There are three instances in the Bible where it speaks of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Each one has to be interpreted in by the purpose that the author had in mind. Matthew's purpose in speaking of the unpardonable sin is to show that "to blaspheme the Spirit" is to reject God and his purpose in Jesus as Messiah.
The teaching from Scripture concerning blaspheming the Spirit depends on which version you read (either Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30, and Luke 12:10), yet each evangelist can speak to the church today. A central scriptural lesson can be blended from this saying of Jesus in tis various contexts. First, contrary to some thinking, God's grace is not irresistible; it can be spurned, rejected, and ignored. Moreover, persistent denial of God's revealing himself in Jesus through the power of the Spirit can have eternal consequences. God's revelation of himself is not limited to, but certainly includes, manifesting his grace through the gifts of the Spirit. Any refusal of grace (i.e., salvation) is in a sense "unforgivable," because grace that is "given" must be "received". Second, blaspheming the Spirit concerns a willful rejection of God's grace and power. This especially includes atributing God's working through the power of the Spirit--whether in Jesus or his disciples--to Satan. To blasphme the Spirit is also to reject both the offer of grace and the power to remain faithful to God. Thus, the one blaspheming the Spirit rejects the very power through which grace is manifest and made available...Appreciating the uniqueness of blaspheming the Spirit lies in understanding that for JEsus' hearers the Spirit's activity had largely ceased. Jesus, though, knows the Spirit is active through his ministry and is himself revealing that presence. "In other words, Mark 3:28 speaks of sin against the God who is still hidden, v. 29 of sin against the God who is revealing himself. The former can be forgiven, the latter is unforgivable" (Jeramias, 150). Thus, he rightly continues, "the unforgivable sin is not a particular moral transgression, as it is in the sphere of Rabbinic casuistry; rather, it is the sin that arises in conection with revelation" (by the way, this is taken from a passage written by P.H. Alexander)
Does that make sense? Hope so...Good luck on finding your answer!