A GREEK EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 12:30-34

WHAT IS THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN?

ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει. Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. καὶ ὃς ἂν 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 τῷ μέλλοντι. Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται. γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ.

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: ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

“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` ὢν

μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ μὴ

ἐστιν

κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ /

καὶ o` συνάγων

μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ μὴ

σκορπίζει

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.

μὴ. The negative used with moods other than the indicative. Here used to negate ὢν.

ὢν pres. act. part. nom. mas. sing. (eiμi,) / 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.

μετ᾽ The preposition (meta,) used with the gen. case.

ἐμοῦ / gen. mas. sing. (evgw,) / Here a gen. of association used with the above prep.

κατ᾽ The prep. (kata,) used with the gen. case.

ἐμοῦ / gen. mas. sing. (evgw,) / Used as an ablative of opposition.

ἐστιν pres. act. ind. 3^rd sing. (eiμi,) / A simple active, declarative indicative (simple statement of a fact) used again as an aoristic present.

καὶ The conjunction here joins two independent clauses.

O` nom. mas. sing. / Used as a subject nominative, beginning a relative clause.

μὴ. The negative used with moods other than the indicative. Here used to negate συνάγων.

συνάγων pres. act. part. nom. mas. sing. (συνάγω) / 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.

μετ᾽ The preposition (meta,) used with the gen. case.

ἐμοῦ gen. mas. sing. (evgw,) / Here a gen. of association

used with the above prep.

σκορπίζει pres. act. ind. 3^rd sing. (σκορπίζω) / 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 μὴ. 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 σκορπίζει 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: Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. “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:

ἡ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται

τοῦ πνεύματος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὐκ

de. ἁμαρτία

πᾶσα ἀφεθήσεται

kai.

βλασφημία τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

dia. τοῦτο

x λέγω ὑμῖν

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”

τοῦτο acc. neut. Sing. (ou`/toj) / The accusative of cause here answers the question Why?

λέγω pres. act. ind. 1^st sing. / The frequent simple act., declarative ind., descriptive pres.

ὑμῖν dat. Plur. (su,) / The dat. case is here used as a simple indirect object.

πᾶσα nom. fem. sing. (pa/j) / An adjective modifying a`marti,a.

ἁμαρτία nom. fem. sing. / A feminine noun used as a subject nominative.

kai. A conj. Used here to connect a compound subject.

βλασφημία nom. fem. sing. / A feminine noun used as a subject nominative.

ἀφεθήσεται fut. Pas. Ind. 3^rd sing. (ἀφιημί) / The verb is intransitive in nature as is generally true with the passive, in a declarative ind.

and in the gnomic fut. stating what will always happen if the right circumstances are present.

τοῖς dat. mas. plur. (o()

ἀνθρώποις dat. mas. plur. (ἀνθρώπος) / 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.

τοῦ gen. neut. Sing. (o()

πνεύματος gen. neut. Sing. (πνεύμα) / The gen. of description is telling “what kind”.

βλασφημία nom. fem. sing. / A feminine noun used as a subject nominative.

οὐκ The negative used with the ind. mood (here negates ἀφεθήσεται).

ἀφεθήσεται fut. Pas. Ind. 3^rd sing. (ἀφιημί) / 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.

τοῖς dat. mas. plur. (o()

ἀνθρώποις dat. mas. plur. (ἀνθρώπος) / 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, τοῦ πνεύματος, 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, ἀφεθήσεται, 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: καὶ ὃς ἂν 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 τῷ μέλλοντι.

“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 ἂν.

Diagrammatical observations:

x ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ

καὶ. ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ λόγον

kata. τοῦ υἱοῦ

τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

δ᾽

x ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ

ἐν τούτῳ = τῷ αἰῶνι

οὔτε

τῷ μέλλοντι

ἐν

οὔτε

ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ

kata. τοῦ πνεύματος

τοῦ ἁγίου

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:

καὶ conj. connecting the thought of this sentence with the previous sentence.

ὃς nom. mas. sing. / relative pronoun used as a subject nominative.

ἂν This particle is translated “ever”.

εἴπῃ aor. act. subj. 3^rd sing. (λεγw) / 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).

λόγον acc. mas. sing. (λόγοs) / Here a cognate accusative (see verb above).

κατὰ prep. in the gen. case meaning “against”

τοῦ gen. mas. sing. (o()

υἱοῦ gen. mas. sing. (υἱοs) / This is the ablative of opposition (see the prep. above).

τοῦ gen. mas. sing. (o()

ἀνθρώπου gen. mas. sing. (ἀνθρώποs) / A gen. of description.

ἀφεθήσεται fut. Pas. Ind. 3^rd sing. (ἀφiήμi) / 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.

αὐτῷ dat. mas. sing. (αὐτοs) / This is the dative of advantage.

ὃς nom. mas. sing. / relative pronoun used as a subject nominative.

δ᾽ The conj. here translated “but” indicates that following information with be in contrast to the preceding information.

ἂν This particle is translated “ever”.

εἴπῃ aor. act. subj. 3^rd sing. (λεγw) / 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).

κατὰ prep. in the gen. case meaning “against”

τοῦ gen. neut. sing. (o()

πνεύματος gen. neut. sing. (πνεύμα) / This is the ablative of opposition (see prep. above).

τοῦ gen. mas. sing. (o`)

ἁγίου gen. mas. sing. (ἁγίοs) / gen. of description telling what kind of spirit.

οὐκ The negative used with the ind. (here negates the following verb).

ἀφεθήσεται fut. Pas. Ind. 3^rd sing. (ἀφiήμi) / 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.

αὐτῷ dat. mas. sing. (αὐτοs) / The dative of disadvantage (see the above verb).

οὔτε negative for “neither” in the ind. mood

ἐν prep. used in the dat. case

τούτῳ dat. mas. sing. (outos) / pro. Serving as the object of the prep.

τῷ dat. mas. sing. (o`)

αἰῶνι dat. mas. sing. (αἰῶν) / 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.

οὔτε negative for “neither” in the ind. mood

ἐν prep. used in the dat. case

τῷ dat. mas. sing. (o`)

μέλλοντι pres. act. part. dat. mas. sing. (μέλλw) / Again the locative of sphere. It is causative active because the subject did not

produce the action, and perfective present because it is the result of a past event.

Exegetical and syntactical remarks:

Here instead of the word βλασφημία we find the words “speak against” given which clarify for us again the meaning of blasphemy. Here we see also the participle μέλλοντι 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: Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται.

“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:

τὸ δένδρον

Ἢ

x ποιήσατε καλὸν

καὶ

τὸν καρπὸν

ἢ καλὸν αὐτοῦ

τὸ δένδρον

σαπρὸν

x ποιήσατε

καὶ

τὸν καρπὸν

σαπρὸν αὐτοῦ

γὰρ

τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται

ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ

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:

Ἢ The conj. is here translated “either” due to the fact that this sentence is not directly connected to the previous sentence.

ποιήσατε aor. Act. imp. 2^nd plur. (ποιεώ) / A simple act. in the gnomic aor. This is an imperative of command giving a direct command.

τὸ acc. neut. sing. (ος)

δένδρον acc. neut. sing. / An accusative of direct object.

καλὸν acc. neut. sing. (καλὸs) / An Adjective modifying the above noun.

καὶ The conj. here joins compound objects.

τὸν acc. mas. sing. (ος)

καρπὸν acc. mas. sing. (καρπὸs) / An accusative of direct object.

αὐτοῦ gen. mas. sing. (αὐτοs) /A genitive of possession. Shows a “belonging to”.

καλὸν acc. mas. sing. (καλὸs) / An Adjective modifying the above noun.

ἢ conj. “or” connecting these two independent clauses

ποιήσατε aor. Act. imp. 2^nd plur. (ποιεώ) / A simple act. in the gnomic aor. This is an imperative of

command giving a direct command.

τὸ acc. neut. sing. (ος)

δένδρον acc. neut. sing. / An accusative of direct object.

σαπρὸν acc. neut. sing. / An adjective modifying the above noun.

καὶ The conj. here joins compound objects.

τὸν acc. mas. sing. (ος)

καρπὸν acc. mas. sing. (καρπὸs) / An accusative of direct object.

αὐτοῦ gen. mas. sing. (αὐτοs) /A genitive of possession.

σαπρὸν acc. neut. sing. / An adjective modifying the above noun.

ἐκ prep. used with the dat. case

γὰρ a post-positive conjunction presenting an idea based on the above text.

τοῦ gen. mas. sing. (ος)

καρποῦ gen. mas. sing. (καρποs) / The ablative of means here expresses impersonal means.

δένδρον nom. neut. sing. (ος)

δένδρον nom. neut. sing.

γινώσκεται pres. pas. Ind. 3^rd sing. (γινώσκώ) / 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 καὶ, 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 γινώσκεται.

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: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ.

“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. 2^nd 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. 3^rd 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). West Germany: Institute for New Testament Textual

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.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Belcher, Richard. Diagramming the Greek New Testament. Colunbia, SC: Richbarry Press, 1985.

Blass/Debrunner/Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature. Chicago &

London: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Brooks/Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, Md.: University Pres of America,Inc., 1979.

Dana/Mantey. A manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1927.

Hatch/Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint. Graz, Austria: u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975.

Liddel/Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Metzger, Bruce. Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek. Princeton, New Jersey: Theological Book Agency, 1995.

Moulton/Howard. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Great Britian: Morrison and Gibb Limited, 1929.

Moulton/Geden. Concordance to the Greek Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark LTD, 1989.

Moulton/Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources.

Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

Perschbacher, Wesley. Refresh Your Greek: Practical Helps for Reading the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.

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. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical research. Nashville, Tn.: Broadman

Press, 1934.

Robinson, Thomas. Mastering Greek Vocabulary. Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

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. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1992.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

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.

___________________________________________________

NOTES

1. Gerhard Raske, Prologue

BIBLIOLOGY (Works both sited and consulted)

^{1. Gerhard Raske,
Prologue}