Content uploaded by Myk Habets
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Myk Habets on Jan 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOURNAL OF
THEOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION
vol. | no. |
The Pennsylvania State University Press
JOURNAL OF
THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Vol. | No. |
Introduction: Spirit Christology and the eological Interpretation
ofScripture |
MYK HABETS AND LEOPOLDO A. SÁNCHEZ M.
ARTICLES
e Spirit, the Prophets, and the End of the “Johannine Jesus” |
MICHAEL J. GORMAN
“But If ... by the Spirit of God”: Reading Matthew’s Lord’s Prayer
as Spirit Christology |
D. BRENT LAYTHAM
Jesus, the Spirit, and the Unforgivable Sin: A Contribution from Spirit
Christology |
MYK HABETS
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: e Spirit and the Resurrection
of the Son in Matthew and John |
ANDY JOHNSON
e Holy Spirit and the Son’s Glorication: Spirit Christology as a eological
Lens for Interpreting John :– |
LEOPOLDO A. SÁNCHEZ M.
doi: ./jtheointe...
Journal of Theological Interpretation, Vol. , No. ,
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
A Contribution from Spirit Christology
Crey Grdute School, Aucklnd, New Zelnd
| In Mtt :– (nd prr.: Mrk :–; Luke :–), the confronttion
between the Phrisees nd Jesus reches fever pitch nd Jesus pronounces over them
the judment of the unforivble sin, nmely, blsphemy inst the Holy Spirit. This
loion hs perplexed biblicl commenttors nd theoloins like, s evidenced by the
conflictin interprettions of the episode in the literture. Redin this text throuh
the lens of biblicl nd Trinitrin Spirit Christoloy provides key interpretive pr-
dim by which to mke full sense of this messinic disclosure episode within the Gospel
nrrtives s whole. The mihty works of Jesus were portls throuh which the pres-
ence of the Spirit miht be viewed; they point to who Jesus is nd demnd response
in liht of this reveltion. This contribution from Spirit Christoloy helps to interpret
the pericope in wy tht tkes full ccount of the response of the Phrisees in the
context of messinic disclosure expecttions. The blsphemy of the Holy Spirit nd the
unforiveble sin loi further revel the messinic identity of Jesus nd s such form
n importnt prt of the Gospel witness to Jesus the Christ.
| Spirit Christoloy, blsphemy, Messih, unforivble sin, Beelzebul, slnder,
Phrisees, stron mn, pneumtoloy, Christoloy, nointed, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ
e unforgiveable sin logion found in Matt :– (and parr.: Mark :–;
Luke [:–] :–), has perplexed readers for centuries and nds no uni-
form interpretation among the doctors of the church. Jesus’ pronouncement
of an unforgiveable sin based on blasphemy of the Spirit is seen by many to
be incompatible with the teaching on forgiveness elsewhere in the Gospels,
and nothing in the OT prepares us for this specic pronouncement. In the OT
(Lev :) we nd a clear prohibition against blaspheming (speaking against
or defamation of) the name of God, punishable by death, and so the logion
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
has precedent, but with one signicant dierence. In the Synoptic Gospels it is
not simply blasphemy against God that is punishable by death, but specically
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In the context of the mutually dening relation-
ship between the incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit, this logion, far from being
ambiguous or mysterious, forms a signicant messianic disclosure episode in
the life of Christ.
A Difficult Teaching?
Donald Hagner admits that “this is a dicult passage that does not exactly en-
courage optimism in the exegete.” He cites Davies and Allison, who say, “As it
stands, Matt . has no obvious meaning... We remain stumped.” R.T.France
says this logion “has oen been inappropriately, and sometimes disastrously,
applied to contexts which have little to do with its original setting.” Augustine
famously wrote: “I tell you Beloved; perhaps there is not in all holy Scripture a
more important or more dicult question,” and yet Ulrich Luz confesses that
“none of the interpretations that [he has] found in the literature satisfy [him].”
Luz, in fact, nds little in this pericope worth retaining and certainly nothing
worth preaching on. is is not, to say the least, an encouraging start. Writing
in , Puritan scholar George Smeaton helpfully divided the various inter-
pretations of this text into three categories: rst, those that make the sin only
possible when Jesus walked the earth; second, those that make the sin against
the Holy Spirit equivalent to nal impenitence; and third, those that see this
sin as a peculiar resistance to the truth combined with malice, which can be
committed before the end of one’s life. While Smeaton’s list is a good one, we
should add two more categories to his taxonomy. Fourth, there are those inter-
pretations that see this sin as apostasy, a rejection of the faith once held; here
Matt :– is linked to Heb :– and John :–. Fih, there is the view
that this is not an original saying of Jesus, best treated as an interpolation and
so ignored altogether. ere are, of course, other ways to order accounts of this
. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC a (Dallas: Word, ), .
. Ibid., , citing W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 8–18, ICC (London: T&T Clark,
), .
. Richard T. France, e Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ), .
. Augustine, Sermon 21 (71) (21, ) on Matt ., in Sermons on New Testament Lessons (NPNF
:). Hereaer abbreviated as Sermon with paragraph, part, and page; i.e., Sermon 21, (NPNF
:).
. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, ), .
. George Smeaton, e Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, nd ed. (, Edinburgh: Banner of truth,
), –.
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
logion, but these ve categories are, in my estimation, comprehensive enough
to cover all the necessary ground.
A survey of all ve interpretations of the blasphemy logion is unnecessary,
though a closer reading of the two most persistent options will be protable,
namely, options two and three above. In particular, a nuanced version of option
three informed by a Spirit Christology, will be seen to account for the evidence
more comprehensively than do any of the existing interpretations, in that it
clearly draws out the messianic implications of the text.
Final Impenitence
e most popular and persistent interpretation of Matt :– is that what is
in view is nal impenitence; as long as someone continues to reject the gospel
they are unable to be redeemed. e rst major contribution to this subject was
made by Augustine (AD –) over a series of publications but especially
in a sermon dedicated to the passage. He claims that the sin against the Holy
Spirit is to deny the Spirit’s activity in the church; it is a failure to receive the
sacraments, and a failure to believe that one’s sins are forgiven in the church.
In all such cases, the impenitent is unable to be forgiven and is said to have
committed blasphemy against the Spirit.
In his Sermon on Matthew : Augustine expounds the text and oers his
own interpretation of this most dicult but important of questions (., p.).
He argues the text does not refer to general blasphemy against the Spirit, for that
is what all unbelievers do and so none could be saved (., p.). He also rules
out the option that this is a specic phrase or utterance that instantly expels one
from the saving grace of God (., p. ). is must be, argues Augustine, such
a particular blasphemy that it can never be pardoned (., p. ).
But what blasphemy is unpardonable? According to Augustine, it is nal
impenitence (., p. ). us, this sin cannot be pronounced until a person
dies (., p. ). Impenitence against the Spirit cannot be forgiven because
the person in this scenario “has stopped the source of forgiveness against him-
self” (., p. ), writes Augustine. It is the Holy Spirit who gives remission
. For an alternative listing, see Luz, Matthew 8–20, –; Nicholas Lammé, “e Blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit: e Unpardonable Sin in Matthew :–,” Mid-America Journal of
eology (): –.
. Augustine, Enchiridion Concerning the Correction of the Donatists . (NPNF :); On
Rebuke, Chapter (NPNF :); and Grace, (NPNF :).
. Augustine, Sermon 21 (NPNF :–).
. Augustine, Sermon 21, (NPNF :–).
. Augustine, Sermon 21, (NPNF :).
. Augustine, Faith, Hope, and Charity . (trans. Louis A. Arand, ACW [Westminster,
MD: Newman, ], .).
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
of sins, so to deny or blaspheme the Spirit is to resist or deny the Trinity, aer
which there is no salvation.
Augustine’s interpretation of this logion is disappointing. It fails to take
seriously the divine agency indicated in the text (God will not forgive this sin),
and fails to take seriously the fact that it is pronounced over these Pharisees and
is not a warning about some future possibility. Augustine is correct, however,
when he observes that several other texts help interpret this logion, namely
Matt :, where the context is confessing Christ publicly (., p. ). is is
the Pharisees’ job; they know who the Messiah is and they fail to witness to him.
is is also now the job of the church, to witness to Jesus the Messiah. When the
Pharisees, or anyone who knows Jesus to be the Christ, fails to witness to this
reality and instead becomes an anti-Christ apologist, they have committed the
unforgiveable sin and can nd no forgiveness.
Augustine is not alone in this interpretation. Turning to more recent com-
mentators we nd similar conclusions. Graham Cole makes a distinction
between sins against the Holy Spirit committed by “insiders” and those com-
mitted by “outsiders.” One of the sins that outsiders can commit is blasphemy
of the Holy Spirit. “Blaspheming the Spirit is the settled rejection of the Spirit’s
testimony to Jesus.” He also asserts that “blaspheming the Spirit is not an epi-
sode but a way of life.” Cole thus believes “this is the sin of persistent impenitent
unbelief.”
Cole is right to conclude that to blaspheme the Spirit is to adopt a particular
stance in relation to the identity and mission of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He
is also right that blaspheming the Spirit is the settled rejection of the Spirit’s
testimony to Jesus the Messiah. However, in Cole’s treatment of the logion, the
sin is little more than general unbelief. ere is no dierence for Cole between
the one who blasphemes the Spirit and the one who resists the Holy Spirit to the
end. But that surely does not do justice to the logion or to the contexts within
which it is found.
Cole’s views are found in other recent interpreters. Darrell Bock is
representative of many when, citing John Nolland, he interprets the sin as “the
denial or rejection of the manifest saving intervention of God on behalf of his
People...e one who hardens himself or herself against what God is doing
as he acts to save places himself or herself beyond the reach of God’s present
. Graham A. Cole, “Sins against the Holy Spirit,” Southern Baptist Journal of eology .
(): –. e language of “insider” and “outsider” is his.
. Ibid., .
. Ibid., –; earlier, idem, Engaging with the Holy Spirit: Six Crucial Questions (Nottingham:
Apollos, ), –.
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
disposition of eschatological forgiveness.” What such accounts do not take
into consideration, however, are the messianic nature of the logion and the ac-
tive role of God in preventing faith in such hardened hearts.
Finally, N. T. Wright oers a novel, but ultimately unsatisfying interpre-
tation where he likens the actions of the Pharisees to a “conspiracy theory”
wherein there is no way back once the work of the Spirit is labeled that of the
devil. “It isn’t that God gets specially angry with one sin in particular,” he writes.
“It’s rather that if you decide rmly that the doctor who is oering to perform
a life-saving operation on you is in fact a sadistic murderer, you will never give
your consent to the operation.”
Contrary to Augustine, Cole, Bock, Wright, and others, I do think the Phar-
isees in Matthew’s account, at least, had actually committed this sin. Matthew
:– shows that Jesus’ further teaching applies to the Pharisees, that they
had cultivated a life of producing bad fruit that ows from the heart of a bad
person. is sin is one rooted in a life with a history of opposition to God as
evidenced by a history of opposition to Christ. In the words of Duane Watson:
“e Pharisees should clearly see that by his healing ministry Jesus was fullling
the prophecies of the Messiah, as Jesus himself points out to them (vv.–),
but they persist in refusing to acknowledge the truth.” For these and other rea-
sons, Augustine’s view, the most popular one, that blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit is nal impenitence, is to be rejected.
A Peculiar Sin
e second view worth considering is that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a
peculiar sin possible before death. John Calvin provides a foundational over-
view of this view, echoed by more recent commentators. According to Calvin,
the sin against the Holy Spirit is committed by those who, convicted in their
. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, ), , citing
John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC b (Dallas: Word, ), –. Bock has repeated these
claims more recently in Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson, Jesus the God-Man: e Unity
and Diversity of the Gospel Portrayals (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, ), –.
. N. T. Wright, Mark for Everyone (London: SPCK, ), . His commentaries on Matthew
and Luke in the same series merely echo the same theme but not in as much detail.
. James I. Packer, Concise eology: A Guide to Historic Christian Belief (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, ), : “Jesus saw that the Pharisees were getting close to committing this sin, and
he spoke in hope of holding them back from fully lapsing into it.” Mark’s account adds the detail
that Jesus did not declare them guilty of this sin but that they were “liable” (enochos) to commit it
if they continued in their willful rejection of him. Whatever the exegesis of Mark’s account might
yield, in Matthew’s account it is clear the Pharisees confronting Jesus have committed this sin.
. Duane F. Watson, “Sins against the Holy Spirit,” in Holy Spirit: Unnished Agenda, ed.
Johnson T. K. Lim (Singapore: Word N Works; Singapore: Genesis, ), .
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
consciences, deliberately impugn and repudiate the word of God, in that they
strive against the illumination of the Spirit. is happens when one opposes
doctrine even though convicted that it is from God. Calvin oers a concise
denition of this sin as committed by “he that sins against the Holy Spirit who,
while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead igno-
rance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting.”
Calvin explicitly disagrees with Augustine on this point and he is followed
by others. omas Oden, drawing insights from patristic writers, denes blas-
phemy against the Holy Spirit as “directly ascribing to the power of evil, the
coming of God into history through the Son and the Spirit ... is sin instantly
places the self beyond the range of forgiveness, because every step toward re-
pentance and faith is enabled by the Holy Spirit.” Louis Berkhof oers one
of the most precise and accurate denitions of what blasphemy of the Spirit is
according to this view when he writes: “It is evidently a sin committed during
the present life, which makes conversion and pardon impossible. e sin con-
sists in the conscious, malicious, and willful rejection and slandering, against
evidence and conviction, of the testimony of the Holy Spirit respecting the
grace of God in Christ, attributing it out of hatred and enmity to the prince
of darkness.” Wayne Grudem largely follows Berkhof and helpfully notes the
conditions by which this specic sin can be committed. It includes, () a clear
knowledge of who Christ is and the power of the Holy Spirit working through
him, () a willful rejection of the Christ, and () slanderously attributing the
work of the Holy Spirit in Christ to the power of Satan.
Despite his earlier pessimistic comments, Hagner rightly claims that the
meaning of the unforgiveable sin logion can only be derived from an under-
standing of its immediate context, the healing of the demoniac in Matt :–
and the Pharisees’ charge that Jesus heals by the power of Beelzebul. In mak-
ing that charge, Hagner claims, the Pharisees have committed the unforgivable
sin and thus remain unforgiven. ey had not only slandered the Son of Man
(which was forgivable), but had nally rejected the power by which Christ was
empowered, the Holy Spirit, and thus they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Hagner
helpfully concludes his commentary on this pericope with a denition of the
. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis
Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, ), ...
. omas C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic eology (New York: Harper One,
),.
. Louis Berkhof, Systematic eology (London: Banner of Truth, ), .
. Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, ), .
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
unforgivable sin: “that of deliberately denying God in a fundamental way, one
which goes against plain and obvious evidence.”
Hagner and others in this interpretive tradition are clear that this sin is
unforgiveable, and it is so because the oender has rejected Jesus of Nazareth
as God. As far as it goes, this is helpful. However, this interpretation misses the
fundamental point. It is not simply a rejection of Jesus as God that is taught
in the blasphemy logion but a knowing rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. It is
not the “god” of contemporary Jewish expectation that was being rejected, but,
rather, the promised Messiah; and that is the contribution a Spirit Christology
makes to a theological interpretation of this logion.
It seems clear that the Pharisees in this pericope did know who Jesus was;
they understood he was the Messiah, the One sent by God, and they knew
this precisely because of the presence of the Holy Spirit within and evident in
Jesus’ words and works. On this basis, they rejected Jesus as the Messiah and
instead attributed his power and presence to Beelzebul, the prince of demons.
In so doing, the Pharisees were publicly denying Christ and were leading others
astray by their false witness. In short, the Pharisees blasphemed God by blas-
pheming the Holy Spirit as evidenced through the incarnate Son. To such as
these, Jesus has already said that whoever denies him before people he will deny
before God, and here he issues that pronouncement on the Pharisees.
Our scholars have not oered us much in the way of an interpretation of
this logion that really makes full sense of the context or the theology of the
text, with the exception of several Reformed divines whose interpretations lay
a solid foundation on which to build. Some have wanted to expunge the text
from Scripture completely, while others see it as general unbelief. How are we
to address the diverse and mutually exclusive interpretations of this text oered
by such scholars? It is my contention, along with a growing number of others,
that the only way to make full sense of this text, and indeed of the Gospels
as a whole, is by means of a theological interpretation of Scripture – in this
specic case, that of a Spirit Christology. In what follows I adopt the third view
presented above, that this is a peculiar sin able to be committed before death,
but with the additional insights available by reading this account through the
lens of a Spirit Christology.
Messianic Disclosure Episodes
Spirit Christology is not a precisely denable Christological construction. We
can arm, however, that Spirit Christology is a Christology pursued from a
. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, .
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Trinitarian perspective, highlighting the mutual relations between the Son and
the Spirit in the incarnation. It is a Christological construction formulated from
a Spirit-oriented direction, a Christology that recognizes that its dynamism
must proceed from a robust pneumatology. It seeks to understand both who
Christ is and what Christ has done, from the perspective of the Holy Spirit.
Istand with the late Ralph Del Colle who wrote:
What is new and distinctive in Spirit Christology is that, on the level of
theological construction and doctrinal interpretation, it proposes that the
relationship between Jesus and God and the role of Christ in redemption
cannot be fully understood unless there is an explicitly pneumatological
dimension. In other words, the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit
is as important to conveying the truth of the christological mystery with
its soteriological consequences as that of Jesus and the Word.
Central to the thesis of a Spirit Christology is that the Gospels all present the
identity of Jesus in terms of a pneumatic–human relation. In the words of Colin
Brown: “If Matthew, Mark, and Luke have an explicit Spirit Christology accom-
panied by an implicit Word Christology, John presents an explicit Word Chris-
tology, accompanied by an implicit Wisdom and Spirit Christology.” My claim
here is simple: during what I have coined messianic disclosure episodes in the life
of Jesus, the Spirit is seen as the interpretation of Jesus’ identity. e relationship
between Jesus and the Spirit thus becomes crucial to understanding Jesus.
Within the Gospels a number of distinctive messianic disclosure episodes
clearly highlight the relationship between Christ and the Spirit and in turn point
to his identity as complete God and completely human. ese include but are not
limited to: () birth, () baptism, () temptation, () ministry, () passion, () res-
urrection, () ascension, and () Pentecost. Each episode deserves to be developed
in its own right and is also suggestive of others among Jesus’ words and works.
A survey of critical events in Jesus’ public ministry clearly indicates his iden-
tity is presented against the backdrop of his relationship with the Holy Spirit.
. Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit Christology in Trinitarian Perspective (New
York: Oxford University Press, ), .
. Colin Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu
(): –, (emphasis original).
. John J. O’Donnell, “In Him and Over Him: e Holy Spirit in the Life of Jesus,” Gregorianum
. (): –, here –, calls these “decisive kairoi of his life and ministry.” See Yves M. J.
Congar, e Word and the Spirit, trans. D. Smith (London: Georey Chapman, ), , who uses
similar language.
. D. Brent Laytham’s essay in this volume of JTI illustrates this perfectly. See his “‘But If ... by
the Spirit of God’: Reading Matthew’s Lord’s Prayer as Spirit Christology” (–).
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
roughout the accounts of Jesus’ ministry, we see Jesus the Pneumatiker. Jesus
weaves among the spiritual realm of satanic adversaries, healing, exorcising, and
commanding demons and nature with unprecedented authority, with the Spirit
playing a crucial part in each encounter. But Jesus is not presented as a mere
magician or superman; his acts of power clearly point beyond themselves to
his person and message. His powers are chiey christological as they unveil his
messianic identity. e mighty works of Jesus were portals through which the
presence of the Spirit might be viewed; they point to who Jesus is and demand
a response in light of this revelation. Jesus’ ministry demanded faith, not in the
works themselves, but in the person doing the works, Jesus the Christ.
Advocates of a Spirit Christology maintain that the logion on blasphemy of the
Holy Spirit is an important disclosure episode in the life of Christ that manifests
his messianic identity. Didymus the Blind, as a patristic example, starts his work
On the Holy Spirit with a cautionary note regarding blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
and how important it is to understand the Spirit’s identity and mission aright.
Both the Puritan John Owen and the American revivalist Johnathan Edwards
made much of the Beelzebul controversy as well, and thus show an anity with
Didymus. Edwards devotes several Miscellanies to this account (, , ,
, and ). e unpardonable sin, or the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is
made when someone freely and unmolested maligns the Holy Spirit openly and
knowingly. us it entails three things: “conviction, malice and presumption.”
Edwards makes clear that this unforgivable sin is not necessarily one committed
. Graham H. Twelree, Jesus: e Miracle Worker: A Historical and eological Study (Down-
ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, ), is one of the most useful and exhaustive treatments of this aspect
of Jesus’ ministry.
. See the discussion in C. Kingsley Barrett, e Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, nd ed.
(London: SPCK, ), ; Donald A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Expositor’s
Bible Commentary , ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ), .
. Gary H. Burge, e Anointed Community: e Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, ), .
. Didymus of Alexandria, On the Holy Spirit, in Works of the Spirit: Athanasius the Great
and Didymus the Blind, ed. Mark DelCogliano, Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, and Lewis Ayres, Popular
Patristics (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, ), , §. Didymus later links this
teaching to Isa : (ibid., , §§–). On the connections between Didymus, John Owen, and
Jonathan Edwards regarding a Spirit Christology or ird Article eology, see Myk Habets, “e
Surprising ird Article eology of Jonathan Edwards,” in e Ecumenical Edwards: Jonathan
Edwards and the eologians, ed. Kyle Strobel (Farnham: Ashgate, ), –.
. Edwards, “Miscellanies : Unpardonable Sin” (Wor ks, :). See idem, “Mis cellanies :
Sin against the Holy Ghost” (Work s , :–). Works refers to Jonathan Edwards, e Works of
Jonathan Edwards, vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, –).
. Idem, “Miscellanies : Sin against the Holy Ghost” (Work s, :). See idem, “Miscell anies
: Sin against the Holy Ghost” (Wo rk s, :).
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
with express knowledge of the Spirit; rather, it is committed when one expresses
contempt in respect to the Spirit’s oce, that is, the divine love. In disagree-
ing with Richard Baxter, Edwards argues this sin is a rejection of the “objective
Testimony of the Spirit” and not simply of some “inward illumination.” When
Edwards comes to account for just why this sin alone is unforgiveable he provides
an answer consistent with a Spirit Christology, that the Holy Spirit is the key to
understanding Jesus’ identity and mission, and thus to blaspheme the Spirit is to
blaspheme the triune God made manifest in his self-revelation: “‘Tis a sin of the
most heinous kind with regard to the object against whom it is committed. ‘Tis a
sin committed primarily and most directly against God,” but not just any god;
rather, “he that commits this sin is guilty of reproaching all the persons of the
Trinity in their work and oce, for the Holy Spirit is the last of them he by whom
both the others act.” Pneumatology is thus essential to understanding Christolo-
gy. And so, those who blaspheme the Spirit reject Jesus as the Messiah, knowing
full well who he is and the power by which he works his miracles, lives his sinless
life, and oers his life to God. “Hence, the Jews reproaching the Holy Ghost in
Christ, and calling him Beelzebul, was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.”
Reading the blasphemy logion from the perspective of a Spirit Christology
entails close attention to the context within which the Beelzebul pericope is
located, along with an awareness of the work of the Spirit in the life of Christ
garnered from the canon as a whole. Such a reading brings out the messianic
dimensions of the text and helps provide a fuller interpretation of the text.
The Messiah in Matthew
In light of the messianic ministry of Jesus—the healings, the teaching with
authority, the forgiveness of sins, and particularly the exorcisms—the Pharisees
confront Jesus and ascribe the power behind his ministry to Beelzebul (Mark
:– // Matt:– // Luke:; :–). Beelzebul refers to the prince of
the demons and is identied with Satan. It is in this crux that Jesus’ identity is
. Idem, “Miscellanies ” (Wo rk s, :). Edwards’s rejection of Baxter’s position is
expressed numerous times; for example, idem, “Miscellanies : Sin against the Holy Ghost, Why
Unpardonable” (Work s, :).
. Idem, “Miscell anies ” (Wo rk s, :–).
. Ibid. (Work s, :). Cf. ibid. (Wo rk s, :–).
. Idem, “Miscellanies ” (Wor ks , :).
. Idem, “Miscell anies ” (Wor ks, :). Edwards provides examples of the three ways
one might commit the unpardonable sin: blasphemy, persecution, and apostasy, idem (Wor ks ,
:–).
. See Carson, “Matthew,” ; H. Bietenhard and Colin Brown, “Satan, Beelzebul, Devil,
Exorcism,” NIDNTT :–.
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
to be either veiled or revealed. As such, this controversy forms one of the most
signicant passages within the Synoptic Gospels for any interpreter wishing to
discern the true identity of Jesus.
e issue in the Synoptics over the identity of Jesus comes to a crisis point
in the argument between Jesus and the religious leaders over the source of his
authority (Matt :; cf. Mark :b–). In the words of Colin Brown, “[T]he
title Christ carries with it an implicit reference to the Holy Spirit. us each use
of the title Christ contains an allusion to the Spirit’s unique manifestation in the
life of Jesus. e confession of Jesus as the Christ stands in direct contradiction
to the religious leaders’ claim that Jesus is possessed by Satan.”
The Context in Matthew Immediately Prior
Before the Beelzebul controversy, Matthew records the teaching on Jesus as the
Lord of the Sabbath and his confrontation with the Pharisees over the fact that
his disciples picked some heads of grain to eat (Matt :–). e pericope
concludes with v. : “But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might
kill Jesus.” But Matthew is not nished. In :– Matthew interprets Jesus’
ministry through the words of the prophet Isaiah (:–), encapsulated here
in Matt ::
Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
. Note the similar function of the various texts that question Jesus’ sanity. ere seems to be a
development in the attitudes of the people; he is rst of all thought to have “gone out of his mind”
(Mark :), then he is thought to be “crazy,” and nally he is charged with being “demon possessed”
(John :; :–).
. e Beelzebul controversy involves four sayings that help us to understand Jesus’ own view
of his ministry and that of the evangelists. e rst is the actual Beelzebul charge (Mark :– //
Matt : // Luke :–), second, the Spirit/Finger of God saying (Matt :– // Luke :–),
third, the strong man saying (Mark : // Matt : // Luke :–), and, nally, the blasphemy
charge proper (Mark : // Matt :, b). See M. Eugene Boring, “e Unforgivable Sin Logion
Mark III –/Matt XII –/Luke XII : Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” NovT
(): –; J. C. O’Neil, “e Unforgivable Sin,” JSNT (): –.
. Colin Brown, “Person of Christ,” ISBE :.
. Matthew :uses πολέσωσιν from the root πόλλυμι, “to kill” or “to destroy.” e
word appears times in Matthew and can carry a literal or gurative sense. As the Gospel of
Matthew transpires, it becomes clear the Pharisees wish to destroy Jesus’ reputation and to kill him.
In this regard France says that “the accusation of complicity with the devil is not only extremely
oensive, but is intended to destroy Jesus’ credibility in the eyes of a God-fearing public” (Gospel
of Matthew,).
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
is is one of the classic promises in the OT of a future ruler endowed with
God’s Spirit. is messianic, Davidic King would be specially endowed with the
divine Spirit in unequalled measure.
The Context in Matthew Immediately After
Immediately aer the Beelzebul controversy, however, Matthew gives us quite
a dierent picture of Jesus, in Matt :–. Here Jesus puts his family in their
place, as it were, claiming that all those obedient to the Father are his true fam-
ily. Here Jesus publicly distances himself from being understood simply as the
son of Joseph, Mary’s bizarre boy, or bastard brother to his siblings.
Matthew in Its Wider Context
While this is the immediate context for Matthew’s account of the Beelzebul
controversy, we need to cast our net wider and briey consider the wider OT
context. e Pharisees were familiar with the messianic texts of the OT, briey
represented by the following texts:
Isa :–, of which v. reads:
e Spirit of the L will rest on him —
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of power,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the L.
Isa ::
e Spirit of the Sovereign L is on me,
because the L has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners.
Ezek :–:
I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will
remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of esh.
en they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. ey
. On the link between Jesus as Messiah and allusions to David, see Michael F. Bird, Are You
the One Who Is to Come: e Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, ), –.
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
will be my people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose hearts
are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down
on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign L.
Matthew had already explicitly linked Jesus to the Messiah in this pericope
with his citation of Isa :–. As Richard Hays has memorably put it in relation
to Matthew’s use of the OT, “It is as though Matthew is producing an annotated
study Bible.. .” e Pharisees knew this teaching and were anticipating the
Coming One; they looked forward to the day when this person would arrive.
And how would they know that it was he, the servant, king, the chosen one,
the Messiah? ey would know him by his complex relation to the Holy Spirit
manifested by his titles, words, works, and oce (specically for Matthew, his
kingly oce). e Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ day were the ones set apart to
keep these words before the people—to remind the people who God is, what he
has done, and what he will do. ey were the guardians of the promises of God
called out to point to the Messiah on his arrival. When the Chosen One, the
Davidic King, came there would be no mistake (as testied by the titulus nailed
above Jesus’ head at the crucixion [Matt :]). No confusion. No doubt.
Only one with the Spirit could do what the OT has predicted and prophesied
about him, and this is precisely the claim of Spirit Christology.
When we examine the Gospel of Matthew with these messianic texts in mind
and a Spirit Christology clearly in frame, we see the ways in which the author
is presenting Jesus of Nazareth as the Coming One, as the Messiah. In Matt
we read of the genealogy of Jesus. As prophesied, the Messiah would be from
the house of David, a king. Also in Matt we read that Jesus is conceived by the
Holy Spirit. Conceived by the Holy Spirit in that through the relationship to the
Holy Spirit Jesus is none other than the one whom Matthew calls, in chapter ,
“Immanuel,” “God with us.” In Matt the baptism of Jesus is narrated. Here
the heavens open, the Father’s voice is heard, and the Spirit descends on Jesus as
a dove. In visible form Jesus is shown not only to be conceived by the Holy Spirit
but also lled with the Holy Spirit directly from the Father in heaven. Matthew
records the temptation and trial of Jesus in the wilderness. Led by the Spirit,
. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,
), .
. On the identity of Jesus as the Messiah as set against both OT and Second Temple Judaism,
see Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come, –.
. Bird helpfully claries, “the titulus implies a charge, the charge implies a question, and the
question implies a range of activities by Jesus that brought about the messianic question to the
surface” (ibid., ).
. Hays clearly illustrates the end of the exile theme in the early chapters of Matthew in Echoes
of Scripture, –.
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Jesus confronts Satan and is tempted over a forty-day period. Jesus resists in the
power of the Spirit and establishes his claim on all of humanity. Satan’s demise
is imminent. en note the story in Matt :–. John the Baptist has been
imprisoned and is facing death by beheading. In desperation he reaches out to
Jesus via his disciples to ask one last time: Are you really the Coming One, the
one we have been looking for, the servant and the Messiah? Jesus replies in Matt
:–: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: e blind receive
sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead
are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who
does not fall away on account of me.”
is text is highly signicant, not only for an interpretation of Matt but
also for chapter . In Jesus’ reply he says that only one person could give sight
to the blind, make the lame walk, and cure disease; only one person has control
over creation; and only one person could do the things and speak the words of
Jesus: the Messiah. e text does not tell us but the implication is clear that John
the Baptist was assured that this Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah, the
Coming One. is models precisely the ascending Christology advocated by
Spirit Christology.
Matthew is telling his readers, in other words, that by the presence of the
Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus it is clear to those who know what to look for that
he is the promised Messiah. If John and his disciples could see this, then so too
could the Pharisees. However, as omas Smail notes, there is a stark contrast
between the Baptist’s questioning and the Pharisees’ statement in Matt :.
e Pharisees come with a question that springs from an unbelief that is closed
and not, as John, with a doubt that is open. e reply by Jesus was for John’s
disciples to tell John they see and hear (:–); to the Pharisees he pronounced
a judgement of unforgiveness.
e Pharisees exhibited a prolonged and settled rejection of Jesus; Matthew
makes this clear. In Matt :– we rst come to know of their thoughts: “But
the Pharisees said, ‘It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons’.”
At this stage the Pharisees say this to themselves, they do not say it out loud or
to Christ. And then in Matt :– we have a reference to their associating
Christ with Beelzebul: “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above
his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant
like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much
more the members of his household!” And so nally: the sin of the blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit.
. omas A. Smail, Reected Glory: e Spirit in Christ and Christians (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, ), .
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
The Beelzebul Controversy
In Matt :– a man with a withered hand is brought to Jesus and he heals
him—miraculously. e people are amazed and they question each other “Is
this the Son of David? Is this the promised Messiah?” ey see his works and
the relationship he has to the Spirit and they draw the right conclusion, albeit
with some hesitancy: “is man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” (in re-
sponse to the healing of a demon-possessed man in Matt : immediately
aer). Jesus’ life testied to his person, the words of the Father testied to who
he was, and the works he did through the Holy Spirit testied to his messianic
vocation. ree witnesses testied clearly that Jesus is the Messiah. e Phari-
sees too are convinced by the same testimony, but respond negatively.
The Beelzebul Charge (Matt 12:24)
Knowing full well that Jesus was the Messiah (“the contrast [adversative “but”
[δ]) between the crowds and the Pharisees is made explicit”), the Pharisees
reject him and instead try to deect what he was doing by attributing his power
to the devil, to Beelzebul, the prince of demons. e Beelzebul controversy
highlights the response to Jesus that Matthew thought was required; a person
is either on the side of Satan or on the side of Christ. One cannot reside in
two kingdoms at once. us, the Pharisees are depicted by Matthew as being
squarely within the camp of Jesus’ enemies, as are all those who charge his min-
istry as being empowered by the devil. Hence, to reject Christ and his message
. If the interrogative participle μτι is negative, then the question implies a negative response:
“is man isn’t the Son of David, is he?” However, as Grant R. Osborne points out, with the strong
astonishment the crowd feels, rejection is unlikely, and μτι can also be used of a hesitant ar-
mation: “e people are lled with wonder, feeling that they may have encountered the Messiah”
(Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
], ).
. Osborne, Matthew, .
. Carson is justied in going even further: “Neutrality to Jesus is actually opposition to him
(v); and therefore Jesus gives this warning regarding those that blaspheme against the Spirit,
since the self-professedly neutral person may not recognize the inherent danger of his position”
(Matthew, ).
. is is not to imply that Matthew considers the Pharisees as a group to be evil or to have
committed this sin; that would be to generalize. But these Pharisees standing before Jesus here
and saying such things, they have committed this sin. As John Nolland rightly states: “[I]n a rst-
century context, ‘Pharisee’ and ‘evil’ do not go easily together. e present verse [v] is designed
to give support to the procedure by which the Pharisees have been evaluated on the basis of their
response to the situation that confronted them. e true nature of one’s identity is not given by the
group to which one belongs, but is instead to be read out of one‘s actual behavior” (e Gospel of
Matthew, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ], ).
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
in this particular way is to be found guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
To reject Jesus is to reject the Holy Spirit who anointed and works through him.
The Strong Man Saying (Matt 12:29)
en follows the strong man saying (Mark : // Matt : // Luke :–).
Jesus is not just presented as a healer, but as the healer who has the power to bind
evil powers, a binding that was the inauguration of the end of the age. Satan was
being routed (Luke :). e kingdom of God is present because the Spirit
is uniquely present in the unique Jesus of Nazareth. In these exorcisms the
promised end-time Spirit is operative in the Messiah. is was evidence that
the drought of the Spirit had nally come to an end. Jesus and those aected
by his ministry were experiencing the powers of the age to come. e sign of
the kingdom of God is the manifestation of the power of God.
The Blasphemy Charge (Matt 12:31–32)
e nal saying in the Beelzebul controversy is the concluding blasphemy
charge (cf. Mark :–). By concluding the Beelzebul controversy with the
blasphemy saying proper, Matthew emphasizes what we have already discussed
in regard to this passage, namely, to blaspheme the Spirit is to reject Jesus as the
Messiah, the anointed king. Here pneumatology and Christology are found
in an essential unity that characterizes Jesus’ entire life as pneumatological and
henceforth would characterize the Holy Spirit as christological.
. Within Luke’s perspective, Jesus is the victor of a cosmic struggle. He drives out demons by
the nger of God. He thus brings in the kingdom in its initial form as evidence that Satan can be
overrun, and ultimately, through death, resurrection, and exaltation Jesus forever deals with evil.
See Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, ), –.
. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experi-
ence of Jesus and the First Christians as Reected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster,
), –, misrepresents a Trinitarian Spirit Christology at this stage with the comment that “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.’”
. Commenting on Matt :, Donald A. Carson states: “Some Jewish expectation looked
forward to the nal binding of Satan in the Messianic Age (As Moses :; cf. Rev :)” (“Matthew,”
). Jesus thus declares that his ministry is evidence that he is binding Satan, thus, he is the strong
man, the Messiah of the end times.
. Understanding Jesus as both Messiah and king in Matthew is important, for “calling Jesus
‘Messiah’ does more then identify him as another gure like a prophet, priest, or a king; rather, he
is the denitive revelation of God’s eschatological deliverance” (Bird, Are You the One Who Is to
Come, ).
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
e Son is anointed by the Spirit, enabling him to live a perfect human life,
and the Spirit identies with Christ so that where Christ is, there too is the
Spirit of Christ. James Dunn can conclude:
Here indeed is a consciousness of Spirit without real parallel at the time.
Here we see coming to clear expression Jesus’ sense of the awfulness, the
numinous quality, the eschatological nality of the power which pos-
sessed him. In him, in his action, God was present and active in a decisive
and nal way—to reject his ministry was to reject God and so to reject
forgiveness.
By now it makes sense that this particular sin nds no forgiveness either in
this life or the one to come. Jesus had appeared as a human being, his essential
deity disguised. But he had performed miraculous signs by the Spirit’s power,
and these signs gave unmistakable evidence that God was present and active
in him. e unforgivable sin needs to be understood in this historical context.
ose who charged that Jesus was in league with Satan rejected, consciously,
repeatedly and wilfully, the God who met them in Christ and in his words and
the acts empowered by the Spirit.
e Pharisees’ accusations were made in the full knowledge that their charge
was false. Matthew elaborates on the sin of the Pharisees; his use of the “im-
perfect of the verb, namely ‘elegon,’ suggests that these Pharisees did not just
slander once or twice: they continued to say that it was the work of the devil.
ey persisted in their false accusations. at is what ultimately makes the sin
an eternal sin.”
Here I nd myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the Gospel of
omas, that “he who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and
he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven” ().
I favor this view, precisely because it is a Trinitarian view, and one that gives
the logion the most sense in the contexts within which it is found. is is one
of the few places in the Synoptics where Jesus is distinguished from the Spirit,
and for that reason it is signicant. Here, however, a Spirit Christology reminds
us that Jesus and the Spirit are not in opposition to one another, nor less are
they in economic competition. is is where some commentators go terribly
. ese themes are developed in the Johannine Paraclete sayings along with Acts and the rest
of the NT writings, especially the Pauline corpus.
. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, .
. Gottfried Oosterwal, “e Unpardonable Sin,” Ministry (April ): –.
JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
wrong. One thinks here, for example, of France, who wrote: “is remarkable
statement not only drives a wedge into the heart of the Trinity (apparently giv-
ing the third person a higher status than the other two), but also, by discarding
the title ‘Son of Man,’ eliminates the reference to the incognito of Jesus during
his earthly ministry and so removes any basis for the dierence.” But France’s
position misses the point altogether. Christology and pneumatology are mu-
tually self-dening, such that a failure to see the presence of the Holy Spirit in
the words and works of Jesus is a failure to understand Jesus as the Messiah and
coming king. It is at this point that Spirit Christology proves so useful.
Conclusion: A Peculiar Sin
It is evident then that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not unbelief in gen-
eral. If that were the case, then none could be saved. Rather, this peculiar sin
occurs when someone knowingly, repeatedly, and aggressively speaks against
or slanders the Holy Spirit—by knowingly attributing the incarnate Son’s
Spirit-empowered word and works to the power of the devil. As this passage
makes clear, the Pharisees have been attributing to Satan the work of the
incarnate Son (and the Spirit by implication) and have been doing so, not out
of ignorance, but out of a conscious rejection of the truth. Specically, the
Pharisees were rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; they were not simply
rejecting Jesus’ identity with God (although that is clearly bound up with the
messianic claim).
On the basis of this messianic and so Spirit Christology reading, we can
conclude that this peculiar sin includes () a clear knowledge of Christ and the
power of the Holy Spirit working through him; () a willful rejection of this
ministry, () slanderously attributing the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ to
Satan, and as a consequence, () a judgment by God on the inability to repent
and receive forgiveness from that time forth. is position is similar to that ear-
lier proered by Calvin and others, with the addition of a clear understanding
of the messianic identity of Jesus. Without such a messianic interpretation as
oered by Spirit Christology, the text remains ambiguous at best, or oppres-
sive at worst. When read with the aid of Spirit Christology, Jesus’ sayings and
actions make the most sense of all the data.
Over and against a history of interpretation of this passage that has sought to
either ignore, suppress, or read it simply as another example of general unbelief,
reading theologically, and here with the aid of Spirit Christology, the messianic
identity of Jesus clearly comes to the fore and the distinct-but-never-separate
. France, e Gospel of Matthew, , note .
Jesus, the Spirit, nd the Unforivble Sin
missions of the Son and the Spirit are clearly discerned. e Son testies to
the Father and the Holy Spirit testies to Christ. To ignorantly blaspheme the
Father or the Son is forgivable, according to the logic of Matthew’s account. But
to willfully and knowingly reject and blaspheme the Spirit is dierent, for that
is only possible when the work of the Spirit in revealing the messianic identity
and mission of the incarnate Son of the Father is understood, and thus to blas-
pheme the Spirit is to blaspheme the Holy Trinity. From there, God pronounces
his judgment on this peculiar sin.