matthews-gospel – StevePattonOnline

The Unforgiveable Sin: Can You Commit It?

In a previous post I noted that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven. What is the unpardonable sin? Some believe it is murder, adultery, or even divorce. It is actually amazing to me how many Christians I have come across who believe they have committed the unpardonable sin. While we may not forgive another or ourselves for those or other sins we believe to be grievous, what about God?

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (ESV).

Jesus says the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. What does He mean?

This is a triple-tradition passage, but I am going to focus on Matthew in this post. Let us set Jesus’ statement in context. In 12:22-27, Jesus heals a demon oppressed man, who was both blind and mute. The man can now both see and hear (v. 22). The crowd is amazed and asks, “Can this be the Son of David” (the Messiah)? The Greek construction of the question is interesting[1] – it anticipates a negative answer. One might translate the question as, “This man isn’t the Son of David, is he?” While an absolute no is not necessary, there is still significant uncertainty about Jesus’ identity.

The Pharisees think they can explain what is happening. Jesus is not Messiah; He is Satan. Jesus is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons (v. 24). Jesus identifies him as Satan in v. 26. They cannot deny the miracle, but Jesus’ power to make this man whole again is the devil’s work.

Jesus, who knew their thoughts (v. 25), then responds by making three points. First, the work cannot be Satan’s or else he would be reversing his own work, leaving his kingdom divided. That makes no sense. Second, his works are not the only ones judged by the religious leaders. What about other exorcists?[2] Their power must come from the devil, too. It is doubtful the Pharisees would make such a claim. Third, and most importantly, if Jesus is casting out demons by the power of God’s Spirit, then “the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (v. 28).

As Blomberg states, “Verse 28 is arguably the single most important teaching of Jesus on realized eschatology – the present aspect of the kingdom.[3] God’s kingdom has arrived in the person and work of Jesus – this miracle, as well as the others He performed, are proof.

A short parable illustrates that point (v. 29). To plunder his house, the strong man must be tied up. Jesus must first bind Satan before He can plunder his house. That was in fact what He did during His earthly ministry. Jesus began taking Satan’s territory – one person at a time! As Turner proclaims, “Satan’s power was effectively shattered at Christ’s first coming, yet he is still a powerful enemy who must be resisted by all the means of grace . . . Only in the future will he be totally incapacitated.”[4]

Jesus makes a strong statement in v. 30: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” There is no neutral ground. If people cannot see Jesus for who He is based upon His teaching and work, they are in danger of judgement. In the end, all will all be judged by what they have decided about Jesus.

Then comes the “therefore”(v. 31)—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.

Taking the whole narrative into consideration, one can determine what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – the unforgiveable sin. It is rejecting His witness of Jesus. This cannot be forgiven. To reject with a hard heart, as the Pharisees do here and elsewhere, the evidence of God’s Spirit about God’s Son is to face the God the Father’s judgement.

The decision one renders about Jesus points to the quality of the heart (vv. 33-37). When someone declares that Jesus’ works are those of Satan, those words reveal an evil person who “will give an account for every worthless word” (v. 36). Worthless words are those spoken against the Spirit’s witness about Jesus.

To summarize – According to this passage, blasphemy against the Spirit is the hard-hearted rejection of the Spirit’s witness about Jesus. As Matthew’s Gospel unfolds, we read that the Jewish religious leaders’ rejection of Christ became an all-out-war against Him that ultimately led to their insisting on His death by crucifixion.

There is debate about whether this sin can be committed today. Yes. The context will be different, of course. One does not have to equate Jesus’ works with Beelzebul, but the same kind of rebellion and rejection of the Spirit’s witness that we see in the Pharisees lives on and has for two-thousand years. Christians must not equate any rebellion against Christ seen in the world with this unpardonable sin, however, as only God knows the heart. Only He knows whether a person has crossed the Rubicon from mere unbelief to an all-out rebellion from which one cannot and will not return.

One thing I can say for certain: If you are worried about committing the unpardonable sin, you have not committed it. A concern about your relationship with God proves you are not even close to the rebellion of the Pharisees.

Only those who are enemies of Jesus are in any kind of danger of committing this sin. His followers cannot.

[1] Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ;

[2] Most commentators take “your sons” as other Jewish exorcists.

[3] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H), 202.

[4] David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 322.

The Guard at the Tomb: Fact or Fiction Part 2

This is a short pericope, but it is an important one, thus whether it is historical is not an unimportant issue. If, as Wright points out, this story “is part of an apologia for the bodily resurrection of Jesus . . . an attempt to ward off any suggestion that the disciples had in fact stolen the body,”[1] determining its historicity is a worthy exercise.

First, let us deal with the objection that this passage is found only in Matthew. It does seem strange that no other Gospel writer mentions this – given that the disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body.[2] Deciding that a passage is fictional because it is single-tradition, however, is tenuous. For example, as Haberman shows, of the three times that the Gospel writers record that Jesus raised someone from the dead, only the account of Jarius’ daughter appears in more than one Gospel (Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56).[3] A skeptical scholar such as John Meier admits the raisings of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11) are probably historical.[4] Why not this passage?

An important point is made by Craig – “the evangelists often inexplicably omit what seem to be major incidents that must have been known to them (for example, Luke’s great omission of Mk. 6. 45 – 8. 26) so that it is dangerous to use omission as a test for historicity.”[5]

An independent witness would help us determine the pericope’s historicity. After all, among the important criteria of authenticity is multiple attestation. Does the Gospel of Peter fit that bill?[6] There are similarities between Peter and Matthew, but there are many and often incredible differences between the two. In Peter the elders go to Pilate (on Friday) and ask for the guard for three days, “Otherwise the people may assume he has been raised from the dead and then harm us” (v. 28). As mentioned above, the centurion Petronius and the soldiers are commanded to guard the tomb – where it was sealed with seven seals (v. 33). The next morning a crowd came from Jerusalem to see the sealed crypt (v. 34), but during the night, while soldiers stood guard, a great voice was heard from the sky, which opened and two men, very bright, descended and drew near to the tomb (vv. 35-36). Three men emerge from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, with a cross following behind them (v. 39). The heads of the two reached the sky, but the head of the one they were leading went up above the skies (v. 40). And they heard a voice, “Have you preached to those who are asleep” (v. 41)? The cross replies, “Yes” (v. 42).

Next in Peter is the guard telling Pilate what happened, the centurion proclaiming the one they saw as the Son of God and Pilate exclaiming, “I am clean of the blood of the Son of God” (vv. 43-46).

Finally, the soldiers are told to say nothing, “For it is better . . . for us to incur a great sin before God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned” (v. 48).

Frankly, this mid-second century document is not much help in determining the historicity of the Matthew passage. It appears dependent upon Matthew, but there are so many embellishments.[7] As Habermas concludes, “There’s a stark difference between sources that ‘make it’ into a historical slot and those that can be used to build the essentials of a historical case. Peter may possibly make the first prerequisite but is incapable of leaping the latter barrier.”[8]

The Gospel of Peter does not affect our assessment, one way or another, about the historicity of the Guards at the Tomb pericope.

One other point should be made about the passage’s origin. There’s much discussion about possible sources among scholars. Nolland, for example, writes, “At various points non-Matthean features do seem to point to a source, but Matthew seems likely to have significantly overwritten his source.”[9] Other commentators write similarly. There had to be a non-Matthean source. There is no doubt the Gospel writers used sources, Luke admits that in his prologue. He interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4)? Perhaps Matthew did the same thing. While he certainly was not there when the religious leaders went to Pilate to ask for guards at the tomb, the fact that he allowed it would hardly be a secret. Matthew could have spoken to those who would have first-hand knowledge of what the religious leaders had done. Maybe one of them (Nicodemus?) told him.

Ultimately, according to Wright, there are five reasons to conclude the passage is historical:

It is implausible to suppose that the story would have been invented in the first place, let alone told and finally written down, unless there was already a rumour going around that the disciples had indeed stolen the body.
A charge like this would never have arisen unless it was well known, or at least widely supposed, that there was an empty tomb and/or a missing body, requiring an explanation. This mitigates the idea that the empty tomb is a late legend, invented by the church (Matthew).
The story presupposes that for the chief priests, Pharisees, and anyone else involved, the reported prediction that Jesus would rise again after three days must refer to something that happened to his corpse – no need for a guard if something just happens to his soul.
The telling of this story indicates well enough that early Christians knew that the charge of stealing the body was one they were always likely to face. Thus, it was preferable to tell the story of how the accusation originated.
This story shows that without question early Christians believed unquestionably in the resurrection of Jesus. There was no early Christianity without the resurrection (contra Bultmann who believed it was a late apologetic fiction).[10]

There are good reasons to conclude that the “Guards at the Tomb” passage in Matthew is fact, not fiction. That it is found only in Matthew is not an unsurmountable problem. Unique passages found in the Gospels are often characterized as historical by critical scholars. While the Gospel of Peter does not assist one to determine historicity, the summary by Wright is hard to ignore. Finally, there’s much discussion about a pre-Matthean source for the pericope, it seems just as possible that Matthew knew someone who knew someone who knew what happened. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best.

I agree with Wright’s conclusion that the pericope is an apologia for the resurrection of Jesus and especially against the charge that the disciples stole the body. Both the empty tomb and the charge of body-snatching had to be true and well known for the pericope to make any sense.

[1] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 638.

[2] An accusation Justin tells us in the middle of the second century the Jews were still claiming (Dial. 108).

[3] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024), 657.

[4] John Maier, M Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (New York: Doubleday), 2:970.

[5] William Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-guard-at-the-tomb. Accessed 27 October, 2025.

[6] Gospel of Peter is likely at least a mid-second century document. It is impossible to know the circumstances of its writing. Ehrman surmises that its author used oral traditions and documents he had heard or read. That is as good a guess as any (Bart Ehrman and Zelako Plese, London: Oxford University Press, 2011), 240. The summary below follows the verse numbering of Ehrman and Plese.

[7] Most scholars follow Zahn and Swete that the text is dependent upon the canonical Gospels (Wright, Resurrection, 593). Crossan dates the gospel to the mid-40s first century, but few follow him on that point (J.D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper and Row).

[8] Habermas, Evidences, 670. Wright concludes: “This remarkable and dramatic presentation contains several features which seem to me and many to others to mark it as a secondary production, dependent on the canonical sources and showing signs of later theological reflection” (Resurrection, 594).

[9] Nolland, Matthew, 1234.

[10] Wright, Resurrection, 638. “If Bultmann is right to say that the empty tomb was itself a late apologetic fiction, the rise of both stories of body-snatching and of counter stories to explain why such accusations were untrue is simply incredible” (639).

The Guard at the Tomb: Fact or Fiction?

Most New Testament critical scholars dismiss the historicity (most call it apologetic legend) of Matthew 27:62-66 – labeled by Aland as “The Guard at the Tomb.” In fact, it is barely discussed as they claim the account has a fictional flavor and, more importantly, it only appears in Matthew. The early church (usually) or Matthew is accused of making it up. Instead, I propose that this short paragraph plays an important part of the resurrection narrative that follows it, showing Jesus’ enemies even bear witness to the empty tomb.

In this post I’ll discuss the text and the next its historicity.

Text

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’

64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.”

65 Pilate said to them, “You have ^cza guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.”

66 So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. (ESV)

v. 62-It’s interesting that the text describes the Sabbath as ‘after the day of Preparation.’ Why is it described that way? Perhaps because this was no ordinary Sabbath and it was Passover. Whatever the reason, the chief priests and Pharisees are before Pilate. They would have to stay in the courtyard so not to be rendered unclean by Pilate’s residence.[1] Some commentators point out the irony of the Pharisees’ presence, given their strong belief in a bodily resurrection.[2] Yet, their hatred of Jesus is stronger than any theological stance.

V 63-There’s always discussion about how the religious leaders knew about Jesus’ prediction about rising again. That is easy – in Matthew 12, the Pharisees and scribes demand a sign from Jesus (v. 38). He responds: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (vv. 39-40). Thus, one of Jesus’ predictions of resurrection was made in their hearing. His other predictions (16:21; 17:23; 20:19) likely would have been well known among his followers and could have filtered down to the religious leaders. Something else one might consider is why couldn’t Judas have told them?[3] However they learned about it, there is more irony in the fact they remember Jesus’ words more clearly at this point than did his disciples.

V. 64-The religious leaders request that Pilate secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead – making that deception worse than the first (probably His messianic claims). For them, a Messiah allegedly alive after dying a criminal’s death was more dangerous than anything Jesus did during his life. After Jesus’ resurrection, the guards, according to Matthew, are paid off and told to say the body had been stolen (28:11-15).

Ever since, as Blomberg states, “Stealing the body take the dubious honor of being the oldest alternative to faith in the risen Christ . . . even though it is one of the least plausible alternatives . . . Ironically, had the disciples wanted to steal the body they had the opportunity before this meeting. Besides it’s clear from the Gospel accounts that the disciples were in no mood for such a daring act.”[4]

v. 64-Pilate gives the order. In this verse one deals with the only exegetical issue in the pericope. The verb Ἔχετε can be understood in two ways. It can be translated as an indicative (you have a guard’) or as an imperative (‘have [take] a guard’). So, who will guard the tomb? Is the guard Roman or Jewish? It is likely Roman. The religious leaders did not need Pilate’s permission for their own guards to watch the tomb. They did need his permission to use Roman soldiers. The word ‘soldiers’ in 27:27 refers to Romans, and it appears from the next chapter that the guards answer to Pilate (28:11-14). While it really makes little difference about the guards’ identiy, context seems to help one lean toward a guard made up of Roman soldiers.

The Gospel of Peter takes the guard as Roman; the centurion is named Petronius.[5]

Vv. 65-66 – Pilate gives the order and the tomb is secured, sealed by the soldiers. That made it impossible for anyone to enter the tomb while the guards slept.

[1] Grant Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 1059.

[2] For example, John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1236.

[3] So Leon Morris, Matthew, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 731-2.

[4] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1992), 424. For an in-depth discussion see Gary Haberman, On the Resurrection: Refutations (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

[5] Gos. Pet., 8:31. According to this account, the guards used seven seals after rolling the stone in front of the entrance (8:33). Whether the Gospel of Peter can be used as a parallel source for the Matthean account is discussed in the next post.

Strangers in the New Testament

(Part II of Strangers in the Bible)

The New Testament is not silent about strangers/aliens/sojourners. The gerim’s faith in Yahweh prefigures the Gentile mission that begins in Acts and is central to Paul’s ministry. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no barrier between Jew and Gentile in Christ (Gal 3:28; Romans 3:22-30; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). The Apostle writes to the Ephesians and reminds the Gentile members of the church that they were “separated from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world . . . But now in Christ . . . you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and are of God’s household . . .” (Eph 2:12-13a, 19).

One of the primary contributions of 1 Peter to NT theology is the idea that Christians, both Jew and Gentile, are ‘resident aliens’ in this world (1:1), sojourning in the present while looking forward to the future kingdom – their permanent home. Just as God’s people in the OT, whether Jew or Gentile, Christians are expected to conduct themselves in such a way as unbelievers may be drawn to Christ and “glorify God in the day of visitation” (2:11-20). Just as the gerim, Gentiles have all the rights, privileges, and, yes, the responsibilities of their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ.

The only admonition from Jesus concerning strangers is found in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats found in Matthew 25:31-46. In words reminiscent of the prophets, Jesus was clear that those who are blessed by the Father and allowed into His eternal kingdom are those who have displayed His love and compassion upon the vulnerable – “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in . . .” (Matthew 25:35). When asked by the righteous when they saw Him as hungry, or naked, or a stranger, the Lord’s reply: “Truly I say to you; to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it unto Me” (v. 40). The opposite will be true for those who refused to see the stranger[1] – “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (v. 46).

Blomberg is right in his observation that there are three basic human needs, apart from salvation – food, shelter, and companionship.[2] Acts of mercy done for the “least of these” are acts of mercy done for Jesus and His sake. Preparation for the Day of Judgement is a heart full of Jesus that results in a life marked by compassion. Ultimately, fulfilling the two great commandments – loving God and loving others – are the proofs of salvation. Less than that is less than the Christianity that allows one to enter the eternal kingdom. One of those acts of mercy is hospitality to strangers/foreigners.

The most important question in the parable, and the one most often discussed, is the identity of “the least of these brothers of Mine.” The prevailing view today is that they are anyone in need, and salvation is predicated upon efforts to help them.[3] There are two problems with this view. First, it sets up a works salvation. While Jesus certainly helped the needy and expected His disciples to do so, this writer agrees with Keener that this view is not “exegetically compelling.”[4]

Second, that interpretation does not fit within the Matthean context. In this Gospel, a brother is either a biological or spiritual sibling. Spiritual brothers and sisters are fellow disciples who follow Jesus (5:22-24, 47; 7:3-5; 12:48-50; 18:15; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10).[5] In the broad sense, all human beings are related and are God’s children, but nothing like that appears anywhere in Matthew.

A related term, according to Turner, is the word translated “the little ones” (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14) – “whose repentance renders them humble disciples who no longer seek worldly power and status. One dare not cause the spiritual ruin of these little ones (18:6), and genuine forgiveness must occur if one sins against the other (18:21, 35).[6]

Christians are resident aliens in this world. They live counter-culturally and will encounter hardships as they bear witness to Christ around the world (Acts 1:8). Thus, they will need help. They are going to need the basics of life from time to time: among other things — food, clothing, and companionship. From whom will that help come? From the Romans? From unbelieving Jews? Help must come from others who are committed also to the Lord and His mission. While there is ample biblical evidence that believers are to show compassion to others, no matter who they are (Micah 6:8 comes to mind), the interpretation this writer advocates is more in line with the Matthean context.[7] Believers are to show hospitality to other believers – especially the stranger.

The stranger in this parable reminds one of the gerim. They were believers in Yahweh, who were committed to obeying His word. They were considered a vulnerable class. They would encounter hardships, and Israelites were to provide help. Their responsibilities to the gerim are outlined above. Those responsibilities closely resemble those found in Jesus’ parable: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide hospitality to the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the prisoner.

Conclusion

In this post (both parts), the writer has shown the gerim were resident aliens, proselytes of Israel’s religion. The Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, teaches they had both rights and responsibilities. As members of the assembly, they had the right to worship just as any native born Israelite. They had the responsibility to obey Yahweh’s law. If they failed, the gerim were subject to the same judgement as Israel. The gerim would be part of the eschatological kingdom to come.

Israel did have obligations to them. As the passage in Leviticus 19 commands – they were to love the gerim as themselves. They are not to love them just because they are human beings and poor ones at that; they were to love them because the gerim were brothers and sisters in the faith.

The New Testament survey shows the gerim’s faith prefigured the church’s Gentile mission. The Apostle Peter was clear that all Christians are resident aliens in this temporary home, anxiously awaiting their eternal one. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the strangers are fellow believers who would need hospitality and companionship along the way for at times the road would be hard to travel, especially as one is on mission for Christ’s sake.

Let us finish where we began. My social media friend’s post was intended to be critical of current immigration policies. That is unsound hermeneutically. The internet search led to articles in which strangers were equated as today’s migrants. That position is exegetically flawed. In the Bible, strangers (gerim) are proselytes to Israel’s faith in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament. All Christians have the same rights and responsibilities in Christ. They are all resident aliens in a hostile world.

One can be on either side of today’s immigration debate; it is America, and each person has the inalienable right to hold either opinion. There can and should be healthy debate, however, that debate cannot include the stranger passages in the Bible. Those are about believers. They are not about those who cross the border in the United States. A country and the church are two different institutions. The former can make any laws it wants about citizenship and how to go about it. The church makes no distinction between people groups — God sees us all as sinners in need of His grace and once a Chirstian, as part of His family.

The church’s primary responsibility, therefore, is not debate but evangelism. That responsibility is to all people no matter where they live or whose border they crossed. Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19). This ministry of Jesus, to proclaim the Gospel in the power of the Spirit, is ours (Acts 1:8). It is not church’s responsibility to involve itself in immigration politics but proclaim the gospel to all, citizens and migrants, because without Christ people are poor, captive, blind, and downtrodden. It is the favorable year of the Lord; the Great Commission demands the church proclaim that to every corner of our country and, indeed, to the remotest parts of the earth.

[1] One is reminded here of what Jesus said to Saul of Tarsus: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5).

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 377.

[3] David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: 2008), 604. See footnote 1.

[4] C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1999), 604-5.

[6] Turner writes, “In Jesus’s radically egalitarian community, status and prestige are out of place, since all his disciples are siblings in the same family (20:20-28; 23:8-10), Matthew, 606.

[7] A major hermeneutical rule is context determines meaning.