Matthew 12:31 states:

"And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

This verse raises an intricate question when viewed through the lens of Trinitarian theology, which posits the unity of Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons in one Godhead. Given the indivisible nature of the Trinity, does the specificity of "blasphemy against the Spirit" imply that similar acts against the Father and the Son are viewed differently in terms of forgiveness? Or, conversely, could this delineation suggest that Jesus perceived the Holy Spirit, Himself, and His Father as separate entities within the broader framework of their divine unity?

Further complicating this inquiry is the broader scriptural context, where blasphemy against the Son of Man is treated with a seemingly different standard (cf. Matthew 12:32). This passage, therefore, invites a deeper theological and hermeneutical analysis:

How should Matthew 12:31 be interpreted within the context of the Trinity doctrine? Does this verse imply a distinction in how blasphemy against each person of the Trinity is judged or forgiven? Could this verse hint at a nuanced understanding of the relationships and distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as perceived by Jesus?

Are there other scriptural or theological sources that shed light on the interpretation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, particularly in relation to the Trinitarian concept?

I am seeking insights that draw from biblical texts, theological scholarship, and historical interpretations to deepen the understanding of this complex theological issue.


2 Answers 2


Let me begin with my thoughts then conclude with some quotations:

Let's first look through the lens of trinitarian theology. We know that trinitarian theology affirms the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons within the one Godhead. That being said, while they are inseparable in their essence and divine nature, they are distinguishable in their roles and relationships. If we don't make this distinction, then I don't think we'll be able to see how blasphemy against the Holy Spirit may differ from blasphemy against the Father or the Son.

Some interpret this as a sin of final impenitence. Unlike sins against the Son of Man (Jesus), which perhaps could be forgiven through repentance, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit represents a persistent refusal to acknowledge the work of God's Spirit, thus rendering forgiveness unattainable.

We know that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in their divine nature, however, they are different in their roles in our salvation. The Son became flesh, lived among us, and provided the atoning sacrifice for sin through His death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit, is responsible for our conviction, our regeneration, and our sanctification, working in our hearts for our transformation. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit may be understood as a rejection of His convicting and transforming work, thereby rejecting the very means of salvation.

Benson Commentary:

By the blasphemy here spoken of, we are evidently to understand injurious or impious speaking against the Spirit of God, such as the Pharisees were now guilty of; that is, attributing to the devil those miracles which Christ gave full proof that he wrought by the Holy Spirit.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:

But to see a man delivered from the power of Satan unto God, to watch the work of the Spirit of God, and then to ascribe that work to the power of evil, this was to be out of sympathy with goodness and mercy altogether. In such a character there was no opening for repentance, and therefore none for forgiveness.

Barnes' makes a different point.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

In this place, and in Mark 3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the "spirit" or "power" of God, but by the aid of the prince of the devils. It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is clear from Mark 3:30, "because they said he had an unclean spirit." All other sins - all speaking against the Saviour himself - might be remitted. But this sin was clearly against the Holy One; it was alleging that the highest displays of God's mercy and power were the work of the devil; and it argued, therefore, the deepest depravity of mind. The sin of which he speaks is therefore clearly stated. It was accusing him of working miracles by the aid of the devil, thus dishonoring the Holy Spirit.

He continues later:

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word "ghost" means "spirit," and probably refers here to the "divine nature" of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: "He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed "by me," can never obtain forgiveness."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven unto men: by which is meant, not every ignorant denial of, and opposition to his deity and personality; nor all resistance of him in the external ministry of the word; nor every sin that is knowingly and wilfully committed; but it is a despiteful usage of the Spirit of grace, an opposing, contradicting, and denying the operations wrought, or doctrines revealed by him, against a man's own light and conscience, out of wilful and obstinate malice, on purpose to lessen the glory of God, and gratify his own lusts: such was the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, though they knew the miracles of Christ were wrought by the Spirit of God, yet maliciously and obstinately imputed them to the devil, with a view to obscure the glory of Christ, and indulge their own wicked passions and resentments against him; which sin was unpardonable at that present time, as well as under that dispensation then to come, when the Spirit of God was poured down in a more plenteous manner.


Although trinitarian doctrine normally affirms all three Persons of the Trinity to be masculine, a minority view sees the Spirit as feminine. If so, then the meaning of Jesus' statement about blasphemy toward the Holy Spirit might be along the lines of a modern person declaring: "say what you want about me, but don't insult my mother!"

Historically - besides the biblical association of the Spirit with feminine functions such as giving comfort (John 14:16) and rebirth (John 3:5) - the idea of the femininity of the Holy Spirit is found in the fragmentary Gospel of the Hebrews as quoted by Origen and Jerome. Jesus says:

Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs, and carry me to the great Mount Tabor.

The church father Epiphanius (c. 315-430) cites a vision of the Christian prophet Elxai:

Next he describes Christ as a kind of power and also gives His dimensions… And the Holy Spirit is (said to be) like Christ, too, but She is a female being. (Epiphanius, Panarion 19, 4, 1-2)

A number of other historical references are discussed in this article.

Conclusion: The theological attitude of Jesus concerning the Trinity is beyond the scope of this site as defined by the moderators. However, speaking historically, if those who believe in the femininity of the Holy Spirit are right, this would provide an insight into Jesus' concern that She not be blasphemed.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.