Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Matthew XII. 30-32. 453
him a sign of their evU disposition. It is here quite out of the
question to refer this proverbial saying to the kingdom of dark-
ness, in which case the f^er' tuov and kot' i^ov {with me and against
me), could be applied only to the subject suggested by the context,
whUe the first person would be used only proverbially, so that this
sense would arise : " the common remark, he who is not with me,
etc., may with full truth be applied to the devil."
Ver. 31, 32.—With this idea is then connected a description of
the fearful guilt into which aU plunge themselves who were against
Jesus {kut' tixov). But to place this guilt in its true light, our Lord
compares it with other very culpable actions—especially with blas-
phemies. This difiScult passage requires a careful consideration on
account of its doctrinal importance.*
In the first place, as regards the various expressions used by the
Evangelists, there is, in Luke xii. 10, a similar thought, but more
briefly expressed. It stands there in quite a different connexion.
A comparison of it with others, contributes nothing to our understanding
of the passage. Mark has the words in the same connexion
as Matthew, but more briefly, and with less peculiarity. It is in
Matthew alone that the thought appears fully brought out ; and
he proves again here that he can make up, by care in communicating
the discourses, for his want of vividness in narrative. If, then, we follow
Matthew, the substance of the thought is, that all sins may be
forgiven with the exception of one, which Matthew calls: "speaking
a word against the Holy Ghost, blasphemy of the Spirit" (ehelv Aoyov
Kara tov -rrveviiaroq dyiov, pXaocpTjiita rov TTvevnarog). Mark, on the
contrary, calls it, /3Aa^7/jueZv elg rb nveviia rb dytov. In order to illus-
trate the idea, it is, moreover, added, that even fiXaacpriiiiaL (accord-
ing to Mark), and speaking against the Son of man {el-neiv Xayov
Kara tov vlov rov dvdpdjnov, according to Matthew), will be forgiven
—but not the sin against the Holy Ghost. It cannot, therefore, be
said that ver. 31 and 32 express the same truth ; for although ver.
31 contains the preliminary remark, that the sin against the Holy
Ghost cannot be forgiven, yet ver. 32 points out the new and im-
portant thought, that even the sin against the Son may be forgiven,
but that the sin against the Holy Ghost can not. The expressive
remark, moreover, is added : ovre h rovro) rCJ alojvi, ovre ev tw (jleX-
Xovrij neither in this icorld, nor in that to come. This simple
thought, however, it is very difficult to explain ; partly, because it
stands quite isolated, inasmuch as no other passage of the New
Testament speaks expressly of this sin ; partly, because it is -in it-
* On the sin against the Holy Ghost, compare the instructive treatises by Grashqff