reason for the earlier dates not to be valid. The only exception I might have to that is if Dr. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts as a one- and two-part, basically pair of books, As a part of the Apostle Paul's legal defense, then a date of about 60 or 61 AD would be fitting. Other than that, I think the earlier dates for Matthew and Mark and John are the likely dates. You will, of course, find those who date the Gospels at a later point in time.

The reason for their doing so has not to do with the evidence, but their presuppositions. And the presuppositions that cannot be verified scientifically. Presuppositions like, it is not possible that Jesus fed 5,000 people with just a few fish and loaves. It is not possible that Christ was resurrected.

Those kinds of assumptions are the basis for the later date. Now, a couple of things that keep them from dating way, way, way late. Those couple of things that keep them from dating these things way, way, way late is one, we begin in the second century to have copies of these documents. Right? So when you have copies of the documents, and they're copies, not originals, that puts an absolute stop on how late you can date them. That's part one. Part two is you begin to have second century authors who write about the Gospels. And we have copies of those. So we have two fairly hard lines that keep them from dating them way, way late, and that's based on evidence. So what typically happens is they push the date as late as they possibly can without bumping into the other written evidence that we have.

There's something else that happens here, and when the Romans came in in AD 70, it radically changed Jewish culture in Israel. Some of the radical changes that took place in AD 70 when the Romans came in and basically wiped out Jerusalem tore down the temple, wrecked a good portion of the walls and things of that sort.

Some of the things that took place is that was the end of the Sadducees. The Sadducees were all centered around the temple and so when the temple was wiped out and the Sadducees weren't, they didn't live anywhere else except around the temple, that was the end of the Sadducees. That's why there's Sadducee. So, end of the Sadducees, that's part one.

Something else, very interesting, God made promises to Jacob, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob and Esau were twins born at the same time. But Jacob is the one who got God's promises. AD 70 is the last recorded historical documentation for the line of Esau. The last one. Whereas the descendants of Jacob are still present and have their own nation and identifiable ethnic existence. So anyway, there are some radical changes that took place.

Let me ask you this, if the Sadducees completely dropped out of existence at 70 AD, why would people decades later be writing about them? Would they even know about them? Would they know all the details? For example, the high priest, who is identified as the high priest in the Gospel of John, had a servant named Malchus, and John recorded that detail. Would he record such detail if it were writing decades later, and if it weren't written by an eyewitness?

Not likely. Not likely. Okay. The last paragraph there in that question reads like this, Faith is not believing what you know isn't true. nor belief because of ignorance, but faith has a foundation in historicity, historical reality. The preface by Dr. Luke and the Apostle John, quoted above, are of that very character. They are written as things that actually took place. They are written as things that were historical reality. Okay. Comments, questions, exasperations, inspirations, perspiration. No, never mind. Yeah? Thoughts? Comments? Yes. Yeah.

I think to give it some timing, Luke wrote probably three decades after the events of the Gospel. Probably about three decades later. So it would be about, for example, if one of us here this morning were to write about things that took place in 1980. Could you do that? Yeah. Could someone who was, say, born in 1980, write with historical reliability, carefully, about things that took place in 1980?

They could, couldn't they? They could. Not as eyewitnesses, not as eyewitnesses, but as someone who talks to eyewitnesses, who examines documents, You could do that, and that's really a comparable thing to what Dr. Luke did. He did not write as an eyewitness, the indication isn't that, except in places towards the end of Acts where he puts we and our, those kinds of things. So he writes as an eyewitness there, but at least as far as the Gospel of Luke is concerned, it appears to be entirely a collection of his careful examination of documents and talking to eyewitnesses. Those two things.

Why did the Romans destroy the Jerusalem Temple? What was taking place is, even around the time of Christ, rebellions were taking place at approximately six-year intervals. About the time Christ was born, there were tax revolts. taking that at about six-year intervals, and interestingly enough, they originated around Galilee. Galilee was actually the center of the Jewish tax revolt. They were revolting because Herod was taxing the Jews in huge part, and you had money going to Rome, money going to Herod, and Herod spent money like crazy. Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Herod spent money like crazy and he wanted to get it all out of the Jews.

He even volunteered in 12 BC to fund the Olympics at the Jews' expense. He started in 20 BC a rebuilding of the temple which was major and wasn't completed until a little bit after 60 AD. So it was an 80 plus year long project to rebuild the temple. He built fortresses, Herodium, just east of Bethlehem is one of those. He built another marine harbor and fortress called Caesarea over on the coast, all at the expense of the Jews.

The Jews were getting sick of it. There was more and more revolt. And in fact, that's one of the reasons the Jews tried to squeeze Jesus on the subject. You know, hey, should we pay taxes to Caesar? Because the tax issue was getting big. and people were just getting taxed to death. Add to that that we talk about tithing, and the tithe means a tenth. The reality is that the Jews, depending on your income level and what happened that year, would typically pay 25 to 33 percent of their money for supporting the Levites and paying the temple taxes and everything else. And keeping Herod happy and keeping Rome happy on top of that was immensely expensive. Hugely expensive. And for people that were just barely making it, that was really tough.

So, by the time 66 AD came around, the Jews had begun to revolt. They actually broke into Antonia Fortress where Jesus had been brought before Pilate. and sentenced. They broke into Antonia Fortress, which was the Roman fortress just right connected to the north end of the temple area and wiped out the Roman army that was there. The Jews revolted in Caesarea over on the coast. That's the city that Herod basically had built.

And there was a huge battle between the Jews and the Romans there. There were waves of Roman retribution that finally culminated in 70 AD. I think it was late summer, as I recall. When the Romans came in, they brought in 12 legions. They brought in soldiers as far away as from Britain to just pound the Jews for this, because this was something they wanted to have a lesson taught.

And in the end, they ended up taking the temple apart entirely. They dumped all the stones from the temple off the edge, and those have been more recently discovered by archaeologists. Even one and a half of the warning signs at the gates, you know, Gentiles don't go past this point, have been found. Some other inscriptions have been found from the temple. So some of the temple ruins have in fact been found.

But the Romans basically, they wanted severe retribution and that's why they brought in these 12 legions. The death of the various people, Jews included, as a result of that Roman invasion and victory involved hundreds of thousands who were killed during that kind of final conflagration. And it's debated as to how it took place, but the temple, what was burnable, was lit on fire. The account goes that the soldiers were prying rocks and the stones apart to get the gold that was melting. So anyway, it was basically the Romans had waves of retribution, but the final one was a biggie. and it was one that oppressed the Jews, that temple was the last one and nothing has been restored of it. Anyway, does that sufficiently answer your question?

Yeah. So when it says, for example, that the Gospel of Matthew was written in 40, does that mean not a single word was written down? I think there's two things. If you look at it, Here's the Gospel of Matthew. One is it's quite possible that there were smaller writings that were recorded. People would collect smaller bits and use those. Luke seemed to make reference to some people who had written other things, and he didn't just say the other Gospels. So some people had written some things. That's part one. So the evidence is, one, partially in writing. The other thing is looking at the cultural background of the disciples during the time of Christ. The cultural background would have been a disciple would drill and they would drill one another on what their rabbi had said.

And so this oral tradition, for example, if I were to come to you and I would start saying I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of most of the Americas." You would say, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, right? I just oopsed, right? And why? It's because we have an oral tradition, at least for what I just said, that we know it word for word. And if I start throwing in most of the Americas, you're going to go, eh, eh, wrong thing. And this is the way that they would memorize things.

You can imagine, here are the disciples. They're getting up. Some of them are just getting up, and they're looking over. Here's a few of the disciples over on the shore, and they're pacing back and forth with each other. And they're drilling on what has been said.

As a point of comparison, my brother who's a pastor in California and knows a fellow who has worked over in Sudan, in the Sudan, and there are Christians there. Because the Sudanese government officially persecutes Christians, pastors are actually hard to come by because that's the first person they try to kill. And so a lot of times it'll be six to eight weeks between the times that pastors will come.

And so when my brother's friend went over there as a guest to speak, he was surprised. When he arrived at 6 a.m., there had been believers there since 4 a.m. praying for him. And he gave the message. And as soon as he was done with the message, some people took him away to show him some hospitalities and give him something to eat and things of that sort. The rest of the people for the rest of the day drilled on memorizing what the pastor just said. And that would be what they would speak to one another for the next six to eight weeks until another pastor came.

My point is this, I'm not necessarily making recommendations, but my point is this, that in an oral culture, over in like for example Uganda, it's still an oral culture, And we have aspects where we, too, are an oral culture. But in oral cultures, there's a much greater reliance upon memorizing significant things. We tend to do less of that being more of a literary culture. We don't memorize what we can look up.

Pardon? Yes, and we have MP3s. Whereas, we still, even in our culture though, have things where I can start to recite to you the Pledge of Allegiance, and if I start throwing something screwy in there, you're going to know right away that I've oopsed.

And it's not because you have the written document in front of you. Four score and seven and a half years ago, our forefathers, all I did is I threw something in there and you're going, you know, right? Why? It's because we in common have that together and it wouldn't matter if it was in writing in front of us or not. We would have that down. And so anyway, that's the other part to the answer to your question.

In an oral culture, much more of that kind of mindset's in place so that when they would recite something, all the other disciples are going to go, you know, you've got something wrong. And that's one of the reasons they're drilling each other was in part that common memorization that they had between them. So, partially by written documents, partially by things that they had as a group memorized. Does that answer the question? So that would explain why you would have, you know, here's the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, And you have some things that are in common between them, and in great part you'll see some commonality in those words, oftentimes verbatim between them.

And it's because of not just, here's what we have in writing, but here's what we have orally, because memorization is the key. And a good disciple knows what that document says. Just like if I start quoting some document out of our own American history and I goof, you know right away. You all know right away that I goofed on it. Why? It's because we have less of that, but still there's a tendency to have certain words fixed in our minds that we know we don't deviate from that. Other questions? Comments? Inspirations?

You said the Temple was destroyed twice. I don't believe so. I said there were waves of attack upon the Jews. But we know it was destroyed in 70 A.D. Yes, 70 A.D. Yes, there was a previous temple, Solomon's temple, that was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar about 586. Some will argue a year or two, but about 586 BC the temple was destroyed. The one built by Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian ruler and conqueror. Okay, let's move on to the next question now that we've blown out our time.

Okay, why did Jesus tell the disciples to ask anything and it will be done? Here's John 15, 7. If you abide in me and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be done for you. Okay? I'm at page 2 under question Q&A 47. Okay? Middle of page 2, Q&A 47.

What did Jesus tell the disciples? Why did Jesus tell the disciples? Ask anything and it will be done. So I just quoted John 15, 7. The disciples were specifically given the ability to perform signs and wonders and miracles as a validation of their appointment as apostles. 2 Corinthians 12, 12. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance by signs and wonders and miracles. The signs of a true apostle.

So, did Jesus say, ask anything that will be done for you so that all Christians could simply have God as a genie? I'll grant you three wishes, and after that I'll grant you three more, and after that I'll grant you three more, and like that. Is that God's intent? No, it isn't. He told the disciples that, and let's turn to page three here.

We have other references there, Acts 2.43, 4.30, 5.12, all through the book of Acts and then on into Romans and Galatians, and evidence that these guys carried out miraculous events.

Not by just saying, maybe the Lord will do it, but just simply they said it and it was done. Hebrews 2, 3, and 4 says, After it, that is the great salvation, was at first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard. God also testifying with them both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. So there was the Lord Himself testifying and there was the disciples who also confirmed what they were doing with signs and wonders and miracles.

There is in the middle of the page there, in page 3, Acts 3, 1-8, for the sake of time I'm going to pass over it, but I will point this out. What we find recorded in the book of Acts is this. Every time the disciples wished to perform a miracle, was it sort of a, let's see if this works, let's find out, I'll ask the Lord and maybe he will and maybe he won't.

Here's Peter, he finds a man who is lame from birth, who by the way, Jesus probably passed up many times. I can imagine Jesus walking by and saying, don't worry Peter, I'll get you later. Or at least thinking that. So here's Jesus, passed by this lame man. Why? Because Peter would come up to this guy And he didn't come up and say, you know, maybe the Lord will heal you. It would be nice. We'll see if He does that. He says, I don't have any gold or silver, but what I do have I'll give to you.

In the name of Jesus Christ, let's see if you can walk. In the name of Jesus Christ, it would be really nice if He would heal you. No. In the name of Jesus Christ, stand up and walk. Absolute response. He could say it with confidence. Why? Christ told him he could.

Did that mean that the disciples, these apostles, as they were sent out, when they were put in prison, that they automatically got released just as soon as they demanded that the Lord release them? Does that mean that the disciples got the rest of their life in ease? No, it did not.

What happened to Paul? We studied in 2 Corinthians. He asked three times for the Lord to do what? to remove this thorn in the flesh. We don't know what it was, but it was something that apparently was bothersome to Paul. And the Lord said, nope, you need that. Your miracles of signs and wonders out there is to verify to people and to validate your appointment as an apostleship. But you're doing signs and wonders and miracles is for that purpose, not so that you can go through a life of ease that never has any frustration or pain. As a matter of fact, when Paul came to know the Lord, Acts chapter 9, one of the things that the Lord told Ananias was he will find out how much he must suffer for my name.

Not at all. Paul gets to ask anything he wants and gets out of any trouble and difficulty that he would like. But rather, that Paul is validating his appointment as an apostle for that purpose. Right? For that purpose. Okay. Because of our short period of time, I'll let you investigate that. There is a chart of spiritual gifts. on the backside. And question 48, which is on page 5.

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? This originally comes up in Matthew 12, 31 and 32. Therefore I say to you, and this is Christ speaking, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people. Isn't that interesting? Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people. but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, even in this age or in the age to come."

Most specifically, the context here, and this is what the first paragraph addresses, the context here is that the Jewish leaders had just attributed Christ's miraculous acts to Satan. So that specific kind of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is now no longer possible, because Christ himself is not present in order to do that. However, a broader blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is a turning away of the ultimate ministry of the Holy Spirit, is simply unbelief. Why would I say that? What is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to unbelievers? What ministry does the Holy Spirit carry out right now in the hearts and minds of unbelievers? Well, comforter and guide is to believers. Conviction. Yes, that's right on. What we make reference to here is in John chapter 16, 16, 8 through 11, speak of conviction. That is another word you could use in there is convincing.

So there's a ministry of the Holy Spirit to unbelievers and if a person absolutely and utterly turns that away, they have lost the one capacity to have their hearts changed. Does the sin nature by itself want to believe in the things necessary for salvation? Does the sin nature have any inclination to believe that Christ died for the sins of all, was buried and rose again? Not in the least. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit that there is an exception to what the sin nature is inclined to do.

The Holy Spirit convicts the hearts and convinces the hearts of unbelievers. But if a person is completely cauterized and sealed off from that ministry of the Holy Spirit, there's no way for them to ever come to a place of salvation. So the ultimate blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to turn away that one ministry of convincing and convicting.

So, anyway, that is the ultimate. The specific context is what the Jewish leaders were doing and saying, Jesus, your miracles are done by Satan. That was in the context that we see that spoken in. But the ultimate context, which applies now, is that the Holy Spirit is the one who works in an ongoing ministry in the heart of the unbeliever.

But it is possible to come to a place where that ministry ends, and that person will ultimately die, as Jesus put it in John chapter 8, will die in their sins. They will not be convicted, they will not be convinced, and they will carry out the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which will result in their unbelief. What they are doing is saying, I don't want Jesus to pay for my sins, I'd rather pay for my own. Right? I'd rather pay for my own. Yes? Yeah, ultimately it's that.

I think one of the things that's interesting is that while what you say is true, the Holy Spirit is one of the members of the Trinity, this particular issue has to do with what is the role of the Holy Spirit. Very interestingly, here is the Son who died for our sins and was buried and rose again, who took the price of our sins upon Himself, and Jesus says, that blasphemy will be forgiven. or can be, but the one who will not receive and essentially cuts themselves off from the ministry of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. Why? It's because the one possibility for their heart to be changed is turned away, is denied. And so, while certainly the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of the Trinity, three personal beings, one essence, And that part is absolutely true.

It's also a matter of looking at what is the role of each. And in this case, the Holy Spirit is the one who has the capacity to change a heart. Woe to the person who turns away that capacity to change a heart. That's the one influence upon the will, apart from which there is no salvation. Even though Christ died for sins, the heart that turns away the ministry of the Holy Spirit can't recognize it, can't possibly see it.

We've run way out of time, so let's pray. Thank you, Lord, for the clarity of your word. Thank you for your answers to these good questions. And we thank you for your faithfulness. And we just entrust everything to you in the remaining course of today. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.