The Sin Against the Spirit: Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10

How to cite this article: R. Steven Notley, “The Sin Against the Spirit: Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29044/].

I have chosen this study to honor my dear friend David Bivin, who has championed the work of the Jerusalem School for over fifty years. We are all the beneficiaries of his tireless efforts on our behalf. In this instance, I hope to demonstrate that to grasp the import of this saying, one must engage the three pillars of the Jerusalem School: Hebrew as the spoken language of Jesus; his place within the world of emerging Jewish thought in the Second Temple period; and the imperative to reconsider the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels as historical sources.^[1]

Jesus’ statement regarding the sin against the Holy Spirit is embedded within complex layers of developing tradition. While the logion occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels, it appears in different forms and contexts. Both issues of form and context are important to understand what Jesus intended. Most scholars recognize that we possess two independent traditions for Jesus’ statement: one represented by Mark 3:28-29 and the second by Luke 12:10. Matthew 12:31‐32 combines the two.^[2] Verse 12:31 more closely resembles the form in Mark, and in 12:32 the saying approximates the Lukan variant, but it has independent elements that make it even preferable to Luke 12:10.

Not only do the forms vary. So, also do the settings. Mark and Matthew place the logion immediately following “The Beelzebul Controversy” (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22-27; cf. Luke 11:14-23), where it serves as a rebuke to those who questioned the legitimacy of Jesus’ ministry. On the other hand, Luke posits the saying in the context of the “Exhortation to Fearless Confession” (Luke 12:2-12).

Markan Redaction and Minor Agreements

Before we give further thought to its setting, we should first consider the significant differences in the form of the saying. Mark opens with an unqualified declaration of forgiveness: “All sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they blaspheme” (Mark 3:28). Matthew preserves a similar idea, though he alleviates the difficulties posed by the Markan saying. Mark’s pleonasm αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν (hai blasfēmiai hosa ean blasfēmēsōsin, literally, “whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme…”) is tempered by Matthew to read βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται (blasfēmia afethēsetai, “blasphemy will be forgiven”). In addition, Mark’s τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων (tois huiois tōn anthrōpōn, “to the sons of humans”) is simplified by Matthew’s interpretative phrase, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (tois anthrōpois, “to humans”). Nevertheless, the opening declarations of unqualified forgiveness found in both Mark and Matthew (but missing from Luke) stand in seeming contradiction to the remainder of the saying. After hearing that all blasphemy will be forgiven, we hear that just the opposite is the case.

Mark’s rare designation, “sons of men” (τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων), a phrase which only occurs here and in Ephesians 3:5, has been suggested by some scholars to be evidence of an original Aramaic saying.^[3] Boring proposed that the original Markan opening read, ישתבקון כל חובין לבר נשא.^[4] Accordingly, the divergence between the Markan and Q sayings regarding the “sons of men” and the “Son of Man” is understood to result from different translations of an Aramaic logion, “…bar-naša is well singular as collective and can be behind υἷος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as well as behind υἱοῖ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.”^[5]

This line of reasoning rests upon the a priori assumption that the semitic Vorlage for the logion must have been Aramaic. Yet, these outdated assumptions regarding the language of Jesus and the language environment of first-century Judaea have been challenged by not a few scholars, particularly since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.^[6] If the saying was originally spoken in Hebrew, then the explanation for Mark’s plurality based on Aramaic linguistic ambiguity is beside the point. No such ambiguity exists between בֶּן אָדָם (ben ’ādām, “son of man/Adam”) and בְּנֵי אָדָם (b^enē ’ādām, “son of man/Adam”) in the Hebrew language.

Instead, Mark appears to have been confronted with an unpalatable statement regarding forgiveness for blasphemy against the Son of Man, a title usually identified by the early church with Jesus. What we witness in the Second Gospel is a ‘Christian’ hesitation to allow or expiate the reviling of the Son of Man. Easton has remarked that in contrast to Mark the authenticity of Luke’s saying, “should never have been questioned; no Christian would have framed such a saying.”^[7] The entirety of Mark 3:28 exhibits signs of Mark’s reworking of an earlier (more difficult!) saying. The product of Mark’s editing 3:28 is what Taylor called, “a rough Greek.”^[8]

The addition of ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) by Mark is an attempt to semiticize the saying and to give it an authentic feel.^[9] Yet, it is obviously secondary. In addition, Mark’s peculiar inclusion of πάντα … τὰ ἁμαρτήματα (panta…ta hamartēmata, “all…the sins”) betrays his familiarity with πᾶν ἁμάρτημα (pan hamartēma, “every sin”) in 1 Corinthians 6:18, where it also occurs in proximity with τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (to pnevma to hagion, “the holy spirit”) and the idea to sin against the Holy Spirit. Our study is not primarily concerned with Markan literary method, but it is important to recognize the Evangelist’s editorial hand in order to identify the development of the tradition. In the end, Mark’s opening statement proved too difficult for Matthew to accept unchanged, and so he revised it. Yet, when we compare Matthew’s opening verse with the remainder of his saying, we find that he has conflated two independent traditions, the first an edited version of Mark and the second closer to what we read in Luke’s Gospel.

In his study of our logion, Boring attacked the view which he considered the only alternative to Mark’s position of historical priority. The theory of Matthean priority espoused by Griesbach, and more recently advocated by Farmer, Sanders, and others, understands Mark here to be the final stratum of the synoptic tradition, combining together the earlier Matthean and Lukan formulæ.^[10] In our pericope, however, such an understanding is incapable of explaining what we witness in the pericope.^[11]

Mark must then be represented as using the common material Matt.12:24-26/Luke 11:15-18 in Mark 3:22-26, but inexplicably abandoning the continuation of this common material in Matt. 12:27-28/Luke 11:19-20. In Mark 3:27, he then chooses a saying from Matthew, 12:29, although the Lukan counterpart (11:21-22) is not verbally parallel, and then omits verbatim parallel material in Matt. 12:30/Luke 11:23. When he comes to the two sayings in Matthew concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he chooses the first and expands it, while ignoring the Lukan version in another context. He cannot be represented as combining the Matthean and Lukan versions.

Boring’s argument about the weakness of Matthean priority, which assumes Mark’s dependence on Matthew, is correct. Mark can hardly be shown to have combined Matthew and Luke. Nor is it reasonable to assume that Mark, if indeed composing the final stratum of tradition, would have desired to produce a work which uncannily demonstrates traits of a mediating position between Matthew and Luke in the manner which Boring describes. The literary facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Matthew conflates two independent traditions, one represented by Mark and the other approximating what we find in Luke.

The most reasonable explanation is some form of two-source theory, yet perhaps not necessarily that which Boring suggests.^[12]

If the version of the logion found in Matt. 12:32 is an earlier form than that found in Mark 3:28-29, this cannot be argued on the basis that Matthew is here the source for Mark, and the two-source hypothesis continues to be the most satisfactory framework for dealing with the phenomena of the text.

Although Boring correctly asserts the need for two independent, non-Matthean sources to explain the form(s) of our saying, it does not follow that the originality of Matthew 12:32 is impeded by Mark’s non-use of Matthew. All of Boring’s objections are silenced, if one understands that Mark in our passage relies upon Luke (or a saying that is akin to Luke). Mark then edited the tradition he received, at points making changes.^[13] Matthew represents the final stage in the Synoptic Tradition. He has conflated (and at times corrected) the Markan saying he received with an older form of the saying.

Matthew was familiar with an earlier, non-Markan statement that, though akin to Luke, lacked many of the Lukan “improvements.” The form of the variant found in Matt. 12:32 is to be preferred to that which is found in Luke 12:10. Those familiar with Hebrew will recognize the preference for Matthew’s εἴπῃ λόγον (eipē logon, “might say a word”) to Mark’s βλασφημήσῃ (blasfēmēsē, “might blaspheme”) or Luke’s βλασφημήσαντι (blasfēmēsanti, “blaspheming”). In the Hebrew Bible, the object for the verb גִּדֵּף (gidēf, “revile”), which is the Hebrew equivalent for βλασφήµειν (blasfēmein, “to blaspheme”), is typically reserved for God or his name. So, we hear in Numbers:

וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה מִן־הָאֶזְרָח וּמִן־הַגֵּר אֶת־יְהוָה הוּא מְגַדֵּף

But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles [מְגַדֵּף] the Lord…. (Num. 15:30 [cf. 2 Kings 19:22; Isa 37:23])

The second half of Matthew’s saying, which lacks traces of Markan influence, expresses a similar, but less refined, idea of reviling. The verb βλασφημεῖν in Mark and Luke 12:10b and those parts of Matthew that have been influenced by Mark is a literary improvement on the more primitive form of the saying preserved in Matthew 12:32 and its “minor agreement” in Luke 12:10a.^[14] This earlier form of the saying refers to one who “speaks against” the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit.^[15] The Hebraic expression is heard both in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls:

וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל־משֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי־דִבַּרְנוּ בַיהוָה וָבָךְ

And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you…” (Num. 21:7)

הם מדברים בם

They speak (abhorrent things) against them. (CD 5:13)

In a minor agreement against Mark, Matthew and Luke use the title “Son of Man,” and there seems to be little doubt that Jesus in our saying used the equivalent of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ho huios tou anthrōpou, “the son of the human”). Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10 both refer to the one who speaks against the Son of Man. As we noted, some scholars have suggested that Mark’s original τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων with the collective sense of “men” has been altered by Matthew and Luke to read τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, introducing an eschatological sense into the logion. While the logion did originally read τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in this context it is not necessary to read the title eschatologically or, as has been proposed, to Jesus “in his hidden humble form of the Messiah.”^[16] Instead, E. P. Sanders rightly observed, “sayings concerning forgiveness, as might be expected, have little eschatological thrust.”^[17]

Sin Against the Spirit in Light of Ancient Jewish Sources

At the outset we raised a question about the literary placement of the logion in the Gospels and its importance for discerning its meaning. Unfortunately, the original historical setting cannot be known with any certainty.^[18] Nevertheless, a knowledge of contemporary religious thought can assist us to better understand the saying’s original intent. It seems that Jesus’ caution belongs to ongoing discussions in Jewish circles regarding the interrelationship between one’s standing with God and one’s neighbor.

The same theme can be heard in the teachings of Jesus on other occasions. “So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23-24). These verses speak of the conditions for the acceptance of personal sin offerings and are likely related to the conditions presented on the Day of Atonement, during which the offering is contingent upon prior reconciliation with one’s neighbor. While the subject of divine forgiveness is not expressly mentioned, the act of “offering your gift at the altar” in the context of reconciliation can have communicated little else to the hearers.

A similar idea of the importance of human relationships and their effect on one’s standing before God is more clearly enunciated by Ben Sira:

ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπῳ συντηρεῖ ὀργήν,
καὶ παρὰ κυρίου ζητεῖ ἴασιν;
ἐπ᾿ ἄνθρωπον ὅμοιον αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔχει ἔλεος,
καὶ περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτοῦ δεῖται;
αὐτὸς σὰρξ ὢν διατηρεῖ μῆνιν,
τίς ἐξιλάσεται τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ;

Does a man harbor anger against another,
and yet seek for healing from the Lord?
Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself,
and yet pray for his own sins?
If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath,
who will make expiation for his sins? (Sir. 28:3-5)

The message of Ben Sira reminds us of Jesus’ words when he instructed his disciples to pray, “Forgive us our sins in the same way that we have forgiven those who have sinned against us” (Luke 11:4a; Matt. 6:12). Along the same lines, we hear that the lack of reconciliation is an impediment to atonement, according to a first-century sage, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah:

אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ ר′ אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מִכָּל חַטּאוֹתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יָיי תִּטְהָרוּ עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר וְשֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַד שֶׁיְּרַצֵּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ

This did R. Eleazar b. Azariah expound: From all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord (Lev. 16:30)—for transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement; but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow. (m. Yom. 8:9)

Coupled with this, Jesus’ warning about speaking against the Holy Spirit should be understood against the background of the Jewish injunction against speaking against or reviling God. The interdiction against blasphemy occurs in expanded lists of cardinal sins (idolatry, adultery and the spilling of blood). To these three, which we hear in Acts 15:28-29^[19] were added “robbery and blasphemy” in the Jewish midrash Sifra on Leviticus 18:4 and in the earlier Jewish portion of the Didache:^[20]

τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου γόγγυσος, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν βλασφημίαν· μηδὲ αὐθάδης μηδὲ πονηρόφρων, ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων βλασφημίαι γεννῶνται.

My child, be not a grumbler, for this leads to blasphemy, nor stubborn, nor a thinker of evil, for from all these are blasphemies engendered. (Did. 3:3-6)

The severity of profaning the name of God is heard in the midrash Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus 20:7:^[21]

מי שמחלל שם שמים ועשה תשובה אין כח בתשובה לתלות ולא ביום הכפורים לכפר ולא בייסורין למרק אלא התשובה ויום הכפורים תולין ויום המיתה ממרק עם הייסורין.

However, if one has profaned the name of God and repents, his repentance cannot make the case pending, neither can the Day of Atonement bring him forgiveness, nor can sufferings cleanse him of his guilt. But repentance and the Day of Atonement both can merely make the matter pend. And the day of death with the suffering completes the atonement.

The rabbinic idea of suffering at death as a means for atonement from transgression may relate to a notion that we will consider below. Although many similar sayings from rabbinic literature could be presented, a closer parallel to the saying of Jesus appears in a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic work. In the list of holy angels found in the Book of the Watchers from 1 Enoch, we hear about Sariel, “one of the holy angels who is in charge of the spirits of those who sin against the spirit [οἵτινες … τῷ πνεύµατι ἁµαρτάνουσιν]” (1 Enoch 20:6).^[22] The possibility that the phrase “those who sin against the spirit” relates to blasphemy is indicated by the subsequent interpretation of Enoch’s cosmic journey:

Καὶ εἶπον Διὰ τί ἡ γῆ αὕτη ἡ εὐλογημένη καὶ πᾶσα πλήρης δένδρων, αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ φάραγξ κεκατηραμένη ἐστίν; γῆ κατάρατος τοῖς κεκατηραμένοις ἐστὶν μέχρι αἰῶνος. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται πάντες οἱ κεκατηραμένοι οἵτινες ἐροῦσιν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν κατὰ Κυρίου φωνὴν ἀπρεπῆ, καὶ περὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σκληρὰ λαλήσουσιν. ὧδε ἐπισυναχθήσονται, καὶ ὧδε ἔσται τὸ οἰκητήριον.

Then I said, ‘What is the purpose of this blessed land which is completely full of trees and of this accursed valley in the middle of them? Then Raphael, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me and said to me, This accursed valley is for those who are cursed forever; here will be gathered together all who speak with their mouths against the Lord words that are not fitting and say hard things about his glory. Here they will gather them together, and here will be their place of judgment. (1 Enoch 27:1-2)

Enoch’s question concerning the “accursed valley”^[23] is explained by Raphael to be the place of perdition for those who have spoken against the Lord and his glory (1 Enoch 27:2). Matthew Black rightly interpreted the transgression to denote “blasphemy.”^[24] Moreover, the lines are structured in Hebraic parallelism with “his glory” in the second phrase serving as a circumlocution for “the Lord” in the first.^[25]

Mention of “the accursed valley” (i.e., Gehenna) as the destiny of the wicked is well known both in Jewish and Christian literature.^[26] Another description of the place of punishment appears in the depiction of Enoch’s visit to the mountain of the dead:

Then I asked regarding it, and regarding all the hollow places: ‘Why is one separated from the other?’ And he answered me and said unto me: ‘These three (places) have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. (1) And such a division has been made (for) the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. (2) And such has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed on them in their lifetime. (3) Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgement and punishment and torment of those who curse forever and retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them forever. (1 Enoch 22:8-10)

What we witness in the Book of Watchers is a notion that continues through the New Testament period into early rabbinic literature—the gradation of sin and its punishment. Of particular interest for us in 1 Enoch 22:8-10 and 27:2 is the description that the punishment for those “who speak against the Lord” or “curse forever” is unending punishment.

These receive no forgiveness. Or to paraphrase from the earlier rabbinic statement, “their suffering at death brings no atonement.” They are punished forever. Milikowsky examined the notion of Gehenna presented in a second century midrashic chronograph, Seder Olam.^[27] The midrash concerns the chronology of the early generations of the biblical period. However, in the latter portions of chapter 3 the writer digresses to consider the subject of Gehenna. He ponders the length of time the wicked must suffer in Gehenna and cites the opinion of an anonymous rabbi and that of R. Yohanan ben Nuri. Finally, the writer concludes:

לאחר שנים עשר חדש פושעי ישראל שעברי על המצות נפשן כלה וגופן בלה ונישרף וגהינם פולטתן והרוח זורה אותן ומפזרתן ונעשין אפר תחת כפות רגלי צדיקים

After twelve months, the sinners of Israel who have transgressed the commandments, their souls cease to exist, their bodies waste away and are burnt, Gehenna spits them out, the wind scatters them and disperses them, and they become ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous.^[28]

In other words, there is temporary punishment for the sinners of Israel who have transgressed the commandments. Their punishment is distinguished from that of those who have separated themselves from the ways of the community.

אבל מי שפרשו מדרכי ציבור כגון המינים והמשומדין והמוסורות והחניפין והאפקרסין שכפרו בתחית המיתים ושאמרו אין תורה מן השמים גהינם נינעלת בפניהם ונידונין בתוכה לעולם ולעולמי עולמים

But those who have separated themselves from the ways of the community, like the sectarians, the apostates, the informers, the infidels, and the heretics who have denied the resurrection of the dead or have said that the Torah is not from Heaven, they are locked in Gehenna and they are punished within it forever and ever.

Whereas the midrash speaks of an end for the punishment of the former group, the retribution upon the latter is without end—forever and ever. Milikowsky has demonstrated that the writer has combined two lists of transgressions, which appear elsewhere independently,^[29] to define how exactly these have abandoned the ways of the community.^[30] The common trait of transgression is given in the final lines:

ומי גרם להם מפני שפשטו ידיהם בזבול שנ׳ מזבול לו ואין זבול אלא בית המקדש שנ׳ בנה בית וגו′‏

What brought this upon them? Because they raised their hands against zevul, as it is says “from zevul to him” (Ps. 49:15), and zevul is nothing other than the temple, as it says, “I have built for you an exalted house” (I Kings 8:13).

The midrash is a play on the Hebrew word זְבֻל (z^evul) which means literally, “exalted.” It is used to describe the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:13-2; 2 Chron. 6:2: בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבֻל לָךְ מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ עוֹלָמִים) and for the heavenly abode of God: “Look down from heaven and see, from thy holy and glorious habitation” (Isa. 63:15: הַבֵּט מִשָּׁמַיִם וּרְאֵה מִזְּבֻל קָדְשְׁךָ וְתִפְאַרְתֶּךָ). Elsewhere, we hear language similar to Seder Olam in the Tosefta:

גיהנ′ ננעלת בפניהן… שאול כלה והם אינם כלין שנ′ וצורם לבלות שאול ומי גרם להם שפשטו ידיהם בזבול שנאמר מזבול לו ואין זבול אלא בית המקדש שנאמר בנה בניתי בית זבול לך

Gehenna is locked behind them…Sheol will waste away, but they will not waste away. For it is written, “and their form shall cause Sheol to waste away” (Psalm 49:14). What made this happen to them? Because they stretched out their hand against the “lofty habitation,” as it is said, “Because of his lofty habitation,” and lofty habitation refers only to the Temple, as it is said, “I have surely built you a lofty habitation, a place for you to dwell in forever” (1 Kings 8:13). (t. Sahn. 13:5)

The idea in the midrash and the Tosefta concerning those who have abandoned the ways of the community is that they have exalted themselves, raising their hands in rebellion against God. The same language appears in 1 Enoch 46:7 to describe those who have rebelled and are being punished, “They raise their hands against the Most High.” Indeed, the language to raise or extend one’s hands against God may allude to a verse we considered earlier: “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, blasphemes the Lord” (Num. 15:30).

It is important to note that the Temple in the rabbinic midrash serves the same literary purpose as “the glory of the Lord,” in 1 Enoch. They are metonymical expressions for the Lord. They signify his presence and work in the world. The destiny for the blasphemers is the same as those “who speak hard words against the Lord” described in 1 Enoch and “those who speak a word against the Holy Spirit” in the saying of Jesus. They have no hope of forgiveness. In other words, there will be no cessation of their punishment in eternity.

Conclusion

How does this emerging complex of ideas help us to understand the sense of Jesus’ saying: “He who speaks against the son of man will be forgiven; but he who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”?

On several occasion in the Gospels, we hear that Jesus speaks of himself as a prophet. “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country” (Mark 6:4). “Go and tell that fox… I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem” (Luke 13:32-33). There were even those among his followers who understood him to be a prophet, “Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke 24:19).

When Jesus warns about those who speak against the Holy Spirit, he cautions those who would reject the prophetic word of the Lord. Such umbrage is essentially rebellion against God. Fitzmyer recognized the same metonymy when he commented, “the ‘holy spirit’ is being used somewhat like the ‘finger of God’ in Luke 11:20, as a way of expressing God’s salvific intervention in human activity; if this is rejected or abused, so is God himself.”^[31]

The Hebraic structure of our saying speaks of the son of man and the holy spirit in an interwoven, paralleled fashion.^[32] On one level Jesus speaks comparatively about the relative severity of speaking against one’s fellow human in contrast to speaking against the word of the Lord, which is delivered by his servant on whom his Holy Spirit rests. He is the prophetic voice through whom God calls those who would listen to repentance.

The hearers may disapprove of the person of the messenger, but it is a far more serious matter to reject the message he carries by virtue of the Holy Spirit which rests upon him. In this case, their sin is the same as we heard earlier in Num. 21:7: דִבַּרְנוּ בַיהוָה וָבָךְ (“We have sinned against the Lord and against you”). If our understanding is correct, then we discover that the Hebrew saying of Jesus belongs to developing Jewish ideas regarding the gradation of sin and punishment. It also reflects his high self-awareness as the prophetic voice on whom the Holy Spirit rests.

---

• ^[1] R. S. Notley, “Preface,” in Jesus’ Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels–Vol. One, R. S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2006): 1-13. ↩
• ^[2] D. Flusser, “Die Sünde gegen den heiligen Geist,” Wie Gut Sind Deine Zelte, Jaakow…: Festschrift zum 60 Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer (Gerlingen, 1986), 139. See also C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2 vols; London: Macmillan, 1927), 1:92. ↩
• ^[3] M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 1967), 189. ↩
• ^[4] M. E. Boring, “The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mark III.28-29/Matt.XII.31-32/Luke XII.10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” Novum Testamentum 18 (1976): 276. ↩
• ^[5] R. Schippers, “The Son of Man in Matt. 12:32= L 12:10, Compared with Mk. 3:28,” Studia Evangelia 102 (1968): 232. ↩
• ^[6] See R. Buth and R. S. Notley, eds. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 2014); S. Fassberg, “Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?” CBQ 74/2 (2012): 263-280; Sh. Safrai “Spoken Languages in the Time of Jesus,” Jerusalem Perspective 30 (1991): 3-8, 13 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2551/]; idem, “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” Jerusalem Perspective 31 (1991): 3-8 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2563/]; J. Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple,” JBL 79 (1960), 32-47. The clearest evidence that Jesus spoke and taught in Hebrew rather than Aramaic are his story parables. Jewish parables, which outside of the Gospels, are only found in rabbinic literature are all told in Hebrew, and none are in Aramaic. R. S. Notley and Z. Safrai, Parables of the Sages (Jerusalem: Carta Publishing, 2011), 6. ↩
• ^[7] B. S. Easton, The Gospel According to St. Luke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1926), 199. The same may be said for its parallel in Matt. 12:32. ↩
• ^[8] V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 242-243. ↩
• ^[9] We see the same attempt in Mark 8:12 (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον), where Matt. 16:4 and Luke 11:29 agree not to include ἀμήν. Flusser contends that the logion about the sign of the Son of Man is best preserved in Luke’s Gospel. His observation also has something to say about whether Jesus would have identified himself with the title Son of Man. “The Sign of the Son of Man,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1988), 526-534. “One of the principal results of our investigation is that Jesus’ saying in Luke 11:29-32 is his ipsissima verba, because it is practically impossible to imagine that such a profound saying with hidden hints to Enochic motifs could have been invented later by others. And if the gospel preserved this original saying of Jesus, it has a further, far-reaching consequences for the self-awareness of Jesus. One cannot escape the conclusion that in our saying Jesus identified himself with the eschatological Son of Man” (“Sign,” 534). While Flusser is correct about the sense of Jesus’ use of the Son of Man in Luke 11:29, in our current saying the title holds a different import. ↩
• ^[10] E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (London: CUP, 1969), 270. ↩
• ^[11] Boring, “Unforgivable,” 262. ↩
• ^[12] Boring, “Unforgivable,” 264. ↩
• ^[13] The most significant alteration is Mark’s concluding statement where he alone adds, “For they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (Mark 3:30). In this he echoes his change to the “Beelzebul Controversy” (Matt. 12:22-30; Mark 3:22-27; Luke 11:14-23). There the accusation against Jesus attested by Matt. 12:24 and Luke 11:15 is that “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.” Instead, according to Mark 3:22 the scribes charge, “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” Minor agreements between Matthew and Luke have always proven troublesome for those who hold to Markan priority, and Matthew and Luke’s independent use of Mark for their common material. Streeter attempted to reason that our pericope was one of the rare occasions where Mark knew and used Q. “St. Mark’s Knowledge and Use of Q,” in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, W. Sanday, ed. (Oxford: OUP, 1911), 169-172. On the contrary, what we witness in our saying is Mark’s penchant to borrow related phrasing from other passages to change his text. The charge of being possessed by a demon was not, in fact, made against Jesus, but against John the Baptist. “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Matt. 11:18-19; Luke 7:34-35). Characteristically, Mark has omitted the saying with these charges against John and Jesus. Instead, in our pericope he has transferred the charge against John to Jesus. We should quickly add that our reading of the synoptic relationship is not simply Luke→Mark→Matthew. The Evangelists do not work as mere copyists. One must examine the literary data in each account to identify individual editorial changes. Typically, “Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke’s Gospel.” Flusser, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press Hebrew University, 1997), 22. So regarding our saying Flusser observed, “und in Mt. 12:32 ist die zweite Variante in einem bessern Zustand als die, die in Lk. 12:10 erhalten ist,” “Die Sünde,” 92. ↩
• ^[14] I. H. Marshall has rightly identified the use of βλασφημεῖν “as a more elegant Greek rendering.” The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 517. Hence, Luke refined the Hebraism attested in Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10a with his use of βλασφήµειν (cf. Acts 6:11). We find the same improvement by Luke on another occasion which creates a pleonasm: καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ βλασφημοῦντες ἔλεγον εἰς αὐτόν (“And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him”; Luke 22:65). Indeed, the use of βλασφημεῖν in Luke 12:10a may be intended to anticipate that those who held Jesus before they handed him over to the Romans were “reviling (βλασφημοῦντες) him” (see also Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29). ↩
• ^[15] The difference between Luke’s εἰς (eis, “into”) and Matthew’s κατά (kata, “against”) may represent variant translations of what was certainly the Hebrew idiom -לְדַבֵּר בְּ (l^edabēr be-, “to speak against”). Luke represents a more literal rendering, but the verb לְדַבֵּר with the same idea of reviling occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures with the LXX translating -בְּ with κατά: וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמשֶׁה (Num. 12:8) ∥ καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἐφοβήθητε καταλαλῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Μωυσῆ; (Num. 28:12 LXX; cf. Jer. 31:20). ↩
• ^[16] G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963), 213 n. 1. ↩
• ^[17] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 111. ↩
• ^[18] While questions remain concerning the historical context for the logion, its position in Matthew’s Gospel seems to have influenced the Evangelist to alter the wording of the statement by Jesus in the preceding verse (Matt. 12:28): εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. The Lukan saying with ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ (Luke 11:20) certainly represents the form of the original logion. See R. S. Notley, “By the Finger of God,” Jerusalem Perspective 2/9 (July-August 1989): 6-7 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/514/]; E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London: Oliphants, 1974), 167; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1981), 916-923. ↩
• ^[19] The message of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:28-29 is best preserved in Codex Bezae. See D. Flusser and S. Safrai, “Das Aposteldekret und die Noachitischen Gebote,” in Wer Tora mehrt, mehrt Leben: Festgabe fur Heinz Kremers (ed. E. Brocke and H.-J. Borkenings; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), 173-192; idem, “The Apostolic Decree and the Noahide Commandments” trans. H. Ronning, Jerusalem Perspective (2012) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4403/]. ↩
• ^[20] See J. B. Lightfoot, and J. R Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Short Introductions and English Translations (London: Macmillan, 1898), 218-230; H. van de Sandt and D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002), 171-172. ↩
• ^[21] See E. Urbach, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1979), 356-359. ↩
• ^[22] The reading here is based on the Greek texts Gk^{a1 a2} which have been corrupted in the Ethiopic translations. M. Black and A-M Denis, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 32. Black suggests that both the Greek and the Ethiopic texts are corrupt. See Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 153. However, as we shall see the Greek text may accord with our Gospel saying and other non-canonical witnesses. M. A. Knibb, “I Enoch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament, H. F. D. Sparks, ed. (Oxford: OUP, 1984), 208; E. Isaac, “I Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, J. H. Charlesworth, ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 24. ↩
• ^[23] The phrase ἡ φάραγξ κεκατηραμένη (hē faranx kekatēramenē, “the accursed valley”) = גֵּיהִינָּם (gēhinām, “Gehenna”); Black, The Book of Enoch, 175; C. Milikowsky “גיהנום ופשעי ישראל על פי ׳סדר עולם׳,” Tarbiẓ 55 (Jan-Mar, 1986): 315-316. ↩
• ^[24] Black, The Book of Enoch, 174. ↩
• ^[25] A similar metonymy occurs with τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ (tēs dūnameōs tou theou, “of the power of God”) in Luke 22:69. “This term is used as a hypostatic description of God Himself both in Judaism and in the New Testament…” D. Flusser, “At the Right Hand of Power,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1989), 303. See G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim (2 vols.; New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 2:335 n. 8. ↩
• ^[26] In his study Milikowsky reviews the biblical and early non-canonical occurrences of the term Gehenna and the two distinctive ideas of a destination for wicked souls as a place of punishment after their death and the eschatological idea of punishment for the sins of the wicked which is meted out in the great and final judgement. He also has shown that both ideas are to be found in the New Testament. Milikowsky, “גיהנום,” 313ff.; J. Jeremias, “γέεννα,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel, ed. G. W. Bromiley, trans. (9 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:657ff.; “ἄβυσσος,” ibid. 1:9ff.; “ᾅδης,” ibid. 1:146-149. ↩
• ^[27] Milikowsky, “גיהנום,” 311-343. ↩
• ^[28] The Hebrew texts and translation are taken from C. Milikowsky, Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronograph (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1981), 229-230 (H); 458 (E). ↩
• ^[29] “המינים והמשומדין והמוסורות,” t. Bab Metzia 2:33 (=b. Abodah Zarah 2); Aboth de Rabbi Nathan Ver. A, Chap. 17 (Schechter, 64). “ושאמרו אין תורה מן השמים והאפקרסין שכפרו בתחית המיתים,” m. Sanh. 10:1. ↩
• ^[30] Milikowsky, “גיהנום,” 311-343. ↩
• ^[31] Fitzmyer, op cit., 966. ↩
• ^[32] R. L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1973), 37. ↩