Matthew12:32

This is a clear contrast between those on one side who believed the miracles Jesus performed had to come from God, but they were still not sure whether He was the Messiah or some other servant of God, and those on the other side who convinced themselves that the miracles must be powered by a different supernatural power source – demons. Jesus understood and did not take offense at people who were waiting to see what happened before deciding if He was the Messiah they had been waiting for. He knew their hopes were tied up in freedom from the Roman Empire, so He did not look like what they were looking for. But He did take offense at those who denied the obvious work of the Spirit of God. This was unacceptable.

The current mental condition of waiting to see what the final outcome would be before deciding if Jesus was the Messiah, referred to here as “any word spoken against the Son of Man”, would not be held against anyone. However, the current spiritual condition of attributing the obvious work of the Holy Spirit to another power source, referred to here as “to speak against the Holy Spirit”, would be held against them. It is the current condition, the right now, in the moment condition of denying what is obviously the work of the Spirit of God, that will not be forgiven. Once that condition has been replaced with a condition of repentance, the offer of forgiveness is back on the table. The word against the Son of Man can be forgiven even while it is ongoing because it is not a defiant sin; to speak against the Holy Spirit and deny His obvious work cannot be forgiven while it is ongoing because it is a fist raised against God.

This verse does not apply to us today because we are no longer in the “wait and see what happens” mode. We can read the full life of Jesus and see that He accomplished something far greater than gaining temporary freedom from a temporary human ruler; He made possible a permanent freedom from the consequences of sin.

I think the intent of Jesus’ words was this: As long as someone is refusing to acknowledge the obvious work of the Spirit of God, he is going the wrong direction; he will suffer eternal punishment unless he changes direction. As long as one can be called a denier of the Holy Spirit’s work, he is an enemy of God, but if he ceases to deny the work of the Spirit of God he can be forgiven.

The rest of Scripture points toward this being the intent of this passage and its sister passages in Mark and Luke, evidenced by the following points:

1. It agrees with their understanding of the phrases “Holy Spirit” or “Spirit of God” which was simply the supernatural activity of God.
2. It fits the Old Testament understanding of unpardonable sins – as long as one was sinning in defiance, with his fist raised against God, there was no atonement available to cover that sin. However, if he changed his attitude and actions and became a person who no longer sinned defiantly but only unintentionally, there was a mechanism to cover those types of sins. The difference between the Former Covenant and the New Covenant is that the Former Covenant offered no way to retroactively be forgiven of those sins committed in defiance against God, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus is able to do that very thing.
3. It fits the message of the rest of the New Testament which portrays Jesus as the only efficacious sacrifice. His blood covers our sins. No other sacrifice is needed; His blood is enough. The atonement He offers is usually portrayed as complete. For there to be an exception to the all-encompassing nature of Jesus’ sacrifice, it would have to be explained very well so people know when that line has been crossed. As things stand, even those who try to interpret this passage literally are not able to give a clear explanation of what that looks like. They try, but usually someone is able to give an example of someone who appears to have crossed that line, but later repented and returned to God. Therefore, the line, if any exists, is a blurry one at best. Either the rest of the New Testament must be explained with a qualifying statement, or these passages must be explained by saying the context indicates that it does not mean what it sounds like it means. There are various times when we must say that about some passage in the Bible. We should not feel threatened by that or allow it to hinder our faith, rather it is an indication that life is complex, and the Bible contains a matching degree of complexity.
4. The life of Saul of Tarsus, later called Paul, appears to be a good example of someone who denied the work of the Holy Spirit and resisted everything God was doing, but later was forgiven and used mightily for God’s kingdom. The phrase “blasphemy against the Spirit” is not used to directly describe Paul, but his actions fit the definition of such blasphemy consisting of someone refusing to give God and His Holy Spirit credit for things that are obviously the work of God.
5. It fits God’s constant offer of forgiveness if there is repentance. Throughout the Bible, forgiveness is always contingent upon repentance, even in passages where repentance is not specifically mentioned. At first this passage seems like a contradiction to the concept of forgiveness to all who repent. I believe Jesus said it the way He did to make his point with great emphasis; what the Pharisees were doing was totally unacceptable. But He was not changing the forgiving nature of God.
6. There are times when the Bible does not mean what it seems to mean, and sometimes that is true of the word “forever.” The Hebrew word often rendered “forever” actually means “long duration, or a long time.” The Greek word often translated “forever” means “age, or for a long as an entire age,” in contrast to a brief lifespan within an age. Sometimes we see this word used in a compound form which is rendered “for ever and ever” but literally means “through the ages of the ages,” or for a very, very long time. So we see that the very words used in the original languages are vague, not specific as we had hoped. God told David that his son would build a temple for God and “his throne will be established forever” (I Chron 17:14). It sounds like everything God was saying would be fulfilled literally. It sounds like God was talking about a physical son (or descendants) sitting on a physical throne. David’s dynasty did last a long time, but it did not last forever. So now we realize that God switched gears part way through and started talking about Jesus, whose reign will never end. In Exodus 21:6 we read that when a slave chose to become a bond-slave for life, his ear was pierced and he served his master “forever,” although it obviously means “for life, or permanently.” When Solomon built the temple God said his eye would be on that place “permanently/forever” (II Chron 7:16). But God caused the first temple to be destroyed by the Babylonians, and the second temple to be destroyed by the Romans. What gives? We must realize that there are times the Bible does not mean what it seems to mean at first glance; it requires additional study.
7. The final evidence I can offer is what Jesus said immediately after this in the Matthew passage and in the last chapter of Revelation. See below.

It was possible to have unanswered questions about who Jesus was and still be headed toward God. He didn’t act like the Messiah they had always expected, so the tendency of many people was to wait and see what happened. Yet the miracles He performed were obviously the work of the Holy Spirit. That should not be denied. But once again, it was possible for someone to see the miracles and attribute them to the Spirit of God but still wonder what that meant about Jesus – “Is he a prophet, or is He the Messiah?  Who is he? Will the Messiah be a man like Moses or David or Elijah? Or will He be different?” You can see that the people asking these questions did not deny the working of God.