Although Jesus used the title Son of Man to apply to himself, he did not use that phrase to refer to the second person of the Godhead. Rather, he had in mind a figure less than fully divine. Jesus was using the term "son of man" to refer to Daniel 7. In that passage, a figure "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (apparently God) to receive a kingdom. In this vision, the son of man is not God, but is distinct from God. In Daniel 7, the figure is a human, perhaps a representative figure for Israel (see verse 18). He receives the kingdom for the nation. This is the divine kingdom that replaces all human kingdoms.

Part of Jesus’ response to those who falsely said he was Beelzebul’s disciple was to discuss kingdoms. A kingdom divided against itself will not stand. One does not pillage the house of a strong man without first binding the strong man. Jesus was casting out demons, so he was implying that the strong man (Beelzebul, i.e., Satan) had been bound, and his house was being pillaged. "If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons," he taught, "then the kingdom of God has come upon you." That was the point. The kingdom of God had come upon them. The strong man was bound. The Son of David, the Son of Man was there.

What in Daniel had been a descriptive phrase (one like a son of man) had become a title (the son of man). But it was not a title for God, or for one of the Persons in the Godhead. That is why speaking against the son of man was not as serious as speaking against the Holy Spirit.

When speaking about God we can speak in Trinitarian terms. When speaking of Jesus we must be careful, because he was not only fully God, he was also fully human. As a human being, he did not exercise all the characteristics of a Person of the Godhead.

To speak against the Holy Spirit is to speak against God. It is a much more serious sin than to speak against the Son of Man, who in Jewish thinking was less than divine. In speaking against the Son of Man one may not realize that one is talking about the God/man. In blaspheming the Holy Spirit, there is no question one is blaspheming against God.

In many Old Testament passages, the righteous become angry with God and question his actions. They even argue with him, at times questioning his justice. This is all forgiven, and should not be equated with the blasphemy that Jesus addressed. In the context of Matthew 12, the Pharisees should have rejoiced that demons were being conquered and should have recognized that this implied the presence of the kingdom of God. Jesus warned them that with their attitude, they were in danger of not being forgiven, for they were approaching blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Since there is no other way for humans to be forgiven than through Jesus, their rejection of the witness of the Holy Spirit to Jesus’ authority would, unless changed, result in their being left with no means of forgiveness.

Hebrews 6 and 10 are along the same lines. In Hebrews 6:4-6, those who fall away and cannot be renewed to repentance are described as holding "the Son of God" in contempt. Their attitude toward Jesus is the key factor. They crucify anew the Son of God. In other words, in spirit they have entered the ranks of those who slew the Lord. They wish he were dead and would be willing to drive the nails. No wonder they cannot be renewed to repentance.

In Hebrews 10:26-31, the warning is to those who willfully persist in sin after having heard the gospel ("the truth.") They spurn the Son of God, profane the blood of the covenant and outrage the Spirit of grace. This is slightly different from the account in Hebrews 4 of those who fall away, for chapter 10 can include those who hear the gospel and reject it with understanding. In either case, the attitude toward Jesus is the same—they want no part with him. One who is ignorant of or does not understand the gospel is not being described.

Copyright 1998 Worldwide Church of God