Vv. 31, 32. Fesus changes His tone from argument to solemn warning. Ver.
29—32.
3 εστι.
καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ ἐμοῦ,
λέγω ὑμῖν, Πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ " βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώ-
"σκορπίζει.
189
31. Διὰ τοῦτο 2 Lk. xi. 23.
John x. 12; XVL. 32. 2 Cor. ix. 9.
ποις: ἡ δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώ- α Ch. xv. 19.
mots.! 32. καὶ ὃς ἂν 3 εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ~ > A , gt , ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ ' ὃς 8 ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ “Aytou, A ~ a 4 > ~ οὐκ deOjcerar? αὐτῷ, οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ µέλλοντι.
Mk. iii. 28; vii. 22. Eph. iv 31 (evil speaking generally). h. xxvi.
65. Mk. ii. 7; xiv. 64. John x. 33 (against God).
1$9B omit τοις ανθρωποις, which seem to be simply an echo of τ. αν. in the
previous clause. 2 os εαν in most uncials.
D has ος αν, as in T. R.
3 For ουκ αφεθησεται found in most uncials B has ov µη αφεθη, which W.H.
place in the margin.
31. διὰ τοῦτο connects not merely with preceding verse, but with the whole foregoing argument. Mark more im- pressively introduces the blasphemy- logion with a solemn ἁμὴν λέγω tpiv.— πᾶσα ἁμαρτία, etc. A broad preliminary declaration of the pardonableness of human sin of all sorts, and especially of sins of the tongue, worthy and charac- teristic of Jesus, and making what follows more impressive.— δὲ τ. Π. βλασ. οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται: pointed, emphatic exception. Evidently the Spirit here is taken ethically. He represents the moral ideal, the absolutely good and holy. Blasphemy against the Spirit so conceived, unpardonable—that is our Lord’s deliberate judgment.—-BAaogpypia, injurious speech (from βλάπτω and φήμη), in such a case will mean speaking of the holy One as if He were unholy, or, in the abstract, calling good evil, not by misunderstanding but through antipathy to the good.—Ver. 32. So serious a statement needs to be carefully guarded against misapprehension ; therefore Jesus adds an explanatory declaration.—Adyov κατὰ τ. υ. τ. ἀνθρώπον. Jesus dis- tinguishes 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 grava- men of their offence is not that they have spoken evilof Him. Jesus had no ex- ceptional sensitiveness as to personal offences. Nor did He mean to suggest that offences of the kind against Him were more serious or less easily pardon- able than such offences against other men, say, the prophets or the Baptist. Many interpreters, indeed, think other-
wise, 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 there- fore 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 pardon- able with other sins. If the source be malice, rooted dislike of the good, selfish preference of wrong, because of the ad- vantage 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 2 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.—ovre, οὔτε analyse the nega- tion of pardon, conceived as affecting both worlds, into its parts for sake of emphasis (vide on V. 34-36). Dogmatic inferences, based on the double negation, to possible pardon after death, are pre- carious. 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