Thanks for joining in. Your input is welcome.
Do you get from the passage in Matt.12 that these pharisees were not going to find forgiveness in this world, nor would they find it in the world to come? Had they asked for forgiveness, would Jesus change His mind?
Hebrews 12
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
Was that different than the Apostle Paul, who rejected Jesus Christ??? Was it different than the Apostle Peter who denied he even knew Jesus???
Is there a difference in ALL MANNER OF SIN AND BLASPHEMY and BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY GHOST? Are these on an equal footing, because transgression of the law in one point is to be guilty of all the law?
Mat 12 has been talked about a lot, as you know. Most people seem to think that God will always accept repentance. If a sin is mortal, it means that it prevents the person from ever wanting to repent. Heb 6:4 refers to such a situation. Note that is says specifically that after that kind of apostasy, repentance is impossible.
Mat 12 could certainly be referring to such a situation, but I dont think its clear. Rejecting Christ in the form of attributing his work to Satan, will damn in the world to come. Perhaps this form of rejecting him reflects such a definitive rejection that one can never repent, i.e. its a Heb 6:4 situation. But I dont think its clear that Mat 12 is saying that.
The question you ask, however, is whether there is a situation that damns you even if you repent. (You say, if Jesus will change his mind if you ask for forgiveness.) I dont think Heb 12:17 says that. It says
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
The problem is the it near the end. Did Esau seek to repent and find it wasnt accepted (reading it as repentance) or did he seek to get back his inheritance and find he couldnt because he hadnt repented (reading it as a reference to the blessing). Either is possible. I would prefer to read it in a way that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, which teaches that God will accept repentant sinners. Hence I understand the passage to say even though he sought the blessing with tears.
This is consistent with Calvins interpretation by the way, which is that Esau was upset at the loss of his blessing, but hadnt seriously sought to repent. that repentance here is not to be taken for sincere conversion to God; but it was only that terror with which the Lord smites the ungodly, after they have long indulged themselves in their iniquity.
I would say that the difference from Paul and Peter is that both of them repented.
Note that Esau wasnt just immoral. He was godless, which is a rejection of Christ. KJV translates profane. This doesnt mean that he used bad words, but that he was irreligious. The first definition in dictionary.com is characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious. The passage explicitly says that Esau didnt repent (whether because he chose not to, or if you adopt the other reading, because he was unable to). Thats not true of either Paul and Peter.
While its not directly relevant to the issue here, the passage may well imply that he didnt repent because God didnt give him that gift. Heres something from the Word commentary on this passage:
The idiom τόπος μετανοίας [place of repentance] is strongly attested as a technical expression in teaching on repentance. It signifies an objective possibility for repentance granted by God.
If youre of the Calvinist persuasion, a reasonable conclusion may be that we shouldnt look for exactly how far you have to go to be beyond repentance. Rather, you should attribute the difference between Esau (and the Pharisees) and Paul and Peter to Gods plan.
