What is blasphemy against the Spirit?

Explanation:

Jesus starts Matthew 12:31 with therefore, which means that he wanted his audience to connect his statements about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with what precedes it.⁶ Thus, reviewing what precedes Jesus’ comments will help us understand what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. First, we learn in Matthew 12:22 that Jesus heals a blind and dumb man who had a demon. The miracle is clear evidence that Jesus works in conjunction with the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28). Instead of recognizing that Jesus can perform deeds that align with the Spirit of God, the Pharisees suggest he casts out demons by demons (Matthew 12:24). The Pharisees’ blatant denial of the truth reflects their hatred for Jesus, which implies a hatred for God. Jesus points this out to them, explaining that demons cannot cast out demons, so Jesus works in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:25–26). Then comes our text where Jesus warns, If you know that you have witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit, and you call the Holy Spirit a demon, you will not be forgiven. In other words, conscious, willful rejection of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.⁷

Counterargument:

While it is true that Jesus uses therefore to connect Matthew 12:31–32 with what precedes, he is not explicit about what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Second, we know that God’s grace abounds and that the Holy Spirit is God himself. So does not the notion that there is an unforgivable sin contradict the boundless love and grace of God? Third, it’s not at all clear that the Pharisees were evil, aside from Matthew’s portrayal of them. Most likely the Pharisees harassed the early Matthean community so that they are portrayed negatively in the gospel.⁸ All of this to say that while Jesus connects Matthew 12:31–32 with therefore, what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit remains elusive.

Response to counterargument:

There are multiple problems with this counterargument. First, Jesus has cast out demons by the power of the Spirit, and the Pharisees suggest that Jesus casts out demons by the power of demons. In other words, the Pharisees have called the Spirit a demon. If such behaviour is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, what is?

Second, no one denies that God’s grace abounds, but so does his justice. God’s love means that sins are forgiven, and his justice requires that sins are punished. If sins are forgiven by the power of the Spirit, and one denies the Spirit, how could one’s sins be forgiven?

Third, to argue that the Pharisees were historically not at all evil,⁹ while suggesting that Matthew portrays them as evil, has two problems. First, no evidence is offered to show that in fact the Pharisees were not at all evil. Second, such a claim begs the question of the historical reliability of Matthew. For Matthew is an ancient document that offers us insight into the character of the Pharisees as they respond to Jesus’ ministry. And Matthew characterizes them as witnessing that Jesus works in conjunction with the Spirit before calling the Spirit a demon. Why shouldn’t we take Matthew’s account as a historically accurate representation of the Pharisees’ reaction to Jesus’ ministry, unless we are given some reason to think that Matthew is not historically accurate?

Explanation:

To explain that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, Jesus uses synonymous parallelism. That is, he uses two clauses to say essentially the same thing. The first clause is that every sin will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). He then says that sins against the Son of Man will be forgiven, while sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Matthew 12:32). Considering the nuance of Matthew 12:32 helps us understand what Jesus means when speaking of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.¹⁰

We know the context here is that Jesus has healed a blind and dumb person who was demon-possessed. The Pharisees then suggest that he has performed this miracle by the power of demons. He responds by explaining that sins against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but not sins against the Holy Spirit. The implication is that if the Pharisees merely spoke against Jesus, maybe after calling for repentance for the kingdom of God is at hand, they could be forgiven.¹¹ They may not have realized right away that Jesus is God, and such ignorance is forgivable when followed by repentance. Still, once Jesus makes it clear that he has the Spirit of God, for example, by healing the blind and dumb man who was demon-possessed, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Jesus’ divinity has been clearly demonstrated, so that, to say that Jesus heals by the power of demons is to consciously and willfully blaspheme the Holy Spirit.¹² Such a sin is unforgivable.

Counterargument:

Jesus is God, so it is hard to see why there should be any sharp distinction between sinning against Jesus and sinning against the Spirit. In other words, Jesus is not saying that there are myriad sins but one sin that is unforgivable. Rather, he is saying that there is only path to forgiveness and that is through himself. Thus, one can say whatever they want against the Son of Man, as long as they finally repent and accept that forgiveness is only available through him. But if one fails to see that forgiveness is available through the Son of Man, no sins will be forgiven.¹³

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it ignores what the text says. The text says that all sins, even sins against the Son of Man, will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Our view is to take Jesus at his word and try to understand what he means. The argument is that while it is possible to mistake Jesus’ identity, reject him, and be forgiven, once one sees that Jesus is the divine Messiah if one still rejects him, one cannot be forgiven.¹⁴ Such an understanding does justice to the meaning of Jesus’ statement. In other words, Jesus has nothing to say here about failing to notice the Holy Spirit at work. Rather, he has in mind recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit and then calling him a demon.

Possible weaknesses:

The possible weakness of this view is that it assumes the Pharisees have recognized that Jesus works in conjunction with the Spirit. It is possible that their jealousy blinded them such that they could not perceive that Jesus has the Spirit, and suggested he worked by the power of demons because they simply hated him. This is further supported by the fact that the Pharisees do not seem to make it known that they thought Jesus cast out demons by demons. Matthew 12:25 explains that Jesus knew their thoughts and so confronted them on the issue. Still, it could be that the Pharisees were in denial over Jesus’ identity, even having every reason to believe that he worked in conjunction with the Spirit. Further, even if the Pharisees might not have deliberately denied what they knew to be true (that Jesus had the Spirit), his warning stands. The Spirit will show enough of himself that one is responsible for identifying him, and if one does not, one is not forgiven.

Explanation:

God can only save people who understand that good is good and evil is evil. By suggesting that Jesus casts out demons by the power of demons, the Pharisees call what is good evil and what is evil good. In other words, the Pharisees values are completely perverted and there is a lie in their souls. Unfortunately, because God can only save people who understand that good is good, and the Pharisees think that good is evil, their perversion of values has placed them outside the possibility of salvation.¹⁸

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is not clear why God cannot save people with perverted values. In fact, there is a sense in which God can only save people with perverted values because those whose values are not perverted do not need saving. There are many Scripture passages that suggest that God saves those whose values are perverted. For example, in Ephesians 2:1–7 the apostle Paul explains that even when we were dead in our sins and transgressions God made us alive in Jesus Christ. Similarly in Romans 5:6–10 Paul explains that while we were enemies of God Christ died for us. And Jesus himself says that he came to save those whose values are perverted. For example, in Mark 2:17, Jesus explains that he came not for the righteous but the sinner. Further, Paul writes that there is no one who does good, and so if it were true that God only saved those whose values were not perverted, no one would be saved (Romans 3:23).

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument contends that the Pharisees do not remove themselves from participating in Jesus’ ministry simply because their values are perverted, because Scripture says that God freely forgives those whose values are perverted. Maybe we can make a slight adjustment to this interpretation and suggest that what is unforgivable is when someone knows that something is good and yet calls it evil anyway. If one knowingly calls the good evil, one consciously and willfully rejects the good.

Explanation:

Matthew makes it clear in his Gospel that Jesus engaged in a forgiveness project.¹⁹ For example, in Matthew 1:21 an angel tells Joseph that Jesus will save people from their sins. Also, in Matthew 26:28 Jesus tells the disciples that his blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. We also learn that the Holy Spirit is involved in this forgiveness project. In Matthew 3:11 we learn that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit, and in Matthew 3:11 we learn that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that he would have the Spirit. So Jesus is engaged in a forgiveness project, and the Holy Spirit is involved in its execution. This entails that if the Pharisees attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to demons, they exclude themselves from participating in Jesus’ forgiveness project. Of course, if they realize their mistake and repent, they would be forgiven.²⁰

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it does not take seriously the force of the term blasphemy. Jesus does not say that those who fail to recognize the Spirit remove themselves from the forgiveness project. Rather, he says that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this life or the life to come. Blasphemy has to do with slander,²¹ so Jesus’ statement implies that the Pharisees willfully deny that Jesus works in conjunction with the Spirit.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn’t take into consideration the difference between perverse morals and willful perversity. Jesus seems to have in mind willful perversity of the highest degree, which is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. By trying to account for willful perversity, this view ends up collapsing into Interpretation 1.

Explanation:

Jesus says that all sins will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). He then explains that whoever sins against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Matthew 12:32). Although it sounds as though Jesus is saying that there is a myriad of sins that are forgivable and one sin that is not forgivable, this is not the case. Rather, what he says here is that there is only one way to salvation, that is, through Jesus Christ, the Anointed One. In other words, Jesus has the Spirit, and apart from him there is no forgiveness. So whoever misses the one way will become like chaff and burned with unquenchable fire.²²

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it runs counter to the natural meaning of the text. When Jesus says that every sin will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, it sounds an awful lot like Jesus is saying that for all the sins there are, there is only one sin that is unforgivable.

Explanation:

When Jesus says that whoever sins against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but that sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, he means that whoever does not accept that Jesus is the Saviour will not be forgiven. Still, if one repents and acknowledges that Jesus is Lord, one can still be saved. We can deduce that this is Jesus’ meaning by looking to the life of the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul persecuted the church and thereby blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Yet, God had mercy on Paul when Paul admitted that Jesus is Lord.²³ Similarly, Jesus is saying that whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven unless they repent.

Counterargument:

It is difficult to make sense of this argument. While it is true that the apostle Paul persecuted the church and when he was confronted by Jesus, repented and placed his faith in him, it is hard to see how this passage is relevant to Matthew 12:32. In the first place, it is not clear that the apostle Paul committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the manner described by Matthew 12:2–32. In our passage, the Pharisees witness Jesus cast a demon and heal a blind man, and yet, they say that Jesus has a demon. Paul, on the other hand, persecuted the church in ignorance until Jesus confronted him. The two accounts would be similar if, after Jesus confronted Paul and thereby revealed himself to be divine, Paul said that Jesus appeared to him by the power of demons (or something similar). In other words, once Jesus reveals to Paul that he is divine, Paul accepts Jesus. On the other hand, when Jesus reveals himself to the Pharisees as divine, they call him demon-possessed. Further, the text says nothing about forgiving those who repent from blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Rather, the text says that the person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor the age to come.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it goes against the natural meaning of the text. Sometimes we might have good reason to think that a passage goes against the natural meaning of the text based on the broader context, but we must make an argument to show that this is the case. This interpretation does not make a strong enough case for us to reject the notion that Jesus says precisely what he means.