A GREEK
EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 12:30-34
WHAT IS THE
UNFORGIVABLE SIN?
o` mh.
w;n metV evmou/ katV evmou/
evsti( ka.i o` mh. suna,gwn metV
evmou/( skorpi,zei) dia. tou/to le,gw u`mi/n( Pa/sa a`marti,a kai.
Blasfhmi,a avfeqh,setai toi/s avnqrw,pois h`( de. tou/ Pneu,matos blasfhmi,a ouvk avfeqh,setai toi/ avnqrw,pois. kai. o]s a;n ei;ph| lo,gon kata.
tou/ ui`ou/
tou/ avnqrw,pou( avfeqh,setai avutw=|:\ o]s dV an ei;ph| kata. tou/
Pneu,mato tou/ `Agi,ou( ouvk avfeqh,setai
auvtw/| ou;te evn tou,tw| tw/|
aivw/ni ou;te evn tw|/ me,llonti) hv poih,sate to. de,ndron kalo.n( kai. to.n
karpo.n auvtou/ kalo,n( h; poih,sate to. de.ndron sapro.n( kai. to,n karpo.n
auvtou/ sapro,n\ evk ga.r tou/
karpou/ to. de,ndron ginw.sketai) gennh.mata evcidnw/n( pw/s du,nasqe avgaqa. lalei/n( ponhroi. o;ntes evk ga.r tou/ perisseu,matos th/s kardi,as to. sto,ma
lalei/)
He
not being with me is against me, and he not gathering together with me,
scatters abroad. On account of these things I say to you, All
sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall
not be forgiven men. And whoever
might speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but
whoever might speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him,
neither in this age, neither in the continuing. Either make the tree good, and the fruit of
it good, or make the tree corrupt, and the fruit of it
corrupt; for out of the fruit the tree is known. Generation of vipers, how are ye able to
speak good, being evil, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
At times some of the more difficult passages of Scripture can be
better understood and clarified by drawing valuable information out of the text
in the original language. This ability
is by no means necessary in order to be able to understand the Bible and in
some cases has only aided in causing error in doctrine. Nonetheless, it can be a valuable tool, and
here we shall employ it in conjunction with using Scripture to interpret
Scripture while seeking to clarify the matter where the Bible speaks of a sin
that God will not forgive. We will do so
by analyzing the text verse by verse and word by word in such places as we find
profitable while viewing the whole in the light of this specific context as
well as relative truth found in the rest of Scripture.
The text cited above
is that of the Byzantine. We have chosen
to use this text because “the traditional text…was the standard received text
until the arrival of Higher Criticism of Modernism of contemporary
times…whereas the liberal text represents variant, ever changing, minority, nonsuccessional nonunified text.”1 As we begin our exegesis such textual
variants will be dealt with as they occur.
Matthew 12:30: o` mh.
w;n metV
evmou/ katV evmou/ evsti( ka.i
o` mh. suna,gwn metV evmou/( skorpi,zei)
“He not being with me is against me, and
he not gathering together with me, scatters abroad.”
In our first verse the only variant noted was that of the addition
of a moveable n to evsti.2 Here it is grammatically
unnecessary, but does not cause any significant alteration in meaning or
translation.
Diagrammatical observations: (Such
as are significant. It has been stated that
“no one diagrams exactly alike as far as form and method”.3 We have compared all of our verse diagrams
with those of Raske in the same verses and have noted
no differences that would greatly alter our map or the “grammatical picture, or
blueprints of the sentence”.4)
o` w;n
metV evmou mh.
evsti 
katV evmou/
ka.i o` suna,gwn
metV evmou mh.
skorpi,zei
1.
Here we have two independent
clauses which each express a complete thought and are joined together.
2. We find both positive and negative
statements made within each individual clause.
Location of the
verse: (The locations will be a chronological, word
by word listing as each word appears in the verse being located. The color codes
below will serve for reference as indicated)
verbs substantives part/inf other
o` nom.
mas. sing. / Used as a
subject nominative beginning a relative clause.
Mh. The
negative used with moods other than the indicative. Here used to negate w;n.
w;n pres.
act. part. nom. mas. sing. (eivmi,) / Is here a simple active used as an aoristic present as a simple
expression of undefined
action in the
present time. This is the substantival use of the participle.
MetV The
preposition (meta,) used with the gen. case.
evmou/ gen.
mas. sing. (evgw,) / Here an
gen. of association used with the above prep.
katV The
prep. (kata,) used with the gen. case.
evmou/ gen.
mas. sing. (evgw,) / Used as an ablative of
opposition.
evsti pres.
act. ind.
3rd sing. (eivmi,) / A simple active, declarative indicative (simple statement of a
fact) used again as an aoristic present.
Ka.i The
conjunction here joins two independent clauses.
O`
nom. mas.
sing. / Used as a subject nominative, beginning a
relative clause.
Mh. The negative used with moods other than the indicative. Here used to negate suna,gwn.
Suna,gwn pres. act. part. nom. mas.
sing. (suna,gw) / A simple active in the gnomic present indicating a truth that
will exist at any time
(universal). This is the substantival
use of the participle.
MetV The
preposition (meta,) used with the gen. case.
evmou/ gen.
mas. sing. (evgw,) / Here a gen. of association
used with
the above prep.
skorpi,zei pres. act. ind. 3rd sing. (skopi,zw) / The voice here is again simple active with the mood being
declarative indicative.
Exegetical
and syntactical remarks: (Usage.
Such as are significant.)
The two participles that are used here are both aoristic present and
indicate a simple expression of undefined action in the present time. They are also used as substantives. We will note that emphasis is placed on the
factual information relating to the current condition of the ones who are the
performers of the action of the sentence.
We have both the performing of negative and positive acts here in the
verse as indicated by both the presence and absence of mh. Those referred to are
either performing one or the other of these actions, there is no other variable
or option of performance given. We have
also taken notice of the preposition kata,. The root
meaning or idea of this prep. seems to be
‘down’.5 With the genitive
accenting the person or thing affected the idea is ‘down upon’. The notion of ‘against’ is more common in the
Koine, which comes out of the context when two
hostile parties are brought together. We
also find kata, contrasted with meta,. Perschbacher refers to skori,zei as being iterative present or being repeated at various intervals.6 So at anytime someone does not gather with
Christ then they are scattering abroad.
Commentary
remarks: (As are applicable to our
study of the idea of this unforgiveable sin.)
Let us establish the context that we find our text wrapped in so
that we understand the background of this Scripture. Christ has been teaching and performing
miracles in the presence of many including the Pharisees. Many of his teachings were in opposition to
what the hypocritical Pharisees (religious people) taught so they were constantly
accusing and speaking against Him. Such
is the case here. They had made accusation against Him out of their unbelief,
accusing him of casting out devils by the power of Satan. They could in no wise deny the miracles had
been performed so they attacked the means by which they were performed. This attack was a direct result of their
rejection of Jesus Christ as the only true God and the Messiah. Jesus goes on to defend the truth that He has
performed the miracles by the power and Spirit of God. Next, we come to His statement in verse
30. In summary He says that “you are
either presently in the condition of being with me or in contrast you are
presently in the position of being against me”.
This is a general statement that is true with all people. There are only two types of people in this
world: those who believe in Jesus as the only true God and the only Savior of
sin and those who do not – the most important truth of all time and a theme
found throughout all of the Scriptures.
That is the simple statement of this verse that will establish the
context for the verses to follow.
Matthew
12:31: dia. tou/to le,gw
u`mi/n( Pa/sa a`marti,a kai. Blasfhmi,a avfeqh,setai toi/s avnqrw,pois h`( de. tou/ Pneu,matos blasfhmi,a ouvk avfeqh,setai toi/ avnqrw,pois. “On account of these things I say to you, All
sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall
not be forgiven men.”
In verse 31 the following variations in text were noted. The beginning of the sentence was capitalized
in the variant reading; but the beginning of Christ’s quote was not and neither
was the word Pneu,matos. The comma was missing
between the two clauses and the second occurrence of toi/s avnqrw,pois was excluded. The inclusion
of its repetition might be assumed, but being that there is a difference of
advantage and disadvantage here in the dative it is a noteworthy variation lest
something incorrect be assumed.
Diagrammatical
observations:
h` blasfhmi,a avfeqh,setai
tou/ Pneu,matos toi/s avnqrw,pois ouvk
de. a`marti,a
Pa/sa
avfeqh,setai
kai.
blasfhmi,a toi/s
avnqrw,pois
dia. tou/to 
x le,gw u`mi/n
1. It is very important that we note here that verse 31 is the same
structure that verse 30 was. Two
independent clauses which propose
both negative and
positive ideas.
2. Dia. tou/to connects this verse in such a way that its
content (Christ’s statement) is based on the previous verse 30.
Location
of the verse:
dia. prep. / used with the acc. case to mean “on account of”
tou/to
acc. neut. Sing. (ou`/toj) / The accusative of cause here
answers the question Why?
le,gw pres.
act. ind.
1st sing. / The frequent simple act., declarative ind.,
descriptive pres.
u`mi/n dat.
Plur. (su,) / The dat. case is here used as a simple indirect object.
Pa/sa nom.
fem. sing. (pa/j) / An adjective modifying a`marti,a.
a`marti,a nom.
fem. sing. / A feminine noun used as a subject nominative.
kai. A
conj. Used here to connect a compound subject.
Blasfhmi,a
nom. fem. sing. / A feminine
noun used as a subject nominative.
avfeqh,setai
fut. Pas. Ind.
3rd sing. (avfi,hmi) / The verb is intransitive in nature as is generally true with the
passive, in a declarative
and in the gnomic fut.
stating what will always happen if the right circumstances are present.
toi/j
dat. mas.
plur. (o()
avnqrw,pois dat.
mas. plur. (a)nqrwvpo$) / Here the dat. of advantage is employed.
h`
nom. fem. sing. (o()
de.
The conj. here translated “but”
indicates that following information with be in contrast to the preceding information.
Tou/ gen.
neut. Sing. (o()
Pneu.matoj gen.
neut. Sing. (pneu/ma) / The gen. of description is
telling “what kind”.
Blasfhmi,a nom. fem. sing. / A feminine noun used as a subject nominative.
ouvk The negative used with the ind. mood
(here negates a)feqhvsetai).
avfeqh,setai fut.
Pas. Ind. 3rd sing. (avfi,hmi) /
The verb is intransitive in nature as is generally true with the passive, is a
declarative
and in the gnomic fut.
stating what will always happen if the right circumstances are present.
toi/j
dat. mas.
plur. (o()
avnqrw,poij dat.
mas. plur. (avnqrw,poj) / Here the dat. Of disadvantage is employed.
Exegetical and syntactical remarks:
In this verse we find the climax of the topic in study, namely the
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The word blasphemy is a key word in the context
and immediate verse. We will make
mention of some of the findings of the word study below at this point. We will start by stating that blasphemy is
simply abusive speech.7 This
word is by far used most often in reference to abusive speech toward God. “Reviling against the Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:29; Lk. 12:10) means to resist the convicting power of the Holy
Spirit unto repentance.”8
One of the synonyms for the word is unbelief (avpisti,a) and consequently one of its antonyms is faith (pi,stij). Blass, Debrunner, and Funk use this word
in its plural form as an example of the plural of abstract subjects which
“serves…as a designation of concrete phenomena”.9 The idea of this crucial word is certainly a
concrete one. The word is explained even
better by the genitive of description, tou/ Pneu,matoj, telling us which kind of
blasphemy. Wallace (as well as Dana and Manty)10 refer to this as a “verbal genitive
(genitive related to a verbal noun)…functioning as the direct object of the
verbal idea implicit in the head noun”.11 The gnomic future, avfeqh,setai, indicates to us that this will always happen so long as these
circumstances are always present.
Commentary remarks:
Two things are assured to happen in the passage above if the right
conditions are present. One, all types
of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven the men who commit them; and two, the
specific type of blasphemy that is against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven men who commit it.
From these two ideas come two questions that seem to be controversial
for some. First, do the conditions for
this type of blasphemy still exist, and second, what exactly is this blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit? We shall
answer the latter in order to answer the former question. Again this verse (31) must be understood in
light of the previous verse due to the fact that we have already established
that the ideas contained within them are directly related. The first verse tells us that you are either
a believer in Christ or you are not. The
second verse tells us that all sin and blasphemy is forgivable except for the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Obviously we conclude that all are forgiven that have believed on
Christ, but those who have not believed will not be forgiven. Thus, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
must be as previously stated: the refusal to respond to the conviction of the
Holy Spirit to change one’s mind from a state of unbelief to belief. This being so, this unforgivable sin can
still be committed just as was true when this verse was given. What a tiresome way to discover the many times
simply stated Biblical truth in the King James English Translation of the
original languages that only those who do not accept God’s forgiveness will not
receive it. The following verses will
only further aid in supporting this truth.
Matthew 12:32: kai. o]s a;n ei;ph| lo,gon kata.
tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou( avfeqh,setai avutw=|:\ o]s dV an ei;ph| kata. tou/
Pneu,mato tou/ `Agi,ou( ouvk avfeqh,setai
auvtw/| ou;te evn tou,tw| tw/|
aivw/ni ou;te evn tw|/ me,llonti)
“And whoever might speak a word against
the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whoever might speak against the
Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the
continuing.”
Again the critical text failed to capitalize the words Holy Spirit
in this verse. Inconsistency is also
noticed due to the initial use of eva.n instead
of av.n.
Diagrammatical
observations:
x avfeqh,setai avutw|/
kai. o`.j av.n ei;ph| lo,gon
kata. tou/ ui`ou/
tou/ avnqrw,pou
dV
x avfeqh,setai auvtw/|
evn tou,tw| =
tw/| aivw/ni
ouv,te
tw/| me,llonti
evn
ouv.te
o`.j av.n eiv.ph
kata. tou/ Pneu,matoj
tou/ `Agi,ou
1. This verse is again
joined to the previous due to its similar idea.
2. Here however, we have two relative clauses
that have also been expanded upon to give us even further information about
this thought
that we were given before.
Location
of the verse:
kai. conj.
connecting the thought of this sentence with the previous sentence.
o`.j nom.
mas. sing. / relative pronoun used as a subject
nominative.
av.n This
particle is translated “ever”.
eiv,,ph| aor. act. subj. 3rd sing. (le,gw) / The simple active is a constative aorist viewing the action in its entirety just
stating it as a fact.
The subj. is used here in a dependant
relative clause (Third class conditional/ probable fut. condition).
Lo,gon acc.
mas. sing. (lo,goj) /
Here a cognate accusative (see verb above).
kata. prep. in the gen. case meaning “against”
tou/ gen.
mas. sing. (o()
ui`ou/ gen.
mas. sing. (ui[oj) / This is the ablative of opposition (see the prep. above).
tou/ gen.
mas. sing. (o()
avnqrw,pou gen.
mas. sing. (avnqrw,poj) / A
gen. of description.
avfeqh,setai fut. Pas. Ind. 3rd sing. (avfi,hmi) /
The verb is intransitive in nature as is generally true with the passive, is a
declarative
and in the gnomic fut. stating
what will always happen if the right circumstances are present.
Avutw|/ dat.
mas. sing. (auvto,j) / This is the
dative of advantage.
o`.j nom.
mas. sing. / relative pronoun used as a subject
nominative.
dV The
conj. here translated “but” indicates that following information with be in
contrast to the preceding information.
av.n This
particle is translated “ever”.
eiv,ph|
aor. act. subj. 3rd
sing. (le,gw) / The simple active is a constative
aorist viewing the action in its entirety just stating it as a fact.
The subj. is used here in a dependant
relative clause (Third class conditional/probable fut. condition).
kata. prep.
in the gen. case meaning “against”
tou/ gen.
neut. sing. (o()
Pneu,matoj gen.
neut. sing. (pneu/ma) / This is the ablative of
opposition (see prep. above).
tou/ gen.
mas. sing. (o`)
`Agi,ou gen.
mas. sing. (a`,gioj) /
gen. of description telling what kind of spirit.
ouvk The
negative used with the ind. (here negates the
following verb).
avfeqh,setai fut.
Pas. Ind. 3rd sing. (avfi,hmi) /
The verb is intransitive in nature as is generally true with
the passive, is a declarative ind. and in the gnomic fut. stating what will always happen
if the right circumstances are present.
auvtw|/| dat.
mas. sing. (auvto,j) /
The dative of disadvantage (see the above verb).
ouv,te negative
for “neither” in the ind. mood
evn prep.
used in the dat. case
tou,tw| dat.
mas. sing. (ou`,toj) /
pro. Serving as the object of the prep.
Tw|/ dat.
mas. sing. (o`)
avw/ni dat.
mas. sing. (aivw,n) / Here the
locative of sphere indicates a logical sphere as opposed to a specific point in
time because an
“age” covers a period of time.
ouv,te negative
for “neither” in the ind. mood
evn prep.
used in the dat. case
tw/|| dat.
mas. sing. (o`)
me,llonti pres.
act. part. dat. mas. sing. (me,llw) / Again the locative of sphere. It is causative active because the
subject did not
produce the acion,
and perfective present because it is the result of a past event.
Exegetical and syntactical remarks:
Here instead of the word blasfhmi,a we find the
words “speak against” given which clarify for us again the meaning of
blasphemy. Here we see also the participle me,llonti as
a locative of sphere which in its verb form means “to be about to”.12 The participle then has the idea of a
continuing of time or period of time in the future. Here we find also a special name that Christ
used in referring to Himself, and possibly as a reference to Dan. 7:13. Sadly some commentators refer to this as a
“black passage” and that Jesus did not actually say this.13 However, it is significant here because it
is indeed a reference to Christ in specific association with the blasphemy that
will be pardoned. Also we see the third
class conditional sentence used (with respect to the speaking against) to
indicate a probable future condition if these two types of blasphemy are indeed
committed.
Commentary remarks:
Now, in more detail, we discover that it
is even possible to speak against Christ and be forgiven, while it remains
impossible to speak against the Holy Spirit and to be forgiven. The application is that God can and will (if
the right conditions are met) forgive all manner of sin even to the degree of
speaking against the Savior, the One who died for our sin. But, if we speak against the Person of God in
the Holy Spirit who convicts us of that unbelief that we have in the Person of
God in Christ Jesus then God will not forgive us under this condition because
we have refused to allow Him to forgive us.
Not only so today and in the here and now; but this will also be true in
the future or age to come (we can surmise that we are presently in the future
in relation to the time when this truth was spoken and penned and thus
certainly it is still a possible condition today).
Matthew 12:33: hv poih,sate
to. de,ndron kalo.n( kai. to.n karpo.n
auvtou/ kalo,n( h; poih,sate to. de.ndron sapro.n( kai. to,n
karpo.n auvtou/ sapro,n\ evk ga.r
tou/ karpou/ to. de,ndron ginw.sketai)
“Either make the tree good, and the fruit
of it good, or make the tree corrupt, and the fruit of it corrupt; for out of
the fruit the tree is known.”
The only variant noted in this verse was that of the capitalizing
of the hv. at the beginning of the
sentence in the critical text.
Diagrammatical observations:
to. de,ndron
hv.
x
poih,sate kalo,n
kai,
to.n karpo.n
hv. kalo,n auvtou/
to. de,ndron
sapro,n
x
poih,sate
kai,
to,n karpo.n
sapro,n auvtou/
ga.r
to. de,ndron ginw,sketai
evk tou/ karpou/
1. This verse is not so directly linked in form
to as the previous verses were, but it is still included in Christ’s quote and
is thereby related
to the same idea.
2. We find a total of three independent clauses
joined together in this verse where two of them have compound objects and all
of the
objects in these three sentences have
modifiers indicated a more in-depth and descriptive structure.
Location of the verse:
hv. The
conj. is here translated “either” due to the fact that this sentence is not
directly connected to the previous sentence.
poih,sate aor.
Act. imp. 2nd plur. (poieu,w) / A simple act. in the gnomic aor.
This is an imperative of command giving a direct command.
to.
acc. neut. sing. (o`)
de,ndron acc.
neut. sing. / An accusative of direct object.
kalo,n acc.
neut. sing. (kalo,j) / An Adjective modifying the above noun.
kai. The conj. here joins compound objects.
to.n acc.
mas. sing. (o`)
karpo.n acc.
mas. sing. (karpo,j) /
An accusative of direct object.
auvtou/ gen.
mas. sing. (au)to,j) /A genitive of possession.
Shows a “belonging to”.
kalo,n acc.
mas. sing. (kalo,j) /
An Adjective modifying the above noun.
hv. conj.
“or” connecting these two independent clauses
poih,sate aor.
Act. imp. 2nd plur. (poieu,w) / A
simple act. in the gnomic aor. This is
an imperative of
command giving a direct command.
to. acc.
neut. sing. (o`)
de,ndron acc.
neut. sing. / An accusative of direct object.
sapro,n acc.
neut. sing. / An adjective modifying the above noun.
kai. The
conj. here joins compound objects.
to,n acc.
mas. sing. (o`)
karpo.n acc.
mas. sing. (karpo,j) /
An accusative of direct object.
auvtou/ gen.
mas. sing. (auvto,j) /A
genitive of possession.
sapro,n acc.
neut. sing. / An adjective modifying the above noun.
evk prep.
used with the dat. case
ga.r a
post-positive conjunction presenting an idea based on the above text.
tou/ gen.
mas. sing. (o`)
karpou/ gen.
mas. sing. (karpo,j) /
The ablative of means here expresses impersonal means.
to. nom.
neut. sing. (o`)
de,ndron nom.
neut. sing.
ginw,sketai pres.
pas. Ind. 3rd sing. (ginw,skw) /
The passive voice is predictably intransitive and in the declarative
indicative. The
gnomic present indicates
the universal truth and maxim of this statement.
Exegetical and syntactical remarks:
Here we find at the beginning of the first two sentences of this
verse the negative correlatives. Conjunctions are so important because as Dana
and Mantey put it, “The meaning of a sentence
following a conjunction, and oftentimes of a whole paragraph, is suggested or
colored by the connective”.14
We also observe a special condition with the two uses of the connective kai, that Moulton and Howard explain
as an example of a Semitism in the N.T.15 This Semitism is referred to as a
“conditional parataxis of the imperative…when two imperatives linked by kai, represent the protasis and apodosis of
an implied condition”. The universality
of the truth of this verse is found in the gnomic present of the last word ginw,sketai.
Commentary remarks:
As verse 32 further expounded upon verse 31 so does this verse
shed more light upon verse 30. This time
the Lord is commanding and not simply stating that there are two types of men
(corrupt and good) which simultaneously indicates that it is possible to
respond to this command in an either–or fashion. Men are either good as believers or corrupt
as unbelievers (such as the Pharisees here). Simultaneously, as illustrated by
trees and their fruit, good men produce good works and corrupt men produce
corrupt works. Again, this is a
universal truth that is true today so long as there are both faithful and
faithless people in the world. The way
one is able to know who are forgiven and who are not forgiven is by the works
of those same men because those works will reveal what kind of tree that they
are; whether they be planted by faith in Christ or the only other alternative:
to be unforgivable.
Matthew 12:34: gennh.mata evcidnw/n(
pw/s du,nasqe
avgaqa. lalei/n( ponhroi. o;ntes evk ga.r tou/ perisseu,matos th/s kardi,as to. sto,ma
lalei/)
“Generation of vipers, how are ye able to
speak good, being evil for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
The only variant in this verse was that of a missing comma after
the infinitive. However, the author will
point out that every verse dealt with in the passage contained at least one or
more variants.
Diagrammatical
observations:
Gennh,mata
evcidnw/n
lalei/n
avgaqa.
x
du,nasqe
ov,ntej ponhroi.
ga.r
to. sto,ma lalei/
evk tou/ perisseu,matoj
th/s kardi,aj
1. Here we find the direct address,
this verse is addressed to a specific listener.
2. We take note of one more
connective joining the concluding sentence of our text to the idea being
presented in the direct address.
Location
of the verse:
gennh,mata voc.
Neut. plur. (ge,nnhma) / A direct
address expressed by the vocative.
evcidnw/n
gen. fem. plur. (evcidna) / A gen. of description (see above noun).
pw/j An
adverb modifying the verb below.
du,nasqe pres.
pas. ind. 2nd plur. (du,namai) /
A declarative indicative in the aoristic present as found above.
avgaqa. acc.
neut. Plur. (avgaqo,j) /
This adverbial accusative of reference or respect is used here without a prep.
and is a way is
modifying the inf. below.
Lalei/n pres. act. inf. (lale,w) / This inf.
is a simple active in the perfective present.
ponhroi. nom.
mas. plur. (ponhr,oj) / This noun is a predicate nominative because it it the object of a linking verb (below).
ov,ntej pres.
act. part. nom. mas. plur. (eivmi,) / Another simple active in the aoristic present.
evk The
prep. is here used with the gen. case.
ga.r The
post-positive conj. presents an idea based on the previous context.
tou/ gen.
neut. sing (o`)
perisseu,matoj gen.
neut. sing (peri,sseuma) / The ablative of means is expressing indirect agency (in
conjunction with the above
preposition).
th/s gen. fem. sing. (o`)
kardi,aj gen.
fem. sing. (kardi,a) / A gen. of possession.
to.
nom. neut. sing. (o`)
sto,ma nom.
neut. sing. / This noun is used as a subject nominative.
lalei/ pres.
act. ind. 3rd sing. (lale,w) /
Again the simple active, declarative indicative, and descriptive present. This is a substantival
infinitive functioning as the
direct object of the verb.
Exegetical
and syntactical remarks:
Ge,nnhma literally means
“that which is produced or offspring”.16 Jesus is actually addressing the Pharisees
(religious people) here as those who have been produced from snakes – a very
harsh rebuke. Satan is illustrated as a
snake and in a way produces religious people. Perisseu,matoj
here means “abundance or fullness”, and is used in this
prepositional phrase to mean “out of the abundance of”.17 This is the ablative expressing means in an
indirect manner with reference to the heart.
Commentary remarks:
Christ
now speaks directly to these unbelievers and asks them rhetorically how it is
possible for them to have good works because they are not the type of tree that
is founded in Christ. The answer is that
they cannot because their works will be representative of what type of person
they are: ones who have not believed and are unforgivable because the condition
of their heart is such that they have spoken against the conviction of the Holy
Spirit to turn to belief.
A word study of blasfhmi,a:
Blasfhmi,a is
undoubtedly the key word in the passage that we have undertaken to study so we
will attempt to get a more in depth understanding of this word by determining
all of its possible meanings and any ideas associated with it which can be
gained from its origin, use, and history.
This word has simply been transliterated
into the English from the Greek to give us our word blasphemy. We could perhaps look in an English
dictionary to get an accurate meaning of the word, however for the sake of
documented support we will establish the meaning from the word’s derivation in
the Greek. Robinson provides us with the
cognate blasfhm where both the verbal and adjective form as
well as our substantive form of the word are derived from.18 Trenchard on the
other hand provides us with the root
fhmi, and a slew of
other words which are based upon this root.19 All of these words bear with them some idea
of speaking, saying, or reporting something whether the connotation is good or
evil. faf, fa, and fan are
the cognates given to us by Metzger by which we see these same words based upon
that have the idea of communicating verbally.20
The
word appears more frequently in its verbal form than it does in the noun
form. This is true of its use in the New
Testament as well as its use throughout the classical period. The source we have consulted for classical
use does not even list any examples in the substantival
form, but this is to be expected because even the substantival
form implies a verbal idea.21
No specific dates are given for its use, however most words that can be
associated with a religious or spiritual context can be dated back to the
earliest dates and can be found all the way throughout written history that has
been preserved by God. Many examples are
given of the verbal form in the classical period. Among those Demosthenes wrote using the word
in the context of speaking profanely of sacred things. Isocoles used the
form meaning “to speak ill of” or “to slander”.
It is also used to mean “profane speech” and even specifically as
“irreverent speech against God”. One use
which also would serve to summarize the meaning of the word thus far is that of
“evil-speaking”.
Most
of the older uses of this word in “religious” context are found in the Septuagint
(Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament text), although the word is not
frequently used in the LXX (Septuagint).
There are only four words in the Hebrew which blasfhmi,a represents, and
this is obviously due to the fact that
blasfhmi,a has a more
specific meaning rather than various meanings and possible translations.22
Even of those uses sited for the LXX
most of them are apocraphal. From this we gather that most of the
information regarding basfhmi,a is likely to be
found in the N.T. Scriptures and consequently must be more pertinent to the
N.T. period.
Without surprise then, non-Biblical
writings of the Koine period are devoid of the use of
this word. Moulton and Milligan only
provide us with one example of papyri and it is also apocraphal.23 They even state themselves that:
“Thumb remarks on the word as a genuine piece of ‘Biblical Greek’, that
is a word which has acquired a technical meaning in
association with Jewish and Christian religion. The etymology which seems to suit best its
original meaning of ‘injurious
speaking’…is not without phonetic difficulties.” (Note: This writer
denounces true Christianity as being termed a “religion”.)
At last we come
to the N.T usage of blasfhmi,a. It is used nineteen times in its substantive
form, thirty five times as a verb, and five times as an adjective.24 It is used most often in Matthew, Mark, and
Revelation. It is translated by three
English words: blasphemy, railing, and as evil-speaking in Eph. 4:31 where
Christians are exhorted not to be evil-speakers. In I Tim.6:4 the plural is
used to refer to those that have rejected the teachings of Christ as being full
of railings.25
In the passage
we have selected to study blasfhmi,a appears twice
(verse 31). The question now is what does it mean in this verse in light of
what we have discovered regarding the use and derivation of the word previously
and concurrently? We might just look to
the next verse (32) where we find the Bible further explaining the idea with
the words “speak against”. Some synonyms
found thus far for the substantival form are slander,
defamation, railing, and evil speaking.
In the N.T there are two basic uses for the word blasphemy.26 The first is a general use or abusive
speech. The second is the most often
used and is a specific use against either men (Rev. 2:9), the devil (Jude 1:9),
or against God (Rev. 13:6). In our
passage we find an example of speaking against both men and the subject in
question: speaking against the Holy Spirit.
Applied to the context we see that verse
31 means just what it is translated to mean in verse 32: speaking against the
Holy Spirit. Now, speaking against in
regards to what, specifically, is also to be determined by the context as was
noted in the exegesis above.
A summary:
Let us now
concisely state what we have learned from the above exegesis. First, it was well noted that every single
verse of the passage at hand contained a variant of some kind in the critical
text. Next, we are further convinced of
the supremacy of the KJV translation for the English indeed says well what the
Greek does in this text. The significance
of connectives/conjunctives to the relation of words and thus ideas to one
another is more pertinent than previously noted by the author, both in this
text and presumably in others as well.
Keeping the foundation of contextual and Scriptural support does indeed
allow for the accurate understanding of a text as we have done above. All of the various syntactical categories
that were noted above came from the observations of men upon a dead language
outside of an experiential knowledge of the actual birth and use of that
language. However, these observations
can now be seen to be based on concrete evidence from consistent uniform use
throughout the received text. The ideas
and truths above have been retained by the preservation of the words and their
use, which contain and relay original meaning, and not merely by the preservation
of the ideas themselves.
NOTES
1. Gerhard Raske,
Prologue
2. UBS 3,
p.44-45
3. Richard
Belcher, p. 1
4. Gerhard Raske, Prologue
5. A.T.
Robertson, p. 605-607
6. Perschbacher, p. 56
7. Reinecker and Rogers, v.II, p. 36
8. Spiros Zodhiates, p. 340-341
9. BDF, p.
78-79
10. Dana and Manty, p.
78-79
11. Daniel Wallace, p. 112, 116, 118
12. Rienecher and Rogers, v.I, p. 36
13. Daniel Wallace, p. 240
14. Dana and Mantey, p.
240, 248
15. Moulton and Howard, v. II, P. 421
16. Rienecker and Rogers, v. II, p.
36
17. Perschbacher, p. 56
18. Thomas Robinson, p. 84
19. Warren Trenchard, p. 117-118
20. Bruce Metzger, p. 70
21. Liddel and Scott, p.317-318
22. Hatch and Redpath, v.I, p. 221
23. Moulton and Milligan, p.112
24. J. B. Smith, p. 65
25. Moulton and Geeden, p.148
26. BAG, p.143
BIBLIOLOGY (Works both sited and consulted)
Aland/Black/Martini/Metzger/Wikgren. The Greek New Testament (UBS3).
Research, 1975.
Barnhart, David. Lectures to His Students. PCC, Spring Sem., 2001.
Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Belcher, Richard. Diagramming
the Greek New Testament.
Blass/Debrunner/Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other early Christian Literature.
Brooks/Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek.
Dana/Mantey. A manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament.
Hatch/Redpath. Concordance
to the Septuagint.
Liddel/Scott. A
Greek-English Lexicon.
Metzger, Bruce. Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament
Greek.
Moulton/Howard. A
Grammar of New Testament Greek. Great
Britian: Morrison and Gibb Limited, 1929.
Moulton/Geden. Concordance
to the Greek Testament.
Moulton/Milligan. The
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other
Non-Literary Sources.
Perschbacher,
Wesley. Refresh Your Greek: Practical
Helps for Reading the New Testament.
Raske,
Gerhard. A Complete Grammatical
Blueprint of the New Testament Through Concise Diagrammatical Analysis with
Greek-
English Expanded Interlinear. Unpublished: 1992.
Rienecker/Rogers. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New
Testament.
Robertson, A.T. A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical research.
Press, 1934.
Robinson, Thomas. Mastering Greek Vocabulary.
Smith, J.B. Greek-English Concordance to the New
Testament. Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998.
Trenchard,
Warren. The Student’s Complete
Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament.
Publishing House, 1992.
Wallace, Daniel. Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics.
Zodhiates, Spiros. The
Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament.
Chatanooga, Tn.: AMG Publishers, 1993.
* "BWHEBB,
BWHEBL, BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT
fonts Copyright © 1994-2009 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and
Hebrew fonts are used with permission
and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical
exegesis and research." Please comply with displaying and preserving BibleWorks
copyright , if you distribute any derived publications using these Hebrew and
Greek fonts.
___________________________________________________
Copyright; 2010 by Charles
F. (Rick) Creech
All Rights Reserved