To 'speak a word against the Son of Man' is taken as one form of tlie blasphemy or revUing. Here, therefore, the word is not used in its rela- tion to God. It does not stand for what we now understand by ' blasphemy ' in our narrower sense of the word. Jesus is not here standing on the ground of His divinity, to insult which would be blasphemy in this modern sense. He is speaking of Himself as seen among men, and referring to personal insults. But, since the term ' the Son of Man' appears to be a veiled reference to His Messiahship, for Himself and for the enlightened among His followers He must have meant that those who insulted Him, even though He was the Christ, were not beyond pardon ; cf. ' Father, for- give them,' etc. (Lk 23^, oni. BD*, etc.). Some doubt, however, is thrown on this reference to ' the Son of Man' because (1) it does not occur in the Mk. parallel passage ; (2) in Mk. but not in Mt. the phrase ' the sons of men ' occurs in an earlier part of the saying (3'-^).
The nature of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Mt 12=2-32, MkS-', Lk 12'») must be learnt from the context. This i'mIiiiIts such notions as rejec- tion of the gospel ( Inn. ). .linial of the divinity of Christ (Athan.), hhii i;il >iii att.-r liaptism (Origen), persistence in .siii (ill di/.-ith (.\iigust.). The form of the blasphemy is given in the words ' because they said, He hath an unclean spirit,' and the occa- sion of it was Jesus' casting out of demons. Jesus declares that this is done ' by the Spirit of God ' (Mt 12=«), or 'by the finger of God' (Lk 11»»). To ascribe this action to Beelzebub is to be guilty of, or to approach the guilt of, blasphemy against tlie Holy Spirit, because it is treating the Holy Spirit
as Beelzebub. Jesus did not expressly say that the scribes who put forward this Beelzebub theory of His work had actually committed this sin. He judged by thought and intention, not by outward utterance. A prejudiced, ignorant, hasty, super- ficial utterance of the calumny would not contain the essence of the sin. This must be a conscious, intentional insult. If one mistakes a saint for a knave, and addresses him accordingly, he is not really guilty of insulting him, for it is not actually the saint but the knave whom lie has in mind. If the presence of the Holy Spirit was not recognized, there could be no blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But when it was perceived and yet deliber- ately treated as evil, the action would indicate a wilful reversal of the dictates of conscience. Our Lord warns His hearers that such a sin cannot be forgiven either in the present age— the pre- Messianic, or in the age to come— the Messianic, that is, as we should say, the Christian age. The condition of such a person will be tliat he is guilty {Ivoxos) of an eternal {aiuvioi') sin (.so RV of Mk S-", following NBL, etc., d^apTr}fiaTos ; not 'damnation,' as in AV, after the Syrian reading Kpia-coi^, A, etc.). This cannot well mean ' a sin that persists, a fixed disposition,' as Dr. Salmond understands it, be- cause (1) the Greek word anaprrnxa, stands for an act, not a state ; (2) there is nothing in the con- text to indicate persistency in the blasphemy; (3) the Jewish current conception was that a sin once committed remained on the sinner till it was atoned for or forgiven. He had to bear his sin. Therefore one who was never forgiven would have to bear his sin eternally, and so would be said to have an eternal sin. \\ ellhausen understands it to be equivalent to eternal punishment ('schuldig ewiger Siinde, d. i. ewiger Strafe,' Evancf. Marci, 28).
At the same time, while this must be understood as the correct exegesis of the words, the saying should be interpreted in harmony with the spirit of Christ. Now it is characteristic of legalism and the letter to make a solitary exception, depending on one external act. The Spirit of Christ is con- cerned with character rather than with specific deeds, and it is contrary to His spirit that one specific deed should be singled out for exclusion from mercy. Then, elsewhere, the breadth of His gospel indicates that no genuine seeker would be rejected. Therefore we must understand Him to mean either (1) that to be guilty of such a sin a man must be so hardened that he never would re- pent, or (2) that such a sin cannot be overlooked, forgotten, and swallowed up in the general flood of mercy. It must come up for judgment. Against (l)and for (2) is the fact thatourLord says nothing of the oflender's disposition, but only refers to the sin, its heinous character, and consequent never- to-bedenied or forgotten ill-desert. See, further, art. Unpardonable Sin.
2. The charge of blasphemy brought against Jesus Christ. — This charge was brought against our Lord on three occasions— two recorded in tlie Synoptics and one in the Fourth Gospel. In all of these cases the alleged blasphemy is against God, actual blasphemy in our sense of the word. The first instance is at the cure of the paralytic who had been let down through the roof (Mt 9^, Mk 2',' Lk 52'). Jesus had just said to the sufl'erer, ' Thy sins are forgiven thee.' Upon this the scribes and Pharisees who were present complained that He was speaking blasphemies because only God could forgive sins, that is to say, that He was arrogating to Himself a Divine prerogative. In His answer He distinctlj' claimed this right on the ground of His enigmatic title of 'the Son of Man,' and held it to be confirmed by His cure of the paralytic. The second occasion is that recorded by St. John, where the Jews declare that their attempt to stone