Blasphemy against the Spirit: A study of Matthew 12:31-32

Have you ever been in a situation where you are accused of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Or perhaps you may have wondered whether you have inadvertently done so yourself? Today we see a number of preachers who astonish thousands, perhaps millions, of Christians by performing signs and wonders. They say things that people want to hear, and not what they need to hear. Now perhaps some of you may have been followers of such preachers before. Perhaps you may have found yourself in a situation where you begin to closely examine their teachings with God’s Word. You begin to detect inconsistencies with their teachings. And when you finally decide to point out these inconsistencies for the sake of the body of Christ, you find yourself suddenly surrounded by loyal followers of these preachers.

Some of you may know what I’m talking about. These people would try their best to silence you. They would accuse you of being judgmental, of being ignorant. They would accuse you of “putting God in a box.” Some would even accuse you of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

But is it true? Are you blaspheming against the Holy Spirit? What does blaspheming the Holy Spirit really mean?

If you’ve been around long enough, you would know the expression “blasphemy against the Spirit” has sometimes been used as a weapon to threaten well-meaning Christian critics into silence. To many Christians, this expression sounds pretty scary and they wonder what this expression really means. They wonder if they are guilty of committing this serious sin. The source of this expression is found in two of the Gospels in the Bible: Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-29. While many answers are available on the Internet that explain what it means, I will, nevertheless, attempt to understand its meaning by doing a study of Matthew 12:31-32.

Greek text and translation of Matthew 12:31-32

³¹ διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. ³² καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷμέλλοντι.

³¹ Because of this I am saying to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speak a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven to him, but whoever speak against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven to him, neither in this age nor in the [age] to come.

Literary context of Matthew 12:31-32

These words spoken by Jesus in Matthew 12:31-32 take place in the midst of a confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees. The confrontation begins in vv. 22-23 where Jesus astonishes the onlookers by healing a demon-possessed man who is blind and mute. As the onlookers wonder in amazement whether Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Pharisees, who are plotting to destroy Jesus (v. 14),[1] accuse Jesus of drawing power from Satan to cast the demon out of the possessed man (v. 24).[2] However, Jesus, in response, defends his healing by highlighting the Pharisees’ faulty logic with an analogy from internal civil conflict (vv. 25-28). Jesus also follows up this analogy by using another analogy to explain the purpose of his exorcisms (vv. 29-30). In vv. 31-32, Jesus uses the phrase διὰ τοῦτο (“because of this”), not only to point to his previous analogy, but probably also to point back to the entire incident where the Pharisees accuse him as well (v. 24).[3]

Theological analysis of τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man”)

In Matt. 12:31-32, Jesus uses the term τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man”) to refer to himself. This enigmatic term is used “more frequently than any other (except ‘Jesus’ itself) to refer to Jesus in the Gospels.”[4] In the Gospel of Matthew, this term is primarily used to “emphasize the identity of Jesus as the coming Son of man and as a figure who is rejected on earth.”[5] While Matthew uses this term to portray Jesus as the coming savior and judge (e.g., 13:41; 19:48), Matthew also uses it with reference to Jesus as a homeless person (8:20) and “an object of derision for associating with sinners” (11:19).[6]

It is, however, important to note that in some other passages, “the term carries strong echoes of the tradition starting from Daniel 7 in which the Son of Man is a powerful figure who will come and exercise sovereign authority granted by God.”[7] But this association with Daniel is not quite immediately apparent and thus, it baffles some of Jesus’ hearers (e.g., Jn. 12:34).[8]

Lexical and theological analysis of τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία (“blasphemy against the Spirit”)

The word βλασφημία (“blasphemy”) appears twice in Matt. 12:31. It is defined by the BDAG lexicon as “speech that denigrates or defames,” and could be used with reference to God, humans, the devil, or to any kind of speech that is defamatory.[9] In the Septuagint (LXX), when the root word βλασφημ- is used with reference to God, it is used in the sense of “the disputing of His saving power,” “the desecrating of His name by the Gentiles who capture and enslave His people,” “the violation of His glory by derision of the mountains of Israel (Ez. 35:12) and His people,” “all ungodly speech and action, especially on the part of the Gentiles,” or “human arrogance with its implied depreciation of God.”[10] According to Lev. 24:10-16 and Num. 15:30, the prescribed punishment for blaspheming God is death by stoning.

βλασφημία, when used with reference to God in the NT, is used in the sense of the “violation of the power and majesty of God.”[11] This word appears in Matt. 12:31 in the expression τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία, which is best translated as “blasphemy against the Spirit.”[12] While there have been various interpretations as to what this expression means,[13] it is important to examine this expression with regard to its literary context. In Matt. 12:31-32, Jesus makes a distinction between blasphemy against the Son of Man, which is forgivable, and blasphemy against the Spirit, which is not. This distinction raises the question as to how blasphemy against the Spirit is more serious than blasphemy against the Son of Man.

It is quite evident the distinction cannot be, in light of the rest of the Bible, that the Son of Man is less important than the Spirit.[14] An important clue to answering the above question appears to lie in the enigmatic term τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the Son of Man”). It should be noted that for much of his ministry, Jesus was “present in veiled form and was thus not unmistakable.”[15] As discussed in the above lexical analysis, the Son of Man is a rejected figure. He is an object of derision. In the eyes of the people, Jesus is a man who “makes no obvious, open claim to be the Messiah.”[16] Thus, to reject the Son of Man would be forgivable.

But in this healing incident, there is an unveiling of the true identity of Jesus as the “Son of David,” the one who would bring healing to all illnesses (cf. Ezek 34:23; 37:25).[17] The onlookers’ amazement in Matt. 12:23 indicates that there can be no explanation for Jesus’ healing other than the work of the Spirit (cf. v. 28).[18] But in spite of this obvious fact, the Pharisees find themselves guilty of “blasphemy against the Spirit” by falsely attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. Their behavior, clearly, is not done out of sheer ignorance or unbelief of Jesus’ Messiahship. But like the more neutral onlookers, the Pharisees are fully aware of the significance of Jesus’ healing. However, they are consciously and willfully choosing to reject the work of the Spirit so in order to destroy Jesus (v. 14).[19]

In light of this, it would seem, therefore, that the real difference between blaspheming the Son of Man and blaspheming the Holy Spirit lies in particular in the awareness of the individual. While both acts do involve rejecting Jesus as Messiah, the act of blaspheming the Holy Spirit has, in addition, the individual rejecting Jesus with full awareness that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. In other words, the individual has, through the work of the Spirit, self-consciously perceived the truth about Jesus as Messiah, but he willfully turns away from it anyway. Such blasphemy, according to Jesus, can never be forgiven, and it undercuts the very possibility of receiving salvation.

Conclusion

Blasphemy against the Spirit is quite a serious charge. In order to make that charge against anyone, one must, first of all, know what the gospel message is. That is, the message that proclaims the truth about Jesus as Messiah. Also, one must be able to determine whether the accused has self-consciously perceived the gospel message, but has knowingly turned away from it. This is, of course, true in the case of the Pharisees. In Matthew 12, the truth of Jesus as Messiah when revealed by the Spirit is quite obvious for all to see, but the Pharisees choose to turn away from it anyway. Although they know the source of Jesus’ power is from the Spirit, but they willfully attribute it to Satan.

The Pharisees are certainly not alone in this behavior. The rest of the NT bears witness to those who have turned away from the gospel even though the Holy Spirit had enlightened them. As Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us, these people may have perceived the truth of the gospel, participated in the fellowship of believers, and may have even enjoyed the benefits of the church. But salvation was never real for them in the first place. In 1 John 2:19, John tells his readers about some who have departed from the church, thus showing that they never really belonged in it. 

However, the scenario of the preachers at the introduction is entirely different. As this study shows, blaspheming the Spirit is not about criticizing preachers. It is not about being skeptical of modern-day signs and wonders. But it is really about willfully turning away from the gospel after having been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. To put it plainly, it is about committing apostasy. Thus, unless the followers of these preachers know for certain that you have willfully departed from the gospel message, these people have instead, without a doubt, used Matthew 12:31-32 in a most inappropriate way.

---

[1] See Matt. 12:14: “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him” (ESV).

[2] Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry C. Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), Electronic ed., Pradis, observes that the Pharisees’ accusation is “a most serious charge, because practicing magic under the influence of Satan was a capital offense, punishable by stoning.”

[3] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 33A, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), Electronic ed., Libronix , suggests the phrase διὰ τοῦτο does not link vv. 31-32 with v. 30 but “with the entire preceding episode concerning the charge of the Pharisees that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul.”

[4] I. H. Marshall, “Son of Man,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 775.

[5] Marshall, Son of Man, 777.

[6] Ibid.

[7] I. H. Marshall, “Jesus Christ,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 597. See Mk. 13:26; 14:62; Lk. 12:8-10.

[8] Ibid.

[9] “βλασφημία” in BDAG Lexicon, Bibleworks 7.

[10] Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “βλασφημέω, βλασφημία, βλάσφημος” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), Electronic ed., Libronix.

[11] Beyer.

[12] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 116-118, rightly points out that the phrase τοῦ πνεύματος in Matt. 12:31 is an objective genitive. To identify an objective genitive, the verbal noun in the expression should be converted into a verbal form and the genitive is turned into a direct object. When this method of identification is applied to the expression τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία, the phrase “blaspheming the Spirit” is produced. Thus, the expression τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία is best translated as “blasphemy against the Spirit.”

[13] D. A. Carson, Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Electronic ed., Pradis, notes that in one interpretation of Matt. 12:31-32, “[t]he blasphemy against the Son of Man is rejection of him by nonbelievers, and this is clearly forgivable when a person becomes a Christian. But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is committed by a Christian (Christians after Pentecost would understand that only believers enjoy the Spirit) and is equivalent either to apostasy or to rejection of a Christian prophet's inspired message. For this there is no forgiveness.” Another interpretation “ties blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to the ‘age of miracles’ when the Spirit's power could be directly perceived—and rejected.”

[14] John Legg, The King and his kingdom (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2004), 232, rightly points out that it cannot be that “the Holy Spirit is seen as superior to the Son of God.” Carson also similarly notes that the distinction cannot be that “the Son of Man is less important than the Spirit, or that the first sin is prebaptismal and the second postbaptismal.”

[15] Hagner.

[16] Legg, 232.

[17] Hagner.

[18] Carson notes that the best interpretation treats Matt. 12:31-32 “in its setting during Jesus' life. The Pharisees have been attributing to Satan the work of the Spirit and have been doing so, as Jesus makes plain, in such a way as to reveal that they speak, not, out of ignorance or unbelief, but out of a ‘conscious disputing of the indisputable.’”

[19] Carson comments that the blasphemy against the Spirit is the rejection of the truth “in full awareness that that is exactly what one is doing—thoughtfully, willfully, and self-consciously rejecting the work of the Spirit even though there can be no other explanation of Jesus' exorcisms than that.”

Thou mayest prosper: A study of 3 John 2 in light of Word-Faith theology

Word of Faith teachers often appeal to John’s wish to Gaius “that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” (3 Jn. 2 KJV). They believe this text should be taken to mean that true spiritual well being in this world consists of mental, bodily and financial prosperity.[1] Some of these teachers have even suggested that Christians, who are not prosperous, are condemned as living in some persistent sin or lacking in proper faith.[2] In this article, I will examine the meaning of 3 John 2 to see whether the Word-Faith doctrine of financial prosperity is being taught here.

Initial observations of 3 John

Most scholars agree that 3 John bears the form of a first-century letter.[3] While there are some who reject Johannine authorship for the epistle, it is, nevertheless, quite likely that its author is the apostle John.[4] The epistle is probably written after the Fourth Gospel, and thus should be dated to the last decade of the first century.[5] In addition, there is external evidence indicating that John wrote the epistle in Ephesus.[6]

The epistle is highly personal. It is addressed to an individual named Gaius (v. 1),[7] and it refers to two other individuals, Diotrephes (v. 9) and Demetrius (v. 12). Here John is writing in anticipation of his upcoming visit. It is indicated in the epistle that John had once written to the church before, possibly requesting the church to extend hospitality to traveling missionaries. But for some reason, Diotrephes, who had seemingly assumed leadership in the church, was opposing John’s authority (vv. 9-10). John writes that not only was Diotrephes thwarting John’s authority by publicly repudiating him and defaming his character, but Diotrephes had also threatened to expel anyone who is offering hospitality to the missionaries. But in spite of this, there are still faithful Christians like Gaius who choose to stand against Diotrephes. Thus, John is writing the epistle to commend Gaius for his hospitality and encourages him to continue (vv. 5-8).  

Greek text and translation of 3 John 2

ἀγαπητέ, περὶ πάντων εὔχομαί σε εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, καθὼς εὐοδοῦταί σου ἡ ψυχή.

Beloved, concerning all things I am wishing you (singular) to prosper and be in good health, just as your soul (singular) is being prospered.

Word analysis of εὐοδόω

In 3 John 2, John uses the verbs εὐοδοῦσθαι (“to prosper”) and εὐοδοῦταί (“it is being prospered”), which are both derived from the same lexical word εὐοδόω. And while the passive form of the word literally means, “be led along a good road,” it metaphorically have the sense of having things turn out well, prosper, or succeed.[8]

In the Septuagint (LXX), εὐοδόω has the connotation of success in a personal endeavor. Almost without exception, such success is achieved because of God’s hand or when individuals obey God’s commandments.[9] Although this word occurs many times in the LXX, it is almost never used to speak about financial success or prosperity.[10] For example, in Genesis 24, Abraham’s servant prayed to God for success in finding a wife for Isaac (v. 12).[11] And in Genesis 39, Joseph had success in Potiphar’s household because God was with him (Gen. 39:2, 3, 23). In 2 Chronicles 18:11, the prophets of Israel predicted success in a battle campaign to recover the city of Ramoth Gilead.

In the NT, εὐοδόω is only used in three verses (Rom. 1:10; 1 Cor. 16:2; 3 Jn. 2). In Romans 1:10, Paul indicates that he is praying for success in coming to the church in Rome.[12] In 1 Corinthians 16:2, the word is used in the context of financial gains that are to be set aside for offerings every Sunday.[13] In 3 John 2, the word is twice used by John to pray or to wish that Gaius would do well in all things, which include both physically and spiritually. In light of its earlier usage in the LXX and the rest of the NT, it is, therefore, quite probable that εὐοδόω in 3 John 2 do not have financial success in view. The word would be likely to have, instead, the connotation of success in personal endeavors because of God’s hand or when God’s Word is obeyed.

Literary context of 3 John 2

Verse 2 begins after John’s greeting in v. 1 where he introduces himself as “the elder” and addresses Gaius as “beloved.” Here in verse 2, John expresses a prayer or a wish for Gaius’ good health, a common feature of a first century letter.[14]

Next in vv. 3-4, John specifies that he is delighted to hear that Gaius is walking faithfully in the truth. John continues his praise of Gaius in vv. 5-8 by highlighting his hospitality to the missionaries. However, in vv. 9-10, the epistle takes an unexpected turn when John condemns Diotrephes for refusing hospitality to the missionaries and coercing others to do the same. For this reason, John exhorts Gaius not to “imitate what is evil, but what is good” (v. 11). In v. 12, John provides the example of Demetrius to illustrate that sort of good behavior. And finally in vv. 13-15, John concludes the epistle by expressing his wish to see Gaius soon and sends greetings to the friends.

Conclusion

An examination of the various occurrences of εὐοδόω in the LXX and NT indicates that financial prosperity is not in view when the word is used in 3 John 2. It should be noted that throughout 3 John, there is not a slightest hint that personal success or prosperity is ever the subject of John’s focus. 3 John 2 is merely a first century letter-writing convention used by John to convey a prayer or a blessing to Gaius alone. There is nothing in that verse that shows John’s prayer is to be intended for every individual in the church. After this verse, the word εὐοδόω does not occur again in the epistle. Instead, John’s attention is trained on the problem of conflict that has arisen in the church. Hence, it may be concluded that the Word-Faith doctrine of financial prosperity cannot be sustained in 3 John 2.

---

[1] The Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals, Faith, Health and Prosperity, ed. Andrew Perriman (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 51.

[2] The Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission, 51, observes that Word-Faith teachers teach that “[p]overty is not a mark of spirituality or holiness but a symptom of the failure to attain the prosperity which God wishes to give us.” Prominent Word-Faith teacher, Kenneth Hagin, The Believer’s Authority (Tulsa: Faith Library, 1985), 22, have this to say about Christians in poverty: “You know friends, most of us are not so poor because we have honored God–but because we have dishonored Him. You might as well say Amen because it’s so. I’ve given you scriptures to prove it.”

[3] D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 670, notes that 2 and 3 John “bear the form of letters.” Regarding the epistolary features of 3 John, Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry C. Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), Electronic ed., Pradis, points out that the author and recipient are identified at the beginning (v. 1), a blessing or prayer follows (v. 2), and there is a concluding greeting (v. 14). In addition, Burge notes 3 John contains “personal references and allusions,” which suggests it is “intended for a specific, personal situation.”

[4] For a detailed discussion of the authorship of 3 John, see Carson and Moo, 670-675.

[5] Although a majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to the last decade of the first century (Carson and Moo, 676), the Gospel is increasingly given an earlier time frame, closer to 70-80 A.D. (Burges). If we allow for some time to elapsed between the publication of the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles, then 3 John is probably written in the 90s (see Carson and Moo, 676, and Burges).

[6] Carson and Moo, 675, notes the evidence that the apostle John moved to Ephesus largely depends on “the witness of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing to Victor, bishop of Rome,” and “the witness of Irenaeus.” Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 51, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 2002), Electronic ed., Libronix, also argues for Ephesus being the location, the reason being the environment in Asia Minor “could have produced easily the controversy with Judaism and Hellenism which is to be detected in the Gospel and letters of John; and the religious syncretism of a Phrygian setting would readily have nurtured the heretical tendencies which evidently came to the surface in the Johannine letters.”

[7] The name “Gaius” is a common name in the Roman Empire (Carson and Moo, 677). While there are three other individuals by that name in the NT, i.e., Gaius of Corinth (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14), Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29), and Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4), it is improbable that Gaius of 3 John is associated with them (Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, The New American Commentary vol. 38, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), Electronic ed., Libronix). 

[8] “εὐοδόω” in BDAG Lexicon, Bibleworks 7.

[9] David M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, The New American Commentary vol. 5, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman, 2001), Electronic ed., Libronix, notes that the two equivalent Hebrew words for εὐοδόω are צָלַח and שָׂכַל (e.g., see Jos. 1:8). Whenever the word צָלַח occurs, it “almost always because of God’s gracious and ever-present hand.” And as for שָׂכַל, it is “specifically equated with obeying God’s law or the covenant.”  

[10] Howard points out that these words are “almost never used in the Old Testament to speak of financial success,” but rather, “they speak of succeeding in life’s proper endeavors.” Howard rightly notes that in the context of Joshua 1:8, “[n]othing at all is said here about financial success.”

[11] In Gen. 24:12, Abraham’s servant uses the phrase εὐόδωσον ἐναντίον ἐμοῦ σήμερον, which may be translated: “Grant success before me today.”

[12] It should be noted that in the KJV translation of Rom. 1:10, the phrase εὐοδωθήσομαι ἐν τῷ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς is rendered: I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. The word “journey,” however, is not found in the Greek text. The phrase should be literally translated: I will have success, by the will of God, to come to you. Translations such as the ESV, NASB, and the NIV, bring across the meaning of the phrase much better. 

[13] It should be noted that although εὐοδόω occurs in the context of financial gains, it is, however, quite different from financial success. Take for instance, if I hypothetically make a profit of one single cent, that profit would be counted as financial gain. But it would hardly be counted as financial success. Also, while the NASB translates the phrase θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἐὰν εὐοδῶται as, “save, as he may prosper,” it is perhaps best to translate it, as the BDAG does, as, “save as much as he gains.”

[14] Smalley points out that John “follows convention by sending his good wishes to Gaius.” Also, Akin notes that “to pray or wish for someone ‘good health’ was a common feature of the letters of this day.”