10 Jesus' final warning relates to the "unpardonable sin." In Luke it occupies a climactic place in the continued buildup of hostility between Jesus and the teachers of the law. It is difficult, however, to determine its meaning without the contextual explanations in Mt 12:25-36; Mk 3:23-30.

Those passages make it clear that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the attribution of the works of Jesus to the very prince of demons. According to Luke, therefore, if dishonoring the Son of Man is such a serious matter (vv.8-9), then total rejection of God by insinuating that his "holy" Spirit is "evil" is so much the worse. One may reject Christ and later, by God's grace, accept him; but there is no remedy for absolute and complete denial of the one holy God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is what "blaspheme" seems to mean here.

31-32 "And so" ties the statements about blasphemy against the Spirit (v.31) to the preceding verse. But the transition cannot easily be readily grasped till vv.31-32 are understood. "Blasphemy" is extreme slander, equivalent to "speaking against" (cf. v.32). Blasphemy against God was viewed by Jews with utmost gravity (26:65); but here Jesus makes a sharp distinction between blasphemy against the Son of Man, which is forgivable, and blasphemy against the Spirit, which is not.

His statement is remarkable because one of the glories of the biblical faith is the great emphasis Scripture lays on the graciousness and wideness of God's forgiveness (e.g., Ps 130:3-4; Isa 1:18; Mic 7:19; 1Jn 1:7). Among the many interpretations of this difficult saying, the best treats it in its setting during Jesus' life. The Pharisees have been attributing to Satan the work of the Spirit and have been doing so, as Jesus makes plain, in such a way as to reveal that they speak, not out of ignorance or unbelief, but out of a conscious disputing of what should never be disputed.

The distinction between blasphemy against the Son of Man and blasphemy against the Spirit is that the first sin is rejection of the truth of the Gospel (for which there may be repentance and forgiveness), whereas the second sin is rejection of the same truth in full awareness that that is exactly what one is doing—willfully, thoughtfully, and self-consciously rejecting the work of the Spirit even though there can be no other explanation of Jesus' exorcisms than that. For such a sin there is no forgiveness, "either in this age or the age to come" (cf. 13:22; 25:46)—a dramatic way of saying "never" (as in Mk 3:29). This interpretation can also apply to Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; and possibly 1Jn 5:16.

If this interpretation is correct, the distinction between Son of Man and Spirit is relatively incidental. After all, blasphemy against the Spirit is also a rejection of Jesus' own claims. Jesus charges that those who perceive that his ministry is empowered by the Spirit and then, for whatever reason—whether from spite, jealousy, or arrogance—ascribe it to Satan, have put themselves beyond the pale.

The significance of the transitional words "And so" now becomes plain. Neutrality to Jesus is actually opposition to him (v.30); and therefore Jesus gives this warning regarding those who blaspheme against the Spirit, since the self-professedly neutral person may not recognize the inherent danger of his position.

3:29 whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. One may “blaspheme” the Spirit because the Spirit is divine (most Jewish people recognized that the Spirit was divine, though they did not identify him as a separate person within the Godhead, as some NT passages do). Attributing the Holy Spirit’s work to an impure spirit (v. 30) is roughly tantamount to calling God Satan. Resorting to this tactic to deny the Spirit’s clear evidence about Jesus’ identity reflects impenetrable intransigence against truth, making repentance unlikely. One who genuinely repents has presumably not gone so far. guilty of an eternal sin. Biblical law provided atonement for most sins, but not for deliberate sins (Nu 15:30 – 31; Dt 29:18 – 20).