■ 3132 c.
The saying about the blasphemy of the Spirit, vv. 3132 = Mark 3:2829 and Luke 12:10, appears in Q in the context of the persecution logia of Luke 12:212, in Mark in the Beelzebul discourse. Both contexts are awkward. In the Markan Beelzebul debate the logion is suspended in the air, because there had been no prior mention of the Spirit; in Luke 12:10 one expects after Luke 12:89 that it would be the sin against the Son of Man that is unforgivable.* The wording also differs considerably. In Mark the issue is human blasphemies and sins (subjective genitive), in Q evil talk against the Son of Man [German:
Menschen vs.
Menschen-sohn.Trans.]. Matthew witnesses to both wordings by offering in v. 31 a shortened version of Mark 3:2829a and in v. 32ac the wording of Q = Luke 12:10. From Matthews editorial hand come especially the introduction, v. 31a, the conclusion of v. 32d, and perhaps κατά in v. 32.
Difficult is the question of the earliest available wording. Many scholars regard the Markan text as earlier, just as many the Q text. In my judgment, more of the evidence supports the Q text. It contains clearer Aramaisms, and formally it shows a closed parallelism, while Mark 3:2829 makes a more diffuse impression. In addition, in content the Q text is clearly the
lectio difficilior. However, the reconstruction of the history of the tradition and statements about the origin remain extremely difficult. We must resort to arguments based on the content, and in the final analysis we can ask only which hypothesis offers the lesser difficulties.
The interpretation of the logion in Q usually begins by contrasting two periodsthe time of the earthly Jesus, that is, of the Son of Man, and the time of the Spirit. What was said
earlier, against Jesus, is forgiven, but what is said
now, against his messengers who as prophets have Gods Spirit, is unforgivable. With a titular understanding of Son of Man, the logion could have been created in the Q community to answer the question why the messengers of Jesus in spite of the rejection that Jesus experienced in Israel now turn again to the people. In that case Acts 3:1719 would be substantively parallel. However, the main difficulty of this thesis, in my view, is not that the verbs of our logion do not distinguish between two periods,** but that nowhere else does Q distinguish this way between the past of Jesus and the present and then designate the past Jesus as Son of Man. For Q the Son of Man Jesus is the
present exalted coming judge of the world! I hardly believe, therefore, that the logion was
created in Q with this wording. Did the Q community take over an Aramaic saying that did not understand son of man as a title? In that case the saying originally meant that God will forgive those who speak against a human being, but not those who speak against the Holy Spirit. Q would have retained the wording but not the meaning. The Greek text that was transmitted to Mark would be a paraphrase that approached the original meaning but replaced the misleading Son of Man with the plural. However, I think it most probable that in Q the already traditional logion was, without much theological reflection, simply added
ad vocem Son of Man to Luke 12:89. Is the Aramaic saying that was not understood as a title a saying of Jesus? That is a difficult assumption. Elsewhere Jesus spoke hardly at all of the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere he did not take lightly evil words spoken against people (cf. Matt 5:2122, 2324). In my judgment it is easiest to assign the saying, not yet understood with a titular meaning, to the Aramaic-speaking community, but this is simply the solution that least offers difficulties.
* Is Luke 12:10 simply externally added to 12:89
ad vocem Son of Man, or is v. 10 a commentary designed to actualize and perhaps correct vv. 89 in the situation after Easter when the Son of Man is no longer present (thus Wanke,
Kommentarworte, 75)? As far as the content is concerned, it would be easier to assume that the Q community corrected Luke 12:10 with Luke 12:89 than vice versa!
** Contra Sato (Q, 135). As soon as the saying is formulated as a saying of Jesus, e.g., in the context of the Matthean or Lukan story of Jesus, the periods of time can no longer be distinguished, because one cannot have Jesus himself look back on the blaspheming of the Son of Man that took place during his lifetime!
Luz, Ulrich (2001). Matthew 8-20: A commentary (H. Koester, Ed.). Hermeneiaa Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (pp. 201202). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.
■ 3132 Interpretation: Matthew
In Matthew the warning against blaspheming the Spirit is strengthened by repetition and by the solemn conclusion neither in this age nor in the one to come. From the context it is clear that by accusing Jesus of casting out demons in the name of the devil the Pharisees blaspheme not only Jesus but Jesus as the bearer of the Spirit (v. 18) who works through the Spirit of God (v. 28). Jesus pronouncement thus applies to them: Your sin is not abolishedby Godfor all eternity. However, what then about the distinction between the Son of Man and the Spirit, since it is Jesus whom the Pharisees blaspheme? I must confess that none of the interpretations that I have found in the literature satisfy me. The most honest approach is the information that Matthew here simply preserves the wording he had received and that v. 32a for him was probably
dimportance secondaire.
Summary
■ 3132 Looking back at the history of interpretation, the Athanasian understanding of the blasphemy of the Spirit as a deliberate denial of the divinity of Jesus by non-Christians and heretics comes closer to the text than does the interpretation of Origen or Augustine as a specific sin of Christians for which a second repentance is impossible. In Matthew (and Mark) it is the Pharisees who spoke this blasphemy. We have surmised that for the early period it was the high claims of Christian missionary preaching that prompted our saying. Given this understanding there is no exegetical basis for the uncertainty of Christians about the weight of their own sin. Zwinglis saying applies to them: If they have repentance (that is, if they are uncertain about themselves), they have the Spirit.* As long as one has the knowledge and consciousness of sin, one has not blasphemed the Holy Spirit; the sin against the Spirit is fundamentally unrecognizable.** However, not all of the problems that this saying poses are solved yet. The history of its interpretation gives pause. That it has repeatedly been used to support ones
own claims to truth, to absolutize ones (own!) church, and to destroy the churchs opponents*** has to raise the question whether it actually is a good expression of the gospel of
Gods rule and
Gods love. The Matthean evidence confirms such reservations. The evangelist has Jesus use this word as a blow against the evil Pharisees, who historically were not at all so evil, but who in retrospect became for the rejected and persecuted Matthean community what they are today in the Gospel of Matthew. What happened here is quite different from what was meant in the Sermon on the Mount by the Jesus whose commandments his disciples are to proclaim and to live until the end of the world!
Thus I would like to criticize this saying on the basis of the history of interpretation. It produced scarcely any fruit of love.
**** Admittedly there is also an evangelical concern in our saying. It is concerned that forgiveness not become automatic and that Gods holiness be maintained before the human claim on forgiveness. However, it is obviously dangerous to express this concern with the help of the Holy Spirit, because it makes it too easy to claim the Holy Spirit exclusively for the church. And in personal interpretations the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit too often became the instrument with which a strong, religiously characterized superego killed a weak ego. In my judgment, with this saying the negative consequences outweigh its positive potential. I personally would not choose it as a sermon text except for a sermon against the text in the service of an examination of its consequences.
* 425
** Luther 2.44950: It would be
a new kind of sin against the Holy Spirit if one did not want to believe in forgiveness.
*** Not without bitterness (and not without relevant experiences!) Drewermann (
Markusevangelium 1.319) formulates: In the final analysis it is even the Holy Spirit himself who forbids the freedom (
scil., for truth), so that anyone who wants to challenge the widespread fraud is accused of having an evil spirit.[bless and do not curse]
Luz, Ulrich (2001). Matthew 8-20: A commentary (H. Koester, Ed.). Hermeneiaa Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (pp. 209210). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.
****
Matthew 7:12 Everything then that you want people to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
Analysis
Structure
Matthew put the golden rule at the end of the main part of the Sermon on the Mount and in so doing along with its closing reason he created an inclusion with 5:17. The general relative clause all things therefore whatever
(Πάντα οὖν ὅσα
) and its repetition in the main clause with thus (οὕτως
do not parallel one another. Thus both the leading πάντα and the οὕτως attract attention.
Redaction
The golden rule almost certainly appeared in Q in the section on the love of enemies.* Matthew moved it here. The final clause for this is the law and the prophets comes from him. By adding it he points back to Jesus fulfilment of the law and the prophets in 5:17 and creates a bracket around the main section of the Sermon on the Mount. In addition, everything (πάντα
, which heightens the impact of whatever, comes from him, as thus also (οὕτως καί
may also do.
Origin
The golden rule is universal. There are examples of it in Confucianism and in India as well as in Greece since Herodotus, especially in nonphilosophical works, among rhetoricians, in collections of maxims, but also in almost all other literary genres. In Judaism the golden rule was originally less widespread. The first examples appear in Hellenistic Jewish writings, for example, the
Letter of Aristeas, Sirach (LXX), Tobit,
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Philo. The non-Christian sources largely show the golden rule in its negative wording: What you do not want others to do to you, do not inflict on them. However, there are also positive formulations. Connecting the golden rule with the command to love ones neighbor (Lev 19:18) is already Jewish. This is important, because it is initially merely a formal parallel that must be filled with content and indeed can be filled with quite different content. An anecdote is already told about Hillel that understands the golden rule as the sum of the Torah.
Also in early Christianity its appearance is not limited to our passage. Acts 15:20 and 29 (Western text) are certainly independent of it, as are
1 Clem. 13.2;
Didache 1.2;
Gos. Thom. 6. Whether Jesus himself made use of the golden rule must remain an open question.
Interpretation: Q 6:31 "And the way you want people to treat you, that is how you treat them." (The critical edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas. 2000 (J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann & J. S. Kloppenborg, Ed.).)
The classical principle of universal wisdom appears in the Sayings Source in connection with Jesus commandment to love ones enemies. It has a somewhat surprising effect there, since Q 6:3234 elucidates the problem of the principle of reciprocity: What is special if you love those who love you? Sinners and Gentiles also do that (cf. Matt 5:47). But this principle of reciprocity that is rejected here is precisely the basis of the golden rule. Is the golden rule not called into question with these harsh words?** However, the Q text implies no tension at all between v. 31 and vv. 3234. Thus it is much more probable that the compiler of Q saw the reciprocity principle of the golden rule in Q 6:31 together with what surpasses it in 6:3234 as a whole and interpreted both of them in terms of the love of ones enemies.
Here on the level of Q we have already raised the decisive problem for our interpretation: What is the relation between the golden rule and the love of enemies? The golden rule appears to be much less radical, because it is based on the principle of reciprocity, which the love of enemies breaches. According to Ricur it presupposes a logic of equivalence, while Jesus command to love ones enemies presupposes a logic of superabundance. Can the two be combined? How did Matthew, who summarizes the Sermon on the Mount with the golden rule, relate them to one another?
The Golden Rule as a General Principle
First of all, the golden rule is to be interpreted by itself. It is a formal principle that can be interpreted in quite different ways. Bultmann understood it as giving expression to a naïf egoism.*** According to Dihle it comes from the ancient idea of recompense/retaliation in popular ethics that is overcome on the one hand by philosophy and on the other hand by Christianity.**** A classic expression of such a naïve idea of recompense is the tomb inscription of Apusulena Geria: What each of you will wish for me shall happen to that person, while living and after death (Quod quisque vestrum optaverit mihi, illi semper eveniat vivo et mortuo). However, the golden rule can also have a completely different function in rhetoric and in philosophy. In many ancient texts it regulates the relationship of a ruler to his subordinates on the basis of equality and reciprocity, for example, of a king to his subjects or of a master to his slaves.
The more recent ethical discussion has also shown clearly that the golden rule can have quite different functions. Gerfried Hunold distinguishes among three possible understandings: (a) the self-centred interpretation, the goal of which is to use ones neighbour for ones own purpose; (b) the interpretation that grants ones neighbour equal rights, the goal of which is to come to an accommodation with the neighbour; (c) the high demand of love determined by a fundamental yes.***** Hans Reiner distinguishes among the golden rule as a rule of empathy with the other person, as a rule of autonomy, and as a rule of reciprocity or reflexiveness.****** In short, the many different ways the golden rule can be used shows that it can never directly be a normative ethical principle. While it is able to express that our humanity always happens communicativelythat is, always as a mutual relationship, as an exchange with others,******* it has of itself no normative character. Kant expressed it thusly: It does not contain the principle of duties to oneself, nor of the duties of benevolence to others (for many a one would gladly consent that others should not benefit him, provided only that he might be excused from showing benevolence to them), nor finally that of duties of strict obligation to one another, for on this principle the criminal might argue against the judge who punishes him, and so on.******** Thus the decisive question for the interpretation is: What meaning does the Matthean Sermon on the Mount give to the golden rule?
* Polag (
Fragmenta, 36) has a different view.
** Ricur,
Liebe, 53.
*** Bultmann,
History, 103. Arthur Schopenhauer states it well in his criticism of Kant: Thus from this point of view my egoism chooses justice and love of humanity, not because it wants to practice it but because it wants to experience it (Preisschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, in
Sämtliche Werke, vol. 6 [Leipzig: Reclam, 1938] 279 [§7, beginning]).
**** Dihle,
Regel, 1340. Aristotle quotes it in Rhetorica 1384b as on dit (λέγεται
.
***** Gerfried W. Hunold, Identitätstheorie: Die sittliche Struktur des Individuellen im Sozialen, in
Handbuch der christlichen Ethik (2 vols.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1978) 1.19495.
****** Reiner, Regel, 34879.
******* Reuter, Orientierung, 99.
******** Immanuel Kant,
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (trans. Thomas K. Abbott; New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1949) 47, n. 14 (second section).
Luz, Ulrich (2007). Matthew 17: A commentary on Matthew 17 (H. Koester, Ed.) (Rev. ed.). Hermeneiaa Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (pp. 362364). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. (End of
****)
Summary and History of Interpretation
■ 2237 Thus the meaning of this text lies first of all in the context of the Matthean narrative. In the dispute with the Jewish leaders that has come to a provisional climax our text is Jesus accusation and response to his opponents maliciousness. At the same time it is an announcement of the divine judgment of whose reality the readers are aware, since they know the end of the Jesus story and at the same time that of the history of Israel* with the destruction of the temple in the year 70. It is strength of the Gospel of Matthew that it does not simply comfort its church with the knowledge that Gods judgment has taken place on the evil words of the Pharisees but that it lets this knowledge immediately become a warning to that church. She also can be condemned on the basis of her ineffective words!
We can illustrate the uneasiness that the text nevertheless causes with a passage from a late writing of Luther that in more modern editions is usually treated with embarrassed silence. In response to the question about what the preacher may learn from our Bible text, Luther answers that we want to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful who said of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him: you are a bunch of snakes and children of the devil.[bless and do not curse] Then using our text Luther confirms in the name of Jesus anti-Semitic horror stories of his own time: However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, malicious snakes, assassins, and children of the devil, who secretly sting and work harm.
That is why I would like to see them where there are no Christians.** Thus the Matthean stylizing of Jesus harsh judgment on the Pharisees becomes in Luther the theological legitimation for believing all possible malicious rumourswords!about the Jews. A dangerous phenomenon, because it has been repeated numerous times in history!
And now unfortunately it must be acknowledged that the
ground for such phenomena lies in the New Testament texts themselves. I am thinking not only of extreme sayings such as Matt 12:3132 that in the name of the Spirit declare ones own standpoint to be beyond question but of the entire text and especially of the understanding of miracle hidden in it. Those who see miracles as a visible and clear manifestation of the divinity of Christ on earth, who understand miracles in such a way that in them
formally the limits of human power are breached and supernatural might is claimed,*** must react indignantly to the rejection of such power. Indirectly our text teaches that such a formal understanding of miracle ends in an aporia. Obviously one may ascribe formally such miracles just as well to the devil as to God.**** With the half-believing reaction of the people in v. 23 Matthew himself intimates that mere openness here does not yet lead to the goal.***** He also knows that faith and unfaith must come into play with Jesus miracles. Historical facts alone are not yet a sufficient reason for faith.
In the text and in the history of its interpretation the difficulty in dealing with v. 27 becomes visible. That Jesus concedes at least rhetorically that the sons of the Pharisees do the same as he does becomes a scandal when his miracles are understood christologically as works of the deity. Then the Jewish exorcisms must also be works of the deity! Therefore, the churchs interpretation for centuries has almost unanimously interpreted your sons (v. 27) to mean the apostles who, although also Jews, were primarily apostles of Jesus. In modern times, by contrast, the correctly understood text was then rejected, because it misunderstands the ambiguity of all mere fact and remains in the horizon of history of religions comparisons. In my view, however, on the basis of Jesus we must come to a new view of the ancient churchs understanding of miracle not only in regard to its worldview but also in regard to its christological content. The true and real God exercises in his deeds no greater power than the Jewish exorcists also do. The Jesus story also is an ambiguous, ambivalent story and by no means a clear revelation of the deity of God. Our text betrays this, so to speak, not intentionally but between the lines. Signs such as the healing of a blind and mute person are real signs, but in their worldview they remain ambivalent. Jesus victory over Satan is shown not because it reveals a special power but because in Jesus miracles love happens on behalf of suffering people.****** A qualitative leap remains between the philosophical ambivalence of these signs (cf. vv. 2227!) and the coming of the kingdom of God (cf. v. 28!).
Matthew has not seen this leap. He could not see it. Therefore he had to accuse the Pharisees of sinning against the Holy Spirit because of their malicious stubbornness toward Gods activity. In so doing he has changed Gods love that shines forth in Jesus miracles into its opposite. Today we can see this qualitative leap. Therefore, in spite of Matthew we are not permitted to label as unbelievers people who reject what simply appears to be evidence of Gods activity in provable miracles, be they Jews or non-Jews.
* In Matthew's understanding!
** "On the Jews and Their Lies," in
Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 47.277
*** & ****** Cf. above, at the conclusion of chaps. 8-9: On the Meaning of the Matthean Miracle Stories Today, a (pp. 52-58).
**** Malina and Neyrey (
Calling, 42) speak culturally-anthropologically of a normal Mediterranean accusation in such circumstances andhistorically as a generalizationof a witchcraft-label. Rudolf Bultmann (The Question of Wonder, in
Faith and Understanding [London: SCM, 1969] 260) says that as provable events miracles are not secured against being explained as demonic activities.
***** In his story the amazed and friendly ὄχλοι frequently become the λαός that rejects Jesus (27:25; cf. already 13:1017).
Luz, Ulrich (2001). Matthew 8-20: A commentary (H. Koester, Ed.). Hermeneiaa Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (pp. 211212). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.
