Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Whether one prefers “blessed” or “happy” or perhaps the King James “blesséd,” few phrases in Scripture are as well-known as the “Blessed are the ____” formula of the beatitudes. In fact, the Beatitudes stand beside the Ten Commandments as the definitive texts of the Judeo-Christian religion. Yet despite their prominent position in the faith, they stand also as some of the most divisive and disputed words of the New Testament.
Much of the debate surrounding Matthew 5:3-12—ranging from its structure to origin to even the meaning of the first blessing’s “poor in spirit”—involves the interpretive option to understand the macarisms (another word for the beatitudes) as either “entrance-requirements” or “eschatological blessings.” One’s approach to this dichotomy—between ethics and consolation—reflects back on one’s interpretation of every verse in the pericope.
In order to better understand the beatitudes, I want to offer up this textual study. It’ll be a bit longer and bit drier than most posts, but it will hopefully be a worthwhile exercise. This study intends to begin with a discussion of the composition process of the blessings before turning to their context and structure and ending with an analysis of the text of Matthew’s beatitudes. Through this analysis, it should become clear that, while many subtleties of the beatitudes are beyond our certainty, Jesus’s words as conveyed through the evangelist are centered on the current though not yet realized kingdom of heaven that both promises justice for the oppressed and disadvantaged but also calls all who hear to a new standard of living.
To begin, we must first look to the historical background of the beatitude form. While there are no exact parallels to Matthew’s beatitudes, early forms of the literary genre can be found in the Old Testament, later Jewish writings, and even Greek literature. However, beatitudes in these earlier writings rarely occurred more than as doublets, so the extended versions in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 demonstrate a development of the form. The OT or Jewish form that Jesus and the authors of the gospels would be working from manifested in two sub-genres: wisdom and apocalyptic. The beatitudes of wisdom literature were generally exhortatory, but as the form shifted toward the prophetic-apocalyptic, it took on a more eschatological and conciliatory tone.
Jesus’s use of the genre across the double-tradition (texts found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark) in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-6 suggests particular origins for the beatitudes. While there is still plenty of debate, a mild scholarly consensus suitable for our needs is that lines found in both Matthew and Luke (coming from the Q source) reflect the teaching of Jesus and the early Christian community on the blessings for the poor, despondent, hungry, and persecuted. The content unique to Matthew is used to parallel OT texts (mainly Isaiah 61) and provide blessings more ethical in nature.
In Matthew’s account, the beatitudes open what is probably the most well-developed and familiar speech of Jesus in the gospels, the Sermon on the Mount. While it has been suggested that the beatitudes layout the structure of the entire sermon, more likely is that they simply set the tone for Christ’s teachings to the crowds.
Moving inward, the controversy continues regarding the delimiters of the beatitudes, specifically whether the final beatitude in verses 11 and 12 should be included. The first eight blessings are clearly similar while the subsequent beatitude, despite starting with the appropriate phrase, is significantly longer and in a different grammatical person (second rather than third). Though this could indicate that the ninth blessing should be treated separately from the others, that its content is an expansion of the eighth and the existence of a precedent for final longer beatitudes suggest that verses 11-2 should be included with the rest. And while there is no clear explanation for the person change, more than likely its significance lies in the evangelist’s attempt to make the transition into the following section less awkward.
The internal structure of the beatitudes is slightly more evident though still contested. The identical promise of the first and eighth beatitudes, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” creates an inclusio and sets the first eight beatitudes off as a complete set. Those eight are further divided in the middle between verses 6 and 7 as demonstrated by the matching word counts (36) and the first half’s cohesion through alliteration (π). Though the sets could be chiastic, parallelism is likely the better organization due to the fourth beatitude’s phrase “for righteousness” not being mirrored in the next verse but in the final beatitude. The sets are also organized thematically, and while different scholars emphasize different nuances, the first four can be seen as blessings for passive behavior and the latter for active behavior.
Another pattern apparent in the beatitudes is the movement between tenses, beginning with present in the first blessing, shifting to future, and returning to present in the eighth and final beatitude in the set. Few would think that there is something peculiar about the first and last beatitudes that they are realized in the now while the others are not, but while some might suggest that verses 3 and 10 should simply be understood as futuristic, it is better that all of them be understood as simultaneously current and coming. This theme of the kingdom being both now and not yet is recurring in Matthew and demonstrated by the content of the beatitudes: the verbiage (e.g. “in heaven”) demands a future reading but Jesus is already enacting the promises by accepting the dispossessed and eating with the hungry.
With these broader strokes established, we can move into the actual text. Each beatitude begins with the term μακάριος, the best translation of which is probably the traditional “blessed” despite its overly religious tone. The first blessing from Jesus is directed at the “poor in spirit,” a title with the monetarily impoverished at its heart but highlighting the real cause of their blessedness: reliance on God. This sort of interpretation that acknowledges the material roots of the blessing alongside its spiritual meaning helps in understanding the beatitudes as a whole. The promise for the poor in spirit is that “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” a promise that suggests a future reward while simultaneously expressing a consolation for the present.
The next beatitude continues the focus on the downtrodden, promising comfort to those who mourn. The reason for the weeping has been suggested to be on account of sin, but more than likely what is envisioned is mourning because of loss or oppression. This connotation is supported by this and the previous blessing’s echoing Isaiah 61, which itself deals with bereavement and the need for justice. The promise for comfort is delivered in what is often called the “divine passive,” in which God is assumed to be the active agent. God will provide true consolation for those in need.
Some manuscripts move the blessing for the meek before the previous beatitude as it is closely related to the blessing for the poor in spirit. While this is likely not original, the similarity in meaning is undeniable—to be meek is to be humble. The promise for the meek (also in some ways similar to the promise of the first beatitude) is that they will inherit the earth, an eschatological claim foreshadowing the coming kingdom.
The last beatitude in the set, much like the first, begins seemingly concerned with the disadvantaged but shifts with the addition of the phrase, “for righteousness.” While this addition could suggest a desire for ethical correction or the coming kingdom, the alternative translation as “justice” seems more appropriate—a decision mostly staked on the wider context. In this way, “for righteousness” does not radically change the meaning but rather demarcates the first section of the beatitudes. The promise that those who hunger will be filled is a strong indicator for a realized blessing rather than a far-off one.
The following three beatitudes for the merciful, pure in heart, and peacemaking can be treated together. The first blessing for mercy is representative of a central theme in the Gospel of Matthew and is demonstrated by Jesus elsewhere as an active virtue. This sort of mercy is in turn awarded mercy. The next blessing is for the pure in heart, a cryptic phrase likely meaning integrity or the lack of hypocrisy. Associated with it is the promise of seeing God, another eschatological gift. The third blessing for peacemakers necessitates an active approach to creating peace. Its promise to be called sons of God suggests both an approval by God and an inheriting of his characteristics. None of these beatitudes contain reversals as did the previous four, and each has a more ethical than existential weight to it.
The eighth beatitude provides a bookend for both the second section of macarisms as well as the entire series of blessings. By repeating the appended phrase “for righteousness” found also in verse 6 and reiterating the entire promise from the first beatitude, the eighth blessing drapes the theme of righteousness and kingdom over all that has come before it. The beatitude itself is for the persecuted—past and present—and emphasizes that all of these blessings have in scope the disadvantaged and oppressed.
The ninth and final beatitude in the series, set apart from the rest of the series, breaks from the previous pattern in its length and style. As a continuation of the eighth beatitude, it too is directed at those persecuted, specifically through verbal and social means. The persecution is on account of Jesus, paralleling persecution because of righteousness in the previous verse. The promise is also more complex: it is the first imperative in the text, calling listeners to rejoice. The promise ends by associating Jesus’s disciples with the prophets of the past, attributing to them the honor and authority of those figures.
From all of this, the question still remains how the beatitudes are to be interpreted—are they ethical imperatives or conciliatory statements? Are they for the present reality or future promises? The beatitudes’ heritage in Jewish wisdom literature as well as the evangelist’s redactions which seem to emphasize behavior suggest that Matthew’s blessings are imperative in nature—they are most concerned with how disciples are to live in the kingdom. However, the more immediate roots in the apocalyptic-prophetic genre as well as the pervading future and eschatological language suggest that the Gospel has in mind divine reversal, the hope available to those now oppressed. Mark Allen Powell has put forth a synthesis of these two approaches, seeing that “Whereas the first stanza deals with those who have been deprived of righteousness or justice (5:6), the second is concerned with those dedicated to the establishment of righteousness or justice (5:10).” While this is admittedly tempting, the reversal theme in Q, the future focus of the promises, and the strong emphasis on persecution all suggest that consolation is the thematic interest of Matthew’s beatitudes. The text is implicitly exhortatory, but ethics are not the primary concern of the pericope.
The beatitudes thus, in both Luke and Matthew, concern themselves with the oppressed, the disadvantaged, and—above all—the persecuted for the faith. They promise a hope rooted in the in-breaking kingdom that calls all disciples to a new way of living. Through a tightly structured series of blessings, emphasizing righteousness and the kingdom, the beatitudes introduce the Sermon on the Mount as well as a way of living in accordance with God’s reign.
I’ve heard someone else interpret the Beatitudes like Jesus is talking to people who are already poor in spirit, meek, etc. Instead, every time I read the Beatitudes, they are a call to attitude. That is, Jesus wants us to be poor in spirit, He wants us to be meek, He wants us to be merciful, etc.
I think this is seen in how you pointed out the phrases “in spirit” and “for righteousness” and “for righteousness’ sake.” To me, all the Beatitudes are a call to attitude. That is, these aren’t the current states of people but the goals of a Christian.
Again, with the way the Beatitudes are delivered, I can only see them as “ethical imperatives” instead of “consiliatory statements.” (By the way, those are GREAT descriptions of the two interpretations!) But honestly, they are both. If one lives by these ethical imperatives, then God is promising those consiliatory statements.
—
The main thing criticism I have is your reference to the Q Source. The Q Source is a complete myth.
Oh no, Andrew! That makes me sad to hear you say. The Two-Source hypothesis is far and away the best explanation for our current gospels.
Critiques from guys like Mark Goodacre (and to a lesser extent William Farmer) help keep scholars from resting on their laurels, but there are hardly other options.
If you’re interested, I can send you some non-partisan, in-depth introductions into the synoptic problem and/or some arguments for the Two-Source hypothesis.
I’m coming from a historical standpoint. History shows that Q never existed. But if you want to send me some light reading on it, then I’ll check it out.
If that’s your main hang-up, note that many modern theories of Q don’t require there be a literal document (contrast with an oral tradition). And if there was, there’s no necessity that it would last the test of time or be well distributed–consider the two missing letters to the Corinthians.
For an in-depth analysis, see:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1A5YoEukRrV3xZ8WQKF7IyPtmpfVcFljQ
For a summary of the points made there, see:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dKV3WntmYZ7_IZBtMH4nANs4JMPnP6I0
Thanks for the sharing some stuff. I checked out what the links shared. For me, I notice any actual evidence… except for the document that goes into the literary structures of the gospels. I believe that it takes history to prove that an historical document existed. I’d like to say again: the historical evidence to how the gospels were written contain contrary evidence that Q existed. And there is absolutely zero historical evidence that Q did exist and became lost. For example, we have evidence to the origins of Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels. Both of those origins does not leave room for a Q Source.
You said, “note that many modern theories of Q don’t require there be a literal document (contrast with an oral tradition).” Maybe this is where I get confused. Because I thought that Q Source theory is presented that there was this missing document that has been lost. But if the theory doesn’t care that there is a literal document, then why would anyone promote Q Source? Now, about there being oral tradition, it is obvious that this existed long before any book/letter of the New Testament was written. For me, I believe it is the earliest oral traditions that stand in contrast to there being a Q Source. In other words, I don’t believe there ever was a Q Source but I believe that there were many oral traditions circulating among Christians about what Jesus said. And I believe all of those oral traditions came directly from the apostles.
Now, if Q Source theory is going to take the “we think Q is oral tradition” route, then there is no point in the research that scholars put into the Q theory. The basis of Q theory is: which gospel writer took from which other gospel writer (including another gospel writing called Q)? So I see Q Source theory trying to find a literal document. If I am wrong about this, please let me know!
The main point of agreement we can have is that there were oral traditions spread among the Christians before a New Testament document was written. And I think those oral traditions (which can change over time and culture) be the reason why the gospels have variants/differences.
An important nuance of this discussion is that the two-source hypothesis has no concern for the historical reality of a Q document. The two-source theory is a source-critical claim. Understanding the historical nature of Q is up to archeologists and historians to research.
The hypothesis, in essence, says that when we look at the synoptic gospels, it looks like they were developed in a certain way. And this way suggests a “third party” document, an additional source that Matthew and Luke used. We don’t know of any such document or much else about it, except that it would be ideal for helping produce the double-tradition as we have it. The hypothesis is a purely inductive argument and can claim nothing on historical grounds. Really the only disagreement with all you said would be with the one statement: “the historical evidence to how the gospels were written contain contrary evidence that Q existed.”
Sorry to bludgeon the issue. I don’t think that subscribing to the two-source hypothesis produces any drastic theological or ethical changes, but that it is a healthy belief for all biblical studies.
Thank you so much for sharing. While some people might enjoy a good theory or hypothesis based on a source-critical claim, I cannot. For me to accept something, I need more tangible evidence. And since there is no historical evidence for Q, that is why I believe Q theory is silly.
Thank you for being honest about disagreeing to mystatement about the historical evidence on how the gospels were written. That’s fine. I just want to be more clear in my view: from the Christian history we have, all four gospels originated in different places and by different people. Based on their origins (as described by Christian history), none of them could have come from the same source. The only gospel that might have taken from another is Luke, since his was written after Matthew and Mark.
I agree with you that the belief or disbelief in Q theory makes no changes to theology or ethics. And that is good because theology and ethics are far more important than historical arguments (my view) versus literacy arguments (Q theory).