7 καλουντες in SBCL. ὃ kat λεγουσιν in SBCDLA,
Cf. the fuller expression in Mt.—éAd’ ἔνοχός ἐστιν, but is guilty of. The negative is followed by a positive state- ment of similar import in Hebrew fashion.—aiwviov ἁμαρτήματος, of an eternal sin. As this is equivalent to *‘hath never forgiveness,” we must con- ceive of the sin as eternal in its guilt, not in itselfasasin. The idea is that of an unpardonable sin, not of a sin eternally repeating itself. Yet this may be the ultimate ground of unpardonable- ness: unforgivable because never re- pented of. But this thought is not necessarily contained in the expression. —Ver. 30. ὅτι ἔλεγον, etc., because they said: ‘‘ He hath an unclean spirit,” therefore He said this about blasphemy against the Holy Ghost—such is the connection. But what if they spoke under a misunderstanding like the friends, puzzled what to think about this strange man? That would be a sin against the Son of Man, and as such pardonable. The distinction between blasphemy against the Son of Man and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, taken in Mt. xll. 341, is essential to the understanding of Christ’s thought. The mere saying, “He hath an unclean spirit,” does not amount to the unpardonable sin. It becomes such when it is said by men who know that it is not true; then it means calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit. Jesus believed that the scribes were in that position, or near it.
Vv. 31-35. The relatives of Fesus* (Mt. xii. 46-50, Lk. viii. 19-21).—Ver. 31. €pxovrar, even without the οὖν following in T. R., naturally points back