Matthew 12:32

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come--In Mark the language is awfully strong, "hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"--or rather, according to what appears to be the preferable though very unusual reading, "in danger of eternal guilt"--a guilt which he will underlie for ever. Mark has the important addition (Mar 3:30), "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (See on Mat 10:25). What, then, is this sin against the Holy Ghost--the unpardonable sin? One thing is clear: Its unpardonableness cannot arise from anything in the nature of sin itself; for that would be a naked contradiction to the emphatic declaration of Mat 12:31, that all manner of sin is pardonable. And what is this but the fundamental truth of the Gospel? (See Act 13:38-39; Rom 3:22, Rom 3:24; Jo1 1:7, &c.). Then, again when it is said (Mat 12:32), that to speak against or blaspheme the Son of man is pardonable, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable, it is not to be conceived that this arises from any greater sanctity in the one blessed Person than the other. These remarks so narrow the question that the true sense of our Lord's words seem to disclose themselves at once. It is a contrast between slandering "the Son of man" in His veiled condition and unfinished work--which might be done "ignorantly, in unbelief" (Ti1 1:13), and slandering the same blessed Person after the blaze of glory which the Holy Ghost was soon to throw around His claims, and in the full knowledge of all that. This would be to slander Him with eyes open, or to do it "presumptuously." To blaspheme Christ in the former condition--when even the apostles stumbled at many things--left them still open to conviction on fuller light: but to blaspheme Him in the latter condition would be to hate the light the clearer it became, and resolutely to shut it out; which, of course, precludes salvation. (See on Heb 10:26-29). The Pharisees had not as yet done this; but in charging Jesus with being in league with hell they were displaying beforehand a malignant determination to shut their eyes to all evidence, and so, bordering upon, and in spirit committing, the unpardonable sin.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 12:32. Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man — In any other respect, it shall be forgiven him — Upon his true repentance: But whosoever speaketh, namely, in this manner, against the Holy Ghost — and most unreasonably ascribes his extraordinary and beneficent operations to the grand enemy of God and man, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come — The original words, ουτε εν τουτω τω αιωνι, ουτε εν τω μελλοντι, may be rendered, neither in this age, or dispensation, (namely, the Jewish,) nor in the age, or dispensation, to come, namely, the Christian. Thus the clause is understood by Macknight, who considers it as importing, that “no expiation was provided for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either under the Jewish or Christian dispensations.” But it seems rather to have been a mere proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. Accordingly, in the parallel passage in Mark, we read, He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of, or rather, is liable to, eternal damnation. It is well known, that the Papists argue from this passage, for the remission of some sins in purgatory, after this life is ended, which are not remitted by God here. But “the Scripture,” says Whitby, “knows only two times for the remission of sins: one here upon earth, Mar 9:6, to the penitent and believing; and the other at the day of judgment, when the great Judge shall pronounce the sentence of absolution to all his faithful servants; Christ, therefore, here signifies, that this blasphemy shall neither obtain forgiveness now, nor at the great day of final accounts: that is, shall never be forgiven. It may be proper to observe here, that as no one call be pardoned for any sins but through Christ, and in consequence of faith in him, as the Son of God and Saviour of the world; and as none can believe in him as such that supposes he wrought his miracles by the aid of the devil; and as his miracles, united with his holy life, were the chief proofs of his divine mission; therefore, those who attributed them to Satan, were of course thereby precluded from believing on him, and of consequence from obtaining pardon.” Mr. Baxter’s paraphrase on the passage is to nearly the same purpose — thus: “All other sin and blasphemy against me, as I appear in my human nature, hath some excuse, and may be cured, and so pardoned: but seeing the great works of the Holy Ghost done by me, and to be done by my disciples, in miracles and sanctification, are the greatest evidences that God will give the world to convince them of the truth of my gospel; he that is convinced of the fact, that all these miracles and this holiness is wrought, and yet will deny it to be God’s attestation, and blasphemously insist that it is the work of the devil; this man rejects the greatest evidences, and shall have no greater, and so his infidelity is incurable, and aggravated with blasphemy and obstinacy, and will never be repented of, nor forgiven.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12:32 One may stumble over Jesus’ mysterious revelation of himself as Son of Man and be forgiven, but one cannot be forgiven for attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. The present-day analogy is the outright rejection of the conviction of the Holy Spirit concerning Christ—that is, the ultimate rejection of the Good News by an unbeliever (cp. Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16-21).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 12:32.[574] Τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦʼ Ανθρώπου, the Son of Man) This expression is used in accordance with our Lord’s condition as it appeared to men, inasmuch as He was then conversing with them on an equal footing, see Php 2:7, as He is described in ch. Mat 11:19; cf. also Gnomon on ch. Mat 16:13. It is not therefore easy, in these times, to say anything against the Son of Man: it is more easy to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.[575]—οὔτε—οὔτε, κ.τ.λ., neither—neither, etc.) i.e., he shall in both drain to the dregs the most sure and most grievous punishment. See Chrysostom on this passage.

[574] Καὶ ὅς ἐὰν, and whosoever) The words immediately preceding are hereby further explained and illustrated.—V. g.

[575] Therefore their words were directed against the Son of man, when they spake insultingly concerning Him on account of His connection with Nazareth, on account of His lowly bearing and conversation, etc.; but it was against the Holy Spirit that those words of theirs were directed, whereby they brought allegations against His miracles, which were performed by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, and ascribed them to the powers of darkness. It was at that time especially, when Christ was sojourning in the midst of them, that men were able to incur the guilt of both kinds of sinful speeches. But what is the present state of those who, in our time, bring criminations against the good operations of the Holy Spirit in His instruments? Christians, no doubt, for their part have the Spirit, and besides His presence, are not without their own blemishes. If, then, any one brings charges against some Christian, perhaps he in a great degree sees only the blemishes of that Christian, and so in a less degree observes the good that is in him; and, therefore, he does not blaspheme against the Spirit in others, however grievously he sins in other respects. Christ Jesus, being endued with the Spirit beyond ail measure, had no foreign element at all intermixed; therefore the blasphemies with which He was assailed, were much more enormous sins.—V. g.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_12:32. Κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρ.] against the Son of man, such as Daniel promised that the Messiah should be. In this case also (comp. on Mat_9:6, Mat_8:20) this select expression indicates the majesty of the Messiah in His human manifestation, in contrast to the hostile terms with which it has been assailed. Grotius and Fritzsche erroneously understand it as in contrast to man in general.

ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ] For if the hostile expressions are directed only against the person of the Messiah as such, not against the Holy Spirit who may be recognised in that person, even without our ascribing to it a Messianic character, it is possible that fuller knowledge, change, of disposition, faith, may be created by the Spirits own influence, whereupon the man will be forgiven. Comp. Luk_23:34.

ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος is the period previous to the coming of the Messiah, עוֹלָם הַזֶּה, as Jesus understood it: the time before the second coming. Ὁ αἰὼν μέλλων, the period that succeeds the coming of the Messiah, עוֹלָם הַבָּא, as Jesus understood it: the time that follows the second coming. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 38; Koppe, Exc. 1, ad Ep. ad Eph. p. 289 ff.

οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι] where it would be granted in the shape of acquittal in the judgment, combined with the eternal consequences of such acquittal (everlasting felicity). The threatening of a very different fatethat is to say, the thought of endless punishmentmust not be in any way softened down (Chrysostom, de Wette). Schmid, bibl. Theol. I. p. 358 (comp. Olshausen and Stirm in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1861, p. 300), is quite mistaken in thinking that the period referred to is that between death and judgment, which, in fact, does not belong to the αἰὼν μέλλων at all.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 12:32 . o serious a statement needs to be carefully guarded against misapprehension; therefore Jesus adds an explanatory declaration. λόγον κατὰ τ . υ . τ . ἀνθρώπου . Jesus distinguishes between a word against the Son of Man and a word against the Holy Ghost. The reference in the former is to Himself, presumably, though Mark at the corresponding place has “the sons of men,” and no special mention of a particular son of man. Christ gives the Pharisees to understand that the gravamen of their offence is not that they have spoken evil of Him. Jesus had no exceptional sensitiveness as to personal offences. Nor did He mean to suggest that offences of the kind against Him were more serious or less easily pardonable than such offences against other men, say, the prophets or the Baptist. Many interpreters, indeed, think otherwise, and represent blasphemy against the Son of Man as the higher limit of the forgiveable. A grave mistake, I humbly think. Jesus was as liable to honest misunderstanding as other good men, in some respects more liable than any, because of the exceptional originality of His character and conduct. All new things are liable to be misunderstood and decried, and the best for a while to be treated as the worst. Jesus knew this, and allowed for it. Men might therefore honestly misunderstand Him, and be in no danger of the sin against the Holy Ghost ( e.g. , Saul of Tarsus). On the other hand, men might dishonestly calumniate any ordinary good man, and be very near the unpardonable sin. It is not the man that makes the difference, but the source of the blasphemy. If the source be ignorance, misconception, ill-informed prejudice, blasphemy against the Son of Man will be equally pardonable with other sins. If the source be malice, rooted dislike of the good, selfish preference of wrong, because of the advantage it brings, to the right which the good seek to establish, then the sin is not against the man but against the cause, and the Divine Spirit who inspires him, and though the agent be but a humble, imperfect man, the sinner is perilously near the unpardonable point. Jesus wished the Pharisees to understand that, in His judgment, that was their position. οὔτε , οὔτε analyse the negation of pardon, conceived as affecting both worlds, into its parts for sake of emphasis ( vide on Mat 5:34-36 ). Dogmatic inferences, based on the double negation, to possible pardon after death, are precarious. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) explains the double negation by reference to the Jewish legal doctrine that, in contrast to other sins, profaning the name of God could be expiated only by death, unpardonable in this life. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, says Jesus, in conscious antithesis, pardonable neither here nor there: “neque ante mortem, neque per mortem”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of blasphemy against the holy Ghost.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 32. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come.] Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully satisfied the meaning of the words is, neither in this dispensation, (viz. the Jewish,) nor in that which is to come, viz. the Christian. עולם הבא olam ha-ba, the world to come, is a constant phrase for the times of the Messiah in the Jewish writers. See below. The sin here spoken of by our Lord ranks high in the catalogue of presumptuous sins, for which there was no forgiveness under the Mosaic dispensation. See Nu 15:30; Nu 15:31; Nu 35:31; Le 20:10; 1Sa 2:25. When our Lord says that such a sin hath no forgiveness, is he not to be understood as meaning that the crime shall be punished under the Christian dispensation as it was under the Jewish, viz. by the destruction of the body? And is not this the same mentioned 1Jo 1:7, called there the sin unto death; i.e. a sin that was to be punished by the death of the body, while mercy might be extended to the soul? The punishment for presumptuous sins, under the Jewish law, to which our Lord evidently alludes, certainly did not extend to the damnation of the soul, though the body was destroyed: therefore I think that, though there was no such forgiveness to be extended to this crime as to absolve the man from the punishment of temporal death, yet, on repentance, mercy might be extended to the soul; and every sin may be repented of under the Gospel dispensation.

Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently vindicated this passage from all false interpretation. "They that endeavour hence to prove the remission of some sins after death, seem little to understand to what Christ had respect when he spake these words. Weigh well this common and, most known doctrine of the Jewish schools, and judge.

"He that transgresses an affirmative precept, if he presently repent, is not moved until the Lord pardon him; and of such it is said, Be ye converted, O back sliding children! and I will heal your backslidings. He that transgresses a negative precept, and repents, his repentance suspends judgment, and the day of expiation expiates him; as it is said, This day shall all your uncleannesses be expiated to you. He that transgresses to cutting off (by the stroke of God) or to death by the Sanhedrin, and repents, repentance and the day of expiation do suspend judgment, and the strokes that are laid upon him wipe off sin, as it is said, And I will visit their transgression with a rod, and their iniquity with scourges. But he by whom the name of God is profaned (or blasphemed) repentance is of no avail to him to suspend judgment, nor the day of expiation to expiate it, nor scourges (or corrections inflicted) to wipe it off, but all suspend judgment, and death wipes it off. Thus the Babylonian Gemara writes; but the Jerusalem thus: Repentance and the day of expiation expiate as to the third part, and corrections as to the third part, and death wipes it off, as it is said, And your iniquities shall not be expiated to you until ye die: behold, we learn that death wipes off. Note this, which Christ contradicts, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It shall not be forgiven, saith he, neither in this world, nor in the world to come; that is, neither before death, nor, as you dream, by death. Jerus. Sanhed. fol. 37. and Bab. Yoma, fol. 86.

"In the world to come. - I. Some phrases were received into common use, by which, in common speech, they opposed the heresy of the Sadducces, who denied immortality, Of that sort were עולם הבא olam ha-ba, Αιων ὁ μελλων, The world to come. גן עדן gan aden, Παραδεισος, paradise: גו הנום gei hinnom, Γεεννα, hell, c.

"At the end of all the prayers in the temple (as we observed before) they said עד עולם ad olam, for ever. But when the heretics (i.e. the Sadducees) brake in, and said there was NO AGE but one, then it was appointed to be said for ever and ever. מן העולם ועד העולם min ha-olam, vead ha-olam. Bab. Beracoth, fol. 54. This distinction of עולם הזה olam hazeh, this world, and of עולם הבא olam ha-ba, the world to come, you may find almost in every page of the rabbins.

"The Lord recompense thee a good reward for this thy good work in this world, and let thy reward be perfected in the world to come. Targum on Ruth.

"It (that is, the history of the creation and of the Bible) therefore begins with the letter ב beth, (in the word ברישית bereshith,) because two worlds were created, this world and a world to come. Baal Turim.

"The world to come hints two things especially, (of which see Rambam, in Sanhed. cap. ii. Chelek.) I. The times of the Messiah: 'Be mindful of the day wherein thou camest out of Egypt, all the days of thy life: the wise men say, by the days of thy life is intimated this world: by all the days of thy life, the days of the Messiah are superinduced.' In this sense the apostle seems to speak, He 2:5; He 6:5. II. The state after death: thus Rab. Tancum, The world to come, is when a man has departed out of this world."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(32) Neither in this world, neither in the world to come.—The distinction was hardly the same for our Lord’s Jewish listeners as it has come to be with us. For them “this world”—better, perhaps, this age—was the time before the coming of the Christ; “the age to come” was that which was to follow it. (Comp. Heb_6:5, Luk_18:30.) Our Lord thus stood on the boundary-line of the two ages, that of the Law and the Prophets, and that of the Kingdom of Heaven, and He declares that while all personal outrages to Himself as the Son of Man, i.e., the Christ, are capable of forgiveness, this enmity against goodness, as good, shuts it out in both. Practically, however, the order of things since the first coming of the Christ has been one of slow and continuous growth, not of rapid and complete change. There has been no “age to come” such as the Jew dreamt of, and we still wait for its manifestation, and think of ourselves as still living in “this world,” in “this age,” and of the “world to come” as lying in the far future, or, for each individual soul, beyond the grave. Our Lord’s words, it may be noted, clearly imply that some sins wait for their full forgiveness, the entirely cancelling of the past, till the time of that “age to come” which shall witness the great and final Advent. Does this imply that repentance, and therefore pardon, may come in the state that follows death? We know not, and ask questions that we cannot answer, but the words at least check the harsh dogmatic answer in the negative. If one sin only is thus excluded from forgiveness in that “coming age,” other sins cannot stand on the same level, and the darkness behind the veil is lit up with at least a gleam of hope.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

32. whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost] To speak against the Holy Ghost is to speak against the clear voice of the Holy Ghost within the heart—wilful sin against knowledge. Jesus, who saw the heart, knew that the Pharisees were insincere in the charge which they brought against Him. They were attributing to Satan what they knew to be the work of God. Their former attacks against the Son of man had excuse; for instance, they might have differed conscientiously on the question of Sabbath observance, now they have no excuse.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified,.... Theophylact seems to take these words to be a passage of Scripture cited by Christ, in proof of what he had said, but does not point to any; nor is any such Scripture to be found. They are rather proverbial expressions, in common use among the Jews; or refer to the usual methods of proceeding in courts of judicature, upon the acknowledgments and confessions of persons.

"Says Resh Lakish (e), such an one and such an one, they justify; and such an one and such an one, they condemn. R. Eliezer replies, , "by their words such an one and such an one are justified".''

The gloss upon it is,

"upon hearing the difference there is between them, and between their words, they are justified.''

Our Lord's meaning is, that not only works and actions, but words of all sorts, will come into account in the day of judgment, and will be evidences for, or against a man, to acquit or condemn him:

and by thy words thou shalt be condemned: according to these, the sentence of justification, or of condemnation, will be pronounced; as these will appear to be evidences for, or against a man's being in a state of grace and righteousness: thus for instance, a man that has spoken for Christ, and has freely confessed that all his hope of justification before God, and acceptance with him, is solely upon the account of the righteousness of Christ imputed; such a man will be declared a justified man according to the tenor of his own words: on the other hand, a man that has spoken hard speeches against Christ, and his righteousness; declaring he has no dependence on it, expects no justification by it; he will be convinced of these ungodly sayings, and out of his own mouth will be condemned. Some have thought, that Christ here strikes at a notion which obtained among the Jews, that little or no account would be taken of a man's words in the day of judgment; provided his life and actions were good, and regular; but whatever were the sentiments of the Pharisees, or of any of Christ's present hearers, it is certain, that it is the opinion of Jewish writers, that words, as well as actions, will be accounted for hereafter: they say (f),

"When a man dies, he lifts up his eyes and sees two come to him, and write before him all that he has done in this world, , "and all that has proceeded out of his mouth", , "and he gives an account for all"; and a little after, , "all the words" of a man in this world, are prepared before him, and not one of them lost; and in the hour he goes to his grave, they are all set before him.''

(e) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 30. 1. (f) Zohar in Num. fol. 53. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Ver. 32. And whosoever speaketh a word, &c.] As Peter did through infirmity, Paul through ignorance; those poor souls whom he haled to prison, and for fear of death compelled them to blaspheme Christ, Act 26:11. Tertullian reports the like of Claudius Herminianus, a persecuter in Cappadocia, quod tormentu quosdam a proposito suo excidere fecerat, that for spite that his own wife was turned Christian, he forced many, by tormenting them, to reneague Christ. Pliny writes also to Trajan, the emperor, that where he was governor there came to his hands a book, containing the names of many that for fear of death professed themselves to be no Christians. And when, saith he, they had at my command called upon the gods, offered incense to the emperor’s image, and cursed Christ (which those that are Christians indeed will never be drawn to do), I thought good to dismiss them. {a}

But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost] Not his person or essence (for many Sabellian, Eunomian, Macedonian heretics did so of old, and repenting found mercy), but his grace and special operation, by the which God comes nearer to man than he is in nature or person. This sin is against the immediate effects, work, and office of the Holy Ghost, against that shining light kindled by God’s Spirit in man’s soul, and that sweetness and comfort felt in Christ, that taste of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come, Heb 6:4-6.

It shall not be forgiven him, &c.] And why? Not because it is greater than God’s mercy, or Christ’s merits; but first by a just judgment of God upon such sinners, for their hateful unthankfulness in despising his Spirit; whence follows an impossibility of repentance, Heb 6:6, and so of remission, Luk 13:3. Secondly, such a desperate fury invadeth these men, that they maliciously resist and repudiate the price of repentance, Act 5:31, and the matter of remission, 1Jn 1:7, viz. the precious blood of Jesus Christ, whereby if they might have mercy, yet they would not, but continue raving and raging against both medicine and physician, to their unavoidable ruth and ruin. How bold therefore is Bellarmine, who interpreteth this text of the difficulty and rarity only of remission, and not of an utter impossibility.

{a} Cum, praeunte me, Deos appellarent et imagini tuae, thure ac vino supplicarent, praeterea maledicerent Christo, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever, &c. It was their duty to have a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, and they obstinately refused to admit what was clear and manifest. Though they were ignorant of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and might take him to be merely the son of a poor artizan, they could not be ignorant that the expelling of demons, and miraculous healing of all diseases, were the works of the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, they refused to do penance for the insult offered to the Spirit of God, in the person of Christ, they could not hope to escape condign punishment. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xlii). --- Against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; i.e. they who for want of sufficient instruction, were invincibly ignorant that Christ was God, might more easily be brought to the true knowledge and faith of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of their sins: but if he shall speak against the Holy Ghost, i.e. against the Spirit of God in Christ, and shall oppose the known truth, by attributing to the devil that doctrine, and those miracles, which evidently were from the Spirit and the hand of God, that sin shall never be forgiven him. But how is this consistent with the Catholic doctrine and belief, that there is no sin any man commits of which he may not obtain pardon in this life? To this I answer, that in what manner soever we expound this place, it is an undoubted point of Christian faith, that there is no sin which our merciful God is not ready to pardon; no sin, for the remission of which, God hath not left a power in his Church, as it is clearly proved by those words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, &c. St. John Chrysostom therefore expounds these words, shall not be forgiven them, to imply no more, than shall scarcely, or seldom be forgiven; that is, it is very hard for such sinners to return to God, by a true and sincere repentance and conversion; so that this sentence is like that (Matthew xix. 26.) where Christ seems to call it an impossible thing for a rich man to be saved. In the same place St. John Chrysostom tells us, that some of those who had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, repented, and had their sins forgiven them. St. Augustine, by this blasphemy against the Spirit, understands the sin of final impenitence, by which an obstinate sinner refuseth to be converted, and therefore lives and dies hardened in his sins. (Witham) --- Nor in the world to come. From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. lib. xxi. chap. 13.) and St. Gregory (Dial. iv, chap. 39.) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and consequently that there is a purgatory, or a middle place. (Challoner) --- St. Augustine says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgment. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words. --- It is well known that Ven. Bede, on his death-bed, bestowed several small tokens to the monks who were present, that they might remember to pray for his soul in the holy sacrifice of the mass. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

32. Against the Son — Olshausen has called special attention to the gradations of aggravation implied in the blasphemy successively against the Father and the Son and the Spirit. But perhaps in detail he has hardly so developed it as to bring out the true point.

Let it be remarked, that when sin is committed against the Father or the Son, neither is ever viewed as withdrawing himself from the sinner during the day of his probation. God, the Father, as Creator and Providence, still continues his mercies; and the atonement of God the Son is never probationarily withdrawn. But the Spirit does become grieved, and does become vexed and depart.

God the Father is contemplated as the original back-ground, so to speak, of Deity; God the Son is Deity manifest in the redemptive plan and dispensation; God the Holy Spirit is Deity, specially in his sanctifying personality, going forth as a Spirit of purity, making his trials to win and assimilate man to his own pure nature. As a pure Spirit, he is also represented as a tender and a sensitive Spirit. He is easily vexed and grieved and made to depart. On this point let us remark:

1. To grieve, to vex, or to resist the Holy Spirit does not of itself amount to this blaspheming the Holy Spirit. For all these, as matter of fact, are done, and yet the sinners do repent and be saved. And from this fact has perhaps arisen the real difficulty which commentators have found in this passage.

2. Nor is this blasphemy of the Holy Spirit the same as becoming hardened against impression, or becoming hopeless by continuance in sin, or as “sinning away the day of grace.” It is plainly, however long the preparation, one heinous act; so heinous in itself as that the Spirit becomes, therefor, the sinner’s enemy. Isa_63:10.

3. Not every reproach, nay, not every word or expression truly in itself blasphemous toward the Holy Spirit, not even with blasphemous intention, really reaches its aim; that is, really is accepted by the Holy Spirit as blasphemy against itself. Experience shows that such words are repented of, and, though perhaps not often, forgiven. Even a dignified human spirit will frequently refuse to impute to persons the full insult they intend. The mind of the Spirit itself is most pure, wise, and sovereign judge when the insult offered to itself shall be held as blasphemy against itself. Just as many a man of high and sensitive honour will not be insulted by certain characters, either from their insignificance, or their irresponsibility, or their ignorance, so the Holy Spirit will not always accept of intended insult offered to itself as this blasphemy against itself.

4. When the Holy Spirit does so think right to accept and feel the full force of a blasphemy offered in thought, word, or deed against itself, then does it resent the insult with a justice that knows no mercy. It makes not the decision capriciously or arbitrarily, but with perfect measurement of the actual guilt; and then with absolute finality it abandons the sinner, never to return. The man is left in a hardness that will never relent. He will live doubtless in a state of moveless indifference until his departure to his own place. This results from the very fact of his being abandoned. The atonement, though not withdrawn, will never avail, and the Spirit of holiness is his perfect and pure “enemy.” That relation is as immortal as the nature of both.

Whosoever speaketh against — A softer phrase is here used than blasphemeth. Nakedly taken, it would imply that every uttered word derogatory to the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. The phrase to speak against, must, however, be interpreted by the previous phrase blasphemy against. Or else we may make a difference between blasphemy or reproachful words uttered in regard to the Holy Ghost, and blasphemy or evil speaking against the Holy Ghost; meaning by the latter phrase that blasphemy which the Holy Ghost does, in his infinite wisdom and justice, interpret and accept against itself. Of the sin against the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is the sole Judge. It behooves blasphemous men to beware. The unfrequency with which such men ever come to God is sad proof that they do sin beyond all pardon. But it may be remarked, that inasmuch as the withdrawal of the Spirit will ever result in complete indifference, the very fear of a penitent man, that he has committed it, is full demonstration that he has not so done.

A sin unto death is spoken of by Saint John, for which no prayer is to be offered. That the sin mentioned by Saint John, is the same as our Lord here describes is evident from this, that our Lord declares that all other sins are pardonable; whereas the sin described by John is unpardonable. The same may perhaps be said of the sin of apostacy described by the apostle in the sixth chapter of Hebrews. It appears that there is but one unpardonable sin, and all these are it. Neither in this… to come — Neither in time nor in eternity. Mar_3:24, expresses it: “Hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” It is difficult to say in what words the eternity of retribution could be more unequivocally expressed.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our Lord applies the general principle of ver. 31 to "blasphemy" against himself. This might be, comparatively speaking, innocuous if it was merely defamation or detraction of him as man; but if, on the other hand, it referred to his work in such a way as to mean a real detraction of God"s actions considered as Divine, it indicated a state of feeling which did not admit of forgiveness (vide supra). If it be asked whether the individual Pharisees referred to in vers. 24-28 had committed this sin, the answer depends upon whether they had recognized the hand of God as such, and had, notwithstanding, wilfully rejected it. If they had as our Lord"s tone seems to imply then they had in fact committed it. Yet they may afterwards have repented, and so have come under a different category. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man; (Mat_8:20, note) e.g. his birth, the circumstances of his life on earth, or his decisions respecting the sabbath or meats, or his disregard of the conventionalities of his time in his treatment of "sinners" anti publicans. All such things must have been included in those which St. Paul once blasphemed. (1Ti_1:13) It shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh (such a word) against the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit, Revised Version), it shall not be forgiven him (ouk afeyhsetai). The margin of Westcott and Hort, with the Vatican manuscript, represents it still more strongly (ou mh afeyh). Neither in this world (age, Revised Version margin), neither in the world to come. "The age to come" (abh included all that followed the coming of Messiah. Sometimes it was restricted to, or practically identified with, the reign of Messiah upon earth, but usually it included much more eternity as well as time (see especially Weber, "System," pp. 354, 355; and cf. Schurer, II 2:177). It is in its widest sense that our Lord here uses it contrasting the present order of things with that which will be the final result of his coming, his thoughts travelling far beyond the present course of this world to that which is to be hereafter.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever speaketh against the Son of man - In any other respects: It shall be forgiven him - Upon his true repentance: But whosoever speaketh thus against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come - This was a proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. It here means farther, He shall not escape the punishment of it, either in this world, or in the world to come. The judgment of God shall overtake him, both here and hereafter.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

32. Whoever speaketh against the Son of man. Personal injuries will be forgiven on repentance. Christ prayed for his persecutors. Every sin can be forgiven but that against the Holy Spirit. Speak against the Holy Spirit. Perversely ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Neither in this world nor that to come. Judgment shall overtake him both here and hereafter. The Jews divided the two worlds, or, rather, ages of the world, by the coming of Christ. This would then mean that there is forgiveness to such a sin under neither dispensation. No passage in the Bible affirms more emphatically the doctrine of eternal punishment. There is a sin that hath no forgiveness.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

32. ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου. To speak against the Holy Ghost is to speak against the clear voice of conscience, to call good evil and light darkness, to pursue goodness as such with malignity and hatred. Such sin, or sinful state, cannot be forgiven since from its very nature it excludes the idea of repentance. Jesus, who saw the heart, knew that the Pharisees were insincere in the charge which they brought against Him. They were attributing to Satan what they knew to be the work of God. Their former attacks against the Son of man had excuse; for instance, they might have differed conscientiously on the question of sabbath observance, now they have no excuse.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

32.] διὰ τοῦτο, because this is the case: see last note. Notice again the λέγω ὑμῖν, used by our Lord when He makes some revelation of things hidden from the sons of men: see ch. 6:29; 18:10, 19: and ver. 36 below. The distinction in these much-controverted verses seems to be, between (1) the sin and blasphemy which arises from culpable ignorance and sensual blindness, as that of the fool who said in his heart ‘There is no God,’—of those who, e.g. Saul of Tarsus, opposed Jesus as not being the Christ; which persons, to whatever degree their sin may unhappily advance, are capable of enlightenment, repentance, and pardon:—and (2) the blasphemy of those who, acknowledging God, and seeing his present power working by His Holy Spirit, openly oppose themselves to it, as did, or as were very near doing (for our Lord does not actually imply that they had incurred this dreadful charge), these Pharisees. They may as yet have been under the veil of ignorance; but this their last proceeding, in the sight of Him who knows the hearts, approximated very near to, or perhaps reached, this awful degree of guilt. The principal misunderstanding of this passage has arisen from the prejudice which possesses men’s minds owing to the use of the words, ‘the sin against the Holy Ghost.’ It is not a particular species of sin which is here condemned, but a definite act shewing a state of sin, and that state a wilful determined opposition to the present power of the Holy Spirit; and this as shewn by its fruit, βλασφημία. The declaration, in substance, often occurs in the N.T. See 1Jn 5:16, and note on ἁμαρτία there: 2Ti 3:8: Jud 1:4, Jud 1:12, Jud 1:13: Heb 10:26-31; Heb 6:4-8. Euthymius expands the sense well and clearly: ὃς μὲν ἂν ἁμάρτῃ κατὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητός μου, φησί, τουτέστιν, ὅστις ἂν εἴπῃ βλάσφημον λόγον κατʼ αὐτῆς, … ὁ τοιοῦτος συγγνωσθήσεται πάντως ὡς οὐκ ἐθελοκακήσας, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφημήσας· ὁ δὲ βλέπων τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς μου ἐνεργείας, ἃς μόνος δύναται ποιεῖν ὁ θεός, καὶ τῷ Βεελζεβοὺλ ταύτας ἐπιγραφόμενος, ὡς καὶ ὑμεῖς νῦν, καὶ οὕτω βλασφημῶν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, ἤτοι κατὰ τῆς θεότητος (ταύτην γὰρ νῦν καλεῖ πνεῦμα ἅγιον (?)) οὗτος ὡς ἐθελοκακήσας προδήλως καὶ ἐν γνώσει καθυβρίσας τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἀναπολόγητα πλημμελήσας οὐ συγχωρηθήσεται.

No sure inference can be drawn from the words οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι—with regard to forgiveness of sins in a future state. Olshausen remarks that a parallel on the other side is found in ch. 10:41, 42, where the recognition of divine power in those sent from God is accompanied with promise of eternal reward. He himself however understands the passage (as many others have done) to imply forgiveness on repentance in the imperfect state of the dead before the judgment, and considers it to be cognate with 1Pe 3:18 ff. Augustine speaks very strongly, de Civ. Dei xxi. 24, vol. vii.: ‘Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc sæculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittatur in futuro.’ See, on the whole subject, note on 1Pe 3:18 ff. In the almost entire silence of Scripture on any such doctrine, every principle of sound interpretation requires that we should hesitate to support it by two difficult passages, in neither of which does the plain construction of the words absolutely require it.

The expressions αἰὼν οὗτος (= ὁ νῦν αἰών, Tit 2:12: 2Ti 4:10; καιρὸς οὗτος, Mar 10:30; αἰὼν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, Eph 2:2; αἰὼν ἐνεστὼς πονηρός, Gal 1:4) and αἰὼν μέλλων (= αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, Mar 10:30; αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος, Luk 20:35; αἰῶνες ἐπερχόμενοι, Eph 2:7) were common among the Jews, and generally signified respectively the time before and after the coming of the Messiah. In the N.T. these significations give place to—the present life, and that to come: the present mixed state of wheat and tares, and the future completion of Messiah’s Kingdom after the great harvest. The expression κόσμος μέλλων is not found. αἰὼν μέλλων, &c., seem to differ from βασιλ. τ. οὐρανῶν or τ. θεοῦ, in never being spoken of, or as in, individuals, but as an age of time belonging to the universal Church.

33,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(M) 32. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming.] This verse seems to repeat the thought of the last, the difference being that as a contrast to speaking against or blasphemy against the Spirit, we have here speaking against the Son of Man in particular, instead of all sin and blasphemy in general. The two verses seem to be different recensions of the same saying. Mt. has probably conflated Mk. and his other source, or Mk. = the other source and another form of the saying known to him. Lk. in 12:10 has: καὶ πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ ̔́ Αγιον πνεῦμα βγασφημήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. Lk. appears to borrow the first clause from Mt 32, the second from Mt 31 = Mk 29. He may have done so from memory, or may have had the saying before him in this form. If Mt 32 and Mt 31 = Mk 28-29 be different recensions of one saying, it is probable that Ms.’s striking τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων and Mt.’s κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου go back to the same orginal Aramaic phrase. Of the two, Mk.’s phrase is probably the more accurate translation. “Anything shall be forgiven to men save blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” gives a clear and intelligible meaning. On the other hand, “Opposition to the Son of Man is pardonable, opposition to the Holy Spirit is unpardonable,” is difficult to explain. How could the Pharisees be supposed to be able to distinguish between the Son of Man ( = Christ?) acting as such, and the Son of Man driving out devils by the power of the Spirit. We have here a fairly clear instance where an original Aramaic phrase meaning “sons of men” = “men” has been mistakenly represented by ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Mar 2:28 is probably another instance. The general drift of vv. 31, 32 seems to be: “You accuse Me of Satanic methods in casting out devils. In reality I cast them out by the power of God’s Spirit. In substituting Satan for the Holy Spirit you are guilty of blasphemy. And this is an unpardonable sin. It is the lie in the soul.”—οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι] Mar 10:30 has: ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένω. So Lk.; but Mt. omits. Lk. also has: τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 16:8, 20:34, and τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου, 20:35. These phrases are connected with the distinction which is common in apocalyptic literature of the first cent. a.d. between the present and the future age. See Dalm. Words, pp. 147-156; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. p. 57; and cf. 2 Es 7:50 “the Most High hath not made one world, but two”; 7:47 “the world to come”; Apoc. Bar 15:7., 8, 44:15 “the world to come.” The distinction is also found in Rabbinical literature; cf. Aboth 2:8. Hillel said: “He who acquires for himself the words of the law, acquires for himself the life of the age which is coming.” Dalman says of this, “if genuine.” Ber. R. 44 (Wünsche, p. 209): According to Jochanan ben Zaccai, c. 80 a.d., God revealed to Abraham “this age, but not that age.” According to Akiba, “He revealed to him both ages.” “The currency of these expressions ‘this age,’ the future age,” says Dalman, “is at all events established by the end of the first Christian century.” Mt. has also 5 times the expression συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος. See on V. 39.—οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται] B has οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ. For this construction, see on 5:18.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Holy Spirit [του πνευματος του αγιου] . The Spirit - the holy. These words define more clearly the blasphemy against the Spirit, ver. 31.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.