In view of the widespread (and misleading) translation (“blessed …”) of the opening words of each of the Beatitudes, it is important for us to make clear what a “beatitude” is and is not in its biblical usage. One of several good explanations that I know of is this one from an article by Benedict Viviano:
A beatitude is a literary form common in both the Old Testament (especially in wisdom books and the psalms) and the New Testament, which begins with a short cry of joy like, "You happy person," and then includes a reason for the person's good fortune. The English word "beatitude" derives from the Latin beatus that is, in tum, the equivalent of the Hebrew ʾashrê and the Greek makarios.—These terms should be distinguished from the passive form "blessed" that has often been used in English translations of the Bible. This usage can lead to some confusion between a blessing and a beatitude. The Bible uses the passive form ("blessed") [Hebrew barukh, Greek eulogētos] only of God. What follows it is an invocation or a wish: "Blessed are you and praiseworthy, O Lord, the God of our ancestors" (Dan 3:26). — The adjective "happy" [Hebrew ashrê, Greek makarios] is used to speak of human beings, … recognizes an existing state of happiness, represents an approving proclamation of fact, and contains an evaluative judgment: "Happy are they who follow not the counsel of the wicked" (Ps 1:1). The latter form is a proclamation of happiness, not merely a promise of happiness, although in the Beatitudes of Jesus a promise is joined to it: "Happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). The beatitude is a formula of congratulation or felicitation.
Old Testament “beatitudes” often give a reason for the person’s happy state, analogous to the “for …” clauses in Jesus’ beatitudes. Here are a few examples:
Psalm 84:5-6 Happy are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion. 6 As they go through the valley of Baca they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools.
Psalm 112:1-2 Happy are those who fear the LORD, who greatly delight in his commandments. 2 Their descendants will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed.
Isaiah 56:1 Thus says the LORD: Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.
From these examples you can see that the reason they are happy is not that they are promised a reward, but because being the way they are is its own reward and brings deep inner joy.
As to the form of Old Testament beatitudes, they are not presented in long lists, as the beatitudes of Jesus are here. Never do more than two occur together.
"Pre-NT beatitudes are only rarely in the second person (i.e., “How fortunate you are,“ e.g., 1 Enoch 58:2) and … occur with woes only in the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus 10:16-17; so on formal grounds there is no reason to see Matthew's beatitudes [as opposed to the form they have in Luke] as late adaptations" [Carson].
Sixteen years ago a text was first published that had been recovered from the "library" of the Dead Sea community and that dates to the era of our Lord. It contains a list of beatitudes, incomplete because the text is broken right before the quoted part, making it likely that other beatitudes preceded it. It is enlightening to compare the form and content of this list with both Luke’s and Matthew’s versions of Jesus’ beatitudes.
Happy (is) he who speaks the truth with a pure heart and does not slander with his tongue.
Happy (are) those who uphold his statutes and do not take to her paths of perversity.
Happy (are) they who rejoice in (her) [= Lady Wisdom] and do not spread themselves in the ways of folly.
Happy those who seek her with purity of hands and do not strive after her with a deceitful heart [=mind].
Happy the man who has attained and who walks in the Law(s) of the Most High and applies his heart [=mind] to her paths,
who cleaves to her instructions [=admonitions] and in her strikes [=corrections] delights always, and does not forsake her in the afflictions of (his) troubles.
And in time of oppression [=distress] he does not abandon her, and does not forget her (in the days of) terror, and in the humility of his soul does not reject her.
Like some OT beatitudes (Psalms 1 and 24:3), but unlike these of Jesus, the Qumran list describes the behavior of the happy man mostly by what he does, not by what is done to him against his will. He is “happy/blessed/fortunate” not because he is a passive victim, but because of his choices. Furthermore, in many cases there is either a positive statement followed immediately by a negative expression of the same virtue (so in the Qumran example above) or vice versa (as in Psalm 1). Compare the famous beatitude of Psalm 1.
Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; 2 but their delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law they do meditate day and night. 3 They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper. (Psalms 1:1-3 NRSV)
In both Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of Jesus’ beatitudes there are what look like “rewards”: statements of benefits to those who are like this. This is in line with Psalm 1:3 and following, which likewise describes the fruitfulness and success (“prosper”) of the individual described. Furthermore, as in both Psalm 1 and several of Matthew’s examples (e.g., “for theirs is [not will be] the kingdom of heaven”), the benefit is not in an after-death existence, but in the present.
The Qumran beatitudes—unlike Luke’s text, in which the present state of the righteous person in which he suffers is contrasted with his happy rewarded state—merely state the present happiness of the one who does or does not a number of things, all having to do with the pursuit of Wisdom, the latter conceived of in the Old Testament sense of “wisdom”, which is almost equivalent to righteousness. This is what Luke’s version says:
Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.
23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.
24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25 “Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.
26 “Woe to you when all speak well of you [now], for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets. (Luke 6:20-26 NRSV)
Matthew’s version lacks this strong contrast between and present and future state, and gives more of the impression that the happiness is not just in the hope of a different future but in God’s presence in the now. Thus Matthew’s version comes closer to the Qumran list. We should not, as many liberal scholars do, blithely assume that Luke’s version is “closer” to what Jesus “really said.” Even if these are not literal reports of what Jesus may have said on different occasions—which is certainly possible—who is to say that Luke has not tailored Jesus’ words in order to stress the contrast between present and future, and Matthew actually retained more of the original form?
Although in the Qumran list the entire emphasis is upon pursuing “wisdom,” while the gospel beatitudes focus on pursuing God, we shouldn’t press the distinction, since in the Old Testament and even in other parables of Jesus, “wisdom” is often a synonym for obedience to God’s will: “The fear of God is the beginning (i.e., best part) of wisdom.”
Nevertheless, there are some significant differences between the Qumran text and Jesus’ beatitudes. There is in the Qumran list no sense of the paradoxical: that someone poor, meek, mourning or persecuted can at the same time be happy.
Still another striking difference is that while the Qumran text addresses sometimes individuals (“he”, “the man”) and at other times a group (“they”), the gospel beatitudes are all in the plural. One suggestion is that this indicates the essentially social setting of Christian virtues. You might be a Pharisee or a Qumran monk in isolation, but not a disciple of Jesus (so Carson). But there is another possibility that is often overlooked.
The beatitude of Psalm 1 describes the various activities and characteristics of the same individual: what he doesn’t do, what he dies do, and how his life affects others. But it isn’t several beatitudes: it is just one. Likewise here, although we have a number of different descriptions of the class of persons who are pronounced “fortunate”, they do not represent different types, for which different special blessings are promised. Rather they are different aspects of one and the same class: believers in Jesus; disciples. And the so-called “reward” in each case, although expressed slightly differently, is actually the same. For this reason it makes little sense to describe the recipient as a single person. It makes much better sense to use the plural, because what is being described here is a class. That class is not united by economics (“poor” in the literal sense), but by a truly repentant attitude. As Jesus’ recorded message in Galilee is phrased in the preceding chapter, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near.” The message of the beatitudes is not different. The “blessings” of these beatitudes all amount to the first and last one “for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” And all the descriptions (“poor in spirit,” etc.) are the same as Jesus’ words in chapter 4: “repent.” Repentance entails confessing once poverty before God; it entails mourning for one’s sins; it entails having a hunger for personal righteousness.
If, on the other hand, you follow the view—rather popular even among some evangelicals—that those who are “poor in spirit” or who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” are those who are oppressed and victimized and that what they hunger for is “justice” for themselves and other oppressed people, then no longer can Jesus’ words “repent” be addressed to them, but to their “oppressors.” This turns the entire passage on its head. Those who would be Jesus’ disciples cannot have their focus on the wickedness of others, and blame all that is wrong in life on others. Jesus’ disciples must see themselves as God sees them: sinners who need his mercy and grace, but who—once they have received that mercy—must become the ones to dispense it to others.
In summary, we must conclude that two things are definitely not true about the surface differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s record of Jesus’ beatitudes:
(1) Matthew has not “corrupted” Jesus’ originally more socially conscious and economics-based wording, which is preserved in Luke, and
(2) Neither are the two accounts irreconcilable with each other.
Both accounts are in the plural (Luke’s “all of you”, Matthew’s “they” and “theirs”), because both understand these characteristics to be shared by all true disciples of Jesus. Luke stresses the consolation offered by our future state (“poor” now, “rich” then; “hungry” now, “filled” then), while Matthew stresses the need for character formation in our present lives (“mourning” over our present failures, and “hungering” for closer walk with Christ, “thirsting” for God as David says he did in his psalms). We should not press Matthew’s account into “harmony” with Luke’s, nor Luke’s into Matthew’s, but preserve and learn from both.
Our future state should always fill us with joy and encouragement in our present service, but we must also never lose our passionate desire to draw closer to Christ and to eliminate our failures.
Matthew’s vision is the same as Paul’s who wrote to the Philippian church:
Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you (Philippians 3:12-15 NRSV)
Salt and Light, 5:13-16
You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16 NRSV)
Salt without taste? Is that possible? I am told that chemically there is no way that salt can lose its “saltiness.” The Greek verb μωραινω mōrainō translated “lose its taste” means literally “becomes ‘foolish’”! Commentators and experts on salt and its uses in the ancient world claim that the only thing that would cause ancient farmers to throw salt out would be if it became mixed with undesirable elements that could not be separated or filtered out. It may be that St. Paul has this idea in mind in Romans 1:22, where—speaking of the human race’s descent into idolatry after losing the undiluted knowledge of the One True God—he writes that although they now claimed to be “wise,” they “became foolish” (same verb). That is, the true salt of the knowledge of the One True God lost its value, because it was mixed or diluted with the false ideas about many gods.
Jesus here affirms that his true disciples will by their distinctive and biblical words and actions stand out from all around them who have diluted or exchanged God’s truth for lies. If they become diluted by compromising either doctrine or ethics, their salt “becomes foolish/useless”—the meaning of that Greek verb mōrainō.
Salt is Jesus’ first word picture of the distinctive witness of his disciples. His second one is light. We have just seen this imagery in the preceding chapter, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 9:1-2, that when the Messiah comes—he who in Isaiah 9:6-7 is called “wonderful Counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of peace”—the Jewish people who are dwelling/sitting in the spiritual darkness of Galilee will “see a Great Light.” That light was the Messiah Jesus, shining brightly through his teachings and his many miracles. But here Jesus declares that his disciples too will be “the light of the world.” The word ὐμεις humeis “you” in verse 14 is plural in the Greek, which means that collectively Jesus’ disciples are that light—not that each one of us is a separate light. Now, Paul in Philippians 2:15 does write that as “children of God” believers who live as they should “shine like stars [note the plural of individual witness] in the world.” But we are concerned with what Matthew has to say here. He is focusing on the collective witness of the Church. With a collective witness goes a collective sense of responsibility, which is why we pray for each other. My failures dim your light as well as my own.
Does Jesus contradict himself when he asks his Church here to “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven”? Elsewhere he warns against doing your good works to be seen by others (Matt 6:1, 4). But there he is referring to individuals seeking to stand out from their brothers and sisters, who out of pride seek the glory for themselves, not for God. Their motives are not to help maintain the collective mission of the Church. The Church of Jesus must let its collective witness be seen. If one believer fails, others will not. But if the Church as a whole fails to make it clear what we believe and what God’s will is for the human race, where else will that message come from? So we must encourage each other by our example and undergird each other with our prayers. And those concerns must not stop at the walls of College Church. Our prayer list should include named individuals who are believers in other local churches, people we know from our neighborhoods, or job sites, our PTA meetings, our grocery stores, our auto repair shops—and people we know from missionary prayer letters who live in other continents.
Are we salty in our undiluted biblical doctrine and our undiluted biblical ethics? Are we as the body of Christ also conspicuous in our witness? If not, then Jesus’ words here about his Church are not true of us. And that simply cannot remain the case.
----
1 {Viviano, 2007, #71382@ 64-65}. 2 {Viviano, 2007, #71382@ 66}. 3 Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully. (Psalms 24:3-4 NRSV)
No comments:
Post a Comment