Discussion of the 'unforgivable sin' in a text attributed to Ephrem the Syrian

 Discussion of the 'unforgivable sin' in a text attributed to Ephrem the Syrian

In what follows, I quote the English translation of a commentary on Tatian the Syrian (fl. 2nd century) which is attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (fl. 4th century):

"§4 Neither here nor beyond will it be forgiven him. Now our Lord forgave many people their sins freely, and indeed his baptism forgives freely the debts of those who believe. But neither our Lord, however, nor his baptism, could forgive this [sin] in this world, nor could his mercy, which hides in the midst of many good things, and covers over evil things unto the end. For our Lord has not said that [such a sin] will be requited by compensation, but that it will not be freely forgiven. In other words, even if one were to do all kinds of good deeds and be complete in every kind of righteousness, there is no way that this [sin] can be freely forgiven him. [God] will require its retribution in Gehenna. Even David gave his righteousness by way of compensation for the homicide which he had committed. With confidence [I say], "There is no sin that has resisted nor will resist repentance, except this one." But this sin does not prevent a person might be justified eventually (or 'by other things'). When one will have made retribution in Gehenna, [God] will reward him for this in the kingdom. Paul for instance did not blaspheme in this way. 

§5 The [words] that he said, He will be guilty of an eternal sin, mean it will certainly not be forgiven. Take note then of the explanation which is added to the statement, But he will be a debtor (probably an addition by Tatian). That for which a person is in debt must assuredly be repaid. It will certainly not be remitted him. Our Lord made a distinction between retribution and forgiveness. Perhaps then this scar will not become clean. For he did not say that he will be a sinner, or an evildoer, or an unjust eperson, but that he will be a debtor. You can polish silver and cleanse it with water, and without the use of fire. But only with fire can you really purify it. Likewise, He wil not be forgiven, neither here nor beyond.

Perhaps this word envisages only the latter time and does not refer to today? They saw him clother with a body, and yet many were in doubt concerning him. But they had nothing upon which to base an idea, in the case of the Spirit. This is why [he said], Whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever [speaks] against the Spirit will not be forgiven: neither in this world nor in the next will he be forgiven. Perhaps two retributions are being spoken of, namely, he will be smitten here, and tormented there? Not all transgressions will receive retribution here. But those who have blapshehme will be punished both here and hereafter, as in the case of Iscariot, all of whose entrails were poured out. 

§6 See, Peter shows that this happened to [Judas] as though through the anger [of God]. But this was applicable only to those blaphemers at that time. Those who do so today are not aware that they are blaspheming. Repentance therefore is possible for every one alive. But [in the case of] the one who is incable of it, it would be better for him if he had not been born. 

All sinners can then obtain forgiveness through repentance, whether they have sinned with knowledge, or without knowledge. Our Lord will not say, "He will not obtain mercy" but, it will not be forgiven him. For it can happen when one has made retribution for one's debt here, one may obtain mercy in the other world. If the judge does not forgive, he shows how great the fault of the transgressor. But if he forgives through mercy, he shows how great is the grace of the Good One, of him in whom the fullness [of grace] dwells. It is not that [God] does not forgive them if they repent, but rather it is Satan who does not allow them repent of this blapshemy. It was while I was not aeare that I did thise things. Therefore, it is concering who do know that he said, It will not forgiven them. Judas Iscariot testified that the remorse of his soul was not accepted. 

Because they had made [the Lord] into an associate with demons, he divided their lot for them among the demons. There is no expiation for a demon, either in this world or in the one to come. For the demon said, You are the Holy One of God. But these others said, There is an unclean spirit in him. It is fitting therefore that these be cursed more than demons. In all sins there must be some kind of corresponding blasphemy. But with this kind of blasphemy there is impudence with knowledge. For they know that [God has decreed], concerning those who [blaspheme] knowingly, that it will not be forgiven them. For these Jews had decided to reject, not anyone who would have called him a demon, but whomever would have called him Messiah. [This was] so that you would know this blasphemy was unnecessary. Consequently this blasphemy is beyond forgiveness." (Commentary to the Diatasseron, 10:4-6, attributed to Ephrem the Syrian; translated of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 by Carmel McCarthy)



 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). There is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the cont...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html An updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/on-presence-of-universalism-in-east.html  A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Ch...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone doesn’t exclude an universalist...
Read more