The Monastic Pint Answers from church history on today's questions

Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

What Christian writers said, from about AD 339 to 1930.

35 passages · 19 writers · 7 centuries

The short answer

Barnes, Henry, Wesley, and Robertson say the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the Pharisees' charge that Christ's works were done by the devil or by an unclean spirit. Brown says a word against the Son of man could be spoken ignorantly, in unbelief, while he was in his veiled condition, whereas blasphemy against the Holy Ghost came after fuller light and in full knowledge. Augustine says the unforgivable word is that of the impenitent heart against the Holy Ghost, by whom sins are remitted in the Church. Edwards, Hodge, and Wesley read "neither in this world, neither in the world to come" as meaning the sin is never forgiven. Augustine infers from the phrase that some sins not remitted in this life are remitted in the next, and Hodge denies that the words imply this.

The charge that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub

13 passages · 12 writers · 300s to 1900s

Barnes, Henry, Wesley, and Robertson say the blasphemy was the Pharisees' charge that Christ's works were done by the devil or by an unclean spirit. Jerome says the sin is the clamor of those who see that God's works are the fruit of virtue and yet ascribe the virtue to a demon, and he denies Novatian's claim that only Christian renegades can commit it. Ambrose says that anyone who denies the majesty of the Holy Spirit and thinks devils are cast out by Beelzebub rather than in the Spirit of God cannot obtain pardon, Owen says that in the Pharisees' charge they blasphemed the Spirit by assigning his works to the prince of devils, and Tillotson says that resisting the evidence of Christ's miracles and attributing them to the devil is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

1710–1714 · Matthew Henry, Commentary on Mark 3.22-30

Many of those who reviled Christ on the cross (which was a blaspheming of the Son of man, aggravated to the highest degree), found mercy, and Christ himself prayed, Father, forgive them; but this was blaspheming the Holy Ghost, for it was by the Holy Spirit that he cast out devils, and they said, It was by the unclean spirit, v. 30. By this method they would outface the conviction of all the gifts of the Holy Ghost after Christ's ascension, and defeat them all, after which there remained no more proof, and therefore they should never have forgiveness, but were liable to eternal damnation. They were in imminent danger of that everlasting punishment, from which there was no redemption, and in which there was no intermission, no remission.

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Matthew 12.31

In this place, and in Mar 3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the "spirit" or "power" of God, but by the aid of the prince of the devils. It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is clear from Mar 3:30, "because they said he had an unclean spirit."

The Son of Man and the Spirit

13 passages · 9 writers · 300s to 1900s

Brown says the contrast is between slandering the Son of man in his veiled condition, which might be done ignorantly, in unbelief, and slandering him after the glory the Holy Ghost was soon to throw around his claims, in full knowledge; he says it does not arise from any greater sanctity in one Person than in the other. Ryle says the sin against the Son of Man was committed by those who did not know Christ to be the Messiah, and that many of them were pardoned, as at Pentecost, while the sin against the Holy Spirit was committed by those who after Pentecost persisted in unbelief and obstinate impenitence. Henry says words against the Son of man spoken from stumbling at the meanness of his appearance are capable of excuse, but that forgiveness is denied to those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost after the Spirit was poured out. Barnes says reproaches about Christ's poverty, humble birth, and lowly human nature could be forgiven, but accusing him of being in league with the devil, which affected his divine nature, could not. Augustine says the difference is not that the Holy Ghost is greater than the Son, and that the sin that cannot be forgiven is the word of the impenitent heart against the Holy Ghost, by whom sins are remitted in the Church; where that is absent, even a word against the Son of Man is forgiven. Athanasius says the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is greater than that against Christ's humanity, such as the saying "Is not this the carpenter's son?" Calvin says blasphemy against the Spirit is a token of reprobation, and that those who fall into it never rise again, because God hardens them so that they have no desire for repentance.

1555 · John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, part 2 Matt.12.31

Some consider this to be too harsh, and betake themselves to the childish expedient, that it is said to be unpardonable, because the pardon of it is rare and difficult to be obtained. But the words of Christ are too precise to admit of so silly an evasion. It is excessively foolish to argue that God will be cruel if he never pardon a sin, the atrocity of which ought to excite in us astonishment and horror. Those who reason in that manner do not sufficiently consider what a monstrous crime it is, not only to profane intentionally the sacred name of God, but to spit in his face when he shines evidently before us. It shows equal ignorance to object, that it would be absurd if even repentance could not obtain pardon; for blasphemy against the Spirit is a token of reprobation, and hence it follows, that whoever have fallen into it, have been delivered over to a reprobate mind, (Romans 1:28.) As we maintain, that he who has been truly regenerated by the Spirit cannot possibly fall into so horrid a crime, so, on the other hand, we must believe that those who have fallen into it never rise again; nay, that in this manner God punishes contempt of his grace, by hardening the hearts of the reprobate, so that they never have any desire towards repentance.

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Matthew 12.31

A word against the Son of man - The Jews were offended at the humble life and appearance of the Saviour. They reproached him as being a Nazarene - sprung from Nazareth, a place from which no good was expected to proceed; with being a Galilean, from Galilee, a place from which no prophet came, Joh 7:52. Jesus says that reproaches of this kind could be pardoned. Reflections on his poverty, on his humble birth, and on the lowliness of his human nature might be forgiven; but for those which affected his divine nature, accusing him of being in league with the devil, denying his divinity, and attributing the power which manifestly implied divinity to the prince of fallen spirits, there could be no pardon. This sin was a very different thing from what is now often supposed to be the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was a wanton and blasphemous attack on the divine power and nature of Christ.

1856–1869 · J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke 12.8-12

The distinction between speaking a word against the Son of Man and blaspheming against the Holy Spirit should not be overlooked. The explanation is probably something of this kind: the sin against the Son of Man was committed by those who did not know Christ to be the Messiah and did not receive him or obey him but rejected him and crucified him. Doubtless many of those who sinned in this way were pardoned, as, for example, on the Day of Pentecost after Peter preached. The sin against the Holy Spirit was committed by those who, after the Day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Spirit and the full proclamation of the Gospel, persisted in unbelief and obstinate impenitence and were given over to a reprobate mind. These especially grieved the Spirit and resisted his work.

Neither in this world nor the world to come

9 passages · 7 writers · 400s to 1800s

Edwards says the negative covers all times, and that the words "neither in this world, nor in the world to come" show that the sin is never forgiven and the punishment has no end. Hodge says the words are a familiar way of saying that a thing can never happen under any circumstances, and he denies that they imply that some sins unforgiven in this life may be forgiven hereafter. Calvin says the meaning is that those who have blasphemed against the Spirit will not obtain pardon in this life or be acquitted in the last judgment. Wesley says the phrase was a Jewish proverbial expression for a thing that would never be done, that it also means the man will not escape punishment in this world or the next, and that when the denial of Christ rises to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost it shall never be forgiven and there is no place for repentance. Henry offers several readings: that under the gospel dispensation there is no pardon for those who tread underfoot the blood of the covenant, that the sin is forgiven neither now in the sinner's conscience nor at the great day, or that it exposes the sinner to both temporal and eternal punishment. Owen says the words mean that those who persist in reproaching the Holy Ghost will not escape vengeance even in this world, as happened to the generation Christ addressed. Augustine infers from the phrase that some whose sins are not remitted in this life will have them remitted in the life to come, after enduring the pains proper to the spirits of the dead.

1555 · John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, part 2 Matt.12.31

Shall any unbeliever curse God? It is as if a blind man were dashing against a wall. But no man curses the Spirit who is not enlightened by him, and conscious of ungodly rebellion against him; for it is not a superfluous distinction, that all other blasphemies shall be forgiven, except that one blasphemy which is directed against the Spirit. If a man shall simply blaspheme against God, he is not declared to be beyond the hope of pardon; but of those who have offered outrage to the Spirit, it is said that God will never forgive them. Why is this, but because those only are blasphemers against the Spirit, who slander his gifts and power, contrary to the conviction of their own mind? Such also is the import of the reason assigned by Mark for the extreme severity of Christ’s threatening against the Pharisees; because they had said that he had the unclean spirit; for in this manner they purposely and maliciously turned light into darkness; and, indeed, it is in the manner of the giants, as the phrase is, to make war against God.

1710–1714 · Matthew Henry, Commentary on Matthew 12.22-37

] What the sentence is that is passed upon it; It shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. As in the then present state of the Jewish church, there was no sacrifice of expiation for the soul that sinned presumptuously; so neither under the dispensation of gospel grace, which is often in scripture called the world to come, shall there be any pardon to such as tread underfoot the blood of the covenant, and do despite to the Spirit of grace: there is no cure for a sin so directly against the remedy. It was a rule in our old law, No sanctuary for sacrilege. Or, It shall be forgiven neither now, in the sinner's own conscience, nor in the great day, when the pardon shall be published. Or, this is a sin that exposes the sinner both to temporal and eternal punishment, both to present wrath and the wrath to come.

1796 · Jonathan Edwards, Remarks on Important Theological Controversies 2

The negative is general, and equally respects all times. If this sin should be forgiven at a remote time, it would be as contrary to such a negative, as if it were forgiven immediately. But, to determine us that Christ has respect to all times, even the remotest, and that he means to deny that he shall be forgiven at any time whatsoever, in Mark it is said, “He shall never be forgiven; or, hath never forgiveness; ” and, lest this never should be interpreted to mean, never as long as he lives, or never in this world, it is said in Matt. xii. 32. “It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” And lest it should be said, that, although he never is forgiven, yet that does not hinder but that there may be an end to his punishment; because he may suffer all he deserves in suffering a temporal punishment, or punishment of a limited, long duration; and he that is acquitted in paying all his debt, is not said to be forgiven his debt: another expression is used in Mark, which shows that he shall ever suffer damnation, and never have deliverance from his misery, whether by forgiveness or without it. “Hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of to come,” show the meaning of the word eternal here, to be such as absolutely excludes any period, any time of favour, wherein condemnation and punishment shall have ceased.