The Year of Public Favor, Part 5: Israel’s Unpardonable Sin

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is Dean of the Division of Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

(Matthew 12:22–32) [1]

Introduction

The account of Jesus’ healing of the demoniac and the accusation by the Pharisees that he had done it with satanic power has been called “one of the most astonishing texts in the Bible.” [2] It is certainly an important text for at least three reasons. First, it is a passage with great pastoral importance. Christian literature and experience offer numerous examples of Christians who have become obsessed with the idea that they have committed the unpardonable sin. For example, in John Bunyan’s classic allegory, The Pilgrim’s Progress, the hero Christian, on his way to the heavenly city, was taken into a very dark room where there sat a man in an iron cage. The iron cage, Christian learned, is despair, and the man, once a professing Christian, had become convinced that he faced the fiery judgment of God. He believed that he had committed the unforgivable sin. [3]

The life of William Cowper, one of the great hymn writers of the evangelical revival in the eighteenth century, provides another illustration. He wrote words like these:

There is a fountain filled with blood,
Drawn from Immanuel’s veins,
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains. [4]

Yet Cowper was so overcome with depression that he tried to kill himself. He became so convinced that he had committed an unpardonable sin that he stopped attending church for the rest of his life. [5]

In the classic autobiography, Father and Son, Edmund Gosse provides yet another example. He told of Mr. Paget, a retired Baptist pastor, who had given up his ministry “because he became convinced that he had committed the Sin against the Holy Ghost…. Mr. Paget was fond of talking, in private and in public, of his dreadful spiritual condition, and he would drop his voice while he spoke of having committed the Unpardonable Sin, with a sort of shuddering exultation, such as people sometimes feel in the possession of a very unusual disease.” [6]

Second, it is a passage of some importance theologically. At least four doctrinal matters are touched on: (1) The Trinity. Commentators have long puzzled over Jesus’ distinction between sin against the Son of Man and blasphemy against the Spirit (vv. 31–32). What relationship does this distinction bear to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? Do Jesus’ remarks imply that the Son of God is inferior to the Holy Spirit? (2) Satan and demons. The account unequivocally accepts the ontological reality of Satan and his demons. [7] Contrary to the fashion of our day, this text suggests “the grip of evil forces [on human lives] is a real phenomenon.” [8] (3) Christ and the Holy Spirit. The miracle of the healing of the demoniac furnishes one more piece of evidence that Jesus is the long-awaited “anointed One” or Messiah. (4) The Kingdom of God. Jesus has been preaching that kingdom of heaven is at hand, and he has been performing signs to authenticate the legitimacy of his claims (cf. 11:2–6). After delivering the man of the demon, he explained, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (v. 28). His meaning is clear: This healing is a messianic sign, [9] and an important stage in God’s purpose of the ages has been reached.

Third, the passage is important historically. In spite of the popularity Jesus enjoyed with the common people, the leadership of Israel was set against him. The encounter between the Pharisees and Jesus is a vivid illustration of the opposition to the King that was now coming to a head.

The “big idea” of the passage is this: There is no forgiveness for those who fatally and finally reject the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Performed the Messianic Sign of Exorcism, verse 22

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.

A Harmful Demonic Act

The occasion for our Lord’s teaching on the unpardonable sin is the healing of a demoniac.

The man was possessed, or indwelt, by a demon, i.e., “a hostile spirit” [10] who had destructively made him blind and mute. [11] The NT does not attribute all illness to demons, [12] but in this case it does (cf. Matt. 17:14–18; Luke 13:11).

Some modern commentators, influenced by a naturalistic worldview and critical methodology, dismiss the Bible’s accounts of demonology as superstitious explanations of mental and psychological illness. [13] The Lord Jesus Christ and the inspired writers of the Word of God, on the other hand, affirmed the existence of Satan and his demons. The apostle John flatly asserted, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).

One afternoon several years ago I was working in my office, and the receptionist called to tell me that some people were in the front lobby of the college, wanting to speak to a teacher. I went down to meet the visitors and found four young women who appeared to be quite somber yet agitated. We talked for about an hour, and they told me their experiences with Ouija Boards, drugs, and occult practices. One of the women lived with her boyfriend in a house with a man who conducted “Black Masses.” It was evident that their experiences had led to demonic harassment and fear.

I have recently counseled with a young man whose wife is currently being initiated into Santeria, a syncretistic cult blending elements of Roman Catholicism and the worship of spirits. It is one of numerous cults involved in Spiritism, i.e., the worship of and communion with evil spirits. Originating in Nigeria, this religion has spread to the Cuban and Mexican American communities of North America. The young man has come home at night to find all the lights in the house turned on and his wife in a state of fear—“freaked out,” are his words—because of the spirits or demons. Regular gifts to an idol in the home and participation in rituals of animal sacrifices to spirits have become the consuming passion of her life. [14]

Not long ago evangelical encounters with the demonic world were limited to missionaries working in the Third World. Today involvement in satanic cults and demonic practices can be found throughout the United States and the Western world. “Our culture is riddled with the effects of occult involvement. Perhaps Jesus and the culture of his day were not so naïve after all.” [15]

Our text says nothing of how the man came into his condition. The Bible does warn its readers, however, in Deuteronomy 18:9–12, to avoid occult practices that invite demonic spirits into one’s life.

A Decisive Healing Act

Matthew does not describe the healing. He does not say whether Jesus touched the man or simply spoke a word. More commonly demons are said to be “cast out” (e.g., Mark 1:25), but here Matthew simply says that Jesus “healed him.” The evangelist at this point, however, is more concerned with the controversy the incident caused than with the healing itself. [16] In any case the man was healed at once, and he “spoke and saw.” “Christ…holds the last decisive word in this labyrinth of unsolved questions…regarding this enigmatic kingdom of occultism,” wrote the noted theologian, Kurt Koch. “Christ is the ‘end of the demons.’” [17]

The Jewish Leaders Charged Jesus with Black Magic, verses 23–29

The Crowd’s Response to Jesus: He is the Son of David, verse 23

All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?”

Matthew reports, “All the crowds were amazed.” His use of the plural “crowds” (οἱ ὄχλοι, hoi ochloi) suggests that the miracle was witnessed by more than just a handful of people. Further, the verb translated “amazed” (ἐξίστημι, existēmi) is a strong one indicating that the people were astonished by what they saw. [18]

They asked, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” The Greek construction indicates a measure of perplexity on the part of the people. [19] They were not completely sure, but the miracle had opened the door to the possibility that Jesus was David’s son. The royal title “Son of David” goes back to the prophecy of Nathan that one of David’s sons would one day be made king forever (2 Sam. 7:12–13). By NT times the title had been invested with special messianic hopes: Messiah, the anointed Son of David, would come and sit on David’s throne and rule over Israel (Luke 1:31–33). [20]

In other words, the people were wondering if perhaps Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. [21] The pronoun translated “this man” (οὗτο̑, houtos) is emphatic. Messiah was expected to perform miracles, and this, Jesus had just done. Yet he was so different from the Messiah they expected. He was not a conquering and ruling Messiah, but an ordinary man from Nazareth. [22] He was “no glorious prince with pomp and circumstance,” says Barclay. He came with no “rattle of swords nor army with banners.” There were no piercing trumpets calling men to war. No, here was the simple tradesman from Galilee, and he had just healed a demoniac of his demon-possession, blindness, and muteness! [23]

It should be noted that Matthew presents the crowds in a favorable light. The real enemies of Jesus were the religious leaders. Matthew was not anti-Semitic. It was not the Jewish people who bitterly opposed Jesus. It was their leadership. [24]

The Pharisees’ Response to the Crowd: He is the Tool of Satan, verse 24

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “The man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

The word “but” (δέ de) is adversative and sets the Pharisees’ response in contrast to that of the people. The Pharisees were the duly recognized theological teachers of the people, and they prided themselves in their accurate interpretation of the Law. [25] The puzzled yet enthusiastic response of the crowds called for a strong negative response from these men. It is evident that their goal was to keep the people from believing in and following Jesus. [26] They contemptuously told the people, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” They accused Jesus of sorcery or “black magic.” [27]

The name Beelzebul (Βεελζεβούλ) was the name of a Philistine deity; he was the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2–16). The meaning of the word is uncertain, but it may mean something like, “Lord of the Dwelling,” or “Lord of the High Place.” [28] The Hebrews made a pun on the name and called this pagan deity “Baalzebub” meaning “Lord of Flies” (בַּעַל זַבוּב) or “Lord of Dung” (בַּעַל זַבוּל). In Jesus’ day [29] it had come to be used as a name for Satan, as verse 26 makes clear. The Pharisees’ accusation was that Jesus was in league with the powers of darkness. He was able to do these spectacular things because “the ruler of the demons” was enabling him to do so. [30]

The charge that Jesus was practicing sorcery, a capital offence in Judaism, [31] is one that continued to be made by the Jews in the centuries following his death. Many associated magic with Egypt, and the stay of Mary and Joseph there with the baby Jesus was later to be used against him. He brought sorcery with him back from Egypt, it was argued, and this magic explains his miracles. [32] What is significant about these charges is that the Jews did admit that he had done extraordinary things, or else they would not have developed such an elaborate hypothesis about him. [33]

An important practical warning is implied in verse 24. The accredited theological teachers of today are the theological professors and leaders in the churches and the professors of religion in colleges and universities. This passage illustrates the influence that such teachers have upon the people. And it demonstrates that teachers of theology and religion do not necessarily encourage confidence in Jesus as the final manifestation of God. Too often such men (and women) deflect their students’ confidence away from Jesus Christ. Such teachers who today stand against Christ are committing a form of the sin that Jesus will shortly condemn in this passage, viz., the sin against the Holy Spirit. [34]

A well-known evangelical theologian told me of one of his students who enrolled in a doctoral program at one of our midwestern state universities. Because of his open defense of his Christian beliefs, he was told that he would never graduate from that school. Intellect was not the problem; animosity towards Jesus Christ was. He dropped out and enrolled in a similar program at a highly regarded private university where he went on to earn his degree.

Jesus’ Response to the Pharisees: He is Empowered by the Holy Spirit, verses 25–29

Their Charge was Absurd, vv. 25–26

And knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?”

Apparently the Pharisees made their charge against Jesus when he was too far off to hear. Nevertheless through his powers of intuition [35] or his supernatural knowledge [36] he knew what they were thinking and saying about him. Jesus had “three unanswerable replies” to their charge that he was Satan’s tool. [37] First, their charge was “ridiculous.” [38] Using a “triad of illustrations” [39] (a kingdom, a city, and a household), Jesus said that if their accusation were true then Satan would be lending his power to the destruction of his own demonic agents. [40] If there is civil war or schism in a kingdom, it will be “laid waste,” i.e., made uninhabitable or depopulated. [41] Likewise any city or family that develops internal strife or dissension will destroy itself.

“For the prince of demons to cast out his subjects would be virtually casting out himself, since they were doing his work.” [42] “If the Pharisees were right,” says Barclay, “Satan’s days were numbered.” [43] The clear implication of Jesus’ words is that Satan, like God, has a kingdom. Later in the NT the apostle Paul will speak of “the rulers…the powers…the world forces of this darkness…the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). In the spiritual world there are two kingdoms locked in mortal conflict. It is not Satan against Satan; rather it is the kingdom of Satan against the kingdom of God.

We should note, of course, that the Lord Jesus was here making a general observation. The apostles, as well as the early church Fathers and the Reformers, were all aware that the devil was full of guile. They knew that he could work “lying wonders” to lead people astray. The devil could appear to work against himself to turn people away from Christ. [44] That is why the Christian church has always been on guard. It has insisted that we “test the spirits” to see if certain powers or miracles are supernaturally evil rather than supernaturally good. The “twin tests” says Bruner, are, does the spirit confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, i.e., that he is truly human? (1 John 4:2) And second, does the spirit confess that this human Jesus is also Lord, i.e., that he is God? (1 Cor. 12:3). [45]

Their Charge was Inconsistent, v. 27

If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.

Jesus’ second argument was that the Pharisees were irrational and inconsistent. “If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?” The Pharisees had spoken hurriedly; it had momentarily slipped their minds that some of their own people were exorcists. The “sons” of the Pharisees have been variously identified as their children, [46] their disciples, [47] or the Jewish people, i.e., “people of your own race and religion.” [48] Here it most likely refers to their disciples or pupils.

The logic behind the Pharisees’ accusation is that a mere human being could not overcome a demon. He must have used supernatural power to do it. They asserted that Jesus had used the power of Satan. “By whom do your sons cast them out?” Their disciples, too, must use superhuman power. The Pharisees would, of course, vehemently deny that their sons were in league with the devil. Why then did they accuse Jesus of this? “They will be your judges.” At the last judgment the Jewish exorcists will be called as witnesses for the prosecution to bear witness against the Pharisees. [49]

Incidentally, the Lord Jesus assumed that the Jewish exorcisms were real and effective. [50] While they used superstitious rituals and believed bizarre notions, they did call upon the God of Israel for help. [51] In similar fashion today, Roman Catholic exorcists, although not evangelical in their convictions, seem to have some success—not because of their unbiblical rituals, but because they call upon the Lord Jesus Christ for help. [52]

What so amazed the crowds who witnessed Jesus’ healing of the demoniac was that he did not use the witch-doctoring approach of other religious exorcists.53 He cast demons out by the mere word of power.54 His exorcisms were better because they were qualitatively superior to the exorcisms of the Pharisees’ students. And they were qualitatively superior because of who performed them. “What is decisive is not the exorcisms, but the exorcist.” [55]

Their Charge was Truthless, Misleading, Malignant, vv. 28–29

But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Our Lord’s third argument exposed the seriousness of the Pharisees’ accusation. [56] They were obscuring the truth of what really did happen. Jesus’ exorcism of the demon was not satanic; rather it was a messianic sign. The word “Messiah” or “Christ” means “anointed.” At his baptism the Lord Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit to carry out his mission. [57] Jesus cast out demons “by the Spirit of God.” This miracle was evidence that “the kingdom of God has come upon you.” [58] Matthew usually uses the term “kingdom of heaven” (cf. 3:2) but here and in a few other places he uses “kingdom of God” (19:24; 21:31, 43). [59] The sense of both expressions is “quite the same.” [60]

Many students of Matthew understand Jesus to mean “the kingdom age has already dawned.” [61] That is not what Jesus meant. In the NT the kingdom is a future reality. It is the reign of Jesus Christ upon the earth. There is no question that when our Lord was on earth the kingdom had arrived. [62] “The presence of Jesus Christ was the presence of the kingdom.” [63] This arrival had just happened,64 namely, when Messiah arrived and began to cast out demons. [65] The Messiah was, however, rejected, and he has gone to heaven. In other words, the “arrival” of the kingdom was cut short when Christ was rejected by the nation. The kingdom is, therefore, in the fullest sense “still future, to be inaugurated when he [comes] on the clouds of heaven.” [66]

The kingdom does not exist in Christians’ hearts. Jesus always spoke of people entering the kingdom and never of the kingdom entering into people. [67] The kingdom exists today in the sense that Christians “already” enjoy many of its salvation benefits (e.g., the new covenant, the final sacrifice for sin, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the inauguration of the “last days”). But the kingdom has “not yet” come in the fullest sense because Jesus is not yet reigning upon David’s throne. In the present age we are still “heirs of the kingdom” (James 2:5).

Jesus concluded his third argument by posing a question: “How can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” Jesus was not acting as a subordinate of Beelzebul when he expelled the demon. Satan’s kingdom was not being defeated because of civil war or internal dissension as the Pharisees had charged. Rather, it was being defeated by direct assault on the strong man.

Jesus was not just speaking proverbially, that is, he was not stating a general principle about plundering a strong man’s house or raiding the lair of some mideastern robber baron (Isa. 49:24–25) and then applying it to Satan. [68] Rather he was speaking of a specific strong man, [69] viz., Satan. [70] The “house” of the strong man was Satan’s kingdom, his “property,” “goods,” or “possessions,” that is, the people under his sway—those being demonized. Jesus was “binding” the strong man through his ministry of exorcism. [71]

Jesus’ point is clear. He was taking prey away from Satan by freeing demoniacs from his jailhouse of psychic suffering and demonic bondage. This is clear evidence that he was no ally of Satan. Rather he was the royal son of David who had begun to conquer him. [72]

It is often assumed by commentators that the binding of the strong man spoken of by Matthew in verse 29 took place at the time of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. That may be correct so long as one understands that “the cross and the resurrection were germinally present in the temptation,” i.e., the temptation anticipated the decisive victory of Golgotha. [73]

Yet it must be remembered that the binding of the strong man was only a gradual and partial thing during Jesus’ lifetime on earth. The process may have begun at the temptation, but in the present context it speaks of Jesus’ work of exorcising demons while on earth. It does not speak of the complete immobilization of Satan. His complete destruction actually takes place over a period of time and in a number of stages, the most important chapter being his defeat at the cross. The NT clearly teaches that Golgotha was decisive—Christ gained his victory over Satan there (Gen. 3:15; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). Yet for reasons that are good and wise, God has allowed Satan to continue his work. He is like a criminal whose sentence has been passed but who is still not in jail. Today he prowls this earth “like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Following the second coming of Christ he will be imprisoned in the Abyss for one thousand years. During his millennial imprisonment he will be completely immobilized. After that one thousand year imprisonment he will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:1–3, 10). [74]

Christ’s defeat of Satan at the cross and Satan’s present freedom from his ultimate destination in the lake of fire mean two things: [75] First, for the Christian the devil is a defeated devil, and our faith in Jesus gives us a continuing victory over him (Eph. 6:16). Second, the world of people who do not know the Victor or his victory are presently in a prisoner-of-war situation. Apart from faith in Jesus Christ people are not only lost in their sins; they are in the tyrannical clutches of the strong man (Eph. 2:1–3; 1 John 5:19). The majority of people are not demon possessed, of course, but they are blinded by “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), and they are tyrannized by his main weapon, death (Heb. 2:15).

Jesus Exposed the Wickedness of the Jewish Leaders, verses 30–32

There is No Neutral Ground Between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, verse 30

He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Verse 30, says Bruner, “rings the death knell to neutralism toward Jesus.” [76] He said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” These words were probably addressed to the crowds [77] who were watching the encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees. [78] The gist of what Jesus said is that one must align himself with God or Satan. “There is no middle ground.” [79] Biblical scholar T. W. Manson wrote, “The situation is one where no man can be neutral. It is war to the knife between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Jesus is God’s chosen instrument for the waging of that war. He who takes his place by the side of Jesus, takes his place in the army of God. He who ignores the summons, is reckoned to the enemy.” [80]

Jesus added, “And he who does not gather with Me scatters.” The imagery here is that of gathering sheep into the fold or scattering them away (cf. Isa. 40:11; 49:6; Ezek. 34:13; Matt. 9:36; 10:6; John 10:12). [81] Jesus is the great gatherer, the great Shepherd, who gathers God’s people into the fold. Either one sides with Jesus in encouraging people into the kingdom, or else one sides with Satan and his emissaries (like the Pharisees) who drive people away from the kingdom of God. To be against Jesus means to oppose him in his mission to gather the lost. It means to leave them shepherdless and easy prey to Satan. [82] Verse 30, then, is “a call to decision…that is directed to open and undecided people and not to the opponents of Jesus, who have already reached a decision.” [83]

On another occasion also involving the casting out of demons Jesus said, “He who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). On this occasion, however, he says, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” The two utterances are not contradictory—they are complementary. [84] The saying in Matthew (“He who is not with Me is against Me”) is a test that should be applied by each person to himself. If I am not on Christ’s side then I am against him. The saying in Mark (“He who is not against us is for us”) is a test by which believers may evaluate others. Too often followers of Christ are inclined to be judging and condemning of others who follow Christ. Even if other believers (“in Your name,” Mark 9:38) differ with us in certain things, we are to recognize their kinship with us in their allegiance to the Lord. The kingdom of God will be populated by many who do not think exactly as our branch of the Christian church does!

Bruner says that the strongly exclusive message of verse 30 contains a warning for many who want to be neutral, middle-of-the-road, and broad-minded. They are the people who find devotion to Jesus too sentimental, decisiveness about him too fundamentalistic, exclusivity about him—He’s the only way to God (John 14:6; Acts 4:12)—too fanatical, and evangelism on his behalf as smacking too much of proselytism and imperialism. “Those persons are in trouble.” [85]

There is No Forgiveness for Those Who Reject the Holy Spirit’s Testimony to Jesus Christ, verses 31–32

The Glorious Promise of Jesus: “It Shall Be Forgiven,” verses 31a, 32a

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people…. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.

The word “therefore” (διὰ τοῢτο, dia touto) in verse 31 links the next paragraph to the preceding episode. [86] Verses 31–32 contain two couplets, which say essentially the same thing. The expression, “I say to you” (λέγω ὑμῒν, legō hymin) “lends a certain solemnity to the words.” [87] Up to this point Jesus has responded defensively explaining the importance of the healing he had just performed with the power of the Holy Spirit. Now he adopts a more offensive posture, warning his listeners of the importance of what he has just said. Along with the warning there is a glorious promise declaring God’s readiness to forgive all forms of sin. [88]

Jesus’ words were a revolutionary statement of the wide sweep of the grace of God. “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people.… Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.” In the present context the word sins speaks of offences against human beings that God forbids. The word blasphemies speaks of offences against God. [89] The word blasphemy (βλασφημία) means “speech that denigrates or defames.” It denotes “reviling, denigration, disrespect, slander.” [90] Here the word refers to language that vilifies God. In OT times the Law directed that a blasphemer be stoned to death (Lev. 24:16), yet Jesus says to the crowds that all sins, including blasphemy, may be forgiven. [91]

Bishop J. C. Ryle (1816–1900) once said that these words of Jesus mean nothing to the many people who are indifferent to God. But to the person who is fully aware of his own sinfulness and need for mercy they are, he says, “sweet and precious.” “Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven.” Ryle writes, “The sins of youth and [old] age—the sins of head, and hand, and tongue, and imagination—the sins against all God’s commandments—the sins of persecutors, like Saul—the sins of idolaters, like Manasseh—the sins of open enemies of Christ, like the Jews who crucified him—the sins of backsliders from Christ, like Peter—all, all may be forgiven. The blood of Christ can cleanse all away. The righteousness of Christ can cover all, and hide all from God’s eyes.” This truth, he says, “is the crown and glory of the Gospel.” [92]

The Severe Warning of Jesus: “It Shall Not Be Forgiven,” verses 31b, 32b

But blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven…but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

A Definition of the Unpardonable Sin

What It Is Not

The word “but” (δέ, de) in verse 31 introduces a sharp distinction—“any sin” may be forgiven except for one sin! “Blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” Jesus says there is one unforgivable sin. The one sin that will not be forgiven is not sexual debauchery. Jesus was here warning the Pharisees. They were morally upright and religiously punctilious. Nor is it idolatry, greed, envy, murder, strife, gossip, arrogance, disobedience to parents, deceitfulness or any other sin listed in Paul’s catalog of sins in Romans 1:29–31 or in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17). All sins are “worthy of death,” says the Apostle (Rom. 1:32), but Jesus says that “any sin” can be forgiven.

What It Is

What then did Jesus mean? [93] What is the meaning of his words? [94] In seeking to define the sin there are four things that can be said. [95] First, it was blasphemy. The Pharisees recognized that Jesus performed his miracles with supernatural power. The biblical explanation is that they were performed by God’s anointed man, the Messiah, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees, however, attributed the miracles to the power of Satan. In doing this they were defaming, reviling, and slandering the Holy Spirit. Mark records that the Pharisees said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:30).

Second, it was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to people and to enable them to understand it (1 Cor. 2:10–16). [96] More specifically it is his work to “convict the world concerning sin,” i.e., to bring people to the point where they recognize their need of forgiveness and that it is by believing in Jesus Christ that forgiveness is appropriated (John 16:8–9). To reject the Spirit’s message is to make forgiveness impossible. [97] In Mark’s account, Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).

Third, it was a refusal of the Kingdom and the King. The miracles of Jesus were messianic signs; they were the credentials of the King (Matt. 11:3–6). The Pharisees would not have it. The miracles, they argued, were performed by one in collusion with Satan. “These are not the credentials of heaven; they are the credentials of hell.” [98] The words of Isaiah are apropos, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).

Fourth, it was a sin marked by “fatality and finality.” [99] This sin will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come.” [100] The Jews divided time into two ages, this age and the age to come, which is the messianic age. This is an emphatic way of saying, “never.” [101]

An Explanation of the Unpardonable Sin

Jesus was not speaking here in a general way of just any sin against the Spirit. Later in the NT the apostle will speak of sins against the Holy Spirit that are forgivable or pardonable (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). Here he was speaking of a specific sin in one’s life that “makes conversion and pardon impossible.” [102] In seeking to explain why the sin is unpardonable we need to answer three questions: [103]

Question # 1: Why is “blasphemy against the Spirit” a greater sin than speaking “a word against the Son of Man”? The answer to this question cannot be that within the Trinitarian relations of the Godhead the Holy Spirit is greater in dignity than the Son. All three persons of the Trinity are alike in divine status. [104] The answer lies rather in the incarnation and humiliation of the Son (Phil. 2:5–8). [105] When he came into the world he took on “a new, lower status.” [106] His divine glory was veiled as he walked upon the earth in “the form of a bond-servant” and “in the likeness of men.” This is borne out by Jesus’ use of the expression, “Son of Man.” It has at least two nuances in the NT when used of Christ. [107] First, it is used as a messianic title. Jesus is the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13–14 who will be given the eschatological Kingdom. Second, the term is used of Jesus in the sense of frail, mortal man. Here it seems to have the second nuance, i.e., man. [108]

Because of this veiling of his dignity it was possible for people to be mistaken about who he was. No doubt many like that repented and believed and were forgiven their earlier unbelief. As Calvin noted, “Thus there are many today who most wickedly curse the gospel teaching, which, if they knew it to be of the gospel, they would be ready to revere wholeheartedly.” [109] The Pharisees, however, had gone beyond speaking against Jesus. They had seen the works of God, and they had attributed them to Satan.

Question # 2: Why is this sin unpardonable or unforgivable? It is a sin “which precludes pardon because it precludes repentance.” [110] The Pharisees were not just uttering a “we’ll just wait and see” opinion. They were not offering a progress report—“this is our decision at the moment, but we could revisit it.” No, they had consciously, deliberately, decisively, and radically renounced the Holy Spirit and his work. [111] Their attitude toward the work of Jesus was fixed. This is indicated by Mark’s report, “They were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” The verb translated, “they were saying” (ἔλεγον, elegon) is an imperfect and refers to an ongoing action (and “a fixed attitude of mind”). [112] Swete wrote, “To identify the Source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a moral disease for which the Incarnation itself provides no remedy.” [113]

Question # 3: When is the unpardonable sin committed? The contrast between speaking “against the Son of Man” and “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” indicates that this sin “can only be committed when the King is personally present in the likeness of men.… The incarnation is the key to the question.” [114] This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus “spoke only once of the unpardonable sin, and the apostles never mentioned it at all.” [115]

Two Varieties of the Unpardonable Sin [116]

Willful Refusal of the Gospel Message

While the unpardonable sin cannot be committed today, an unpardonable sin may be. It takes two forms. First, there is the rejection of the Spirit’s message when he speaks to a person of his sin—through the Scriptures, through a preacher, through a friend or acquaintance—and he refuses that message. I am not speaking of a person who has heard the gospel message and is considering its claims. Rather, I am speaking of the person who has evaluated the evidence and has been convinced of its truthfulness. Yet he flagrantly denies the truth and even spitefully misrepresents it. The works of Christ are cursed as of the devil and the person turns his back on the Lord.

Can people reach such a point where they turn their backs on the gospel with finality? They can, says J. Sidlow Baxter. “Men can allow and foster within themselves a process of hard refusal toward God which eventually becomes their master, and destroys the possibility of repentance.” [117] A minister friend of Baxter described to him “an awful death-bed visit he had been called to make. The dying man was writhing and struggling and striking the air in a piteously futile effort to fight death off. He was in stark terror at the thought of death and the dread beyond. He eventually died demented; but both before and after his brain gave way he would periodically groan or wail, ‘I said I would repent before I died; but it won’t come; it won’t come! I can’t repent!” [118]

Preachers of the Word, like the Savior himself, must admonish their hearers not to refuse the message of Christ. A recent news report caught my attention. A relief worker was in one of the war-torn and poverty stricken parts of Africa. Her assignment was to get food to starving people. She was struck by the fact that some of the people were so starved they had lost their appetites for food. When encouraged to eat many would respond, “I am not hungry.” “Grace, like bodily food,” says Plummer, “may be rejected until the power to receive it is lost.” [119]

Willful Apostasy by a Professing Believer

The author of Hebrews directs our attention to another variation of the unpardonable sin (10:26–29). [120] The author of the epistle describes people who are in the church and understand the Christian message. They may even have been baptized and become regular participants at the Lord’s Supper. They know the truth and have seen its effects in the lives of Christians (6:4–5). Yet they are not truly regenerate. They have never truly believed, and a time comes when they fall away from the truth and become hardened against it. At one time they recognized the gospel as the revelation of God’s grace through Christ by the Holy Spirit, but now they consciously and deliberately blaspheme the truth. They “have trampled under foot the Son of God” and have “insulted the Spirit of grace” (v. 29). They treat the blood of Christ as “unclean,” i.e., as having no saving value whatsoever. They develop a hardened attitude of blatant and insolent rejection of the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus Christ. Such people “again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame” (6:6). This sober warning against apostasy is directed against professing believers who have become cold of heart and indifferent to the things of God. [121]

Some Counsel on the Unpardonable Sin

Throughout the history of the Christian church many serious Christians have gotten troubled over Matthew 12:31–32. [122] Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones told the story of a man named William Thomas who became a Christian at the age of 77. He had lived a very sinful life. There was scarcely anything he had not done at one time or another. He was baptized and received into membership in Dr. Lloyd-Jones church. His first communion service was the happiest day of his life. The day after that service he showed up at his pastor’s door early in the morning. He was weeping uncontrollably. When Lloyd-Jones and his wife got the man quieted down, they learned his problem. Fifty years before he had been in a bar drinking and had been arguing about religion. He had said in contempt and derision, “Jesus Christ was a bastard!” He knew that all of his drinking, gambling, and womanizing were forgiven, but he believed that what he had said about the Son of God, the Savior of the world, was unforgivable. With great difficulty Dr. Lloyd-Jones was able to persuade him that any and every sin can be forgiven if we but confess it and accept God’s forgiveness. [123]

So it is with others. They have made a promise to God that they’ve broken. They’ve cheated on a test or lied to a loved one. They have broken a vow, or there is a hidden, unconfessed lapse that keeps staring them in the face. It has made them miserable. The best answer to someone overwhelmed by the fear that he or she has committed the unpardonable sin is the one most commonly given by Christian shepherds, “The fact that you are so troubled is sure proof that you have not committed it.” [124] People who have committed this sin have turned their backs on Christ and have no sense of concern about it at all.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones offers this analysis: It is the work of the devil to make believers miserable, and too many Christians are ignorant of doctrine. The noted preacher offered these guidelines: [125] First, reflect on the case of the apostle Paul.

In 1 Timothy 1:12–16 Paul says that God saved him, “a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” and put him “into service” to be an example of the truth that God can save anyone and forgive any sin. Second, we must not differentiate between sins. All sins are alike in one sense and “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32). If we break just one of God’s commandments, says James (2:10), we are guilty of all. The important thing is not different levels of sin. The important thing is my relationship to God. If you have been saved, you have been forgiven all your sins.

Third, we must believe the Scripture promises of forgiveness. Whatever your sin, God will forgive it. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us form all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). “The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Sometimes a believer becomes unbelieving and proud. He believes that his case is singular and special. He must stop his prideful thinking that he is a special case, counsels Lloyd-Jones. He must stop believing the devil and simply believe God’s Word.

Fourth, we must apply ourselves to understanding biblical doctrine. The shepherds of the flock must apply themselves to teaching these doctrines. Three of these doctrines are important here. (1) The atonement, i.e., what Jesus did at the Cross. Too many believers know they are saved, but they do not know what that means. The angel told Joseph, “You shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The apostle Peter adds, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Pet. 2:24). There is no qualification or limit in these texts. They do not say “our sins, except for that one sin.” Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Nothing has been left undone. “All the sins you may ever commit have been dealt with there.” [126] (2) Justification. This doctrine means that we have been acquitted in God’s courtroom. Furthermore, the righteousness of Christ has been given to us. We are hidden in the righteousness of Christ before God. “For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness” (Isa. 61:10). “God sees your sin no more; He sees the righteousness of Christ upon you.” [127] (3) Union with Christ. Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20). When we become Christians, we are joined by the Spirit to Jesus Christ. “We have become united with Him” (Rom. 6:5). His history becomes my history. All that has happened to him has happened to me. Paul teaches that we have died with Christ to the old life, and we have been raised with him to a new life (Rom. 6:4–6).

Fifth, we are not to look at our past lives “in any way except that which leads us to praise God.” [128] When Paul looked at the past and remembered that he was a blasphemer and persecutor of the church, he did not say, “I am not fit to be a Christian.” No, he gloried in the grace of God that had brought him forgiveness. And when Peter as a believer denied the Lord (Matt. 26:69–75), he was not put on the shelf or stripped of his salvation. No, the Lord Jesus assured him that he would continue to use him in a wonderful way (John 21:15–17).

I would add one more guideline. We must become practitioners of good hermeneutics. We must not apply to ourselves passages that apply to others. The great text on the unpardonable sin does not apply to God’s elect people. It is addressed to those who have hardened their hearts against the truth.

Conclusion

The Doctrinal Significance of the Passage

Doctrinally, the passage is of great importance. First, contrary to the theology influenced by the Enlightenment, it sets forth a worldview in which Satan and his demons are real. Furthermore, these evil spirits are organized into a kingdom. The forces of evil in the world do not act in a haphazard way or by blind fate. They are “directed by a lofty and shrewd intelligence.” [129] The dark kingdom is marked by an “unequivocal unity” under a “single head.” [130] He is a “personal spirit of evil.… The demons are his subjects, and are striving to make men his subjects forever.” [131]

Second, Jesus opposes the kingdom of Satan. His casting out of demons shows his full intention of binding the strong man and freeing his captives. The account of the healing of the demoniac is a powerful reminder that Jesus has the power to liberate people from the evil forces which enslave them. [132]

Third, Jesus’ self-designation as “Son of Man” as well as his statement that words spoken against him can be forgiven point to the true incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God. While on this earth he lived in full obedience to the Father and in dependence upon the Spirit. That it was a greater sin to blaspheme the Spirit does not point to a subordination of the Son to the Spirit but rather to our Lord’s assumption of the place of a bond-servant.

Fourth, this event, as well as others in this chapter, marks a real turning point in Jesus’ ministry to Israel. It is evident that the nation—in its leaders at least—had committed the unpardonable sin. This interpretation is supported by two things. [133] First, Matthew 12 is a record of a number of encounters between Jesus and the Jewish leaders (Pharisees and scribes) in which they demonstrated their hostility to him and his message. The chapter plays a pivotal role in the argument of the Gospel. It marks a climax in the developing response of the Jewish leaders to the King. [134] Second, the parabolic teaching in chapter 13 indicates that a form of judgment was being inflicted upon the nation. In answer to his disciples, Jesus explained that he was teaching in parables so that the people would not understand (verses 10–17). The “year of public favor” had come to an end.

The Practical Significance of the Passage

The passage also has great practical importance. First, it is a call to decision. Are we going to accept Jesus’ credentials and become loyal subjects in his Kingdom? “We must be definitely Christ’s friends, or we are definitely His enemies.” [135] There is no neutral ground in the great battle of the ages between the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God.

Second, the warning of the unpardonable sin must be correctly applied. Too often believers with tender consciences who have searched their hearts for some assurance that they have not committed some unforgivable sin have misappropriated it. It is an indication that we often have “too subjective a view of our spiritual condition,” and we need to remember “that our salvation depends, not upon our inner feelings, but upon the objective atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer” (cf. Rom. 5:1). [136]

Notes

1. This is the eleventh in a series of occasional articles on the life of Christ.
2. S. Lewis, Johnson, Jr., “The Unpardonable Sin,” BBB (Nov. 7, 1976): 1.
3. John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968), 34–36. Bunyan elsewhere explains that he wrestled with the same trial himself. He says that he came to believe that he, like Cain, Esau, and Judas, had committed “that sin unpardonable, of which [Mark the evangelist] there thus speaketh, ‘But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation’ [Mark 3:29].” His reaction was characteristically extreme for the time. “Then should I be struck into a very great trembling, insomuch that at sometimes I could, for whole days together, feel my very body, as well as my mind, to shake and totter under the sense of this dreadful judgment of God, that should fall on those that have sinned that most fearful and unpardonable sin. I felt also such a clogging and heat at my stomach, by reason of this my terror, that I was, especially at some times, as if my breastbone would split asunder” (John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, 8th ed. [London: Religious Tract Society, 1905], paragraphs 148–230 [paragraphs 117–184 in older editions]).
4. William Cowper, “There is a Fountain,” in The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration (Waco: Word, 1986), 196.
5. Virginia Stem Owens, “The Dark Side of Grace,” Christianity Today (July 19, 1993), 32–35.
6. Edmund Gosse, Father and Son (London: William Heinemann, 1907; reprint ed., New York: Norton, 1963), 201–2.
7. “With this account the primitive community has handed down a whole set of important sayings [about Satan].” Werner Foerster, “σατανᾶ̑,” TDNT, 7:159.
8. Michael Green, The Message of Matthew, BST (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2000), 149.
9. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 2.
10. BDAG, s.v. “δαιμονίζομαι,” 209.
11. The Greek text is very condensed. The words “blind” (τυφλό̑) and “mute” (κωφό̑) are placed in apposition to “demon-possessed” (δαιμονιζόμενο̑) suggesting that the blindness and muteness were results of the demonization. Cf. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:287
12. Werner Foerster, “δαίμων,” TDNT, 2:18.
13. Cf. William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols., rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 2:35.
14. Cf. George A. Mather and Larry A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 237–41.
15. Green, The Message of Matthew, 149.
16. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 313.
17. Kurt E. Koch, Christian Counseling and Occultism, trans. Andrew Petter (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1965), 23.
18. BDAG, s.v. “ἐξίστημι,” 350.
19. Their question is introduced by μήτι, which usually indicates that a negative response is expected. In some contexts, however, the questioner is in doubt, and the particle has the sense, “perhaps” (BDAG, s.v., “μήτι,” 649).
20. See Psalms of Solomon 17:21 in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 649.
21. Loren L. Fisher has argued that the people were actually asking if Jesus was Solomon because popular superstition attributed the powers of magic to Solomon. His farfetched theory is built on texts that come from Iraq and Iran and date about AD 600. Cf. “Can This Be the Son of David?” in Jesus and the Historian, ed., F. Thomas Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 82–97 (esp. 89).
22. R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 208.
23. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:35.
24. Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word, 1987), 456; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 2:335.
25. For further discussion of the Pharisees, cf. David J. MacLeod, “Herald of the King: the Mission of John the Baptist,” EmJ 9 (Summer, 2000): 21.
26. Alan Hugh M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: MacMillan, 1915), 174.
27. K. Stendahl, “Matthew,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. Matthew Black (Nashville: Nelson, 1962), 784.
28. E. C. B. MacLaurin concluded that it meant οἰκοδεσπότη̑ or “master of the house”(Matt. 10:25). See “Beelzeboul,” NovT 20 (1978):156.
29. BDAG, s.v. “Βεελζεβούλ,” 173; O. Bo'cher, “Βεελζεβούλ,” EDNT, 1:211–12; Werner Foerster, “Βεεζεβούλ,” TDNT, 1:605–6; M. J. Mulder, “בַּעַל,” TDOT, 2:194.
30. For similar accusations, cf. John 7:20; 8:48, 52.
31. Sanhedrin 7.4, 7, in Mishnayoth, ed. Philip Blackman (Gateshead: Judaica, 1983), 4:268, 271.
32. Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 362; Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1926), 27–28. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 69, in ANF, 1:233; Sanhedrin 43a in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezik̆in, ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), 3:281.
33. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1915; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 176. “It should be remarked that the charge of casting our demons by Beelzebul presupposes Jesus’ undoubted success at exorcism” (Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:336).
34. Bruner, The Christbook, 456; cf. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 2.
35. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 175.
36. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:336.
37. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:36; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 525–26.
38. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 208.
39. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 175.
40. The conditional sentence is verse 26 is a first class condition. Even though the condition is patently false (Satan does not cast out Satan), it assumes that “if it were true then what follows must necessarily be the case” (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 315, n. 60).
41. BDAG, s.v. “ἐρημόω,” 392.
42. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge: Judson, 1886), 269.
43. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:36.
44. Cf. Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9–10; Revelation 13:13–14; Tertullian, Apology 22, in ANF, 3:37; John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, 3 vols., trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 2:41.
45. Bruner, The Christbook, 457.
46. E.g. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177.
47. E.g., Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 316.
48. E.g., Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, ICC, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 135
49. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:338.
50. Josephus speaks of Jewish exorcism and claims to have witnessed one. See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 8.42-48, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus et al, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard, 1934), 5:592–97. For some of the superstition involved in Jewish demonology see the apocryphal Book of Tobit 6:7.
51. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.6.2, in ANF 1:365.
52. Cf. Malachi Martin, Hostage to the Devil (New York: Readers Digest, 1976).
53. For an illustration of exorcism by means of a magical plant, cf. Josephus, The Jewish War 7.178-89, in Josephus, 3:556–59.
54. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:38.
55. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:341.
56. Critical scholars have argued that verses 27 and 28 do not belong together—they were spoken on different occasions (e.g., M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 176). They argue that it is illogical for the Lord to assume the Pharisees would claim divine power for their Jewish exorcists and then claim that his exorcisms are special signs of the presence of the kingdom. Davis and Allison respond to this criticism by suggesting that it is not from exorcisms in general that verse 28 argues for the presence of the kingdom, but from Jesus’ exorcisms (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:339). The reaction of the crowds certainly suggests that there was a difference in the way he handled the problem of demons.
57. Cf. David J. MacLeod, “The Baptism of Christ, or: The Anointing of the King,” EmJ 9 (Winter, 2000): 135-54.
58. In both verses 27 and 28 the conditional sentences are conditions of the first class. Both can be translated, “If, and let’s assume that it’s true for the sake of argument …” Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 693.
59. Here he uses “kingdom of God” perhaps stylistically to go with “Spirit of God.” Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 289.
60. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 480. Lenski expresses the opinion of most scholars today, but not all agree. Dissenters from the majority view include the following: (1) Daniel Patte argues that the two expressions are complementary but different. The “kingdom of God” refers to “an aggressive manifestation of the power of God which asserts itself against satanic and demonic powers.” This contrasts with the “kingdom of heaven” which “refers to the authority of God—an authority which, at present, is not imposed upon people through the use of power but which people (should) recognize and acknowledge in the meekness and mercy of the Father and the Son” [The Gospel According to Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 177]. (2) W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann differentiate the two by applying “kingdom of God” to “the Father’s reign after the judgment of the End,” and “kingdom of heaven” to the “continuing community of the [Son of Man], lasting up to the time of the judgment” [Matthew, AncB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 155]. (3) John F. Walvoord also sees a distinction between the two. The kingdom of heaven “refers to that which is obviously in its outer character a kingdom from above and seems to include all who profess to be subjects of the King,” i.e., it includes both believers and unbelievers. The kingdom of God “is more specific and does not seem to include any but true believers who are born again.” Walvoord argues that there are three stages in the kingdom of heaven. First, it was announced to be at hand during the ministry of John the Baptist. Second, it exists in mystery form in the hearts of believers during the present age. Third, it will be literally established over the earth during the millennial reign of Christ [Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 30–31].
61. Carson, “Matthew,” 289; George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 138–39; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 47.
62. The verb translated “has come upon you” is ἔφθασεν, the aorist form of φθάνω. It here means “has come upon you” (RSV) in the sense of “has just arrived.” In that the kingdom requires the presence of the king, it implies too much to say “the kingdom age has already been inaugurated.” Cf. BDAG, s.v. “φθάνω,” 1053.
63. Bruner, The Christbook, 458. Dunn argues that the Spirit’s work led him to the conclusion that “the eschatological rule of God was already operative.” He adds, “The eschatological kingdom was present for Jesus only because the eschatological Spirit was present in and through Him. In other words, it was not so much a case of ‘Where I am there is the kingdom’, as ‘Where the Spirit is there is the kingdom.’” (Jesus and the Spirit, 48–49, italics his). Carson rightly rebuts Dunn on these remarks for a number of reasons, two of which I’ll mention here: (1) He has introduced a disjunction alien to the text, viz., between Jesus and the Spirit. The kingdom was present not because the Spirit was present, but because the Spirit-anointed Jesus, i.e., Messiah, was present. (2) Dunn has turned the pericope into a question of Jesus’ self-understanding. However, in the text Jesus is arguing to convince the Pharisees, not to convince himself (“Matthew,” 289).
64. Cf. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 vols., vol. 1: Prolegomena, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), 140.
65. “It does not follow that He spoke of the Kingdom in a sense other than eschatological” (M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 176).
66. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 135; cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), 163–64.
67. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 164.
68. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177; Green, The Message of Matthew, 149.
69. That Jesus has a specific strong man in mind is suggested by the use of the definite article (ὁ ἰσχυρό̑). Cf. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177.
70. Robert H. Gundry offers the unusual interpretation that the strong man is Jesus, his property is his disciples, and the plundering of his house is satanic persecution. His acknowledgment that in the parallel passage (Mark 3:27) Satan is the strong man, undermines his thesis (Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 236).
71. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:342.
72. Cf. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177.
73. Foerster, “σατανᾶ̑,” 159.
74. The two advents of Christ have been compared to D-Day (June 6, 1944) and V-E Day (May 8, 1945) during World War II. The decisive action was the Allied invasion of Europe on D-Day. The final victory did not come until a year later on V-E Day. So it is with Satan. The decisive battle has been won, yet the war continues until the second coming of Christ. Cf. Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 84, 144–46.
75. Bruner, The Christbook, 459.
76. Bruner, The Christbook, 460.
77. There have been other interpretations. Chrysostom believed that “he who is not with me” referred to the devil (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew 41, in NPNF, 1st Series, 10:266). John Albert Bengel held that Jesus spoke of the Jewish exorcists (“your sons,” v. 27), who, Jesus averred, were with him (New Testament Word Studies, trans. Carlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent [Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971], 1:178; cf. also Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC [Dallas: Word, 1993], 344).
78. Some have questioned whether verse 30 was part of the original story. “Its connection with the foregoing incident is doubtful, since to lay a charge of demoniacal agencies is not neutrality but bitter enmity” (M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177). The affirmation of Jesus, says David Hill, “is hardly likely to have been addressed to implacable opponents such as the Pharisees! (The Gospel of Matthew, NCB [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1972], 217). As Carson notes, however, crowds were also present, and Jesus’ warning was addressed to them (“Matthew,” 290).
79. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:343.
80. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), 87.
81. Commentators differ in their interpretation of the metaphor of gathering and scattering. There are two views. (1) The picture is that of the great eschatological harvest when Jesus harvests his people into the kingdom [Carson, “Matthew,” 290; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 344]. (2) The picture is that of gathering sheep into the fold (Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:343; Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 318).
82. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 527.
83. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, Hermeneia, trans. James E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 205.
84. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 177; Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 178; Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:41.
85. Bruner, The Christbook, 460.
86. Commentators differ here. Some say the διὰ τοῢτο links verse 31 to verse 30 (e.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 291). Others say it links verse 31 with the entire preceding episode (e.g., Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 346).
87. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 318.
88. “Thus having defended Himself, and refuted their objections, and proved the vanity of their shameless dealings, He proceeds to alarm them” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 41.5, in NPNF, 1st Series, 10:266).
89. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:345.
90. BDAG, s.v., “βλασφημία,” 178; cf. O. Hofius, “βλασφημία,” EDNT, 1:220. In the NT the term can be used generically of any kind of speech that is defamatory or abusive. It is used of language against human beings, i.e., slander, abusive language (Matt. 12:31; 15:19; Mark 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; 1 Tim. 6:4; Rev. 2:9) but most references are to absolute blasphemy, i.e., speech that is disrespectful, that demeans, denigrates, and maligns God (Matt. 26:65; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; John 10:33) or God’s things (Acts 6:11; Titus 2:11). It should be noted that the NT writers considered it blasphemy “to throw doubts on the Messianic claims of Jesus, to deride Christ in His unity with the Father and as the Bearer of divine majesty. When the men who guard the captive Jesus mock His prophetic gift (Luke 22:64–65, this is just as blasphemous for the Evangelists as when the crowd at the cross (Mark 15:29; Matt. 27:39) or the impenitent thief (Luke 23:39) contemptuously challenge His divine sonship” (Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “βλασφημία,” TDNT, 1:623).
91. On unpardonable offences in the OT, see Numbers 15:30–31; 1 Samuel 3:14; Isaiah 22:14. Cf. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 179.
92. J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, 4 vols., vol. 1: Matthew-Mark (1856; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 55.
93. “Perhaps there is not in all holy Scripture found a more important or more difficult question” (Augustine, Sermons on New Testament Lessons 21 [Sermon 71 in Benedictine Edition], in NPNF, 1st Series, 6:320).
94. There have been a number of explanations of Jesus’ teaching about the unpardonable sin. (1) Jesus’ words are not explainable, and the problems are insoluble [Fitzer, 164–68; Davies and Allison, 348]. (2) The sin is opposing an inspired prophet in a meeting of the church [Didache, early 2d cent.]. (3) The sin is rejection of the Gospel of John and the repudiation of the prophetic Spirit in the church [Irenaeus, AD c. 130-c. 200]. (4) The sin is the same as the “sin unto death” in 1 John 5:16 and describes post-conversion relapse [Origen, AD 185–254]. Novatian [3d cent.] argued that those who recanted under torture were lost forever. Jerome argued that this view did not take the Matthew context very seriously, for there it is unbelievers, not Christian professors, who are warned. Those who deny Christ under persecution, he argued, have spoken against the Son of Man, but they have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit. (5) The sin is slander against the servants of the Lord [Questions of Bartholomew, 3d-4th cent.]. (6) The sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit’s dignity and power by attributing to Beelzebul the casting out of demons [Ambrose, AD 339–97]. (7) The sin is one that could only be committed during Jesus’ sojourn on earth, “before the cross,” when against the facts and their own verification of those facts people ascribed his miracles to the operation of Satan [Chrysostom, AD 347–407; Jerome, AD 342–420]. (8) The sin is the denial of Christ’s true and full deity [Athanasius, AD 296–373]. (9) The sin is impoenitentia finalis, i.e., an unrepentant and unbelieving disposition of heart persisted in to the end [Augustine, AD 354–430]. Calvin rejected this view, noting that Christ said the unpardonable sin was one that could be committed during one’s lifetime. (10) The sin is knowingly and defiantly resisting the Spirit’s testimony to the truth of the gospel, Acts 6:10; 7:51. Paul also resisted the truth but was forgiven because he acted in ignorance and unbelief, 1 Tim. 1:13 [Calvin]. (11) The sin is that of “works-righteousness,” i.e., the belief that one earns salvation by works [Barth, 1935]. The view is “exegetically ungrounded” (Berkouwer, 327, quoting K. H. Miskotte). (12) The sin is anti-Semitism, “for anisemitism is the rejection of God’s grace” [the older Barth, quoted in Berkouwer, 327]. (13) The blasphemy against the Spirit is a post-Pentecostal sin. Before Pentecost the Son is present “in hidden form,” and sin against him “is committed in ignorance and may be pardoned.” After Pentecost, however, he is apprehended by the Holy Spirit and resistance to his power is unforgivable. “The possibility of this sin thus arises only with the Pentecostal era when the Holy Spirit has been poured out by Jesus on the disciples and has become their indwelling possession” [Procksch]. (14) A variation of view # 13 builds on a more skeptical view of the historicity of the Gospels. The warning of Matthew 12:31–32 was not actually spoken by the earthly Christ, but is the construction of an early Christian prophet. Speaking against the Son of Man refers to those who rejected Christ before the resurrection (during his “pre-Easter incognito”), and blasphemy against the Spirit is the sin of those after Easter who renounced their faith under persecution [Boring] or disobeyed the Spirit’s voice in apostolic preaching [Bultmann]. Dunn has convincingly argued that the writers of the NT did not read the word of Christian prophets onto the lips of the historical Christ [cf. Carson]. For documentation and further discussion, cf. Didache 11.7, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard, 1912), 326–27; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.9, in ANF, 1:429; Origen, De Principiis 1.3.7, in ANF, 4:254–55; Novatian, Treatise Concerning the Trinity 29, in ANF, 5:641; The Questions of Bartholomew 5.4, in The Apocryphal New Testament, ed. J. K. Elliott (rev. ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 667; Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit 1.3.54, in NPNF, 2d Series, 10:100; Jerome, Letters 42, in NPNF, 2d Series, 6:56–57; Athanasius, Letters 54 [to Serapion], in NPNF 2d Series, 4:565; Augustine, Sermons on New Testament Lessons 21 [Sermon 71 in Benedictine Edition], in NPNF, 1st Series 6:318–32); Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew 41, in NPNF, 1st Series, 10:267; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.3.22, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:617–18; Otto Procksch, “ἅγιο̑,” TDNT, 1:104; M. Eugene Boring, “The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mark III 28–29/Matt. XII 31–32/Luke XII 10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” NovT 18 (Oct., 1976), 258–79 (esp. 276–79); Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 131, n. 1; James D. G. Dunn, “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early Christianity,” NTS 24 (1978): 175-98 (esp. 193–96); L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 252–53; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:347–48; Carson, “Matthew,” 291–92; Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “Misconception of Jesus, and Blasphemy of the Son of Man,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), 196–237; Gottfried Fitzer, “Die Sünde wider den Heiligen Geist,” ThZ (May, 1957), 161–82; J. Sidlow Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, trans. Philip C. Holtrop, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 323–53; F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1983), 88–93.
95. I am here following Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 3–4.
96. Cf. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2:43.
97. Cf. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 347.
98. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 4.
99. Bruner, The Christbook, 463.
100. Jesus’ statement that a certain sin would not be forgiven in the age to come was later taken by some to imply that other sins might be forgiven. The text came to be used as a proof text for Purgatory (Augustine, The City of God 21.24 in NPNF, 1st Series, 2:470) and post-mortem salvation (Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 180).
101. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 180.
102. Cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 253.
103. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 4–5.
104. “How then should we define this distinction between the Spirit and Jesus Christ?” Should we conceive of a form of subordinationism and regard the Spirit as outranking the Son?… We can only conclude the distinction here is tied up with the revelation of the incarnate Word and the uniqueness of the Son of man in His humiliation and hiddenness” (Berkouwer, Sin, 338).
105. Cf. David J. MacLeod, “Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5–8,” BibSac 158 (July, 2001): 308-30.
106. Darrell L. Bock, “A Theology of Paul’s Prison Epistles,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 323.
107. Carson, “Matthew,” 209–13; Steven H. Sanchez, “Jesus’ Use of the Title ‘Son of Man’ in Matthew 26:64,” EmJ 9 (Winter, 2000): 193-203. Carson notes that Daniel 7:13–14 was not widely recognized as a messianic title—at least not so that Jesus’ simple use of the term would automatically be understood to be a reference to the Messiah. For a survey of critical opinion on the subject, cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:43–53. Davies and Allison believe that the influence of Daniel 7 was “decisive for Matthew’s understanding” (2:51). If, however, Jesus speaks in Matthew 12:32 of the eschatological man of Daniel 7, then the distinction between speaking against the Son of Man and blasphemy against the Spirit is hard to distinguish. Davies and Allison admit that, for them, “Matt. 12:32 has no obvious meaning” (2:348).
108. M'Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 178.
109. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.3.22 (1:618).
110. Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts, 123.
111. Berkouwer, Sin, 331.
112. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966),
113. Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 3d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1913), 68.
114. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 5. Johnson wrote, “It can only be committed in the days of the [earthly sojourn] of the Son of Man, for it is only then that sin against the son is of lesser import than sin against the Spirit.” John A. Broadus agreed. He asked, “Are these conditions ever fulfilled, except in an age of miracles?” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Valley Forge: Judson, 1886], 272). Carson finds this explanation “unhelpful” (“Matthew,” 291).
115. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 5.
116. Some commentators have concluded that 1 John 5:16 (“a sin leading to death”) is also a reference to the unpardonable sin. It is argued that “life” and “death” regularly refer to spiritual life and death in the epistle, so the death in verse 16 is eternal death (Robert Law, The Tests of Life, 3d ed. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914], 138). Those holding this view generally arrive at two different conclusions about the “brother,” depending whether they are Calvinists or Wesleyan Arminians. Wesleyans argue that the “brother” is a true believer who falls into apostasy (e.g., I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 250). Calvinists argue that the person is only a professing “brother” who falls away from a false profession but not from eternal life, which he never had (e.g., John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, TNTC, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 192). It seems unlikely that John would call such a hardened apostate a “brother.” The more probable interpretation is that John is speaking of physical death inflicted upon a true believer as punishment for some deliberate sin (e.g., Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:30). The word “brother” assumes that the person is a believer who already possesses eternal life. The life promised is life abundant and the death avoided is physical death. Proponents of this view include William Kelly, Exposition of the Epistles of John (London: Hammond, 1905), 387; Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 233.
117. Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts, 123.
118. Baxter, Studies in Problem Texts, 123.
119. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 179.
120. Cf. Berkouwer, Sin, 334–38.
121. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 3:302–5.
122. A significant study of one era of church history is: Baird Tipson, “A Dark Side of Seventeenth-Century English Protestantism: The Sin Against the Holy Spirit,” HTR 77 (1984): 301-30.
123. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Cure (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1965), 67–67; cf. Bethan Lloyd-Jones, Memories of Sandfields (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), 91–93.
124. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 142.
125. Some who believe they have committed the unpardonable sin are actually mentally ill. William Cowper, mentioned at the beginning of this article, was probably suffering from a bipolar disorder. Cf. Owens, “The Dark Side of Grace,” 35. For further discussion by a Christian psychologist, cf. Henry A. Virkler, “Allaying Fears About the Unpardonable Sin,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 18 (1999): 254-69.
126. Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, 74.
127. Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, 74.
128. Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, 75.
129. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 274.
130. Foerster, “σατανᾶ̑,” 159.
131. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 274.
132. Foerster, “σατανᾶ̑,” 159.
133. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 5.
134. Davies and Allison outline the narrative sections of Matthew as follows: (1) Matthew 1:1–1:4:23 introduces the reader to Jesus. (2) Matthew 8:1–9:38 recounts Jesus’ mighty messianic acts and witness to Israel. (3) Matthew 11:1–12:50 records “the negative response of corporate Israel to her Messiah’s activities.” (4) Matthew 13:53–17:27 records “the consequence of the rejection of the Messiah.” The church, including Jew and Gentile, is born, and this is “traced directly to the failure of Israel to live up to her eschatological calling. The underlying logic of the narrative is explicitly formulated in 21:43, which speaks of the kingdom being taken away from its Jewish custodians and given to the church” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:642).
135. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 274.
136. Johnson, “The Unpardonable Sin,” 1.