John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 1:13

"though I was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief;" — 1 Timothy 1:13 (ASV)

Who was formerly a blasphemer and persecutor; a blasphemer against God, a persecutor and oppressor against the Church. We see how candidly he acknowledges that this might be brought against him as a reproach, and how far he is from diminishing his sins. By willingly acknowledging his unworthiness, he magnifies the greatness of God’s grace. Not satisfied with having called himself a “persecutor,” he intended to express his rage and cruelty more fully by an additional term, an oppressor.

Because I did it ignorantly in unbelief, “I obtained pardon,” he said, “for my unbelief, because it stemmed from ignorance”; for persecution and oppression were simply the fruits of unbelief.

But he appears to imply that there is no room for pardon unless ignorance can be pleaded as an excuse. What then? Will God never pardon anyone who has sinned knowingly? I reply, we must observe the word unbelief, for this term limits Paul’s statement to the first table of the law. Transgressions of the second table, although they are voluntary, are forgiven; but the one who knowingly and willingly breaks the first table sins against the Holy Spirit, because he is in direct opposition to God. He does not err through weakness but, by rushing wickedly against God, gives sure proof of his reprobation.

From this, a definition of the sin against the Holy Spirit can be derived:

1. First, it is open rebellion against God in the transgression of the first table.
2. Secondly, it is a malicious rejection of the truth, for when God’s truth is not rejected through deliberate malice, the Holy Spirit is not resisted.
3. Lastly, unbelief is here used as a general term, and malicious intent, which is contrasted with ignorance, may be regarded as the distinguishing factor.

Accordingly, those who consider the sin against the Holy Spirit to consist in the transgression of the second table are mistaken, as are those who pronounce blind and thoughtless violence to be so heinous a crime. For people commit the sin against the Holy Spirit when they undertake a voluntary war against God to extinguish the light of the Spirit that has been offered to them. This is shocking wickedness and monstrous audacity.

Nor is there room for doubting that, by an implied threatening, he intended to terrify all who had once been enlightened not to stumble against the truth they knew, because such a fall is destructive and fatal. For if, because of ignorance, God forgave Paul’s blasphemies, those who knowingly and intentionally blaspheme should not expect any pardon.

But it may be thought that what he now says serves no purpose, for unbelief, which is always blind, can never be without ignorance. I reply, among unbelievers some are so blind that they are deceived by a false notion of the truth; in others, while they are blinded, malice still prevails. Paul was not altogether free from a wicked disposition, but he was carried away by thoughtless zeal, so that he thought what he did was right. Thus he was an adversary of Christ, not from deliberate intention, but through mistake and ignorance.

The Pharisees, who through a bad conscience slandered Christ, were not entirely free from mistake and ignorance. However, they were instigated by ambition, base hatred of sound doctrine, and even furious rebellion against God. Consequently, maliciously and intentionally, and not in ignorance, they set themselves in opposition to Christ.