Matthew 05.01-12a
Master Document for Matthew 5:1-12
March 18, 2007 at FBC, Comanche; Expositional studies: Matthew
Matthew 5:1-12 (NASB)
1When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, 3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5“Blessed are the £gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
“Beautiful Attitudes”
Introduction:
Text: Matthew 5:1-12
1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
“Beautiful Attitudes”
Introduction: Those who belong to the King are within His Kingdom. We will be shown to be within the Kingdom when we are or when we display:
1. Attendants of the King
2. Attitudes of the King
3. Attributes of the King
4. Accomplishments of the King
Conclusion and Application: How do you know you are in God’s Kingdom?
Ø You are His obedient and faithful child
Ø You are submitted to His perfect Word and will
Ø You are growing to be more like Him
Ø You are hearing Him and doing what pleases Him
March 25, 2007 at FBC, Comanche; Expositional studies: Matthew
Text: Matthew 5:1-12
1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
“The Beauty of Poverty”
Introduction: The poor in spirit (5:3)
a. The role (5:3a): God blesses those who realize their need for him.
b. The reward (5:3b): The Kingdom of Heaven is given to them.[1]
Of all the virtues Christ commended in the Beatitudes, it is significant that the first is humility, being “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). That underlies all the others:
· You cannot mourn (5:4) without appreciating how insufficient you are to handle life in your own strength. That is humility.
• You cannot be meek (5:5) unless you have needed gentleness yourself. Knowing that need is humility.
• You cannot hunger and thirst for righteousness (5:6) if you proudly think of yourself as already righteous. Longing to fill that spiritual appetite demands humility. In a parable that Luke recorded, a humble tax collector prayed, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” He went away justified, unlike a proud Pharisee who boasted of his righteousness (Luke 18:13).
• You cannot be merciful (Matt. 5:7) without recognizing your own need for mercy. Jesus said that it’s the person who is forgiven much that loves much (Luke 7:47). To confess your sin and ask God and others for forgiveness takes humility.
• You cannot be pure in heart (Matt. 5:8) if your heart is filled with pride. God promises to exalt the humble, not the proud (James 4:10).
• You cannot be a peacemaker (Matt. 5:9) if you believe that you are always right. To admit your own fallibility takes humility. Peace results when both warring parties move toward each other.
• Finally, identifying with Christ no matter what the reaction of others (5:10–12) demands a certain death to yourself and a renunciation of your own rights. Standing up under persecution demands Christ-like humility.[2]
Matthew 5:1
He went up into the mountain (ἀνεβη εἰς το ὀρος [anebē eis to oros]). Not “a” mountain as the Authorized Version has it. The Greek article is poorly handled in most English versions. We do not know what mountain it was. It was the one there where Jesus and the crowds were. “Delitzsch calls the Mount of Beatitudes the Sinai of the New Testament” (Vincent). He apparently went up to get in closer contact with the disciples, “seeing the multitudes.” Luke (6:12) says that he went out into the mountain to pray, Mark (3:13) that he went up and called the twelve.
All three purposes are true. Luke adds that after a whole night in prayer and after the choice of the twelve Jesus came down to a level place on the mountain and spoke to the multitudes from Judea to Phoenicia. The crowds are great in both Matthew and in Luke and include disciples and the other crowds. There is no real difficulty in considering the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke as one and the same. See full discussion in my Harmony of the Gospels.
Matthew 5:2
Taught them (ἐδιδασκεν [edidasken]). Inchoative imperfect, began to teach. He sat down on the mountain side as the Jewish rabbis did instead of standing. It was a most impressive scene as Jesus opened his mouth wide and spoke loud enough for the great throng to hear him. The newly chosen twelve apostles were there, “a great number of disciples and a great number of the people” (Luke 6:17).
Matthew 5:3
Blessed (μακαριοι [makarioi]). The English word “blessed” is more exactly represented by the Greek verbal εὐλογητοι [eulogētoi] as in Luke 1:68 of God by Zacharias, or the perfect passive participle εὐλογημενος [eulogēmenos] as in Luke 1:42 of Mary by Elizabeth and in Matt. 21:9. Both forms come from εὐλογεω [eulogeō], to speak well of (εὐ, λογος [eu, logos]). The Greek word here (μακαριοι [makarioi]) is an adjective that means “happy” which in English etymology goes back to hap, chance, good-luck as seen in our words haply, hapless, happily, happiness. “Blessedness is, of course, an infinitely higher and better thing than mere happiness” (Weymouth). English has thus ennobled “blessed” to a higher rank than “happy.”
But “happy” is what Jesus said and the Braid Scots New Testament dares to say “Happy” each time here as does the Improved Edition of the American Bible Union Version. The Greek word is as old as Homer and Pindar and was used of the Greek gods and also of men, but largely of outward prosperity. Then it is applied to the dead who died in the Lord as in Rev. 14:13. Already in the Old Testament the Septuagint uses it of moral quality. “Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe. For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love” (Vincent). **
Jesus takes this word “happy” and puts it in this rich environment. “This is one of the words which have been transformed and ennobled by New Testament use; by association, as in the Beatitudes, with unusual conditions, accounted by the world miserable, or with rare and difficult” (Bruce). It is a pity that we have not kept the word “happy” to the high and holy plane where Jesus placed it. “If you know these things, happy (μακαριοι [makarioi]) are you if you do them” (John 13:17).
“Happy (μακαριοι [makarioi]) are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). And Paul applies this adjective to God, “according to the gospel of the glory of the happy (μακαριου [makariou]) God” (I Tim. 1:11. Cf. also Titus 2:13, “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus”).
The term “Beatitudes” (Latin beatus) comes close to the meaning of Christ here by μακαριοι [makarioi]. It will repay one to make a careful study of all the “beatitudes” in the New Testament where this word is employed. It occurs nine times here (3 to 11), though the beatitudes in verses 10 and 11 are very much alike. The copula is not expressed in either of these nine beatitudes. In each case a reason is given for the beatitude, “for” (ὁτι [hoti]), that shows the spiritual quality involved. Some of the phrases employed by Jesus here occur in the Psalms, some even in the Talmud (itself later than the New Testament, though of separate origin). That is of small moment. “The originality of Jesus lies in putting the due value on these thoughts, collecting them, and making them as prominent as the Ten Commandments. No greater service can be rendered to mankind than to rescue from obscurity neglected moral commonplaces ” (Bruce). Jesus repeated his sayings many times as all great teachers and preachers do, but this sermon has unity, progress, and consummation. It does not contain all that Jesus taught by any means, but it stands out as the greatest single sermon of all time, in its penetration, pungency, and power.
The poor in spirit (οἱ πτωχοι τῳ πνευματι [hoi ptōchoi tōi pneumati]). Luke has only “the poor,” but he means the same by it as this form in Matthew, “the pious in Israel, for the most part poor, whom the worldly rich despised and persecuted” (McNeile). The word used here (πτωχοι [ptōchoi]) is applied to the beggar Lazarus in Luke 16:20, 22 and suggests spiritual destitution (from πτωσσω [ptōssō] to crouch, to cower). The other word πενης [penēs] is from πενομαι [penomai], to work for one’s daily bread and so means one who works for his living. The word πτωχος [ptōchos] is more frequent in the New Testament and implies deeper poverty than πενης [penēs]. “The kingdom of heaven” here means the reign of God in the heart and life. This is the summum bonum and is what matters most.
Matthew 5:4
They that mourn (οἱ πενθουντες [hoi penthountes]). This is another paradox. This verb “is most frequent in the LXX for mourning for the dead, and for the sorrows and sins of others” (McNeile). “There can be no comfort where there is no grief” (Bruce). Sorrow should make us look for the heart and hand of God and so find the comfort latent in the grief. **
Matthew 5:5
The meek (οἱ πραεις [hoi praeis]). Wycliff has it “Blessed be mild men.” The ancients used the word for outward conduct and towards men. They did not rank it as a virtue anyhow. It was a mild equanimity that was sometimes negative and sometimes positively kind. But Jesus lifted the word to a nobility never attained before. In fact, the Beatitudes assume a new heart, for the natural man does not find in happiness the qualities mentioned here by Christ. The English word “meek” has largely lost the fine blend of spiritual poise and strength meant by the Master. He calls himself “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29) and Moses is also called meek. It is the gentleness of strength, not mere effeminacy. By “the earth” (την γην [tēn gēn]) Jesus seems to mean the Land of Promise (Psa. 37:11) though Bruce thinks that it is the whole earth. Can it be the solid earth as opposed to the sea or the air?
Matthew 5:6
They that hunger and thirst after righteousness (οἱ πεινωντες και διψωντες την δικαιοσυνην [hoi peinōntes kai dipsōntes tēn dikaiosunēn]). Here Jesus turns one of the elemental human instincts to spiritual use. There is in all men hunger for food, for love, for God. It is passionate hunger and thirst for goodness, for holiness. The word for “filled” (χορτασθησονται [chortasthēsontai]) means to feed or to fatten cattle from the word for fodder or grass like Mark 6:39 “green grass” (χορτος χλωρος [chortos chlōros]).
Matthew 5:7
Obtain mercy (ἐλεηθησονται [eleēthēsontai]) “Sal win pitie theirsels” (Braid Scots). “A self-acting law of the moral world” (Bruce).
Matthew 5:8
Shall see God (τον θεον ὀψονται [ton theon opsontai]). Without holiness no man will see the Lord in heaven (Heb. 12:14). The Beatific Vision is only possible here on earth to those with pure hearts. No other can see the King now. Sin befogs and beclouds the heart so that one cannot see God. Purity has here its widest sense and includes everything.
Matthew 5:9
The peacemakers (οἱ εἰρηνοποιοι [hoi eirēnopoioi]). Not merely “peaceable men” (Wycliff) but “makkers up o’ strife” (Braid Scots). It is hard enough to keep the peace. It is still more difficult to bring peace where it is not. “The perfect peacemaker is the Son of God (Eph. 2:14f.)” (McNeile). Thus we shall be like our Elder Brother.
Matthew 5:10
That have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake (οἱ δεδιωγμενοι ἑνεκεν δικαιοσυνης [hoi dediōgmenoi heneken dikaiosunēs]). Posing as persecuted is a favourite stunt. The kingdom of heaven belongs only to those who suffer for the sake of goodness, not who are guilty of wrong.
Matthew 5:11
Falsely, for my sake (ψευδομενοι ἑνεκεν ἐμου [pseudomenoi heneken emou]). Codex Bezae changes the order of these last Beatitudes, but that is immaterial. What does matter is that the bad things said of Christ’s followers shall be untrue and that they are slandered for Christ’s sake. Both things must be true before one can wear a martyr’s crown and receive the great reward (μισθος [misthos]) in heaven. No prize awaits one there who deserves all the evil said of him and done to him here. [3]
CHAPTER V.
1. A mountain (τὸ ὄρος). The Rev. recognizes the force of the definite article, and renders “the mountain,” that particular mountain in the place where Jesus saw the multitudes. The mountain itself cannot be identified. Delitzsch calls the Mount of Beatitudes “The Sinai of the New Testament.”
When he was set (καθίσαντος), following Tyndale. Rev., more literally, when he had sat down (compare Wyc., when he had sete). After the manner of the rabbis, he seated himself ere he began to teach.
2. Taught (ἐδίδασκεν). The imperfect signifies began to teach.
3. Blessed (μακάριοι). As this word and its cognates occur at least fifty-five times in the New Testament, it is important to understand its history, which is interesting because it is one of those numerous words which exhibit the influence of Christian association and usage in enlarging and dignifying their meaning. It is commonly rendered blessed, both in the A. V. and Rev., and that rendering might properly be given it in every instance.
Its root is supposed to be a word meaning great, and its earlier meaning appears to be limited to outward prosperity; so that it is used at times as synonymous with rich. It scarcely varies from this meaning in its frequent applications to the Grecian gods, since the popular Greek ideal of divine blessedness was not essentially moral. The gods were blessed because of their power and dignity, not because of their holiness. “In general,” says Mr. Gladstone (“Homer and the Homeric Age”) “the chief note of deity with Homer is emancipation from the restraints of moral law. Though the Homeric gods have not yet ceased to be the vindicators of morality upon earth, they have personally ceased to observe its rules, either for or among themselves. As compared with men, in conduct they are generally characterized by superior force and intellect, but by inferior morality.”
In its peculiar application to the dead, there is indicated the despair of earthly happiness underlying the thought of even the cheerful and mercurial Greek. Hence the word was used as synonymous with dead. Only the dead could be called truly blessed. Thus Sophocles (“Œdipus Tyrannus”):
“From hence the lesson learn ye
To reckon no man happy till ye witness
The closing day; until he pass the border
Which severs life from death, unscathed by sorrow.”
And again (“Œdipus at Colonus”):
“Happiest beyond compare,
Never to taste of life:
Happiest in order next,
Being born, with quickest speed
Thither again to turn
From whence we came.”
Nevertheless, even in its pagan use, the word was not altogether without a moral background. The Greeks recognized a prosperity which waited on the observance of the laws of natural morality, and an avenging Fate which pursued and punished their violation. This conception appears often in the works of the tragedians; for instance, in the “Œdipus Tyrannus” of Sophocles, where the main motive is the judgment which waits upon even unwitting violations of natural ties. Still, this prosperity is external, consisting either in wealth, or power, or exemption from calamity.
With the philosophers a moral element comes definitely into the word. The conception rises from outward propriety to inward correctness as the essence of happiness. But in all of them, from Socrates onward, virtue depends primarily upon knowledge; so that to be happy is, first of all, to know. It is thus apparent that the Greek philosophy had no conception of sin in the Bible sense. As virtue depended on knowledge, sin was the outcome of ignorance, and virtue and its consequent happiness were therefore the prerogative of the few and the learned.
The biblical use of the word lifted it into the region of the spiritual, as distinguished from the merely intellectual, and besides, intrusted to it alone the task of representing this higher conception. The pagan word for happiness (εὐδαιμονία, under the protection of a good genius or daemon) nowhere occurs in the New Testament nor in the Scriptures, having fallen into disrepute because the word daemon, which originally meant a deity, good or evil, had acquired among the Jews the bad sense which we attach to demon. Happiness, or better, blessedness, was therefore represented both in the Old and in the New Testament by this word μακάριος. In the Old Testament the idea involves more of outward prosperity than in the New Testament, yet it almost universally occurs in connections which emphasize, as its principal element, a sense of God’s approval founded in righteousness which rests ultimately on love to God.
Thus the word passed up into the higher region of Christian thought, and was stamped with the gospel signet, and laden with all the rich significance of gospel blessedness. It now takes on a group of ideas strange to the best pagan morality, and contradictory of its fundamental positions. Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe.
For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love. For the aristocracy of the learned virtuous, it introduces the truth of the Fatherhood of God and the corollary of the family of believers. While the pagan word carries the isolation of the virtuous and the contraction of human sympathy, the Gospel pushes these out with an ideal of a world-wide sympathy and of a happiness realized in ministry. The vague outlines of an abstract good vanish from it, and give place to the pure heart’s vision of God, and its personal communion with the Father in heaven. Where it told of the Stoic’s self-sufficiency, it now tells of the Christian’s poverty of spirit and meekness. Where it hinted at the Stoic’s self-repression and strangling of emotion, it now throbs with a holy sensitiveness, and with a monition to rejoice with them that rejoice, and to weep with them that weep.
From the pagan word the flavor of immortality is absent. No vision of abiding rest imparts patience and courage amid the bitterness and struggle of life; no menace of the destiny of evil imposes a check on human lusts. The Christian word blessed is full of the light of heaven. It sternly throws away from itself every hint of the Stoic’s asserted right of suicide as a refuge from human ills, and emphasizes something which thrives on trial and persecution, which glories in tribulation, which not only endures but conquers the world, and expects its crown in heaven.
The poor (οἱ πτωχοὶ). Three words expressing poverty are found in the New Testament. Two of them, πένης and πενιχρός, are kindred terms, the latter being merely a poetic form of the other, and neither of these occurs more than once (Luke 21:2; 2 Cor. 9:9). The word used in this verse is therefore the current word for poor, occurring thirty-four times, and covering every gradation of want; so that it is evident that the New Testament writers did not recognize any nice distinctions of meaning which called for the use of other terms. Luke, for instance (21:2, 3), calls the widow who bestowed her two mites both πενιχρὰν and πτωχὴ. Nevertheless, there is a distinction, recognized by both classical and ecclesiastical writers.
While ὁ πένης is one of narrow means, one who “earns a scanty pittance,” πτωχός is allied to the verb πτώσσειν, to crouch or cringe, and therefore conveys the idea of utter destitution, which abjectly solicits and lives by alms. Hence it is applied to Lazarus (Luke 16:20, 22), and rendered beggar. Thus distinguished, it is very graphic and appropriate here, as denoting the utter spiritual destitution, the consciousness of which precedes the entrance into the kingdom of God, and which cannot be relieved by one’s own efforts, but only by the free mercy of God. (See on 2 Cor. 6:10; 8:9.)
4. They that mourn (πενθοῦντες). Signifying grief manifested; too deep for concealment. Hence it is often joined with κλαίειν, to weep audibly (Mark 16:10; James 4:9).
Shall be comforted. See on John 14:16.
5. The meek (οἱ πραεῖς). Another word which, though never used in a bad sense, Christianity has lifted to a higher plane, and made the symbol of a higher good. Its primary meaning is mild, gentle. It was applied to inanimate things, as light, wind, sound, sickness. It was used of a horse; gentle.
As a human attribute, Aristotle defines it as the mean between stubborn anger and that. negativeness of character which is incapable of even righteous indignation: according to which it is tantamount to equanimity. Plato opposes it to fierceness or cruelty, and uses it of humanity to the condemned; but also of the conciliatory demeanor of a demagogue seeking popularity and power. Pindar applies it to a king, mild or kind to the citizens, and Herodotus uses it as opposed to anger.
These pre-Christian meanings of the word exhibit two general characteristics. 1. They express outward conduct merely. 2. They contemplate relations to men only. The Christian word, on the contrary, describes an inward quality, and that as related primarily to God. The equanimity, mildness, kindness, represented by the classical word, are founded in self-control or in natural disposition. The Christian meekness is based on humility, which is not a natural quality but an outgrowth of a renewed nature. To the pagan the word often implied condescension, to the Christian it implies submission.
The Christian quality in its manifestation, reveals all that was best in the heathen virtue — mildness, gentleness, equanimity — but these manifestations toward men are emphasized as outgrowths of a spiritual relation to God. The mildness or kindness of Plato or Pindar imply no sense of inferiority in those who exhibit them; sometimes the contrary. Plato’s demagogue is kindly from self-interest and as a means to tyranny. Pindar’s king is condescendingly kind. The meekness of the Christian springs from a sense of the inferiority of the creature to the Creator, and especially of the sinful creature to the holy God. While, therefore, the pagan quality is redolent of self-assertion, the Christian quality carries the flavor of self-abasement. As toward God, therefore, meekness accepts his dealings without murmur or resistance as absolutely good and wise.
As toward man, it accepts opposition, insult, and provocation, as God’s permitted ministers of a chastening demanded by the infirmity and corruption of sin; while, under this sense of his own sinfulness, the meek bears patiently “the contradiction of sinners against himself,” forgiving and restoring the erring in a spirit of meekness, considering himself, lest he also be tempted (see Gal. 6:1–5). The ideas of forgiveness and restoration nowhere attach to the classical word. They belong exclusively to Christian meekness, which thus shows itself allied to love. As ascribed by our Lord to himself, see on Matt. 11:29. Wyc. renders “Blessed be mild men.”
6. Shall be filled (χορτασθήσονται). A very strong and graphic word, originally applied to the feeding and fattening of animals in a stall. In Apoc. 19:21, it is used of the filling of the birds with the flesh of God’s enemies. Also of the multitudes fed with the loaves and fishes (Matt. 14:20; Mark 8:8; Luke 9:17). It is manifestly appropriate here as expressing the complete satisfaction of spiritual hunger and thirst. Hence Wycliffe’s rendering, fulfilled, is strictly true to the original.
7. The merciful. See on Luke 1:50.
9. The peacemakers (οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί). Should be held to its literal meaning, peace-makers; not as Wyc., peaceable men. The founders and promoters of peace are meant; who not only keep the peace, but seek to bring men into harmony with each other. Tynd. renders, the maintainers of peace.[4]
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
In Psalm 55 David cries out, “Oh, that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest. Behold, I would wander far away, I would lodge in the wilderness. I would hasten to my place of refuge from the stormy wind and tempest” (vv. 6–8).
Such a cry comes from the lips of almost everyone at some time or another. David echoes the cry of humanity-a cry for release, a cry for freedom, a cry for escape from things that weigh heavy on us. When we face great sorrow, disappointment, tragedy, or failure, we wish that we could escape the trouble like we escape a thunderstorm by running inside. But comfort from the troubles of life is much harder to find than shelter from rain. The deeper the sorrow, the harder the pressure, the worse the despair, the more elusive comfort seems to be.
As pointed out in the previous chapter, all of the Beatitudes are paradoxical, because what they promise for what they demand seems incongruous and upside down in the eyes of the natural man. The paradox of the second beatitude is obvious. What could be more self-contradictory than the idea that the sad are happy, that the path to happiness is sadness, that the way to rejoicing is in mourning?
In the routine of ordinary, day-by-day living, the idea seems absurd. The whole structure of most human living-whether by the primitive or sophisticated, the wealthy or the poor, the educated or the uneducated-is based on the seemingly incontrovertible principle that the way to happiness is having things go your own way. Pleasure brings happiness, money brings happiness, entertainment brings happiness, fame and praise bring happiness, self-expression brings happiness. On the negative side, avoiding pain, trouble, disappointment, frustration, hardships, and other problems brings happiness. Sidestepping those things is necessary before the other things can bring full happiness. Throughout history a basic axiom of the world has been that favorable things bring happiness, whereas unfavorable things bring unhappiness. The principle seems so self-evident that most people would not bother to debate it.
But Jesus said, “Happy are the sad.” He even went so far as to say, “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25)-the converse beatitude of Matthew 5:4. Jesus turned the world’s principles exactly upside down. He reversed the path to happiness.
To discover what Jesus meant, and did not mean, in this beatitude we will look at the meaning of mourning as it is used here, the result of mourning, the way to mourn as Jesus teaches, and the way to know if we are truly mourning.
the meaning of mourning
Certain kinds of sorrow are common to all mankind, experienced by believer and unbeliever alike. Some of these sorrows are normal and legitimate, sorrows which concern the Lord and for which He knows our need. Others are abnormal and illegitimate, brought about solely because of sinful passions and objectives.
Improper Mourning
Improper mourning is the sorrow of those who are frustrated in fulfilling evil plans and lusts, or who have misguided loyalties and affection. To those who mourn in that way the Lord offers no help or solace.
David’s son “Amnon was so frustrated because of his sister Tamar that he made himself ill, for she was a virgin, and it seemed hard to Amnon to do anything to her” (2 Sam. 13:2). Amnon’s grief was caused by incestuous, unfulfilled lust.
Others carry legitimate sorrow to illegitimate extremes. When a person grieves so hard and so long over the loss of a loved one that he cannot function normally, his grief becomes sinful and destructive. Such depressing sorrow is usually related to guilt, essentially selfish, and, for a Christian, is a mark of unfaithfulness and lack of trust in God.
David grieved that way, in part to try to atone for his guilt. When the rebellious Absalom, another of David’s sons, was killed, his father went into inconsolable mourning (2 Sam. 18:33—19:4). Joab finally rebuked the king, saying, “Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who today have saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters, the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, by loving those who hate you, and by hating those who love you. For you have shown today that princes and servants are nothing to you; for I know this day that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased” (19:5–6). The wickedly ambitious Absalom had raised a rebel army, driven the king-his own father-out of Jerusalem, and taken over the palace.
David’s love for his son was understandable, but his judgment had been perverted. Probably because of his great feeling of guilt for having been such a poor father, and because he knew that Absalom’s tragedy was part of the judgment God sent because of David’s adulterous and murderous affair with Bathsheba, the king’s mourning over Absalom was abnormal. The judgment that came on Absalom was entirely deserved.
Proper Mourning
There are also, of course, other kinds of sorrow, legitimate sorrows that are common to all mankind and for which reasonable mourning is appropriate. To express these sorrows and to cry over them opens an escape valve that keeps our feelings from festering and poisoning our emotions and our whole life. It provides the way for healing, just as washing out a wound helps prevent infection.
An Arab proverb says, “All sunshine makes a desert.” The trouble-free life is likely to be a shallow life. We often learn more and mature more from times of sorrow than from times when everything is going well. A familiar poem by Robert Browning Hamilton expresses the truth:
I walked a mile with Pleasure,
She chattered all the way,
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.
I walked a mile with Sorrow,
And ne’er a word said she,
But, oh, the things I learned from her
When Sorrow walked with me.
(Cited in William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew [rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster. 1975], 1:94)
Sarah’s death caused Abraham to mourn (Gen. 23:2). But the “father of the faithful” did not weep from lack of faith but for the loss his beloved wife, which he had every right to do.
Loneliness for God, from whom he felt separated for a time, caused the psalmist to declare, “As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants for Thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; when shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been my food day and night, while they say to me all day long, ‘Where is your God?”’ (Ps. 42:1–3).
Defeat and discouragement caused Timothy to mourn, leading Paul, his spiritual father, to write, “I thank God, whom I serve with a clear conscience the way my forefathers did, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy” (2 Tim. 1:3–4).
Anguished concern about the sins of Israel and God’s coming judgment on His people caused Jeremiah to mourn. “Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears,” he cried, “that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (Jer. 9:1).
Concern for the spiritual welfare of the Ephesian believers had caused Paul to mourn. “Night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears,” he said (Acts 20:31). Because of their great love for him the elders from the Ephesus church later mourned for Paul as he prayed with them on the beach near Miletus, “grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more” (v. 38).
The earnest love of a father caused him to be grief-stricken over his demon-possessed son, even as he brought him to Jesus for healing. No doubt tears ran down the man’s face as He implored Jesus to help, confessing “I do believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
Repentant, worshipful devotion caused a woman to mourn over her sins as she went into the Pharisee’s house and washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. To the proud host who resented her contaminating his house and interrupting his dinner party, Jesus said, “I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Luke 7:47).
Immeasurable divine love caused our Lord to weep at the death of Lazarus (John 11:35) and over the sinning people of Jerusalem, whom He wanted to gather into His care as a mother hen gathers her chicks (Matt. 23:37).
Godly Mourning
The mourning about which Jesus is talking in the second beatitude, however, has nothing to do with the types just discussed, proper or improper. The Lord is concerned about all of the legitimate sorrows of His children, and He promises to console, comfort, and strengthen us when we turn to Him for help. But those are not the kind of sorrow at issue here. Jesus is speaking of godly sorrow, godly mourning, mourning that only those who sincerely desire to belong to Him or who already belong to Him can experience.
Paul speaks of this sorrow in his second letter to Corinth. “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you” (2 Cor. 7:10–11). The only sorrow that brings spiritual life and growth is godly sorrow, sorrow over sin that leads to repentance. Godly sorrow is linked to repentance, and repentance is linked to sin.
As the first beatitude makes clear, entrance into the kingdom of heaven begins with being “poor in spirit,” with recognition of total spiritual bankruptcy. The only way any person can come to Jesus Christ is empty-handed, totally destitute and pleading for God’s mercy and grace. Without a sense of spiritual poverty no one can enter the kingdom. And when we enter the kingdom we should never lose that sense, knowing “that nothing good dwells in [us], that is, in [our] flesh” (Rom. 7:18).
Spiritual poverty leads to godly sorrow; the poor in spirit become those who mourn. After his great sin involving Bathsheba and Uriah, David repented and expressed his godly sorrow in Psalm 51: “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Thy sight” (vv. 3–4). Job was a model believer, “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil” (Job. 1:1). Yet he still had something to learn about God’s greatness and his own unworthiness, about God’s infinite wisdom and his own very imperfect understanding. Only after God allowed everything dear to Job to be taken away and then lectured His servant on His sovereignty and His majesty, did Job finally come to the place of godly sorrow, of repenting of and mourning over his sin. He confessed, “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees Thee; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes” (42:5–6). God loves and honors a morally righteous life, but it is no substitute for a humble and contrite heart, which God loves and honors even more (Isa. 66:2).
As seen in the discussion of the first beatitude, makarios (blessed) means to be happy, blissful. That happiness is a divine pronouncement, the assured benefit of those who meet the conditions God requires.
The condition of the second beatitude is mourning: blessed are those who mourn. Nine different Greek words are used in the New Testament to speak of sorrow, reflecting its commonness in man’s life. It is woven into the cloth of the human situation. The story of history is the story of tears. And before the earth’s situation gets better it will get worse. Jesus tells us that before He comes again, “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs” (Matt. 24:7–8). Until the Lord returns, history is destined to go from tragedy to greater tragedy, from sorrow to still greater sorrow.
Of the nine terms used for sorrow, the one used here (pentheō, mourn) is the strongest, the most severe. It represents the deepest, most heart-felt grief, and was generally reserved for grieving over the death of a loved one. It is used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) for Jacob’s grief when he thought his son Joseph was killed by a wild animal (Gen. 37:34). It is used of the disciples’ mourning for Jesus before they knew He was raised from the dead (Mark 16:10). It is used of the mourning of world business leaders over the death of its commerce because of the destruction of the world system during the Tribulation (Rev. 18:11, 15).
The word carries the idea of deep inner agony, which may or may not be expressed by outward weeping, wailing, or lament. When David stopped hiding his sin and began mourning over it and confessing it (Ps. 32:3–5), he could declare, “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit!” (vv. 1–2).
Happiness, or blessedness, does not come in the mourning itself. Happiness comes with what God does in response to it, with the forgiveness that such mourning brings. Godly mourning brings God’s forgiveness, which brings God’s happiness. Mourning is not merely a psychological or emotional experience that makes people feel better. It is a communion with the living, loving God who responds to the mourner with an objective reality-the reality of divine forgiveness!
David experienced and expressed many kinds of common human sorrow, both proper and improper. He mourned over being lonely, over being rejected, over being discouraged and disappointed, and over losing an infant child. He also mourned inordinately over the death of Absalom, whom God had removed to protect Israel and the messianic throne of David. But nothing broke the heart of David like his own sin. No anguish was as deep as the anguish he felt when he finally saw the awfulness of his offenses against the Lord. That is when David became happy, when he became truly sad over his transgressions.
The world says, “Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag, and smile, smile, smile.” Hide your problems and pretend to be happy. The same philosophy is applied to sin. But Jesus says, “Confess your sins, and mourn, mourn, mourn.” When we do that, our smiles can be genuine, because our happiness will be genuine. Godly mourning brings godly happiness, which no amount of human effort or optimistic pretense, no amount of positive thinking or possibility thinking, can produce.
Only mourners over sin are happy because only mourners over sin have their sins forgiven. Sin and happiness are totally incompatible. Where one exists, the other cannot. Until sin is forgiven and removed, happiness is locked out. Mourning over sin brings forgiveness of sin, and forgiveness of sin brings a freedom and a joy that cannot be experienced in any other way.
“Draw near to God and He will draw near to you,” James tells us. “Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you” (James 4:8–10).
There is great need in the church today to cry instead of laugh. The frivolity, silliness, and foolishness that go on in the name of Christianity should themselves make us mourn. God’s counsel to the frivolous happy, the self-satisfied happy, the indulgent happy is: “Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into gloom.”
The faithful child of God is constantly broken over his sinfulness, and the longer he lives and the more mature he becomes in the Lord, the harder it is for him to be frivolous. He sees more of God’s love and mercy, but he also sees more of his own and the world’s sinfulness. To grow in grace is also to grow in awareness of sin. Speaking to Israel, the prophet Isaiah said, “In that day the Lord God of hosts called you to weeping, to wailing, to shaving the head, and to wearing sackcloth. Instead, there is gaiety and gladness, killing of cattle and slaughtering of sheep, eating of meat and drinking of wine.” Following the world’s philosophy, which still prevails today, God’s ancient people said, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die” (Isa. 22:12–13).
We follow that philosophy vicariously, if not actually, when we laugh at the world’s crude and immoral jokes even though we do not retell them, when we are entertained by a sin even though we do not indulge in it, when we smile at ungodly talk even though we do not repeat the words. To joke about divorce, to make light of brutality, to be intrigued by sexual immorality is to rejoice when we should be mourning, to be laughing when we should be crying. To “rejoice in the perversity of evil” is placed alongside “delight in doing evil” (Prov. 2:14). To take “pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thess. 2:12) is to be a part of the wickedness, whether or not we commit the specific sin.
Much of the church today has a defective sense of sin, which is reflected in this defective sense of humor. When even its own members make the church the butt of jokes, make light of its beliefs and ordinances, caricature its leaders as inept and clownish, and make its high standards of purity and righteousness the subject of humorous commentary, the church has great need to turn its laughter into mourning.
The Bible recognizes a proper sense of humor, humor that is not at the expense of God’s name, God’s Word, God’s church, or any person, except perhaps ourselves. God knows that “a joyful heart is good medicine” (Prov. 17:22), but a heart that rejoices in sin is taking poison, not medicine. The way to happiness is not in ignoring sin, much less in making light of it, but rather in sorrow over it that cries to God.
We can react to our spiritual bankruptcy in one of several ways. Like the Pharisees we can deny our spiritual destitution and pretend we are spiritually rich. Or, like monastics and advocates of moral rearmament, we can admit our condition and try to change it in our own power and by our own efforts. Or we can admit our condition and then despair over it to such a degree that we try to drown it in drink, escape it by drugs or by activity, or give up completely and commit suicide, as Judas did. Because they can find no answer in themselves or in the world, these people conclude that there is no answer. Or, like the prodigal son, we can admit our condition, mourn over it, and turn to the heavenly Father to remedy our poverty (see Luke 15:11–32).
Mourning over sin is not being engulfed in despair. Even the person who has been severely disciplined by the church should be forgiven, comforted, and loved, “lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7–8). Nor is godly mourning wallowing in self-pity and false humility, which are really badges of pride.
True mourning over sin does not focus on ourselves, not even on our sin. It focuses on God, who alone can forgive and remove our sin. It is an attitude that begins when we enter the kingdom and lasts as long as we are on earth. It is the attitude of Romans 7. Contrary to some popular interpretation, Paul is not here speaking simply about his former condition. The problems of chapter 7 were not one-time experiences that were completely replaced by the victories of chapter 8. The apostle clearly says, “For that which I am doing I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (7:15). Here he uses the present tense, as he does throughout the rest of the chapter: “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; … for the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish” (vv. 18–19); “I find then the principle that evil is present in me” (v. 21); “Wretched man that I am! … So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin” (vv. 24–25).
Paul wrote those words at the height of his ministry. Yet righteousness and sin were still fighting a battle in his life. As he acknowledges in verse 25, the way of victory is “through Jesus Christ our Lord,” but the rest of the verse makes clear that, at that time, the victory was not yet complete. He knew where the victory was, and he had tasted the victory many times. But he knew that, in this life, it is never a permanent victory. The presence of the flesh sees to that. Permanent victory is assured to us now, but it is not given to us now.
Paul not only spoke of the creation anxiously longing for restoration, but of his own longing for complete restoration. “And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the: Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:19, 22–23). Paul was tired of sin, tired of fighting it in himself, as well as in the church and in the world. He longed for relief. “For indeed in this house we groan,” he said, “longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven.” He greatly preferred “rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:2, 8).
The mark of the mature life is not sinlessness, which is reserved for heaven, but growing awareness of sinfulness. “If we say that we have no sin,” John warns, “we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–9). The subjects of God’s kingdom-the forgiven ones, the children of God and joint heirs with the Son-are characterized by continual confession of sin.
Several years ago a college student said to me, “I’ve been liberated. Someone explained to me the true meaning of 1 John 1:9, and now I realize that I no longer have to confess my sins.” I asked him, “Well, do you still confess your sins?” “I just told you that I don’t have to anymore,” he replied. “I know you did,” I said, “but do you still confess your sins?” When he replied, “Yes, that’s what bothers me,” I stopped being bothered. I said, “I’m very glad to hear that,” and then told him that I knew that, despite the false teaching to which he had been exposed, he was a genuine Christian. His redeemed nature refused to go along with the false teaching his mind had temporarily accepted.
Penthountes (mourn) is a present participle, indicating continuous action. In other words, those who are continually mourning are those who will be continually comforted. In his ninety-five theses Martin Luther said that the Christian’s entire life is a continuous act of repentance and contrition. In his psalms David cried out, “For my iniquities are gone over my head; as a heavy burden they weigh too much for me” (38:4) and, “I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me” (51:3).
There is no record in the New Testament of Jesus laughing. We are told of His weeping, His anger, His hunger and thirst, and many other human emotions and characteristics. But if He laughed, we do not know of it. We do know that, as Isaiah predicted, He was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). Yet today we often hear of another Jesus, who laughs and cajoles and draws people into the kingdom by His nonjudgmental spirit and His winsome way. The fun-loving, escapist world of comedians is found plying its trade even in the church-and finding ready acceptance.
The Result of Mourning
The result of godly mourning is comfort: they shall be comforted. That is why they are blessed. It is not the mourning that blesses, but the comfort God gives to those who mourn in a godly way.
The emphatic pronoun autos (they) indicates that only those who mourn over sin will be comforted. The blessing of God’s comfort is reserved exclusively for the contrite of heart. It is only those who mourn for sin who will have their tears wiped away by the loving hand of Jesus Christ.
Comforted is from parakaleō the same word that, as a noun, is rendered Comforter, or Helper, in John 14:16, where we are told that Jesus was the first Helper, and the Holy Spirit is “another Helper.”
The Old Testament also speaks of God comforting those who mourn. Isaiah tells of the Messiah’s coming, among other things, “to comfort all who mourn, to grant those who mourn in Zion, giving them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning” (Isa. 61:2–3). David was comforted by the rod and staff of his divine Shepherd (Ps. 23:4).
As our mourning rises to the throne of God, His unsurpassed and matchless comfort descends from Him by Christ to us. Ours is the “God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3), who is always ready to meet our need, admonishing, sympathizing, encouraging, and strengthening. God is a God of comfort, Christ is a Christ of comfort, and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of comfort. As believers we have the comfort of the entire Trinity!
Shall be does not refer to the end of our lives or the end of the age. Like all other blessings of God, it will be completed only when we see our Lord face-to-face. In the eternal heavenly state God “shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain” (Rev. 21:4).
But the comfort of Matthew 5:4 is future only in the sense that the blessing comes after the obedience; the comfort comes after the mourning. As we continually mourn over our sin, we shall be continually comforted-now, in this present life. God is not only the God of future comfort but of present comfort. “God our Father” already has “given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace” (2 Thess. 2:16).
Even God’s written Word is a present comforter, given for our encouragement and hope (Rom. 15:4). And as God Himself gives us comfort and His Word gives us comfort, we are called to comfort each other with the promises of His Word (1 Thess. 4:18; cf. 2 Cor. 1:6; 7:13; 13:11; etc.).
Happiness comes to sad people because their godly sadness leads to God’s comfort. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden,” Jesus says, “and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). He will lift the burden from those who mourn over sin, and He will give rest to those who are weary of sin. As often as we confess our sin, He is faithful to forgive, and for as long as we mourn over sin He is faithful to comfort.
How to Mourn
What does true mourning over sin involve? How can we become godly mourners?
Eliminate Hindrances
The first step requires removing the hindrances that keep us from mourning, the things that make us content with ourselves, that make us resist God’s Spirit and question His Word, and that harden our hearts. A stony heart does not mourn. It is insensitive to God, and His plow of grace cannot break it up. It only stores up wrath till the day of wrath.
Love of sin is the primary hindrance to mourning. Holding on to sin will freeze and petrify a heart. Despair hinders mourning because despair is giving up on God, refusing to believe that He can save and help. Despair is putting ourselves outside God’s grace. Of such people Jeremiah writes, “They will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart’ ” (Jer. 18:12). The one who despairs believes he is destined to sin. Because he believes God has given up on him, he gives up on God. Despair excuses sin by choosing to believe that there is no choice. Despair hides God’s mercy behind a self-made cloud of doubt.
Another hindrance is conceit, which tries to hide the sin itself, choosing to believe that there is nothing over which to mourn. It is the spiritual counterpart of a doctor treating a cancer as if it were a cold. If it was necessary for Jesus Christ to shed His blood on the cross to save us from our sin, our sin must be great indeed!
Presumption hinders mourning because it is really a form of pride. It recognizes the need for grace, but not much grace. It is satisfied with cheap grace, expecting God to forgive little because it sees little to be forgiven. Sins are bad, but not bad enough to be confessed, repented of, and forsaken. Yet the Lord declared through Isaiah, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isa. 55:7). No pardon is offered to the unrepentant, presumptuous person who refuses to forsake his sin. The gospel that teaches otherwise has always been popular, as it clearly is in our own day; but it is a false gospel, “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6), a distortion and contradiction of the gospel of Scripture.
Procrastination hinders godly mourning simply by putting it off. It says, “One of these days, when things are just right, I’ll take a hard look at my sins, confess them, and ask God’s forgiveness and cleansing.” But procrastination is foolish and dangerous, because we “do not know what [our] life will be like tomorrow. [We] are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14). The sooner the disease of sin is dealt with the sooner comfort will come. If it is not dealt with, we have no assurance that comfort will ever come, because we have no assurance we will have time to confess it later.
The most important step we can take in getting rid of hindrances to mourning, whatever they are, is to look at the holiness of God and the great sacrifice of sin-bearing at the cross. If seeing Christ die for our sins does not thaw a cold heart or break up a hardened heart, it is beyond melting or breaking. In her poem “Good Friday,” Christina Rossetti gives these moving lines:
Am I a stone and not a sheep,
That I can stand, O Christ, beneath Thy cross,
To number drop by drop Thy Blood’s slow loss
And yet not weep?
Not so those women loved
Who with exceeding grief lamented Thee;
Not so fallen Peter weeping bitterly;
Not so the thief was moved;
Not so the Sun and Moon
Which hid their faces in a starless sky.
A horror of great darkness at broad noon-
I, only I.
Yet give not oe’r
But seek Thy sheep, true Shepherd of the flock;
Greater than Moses, turn and look once more
And smite a rock.
Study God’s Word
The second step toward godly mourning is to study sin in Scripture, to learn what an evil and repulsive thing it is to God and what a destructive and damning thing it is to us. We should learn from David to keep our sin ever before us (Ps. 51:3) and from Isaiah to say, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5). We should learn from Peter to say, “I am a sinful man” (Luke 5:8) and from Paul to confess that we are the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). As we hear those great men of God talking about their sin, we are forced to face the reality and the depth of our own.
Sin tramples on God’s laws, makes light of His love, grieves His Spirit, spurns His forgiveness and blessing, and in every way resists His grace. Sin makes us weak and makes us impure. It robs us of comfort and, much more importantly, robs God of glory.
Pray
The third step toward godly mourning is to pray for contriteness of heart, which only God can give and which He never refuses to give those who ask. It must always be recognized that humility depends on the working of the Lord. The way to godly mourning lies not in pre-salvation human works, but in God’s saving grace.
How to Know if We Are Mourning as Christ Commands
Knowing whether or not we have godly mourning is not difficult. First, we need to ask ourselves if we are sensitive to sin. If we laugh at it, take it lightly, or enjoy it, we can be sure we are not mourning over it and are outside the sphere of God’s blessing.
The mock righteousness of hypocrites who make every effort to appear holy on the outside (see Matt. 6:1–18) has no sensitivity to sin, only sensitivity to personal prestige and reputation. Nor does the mock gratitude of those who thank God they are better than other people (Luke 18:11). Saul regretted that he had disobeyed God by not slaying King Agag and by sparing the best of the Amalekite animals. But he was not repentant; he did not mourn over his sin. He instead tried to excuse his actions by claiming that the animals were spared so that they could be sacrificed to God and that the people made him do what he did. He twice admitted that he had sinned, and even asked Samuel for pardon. But his real concern was not for the Lord’s honor but for his own. “I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel” (1 Sam. 15:30). Saul had ungodly regret, not godly mourning.
The godly mourner will have true sorrow for his sins. His first concern is for the harm his sin does to God’s glory, not the harm its exposure might bring to his own reputation or welfare.
If our mourning is godly we will grieve for the sins of fellow believers and for the sins of the world. We will cry with the psalmist, “My eyes shed streams of water, because they do not keep Thy law” (Ps. 119:136). We will wish with Jeremiah that our heads were fountains of water that we could have enough tears for weeping (Jer. 9:1; cf. Lam. 1:16). With Ezekiel we will search out faithful believers “who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed” around us (Ezek. 9:4; cf. Ps. 69:9). We will look out over the community where we live and weep, as Jesus looked out over Jerusalem and wept (Luke 19:41).
The second way to determine if we have genuine mourning over sin is to check our sense of God’s forgiveness. Have we experienced the release and freedom of knowing our sins are forgiven? Do we have His peace and joy in our life? Can we point to true happiness He has given in response to our mourning? Do we have the divine comfort He promises to those who have forgiven, cleansed, and purified lives?
The godly mourners “who sow in tears shall reap with joyful shouting. He who goes to and fro weeping, carrying his bag of seed, shall indeed come again with a shout of joy, bringing his sheaves with him” (Ps. 126:5–6).[5]
Matthew 5
The Beatitudes (5:1–12)
The three chapters which begin with these verses deserve the special attention of all readers of the Bible. They contain what is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount.
Every word of the Lord Jesus ought to be most precious to professing Christians. It is the voice of the chief Shepherd; it is the charge of the great Bishop and head of the church; it is the Master speaking; it is the word of the one who spoke in a way no one else ever spoke (John 7:46), and we shall all be judged by him on the last day.
Do we want to know what kind of people Christians ought to be? Do we want to know the character at which Christians ought to aim ? Do we want to know the outer way of life and inner habit of mind which suit a follower of Christ? Then let us often study the Sermon on the Mount. Let us often ponder each sentence, and test ourselves by it. Not least, let us often consider which people are called “blessed” at the beginning of the Sermon. Those the great High Priest blesses are blessed indeed!
1. The Poor in Spirit
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who are poor in spirit (verse 3). He means the humble, and lowly-minded, and self-abased; he means those who are deeply convinced of their own sinfulness in God’s sight: these are people who are not “wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight” (Isaiah 5:21). They are not “rich” and have not “acquired wealth”; they do not fancy they “do not need a thing”; they regard themselves as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Revelation 3:17). Blessed are all such! Humility is the very first letter in the alphabet of Christianity. We must begin low, if we want to build high.
2. Those Who Mourn
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who mourn (verse 4). He means those who sorrow for sin, and grieve daily over their own shortcomings. These people are more concerned about sin than about anything on earth: the remembrance of it is grievous to them; the burden of it is intolerable. Blessed are all such! “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit” and a contrite heart (Psalm 51:17). One day they will weep no more: “they will be comforted.”
3. The Meek
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who are meek (verse 5). He means those who are of a patient and contented spirit. They are willing to put up with little honor here below; they can bear injuries without resentment; they are not ready to take offense. Like Lazarus in the parable, they are content to wait for their good things (Luke 16:20). Blessed are all such! They are never losers in the long run. One day they will “reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:10).
4. Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (verse 6). He means those who desire above all things to be entirely conformed to the mind of God. They long not so much to be rich, or wealthy, or learned, as to be holy. Blessed are all such! They will have enough one day. They will awake and will be satisfied with seeing God’s likeness (Psalm 17:15).
5. The Merciful
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who are merciful (verse 7). He means those who are full of compassion towards others. They pity all who are suffering either from sin or sorrow, and long to make their sufferings less; they are “always doing good” (Acts 9:36). Blessed are all such! Both in this life and in that which is to come they will reap a rich reward.
6. The Pure in Heart
The Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who are pure in heart (verse 8). He means those who do not aim merely at outward correctness, but at inner holiness. They are not satisfied with a mere external show of religion: they strive to have a conscience always without offense, and they seek to serve God with the spirit and the inner being. Blessed are all such! The heart is the person. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). The most spiritually-minded will have most communion with God.
7. The Peacemakers
The Lord Jesus call “blessed” those who are peacemakers (verse 9). He means those who use all their influence to promote peace and love on earth, in private and in public, at home and abroad. He means those who strive to make all people love one another, by teaching the Gospel which says, “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Blessed are all such! They are doing the very work which the Son of God began when he came to earth the first time, and which he will finish when he returns the second time.
8. Those Who are Persecuted for Righteousness’ Sake
Lastly, the Lord Jesus calls “blessed” those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake (verse 10). He means those who are laughed at, mocked, despised and badly treated because they endeavor to live as true Christians. Blessed are all such! They drink of the same cup which their Master drank. They are now confessing him before men, and he will confess them before his Father and the angels on the last day. Great is their reward (verse 12).
These are the eight foundation stones which the Lord lays down at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. Eight great testing truths are placed before us. May we mark well each one of them, and learn wisdom.
Let us learn how the principles of Christ are entirely contrary to the principles of the world. It is vain to deny it: they are almost diametrically opposed. The very characters which the Lord Jesus praises the world despises; the very pride, and thoughtlessness, and high tempers, and worldliness, and selfishness, and formality, and unlovingness, which abound everywhere, the Lord Jesus condemns.
Let us learn how the teaching of Christ is sadly different from the practice of many professing Christians. Where shall we find men and women among those who go to churches and chapels, who are striving to live up to the pattern we have read of today? There is too much reason to fear that many baptized people are utterly ignorant of what the New Testament commands.
Above all, let us learn how holy and spiritually minded all believers should be. They should never aim at any standard lower than that of the Sermon on the Mount. Christianity is eminently a practical religion: sound doctrine is its root and foundation, but holy living should always be its fruit; and if we want to know what holy living is, let us often think about who Jesus calls “blessed.”[6]
Matthew 5:1-12
1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
For bibliography and a history of interpretation through the mid-seventies, see W. S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975). A wealth of background material appears in W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964).
The best detailed exegesis is that of R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco: Word, 1982). The two best popular expositions are J. R. W. Stott, 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978), and D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); also cf. D. S. Dockery and D. E. Garland, Seeking the Kingdom: The Sermon on the Mount Made Practical for Today (Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1992). A classic series of evangelical sermons appears in printed form as D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959).[7]
2. Paradigmatic Preaching: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)
a. Introduction (5:1–16)
(1) Setting (5:1–2)
(2) Kingdom Blessings (5:3–12)
(3) Salt and Light (5:13–16)
b. Thesis: Greater Righteousness (5:17–48)
(1) Statement (5:17–20)
(2) Illustrations (5:21–48)
(a) On Murder (5:21–26)
(b) On Adultery (5:27–30)
(c) On Divorce (5:31–32)
(d) On Oaths (5:33–37)
(e) On Retaliation (5:38–42)
(f) On Loving Enemies (5:43–48)
c. True versus Hypocritical Piety (6:1–18)
(1) Heading (6:1)
(2) Almsgiving (6:2–4)
(3) Prayer (6:5–15)
(4) Fasting (6:16–18)
d. Wealth and Worry: Money versus Real Riches (6:19–34)
(1) Two Masters (6:19–24)
(2) The Futility of Worry (6:25–34)
e. How to Treat Others (7:1–12)
(1) On Judging Others (7:1–6)
(2) God’s Generosity (7:7–11)
(3) The Golden Rule (7:12)
f. Conclusion: Only Two Ways (7:13–27)
(1) The Narrow versus the Wide Gate/Road (7:13–14)
(2) Good versus Bad Fruit (7:15–23)
(3) Wise versus Foolish Builders (7:24–27)
g. Response (7:28–29)
2. Paradigmatic Preaching: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)
Perhaps no other religious discourse in the history of humanity has attracted the attention which has been devoted to the Sermon on the Mount. Philosophers and activists from many non-Christian perspectives who have refused to worship Jesus nevertheless have admired his ethic. In the twentieth century, Mohandas Gandhi was the sermon’s most famous non-Christian devotee. The literature on the sermon is vast. One recent survey has itemized thirty-six different interpretations. Only eight of the most significant and influential approaches can be listed here.
1. Since at least medieval times, many have seen two levels of ethics in Jesus’ teaching, with the sermon reflecting the stricter requirements for those who would pursue a higher level of righteousness, as, e.g., among clergy and monastic orders.
2. In Luther’s widely influential approach, the sermon functions as the law does for Paul—God’s impossible moral demands disclose the depths of our sinfulness and drive us to our knees in repentance.
3. Many Anabaptists applied the sermon’s ethics in an extremely literal fashion to the civil sphere and endorsed full-fledged pacifism.
4. Protestant liberals have seen the sermon as a paradigm for the social gospel and a call to the church to usher in the kingdom of God on earth (a view also adopted in secular form by Karl Marx).
5. Existentialists have rejected taking any of the sermon’s ethics as absolute but view them rather as a profound challenge to personal decisions to live in the consciousness of human finitude and divine encounter.
6. Albert Schweitzer’s interim ethic also relativized the sermon by finding in it a unique urgency that remained only as long as the first disciples, like Jesus, mistakenly believed that he would return in their lifetime.
7. Dispensationalism has classically limited the sermon’s ethic to the future millennial kingdom which Jesus offered to the Jews but which they rejected so that it was postponed until after his second coming.
All of these approaches contain elements of truth, but none seems fully satisfactory. Nothing in the sermon suggests that Jesus’ commands are limited only to a certain group of his followers. They are in fact expressly addressed to all “disciples” (v. 1), those who have already repented and are seeking further instruction. Commands for disciples are not self-evidently limited to personal relationships nor clearly applicable to governments. Questions of pacifism versus just war or of the extent of church/ state interaction are legitimate but not directly addressed. Nor does anything in the sermon suggest that Jesus’ commands here are more or less absolute than any of the rest of his ethic, or that his teaching can be restricted either to present norms or future possibilities. The type of society requiring commands against murder, adultery, divorce, and so on can hardly be described as millennial, but that does not mean that Jesus’ vision is fully realizable in this age. Finally, it is impossible to separate Jesus’ ethic from allegiance to his person, as Marx and Gandhi tried, or to find any consistent form of application if one follows pure existentialism.
8. Inaugurated eschatology thus seems most in keeping with Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom more generally. Inaugurated eschatology recognizes an “already/not yet” tension in which the sermon’s ethic remains the ideal or goal for all Christians in every age but which will never be fully realized until the consummation of the kingdom at Christ’s return.
We can expect the Spirit to empower us to make substantial strides in obedience, even as we recognize that our sinfulness will prevent us from ever coming close to attaining God’s standards. The metaphors of salt and light in 5:13–16, moreover, suggest that Jesus is first of all addressing the community of his followers, rather than the individual or the state, so that the church should comprise the primary arena of their application. The sermon thus forms the manifesto by which the new community Jesus is forming should live. But the church must try to permeate society with these ideals, albeit in a persuasive rather than coercive fashion.
The Sermon on the Mount is very carefully structured. The nine Beatitudes (5:3–12) and the salt and light metaphors (5:13–16) form the sermon’s introduction. Matthew 5:17–20 provides the thesis statement of the greater righteousness required of Jesus’ disciples. Matthew 5:21–48 contrasts Jesus’ teaching with the law by means of six antitheses. Matthew 6:1–18 contrasts true and hypocritical piety by means of three examples. Matthew 6:19–34 turns to social issues, with various commands regarding money and true riches. Matthew 7:1–12 gives three further commands on how to treat others. Matthew 7:13–27 concludes the sermon with three illustrations of the only two possible responses to Jesus’ message.
Form and redaction criticism have regularly viewed this arrangement of material, like that of the other four major discourses of Jesus in Matthew, as a composite product, a collection of shorter sayings of Jesus from various original contexts. The parallels in Luke, which are much briefer and scattered about his Gospel, seem to support this view. It is consonant with ancient practice and was endorsed already in Reformation times by John Calvin. But 7:28 seems to suggest that Matthew believed Jesus spoke the sermon on one particular occasion. Such a sermon in fact would have had to have been far longer than the few brief minutes it would take to read Matt 5–7 aloud. Much ancient writing excerpted and epitomized longer materials, and a detailed study of Jesus’ final discourse in Matthew (chaps. 24–25) suggests that this is precisely the approach the Gospel writers have adopted there. A similar process may therefore have led to the Sermon on the Mount as we know it. After all, Luke arranges much of his material thematically, and many of the shorter sayings common to Matthew and Luke could well have been repeated by Jesus on many different occasions.
Jesus seems to have delivered this sermon after a considerable amount of ministry in Galilee (4:23–25). Events that actually appear later in Matthew may already have occurred, most notably Jesus’ gathering all twelve of his disciples (cf. Luke 6:12–16). If Matthew and Luke are both excerpting from longer originals, there is no reason not to see Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (6:17–49) as comprising teaching Jesus gave on this same occasion.
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them, saying:
a. Introduction (5:1–16).
(1) Setting (5:1–2).5:1–2 The reference to the crowds in v. 1 calls to mind the crowds of 4:25, but 4:23–25 is a more general summary of major portions of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. Matthew 5:1 refers to a specific occasion, so we must not assume the crowds are identical in both passages. Jesus goes up onto a mountainside just as Moses did at Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. Many have seen Matthew’s portrait of Jesus, therefore, as one of a new Moses or new lawgiver. As subsequent exposition will make clear, however, Jesus is not proclaiming a new law but announcing what he believes is the legitimate interpretation of God’s will as contained in the already-existing Torah. The Greek reads literally the mountain, but Matthew uses this expression (to oros; “a mountainside”) elsewhere to refer more generally to the hill country that dominated the skyline surrounding Capernaum (14:23; 15:29). So we cannot determine exactly where Jesus delivered his message.
The traditional site on the northeast shore of Galilee, known as the Mount of Beatitudes, at least gives a good acoustical illustration of how a speaker could address a large crowd on a plateau in the hills overlooking the lakeside and be heard by thousands at once. Luke refers to Jesus’ speaking on a “level place,” but since Jesus has been in the mountains (cf. 6:12 with 6:17), Luke scarcely contradicts Matthew. Both writers envisage a plateau in a hilly area. Sitting was the common posture for teaching. “His disciples” seems to presume that he has already called more than the four described in 4:18–22. Matthew does not give the names of all twelve until 10:2–4, but 10:1 makes clear they had already been called. As noted above, identifying the disciples as Jesus’ audience is crucial for recognizing the ethics of the sermon as applying to those already committed to Jesus as a group of his followers trying to live together in community. But great crowds also form an important part of Jesus’ audience. They too will learn what genuine discipleship involves as they consider the possibility of commitment to Jesus.
(2) Kingdom Blessings (5:3–12). The Beatitudes, as they have traditionally been called from the Latin word for “blessings,” are a common biblical form in both Testaments (e.g., Ps 1:1; Prov 3:13; Dan 12:12; Matt 11:6; Acts 20:35; Rev 1:3). The word “blessed” refers to those who are and/or will be happy, fortunate, or as those who are “to be congratulated” because of God’s response to their behavior or situation.
An important change in tenses separates vv. 3 and 10 from vv. 4–9. In the first and last Beatitudes, Jesus declares God’s kingdom to be present for those who are blessed. In the intervening verses he refers to future consolation. Partial recompense may come in this age, but complete fulfillment of Jesus’ promises often requires waiting for the age to come. Numerous passive voice verbs function as divine passives; e.g., “they will be comforted” means God will comfort them (v. 4). The Beatitudes form an appropriate introduction to Jesus’ sermon as they remind his disciples that God blesses them before he makes demands on them ** (the body of the sermon). The same sequence appeared at Sinai. God redeemed his people from Egypt and reminded them of his blessings before giving them his law.
Matthew records eight blessings followed by a generalizing summary, whereas Luke presents four blessings, the summary, and four parallel woes. Most scholars assume that only those sayings found in both Gospels are authentic and that each Evangelist has created and embellished his sources. But the structure of a collection of blessings and curses in 2 Enoch 52:11–12 along with the recently translated Dead Sea document 4Q525, which also presents a large number of parallel Beatitudes, suggests that both Matthew and Luke might be excerpting from an original set of eight Beatitudes and eight woes.
3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5:3 “Poor in spirit,” as a virtue, must refer not to a poor quality of faith but to the acknowledgment of one’s spiritual powerlessness and bankruptcy apart from Christ (cf. Goodspeed, “Those who feel their spiritual need”). Blessing the spiritually poor provides an important qualification of Luke’s more absolute use of “poor” (Luke 6:20). No contradiction appears here because an important strand of Jewish thought had developed a close equation between poverty and piety in the use of the Hebrew term anawim (as, e.g., in Isa 61:1 [1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted”], which probably underlies this passage). In other words, both Matthew and Luke picture “those who because of sustained economic privation and social distress have confidence only in God.” This interpretation coincides with Paul’s observation in Corinth that most who were becoming Christians came from the poorer classes of society (1 Cor 1:26–29 “26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.” ).
It is consistent with the experience of a majority of Jesus’ own followers who came from the poor am-ha-aretz (“people of the land”), and it fits in with the fact that in many periods of world history including our own, the gospel has spread fastest among those who have had the fewest possessions to stand in the way of whole-hearted commitment to God. As previous discussion of the kingdom showed (see 3:2), part of the church’s mission is to try to improve the socio-economic lot of the poorest of this world. But fallen humanity will never create social utopia; the truth of Rom 8:18 [“18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us”] must remain important consolation for many people.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5:4 “Mourn” remains unqualified and parallels Luke’s “weep” (Luke 6:21). In light of v. 3 and a probable allusion to Isa 61:2–3, however, we should again think of both spiritual and social concerns. Mourning includes grief caused by both personal sin and loss and social evil and oppression. God will comfort now in part and fully in the future. That Christian mourning does not outweigh happiness as the more dominant characteristic of the Christian life remains clear from Matt 9:15.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
5:5 A “meek” person is not the “wallflower” we often think of when we use the word but one who is humble, gentle, and not aggressive. Nevertheless, in the ancient Greco-Roman world, such humility was no more valued than in our world today. Inheriting the earth as future compensation suggests that the meekness in view also included a lack of earthly possessions. Most poor people in Israel did not own their own land and were subject to the whims of oppressive landlords (Jas 5:1–6). The future reward echoes Ps 37:11 but generalizes the promise of inheriting the land of Israel to include all of the earth. Christian hope does not look forward to inhabiting a particular country but to ruling with Christ over all the globe and ultimately to enjoying an entirely re-created earth and heavens (Rev 20–22).
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
5:6 “Hunger and thirst for righteousness” explains Luke’s “hunger” (Luke 6:21). For the poor, “righteousness” would include having their basic needs for food met, but it goes on to include a desire to see God’s standards established and obeyed in every area of life. Again, God promises that his purposes will be accomplished and that his justice will eventually reign (cf. Isa 55:1).
7Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
5:7 “Merciful” embraces the characteristics of being generous, forgiving others, having compassion for the suffering, and providing healing of every kind. The link between our mercy and God’s mercy anticipates 6:12, 14–15. Like vv. 3–6 this Beatitude echoes a key prophetic theme (cf. Mic 6:8). In light of Exod 34:6, mercy may be God’s most fundamental attribute.
8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
5:8 Purity in heart refers to moral uprightness and not just ritual cleanliness. The Pauline theme of the impossibility of perfect purity in this life should not be imported here. Rather, as with “righteousness” in general for Matthew, what Jesus requires of his disciples is a life-style characterized by pleasing God (see comments under 1:18–19). The “pure in heart” exhibit a single-minded devotion to God that stems from the internal cleansing created by following Jesus. Holiness is a prerequisite for entering God’s presence. The pure in heart pass this test, so they will see God and experience intimate fellowship with him. This Beatitude closely parallels Ps 24:3–4.
9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
5:9 As with the “merciful” of v. 7, “peacemakers” focus on interpersonal relationships. Those who work for shālôm (wholeness and harmony rather than strife and discord in all aspects of life) and who reconcile others to God and each other will “be called sons of God.” Others will identify them as God’s true ambassadors, as those who are being conformed to his likeness. Matthew 10:34 reminds us that such attempts at peacemaking in this age are often thwarted, but this gives us no excuse to become warmongers.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5:10 All of these characteristics which Jesus labels as blessed are usually not welcomed in the world at large. Hostility may well arise against Jesus’ followers, but even persecuted people are seen by Christ as fortunate. This persecution, however, must be the result of righteous living and not due to individual sin or tactlessness (cf. 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14–15). What is even more tragic is when one Christian persecutes another, allegedly “because of righteousness,” when the persecution actually stems from too narrow a definition of Christian belief or behavior.
11“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
5:11–12 These verses repeat, amplify, and personalize v. 10 by shifting from third-person to second-person address. “Falsely” is missing from a few of the earliest manuscripts (most notably D, the Latin and Syriac versions) but probably belongs in the original text and is in any event a correct interpretation. “Because of me” provides another key qualification. As in v. 10, the only persecution that is blessed is that which stems from allegiance to Jesus and living in conformity with his standards. Because this life is just a fraction of all eternity, we can and must rejoice even in persecution. The joy commanded here, as elsewhere in Scripture (esp. Jas 1:2), is not an emotion but an attitude.
“Reward” (more literally wages) is more a promise of “future recompense for a present condition of persecution and reproach” than a reward for piety. There is no comparison here between those with a lesser reward and a greater reward. So the reward should be thought of as heaven itself and not some particular status in the life to come. Jesus offers a poignant reminder that the great men and women of Old Testament times often suffered a similar fate. The prophet Jeremiah provides the classic example. The same is true of Christian history. When we suffer, we must avoid the trap of thinking that we are the only ones who have ever experienced such problems.
The upshot of the Beatitudes is a complete inversion of the attitude popularly known in our culture as “machismo.” In fact, this attitude is not limited to a particular culture but characterizes humanity’s self-centered, self-arrogating pride which invariably seeks personal security and survival above the good of others. We are enabled to invert these natural, worldly values only when we recognize that God will in turn invert our marginalized status and grant eternal compensation. This is not to promote works-righteousness; Jesus is addressing those already professing discipleship (5:1). But, like James among the Epistles, Matthew is the one Gospel to emphasize most the changed life that must flow from commitment to Christ.[8]
Introduction
The Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5–7) is the first and lengthiest of the five Matthean discourses. It presents the first and main example of the ethical teaching of Jesus. The righteousness of the kingdom of God (cf. 6:33) expounded in the sermon is presented as being in continuity with the righteousness of the OT law (5:17–19), yet also as surpassing it (cf. the antitheses of 5:21–48). The evangelist’s placement of this first discourse toward the beginning of the Gospel indicates he attached importance to this material. Indeed, the content of the sermon would have had special relevance for the Jewish-Christian readers of the Gospel.
The “sermon” is clearly a compilation of the sayings of Jesus by the evangelist, rather than something spoken by Jesus on a single occasion. The parallel material in Luke (hence, Q material) is found at different places. Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” (Luke 6:17–49) does contain parallels to Matt 5:1–12, 38–48 and 7:1–5, 12, 16–21, 24–27. But other material is sprinkled throughout Luke (cf. 5:13 in Luke 14:34–35; 5:14 in Luke 11:33; 5:18 in Luke 16:17; 5:25–26 in Luke 12:57–59; 5:31–32 in Luke 16:18; 6:9–13 in Luke 11:2–4; 6:19–21 in Luke 12:33–34; 6:21–23 in Luke 11:34–36; 6:24 in Luke 16:13; 6:25–34 in Luke 12:22–32; 7:7–11 in Luke 11:9–13; 7:13–14 in Luke 13:23–24; and 7:22–23 in Luke 13:25–27).
The contents of the sermon are as a whole fundamentally Jewish (cf. Friedländer; Montefiore), while at some points they admittedly go beyond what is typically Jewish teaching and reflect the originality of Jesus (e.g., 5:39–42, 44; 7:12, which puts in positive form what Judaism expressed negatively).
Much debated has been the question of the practicability of the sermon at a number of points. Do we have here an interim ethic, applicable only during the (short) interval between the first coming of Christ and his imminent return (thus Schweizer), or is the ethic for the long haul of what we call the church age, a description of “ordinary” Christian discipleship? Do the radical demands of the sermon point only to the level of personal ethics, or do they intend a social dimension as well? Does the sermon represent a “realistic utopianism” (Lapide), or is the sermon an invitation to asceticism (Derrett)? Is the idealism of the sermon mainly intended to demonstrate the need of grace and hence to drive us to the gospel (the “Lutheran” view)? Does the sermon present in reality a salvation by works, or does it presuppose a framework of grace? These issues deserve fuller discussion than can be given here (see Davies and Allison, SJT 44 [1991] 283–309, and esp. Kissinger on the history of interpretation of the sermon).
We assume the perspective that the sermon describes the ethics of the kingdom, thus explaining its idealism. An adequate understanding of the sermon is thus hardly possible apart from the context of the Gospel and the proclamation of the good news of the now dawning kingdom of God. The grace of God is fundamental to all, as the beatitudes that preface the sermon clearly show. (For a defense of the sermon as an integral part of the Gospel, against the argument of Betz [Sermon], see Stanton [“Origin”].) The righteousness described here is to be the goal of the Christian in this life, although it will only be attained fully in the eschaton [?] proper. It is primarily an ethics concerning the individual, but it is not without implications for social ethics (see Strecker, Sermon). The radical nature of the sermon must not be lost in a privatization of its ethics. Some of the practical issues will receive discussion in the commentary as we proceed.
The structure of Matthew’s sermon is not easy to discern. A variety of proposals has been made. Jeremias (Sermon), for example, proposed that 5:3–19 was the introduction; 5:20 the “theme” of the sermon; and that this was followed by the discussion of three types of righteousness: that of the scribes, 5:21–48; that of the Pharisees, 6:1–18; and that of the disciples, 6:19–7:27. Grundmann, on the other hand, attempted to structure the sermon in relation to the Lord’s Prayer, which is at the center of the sermon. The beatitudes and 5:13–16 correspond to “Thy kingdom come” and “Hallowed be thy name,” while 5:17–48 correspond to “Thy will be done.” The material following the sermon he then understood to correspond to the remaining petitions. Thus, 6:19–34 relates to “our daily bread,” 7:1–5 to “forgive us our debts,” and 7:13–27 to “deliver us from evil.” In an influential article (NTS 24 [1978] 419–32), Bornkamm modified this hypothesis, focusing on the material following the Lord’s Prayer, with the following resultant analysis: the first three petitions of the prayer correspond to 6:19–24; the fourth petition to 6:25–34; the fifth petition to 7:1–5; and the sixth and seventh petitions to 7:6. Bornkamm is followed by Guelich (Sermon, 324–25) and to a lesser extent by Lambrecht (155–64). See too K. Syreeni’s discussion (168–84).
At least a few things seem clear: 5:3–16 constitute a kind of introduction; 5:17–7:12 the body of the sermon, with the reference to “the law and the prophets” in 7:12 serving as an inclusion corresponding to 5:17; and 7:13–27 the admonitory conclusion of the sermon. The Lord’s Prayer does indeed stand at the approximate center of the sermon, and its content is related generally to some of the themes in the material that follows, though it seems doubtful that deliberate structural correspondence is intended. To a considerable extent, the sermon consists of an arbitrary gathering of ethical materials available to the evangelist. This is not to deny, however, the presence of considerable and impressive structure in the individual components that make up the whole.
As one possible outline, the following may be suggested:
I. Introduction (5:3–16)
A. The Foundation of Righteous Living: The Beatitudes (5:3–12)
B. The Essence of Discipleship: Salt and Light (5:13–16)
II. The Main Body of the Sermon (5:17–7:12)
A. The Relation between the Old and the New Righteousness (5:17–48)
1. Continuity with the Old (5:17–20)
2. The Surpassing of the Old: The Six Antitheses (5:21–48)
B. Outward vs. Inward Righteousness (6:1–18)
1. Almsgiving (6:1–4)
2. Prayer and the Lord’s Prayer (6:5–15)
3. Fasting (6:16–18)
C. Dependence upon God (6:19–34)
1. Serving God Rather Than Wealth (6:19–24)
2. The Disciple and Anxiety (6:25–34)
D. Various Teachings and the Golden Rule (7:1–12)
III. Conclusion ( Matthew 7:13–27 )
A. The Two Ways (7:13–14)
B. The False and the Genuine (7:15–23)
1. Warning concerning False Prophets (7:15–20)
2. The Insufficiency of the Charismata (7:21–23)
C. The Parable of the Two Builders (7:24–27)
Comment
1 In two other places Jesus goes up to “the mountain” (14:23, to pray; 15:29, where he “sat down” and healed multitudes). Mountains in Matthew are clearly places where special events occur (4:8, the mountain of temptation; 17:1, the mountain of the transfiguration; 28:16, the mountain of the resurrection appearance and the great commission; see Donaldson). In 8:1 Jesus goes down from the mountain, as he does from the mount of transfiguration in 17:9. The setting of the Olivet discourse in 24:3 is very similar to the present passage: Jesus sits down, his disciples come to him (but κατʼ ἰδίαν, “privately”), and he begins to teach them (24:3). Since Matthew emphasizes mountains in special narratives usually having to do with revelation, τὸ ὄρος, “the mountain,” here functions as a literary device. Matthew may well have in mind the parallel of Moses going up to Mount Sinai to receive the law (Exod 19–20; 34; cf. ˒Abot 1:1; Pirqe R. El. 46; see too Matt 23:2). Donaldson (111–18) links the mountain with a Zion eschatology background, providing the scene for the Messiah’s renewal of Torah for his eschatological people. For a discussion of a possible location for an original sermon (i.e., containing elements or the nucleus of the present sermon), see C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels (Tr. R. Walls; New York: Herder & Herder, 1963) 204–13.
Jesus went to the mountain apparently in the hope of escaping the crowds who pressed upon him to be healed (cf. 4:23–25). But this was to be a special time of teaching for his disciples, who “came to him.” προσῆλθαν, a favorite verb of Matthew in this connection, has cultic connotations and itself points to the messianic character of Jesus (see J. R. Edwards). It was customary in Judaism for the rabbi to teach from a seated position. Thus Jesus sat down (καθίσαντος αὐτοῦ) before he began to teach (cf. 13:2; 24:3). Jesus, somewhat like a new Moses, goes up to the mount to mediate the true interpretation of the Torah.
2 The phrase ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, “he opened his mouth,” is a Semitic idiom used at the beginning of a public address (see Black for the OT background; cf. Acts 8:35; 10:34). ἐδίδασκεν is an inceptive imperfect, “he began to teach.”
Explanation
The evangelist carefully sets the stage for the first and most impressive of the five discourses that he will present. There is probably a deliberate attempt on the evangelist’s part to liken Jesus to Moses, especially insofar as he is about to present the definitive interpretation of Torah, just as Moses, according to the Pharisees, had given the interpretation of Torah on Sinai to be handed on orally.
The evangelist, however, does not press the Moses typology. For him, Jesus is far more than a new Moses, and his teaching is not to be construed as a new law. Indeed, Jesus can teach as he does because of His unique identity as the Messiah, the Son of God. His teaching alone, and not that contained in the Pharisaic oral tradition, penetrates to the full meaning of God’s commandments. Thus Jesus majestically assumes his authority as teacher and begins in a definitive manner to expound the way of righteousness to his disciples.[9] **
Comment
3 Although the word μακάριοι, which appears as the first word in each of the nine beatitudes, occurs in Hellenist literature, where it describes those of good fortune, the true background to the NT use of the word is in the OT (Zimmerli finds forty-six instances in the Hebrew canon). The LXX often uses the word as a translation of אַשְׁרֵי (deeply “happy, blessed”). The word is of course especially appropriate in the NT in such contexts as the present one, where it describes the nearly incomprehensible happiness of those who participate in the kingdom announced by Jesus. Rather than happiness in its mundane sense, it refers to the deep inner joy of those who have long awaited the salvation promised by God and who now begin to experience its fulfillment. The μακάριοι are the deeply or supremely happy.
οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, lit. “the poor in spirit,” the subject of the first beatitude, refers to the frame of mind characteristic of the literally poor. Thus, by the added “in spirit,” Matthew or the tradition before him has not “spiritualized” the Lukan (and probably original) form of the beatitude (so too Guelich, Sermon). He too means the literally poor, but he focuses on their psychological condition or frame of mind. The poor are almost always poor in spirit; the poor in spirit are almost always the poor (cf. Broer [71], who notes that the two phrases were synonymous in the Judaism of Jesus’ time). In Israel, especially in the post-exilic period, poverty and piety often went together, the poor (Luz refers to the “déclassé”) having no other recourse than their hope in God. The poor were driven to complete reliance upon God, and the righteous poor were thought especially to be the objects of God’s special concern (cf. Pss 9:18; 33[34]:18; 40:18; Isa 57:15; Jas 2:5). The poor were particularly in view in expressions of eschatological hope. In a passage alluded to in Matt 11:5, Isaiah (61:1) writes:
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted [poor]; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. Psalms 33:18
This passage is almost certainly the basis for the present beatitude. The good news that has now come to the poor is that the kingdom is “theirs” (αὐτῶν is in an emphatic position). Thus this opening beatitude points to eschatological fulfillment (cf. the citation of Isa 61:1–2 and the beginning of Jesus’ Galilean ministry in Luke 4:18–19). The exact expression “poor in spirit” (ענוי רוח, ˓nwy rwḥ) is found in the War Scroll from Qumran (1QM 14:7), where the community describes itself, the “sons of light,” as those who are poor in spirit. Although membership in the community entailed a voluntary poverty, this reference indicates how the literally poor were identified as the righteous. Zimmerli (19) finds the equivalent concept in the combination of passages in Isaiah referring to the poor (Isa 61:1) and the contrite in spirit (Isa 57:15; 66:2).
On “kingdom of heaven,” see Comment on 3:2. [“The perfect tense here results in the nuance “having drawn near and remaining near.” ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, “the kingdom of heaven,” is a Jewish circumlocution for ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, “the kingdom of God,” to avoid unnecessary use of the word “God” (cf. Mark 11:30–31; Luke 15:18, 21). Matthew favors the phrase (thirty-three occurrences), and it is used only by him in the NT (but he can on occasion also use “kingdom of God”; cf. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). There is no difference between the two expressions (cf., for example, 19:23–24). The phrase means “God’s reign,” i.e., his sovereign rule with the concomitant [“exiting or occurring together; from the Latin meaning to accompany”] blessings now about to be experienced by humanity (see G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974]). That which God had promised from the earliest days, which reached its fullest expression in the prophets’ glowing description of a golden age of blessing, is now on the verge of being realized and experienced, at least to a degree, by those whose preparedness of mind and heart make them receptive to the message [10]] **
It is important to note that the present tense is used, ἐστίν, “is theirs,” rather than the future tense. Because Jesus is present, the kingdom is already present, already theirs despite contradictory appearances (cf. too v 10b). There is, however, at the same time an awareness of an eschatology that is future, hence the future tenses, especially “they will inherit the earth” (v 5), “they will see God” (v 8), and the future orientation of “great is your reward in heaven” (v 12). F. Hauck thus rightly calls the beatitudes “sacred paradoxes” (TDNT 4:368) in that they point both to present and to future blessedness.
4 In the second beatitude we have an even more striking allusion to the words of Isa 61. In the LXX of Isa 61:2, the one anointed by the Spirit says he has come παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας, “to comfort all those who mourn.” Here the key word (πενθοῦντας) is exactly the same as in the beatitude. Thus again we find the eschatological expectation of the downtrodden and poor, those who suffer. The rabbis accordingly referred to the Messiah as the “Comforter” (Mĕnaḥēm) because of his mission in the messianic age (cf. Str-B 1:195). Those who mourn do so because of the seeming slowness of God’s justice. But they are now to rejoice, even in their troubled circumstances, because their salvation has found its beginning. The time draws near when they shall be comforted (cf. Rev. 7:17; 21:4), but they are already to be happy in the knowledge that the kingdom has arrived. Their salvation is at hand. The verb παρακληθήσονται is a so-called divine passive, which assumes God as the acting subject (so too in the fourth, fifth, and seventh beatitudes).
5 The third beatitude is practically a quotation of the LXX of Ps 36[37]:11: οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν, “the meek will inherit the earth.” The Hebrew word underlying πραεῖς is עֲנָוִים, ˓ănāwîm, the same word that occurs in Isa 61:1, which the LXX there translates πτωχοί, “poor.” Therefore we have approximately the same thought here as in the first beatitude. In view are not persons who are submissive, mild, and unassertive, but those who are humble in the sense of being oppressed (hence, “have been humbled”), bent over by the injustice of the ungodly, but who are soon to realize their reward. Those in such a condition have no recourse but to depend upon God. The Qumran community revered Ps 37 and saw themselves as those about to experience the vindication that would come with messianic fulfillment (4QpPs 37). The “earth” (τὴν γῆν) originally referred to the land of Israel, i.e., what was promised to the Jews beginning with the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen 13:15). But in the present context of messianic fulfillment it connotes the regenerated earth (19:28; cf. Rom 4:13, where κόσμος, “world,” replaces γῆ), promised by the eschatological passages in the prophets (e.g., Isa 65–66). This beatitude stands in parallel with the assertion of the first beatitude that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit. It is possible, though we cannot be certain, that the third beatitude originally followed the first in synonymous parallelism and that the evangelist broke the couplet by inserting the beatitude concerning those who mourn, in order to follow the lead of Isa 61:1–2 (thus Guelich, Sermon, 82). See Form/Structure/Setting §E, above. It should be noted that the LXX of Isa 61:7 also contains the words κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν, “they will inherit the land (earth).”
6 In keeping with the preceding, the fourth beatitude names the literally hungry and thirsty, i.e., the downtrodden and oppressed, who especially hunger and thirst after the justice associated with the coming of God’s eschatological rule. There is, then, no significant difference between the Matthean and Lukan versions of the beatitude, despite the additional words καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “and thirst for justice,” in Matthew. That δικαιοσύνη here means “justice” rather than “personal righteousness” is clear from the context. The poor, the grieving, and the downtrodden (i.e., those who have experienced injustice) are by definition those who long for God to act. They are the righteous who will inherit the kingdom. Yet this interpretation does not altogether exclude the sense of δικαιοσύνη as personal righteousness. The justice of God’s eschatological rule presupposes the δικαιοσύνη of those who enjoy its blessings (cf. 2 Pet 3:13). Thus, albeit to a slight degree, this verse may anticipate the stress on δικαιοσύνη in v 20 and 6:33. This beatitude seems to reflect the language of Ps 107 (LXX: 106), where, after a reference to the hungry and thirsty (v 5), the psalmist writes, “Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress” (v 6), and then a few verses later continues, “For he satisfies the thirsty and the hungry he fills with good things” (v 9), where the LXX contains the same verb χορτάζειν, “to fill,” as in Matthew. This is the language of messianic fulfillment: he has filled the hungry soul with good things (cf. Luke 1:53). It is the language of those who at long last have been “redeemed from trouble” (cf. Ps 107:2; for a similar sense of “thirsting” for salvation, cf. Pss 42:1–3; 63:1). In the first instance it is God’s righteousness that satisfies (cf. the “divine passive”) these hungry and thirsty souls (cf. John 6:35; Rev 7:16–17). (On “righteousness” in Matthew, see Comment on 3:15.)
7 The fifth beatitude marks a new emphasis in the beatitudes. Whereas the first four find their focus primarily in a state of mind or an attitude (and imply conduct only secondarily), this beatitude refers to the happiness of those who act, namely , those who are merciful toward others. This beatitude again has strong biblical overtones. Prov 14:21b reads ἐλεῶν δὲ πτωχοὺς μακαριστός, “blessed is the one who has mercy on the poor” (cf. Prov 17:5c, a phrase only in the LXX text: ὁ δὲ ἐπισπλαγχνιζόμενος ἐλεηθήσεται, “the one who has compassion will be shown mercy”). Showing mercy to the needy became a key element in rabbinic ethics (see b. Šabb 151b; t B. Qam. 9.30[366]; cf. Str-B 1:203–5 and the excursus in 4:559–610). For the importance of mercy to Matthew’s presentation of the Christian ethic, cf. 9:13; 12:7; 23:23. What the poor and oppressed have not received from the rich and powerful, they should nevertheless show others. The point is analogous to that made somewhat differently in 18:33; there a servant who had been forgiven a great debt refused to have mercy on his debtor, whereupon his master said, “Should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” Implicit in this beatitude is the judgment upon the wicked oppressors, i.e., the ones who have not shown mercy: to them mercy will not be shown (cf. Jas 2:13).
8 The sixth beatitude bears strong similarity to the thought of Ps 24[LXX: 23]:3–4, where the LXX refers, as does the present text, to the καθαρὸς τῇ καρδία, “the pure in heart” (cf. Pss 51:10; 73:1; linked here with “guiltless hands”), who will go up to the mountain of the Lord and stand in his holy place. “Pure in heart” refers to the condition of the inner core of a person, that is, to thoughts and motivation, and hence anticipates the internalizing of the commandments by Jesus in the material that follows in the sermon. It takes for granted right actions but asks for integrity in the doing of those actions, i.e., a consistency between the inner springs of one’s conduct and the conduct itself. Another way of putting this is in terms of “single-mindedness” (cf. Jas 4:8, where it is the “double-minded” who are exhorted to “purify [their] hearts”). Purity of heart and purity of conscience are closely related in the pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim 1:5; 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3; 2:22; cf. 1 Pet 1:22). The reference to seeing God in the present passage is again eschatological in tone. In contrast to the strong OT statement that no one can see the face of God and live (e.g., Exod 33:20), the righteous in the eschatological age will experience the beatific vision; they will see the face of God (cf. too Rev 22:4). Although one might have expected in the second clause something more in line with the first, such as “for they will be granted peace,” Matthew describes the greatest possible eschatological reward, one that by its nature includes all else. This beatitude is the most difficult to relate to the others. Perhaps it is meant to indicate that even for the downtrodden and oppressed, for those to whom the good news of the kingdom comes, an inner purity is also required and is not something that can be presupposed.
9 The substantive εἰρηνοποιοί, “peacemakers,” of the seventh beatitude occurs only here in the NT (the verb of the same stem occurs in Col 1:20). In the context of the beatitudes, the point would seem to be directed against the Zealots, the Jewish revolutionaries who hoped through violence to bring the kingdom of God. Such means would have been a continual temptation for the downtrodden and oppressed who longed for the kingdom. The Zealots by their militarism hoped furthermore to demonstrate that they were the loyal “sons of God.” But Jesus announces the kingdom entirely apart from human effort and indicates that the status of υἱοὶ θεοῦ, “children of God” (cf. Rom 9:26), belongs on the contrary to those who live peaceably. It is the peacemakers who will be called the “children of God.” Later in the present chapter, Jesus will teach the remarkable ethic of the love of even one’s enemies (vv 43–48). This stress on peace becomes a common motif in the NT (cf. Rom 14:19; Heb 12:14; Jas 3:18; 1 Pet 3:11).
10–12 The paradoxes of the beatitudes reach a climax in the eighth and ninth beatitudes, in which not simply the poor and oppressed are declared to be happy, but also those who experience active persecution precisely for their righteousness. Here ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, “on account of righteousness,” points to the character of the recipients of the kingdom as it has hitherto been described in the beatitudes. That is, their loyalty to God and his call upon their lives become in turn the cause of their further suffering. To be identified with Jesus and the kingdom is to be in “the way of righteousness” (cf. 21:32); hence ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, “on account of righteousness,” finds its counterpart in the ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, “on account of me” (cf. 10:22), of the following verse. (See further in Comment on 3:15.)
The theme of persecution is particularly important in Matthew, very probably reflecting the situation of the community for whom the Gospel was written. As they experienced persecution, especially from their Jewish brethren, they needed to know what Jesus had said about it, how to regard it and how to endure it (cf. the perfect tense of the participle δεδιωγμένοι). Hence we have the present verse and the following two verses, all unique to Matthew, which encourage the readers not to be alarmed by the experience of persecution. We may note how 1 Pet 4:12–14 (cf. 3:14) makes use of the same underlying material used by Matthew. We find similar motifs in Matt 5:44, where the readers are told to pray even for their persecutors, and 10:23, where they are told to flee. All of these passages are found only in Matthew.
V 10 could well be the closing beatitude of the collection used by Matthew, since it rounds out the collection by an inclusio, i.e., concluding with the same ending as in the first beatitude: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (cf. v 3). The poor and the persecuted, precisely the most unlikely candidates, are proclaimed the happy or blessed ones who receive the kingdom.
The ninth beatitude, vv 11–12, is in effect an elaboration of the preceding beatitude. Its original independence from the preceding collection of eight is indicated not only by its different form but also by the use of the second person pronoun rather than the third. Matthew probably received it in the form in which it stands and added it to the collection he had received from another source. Added now to persecution are “reproach” (cf. 27:44, where Christ is reproached) and the speaking of “all evil concerning you.” This is exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from Jewish opponents, first toward the disciples, and then later toward the Jewish-Christian readers. It is obvious, whether the word ψευδόμενοι (“lying”) is authentic or not (see Note h* above), that the persecutors do not speak the truth. What they say is motivated by hatred (cf. Luke 6:22). Luke here has the more Semitic expression “cast out your name as evil.”
The opening words of v 12 serve as a parenthetic expansion of μακάριοι in v 11. The happiness referred to in the beatitudes is nothing other than a deep and exuberant joy. The evangelist heightens the paradox with the redundant χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, “rejoice and be glad,” which can only be seen as exceptionally remarkable in connection with persecution (the same verbs are joined in Rev 19:7). These words are followed by the delayed ὅτι clause, giving the reason for such joy: “great is your reward [μισθός] in heaven.” It is self-evident that, in any persecution context, the reward spoken of must lie in the future, which is the meaning of ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “in heaven.” That holds true here, too, but it is confidence about the future that can and should produce joy in the present in full contradiction of the present, painful circumstances. The kingdom is already theirs, hence the appropriateness of the happy rejoicing in advance of the consummation. If this is a reward for their faithfulness under testing, it is also a reward that stems primarily not from their merit but from the grace of God, who gives the kingdom both in the present and the future. The idea of μισθός, “reward,” is much more important in Matthew (ten occurrences; cf. 6:1–16; 10:41–42) than in any other Gospel. Despite its importance, the actual content of the reward is left vague. The concept of reward is important even when the word is not used, as for example in Matthew 25:31–46, where the content is described generally as inheriting “the kingdom” and entering into “eternal life.” (Cf. too passages with the verb ἀποδιδόναι; see Comment on 6:4.)
The suffering of the righteous at the hands of persecutors is nothing new in the history of God’s dealings with Israel, as the evangelist reminds his readers. It is an honored tradition they stand in when they suffer persecution. τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν, “the prophets before you,” should not be taken narrowly to mean only the literary or canonical prophets, but broadly as referring to all God’s earlier spokespersons (cf. 2 Chr 36:16; Matt 23:35). This motif is important to Matthew as the unique material in 23:31 also shows; it is found also in Acts 7:52 and Jas 5:10.
Explanation
The beatitudes are a bold, even daring, affirmation of the supreme happiness of the recipients of the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. They are thus based upon—their truth depends upon—the fulfillment brought by Jesus and already stressed by the evangelist. Indeed, it is a part of this fulfillment that the good news comes to the poor and oppressed, the grieving and humbled, those who hunger so much for the revelation of God’s justice. A turning point has been reached. The time is at hand, and these needy people, so dependent upon God, will now have their needs met. For this reason they are pronounced happy, blessed. The reality of the kingdom causes this new, unexpected joy. And that kingdom sets these people upon the way of righteousness, peacemaking, and inner purity.
What must be stressed here, however, is that the kingdom is presupposed as something given by God. The kingdom is declared as a reality apart from any human achievement. Thus the beatitudes are, above all, predicated upon the experience of the grace of God. The recipients are just that, those who receive the good news. Because they are the poor and oppressed, they make no claim upon God for their achievements. They do not merit God’s kingdom; they but await his mercy. This emphasis on God’s mercy is essential at the beginning of Jesus’ teaching, especially at the beginning of the present discourse with its description of the righteousness of the kingdom, which has all too often been taken as involving a new nomism. But here, as throughout God’s dealings with humanity, grace precedes requirements. It is true that the beatitudes contain implied ethical exhortations (becoming more explicit in the case of the fifth and seventh beatitudes). Indeed, the traits of those who are proclaimed “happy” could well be taken as a description of the behavior of Jesus himself. Yet this ethical side of the beatitudes remains distinctly subordinate to the indicative aspect that is directly related to the announcement of the kingdom.
These declarations of happiness are to some extent a manifestation of realized eschatology. The remarkable tension throughout is, of course, caused by the temporary delay of the final consummation. In this interim period those who may appear to enjoy anything but the favor of God are paradoxically pronounced blessed. In their present condition, and even as they experience intense persecution, they are already accounted as supremely happy. Salvation has begun; their time has come, and this assurance of the future is meant to transform their present existence.[11]
Matthew 5
Jesus Gives the Beatitudes—Matthew 5:1-12 / 49
Matthew 5–7 is called the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus gave it on a hillside near Capernaum. This “sermon” probably covered several days of preaching. In it, Jesus revealed his attitude toward the law of Moses, explaining that he requires faithful and sincere obedience, not ceremonial religion. The Sermon on the Mount challenged the teachings of the proud and legalistic religious leaders of the day. It called people back to the messages of the Old Testament prophets who, like Jesus, had taught that God wants heartfelt obedience, not mere legalistic observance of laws and rituals.
The most well-known and provocative portion of the Sermon on the Mount is known as the Beatitudes (5:3-10). These are a series of blessings promised to those who exhibit the attributes of God’s kingdom. Over the centuries since Jesus first presented the Beatitudes, many interpretations of them have been offered. There are strengths in each one, and combinations of elements from several can create new interpretations. Five of the main interpretations are as follows:
1. Perfectionist legalism. This view was developed during medieval times and teaches that there are higher standards for “disciples” (clergy and the monastic orders). It teaches that true followers should live on a level of righteousness above normal Christians. However, Jesus’ sermon does not teach two different standards for Christians, and we must not read into the sermon salvation by works.
2. Impossible ideal. Widely accepted after Martin Luther, this view states that the sermon functions like the Old Testament law, forcing people to realize their sinfulness and helplessness and so turn to God. However, Jesus provides enablement to fulfill his requirements, so these demands are not impossible. Scholars also see the use of hyperbole (overstatement to make a point, as in “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” in 5:30) as an accepted teaching method during Jesus’ time to stress moral urgency.
3. Only for Jesus’ disciples. Albert Schweitzer said that this teaching was only for the disciples, who thought that Jesus would return in their lifetime and that the moral demands were not for all time. However, Jesus makes no reference to the end of the world or to his return in this sermon.
4. Kingdom age. Dispensationalism teaches that these laws are for the kingdom age (Millennium) and are only an example for us and our day. Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected it. Thus, the reality was postponed until the Second Coming. However, nothing in Jesus’ teaching ever exempted the disciples then or now from these principles. They are principles for disciples for all ages.
5. Social gospel. Protestant liberals have used the ethics of the sermon as a mandate for the church to usher in the kingdom of God by means of reforming society. However, the teachings of Jesus here cannot be isolated from all his other teachings about himself, evangelism, personal faith, and devotion.
There is another way to understand the sermon in light of a double-pronged interpretation. The kingdom has been inaugurated (beginning), but not yet realized (completion). So there remains a creative tension between the “already” and the “not yet” aspects. Those who obey Jesus now experience, in a partial way, the wonderful benefits he described.
We must not let the promise of future blessing deter us from the radical demands for discipleship that Jesus presented. We must ask what the Beatitudes meant in the Jewish milieu in which Christ delivered them. We must also interpret the phrases in their historical (cultural) and logical (the developing message) contexts.
So then, the Beatitudes
t present a code of ethics for the disciples and a standard of conduct for all believers,
t contrast kingdom values (what is eternal) with worldly values (what is temporary),
t contrast the superficial “faith” of the Pharisees with the real faith that Christ wants, and
t show how the future kingdom will fulfill Old Testament expectations.
Matthew 5:1-2
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying: … (niv) Large crowds were following Jesus—he was the talk of the town, even of the entire province, and everyone wanted to see him. Jesus had already been preaching throughout Galilee (4:12-25). During that preaching mission, Jesus had healed several people: a government official’s son in Cana (John 4:46-54), Peter’s mother-in-law and many others in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-17), a man with leprosy (Matthew 8:1-4), and a paralyzed man also in Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8). (See the Harmony of the Gospels at the end of this commentary.) These events happened prior to this sermon. (Matthew’s Gospel is arranged topically rather than chronologically.) The many miracles that Jesus had performed throughout Galilee accounted for his immense popularity. When people learned of this amazing preacher with healing words and healing power, they sought him out and followed him.
Jesus often presented his teaching up on a mountainside. Jesus did not have access to public address systems or acoustical amphitheaters. So he used what he himself had created—the natural stage of a sloping hill, which were plentiful on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee. The people sat on the slope below him. After Jesus went up, he sat down (a typical teaching position for a rabbi).
Matthew then reported that his disciples came to him, and he began to teach them. Some scholars say that the word “disciples” refers to the crowds, many of whom were Jesus’ followers (and therefore, his disciples). However, others say that this refers specifically to the Twelve, whom Jesus had just chosen (see the Harmony of the Gospels and Mark 3:13-19). Most scholars agree that Jesus gave these teachings primarily to the disciples, but that the crowds were present and listening (see 7:28). Much of what Jesus said referred to the ideas that had been promoted by the religious leaders of the day.
The disciples, the closest associates of this popular man, might easily have been tempted to feel important, proud, and possessive. Being with Jesus gave them not only prestige, but also opportunity for receiving money and power. However, Jesus told them that instead of fame and fortune, they could expect mourning, hunger, and persecution. Jesus also assured his disciples that they would receive rewards—but perhaps not in this life.
Matthew 5:3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (nkjv) The Beatitudes are not multiple choice—pick what you like and leave the rest. We must take them as a whole. The Beatitudes describe how Christ’s followers should live. Each beatitude tells how to be blessed. “Blessed” means more than happiness; it means singularly favored, graciously approved by God. Jesus’ words throughout this sermon seem to contradict each other. According to worldly standards, the types of people whom Jesus described don’t seem to be particularly “blessed.” But God’s way of living usually contradicts the world’s. The Beatitudes don’t promise laughter, pleasure, or earthly prosperity. To Jesus, a person who is “blessed” experiences hope and joy, independent of his or her outward circumstances. The disciples, riding on the wave of Jesus’ popularity, needed to first understand kingdom priorities.
Jesus explained that the poor in spirit are blessed. The poor in spirit realize that they cannot please God on their own. They are “poor” or “bankrupt” inwardly, unable to give anything of value to God and thus must depend on his mercy. Only those who humbly depend on God are admitted into the kingdom of heaven. In this beatitude and in the very last one (5:10) the reward is the same. And in both places the reward is described in the present tense—“theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The intervening beatitudes describe the reward in the future tense. The final consummation of all these rewards, and of the kingdom itself, lies in the future. However, believers can already share in the kingdom (as far as it has been revealed) by living out Jesus’ words. It must be remembered, one is not rewarded for being virtuous; virtue is its own reward.
Acting Strangely
People who want to live for God must be ready to say and do what seems strange to the world. Christians must be willing to give when others take, to love when others hate, to help when others abuse. By putting aside our selfish interests so that we can serve others, we will one day receive everything God has in store for us. To find hope and joy, the deepest form of happiness, we must follow Jesus no matter what the cost.
| The Unbeatitudes |
| We can understand the Beatitudes by looking at them from their opposites. Some, Jesus implied, will not be blessed. Their condition could be described in this way: |
| Wretched are the spiritually self-sufficient, for theirs is the kingdom of hell.Wretched are those who deny the tragedy of their sinfulness, for they will be troubled.Wretched are the self-centered, for they will be empty.Wretched are those who ceaselessly justify themselves, for their efforts will be in vain.Wretched are the merciless, for no mercy will be shown to them.Wretched are those with impure hearts, for they will not see God.Wretched are those who reject peace, for they will earn the title “sons of Satan.”Wretched are the uncommitted for convenience's sake, for their destination is hell. |
Matthew 5:4
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” (nrsv) In another seeming contradiction in terms, Jesus explained that those who mourn are blessed. Jesus reminded his disciples that the prophet Isaiah had promised that the Messiah would “comfort all who mourn” (Isaiah 61:2 niv). Scholars differ on the exact nature of this mourning. Some say that Jesus was referring to the nation of Israel mourning for its sins; others interpret this more personally, explaining that it refers to those who mourn for their own sins or even for personal grief or oppression. Tied with the beatitude in verse 3, this means that humility (realization of one’s unworthiness before God) also requires sorrow for sins. Still other scholars see in the word mourning a picture of God’s people who suffer because of their faith in him.
Whether Jesus’ followers mourn for sin or in suffering, God’s promise is sure—they will be comforted. Only God can take away sorrow for sin; only God can forgive and erase it. Only God can give comfort to those who suffer for his sake because they know their reward in the kingdom. There he will “wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:17 niv). Jesus explained to his disciples that following him would not involve fame, popularity, and wealth. Instead, it could very well mean sorrow, mourning, and suffering. But they would always know that God would be their comfort.
Matthew 5:5
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” (nrsv) The word translated “meek” (praeis) occurs only three other times in the New Testament (Matthew 11:29; 21:5; 1 Peter 3:4). In all three other places, it is translated “gentle.” The meaning conveys humility and trust in God rather than self-centered attitudes. The psalmist, contrasting the destinies of the meek and wicked, wrote, “For evildoers shall be cut off; but those who wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall be no more. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (Psalm 37:9-11 nkjv).
Meek people realize their position before God (5:3) and gladly live it out before their fellow humans. They do not look down on themselves, but they do not think too highly of themselves either. Such people exemplify the Golden Rule. They are not arrogant; they are the opposite of those who seek to gain as much for themselves as possible. Ironically, then, it will not be the arrogant, wealthy, harsh people who get everything. Instead, the meek will inherit the earth. To the Jews, this implied the Promised Land; Jesus used the “earth” to refer to the future inheritance of the kingdom. According to Revelation 21–22, believers will enjoy a new heaven and a new earth. God will one day freely give his true disciples what they did not grasp for themselves on earth.
Matthew 5:6
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” (nrsv) The words “hunger and thirst” picture intense longings that people desire to satisfy—necessities that they cannot live without. The psalmist wrote, “As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (Psalm 42:1-2 nrsv). Those who have an intense longing for righteousness are blessed. What kind of righteousness? Most likely, this refers to personal righteousness—being so filled with God that the person completely does God’s will, without tripping up, sinning, making mistakes, and disappointing God. Righteousness refers to total discipleship and complete obedience. It may also refer to righteousness for the entire world—an end to the sin and evil that fill it. In both cases, God’s promise is sure—they will be filled. He will completely satisfy their spiritual hunger and thirst.
Regarding the longing for personal righteousness, John, one of Jesus’ disciples, later wrote, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2 niv). Regarding the longing for a righteous world, Peter, another of Jesus’ disciples hearing this message, later wrote to persecuted believers: “But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13 niv).
The fourth beatitude bridges the God-centered concerns of the first three and the neighbor-centered focus of the last four. The appetites and satisfaction Jesus promised were directed at both external and internal desires. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness experience that longing in at least three forms:
1. The desire to be righteous—to be forgiven and accepted by God; to be right with God.
2. The desire to do what is right—to do what God commands; imitating and reflecting God’s righteousness.
3. The desire to see right done—to help bring about God’s will in the world.
Starved
Hungry for hamburgers, maybe; hungry for victory on the tennis court, normally; hungry for the love of that special someone, usually … but hungry for righteousness? We don’t hear about that one too often.
We must proceed carefully here. Christians are not to get hungry for self-righteousness. We’re not to be prickly and perfect and proud about our morals. That just feeds the ego.
Christians growing closer to the Lord Jesus want what he wants. When evil happens, they hurt for victims and long for the end of evil’s influence and strength. They want God’s victory over evil to be complete soon—even now. They hunger for the end of trouble, for the full measure of God’s peace and righteousness.
Whenever you pray for God’s will to be done, you are getting hungry for righteousness. Pray often, until the little pangs become a passion and your heart becomes centered on what God wants most.
Matthew 5:7
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (niv) Merciful people realize that, because they received mercy from God, they must extend mercy to others. The word “merciful” implies generosity, forgiveness, and compassion, and it includes a desire to remove the wrong as well as alleviate the suffering. Jesus repeated this warning several times in this Gospel (see 6:12, 14-15; 18:21-35). We must be people who show mercy. That they will be shown mercy is not contingent upon how much mercy they showed; it is not that God will be merciful because these people have been merciful. Instead, believers understand true mercy because they have received mercy from God. Also, this promise does not guarantee mercy in return from people. The believers’ comfort comes in the knowledge that, no matter how the world treats them, God will show them mercy both now and when he returns.
Matthew 5:8
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” (nrsv) People characterized as pure in heart are morally pure, honest, and sincere. They are people of integrity and single-minded commitment to God. Moral purity, honesty, and integrity come only through such a commitment. In turn, people committed totally to God will seek to be morally clean. Because of their sincere devotion to Christ, they will see God, here and now through the eyes of faith (Hebrews 11:27), and finally face-to-face (1 John 3:2).
Matthew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (nrsv) Jesus came as “the Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6-7) and gave the ultimate sacrifice to bring peace between God and humanity (Ephesians 2:14-18; Colossians 1:20). God calls his children to be peacemakers. This involves action, not just passive compliance. Peacemakers do more than just live peaceful lives; they actively seek to “make peace,” to cause reconciliation, to end bitterness and strife. This peace is not appeasement but dealing with and solving problems to maintain peace. Arrogant, selfish people do not concern themselves with peacemaking. Peacemakers will be called children of God because they reflect their Father’s character. This has a royal sense—they will share the glories of the Messiah’s kingdom.
Making Peace
How do you resolve conflict? Most people use different means for different settings.
Making peace with your children includes defining the boundaries between right and wrong, enforcing discipline, and affirming each child with love and affection.
t Making peace with friends includes broadening your mind to include the possibility that someone else’s ideas make sense. It means accepting your friend’s explanation at face value and applying the least hurtful meaning to the offensive words you heard. It means taking a step toward trust, away from anger, and onto an unmarked playing field called vulnerability. That’s the risky price of friendship.
t Making peace with your spouse can be the most difficult of all. Sometimes it requires outside help, often a lot of listening, mutual confession, and rebuilding of love that’s been burned. Too often today, the alternative is to quit.
Make peace your aim. Not sloppy acquiescence—the Milque-toast peace of people without backbone or principle. But strong peace—hard won, committed to the other, centered on God, ready for the wear and tear that another day may bring.
Matthew 5:10
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (nkjv) Unfortunately, people who exemplify the characteristics already mentioned, who put others before themselves and who attempt to make peace, will seldom receive applause and honors. Often, they will be persecuted instead. Because they are “righteous,” having oriented their lives around God and his will (see 5:6), they stand out from the world and become marks for enemy attacks. The world is under Satan’s control, and believers belong to the opposing army. Persecution should not surprise Christians. Later, when Peter wrote to persecuted believers, he urged them to be sure that their persecution was truly for righteousness’ sake and not for wrongdoing on their part (1 Peter 4:12-19). The reward for these believers will be the kingdom of heaven. God will make up for the suffering that his children have undergone because of their loyalty to him. The reward here matches the reward in 5:3, rounding out this list of characteristics of those who belong to God.
Ten Steps of Blessing
The order and orientation of the Beatitudes provide several key insights. The Beatitudes begin and end with the promise of the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10). They progress from the point of greatest need (spiritual bankruptcy) to the point of greatest identification with Christ (experiencing rejection for his sake). The first four beatitudes outline a deepening relationship with God; the second four depict the impact of our relations to others. Clearly, the Beatitudes are not stages through which we pass and go on, but responses that we must keep on making. Each day we must utilize our opportunities to show mercy, practice peacemaking, and purify our intentions.
| Key Lessons from the Sermon on the Mount | ||||
| In his longest recorded sermon, Jesus began by describing the traits he was looking for in his followers. He called those who lived out those traits “blessed” because God had something special in store for them. Each beatitude is an almost direct contradiction of society's typical way of life. In the last beatitude, Jesus pointed out that a serious effort to develop these traits would create opposition. Jesus gives us the best example of each trait. If our goal is to become like him, the Beatitudes will challenge the way we live each day. | ||||
| Beatitude | Old Testament anticipation | Clashing worldly values | God's reward | How to develop this attitude |
| Poor in spirit (5:3) | Isaiah 57:15 | Pride and personal independence | Receive kingdom of heaven | James 4:7-10 |
| Mourning (5:4) | Isaiah 61:1-2 | Happiness at any cost | Receive comfort | 2 Corinthians 1:4; James 4:7-10 |
| Meekness (5:5) | Psalm 37:5-11 | Power | Inherit the earth | Matthew 11:27-30 |
| Righteousness (5:6) | Isaiah 11:4-5; 42:1-4 | Pursuit of personal needs | Be filled (satisfied) | John 16:5-11; Philippians 3:7-11 |
| Mercy (5:7) | Psalm 41:1 | Strength without feeling | Be shown mercy | Ephesians 5:1-2 |
| Pure in heart (5:8) | Psalm 24:3-4; 51:10 | Acceptable deception | See God | 1 John 3:1-3 |
| Peacemaker (5:9) | Isaiah 57:18-19; 60:17 | Pursuit of personal peace, unconcern about the world's problems | Be called sons of God | Romans 12:9-21; Hebrews 12:10-11 |
| Persecuted (5:10) | Isaiah 52:13; 53:12 | Weak commitments | Inherit the kingdom of heaven | 2 Timothy 3:12 |
Matthew 5:11
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” (niv) The Beatitudes end at 5:10, despite the word “blessed” at the beginning of this verse. This thought expands on 5:10, that the persecuted are blessed. Up to this point, the beatitudes were spoken in the third person: “Blessed are those.” Here Jesus switched to the second person, focusing his comments directly at his listening disciples. Jesus was telling his disciples that they shouldn’t be surprised when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Jesus would face such treatment. Later he explained to his followers that they should expect nothing different (10:18; 24:9; John 15:20). In 5:10, the persecution is because of righteousness; here it is because of me. To imitate Jesus is to live righteously, and, as explained above, this evil world hates righteous living.
Discipleship means allegiance to the suffering Christ, and it is therefore not at all surprising that Christians should be called upon to suffer. In fact it is a joy and a token of his grace.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Matthew 5:12
“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (nrsv) Jesus clearly described the way the disciples should respond to this kind of treatment: Rejoice and be glad. The word translated “be glad,” agalliasthe (also translated “exult”), refers to deep, spiritual joy (see Luke 1:46-47; Acts 16:34; 1 Peter 4:13). This type of rejoicing is eternal—unhindered and unchanged by what happens in this present life.
How can anyone rejoice when being insulted, persecuted, or slandered? While that would not be the first and most natural response, a person with righteous character can rejoice and be glad because of the promise: Your reward is great in heaven. When God judges the world, the persecution will pale in comparison to the great reward that awaits. The reward is heaven itself. See 16:24-27 and 19:28-30 for more on rewards.
Besides that, the disciples had good company. The Old Testament described many prophets who had come with God’s message and had faced persecution, rejection, and even death (see 21:33-46). Jesus placed his disciples in a long line of God’s followers who lived righteously and spoke truthfully—only to suffer for it. The Jews held the ancient prophets of God in high esteem; to be placed among them was a great honor. Jesus explained that to live and speak for God in the face of unjust persecution, as did the ancient prophets, would bring great reward in heaven.
In Good Company
Jesus said to rejoice when we’re persecuted. There are four reasons that persecution can be good: (1) It can take our eyes off earthly rewards, (2) it can strip away superficial belief, (3) it can strengthen the faith of those who endure, and (4) our attitude through it can serve as an example to others who follow. We can take comfort in knowing that God’s greatest prophets endured persecution (Elijah, Jeremiah, Daniel). Persecution proves that we have been faithful; faithless people would be unnoticed. In the future, God will reward the faithful by receiving them into his eternal kingdom, where there is no more persecution. No matter what you face today, if you remain faithful to Christ, one day you will receive a joyful reward.[12]
A. The True Disciple (Part I): Who He is and His Reward (the Beatitudes), 5:1-12
(5:1-12) Introduction: seldom in history have so few words been spoken with so much meaning. The Beatitudes of our Lord are powerful, holding before the world a descriptive picture of the true disciple of God. The Beatitudes cover the glorious hope and reward the believer can expect, now as well as in eternity.
1. Jesus saw multitudes (v.1-2).
2. The poor in spirit: shall be given the Kingdom of Heaven (v.3).
3. Those who mourn: shall be comforted (v.4).
4. The meek: shall inherit the earth (v.5).
5. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: shall be filled (v.6).
6. The merciful: shall obtain mercy (v.7).
7. The pure in heart: shall see God (v.8).
8. The peacemakers: shall be called the children of God (v.9).
9. The persecuted: shall be given the Kingdom of Heaven (v.10-12).
1. (5:1-2) Compassion: Jesus saw the multitudes. It is to be noted that the Sermon on the Mount was given to the disciples not to the multitudes. "Seeing the multitudes," Jesus was moved with compassion over their desperate plight and need. He knew that He could not reach them by Himself, so He was driven to get alone with His disciples. He had to begin preparing them for their ministry to the multitudes.
(How long was He with His disciples on the mountain? A day? A week? Several weeks? It simply says that "when He had come down from the mountain, multitudes followed Him" (Matthew 8:1).
Thought 1. There are two basic ingredients for reaching the multitudes.
1) Compassion: seeing the multitudes; keeping one's eyes open so people and their needs can be seen.
"But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matthew 9:36).
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old" (Isaiah 63:9).
2) Discipleship: realizing that one cannot accomplish the task alone. Others must be taught to help in the great commission.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19-20).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Thought 2. Preaching and teaching are not to be done only in the church, but wherever people are found—on mountains, by the seashore, in homes, on the streets—any place and every place.
Thought 3. Crowds are important, but a small band of disciples is critical to accomplish the great commission. The mission of the Lord is reaching people, but the method of the Lord is to make disciples. It is giving intensive training to a small group so they can help in the ministry to the multitudes. Making disciples was also the method of Paul (see notes— Matthew 28:19-20).
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19-20).
"Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek....Him would Paul have to go forth with him" (Acts 16:1, 3).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Thought 4. Christian leaders are to call together small bands of disciples for special training and preparation. Matthew says without any explanation that "His disciples came to Him" (Matthew 5:1), but Mark and Luke say that Christ called the disciples together for training and preparation (Mark 3:13; Luke 6:13).
Thought 5. Three things are needed for training and preparation: a place, a time, and a message. The words "He went up...and when He was set" seem to be saying that Jesus had deliberately chosen this place and time for this training. All had been planned; Jesus was personally prepared. (What a lesson too often neglected.)
DEEPER STUDY #1 (5:3) Blessed (makarios)
Thought 1. "To be blessed" is what men seek. The problem is that they seek it in the things of this earth: position, money, fame, power, and sensual pleasure.
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:19-21).
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:17-18).
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:15-16).
Thought 2. Man seeks to be blessed only in this world. This says several things about his nature.
1) Man is carnal and corruptible and he is sinful and dying.
"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:5-8).
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
2) Man is deceived and blinded to his real need, that of a renewed spirit.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
"And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephes. 4:23-24).
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Peter 1:23).
3) Man is ignorant of the Kingdom of Heaven (see Deeper Study #3, Kingdom of Heaven—Matthew 19:23-24).
Þ He is misguided and deceived about it
Þ He is unbelieving about it.
Þ He prefers something else to it.
Þ He is hardened to it.
Þ He is neglectful of it.
Þ He is unconcerned about it.
2. (5:3) Poor in Spirit: to acknowledge spiritual poverty. It is poverty, absolute and abject poverty of spirit. It is being destitute and conspicuously poor in spirit. Note several significant facts about the "poor in spirit."
1. Being poor in spirit does not mean that a man must be poverty-stricken and financially poor. Hunger, nakedness, and slums are not pleasing to God, especially in a world of plenty. Christ is not talking about material poverty. He means what He says: poor in spirit. Being "poor in spirit" means several things.
a. To acknowledge our utter helplessness before God, our spiritual poverty, our spiritual need. We are solely dependent upon God to meet our need.
b. To acknowledge our utter lack in facing life and eternity apart from God. To acknowledge that the real blessings of life and eternity come only from a right relationship with God (see note— Ephes. 1:3; cp. John 10:10; Galatians 5:22-23).
c. To acknowledge our utter lack of superiority before all others and our spiritual deadness before God. To acknowledge that we are no better, no richer, no more superior than the next person—no matter what we have achieved in this world (fame, fortune, power). Our attitude toward others is not proud and haughty, not superior and overbearing. To be "poor in spirit" means acknowledging that every human being is a real person just like everyone else—a person who has a significant contribution to make to society and to the world. The person "poor in spirit" approaches life in humility and appreciation, not as though life owes him, but as though he owes life. He has been given the privilege of living; therefore, he journeys through life with a humble attitude and he contributes all he can to a needy world out of a spirit of appreciation.
2. The opposite of being "poor in spirit" is having a spirit that is full of self. There is a world of difference between these two spirits. There is the difference of thinking that we are righteous versus acknowledging that we need the righteousness of Christ. There is the difference of being self-righteous versus being given the righteousness of Christ. Self-righteousness goes no farther than self; that is, it goes no farther than death. Self dies and everything with self including our self-righteousness. But the righteousness that is of Christ lives forever. (See note— Romans 3:21-22; note 3— Galatians 2:15-16 and Deeper Study #1—Galatians 2:15-16; Deeper Study #2—Galatians 2:16. See outline— Romans 10:6-7 and note— Romans 10:6-7.)
"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference" (Romans 3:21-22).
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).
3. Two critical steps are taken by the person who truly acknowledges his spiritual poverty.
a. He turns his primary attention away from the things of this world. He knows things can never make him rich in spirit.
b. He turns his primary attention to God and His kingdom. He knows God alone can make him rich in spirit (see note— Ephes. 1:3).
4. The "poor in spirit" are weary and burdened for the world. They know the truth of this world and of eternity. Therefore, they have set their face to do their part for both.
a. They are weary of the deceptive appearances and enticements of this world. They have learned that "all is vanity [empty]" and all is corruptible. All waste away, even human life itself. Therefore, they feel weary and burdened for those who are still lost in the world.
b. They are weary from having labored so much to reach their generation. They have labored to serve and make their contribution as God has called them. They have toiled so laboriously for one reason only: the love of Christ constrained them to reach their generation (2 Cor. 5:14).
5. The "poor in spirit" are those who approach the world as a child (see notes— Matthew 18:1-2; Deeper Study #2—Mark 10:14; Deeper Study #3—Mark 10:14; Deeper Study #4—Mark 10:14. These notes give an excellent description of what it means to be "poor in spirit.") All children are very, very precious to God and are given angels to look over them (Matthew 18:10 cp. Psalm 91:11).
DEEPER STUDY #2
(5:3) Poor in Spirit— Reward— Kingdom of Heaven: the "poor in spirit" are blessed with the Kingdom of Heaven (see Deeper Study #3—Matthew 19:23-24). The "poor in spirit" inherit three significant things.
1. The poor in spirit receive forgiveness of sin and God's continued remembrance: the assurance that God will never forget.
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Hebrews 8:12).
"And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" (Hebrews 10:17).
"He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations" (Psalm 105:8).
"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jeremiah 31:34).
2. The poor in spirit receive a fellowship with other believers who walk as they walk. (See outline—§ Acts 2:41-47 and notes—§ Acts 2:41-47; notes—§ Ephes. 2:19-22.)
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42).
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Ephes. 2:19-22).
"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).
3. The poor in spirit receive the gift of life that is forever: the eternal fellowship with both God and the congregation of those who are poor in spirit.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:15-17).[13]
SERMON ON THE MOUNT/PLAIN
No other short section of the Bible has been more prominent in theological discussion and in the general life of the church. Even in our modern secular societies the Sermon’s influence continues. Though they may have given the matter little careful thought, many men and women who have little or no contact with the church believe that the Sermon contains clear ethical teaching for all people of good will.
The Sermon is well known to Christians today, but few appreciate the richness of these sayings of Jesus: their radical promises and demands have often been blunted either through familiarity or as a result of a precipitate quest for immediate relevance. Interpretation of this influential and apparently simple passage is far from easy, but the scholar, preacher or lay person who perseveres will be amply rewarded, for the Sermon sets out powerfully both the gift and demand of the Gospel.
There are two versions of the Sermon: the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:3–7:27) which contains 106 verses, and the Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:20b–49) which contains 29 verses. The term “the Sermon on the Mount” goes back to the title Augustine gave to his important commentary on Matthew 5–7, De Sermone Domini in Monte, which was probably written between 392 and 396. In spite of Augustine’s enormous influence on many later Christian writers, Matthew 5–7 was not generally referred to as “the Sermon on the Mount” until the sixteenth century. The term “Sermon on the Plain” is modern; it is used primarily to distinguish Luke’s much shorter Sermon from Matthew’s.
The two Sermons may be interpreted either as integral parts of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, or as collections of sayings of the historical Jesus. In the former case scholars who accept Markan priority and some form of the Q hypothesis conclude that Matthew has composed chapters 5–7 as the first of his five carefully constructed discourses. Matthew’s Sermon is a considerably expanded version of the Q “sermon” on which Luke drew, with few changes, in the Sermon on the Plain (see 2.1. below). By his arrangement and, in some cases, adaptation of earlier traditions, Matthew has sought to meet the needs of Christians in his own day. Matthew’s first discourse contains many of his own distinctive emphases. Luke’s Sermon is also related to his overall purposes, though less clearly.
If the sayings of Jesus in Matthew 5–7 or Luke 6:20–49 are used to reconstruct the teaching of the historical Jesus, it is important to recognize that they have been modified by the Evangelists (see Redaction Criticism) and probably also at earlier stages in the transmission of the Gospel traditions (see Tradition Criticism). They can be appreciated fully only when they are interpreted alongside related sayings from other parts of the Gospels. Although Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is often assumed to be a summary of the ethical teaching of Jesus, this is mistaken: there are important ethical sayings of Jesus which are not included in Matthew’s Sermon, and not all the traditions in these chapters are ethical (see Ethics of Jesus).
1. The Sermon on the Plain in Luke
2. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
1. The Sermon on the Plain in Luke.
The term “Sermon on the Plain” comes from Luke’s introduction to his version of the Sermon. Luke notes that Jesus went out into the hills to pray and continued in prayer to God all night; when day came he called his disciples and came down with them and stood on a level place (Lk 6:12, 17). In the presence of a large crowd, Jesus addressed his disciples with the words of the Sermon (Lk 6:20b–49). Although Luke’s Sermon is much closer to the earlier version in Q than to Matthew’s, it has attracted less attention down through the centuries than the Sermon on the Mount.
1.1. The Sermon in Q. Almost the whole of Luke’s Sermon is also found in Matthew 5–7. Where the two Gospels overlap in content, there is often close agreement in the wording of the traditions. However, a number of verses which are similar in content differ considerably in wording. It is probable that Matthew and Luke drew on different versions of the Q Sermon.
The chart below, which is based on Luke’s order, shows that in spite of their great disparity in size, the two versions agree strikingly in the order of the traditions.
| Luke 6 | Matthew 5–7 | |
| Introduction | 20a | 5:1–2 |
| Beatitudes | 20b–23 | 5:3–12 |
| Woes | 24–26 | |
| Love of Enemy | 27–36 | 5:38–37 |
| Golden Rule | 31 | 7:12 |
| Judge not | 37–38 | 7:1–2 |
| The blind guide | 29 | |
| Teacher and disciple | 40 | |
| Speck and log | 41–42 | 7:3–5 |
| The tree and its fruit | 43–45 | 7:16–20 |
| Lord, Lord | 46 | 7:21 |
| House on the rock | 47–49 | 7:24–27 |
Matthew differs from Luke’s order at only one significant point: The Golden Rule does not appear, as we might have expected, as part of the “love your enemy” traditions (Mt 5:38–47; see Love), but as the climax of Matthew’s Sermon in 7:12. With only three exceptions, the whole of the Sermon on the Plain is found in Matthew 5–7: Matthew does not have woes to counter balance the Beatitudes, as Luke does (see Blessing and Woe); the saying about the blind guide appears at Matthew 15:14, and the saying on the disciple-teacher relationship is found in Matthew 10:24.
This close agreement in order and in content has led most scholars to conclude that Q contained an earlier form of the Sermon. Luke has retained the order of the traditions in Q. Although Luke has modified some Q traditions, and has perhaps omitted a few verses from Q and added a few others which were not part of Q, his version of the Sermon is usually considered to be very close to the original version in Q.
An alternative explanation has been defended by a small number of scholars. They argue that for his own purposes Luke drastically abbreviated Matthew’s Sermon and included many of the omitted traditions at other points in his Gospel. Luke is thus seen as the first interpreter of Matthew’s Sermon. Opponents of this view claim, surely correctly, that if Luke did use Matthew, he acted in a quite arbitrary way. He has included only just over a quarter of Matthew 5–7; he has failed to include numerous sayings at any point in his Gospel (Mt 5:17, 19–20, 21–24, 27–28, 33–39a, 43; 6:1–8, 16–18; 7:6, 15); he has placed the remainder in six different places with little regard for Matthew’s order. Although attempts have been made to explain why Luke might have revised Matthew’s Sermon so radically, they have not been persuasive. At least in this case, the Q hypothesis offers a much simpler and more plausible explanation of the evidence.
In most reconstructions of Q the traditions behind Luke 6:20b–49 form the initial collection of the sayings of Jesus: these verses were already an “inaugural sermon” in Q, preceded only by John’s preaching of the Coming One (Lk 3:7–9, 16–17; see John the Baptist) and the Temptation traditions (Lk 4:1–13; see Temptation of Jesus). The opening Beatitudes in Q pro nounce God’s blessing on those in dire need: the poor, those who hunger, sorrow and suffer persecution (Lk 6:20b–23). These sayings declare that the coming of God’s kingdom (see Kingdom of God) brings about radical transformation: They proclaim good news (see Gospel [Good News]).
Matthew has followed Q’s lead and used the Beatitudes as the opening section of his Sermon. Luke places the Sermon on the Plain at a later point in his Gospel, but he may nonetheless have been strongly influenced by the position of the Beatitudes as the opening of an “inaugural sermon” in Q. If, as is likely, the Q Beatitudes are to be understood as the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1–3, it is significant that this very passage is quoted in Luke’s dramatic and programmatic account of the opening of the ministry of Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk 4:16–30). Quite independently, both Matthew and Luke may have been influenced by Q’s insistence that the significance of Jesus is to be seen in terms of Isaiah 61:1–3, a claim which goes back to Jesus himself.
1.2. Luke’s Emphases. Luke has not reshaped the Q Sermon in the way that Matthew has, but two emphases are clear and important. In four places Luke has added “now” to the traditions: to the beatitude and corresponding woe on hunger (Lk 6:21a and 25a) and to the beatitude and woe on mourning and laughing (Lk 6:21c and 25c). These additions reveal the Evangelist’s concern for Christian life here and now. A similar emphasis is found in numerous passages in Luke. For example, Luke 9:23 stresses that taking up one’s cross and following Jesus is to be carried out daily (cf. Mk 8:34).
In Luke, but not in Matthew, there are four woes which correspond precisely to his four beatitudes (cf. Lk 6:20–21 and 24–26). Most scholars accept that Luke has added the woes to the Q Sermon, either from independent tradition or on his own initiative. In this way Luke underlines the contrast between, on the one hand, people who are in desperate circumstances (the poor, the hungry, those who mourn and those who are persecuted) and, on the other hand, people who are self-satisfied and complacent. In numerous passages in his Gospel Luke attacks complacency and stresses the particular concern of Jesus for the poor, for those in need and for those on the margins of society (see Mary’s Song; Rich and Poor).
2. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.
A brief survey of the history of interpretation of the Sermon confirms just how influential these chapters have been and how many major theological issues they raise.
2.1. History of Interpretation. The first commentary on the Sermon was probably written by Origen in the middle of the third century, but only a short fragment of it has survived. The two most important expositions of the Sermon in the early church were written by Chrysostom and Augustine at the end of the fourth century, both of whom insisted that the Sermon was the perfect pattern for the life of all Christians. In his homilies on the Sermon Chrysostom attacked the heretical views of Gnostics and Manicheans. He rejected their view that the body is evil and only the mind and spirit are good; he insisted that Matthew 5:29 teaches that it is the “evil mind” which is accursed, not bodily organs such as the eye and hand. Chrysostom also refuted “those heretics who say that the old covenant is of the devil”; the sayings of Jesus do not repeal the old Law, they “draw out and fill up its commands.”
Augustine also grappled with the relationship of the Sermon to the Law of Moses. The Manichean Faustus had claimed that Matthew 5:17 was a saying neither of Jesus nor of Matthew: someone else had written it under Matthew’s name! In his Reply to Faustus Augus tine stressed the continuity of the “old Law” and the “new” more strongly than was usually the case in the early church. In his own exposition of the Sermon, however, the more common line of interpretation is prominent. Augustine drew attention to the sharp discontinuity between the “old Law” and the “new” by distinguishing between the “lesser precepts given by God through his holy prophets and servants to a people who still needed to be bound by fear” (i.e., to Israel before the coming of Christ) and “the greater precepts given through his Son to a people now ready to be freed by love.”
Augustine is not the only interpreter who interpreted Matthew 5:17–48 in different ways either in different contexts or at different points in his life. Augustine may have been inconsistent, but the issue is still with us today. To what extent and in what ways is the ethical teaching of the OT still important today? How “new” is the teaching of Jesus, and does it have priority over Scripture? Do we retain the parts of Scripture to which Jesus refers, and ignore or reject the rest?
In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas also stressed the discontinuity between the old Law (“the Law of bondage”) and the new Law (“the Law of liberty”) but without conceding that the latter contradicted or abrogated the former. In his interpretation of the Sermon he used the analogy of the tree (the new Law) which is in a sense contained in the seed. Aquinas also introduced a distinction which was to become very influential in Catholic thought. In addition to the commandments of the new Law, which are necessary in order to gain salvation, there are also optional counsels which “render the gaining of eternal bliss more assured and expeditious.” The latter are intended for those who strive for perfection; they are based on poverty, chastity and obedience and are therefore primarily for those who join the religious life. This distinction is hardly hinted at in interpretation of the Sermon in the early church, though it may be implied by the harsh saying of Jesus concerning the renunciation of marriage: “Let those accept it who can” (Mt 19:11–12). Luther, Zwingli and Calvin wrote extensively on the Sermon. They all insisted that Matthew 5–7 represents the true interpretation of the Law of Moses, which had been obscured in Judaism. On the whole they emphasized the continuity between the “Law of Christ” and the “Law of Moses” more than their Catholic opponents. They rejected the use made of the Sermon by radical Anabaptist groups who claimed that the ethical teaching of Christ was a clear development beyond the Law of Moses, parts of which have been abrogated. Anabaptists claimed that the Sermon should be interpreted literally and that Christians should therefore never use violence (Mt 5:39; see Peace), never swear oaths (Mt 5:34; see Oaths and Swearing) and never hold office as a judge or ruler (Mt 7:1). Their literal interpretation of the Sermon led them to opt out of secular government completely.
In a series of sermons on Matthew 5–7 (and in other writings) Luther developed his well-known doctrine of the two realms—the secular and the spiritual. The Christian lives in both spheres. In the spiritual sphere (i.e., within the life of the church) the Christian must obey all the commands of the Sermon; in the secular sphere, natural law or “common sense” must prevail. In his remarks on Matthew 5:38–42 (the use of violence and compulsion), for example, Luther claimed that most interpreters failed to distinguish properly between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the world. In these verses
Christ is not tampering with the responsibility and authority of the government, but he is teaching individual Christians how to live personally, apart from their official position and authority … A Christian should not (use violence to) resist evil; but within the limits of his office, a secular person should oppose firmly every evil.
For Luther a “secular person” included Christians participating in the secular realm.
Luther also discussed the Sermon in terms of “Law” and “gospel.” In some of his writings he emphasized that the Sermon is the “law of Christ” that makes people aware of the gospel of God’s grace through Christ: “we are not able properly to fulfil one tittle out of our own strength … but must always crawl to Christ.” But in other passages Luther stated that the Sermon is not just the accusing Law that points to sin: it is also “gospel.” This is especially true of the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3–12). Christ “does not press, but in a friendly way entices and speaks: ‘Blessed are the poor.’ ”
By referring in different passages in his writings to the Sermon both as Law and as gospel, Luther confused some of his later followers. Many Lutheran theologians have stressed that the Sermon is the Law that awakens knowledge of sin. But some (notably J. Jeremias 1961) have claimed that the demands of Jesus in the Sermon are preceded by gospel, that is, by his proclamation of the kingdom and by his encouragement to his disciples to share his own sense of sonship.
In his comments on Matthew 5:21 Calvin noted that “we must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds anything to the eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful expounder. …” Calvin partially anticipated eighteenth- and nineteenth-century discussion of the sources of the Sermon in his recognition that Matthew 5–7 is “a brief summary of the doctrine of Christ … collected out of his many and various discourses.”
All the various approaches just sketched can be found in modern discussion of the Sermon. Twentieth-century scholarship, however, has added two new issues: the extent to which the Sermon reflects the views of Jesus (or of Matthew) concerning the end-times (eschatology) and the extent to which Matthew the Evangelist has shaped the traditions he has incorporated into chapters 5–7.
In 1892 J. Weiss published a short but influential discussion of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God. He claimed that Jesus expected that the kingdom would shortly be ushered in through a cataclysmic divine intervention. In 1901 A. Schweitzer developed this approach even more vigorously. Both writers believed that the ethical teaching of Jesus was in tended as a preparation for the short period before the end (“interim ethics”). The sayings of Jesus were not intended to be used by later generations, as most readers of the Sermon down through the centuries had simply assumed. Thus most of the issues with which earlier interpreters of the Sermon had grappled were declared to be irrelevant. Weiss and Schweitzer raised in an acute form the relationship between the ethical teaching of Jesus and his proclamation of the coming kingdom. Discussion of this issue has to range far beyond Matthew 5–7 and consider all the relevant sayings of Jesus.
B. W. Bacon (1902) was one of the first writers in English to attempt to reconstruct the earliest attainable form of the Sermon. He concluded that in its original form Jesus spoke as a prophetic (see Prophets, Prophecy) interpreter of a new Law; Jesus did not lay down rules, but opened up principles. These conclusions were hardly novel, but in his isolation of the “intrusive additions” of Matthew, Bacon paved the way for later redaction-critical studies. Bacon claimed that Matthew has supplied “neo-legalistic touches” in verses such as 5:16 (“good works”); 5:18–19; 5:32 (the exception to “no divorce”); 7:12b. The original Sermon of Jesus is not legislative (as Matthew seems to have regarded it) but prophetic.
Since 1945 interpretation of the Sermon and of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole has been dominated by redaction criticism. This approach explores the ways in which the Evangelist has reshaped the traditions at his disposal in the light of the needs of his first readers. Redaction criticism has confirmed that Matthew is more than a compiler. Matthew’s five discourses have been composed in the same way: in all five the Evangelist has rearranged and reinterpreted the sayings on which he drew. He often elucidates earlier traditions with extra phrases or even (on occasion) with whole verses which he himself has com posed. The following may be noted as possible examples: 5:10, 13a, 14a, 16, 20; 6:10b and c, 13b; 7:12c, 19, 20, 21. In many places in the Sermon Matthew’s own distinctive vocabulary and emphases are evident. For example, the five important references to “righteousness” (Mt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; see Justice, Righteousness) are all redactional additions made by the Evangelist himself.
In recent decades numerous studies of the Sermon and several detailed commentaries have been published. In nearly every case the Sermon has been isolated from the rest of Matthew’s Gospel and treated as a separate entity simply for convenience. There has been no suggestion that Matthew 5–7 have a quite distinctive origin or purpose which sets them apart from the rest of Matthew’s Gospel, and also from Mark and Luke.
There are, however, two notable exceptions. In his influential study of the Sermon (1964) W. D. Davies suggests that “one fruitful way of dealing with the Sermon on the Mount is to regard it as the Christian answer to Jamnia. Using terms very loosely, the Sermon is a kind of Christian, mishnaic counter-part to the formulation taking place there” (315). Davies sets out at length a cumulative case which rests on a large number of observations. He himself recognizes that some of his points are stronger than others. Davies appeals both to the Sermon and to other parts of Matthew’s Gospel. Some of the latter passages are undoubtedly significant. For example, Davies is able to show that the Evangelist’s community was at odds with contemporary Judaism.
But the evidence from the Sermon itself is not compelling. None of the direct links proposed between the Sermon and the reconstruction taking place within Judaism during the Jamnian period is entirely satisfactory. It is the whole of Matthew’s Gospel, not the Sermon in isolation, which can plausibly be related (though only indirectly) to the Jamnian period. Although Davies suggests that “there was an outside stimulus for the Evangelist to shape the Sermon” (315), he does not claim that Matthew 5–7 contains theological emphases which are quite distinct from the rest of the Gospel. Davies seems to accept that the Sermon and the rest of Matthew come from the same social setting, though he does not discuss this point.
H. D. Betz’s hypothesis, however, is not compelling. The links with the epitomes of the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition are not strong, and the claim that the theological perspective of the Sermon is said to be at odds with Matthew’s own theology is difficult to defend. Betz overlooks the extent to which in chapters 5–7 the Evangelist Matthew has shaped and reinterpreted the traditions at his disposal in ways which are completely consistent with the methods and themes developed elsewhere in his Gospel.
The latter point is one of the pillars of redaction-critical study of the Sermon. From a quite different angle narrative critics (led by J. D. Kingsbury) have recently underlined the ways in which the Sermon is part and parcel of the Evangelist’s overall presentation of the story of Jesus.
2.2. Questions for Current Interpretation. The above survey of the history of interpretation confirms that careful study of these chapters involves a large number of issues, some of which are theological, some ethical, some historical and some exegetical. For convenience they may be divided into five sets of overlapping questions, some of which are discussed further in later sections of this article.
(1) Does Jesus simply interpret or clarify the Law of Moses? Or does he present radically new teaching? Is Jesus portrayed as the “new Moses” who “goes up on the mountain” (Mt 5:1) in order to present on a “new Mt. Sinai” a “new Law” for a “new people”?
(2) What is the relationship between Matthew 5–7and Paul’s gospel of grace? Is the Sermon (as Law) intended to make the readers or listeners aware of their need of grace? Or does the Sermon presuppose God’s forgiveness and acceptance of the sinner and therefore set out demands for true discipleship?
(3) To whom is the Sermon addressed? To men and women in general, or to those committed to the way of Jesus? The text itself is ambiguous at this point. The introduction and conclusion (Mt 5:1 and 7:28) imply that the Sermon was addressed to the crowds, but 5:2 notes that “when the disciples had gathered around him Jesus began to address them.” While many parts of the Sermon seem to set out an “ethic of Christian discipleship,” the final verses of the whole Gospel imply that the teaching of Jesus is to be part of the message taken to “all nations” (Mt 28:18–20).
(4) Are all parts of the Sermon to be interpreted literally, as some have claimed? Or do some sayings (such as Mt 5:22, 39, 43) contain hyperbole? Does the Sermon set out a code of ethics, or principles or attitudes appropriate for “members of the kingdom”? These questions arise whether the intention of Matthew or of Jesus is in view.
(5) To what extent are individual sayings dominated by the expectation (either of Jesus or of Matthew) of the approach of the end-times (i.e., eschatology)? For example, does Jesus commend a casual attitude to food and clothing in Matthew 6:25–34 because of the approach of the end-times, or simply because this is the right attitude regardless of when the end-times come? Is every petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9–13) to be interpreted eschatologically? If so, when we pray “Give us this day our daily bread” we are not asking for the basic necessities of everyday life, but requesting a partial anticipation now of the “feast of heaven”—the “bread of heaven.” Does the petition “lead us not into temptation” concern the time of testing expected in the end-times or everyday temptations?
The modern interpreter will quickly find that interpretation of individual sayings or groups of sayings will be determined by the answers given to all five sets of questions. These questions have been discussed for nearly two thousand years, though some have been more prominent than others in different periods of church history.[14]
Matthew 5.1–2
SECTION HEADING: “The Sermon on the Mount.” It may be necessary to identify who delivered the sermon, “Jesus,” and also possibly to whom he delivered it. The heading can be, therefore, “The sermon of Jesus on the mountain,” “The sermon Jesus preached on the mountain (to the people),” or “Jesus preaches on the mountain to the people.” Of course, “sermon” does not appear in the text, and it is only a tradition to call it that. “Jesus teaches (people) on a mountain” may be quite acceptable.
Matthew 5–7 is the first in a series of five discourses in the Gospel, each of which is concluded by what is essentially the same formula. (7.28; 11.1; 13.53; 19.1; 26.1). All five of these discourses generally follow the Marcan arrangement, though sometimes Matthew expands his text (see in particular chapters 8–9) to give more complete examples of what is to be included in the discourse.
The composition of this section, as well as its location in the Gospel, is clearly a unique feature of Matthew’s Gospel. Some of the material is found in Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” (6.20–49) and in his “Travel Narrative” (9.51–18.14), but both Matthew and Luke each reflect their own unique features of composition. In the exegesis to follow, attention will occasionally be called to the differences between the Matthean and Lukan arrangements, particularly in passages where this information may be important for interpretation and translation.
Matthew 5.1.
Seeing (so also NJB) translates a participle which Matthew elsewhere uses to introduce something unexpected that leads to further action (3.7; 9.2, 4, 22, 23, 36; 21.19; 27.24). A number of translators give it the temporal sense of “when he saw” (Mft, AT, NAB, Brc, Phps, NEB, GeCL), while TEV simply translates it as a finite verb, coordinate with the one which follows: “Jesus saw ... and went up.” Some scholars ascribe to the participle a causative force, on the assumption that Jesus went up the mountain where he could avoid the crowd and instruct his disciples without being disturbed. But Matthew intimates that the whole crowd heard (7.28–29), and so it seems doubtful that a causative force is intended.
Since chapter 5 is treated as beginning a new section, some translations have introduced the crowds as if new information. “There were crowds following Jesus. He saw them and went up ... (or, When he saw them, he went up ...).” However, the participle Seeing indicates that the narration is continuing from 4.25 (as would the phrase “When he saw”). That is, the crowds have already been introduced to the readers. Therefore it may be better to use a sentence that does in fact follow on from 4.25. For example, translators can say “When he saw the crowds that were following him” or “He saw all those crowds following him and went up.”
Crowds is the object of the participle seeing; this noun often carries an important meaning in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew uses the plural form about thirty times, and on most occasions the “crowds” are receptive to the person and teaching of Jesus; the religious leaders are the ones who reject him. Thus in this context it is rather likely that the “crowds” of 4.25 and 5.1a are to be equated with the disciples of 5.1b. In 4.25 the crowds were great groups of people coming from different places to follow Jesus. Here, although the text still has the crowds, they have obviously come together into one large crowd. Translations can have “the large group (or, crowd) of people” or “all the people.”
The place where Jesus went up can be either a mountain or a “hill,” since the Greek word can mean either. Some commentators see here an intended contrast to Sinai, where the Law was given. However, there are no grounds, implicit or explicit, for identifying the mountain as a “New Sinai.”
The Greek noun, whether translated “mountain” or “hill,” has the definite article before it, which leads several scholars to believe that it signifies a well-known location (see also 8.1; 14.23; 15.29; 24.3; 28.16; and especially 17.1, where there is no definite article). At least one commentator thinks that the reference is to the hill country that rises from the western shore of Lake Galilee, while according to the NJB footnote it is: “one of the hills near Capernaum.” But the evidence is too inconclusive to be dogmatic. Modern translations vary in their renderings: RSV, AT have mountain; NAB “mountainside”; NEB, Mft, Phps, JB, Brc have either “hill” or “hillside.”
Jesus went up on the mountain or hill. There is no reason to use a word like “climb.” The normal word “went” or “went up” is all the translation needs.
A Jewish rabbi usually sat down to teach his disciples (see 13.2; 23.2; 24.3), as did teachers in the synagogue (Luke 4.20). So then the Sermon on the Mount actually reflects a teaching situation, and this is confirmed by Matthew’s choice of verbs.
In many languages the phrase when he sat down is too elliptical or shortened. In these languages one cannot speak of when he sat down without first having said that he did it. Translators will therefore do something like TEV, “where he sat down,” or say “he sat down there.”
“Disciple” means “one who learns from another,” but in the special context of the New Testament the disciples are those persons whom Jesus called, not only to learn his teachings, but to share his life and his destiny. Usually, as here, they are spoken of as his disciples, thus intimating something of the closeness of the relation between the Lord and those whom he called to follow him. In the Gospels the term may refer to the limited circle of the twelve or to Jesus’ followers in general. Although the context here is not specific in its usage of the term, taken in light of 4.25 and 5.1, the larger group seems to be intended.
For disciples most translators have tried to avoid a word that simply means “students,” but it has often been possible to use “apprentices.” Some have used “followers.” “Apprentices” and “followers” are especially appropriate translations in languages where these words are actually used to speak of people who stay with and learn from a teacher, doctor, skilled craftsman, or a person known in Asia as a guru. Other translations have used “companions,” but this is far too general a word to be a good translation of “disciples.” “Helpers” is sometimes acceptable.
Came translates the same verb discussed in 4.3. It is quite possible that the meaning “gather for a formal teaching session” is to be preferred here (see NEB “had gathered round”), especially if the “crowds” of verse 1 and the “disciples” of verse 2 are thought to constitute the same group. Some scholars see here a parallel with the men who stood around Ezra when he read the Law (Neh 8.4), and with the priests who gathered around the High Priest at the offering of sacrifice (Sirach 50.11–21). This intimates that the scene is that of a solemn hour of worship: God’s people stand in his presence to hear his teachings from the one who teaches with God’s own authority. As in 4.3, came might have to be “went.” Here it can be translated “gathered around him” (TEV), or “went close to him to listen to him.”
Matthew 5.2.
He opened his mouth is the literal rendering of a formula that is found in classical literature and in Jewish rabbinical sources. Scholars classify it as both “a Semitic idiom” (Dan 10.16; Job 3.1; 33.2) and “a traditional formula” (Acts 8.35; 10.34). On the basis of its usage in Daniel 10.16 and Job 3.1, at least one commentator believes that it functions to give emphasis to what follows, and that may well be its function here. However, the more acceptable solution is that which understands the expression to mean “begin (verb of) discourse” (see TEV “began to teach”).
Taught them. The verb “teach” may have as its object either the person who is taught or the content of the teaching; in certain contexts it may be followed by both objects. But in Matthew the content of the teaching appears as an object of the verb only in 15.9, which is within a quotation from Isaiah 29.13. Interesting also is the location of Jesus’ teaching in this Gospel; it is always done away from the crowded places, whether on a hill or along the shore of Lake Galilee.
The nearest antecedent to them is “his disciples” (verse 1). It may be necessary in the receptor language to make explicit the persons intended by the pronoun. Some translators interpret them in a wider sense by saying “all the people,” “the people,” or “the crowd.” But it is probably better to leave it as “them” or “his disciples,” as we said above.
The use of the participle saying also reflects Semitic style in which the participle serves merely to indicate that direct discourse is to follow. It then becomes equivalent to quotation marks at the beginning of direct discourse in English. He opened his mouth and taught them, saying is best represented in English as “he began to teach them,” followed by quotation marks. Accordingly NEB restructures as “... he began to address them. And this is the teaching he gave”; Phps has “Then he began his teaching by saying to them.” Brc seems to have overtranslated the expression: “He opened his mind and heart to them, and this was the substance of his teaching.” Luke begins his discourse with a different, yet equally challenging structure: “he lifted up his eyes” (6.20).
Matthew 5.3–12.
SECTION HEADING: “True Happiness.” The translation of this section heading will depend on how one translates Blessed or “Happy” (TEV) in the beatitudes that follow. It may not be possible in a language to use an abstract noun such as “Happiness,” especially if it stands alone without being part of a clause or sentence. The section heading may be “People who are truly happy” or “Jesus tells what makes people really happy.”
Luke has four beatitudes (6.20–22), but how many are contained in Matthew 5.1–12? There is no justification for making the beatitudes number seven (a sacred number among the Jews) by regarding verses 10–12 as transitional. And it is no less arbitrary to make them number ten, following the pattern of the Ten Commandments, by making verses 11 and 12 two separate beatitudes. Verse 12, which lacks the affirmation Blessed are ..., must be taken as a continuation of the beatitude begun in verse 11. Had Matthew intended a series of ten beatitudes, he could easily have accomplished it without leaving any doubt in the reader’s mind, for he includes similar structures at other places (11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46).
But how does verse 10 fit into the pattern of the beatitudes? And are verses 11–12 to be interpreted as a separate beatitude or as an expression of the one in verse 10? Some scholars have raised the objection that verse 10 should not be considered a beatitude, because the happiness referred to in it arises from persecution, whereas the happiness of verses 3–9 grows out of internal conditions under the believer’s control. But this is a false distinction. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, persecution is viewed as inevitable for one whose life is regulated by the Spirit of Christ. Persecution may arise from without, but it is a response to what is within the believer. Nor is the argument that the reward of verse 10 is the same as that promised in verse 3 a valid argument against the inclusion of this as a separate beatitude; the parallelism between verse 10 and verses 3–9 is too definite to be overlooked.
But the more difficult question concerns the relation of verses 11–12 to the entire series of beatitudes. Do these verses contain a separate beatitude, thus resulting in a series of nine? Or are the verses to be considered an expansion of verse 10, thus resulting in only eight beatitudes?
Either conclusion is possible. In defense of the verses as a separate beatitude is its opening, Blessed are ..., which parallels the other beatitudes. On the other hand one may argue to the contrary, on the basis of the shift from the third person “they” of the previous beatitudes to the second person “you.” No firm decision is possible, though the majority of scholars today interpret verses 11–12 as a separate beatitude, parallel to those of verses 3–10.
In terms of structure, it should be noted that verses 3–6 and 7–10 form two parallel divisions, even to the point of having the same number of words in the Greek text. And finally, the first group of four (verses 3–6) is parallel to the Lukan series (6.20–23), while the second group of four (verses 7–10) is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. In place of this last series of four beatitudes, Luke has four “woes” (6.24–26).
Blessed (TEV “Happy”) translates a Greek word which is used quite frequently in the Septuagint as a translation of a Hebrew word meaning “Oh the happiness of.” In the Old Testament this word is used most often in the Psalms and in the Wisdom literature; elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel it appears in 11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46.
The religious usage of the word may have had its origin in the pronouncement by the worship leader upon the pilgrims who came to ascend the sacred hill in Jerusalem. It perhaps meant something like “You are the fortunate recipients of God’s mercy and blessing.” In the present passage a number of English translations have Blessed (KJV, RSV, AT, Mft); NEB and NAB have “How blest”; Brc “Oh the bliss”; Phps, JB “How happy” then “Happy”; Anchor Bible (AB) “Fortunate are.” What these translations do not indicate clearly is that the one doing the good is God.
In the Old Testament, beatitudes are most generally in the third person. Here verses 3–10 follow the third person form, though the shift is made in verses 11–12 to the less frequent second person form (see also 13.16; 16.17). Beatitudes found in Greek literature are similar to those of the Old Testament in that they too occur in series and are usually given in the third person: “Blessings on him who...!”
Blessed has been a very difficult problem for translators, as seen by the variety of ways it has been handled. “Blessed” or “blessing” are simply not common events in all societies. Further, the word used in some languages refers to a superficial happiness or good thing rather than to a right and harmonious relationship in which one party, usually the superior, does good to the other. “Happy” has as its primary meaning an emotional state. “Fortunate” too often is understood to mean “to have good luck.” And yet each of these words can have the intended meaning in some contexts. The same is true of expressions such as “to be well off.” One translation that has often worked is “to be in a good position,” that is, “to be favorably placed to receive something good.”
In many languages translators find that it is more natural not to start the sentence with the notion of blessed or happiness. Instead they use a construction such as “People who are poor in spirit (or, who mourn) are in a good position (or are well off, or are truly fortunate), because...."
The beatitudes say that certain people are well placed (or, happy) for, that is, “because” of something that God will do for them. Some languages do not use a word or phrase to indicate this relation. TEV is an example in English. Others will use “for” or “because,” and still others will start a new sentence with “The reason for that is ...” or “These people will receive ....”
Matthew 5.3.
Poor in spirit is understood by some few interpreters to mean “poor for the sake of their spirit.” The reference would then be to persons who impoverish themselves for the sake of strengthening their spiritual condition. But it is more natural to take the Greek phrase following “poor” with the meaning “in the realm of,” after the analogy of such expressions as “pure in heart” (Matt 5.8) or “humble in spirit” (Psa 34.18 RSV: “crushed in spirit”), rather than with the meaning of “for the sake of.”
TEV translates poor in spirit as “who know they are spiritually poor” (AT “who feel their spiritual need”). Almost all commentators agree that there are two Hebrew words which provide the background for this saying; these words are synonymous, and each one may mean either “poor” or “humble.” For example, the word poor is essentially synonymous with the word translated “meek” (“humble”) in verse 5, and there is scholarly agreement that the meanings should not be too neatly distinguished. The word here translated poor is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words which mean not only “poor” and “needy,” but also “broken in spirit” and “humble.” During the time for which Isaiah 40–55 was written, the term “poor” was used of all Israelites who were living in exile without a land of their own. Later the lower social classes used this term to distinguish themselves from the upper classes, who lorded over them and oppressed them. By Jesus’ day it had become a kind of “title of honor” for the faithful of God’s people, who had accepted the difficult way of life that he had marked out for them.
In Jesus’ thinking, the “poor” are most probably those people whose outward circumstances force them to look to God for everything, but who also receive from God the gift of the spirit (faith) to look to him for everything. Therefore, the “poor” of Luke 6.20 and Matthew’s “poor in spirit” are the same trusting, though afflicted, poor people; but Matthew has made the sense explicit by adding “in spirit.” But by this slight alteration Matthew introduces a significant safeguard, which leads away from the thought that poverty in itself is automatically a sign of closeness to God. Jesus’ words may not be interpreted legalistically. True “blessedness” comes only as God’s Spirit is capable of leading the human spirit to trust absolutely in God.
It may be that the renderings of TEV and AT are too narrow and represent a modern overinterpretation. For the meaning is not so much that people recognize their spiritual need as separate from any other needs, but rather that they stand before God and recognize their absolute need of him. NEB translates “who know their need of God” (Phps “who know their need for God”). Brc translates “who realize the destitution of their own lives,” and GeCL 1st edition is strikingly picturesque, “who stand with empty hands before God,” symbolizing absolute dependence on him.
In addition to the examples we have cited here, other possible ways of expressing the meaning are “who place all their hope in God” and “who stand before God knowing how (or, how much) they need him.”
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven is typical of most translations: JB “theirs is the kingdom of heaven”; NEB, Phps “the kingdom of Heaven is theirs”; NAB “the reign of God is theirs”; Mft “the Realm of heaven is theirs.” In fact some scholars assume, and rightly so, that this is the best sense for the present passage. But whether one interprets the meaning to be “belong to” or “consist of,” the emphasis is on the benefits or blessings shared by those persons who experience the rule of God in their lives. Only a few translations have really taken seriously the meaning of this part of the verse. GeCL 1st edition translates “they will be God’s people when he completes his work”; Brc has “for the blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven are theirs here and now.” The Greek text is actually in the present tense (“the kingdom of heaven is ...”), and so the basis for Brc’s rendering; but it is possible to take the present with a future force and translate as GeCL 1st edition has done. Both Brc and GeCL have obviously realized the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of rendering “the kingdom of heaven belongs to them”; for if the kingdom refers to God’s rule, how can it be spoken of as “belonging to” someone? This is one of those passages where the focus is actually on the benefits shared by persons who experience God’s rule, and both translations have attempted to make this meaning explicit. MaCL translates “they enjoy the blessings of God’s rule.” In some cultures the idea of a rule always conveys negative connotations, suggesting coercion, oppression, and violence. And there are some few cultures which do not know the meaning of strong or powerful rulers. In such language situations one may want to translate “God accepts (or, will accept) them as his own people” or “they enjoy (or, will enjoy) the blessings that God gives his people.”
There are other cultures where the idea of a rule generally conveys positive connotations, so that to say “they are a part of God’s kingdom (or, rule)” is enough to be considered happy or well off. Translators can also say “God accepts them in his kingdom.” Otherwise translators may need to make explicit these positive benefits of being in God’s kingdom, much as MaCL (cited above) has done; for example, “They enjoy the benefits that come to those who are under God’s rule” or “The good things God gives to those who are a part of his reign are for them.” For a fuller discussion of kingdom, see 3.2.
Matthew 5.4.
The original order of verses 4–5 is not certain; manuscripts dating from the second century differ in the order of presentation. The manuscript evidence, though rather certain, is not conclusive (the UBS Greek New Testament gives its choice of text a “B” rating). The argument that verse 5 may have been placed prior to verse 4 by an early scribe is suggested by the possibility that the scribe may have tried to make a type of antithetical parallelism between verse 3 (mention of heaven) and verse 5 (mention of earth). On the other hand, there seems to be no obvious reason for suggesting why he may have placed verse 4 before verse 5, had verse 5 originally come first, unless this was an attempt to place verses 3–4 together on the basis of their common background in Isaiah 61.1–2. Among the translations, NJB, Bible de Jerusalem (BJ), and TOB (with a footnote) depart from the traditional order; NAB retains the order but places verse 5 in square brackets.
Those who mourn points in the same direction as the previous beatitude; taken together, verses 3 and 4 are an allusion to Isaiah 61.1–2.
“To comfort those who are mourning” is one of the promises of the anticipated Messianic salvation (see Luke 2.25). In the Septuagint the verb mourn is used both for mourning in behalf of the dead and for the sins of others. It is a common verb in biblical Greek and cannot be confined to the idea of mourning for sin. According to Matthew, one hates sin and forsakes it; one does not mourn it. In the present context the idea is best interpreted as a contrast between the “mourning” of the present age and the “comfort” of the coming age. At least this is highly probable in light of its connection with the words from Isaiah. Translators can show this contrast with a phrase such as “people who are mourning now (or, at this time).”
As we said, no reason for the mourning is given, nor should it be in the translation. If a language does require some kind of reason for the mourning, translators should try to be indefinite or use a phrase such as “because they need God.” This is not ideal, however.
It would have been immediately evident to any Jewish reader of Matthew’s Gospel that shall be comforted was merely a way of affirming the result of divine activity: “God will comfort them” (TEV). Such a so-called “divine passive” construction was typical of Semitic language usage, and the theological outlook of Judaism expected that God himself would save and comfort his people. Comforted means “consoled” or possibly “made happy again.” Thus translations can have “God will restore their happiness” or “God will console them.”
Matthew 5.5.
In the same way that verses 3–4 are based on Isaiah 61, so verse 5 finds its background in Psalm 37.11. As the psalm indicates, the metaphor was taken over from the possession of Canaan by the Israelites. The meek (TEV “humble”) of this verse and the “poor” of verse 3 are the same people viewed from a different perspective (see comment at verse 3). In fact, in the language of Jesus the word could hardly be distinguished from “poor.” It contained echoes of “insignificant, lowly,” and may even be rendered “powerless.” These people possess no power because they do not need it; they rest their entire hope on God. Instead of trying to overpower others, they serve him. Phps translates “those who claim nothing,” and Brc “whose strength is in their gentleness.” Once again GeCL 1st edition is dynamic: “who renounce the use of force.” Elsewhere in the New Testament the word meek is used only in Matthew 11.29; 21.5; and 1 Peter 3.4, where TEV renders either “gentle” or “humble.”
Meek in modern English has negative connotations of someone who is submissive and easily imposed on. Words such as “gentle,” “humble,” or “nonaggressive” are perhaps better. One good translation is “who don’t trust in their own power.”
They shall inherit the earth. The verb translated inherit carries the more general meaning of “to receive as one’s possession” or “to share in” (see 19.29; 25.34; 1 Cor 6.9–10; 15.50; Gal 5.21; Heb 1.14). To translate with the equivalent of the English word inherit may intimate that someone has died (in this context, God!) and has left someone else his possessions.
The promise of possessing the land was originally limited to the land of Canaan (see Gen 17.8) but then was extended to include the entire earth, over which God would someday rule. In essence, then, this is simply another expression for the Kingdom of heaven of verse 3 (TOB note). Both of these ideas existed side by side in Israel’s expectation for the future. The God of heaven has given earth to mankind as a place for their existence. But the time would come when God’s people would enjoy the benefits of heaven and the joys of a redeemed earth. TEV completely spiritualizes this promise (“they will receive what God has promised”), while GeCL attempts to maintain some of the imagery (“since God will give them the earth for their possession”). NEB (“they shall have the earth for their possession”) and Phps (“for the whole earth will belong to them”) are similar to GeCL, except that they have maintained the passive rather than making God the explicit subject.
Those translators who follow the interpretation of TEV may need to use an active construction instead of a passive one. Further, they may have to specify what God is going to give; for example, “the blessing” or “the good things.” Consequently, possible translations are “God will give them what he has promised” or “God will give them all the blessings (or, good things) he has promised.” But other translators who want to retain the image of “earth” will find GeCL 1st edition a useful model, as in “God will give them the whole earth to possess.”
Matthew 5.6.
Hunger and thirst for righteousness. Hungering and thirsting are figures for longing after God, both in the Old Testament (Isa 55.1; Psa 42.2; Baruch 2.18) and in the New Testament (John 4.13; 7.37; Rev 21.6; 22.17). The meaning of the figure is to seek something with all one’s heart, to desire it above all else. Most translations maintain the original figure of speech, but those that do away with it include TEV (“whose greatest desire is to do”) and GeCL (“who burn as they wait for God’s will to be done”).
The parallel passage in Luke reads “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied” (6.21). But Matthew moves from a literal, physical hunger to that of hungering after righteousness, a term which is not easily defined (see comments at 3.15). Some translations reflect the meaning as “the desire to do right” (AT “uprightness”; Mft “goodness”; Phps “true goodness”; and NAB “holiness”). TEV renders “what God requires,” while GeCL prefers “that God’s will may be done.”
In many cases translators have felt that the metaphor hunger and thirst will be clearly understood by their readers. Other translators have felt that a simile is better, as in “those who desire righteousness as if they were hungering and thirsting” or “who long for God’s will to be done like people who are hungry and thirsty long for food and drink.” This can make for a rather long and awkward construction, so many translators do find it better to drop the image altogether, as TEV and GeCL have done. Other examples of this are “who want more than anything else to do God’s will” or “who seek with all their heart to do God’s will.”
As we pointed out, another acceptable translation of righteousness here is “to see God’s will done.” Thus translators can say in this verse “whose greatest desire is for people to do what God tells them to do” or “whose greatest desire is that people do what God wants.”
Translators will probably not translate satisfied with a word that only means to be full from eating enough, especially if they have dropped the image of hungering and thirsting. The idea of getting what one desires, however, can be used: “God will give them what they desire” or “God will satisfy them completely.”
Matthew 5.7.
This beatitude is best interpreted in light of a passage such as the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us the wrongs that we have done, as we forgive the wrongs that others have done us”) or of Jesus’ prayer on the cross in Luke 23.34 (“Forgive them, Father! They don’t know what they are doing”). The same teaching is also reflected in other New Testament passages, as well as in a familiar rabbinic saying: “as God is merciful, so you must be merciful.” This beatitude is in contradiction to traditional Pharisaic theology, which would have affirmed “Happy are those who are righteous, for God will be merciful to them.” For Matthew the point is that a person who does not show mercy cannot count on God’s mercy. Occasionally this verse has been wrongly understood to mean that the believer is to be merciful towards others so that they will treat him in the same way. This is not the meaning, and no Jew of Jesus’ day would have understood it in this way; it is imperative for the translator to make the meaning explicit, as TEV has done (“God will be merciful to them!”).
Mercy is defined as having a feeling of sorrow over someone’s bad situation and trying to do something about it. People who are merciful can be said to be “kind” or “forgiving,” or to be “people who take pity on others,” “people who show mercy to others.”
Similarly, then, “God will take pity on them,” “will forgive them,” or “will show mercy to them.” Some translators may have to specify when people will obtain this mercy from God; for example, “on the Judgment Day.” In that case the translation can be “on the Day when he judges the world, God will show mercy to them.”
Matthew 5.8.
According to Psalm 24.3–4 “clean hands and a pure heart” are demanded of persons who would come into the presence of God in his Temple. In this context the heart represents more than the seat of emotions; it refers to one’s innermost being, that which shapes a person’s life. The purity referred to means singleness of motive and of devotion, as opposed to a divided motive, without specific reference to either moral perfection or sexual purity. In Hebrew thought the heart is used as a symbol of one’s mind or thoughts, and here the reference is to thoughts or to a mind concerned solely to please God. For example, it is applicable to one’s attitude toward people of the opposite sex (5.28), or money (6.20–21), or even toward one’s own words (5.37). NAB translates “single-hearted” with a note: “... those who serve God loyally for his own sake and not primarily out of self-interest.”
People who are pure in heart, can be “people whose only interest is to serve God,” “whose lives are directed only to serving God,” “whose devotion to God is complete (or, total),” or “who are completely devoted to God (or, to serving God).”
To see God is a gift which is impossible for humans to experience in this life. It is available only in the coming age. Perhaps the best way to translate see God is to say “be where he is, to see him” or “to see God in his presence.”
Matthew 5.9.
Who are the peacemakers spoken of in this verse? Are they people who make peace between man and God or between man and man? Either interpretation is possible, but both the nonbiblical Jewish literature and the biblical writings themselves support the idea that the peace spoken of is that which is established among people. (See especially Heb 12.14; Eph 2.15; James 3.18.) Brc translates “those who make men friends with each other.” Some other ways to speak of peacemakers are “those who cause people to be friends,” “those who help people to live in peace,” “those who make peace between people,” or “those who work to stop people from being enemies.”
They shall be called sons of God translates a Greek passive structure which presupposes that God is the actor. Therefore TEV has “God will call them his children.” “To be called” means “to become,” as the Old Testament examples in Genesis 21.12 and Isaiah 56.7 indicate. GeCL translates “They will be children of God.” Brc renders “for they shall be ranked as the sons of God” (see also Mft). Phps translates “for they will be known as sons of God!”
Sons does not here refer only to male offspring, but means “children.”
In addition to the examples cited above, there are many ways translators have handled this passive construction shall be called. Some translators keep the idea of called with phrases like “God will say to them, ‘You are my children,’ ” “God will say that they are his children,” or “God will consider them his children.” Or translators can do the same as TEV: “God will call them his children.” Others put the emphasis on the idea of becoming, and say “they will become God’s children” or “God will make them his children.”
The phrase sons of God (or, children of God) causes a problem in cultures where readers would not understand this phrase to be figurative and, further, would not accept the idea of God having physical offspring. Translators in these cases sometimes use similes, as in “God will say they are like children to him,” “God will consider them as if they were his children,” or “God will have a relationship with (or, will care for) them like a father with his children.”
Only with great reserve does the Bible refer to people as sons (better “children”) of God. This is a status established solely as an act of God’s mercy and grace. In the context the reference is to the final judgment, and verses 44–45 are the best commentary on the verse. See also 4.3 and comments.
Matthew 5.10.
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven occurs in both the first and the eighth beatitudes. This signals the beginning and the end of a section, and it is an example of a literary device known as “inclusion,” found elsewhere as well in Matthew. One can easily see the differences between the form of these beatitudes and the form of the last one, verses 11–12.
Are persecuted translates a perfect participle in Greek, which suggests that as Matthew writes, the church of his day is suffering persecution. Most translations, such as TEV (“who are persecuted”), give something of a timeless force to the participle; only Phps and NEB take seriously the perfect tense (“who have suffered persecution”). Are persecuted is often translated “receive suffering,” so that this phrase can be “the people whom other people make suffer (or, persecute).” (Of course, any of these can be rendered as past or future if translators prefer those interpretations.)
For righteousness’ sake is translated “because they do what God requires” by TEV. GeCL and FRCL translate as TEV does, and Brc renders “for their loyalty to God’s way of life.” Other translations are similar: NEB “for the cause of right”; NAB “for holiness’ sake” (with note: “fidelity to the divine precepts through which holiness is attained is deepened by the test of persecution”); JB “in the cause of right” and Mft “for the sake of goodness!” (Phps “for the cause of goodness”). See comments at 3.15 and 5.6 on “righteousness.” Many translations have had “because they do what is right” as a translation of for righteousness’ sake. But as we pointed out above, what is right is in fact that which conforms to God’s will, so that the phrase can also be as in TEV, “because they do what God requires,” or “because their lives are right before God,” or “because they live as God wants people to.”
See verse 3 for comments on theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5.11.
Verses 11–12 form a parallel to verse 10; they apply verse 10 specifically to the persecuted disciples and the Church. In the face of opposition and oppression, Jesus’ promise becomes a reality here and now. This explains the shift to the second person pronoun you, which also anticipates the transition to verses 13–16.
When here means “on those occasions,” “at those times when,” or “whenever.”
Revile (TEV “insult”) is used of strong verbal abuse (see 27.44; 1 Peter 4.14). One commentator notes that the Jews considered verbal abuse to be extremely vicious. The rabbis considered it as evil as idolatry, fornication, and bloodshed all combined. By defamation of character a person lost his place in the community and, according to the circumstance of that day, almost the possibility of continuing his life. The insulting word itself was believed to have a power of its own. Revile can be translated “say evil about” or “say you are bad.” Many translators in West Africa use the idiom “spoil your name.”
For persecute, see comments on verse 10. Here translations can have “whenever people make you suffer” or “when people harm you.”
There is a textual problem regarding the adverb falsely. The UBS Greek text includes the word within square brackets, and the reason, according to TC-GNT, is that it may not have been an original part of the text. On the one hand, its absence may be accounted for as a scribal attempt to make the passage resemble the Lukan form (Luke 6.22). On the other hand, scribes would have been tempted to insert the word in order to limit an overgeneralization of Jesus’ teaching, and to express specifically what was believed to be implied by the very nature of Jesus’ words. But whether it is regarded as an integral part of the text or a later addition, it does explain the true meaning of the text, and this information must somehow be conveyed through translation. So then, whether on textual or translational grounds, it has been retained in a number of translations. For example, it is found in RSV, GeCL, and TEV (“tell all kinds of evil lies”), though omitted by NEB and Phps.
To translate utter all kinds of evil against you falsely, phrases such as “say bad things about you that aren’t true” or “tell all kinds of wicked lies about you” can be used.
The phrase on my account is taken by TEV to mean “because you are my followers.” Most translations follow the text literally, while GeCL translates “because you belong to me.”
A translation of on my account such as “for my sake” is also literal, but many translations have used it. “Because they are against me” is less so, although the clearest translation would be very similar to either TEV or GeCL: “because you follow me” or “because you are my people.”
This sentence is longer than those in verses 3–10, but it can still be made to flow smoothly: “Whenever people say evil about you and do harm to you, and tell all kinds of wicked lies about you simply because you follow me, then you are in a good position,” or “... you are fortunate,” or “... you are happy.”
Matthew 5.12.
Matthew uses the command Rejoice in the present tense to encourage the disciples to be happy and to keep on being happy in the face of difficult circumstances. The verb is the same one used of the wise men in 2.10; elsewhere Matthew employs it in 18.13; 26.49; 27.29; 28.9.
Matthew includes a second verb, be glad, not found in Luke’s Gospel. Commentators differ in their evaluation of its meaning. For example, one commentator notes that it is a “strong word of Hellenistic coinage” which means “to leap much, signifying irrepressible demonstrative gladness.” On the other hand, another commentator affirms: “Matthew’s word for ‘be glad’ ... does not contain the idea of the physical expression of joy, such as is contained in Luke’s ‘leap for joy.’ ” However, it seems to express extreme joy, especially as it is used in the Septuagint (in particular see Isa 12.6; 25.9; 29.19; 35.1, 2; 41.17; 49.13; 61.10; 65.14, 19). One of the standard lexicons gives the following definitions: “exult, be glad, overjoyed.” And in 1 Peter 4.13, where both these verbs occur together, this same lexicon translates “that you might shout for joy.” Elsewhere in the New Testament the word occurs in Luke 1.47; 10.21; John 5.35; 8.56; Acts 2.26; 16.34; 1 Peter 1.6, 8; 4.13; and Revelation 19.7. The related noun form is found in Luke 1.14, 44; Acts 2.46; Hebrews 1.9; and Jude 1.24.
Most translators will treat rejoice and be glad together. They are close in meaning, and one gets the impression that the two terms together simply emphasize the point being made here that people should really be happy. Besides, many languages simply do not have two separate words they would use together in this kind of context. Therefore translators will use an expression that means to be very happy, to exult, to be overjoyed. They may use an imperative, as in “Be really happy,” “Make this an occasion for rejoicing,” or “Rejoice.” Or they may have a sentence with “should,” such as “You should rejoice greatly” or “You should rejoice and celebrate.”
The concept of a reward may be difficult for many readers. The main idea is that of a compensation which is valuable and special. If the idea of a reward sounds strange, one should realize that it is a reward of God’s grace, that is, a reward not merited but which God wills to give to those who serve him faithfully. It is not a compensation for work done, but rather a gift which far exceeds any service rendered.
The Greek passive construction, for your reward is great in heaven, is given an active form in GeCL: “God will reward you richly.” This is a legitimate and perhaps even necessary restructuring, since heaven was a frequent synonym for God. One commentator warns: “It is important not to read into this phrase the notion of ‘going into heaven,’ but rather ‘with God.’ ”
Some translations will use “gift” for reward, or even “great (or, valuable) gift.” This is kept in heaven, which means that it is God who will give it, as we pointed out. Thus the translation can be “God is keeping a valuable reward for you in heaven,” “God will reward you greatly in heaven,” or “the gift God is keeping for you in heaven is great.”
For so men persecuted the prophets who were before you: the Old Testament tells how prophets like Elijah, Amos, and Jeremiah were persecuted. In addition the Jews of the first century A.D. believed that the prophet Isaiah had been sawn in two, after he had hidden himself in a hollow tree. Hebrews 11.37 may be a reference to this event. Moreover, Jesus was certainly familiar with the tradition that the prophets were persecuted by the people of their own generation (Matt 23.29–36).
For comments on persecuted, see verse 10. The prophets who were persecuted were before you, that is, “they lived long ago” or “they lived back before your own time.”
So means “in the same way.” Thus this whole clause can be translated “people made the prophets of long ago suffer in the same way.”
It may be necessary to reorder this verse, since as the text stands, it is possible to take “This is how men persecuted the prophets who lived before you” (TEV) as a reference to “for a great reward is kept for you in heaven” (TEV). To avoid this ambiguity, one need merely to reverse the order of the two sentences: “They persecuted the prophets who lived before you in this way. Be glad and happy, because there is a big reward which the Lord has prepared for you.” Another way to handle it is to say “Be happy and glad, because God is keeping a great gift for you in heaven. In fact, people persecuted the prophets of long ago in the same way they now persecute you.”[15]
THE TEACHINGS OF THE MESSIAH TO HIS DISCIPLES: THE GREAT SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 5:1-7:29
A. The True Disciple (Part I): Who He is and His Reward (the Beatitudes), 5:1-12
(5:1-12) Introduction: seldom in history have so few words been spoken with so much meaning. The Beatitudes of our Lord are powerful, holding before the world a descriptive picture of the true disciple of God. The Beatitudes cover the glorious hope and reward the believer can expect, now as well as in eternity.
1. Jesus saw multitudes (v.1-2).
2. The poor in spirit: shall be given the Kingdom of Heaven (v.3).
3. Those who mourn: shall be comforted (v.4).
4. The meek: shall inherit the earth (v.5).
5. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness: shall be filled (v.6).
6. The merciful: shall obtain mercy (v.7).
7. The pure in heart: shall see God (v.8).
8. The peacemakers: shall be called the children of God (v.9).
9. The persecuted: shall be given the Kingdom of Heaven (v.10-12).
1. (5:1-2) Compassion: Jesus saw the multitudes. It is to be noted that the Sermon on the Mount was given to the disciples not to the multitudes. "Seeing the multitudes," Jesus was moved with compassion over their desperate plight and need. He knew that He could not reach them by Himself, so He was driven to get alone with His disciples. He had to begin preparing them for their ministry to the multitudes.
(How long was He with His disciples on the mountain? A day? A week? Several weeks? It simply says that "when He had come down from the mountain, multitudes followed Him" (Matthew 8:1).
Thought 1. There are two basic ingredients for reaching the multitudes.
1) Compassion: seeing the multitudes; keeping one's eyes open so people and their needs can be seen.
"But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matthew 9:36).
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old" (Isaiah 63:9).
2) Discipleship: realizing that one cannot accomplish the task alone. Others must be taught to help in the great commission.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19-20).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Thought 2. Preaching and teaching are not to be done only in the church, but wherever people are found—on mountains, by the seashore, in homes, on the streets—any place and every place.
Thought 3. Crowds are important, but a small band of disciples is critical to accomplish the great commission. The mission of the Lord is reaching people, but the method of the Lord is to make disciples. It is giving intensive training to a small group so they can help in the ministry to the multitudes. Making disciples was also the method of Paul (see notes— Matthew 28:19-20).
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19-20).
"Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek....Him would Paul have to go forth with him" (Acts 16:1, 3).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
Thought 4. Christian leaders are to call together small bands of disciples for special training and preparation. Matthew says without any explanation that "His disciples came to Him" (Matthew 5:1), but Mark and Luke say that Christ called the disciples together for training and preparation (Mark 3:13; Luke 6:13).
Thought 5. Three things are needed for training and preparation: a place, a time, and a message. The words "He went up...and when He was set" seem to be saying that Jesus had deliberately chosen this place and time for this training. All had been planned; Jesus was personally prepared. (What a lesson too often neglected.)
DEEPER STUDY #1 (5:3) Blessed (makarios)
Thought 1. "To be blessed" is what men seek. The problem is that they seek it in the things of this earth: position, money, fame, power, and sensual pleasure.
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:19-21).
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:17-18).
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:15-16).
Thought 2. Man seeks to be blessed only in this world. This says several things about his nature.
1) Man is carnal and corruptible and he is sinful and dying.
"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:5-8).
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
2) Man is deceived and blinded to his real need, that of a renewed spirit.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
"And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Ephes. 4:23-24).
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Peter 1:23).
3) Man is ignorant of the Kingdom of Heaven (see Deeper Study #3, Kingdom of Heaven—Matthew 19:23-24).
Þ He is misguided and deceived about it
Þ He is unbelieving about it.
Þ He prefers something else to it.
Þ He is hardened to it.
Þ He is neglectful of it.
Þ He is unconcerned about it.
2. (5:3) Poor in Spirit: to acknowledge spiritual poverty. It is poverty, absolute and abject poverty of spirit. It is being destitute and conspicuously poor in spirit. Note several significant facts about the "poor in spirit."
1. Being poor in spirit does not mean that a man must be poverty-stricken and financially poor. Hunger, nakedness, and slums are not pleasing to God, especially in a world of plenty. Christ is not talking about material poverty. He means what He says: poor in spirit. Being "poor in spirit" means several things.
a. To acknowledge our utter helplessness before God, our spiritual poverty, our spiritual need. We are solely dependent upon God to meet our need.
b. To acknowledge our utter lack in facing life and eternity apart from God. To acknowledge that the real blessings of life and eternity come only from a right relationship with God (see note— Ephes. 1:3; cp. John 10:10; Galatians 5:22-23).
c. To acknowledge our utter lack of superiority before all others and our spiritual deadness before God. To acknowledge that we are no better, no richer, no more superior than the next person—no matter what we have achieved in this world (fame, fortune, power). Our attitude toward others is not proud and haughty, not superior and overbearing. To be "poor in spirit" means acknowledging that every human being is a real person just like everyone else—a person who has a significant contribution to make to society and to the world. The person "poor in spirit" approaches life in humility and appreciation, not as though life owes him, but as though he owes life. He has been given the privilege of living; therefore, he journeys through life with a humble attitude and he contributes all he can to a needy world out of a spirit of appreciation.
2. The opposite of being "poor in spirit" is having a spirit that is full of self. There is a world of difference between these two spirits. There is the difference of thinking that we are righteous versus acknowledging that we need the righteousness of Christ. There is the difference of being self-righteous versus being given the righteousness of Christ. Self-righteousness goes no farther than self; that is, it goes no farther than death. Self dies and everything with self including our self-righteousness. But the righteousness that is of Christ lives forever. (See note— Romans 3:21-22; note 3— Galatians 2:15-16 and Deeper Study #1—Galatians 2:15-16; Deeper Study #2—Galatians 2:16. See outline— Romans 10:6-7 and note— Romans 10:6-7.)
"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference" (Romans 3:21-22).
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).
3. Two critical steps are taken by the person who truly acknowledges his spiritual poverty.
a. He turns his primary attention away from the things of this world. He knows things can never make him rich in spirit.
b. He turns his primary attention to God and His kingdom. He knows God alone can make him rich in spirit (see note— Ephes. 1:3).
4. The "poor in spirit" are weary and burdened for the world. They know the truth of this world and of eternity. Therefore, they have set their face to do their part for both.
a. They are weary of the deceptive appearances and enticements of this world. They have learned that "all is vanity [empty]" and all is corruptible. All waste away, even human life itself. Therefore, they feel weary and burdened for those who are still lost in the world.
b. They are weary from having labored so much to reach their generation. They have labored to serve and make their contribution as God has called them. They have toiled so laboriously for one reason only: the love of Christ constrained them to reach their generation (2 Cor. 5:14).
5. The "poor in spirit" are those who approach the world as a child (see notes— Matthew 18:1-2; Deeper Study #2—Mark 10:14; Deeper Study #3—Mark 10:14; Deeper Study #4—Mark 10:14. These notes give an excellent description of what it means to be "poor in spirit.") All children are very, very precious to God and are given angels to look over them (Matthew 18:10 cp. Psalm 91:11).
DEEPER STUDY #2 (5:3) Poor in Spirit— Reward— Kingdom of Heaven
3. (5:4) Mourn (penthountes PWS: 2627): to have a broken heart. It is the strongest word possible for mourning. It is like the deep mourning and wailing that occurs over the death of a loved one. It is sorrow—a desperate, helpless sorrow. It is a sorrow for sin, a broken heart over evil and suffering. It is a brokenness of self that comes from seeing Christ on the cross and realizing that our sins put Him there (cp. James 4:9). Note several significant facts.
1. Who is it that mourns? Who is it so full of grief that he cries and weeps and utters groanings deep from within? There are three persons who mourn and utter such groanings.
a. The person who is desperately sorry for his sins and unworthiness before God. He has such a sense of sin that his heart is just broken.
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13).
b. The person who really feels the desperate plight and terrible suffering of others. The tragedies, the problems, the sinful behavior of others—the state, the condition, the lostness of the world—all weigh ever so heavily upon the heart of the mourner.
"But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matthew 9:36).
"And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick" (Matthew 14:14).
"Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him" (Psalm 103:13).
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old" (Isaiah 63:9).
c. The person who experiences personal tragedy and intense trauma.
2. Men are to mourn over their sins. This leads to confession and humility before God and results in being lifted up (James 4:8-10).
3. The person who mourns is comforted by Christ Himself. Christ was called the "man of sorrows" and was acquainted with grief (Isaiah 53:3). He is able to succor and to draw a person ever so close and to comfort and strengthen him beyond imagination (Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15-16).
4. There is a godly sorrow, but there is also a worldly sorrow (see Deeper Study #1—2 Cor. 7:10 for more discussion). There is also a self-centered sorrow (see notes— 2 Cor. 1:6-7).
DEEPER STUDY #3 (5:4) Comfort
4. (5:5) Meek (praeis PWS: 2554): to have a strong, but tender and humble, life. It is a strong yet teachable spirit. It is not being weak, bowing or spineless. It is a man who is strong, very strong, yet he is humble and tender. It is a man with all the emotions and ability to take and conquer, but he is able to control himself. It is discipline—a man disciplined because he is God-controlled. The opposite of meekness is arrogance or pride. In too many persons there is an aire of sufficiency and superiority. A meek person knows that he has needs and does not have all the answers.
1. Who are the meek?
a. The person who is controlled, not undisciplined. The mind and body are disciplined, never let loose. Passion and urges, speech and behavior, sight and touch are always controlled.
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof" (Romans 6:12).
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor. 6:12).
"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Cor. 9:27).
"For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2).
"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity" (2 Peter 1:5-7).
b. The person who is humble, not prideful.
1) He is humble before God. He knows his need for God and for God's hand upon his life, his need to be saved and controlled by God.
2) He is humble before men. He knows he is not the epitomy of mankind, nor the summit of knowledge among men. He does not have it all nor does he know it all.
"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith" (Romans 12:3).
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. 2:3-4).
c. The person who is gentle, not easily provoked. He is always in control when dealing with people: cool, even-tempered, able to show displeasure without reacting impulsively, able to answer softly. (Cp. Christ, Matthew 11:29; 1 Peter 2:23; cp. Moses, Numbers 12:3.)
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).
"[Love] doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil" (1 Cor. 13:5).
d. The person who is forgiving, not revengeful.
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you" (Matthew 6:14).
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans 12:19-21).
2. The meek person is a quiet person. He studies to be quiet.
"Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still" (Psalm 4:4).
a. He is quiet before God. He quietly surrenders to God, acknowledging his need without show or pomp, and he quietly goes before God daily, depending upon God for guidance and care.
"Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth" (Psalm 46:10).
b. He is quiet before men. He walks quietly before men, controlled in all things, in both speech and behavior.
"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (1 Thes. 4:11).
"[Pray] for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:2).
"But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (1 Peter 3:4).
DEEPER STUDY #4 (5:5) Inherit the Earth
5. (5:6) Hunger and Thirst: to have a starving spirit. It is real hunger and starvation of soul. It is a parched and dying thirst. It is a starving spirit and a parched soul that craves after righteousness. But there is something more: righteousness means all righteousness. The true believer is starved and parched for all righteousness. This is shown by the Greek, for the verbs hunger (peinōntes PWS: 2047) and thirst (dipsaō PWS: 3969) are usually in what is called the Greek genitive case. This simply means that a person sometimes feels a little hunger and a little thirst; therefore, he hungers and thirsts for a bit of something, for example, an apple or a glass of juice. But in the beatitude, hunger and thirst are in the accusative case. This is most unusual. It means a hunger and a thirst for the whole thing—for all righteousness, not for little tidbits. This is significant: it means that the promise of a filled life is conditional. A person must starve and thirst for all righteousness if he wishes to be filled with the fulness of life. Note several significant points.
1. Who is blessed? The person who hungers and thirsts to be righteous and to do righteousness. To do righteousness is not enough. To be righteous is not enough. Both are essestial in order to be blessed (see Deeper Study #5—Matthew 5:6).
Thought 1. Many want just bits and pieces of righteousness—just enough to make them comfortable.
2. There are those who stress being righteous and neglect doing righteousness. This leads to two serious errors.
a. The error of false security. It causes a person to stress that he is saved and acceptable to God because he has believed in Jesus Christ. But he neglects doing good. He does not live as he should, obeying God and serving man.
b. The error of loose living. It allows a person to go out and do what he desires. He feels secure and comfortable in his faith in Christ. He knows that wrong behavior may affect his fellowship with God and other believers, but he thinks his behavior does not affect his salvation and acceptance with God.
The problem with this stress is that it is a false righteousness. Righteousness in the Bible means being righteous and doing righteousness. The Bible knows nothing about being righteous without living righteously.
3. There are those who stress doing righteousness and neglect being righteous. This also leads to two serious errors.
a. The error of self-righteousness and legalism. It causes a person to stress that he is saved and acceptable to God because he does good. He works, behaves morally, keeps certain rules and regulations, does the things a Christian should do, and obeys the main laws of God. But he neglects the basic law: the law of love and acceptance—that God loves him and accepts him not because he does good, but because he loves and trusts the righteousness of Christ (see Deeper Study #5—Matthew 5:6).
b. The error of being judgmental and censorious. A person who stresses that he is righteous (acceptable to God) because he keeps certain laws often judges and censors others. He feels that rules and regulations can be kept because he keeps them. Therefore, anyone who fails to keep them is judged, criticized, and censored.
The problem with this stress is that it, too, is a false righteousness. Again, righteousness in the Bible is both being righteous and doing righteousness. The Bible knows nothing of being acceptable to God without being made righteous in Christ Jesus (see Deeper Study #5—Matthew 5:6; cp. 2 Cor. 5:21. See Deeper Study #1—Romans 4:22; Deeper Study #2—Romans 4:22 for more discussion.)
4. The answer to righteousness is not what most men think when they think of righteousness. When most men think of righteousness, they think of doing good—doing good deeds, good works, and helping their fellow man. As man walks through life, he faces appeal after appeal for help, and he helps. And he feels comfortable with himself because he has helped. He feels his good deeds make him acceptable and righteous before God. But the Bible is not saying that men never do good; it is saying that men are not righteous—not perfectly righteous within their hearts (see Deeper Study #5—Matthew 5:6).
5. Christ does not say, "Blessed are the righteous," for no one is righteous (Romans 3:10). He says, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness." Man is not righteous, not perfectly righteous. His chance to be righteous is gone. He has already come short and missed the mark. He is already imperfect. Man has but one hope: that God will love him so much that He will somehow count him righteous. That is just what God does. God takes a man's "hunger and thirst after righteousness" and counts that hunger and thirst as righteousness. God does this because He loves man (Romans 5:6, 8-9. See Deeper Study #1—Romans 4:22; Deeper Study #2—Romans 4:22; note— Romans 5:1.)
Thought 1. The question each person needs to ask is this: how much am I seeking after righteousness? Am I seeking at all—seeking a little—seeking some—seeking much—seeking more and more? What Christ says is this: a person has to crave, starve, and thirst after righteousness. A person must seek righteousness more and more if he wishes to be saved and filled.
6. Every person has some pull and some influence that urges him to do good. The pull and influence need to be nourished. In fact, it has to be nurtured or else it weakens, and it can be subdued and weakened so much that it is killed completely. It is just hardened against doing anything except what self wants to do (Hebrews 3:13 cp. Proverbs 21:29; Proverbs 28:14; Proverbs 29:1).
7. Righteousness is the only thing that will fill and satisfy man's innermost need. Food and drink will not. Any honest and thinking man knows there is nothing anywhere on this earth that can meet his deep need for life (permanent life, life that never ends). Only God can fill a life and satisfy the deep need for permanent life. This is the reason Christ says to hunger and thirst after righteousness.
Thought 1. Being filled means to "to be filled with the spirit" (Ephes. 5:18). "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...." (Galatians 5:22-23).
DEEPER STUDY #5 (5:6) Righteousness
DEEPER STUDY #6 (5:6) Filled— Life, Abundant
6. (5:7) Merciful (eleēmones PWS: 2567): to have a forgiving spirit and a compassionate heart. It is showing mercy and being benevolent. It is forgiving those who are wrong, yet it is much more. It is empathy; it is getting right inside the person and feeling right along with him. It is a deliberate effort, an act of the will to understand the person and to meet his need by forgiving and showing mercy. It is the opposite of being hard, unforgiving, and unfeeling. God forgives only those who forgive others. A person receives mercy only if he is merciful (cp. Matthew 6:12; James 2:13). Several significant facts need to be noted about mercy.
1. The person who is merciful has a tender heart—a heart that cares for all who have need, seen or unseen. If he sees the needful, he feels for them and reaches out to do all he can. If he does not see them, he feels and reaches out through prayer and giving as opportunity arises. The merciful just do not hoard or hold back any kind of help, no matter the cost.
a. They have the love of God dwelling in them.
"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" (1 John 3:17).
"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?" (James 2:15-16).
b. They know that it is "more blessed to give than to receive."
"I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
2. Every believer can be merciful. Some may not have money or other means to help, but they can be tender and compassionate and demonstrate mercy through expression and prayer. In fact, God instructs the believer to be merciful. He charges the believer to do some very practical things:
a. "Deal...bread to the hungry" (Isaiah 58:7; James 2:15).
b. "Bring the poor that are cast out to thy house" (Isaiah 58:7).
c. "Cover him [the naked]" (Isaiah 58:7; James 2:15).
d. Strengthen and comfort the broken and grieving soul (Job 16:5).
e. Pity the afflicted (Job 6:14).
f. Bear the burdens of others—even to the point of restoring them when they sin. But we reach out to them in a spirit of meekness. (Galatians 6:2 cp. Galatians 6:1).
g. Support the weak (Acts 20:35).
3. The results of being merciful are numerous.
a. A person is given the mercy of God—forgiveness of sins (Psalm 18:25; cp. 2 Samuel 22:26).
b. A person does good to his own soul (Proverbs 19:17).
c. A person is paid back what he gives—by God Himself (Proverbs 19:17).
d. A person behaves like God Himself (Luke 6:36; cp. Psalm 103:8; Joel 2:15).
e. A person is blessed (Psalm 51:1).
f. A person is assured of finding "mercy in that day" (2 Tim. 1:18).
g. A person shall inherit the Kingdom of God—forever (Matthew 25:34-35).
4. The unmerciful are warned by God.
a. They shall face "judgment without mercy" (James 2:13).
b. They shall face the anger and wrath of God (Matthew 18:34-35).
c. They are not forgiven their sins (Matthew 6:12, 14-15).
5. Two opposite attitudes are shown toward mercy.
a. The attitude of shutting up one's compassion from those in need (1 John 3:17; cp. James 2:15-16).
b. The attitude of putting on a heart of mercy (Col. 3:12).
DEEPER STUDY #7 (5:7) Mercy
7. (5:8) Pure (katharoi PWS: 3095): to have a clean heart; to be unsoiled, unmixed, unpolluted; to be cleansed, purged, forgiven; to be holy; to have a single purpose, that of God's glory. There are several significant points to note about the "pure in heart."
1. The person who is "pure in heart" lives a clean life.
a. He "keeps himself unspotted from the world."
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27).
b. He washes his heart from wickedness that he may be saved.
"Wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?" (Jeremiah 4:14).
c. He obeys the truth through the working of the Holy Spirit.
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (1 Peter 1:22).
d. He keeps his hands clean.
"He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation" (Psalm 24:4-5).
e. He seeks to be without spot and blameless.
"Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (2 Peter 3:14).
2. A person's very best behavior is seldom (if ever) free from some mixture of self. It is questionable if a sinful creature can ever act perfectly—perfectly free from mixed motives. As the Bible says, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Romans 3:12). The believer is to constantly search his heart and cleanse it of impure motives. Motives involving self are insidious and deceptive.
a. Is a person employed primarily for self, or to serve Christ and to earn enough to help others who have a need (Col. 3:24; Ephes. 4:28)?
b. Is a person ministering to help the needful, or to have a sense of self-satisfaction (cp. Matthew 5:7)?
c. Is a person worshipping to honor God, or to satisfy a feeling of obligation?
d. Is a person praying daily to fellowship with God, or to gain comfortable feelings that he pleases God through praying?
Impure motives enter the believer's heart so quietly, so deceptively. The believer is too often unaware of their presence. He needs to pray often: "Create in me a clean heart, O God" (Psalm 51:10)!
3. The "pure in heart" minister in two very practical areas:
They visit the fatherless.
They visit widows in their affliction.
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27).
DEEPER STUDY #8 (5:8) Pure in Heart
8. (5:9) Peacemakers (eirenopoios PWS: 2873): to bring men together; to make peace between men and God; to solve disputes and erase divisions; to reconcile differences and eliminate strife; to silence tongues and build right relationships.
1. Who is the peacemaker?
a. The person who strives to make peace with God (Romans 5:1; Ephes. 2:14-17). He conquers the inner struggle, settles the inner tension, handles the inner pressure. He takes the struggle within his heart between good and evil, and strives for the good and conquers the bad.
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Ephes. 2:14-17).
b. The person who strives at every opportunity to make peace within others. He seeks and leads others to make their peace with God—to conquer their inner struggle, to settle their inner tension, to handle their inner pressure.
"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another" (Romans 14:19).
c. The person who strives at every opportunity to make peace between others. He works to solve disputes and erase divisions, to reconcile differences and eliminate strife, to silence tongues and build relationships.
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" (Phil. 2:3).
"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers" (2 Tim. 2:14).
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).
2. The peacemaker is the person who has made peace with God (Romans 5:1), and knows the peace of God (see note— John 14:27).
3. Peacemakers love peace, but they do not passively accept trouble. There are those who claim to love peace, yet they remove themselves from all trouble. They ignore and flee problems and threatening situations, and they often evade issues. They make no attempt to bring peace between others. The peacemaker (of whom Christ speaks) faces the trouble no matter how dangerous, and works to bring a true peace no matter the struggle.
4. The world has its troublemakers. Practically every organization has its troublemakers, including the church. Wherever the troublemaker is, there is criticism, grumbling, and murmuring; and, too often, a division within the body—a division that is sometimes minor, sometimes major; sometimes just distasteful, sometimes outright bitter. The peacemaker cannot stand such. He goes forth to settle the matter, solve the problem, handle the differences, and reconcile the parties.
5. The gospel of Christ is to be spread by peaceful means, not by forceful means. There are many kinds of force.
a. There is verbal force through loudness, a dominating conversation, improper sales tactics, threats, bigotry, and abuse.
b. There is physical force through facial expressions, body motions, an overpowering presence, and attacks.
DEEPER STUDY #9 (5:9) Children of God
9. (5:10-12) Persecuted (diōkomenoi): to endure suffering for Christ; to be mocked, ridiculed, criticized, ostracized; to be treated with hostility; to be martyred. (See notes— Luke 21:12-19; note 1— 1 Peter 4:12 and Deeper Study #1—1 Peter 4:12; note— 1 Peter 4:14.) Note several significant points.
1. There are three major kinds of persecution (diōkomenoi) mentioned by Christ in this passage:
Þ Being reviled: verbally abused, insulted, scolded, mocked (cruel mockings, Hebrews 11:36).
Þ Persecuted: hurt, ostracized, attacked, tortured, martyred, and treated hostily.
Þ Having all manner of evil spoken against: slandered, cursed, and lied about (cp. Psalm 35:11; Acts 17:6-7; cp. "hard speeches," that is, harsh, defiant words, Jude 15).
2. Who are the persecuted?
a. The person who lives and speaks for righteousness and is reacted against.
b. The person who lives and speaks for Christ and is reviled, persecuted, and spoken against.
3. Persecution is a paradox. It reveals that the true nature of the world is evil. Think about it: the person who lives and speaks for righteousness is opposed and persecuted. The person who cares and works for the true love, justice, and salvation of the world is actually fought against. How deceived is the world and its humanity, to rush onward in madness for nothing but to return to dust, to seek life only for some seventy years (if nothing happens before then)!
4. Believers are forewarned, they shall suffer persecution.
a. Believers shall suffer persecution because they are not of this world. They are called out of the world. They are in the world, but they are not of the world. They are separated from the behavior of the world. Therefore, the world reacts against them.
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
b. They shall suffer persecution because believers strip away the world's cloak of sin. They live and demonstrate a life of righteousness. They do not compromise with the world and its sinful behavior. They live pure and godly lives, having nothing to do with the sinful pleasures of a corruptible world. Such living exposes the sins of people.
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you....If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin" (John 15:18, 22).
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3:12).
c. They shall suffer persecution because the world does not know God nor Christ. The ungodly of the world want no God other than themselves and their own imaginations. They want to do just what they want—to fulfill their own desires, not what God wishes and demands. However, the godly believer dedicates his life to God, to His worship and service. The ungodly want no part of God; therefore, they oppose those who talk about God and man's duty to honor and worship God.
"But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me" (John 15:21).
"And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me" (John 16:3).
d. They shall suffer persecution because the world is deceived in its concept and belief of God. The world conceives God to be the One who fulfills their earthly desires and lusts (John 16:2-3). Man's idea of God is that of a Supreme Grandfather. They think that God protects, provides, and gives no matter what a person's behavior is, just so the behavior is not too far out, that God will accept and work all things out in the final analysis. However, the true believer teaches against this. God is love, but He is also just and demands righteousness. The world rebels against this concept of God.
"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me" (John 16:2-3).
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also" (John 15:20).
"These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not know the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you" (John 16:1-4).
"That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto" (1 Thes. 3:3).
"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29).
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3:12).
"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you" (1 John 3:13).
"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" (1 Peter 4:12-14).
5. Persecutions can erupt from the most devilish imaginations of men (see Deeper Study #1—1 Peter 4:12 for a description of some of the sufferings of God's dear people).
6. What is to be the believer's attitude toward persecution?
a. It is not to be retaliation, pride, spiritual superiority.
b. It is to be joy and gladness (Matthew 5:12; 2 Cor. 12:10; 1 Peter 4:12-13).
7. The persecuted are promised great rewards.
a. The Kingdom of Heaven—now.
Þ They experience a special honor (Acts 5:41).
Þ They experience a special consolation (2 Cor. 1:5).
Þ They are given a very special closeness, a glow of the Lord's presence (see note—§ 1 Peter 4:14).
Þ They become a greater witness for Christ (2 Cor. 1:4-6).
b. The Kingdom of Heaven—eternally (Hebrews 11:35f; 1 Peter 4:12-13; see Deeper Study #3—Matthew 19:23-24).[16]
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12)
"Blessed are the poor in spirit." These are the men and women who recognize the fact that they have no spiritual assets. They confess their lost condition and so rely upon divine grace.
"Blessed are they that mourn." The very sorrows men are called to pass through prove a means of blessing if they know the "God of all comfort" (2 Corinthians 1:3) who binds up broken hearts (Psalm 34:18). God makes our griefs become the means of our growth in grace when we trust His love and rest in the realization that all things work together for the good of His own (Romans 8:28).
"Blessed are the meek." The world admires the pushing, self-assertive man. Jesus Christ was meek and lowly in heart. Those who partake of His spirit are the ones who get the most out of life after all. It is they who "inherit the earth," for they see in all nature the evidences of the Father's love and care.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." Such hunger and thirst--such deep, earnest desire--gives evidence of the new life. These desires are not given to mock us. Satisfaction is the promised portion of all who thus yearn after God, in whom alone righteousness is found.
"Blessed are the merciful." To those who show mercy, mercy will be extended. This is a law of the kingdom. The hard, implacable man, who deals in stern justice alone, will be dealt with in the same way when failure comes into his own life.
"Blessed are the pure in heart." Purity is singleness of purpose. The pure in heart are those who put God's glory above all else. To such He reveals Himself. They see His face when others discern only His providential dealings.
"Blessed are the peacemakers." Strife and division are works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Sowing discord among brethren is one of the things that the Lord hates (Proverbs 6:16-19). We are commanded to follow after the things that make for peace (Romans 14:19). In doing this we display the divine nature, as children of Him who is the God of peace (Romans 15:33).
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake." This intimates clearly that the instruction set forth here is intended not, as many have insisted, for the millennial kingdom of Christ when there will be no persecution for the sake of righteousness. Rather, this instruction is intended for the disciples of Christ during the time of His rejection, when His followers are exposed to the hatred of a godless world.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you . . . and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." We all shrink from false accusation, but we may find comfort as we remember that our Lord Himself was not exempt from this. There is blessing as we go through these experiences in fellowship with Him, not even attempting to justify ourselves, but leaving it to Him to clear us in His own way and time.
"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad," instead of giving way to depression of spirit, "for great is your reward in heaven." God is taking note of all that His people suffer at the hands, or by the lips, of a godless world or false brethren. He will make up for it all in His own way when we see His face. His prophets in every age have been called upon to endure similar treatment, but He has observed it all and will reward according to the lovingkindness of His heart.
In the next section we have Christ's disciples presented through various symbols, all speaking of the importance of faithfulness to the trust He has committed to us.[17]
MATTHEW CHAPTER V
Verse 1:
Seeing the multitudes The great numbers that came to attend on his ministry. The substance of this discourse is recorded in the sixth chapter of Luke. It is commonly called the sermon on the mount. It is not improbable that it was repeated, in substance, on different occasions, and to different people. At those times, parts of it might have been omitted, and Luke may have recorded it as it was pronounced on one of these occasions. See Barnes "Luke 6:17-20".
Went up into a mountain. This mountain, or hill, was somewhere in the vicinity of Capernaum, but where precisely is not mentioned. He ascended the hill, doubtless, because it was more convenient to address the multitude from an eminence, than on the same level with them. A hill or mountain is still shown a short distance to the northwest of the ancient site of Capernaum, which tradition reports to have been the place where this sermon was delivered, and which is called on the maps the Mount of Beatitudes. But there is no positive evidence that this is the place where this discourse was uttered.
And when he was set. This was the common mode of teaching among the Jews, Luke 4:20 5:3 Joh 8:2 Ac 13:14 16:13.
His disciples came. The word disciples means learners; those who are taught. Here it is put for those who attended on the ministry of Jesus, and does not imply that they were all Christians. See John 6:66.
Verse 2:
No Barnes text on this verse.
Verse 3:
Blessed are the poor in spirit. The word blessed means happy, referring to that which produces felicity, from whatever quarter it may come.
Poor in spirit. Luke says simply, blessed are THE poor. It has been disputed whether Christ meant the poor in reference to the things of this life, or the humble. The gospel is said to be preached to the poor, Luke 4:18 Mt 11:5. It was predicted that the Messiah should preach to the poor, Is 61:1. It is said that they have peculiar facilities for being saved, Mat 19:23 Lu 18:24. The state of such persons is therefore comparatively blessed, or happy. Riches produce care, anxiety, and dangers, and not the least is the danger of losing heaven by them. To be poor in spirit is to have a humble opinion of ourselves; to be sensible that we are sinners, and have no righteousness of our own; to be willing to be saved only by the rich grace and mercy of God; to be willing to be where God places us, to bear what he lays on us, to go where he bids us, and to die when he commands; to be willing to be in his hands, and to feel that we deserve no favour from him. It is opposed to pride, and vanity, and ambition. Such are happy:
(1.) Because there is more real enjoyment in thinking of ourselves as we are, than in being filled with pride and vanity.
(2.) Because such Jesus chooses to bless, and on them he confers his favours here.
(3.) Because theirs will be the kingdom of heaven hereafter. It is remarkable that Jesus began his ministry in this manner, so unlike all others. Other teachers had taught that happiness was to be found in honour, or riches, or splendour, or sensual pleasure. Jesus overlooked all those things, and fixed his eye on the poor, and the humble, and said that happiness was to be found in the lowly vale of poverty, more than in the pomp and splendours of life.
Their's is the kingdom of heaven. That is, either they have peculiar facilities for entering the kingdom of heaven, and of becoming Christians here, or they shall enter heaven hereafter. Both these ideas are probably included. A state of poverty--a state where we are despised or unhonoured by men--is a state where men are most ready to seek the comforts of religion here, or a home in the heavens hereafter. See Barnes "Mat 2:2".
Verse 4:
Blessed are they that mourn. This is capable of two meanings: either that those are blessed who are afflicted with the loss of friends or possessions; or that they who mourn over sin are blessed. As Christ came to preach repentance, to induce men to mourn over their sins, and to forsake them, it is probable that he had the latter particularly in view, 2Co 7:10. At the same time, it is true that the gospel only can give true comfort to those in affliction, Is 61:1-3 Lu 4:18. Other sources of consolation do not reach the deep sorrows of the soul. They may blunt the sensibilities of the mind; they may produce a sullen and reluctant submission to what we cannot help; but they do not point to the true source of comfort. In the God of mercy only; in the Saviour; in the peace that flows from the hope of a better world, and there only, is there comfort, 2Co 3:17,18 5:1. Those that mourn thus shall be comforted. So those that grieve over sin; that sorrow that they have committed it, and are afflicted and wounded that they have offended God, shall find comfort in the gospel. Through the merciful Saviour those sins may be forgiven. In him the weary and heavy-laden soul shall find peace, (Mat 11:28-30;) and the presence of the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, shall sustain us here, (John 14:26,27) and in heaven all tears shall be wiped away, Rev 21:4.
Verse 5:
The meek. Meekness is patience in the reception of injuries. It is neither meanness, nor a surrender of our rights, nor cowardice; but it is the opposite of sudden anger, of malice, of long-harboured vengeance. Christ insisted on his right when he said,
"If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?"
John 18:23. Paul asserted his right when he said,
"They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily; nay, verily, but let them come themselves, and fetch us out,"
Acts 16:37. And yet Christ was the very model of meekness. It was one of his characteristics, "I am meek," Mat 11:29. So of Paul. No man endured more, and more patiently, than he. Yet they were not passionate. They bore it patiently. They did not harbour malice. They did not press their rights through thick and thin, and trample down the rights of others to secure their own.
Meekness is the reception of injuries with a belief that God will vindicate us. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord," Rom 12:19. It little becomes us to take his place, and to do what he has a right to do, and what he has promised to do.
Meekness produces peace. It is proof of true greatness of soul. It comes from a heart too great to be moved by little insults. It looks upon those who offer them with pity. He that is constantly ruffled, that suffers every little insult or injury to throw him off his guard, and to raise a storm of passion within, is at the mercy of every mortal that chooses to disturb him. He is like the troubled sea that cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
They shall inherit the earth. This might have been translated the land. It is probable that here is a reference to the manner in which the Jews commonly expressed themselves to denote any great blessing. It was promised to them that they should inherit the land of Canaan. For a long time the patriarchs looked forward to this, Ge 15:7,8 Ex 32:13. They regarded it as a great blessing, It was so spoken of in the journey in the wilderness; and their hopes were crowned when they took possession of the promised land, De 1:38 16:20. In the time of our Saviour they were in the constant habit of using the Old Testament, where this promise perpetually occurs, and they used it as a proverbial expression to denote any great blessing, perhaps as the sum of all blessings, Ps 37:20 Is 60:21. Our Saviour used it in this sense; and meant to say, not that the meek should own great property or have many lands, but that they should possess peculiar blessings. The Jews also considered the land of Canaan as a type of heaven, and of the blessings under the Messiah. To inherit the land became, therefore, an expression denoting those blessings. When our Saviour promises it here, he means that the meek shall be received into his kingdom, and partake of its blessings here, and of the glories of the heavenly Canaan hereafter. The value of meekness, even in regard to worldly property and success in life, is often exhibited in the Scriptures, Pr 22:24,25 15:1 25:8 15. It is also seen in common life that a meek, patient, mild man, is the most prospered. An impatient and quarrelsome man raises up enemies; often loses property in lawsuits; spends his time in disputes and broils, rather than in sober, honest industry; and is harassed, vexed, and unsuccessful in all that he does.
"Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come"
1Ti 4:8 6:3-6,
Verse 6:
Blessed are they that hunger, etc. Hunger and thirst, here, are expressive of strong desire. Nothing would better express the strong desire which we ought to feel to obtain righteousness, than hunger and thirst. No wants are so keen, none so imperiously demand supply as these. They occur daily; and when long continued, as in case of those shipwrecked, and doomed to wander months or years over burning sands, with scarcely any drink or food, nothing is more distressing. An ardent desire for anything is often represented in the Scriptures by hunger and thirst, Ps 42:1,2 63:1,2. A desire for the blessings of pardon and peace; a deep sense of sin, and want, and wretchedness, is also represented by thirsting, Is 55:1,2. Those that are perishing for want of righteousness; that feel that they are lost sinners, and strongly desire to be holy, shall be filled. Never was there a desire to be holy, which God was not willing to gratify. And the gospel of Christ has made provision to satisfy all who truly desire to be holy. See Is 55:1-13 65:13 Joh 4:14 6:35 7:37,38 Ps 17:15.
Verse 7:
Blessed are the merciful. That is, those who are so affected by the sufferings of others, as to be disposed to alleviate them. This is given as an evidence of piety; and it is said that they who show mercy to others shall obtain it. The same sentiment is found in Mat 10:42. Whosoever shall give a cup of cold water only unto one of these little ones, in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward. See also Mat 25:34-40. It should be done to glorify God; that is, in obedience to his commandments, and with a desire that he should be honoured; and feeling that we are benefiting one of his creatures. Then he will regard it as done to him, and will reward us. See the sentiment of this verse, that the merciful shall obtain mercy, more fully expressed in 2Sa 22:26,27; and in Ps 18:25,26.
Nowhere do we imitate God more than in showing mercy. In nothing does God more delight than in the exercise of mercy, Ex 34:6 Eze 33:11 1Ti 2:4 2Pe 3:9. To us, guilty sinners; to us, wretched, dying, and exposed to eternal woe, he has shown his mercy by giving his Son to die for us; by expressing his willingness to pardon and save us; and by sending his Spirit to renew and sanctify the heart. Each day of our life, each hour, and each moment, we partake of his undeserved mercy. All the blessings we enjoy are proofs of his mercy. If we also show mercy to the poor, the wretched, the guilty, it shows that we are like God; we have his spirit, and shall not lose our reward. And we have abundant opportunity to do it. Our world is full of guilt and woe, which we may help to relieve; and every day of our lives we have opportunity by helping the poor and wretched, and by forgiving those who injure us, to show that we are like God. See Barnes "Mat 6:14".
Verse 8:
Blessed are the pure in heart. That is, whose minds, motives, and principles are pure. Who seek not only to have the external actions correct, but who desire to be holy in heart, and who are so. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart.
They shall see God. There is a sense in which all shall see God, Rev 1:7. That is, they shall behold him as a Judge, not as a Friend. In this place it is spoken of as a peculiar favour. So also in Rev 22:4. And they shall see his face. To see the face of one, or to be in his presence, were, among the Jews, terms expressive of great favour. It was regarded as a high honour to be in the presence of kings and princes, and to be permitted to see them, Pr 22:29. He shall stand before kings, etc. See also 2Ki 25:19. "Those that stood in the king's presence ;" in the Hebrew, those that saw the face of the king; that is, who were his favourites and friends. So here, to see God, means to be his friends and favourites, and to dwell with him in his kingdom.
Verse 9:
Blessed are the peacemakers. Those who strive to prevent contention, and strife, and war. Who use their influence to reconcile opposing parties, and to prevent lawsuits, and hostilities, in families and neighbourhoods. Every man may do something of this; and no man is more like God than he who does it. There ought not to be unlawful and officious interference in that which is none of our but, has business; without any danger of acquiring this character, every man many opportunities of reconciling opposing parties. Friends, neighbours, men of influence, lawyers, physicians, may do much to promote peace. And it should be taken in hand in the beginning. "The beginning of strife," says Solomon, "is like the letting out of water." "An ounce of prevention," says the English proverb, "is worth a pound of cure." Long and most deadly quarrels might be prevented by a little kind interference in the beginning. Children of God. Those who resemble God, or who manifest a spirit like his. He is the Author of peace, (1Co 14:33) and all those who endeavour to promote peace are like him, and are worthy to be called his children.
Verse 10:
Persecuted. To persecute, means literally to pursue, follow after, as one does a flying enemy. Here it means to vex, or oppress one, on account of his religion. They persecute others who injure their names, reputation, property, or endanger or take their life, on account of their religious opinions.
For righteousness' sake. Because they are righteous, or are the friends of God. We are not to seek persecution. We are not to provoke it by strange sentiments or conduct, or by violating the laws of civil society, or by modes of speech that are unnecessarily offensive to others. But if, in the honest effort to be Christians, and to live the life of Christians, others persecute and revile us, we are to consider this as a blessing. It is all evidence that we are the children of God, and that he will defend us. All that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, 2Ti 3:12.
Their's is the kingdom of heaven. They have evidence that they are Christians, and shall be brought to heaven.
Verse 11:
Revile you. Reproach you; call you by evil and contemptuous names; ridicule you because you are Christians. Thus they said of Jesus, that he was a Samaritan and had a devil; that he was mad; and thus they reviled and mocked him on the cross. But being reviled, he reviled not again, (1Pe 2:23) and thus being reviled, we should bless, (1Co 4:12) and thus, though the contempt of the world is not in itself desirable, yet it is blessed to tread in the footsteps of Jesus, to imitate his example, and even to suffer for his sake, Php 1:29.
All manner of evil--falsely. An emphasis should be laid on the word falsely in this passage. It is not blessed to have evil spoken of us if we deserve it; but if we deserve it not, then we should not consider it as a calamity. We should take it patiently, and show how much the Christian, under the consciousness of innocence, can bear, 1Pe 3:13-18.
For my sake. Because you are attached to me; because you are Christians. We are not to seek such things. We are not to do things to offend others; to treat them harshly or unkindly, and court revilings. We are not to say or do things, though they may be on the subject of religion, designed to disgust or offend. But if, in the faithful endeavour to be Christians, we are reviled, as our Master was, then we are to take it with patience, and to remember that thousands before us have been treated in like manner. When thus reviled, or persecuted, we are to be meek, patient, humble; not angry; not reviling again; but endeavouring to do good to our persecutors and slanderers, 2Ti 2:24,25. In this way, many have been convinced of the power and excellence of that religion which they were persecuting and reviling. They have seen that nothing else but Christianity could impart such patience and meekness to the persecuted; and have, by this means, been constrained to submit themselves to the gospel of Jesus. Long since, it became a proverb, "that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."
Verse 12:
Rejoice, etc. The reward of such suffering is great. To those who suffer most, God imparts the highest rewards. Hence the crown of martyrdom has been thought to be the brightest that any of the redeemed shall wear; and hence many of the early Christians sought to become martyrs, and threw themselves in the way of their persecutors, that they might be put to death. They literally rejoiced, and leaped for joy, at the prospect of death for the sake of Jesus. Though God does not require us to seek persecution, yet all this shows that there is something in religion to sustain the soul, which the-world does not possess. Nothing but the consciousness of innocence, and the presence of God, could have borne them up in the midst of these trials; and the flame, therefore, kindled to consume the martyr, has also been a bright light, showing the truth and power of the gospel of Jesus.
The prophets, etc. The holy men who came to predict future events, and who were the religious teachers of the Jews. For an account of their persecutions, see the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. [18]
B. Continuing pronouncements (chaps. 5-7)
1. The Subjects Of His Kingdom (5:1-16)
a. Their character (5:1-12)
(Luke 6:17-23)
5:1-12. As the multitudes continued to flock to Jesus (cf. 4:25), He went up on a mountainside and sat down. It was the custom of Rabbis to sit as they taught. His disciples came to Him and He began to teach them. Matthew 5-7 is commonly called “the Sermon on the Mount” because Jesus delivered it on a mountain. Though the mountain’s exact location is unknown, it was undoubtedly in Galilee (4:23) and was apparently near Capernaum on a place which was “level” (Luke 6:17). “Disciples” refers not to the Twelve, as some suggest, but to the crowds following Him (cf. Matt. 7:28, “the crowds were amazed at His teaching”).
Jesus instructed them in view of His announcement of the coming kingdom (4:17). Natural questions on the heart of every Jew would have been, “Am I eligible to enter Messiah’s kingdom? Am I righteous enough to qualify for entrance?” The only standard of righteousness the people knew was that laid down by the current religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. Would one who followed that standard be acceptable in Messiah’s kingdom? Jesus’ sermon therefore must be understood in the context of His offer of the kingdom to Israel and the need for repentance to enter that kingdom. The sermon did not give a “Constitution” for the kingdom nor did it present the way of salvation. The sermon showed how a person who is in right relationship with God should conduct his life. While the passage must be understood in the light of the offer of the messianic kingdom, the sermon applies to Jesus’ followers today for it demonstrates the standard of righteousness God demands of His people. Some of the standards are general (e.g., “You cannot serve both God and money” [6:24] ); some are specific (e.g., “If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles” [5:41]); and some pertain to the future (e.g., “many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name?’” [7:22]).
Jesus began His sermon with “the Beatitudes,” statements beginning with Blessed are. “Blessed” means “happy” or “fortunate” (cf. Ps. 1:1). The qualities Jesus mentioned in this list, “the poor in spirit,” “those who mourn,” “the meek,” etc., obviously could not be products of Pharisaic righteousness. The Pharisees were concerned primarily with external qualities, but the qualities Jesus mentioned are internal. These come only when one is properly related to God through faith, when one places his complete trust in God.
The poor in spirit (Matt. 5:3) are those who consciously depend on God, not on themselves; they are “poor” inwardly, having no ability in themselves to please God (cf. Rom. 3:9-12). Those who mourn (Matt. 5:4) recognize their needs and present them to the One who is able to assist. Those who are meek (v. 5) are truly humble and gentle and have a proper appreciation of their position. (Praeis, the Gr. word rendered “meek,” is translated “gentle” in its three other usages in the NT: 11:29; 21:5; 1 Peter 3:4.) Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt. 5:6) have a spiritual appetite, a continuing desire for personal righteousness. The merciful (v. 7) extend mercy to others, thus demonstrating God’s mercy which has been extended to them. The pure in heart (v. 8) are those who are inwardly clean from sin through faith in God’s provision and a continual acknowledging of their sinful condition. The peacemakers (v. 9) show others how to have inward peace with God and how to be instruments of peace in the world. They desire and possess God’s righteousness even though it brings them persecution (v. 10).
These qualities contrast sharply with Pharisaic “righteousness.” The Pharisees were not “poor in spirit”; did not “mourn” in recognition of their needs; were proud and harsh, not humble and gentle; they felt they had attained righteousness and therefore did not have a continual appetite or desire for it; they were more concerned with “legalities” of God’s and their own laws than with showing mercy; were pure ceremonially but not inwardly; created a rift, not peace in Judaism; and certainly did not possess true righteousness. Jesus’ followers who possess these qualities become heirs of the kingdom (vv. 3, 10) on earth (v. 5), receive spiritual comfort (v. 4) and satisfaction (v. 6), receive mercy from God and others (v. 7), will see God (v. 8), that is, Jesus Christ, who is God “in a body” (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. John 1:18; 14:7-9). His followers were known as God’s sons (Matt. 5:9; cf. Gal 3:26) for they partook of His righteousness (Matt. 5:10).
People possessing these qualities would naturally stand out in the crowd and would not be understood by others. Thus they would be persecuted; others would speak evil of them (v. 11). However, Jesus’ words encouraged His followers, for they would be walking in the train of the prophets, who also were misunderstood and persecuted (v. 12; cf. 1 Kings 19:1-4; 22:8; Jer. 26:8-11; 37:11-16; 38:1-6; Dan. 3; 6; Amos 7:10-13).[19]
BEATITUDES [be-at'-i-tudes]
1. The Name:
The word "beatitude" is not found in the English Bible, but the Latin beatitudo, from which it is derived, occurs in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) version of Rom 4:6 where, with reference to Ps 32:1, 2, David is said to pronounce the "beatitude" of the man whose transgressions are forgiven. In the Latin church beatitudo was used not only as an abstract term denoting blessedness, but in the secondary, concrete sense of a particular declaration of blessedness and especially of such a declaration coming from the lips of Jesus Christ. Beatitudes in this derivative meaning of the word occur frequently in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms (Psa. 32:1, 2; Psa. 41:1; Psa. 65:4, etc.), and Jesus on various occasions threw His utterances into this form (Mt 11:6; Mt 13:16; Mt 16:17; Mt 24:46, with the Lukan parallels; Jn 13:17; Jn 20:29). But apart from individual sayings of this type the name Beatitudes, ever since the days of Ambrose, has been attached specifically to those words of blessing with which, according to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus began that great discourse which is known as the Sermon on the Mount.
2. The Two Groups:
When we compare these Beatitudes as we find them in Mt 5:3-12 and Lk 6:20-23 (24-26), we are immediately struck by the resemblances and differences between them. To the ordinary reader, most familiar with Matthew's version, it is the differences that first present themselves; and he will be apt to account for the discrepancy of the two reports, as Augustine did, by assigning them to two distinct occasions in the Lord's ministry. A careful comparative study of the two narratives, however, with some attention to the introductory circumstances in each case, to the whole progress of the discourses themselves, and to the parabolic sayings with which they conclude, makes this view improbable, and points rather to the conclusion that what we have to do with is two varying versions given by the Evangelists of the material drawn from an underlying source consisting of Logia of Jesus. The differences, it must be admitted, are very marked. (a) Matthew has 8 Beatitudes; Luke has 4, with 4 following Woes. (b) In Matthew the sayings, except the last, are in the 3rd person; in Luke they are in the 2nd. (c) In Matthew the blessings, except the last, are attached to spiritual qualities; in Luke to external conditions of poverty and suffering. Assuming that both Evangelists derived their reports from some common Logian source, the question arises as to which of them has adhered more closely to the original. The question is difficult, and still gives rise to quite contrary opinions. One set of scholars decides in favor of Matt hew, and accounts for Luke's deviation from the Matthean version by ascribing to him, on very insufficient grounds, an ascetic bias by which he was led to impart a materialistic tone to the utterances of Jesus. Another set inclines to theory that Luke's version is the more literal of the two, while Matthew's partakes of the nature of a paraphrase. In support of this second view it may be pointed out that Luke is usually more careful than Matthew to place the sayings of Jesus in their original setting and to preserve them in their primitive form, and further that owing to the natural tendency of the sacred writers to expand and interpret rather than to abbreviate an inspired utterance, the shorter form of a saying is more likely to be the original one. It may be noted, further, that in Mt 5:11, 12 the Beatitude takes the direct form, which suggests that this may have been the form Matthew found in his source in the case of the others also. On the whole, then, probabilities appear to favor the view that Luke's version is the more literal one. It does not follow, however, that the difference between the two reports amounts to any real inconsistency. In Luke emphasis is laid on the fact that Jesus is addressing His disciples (Luke 6:20), so that it was not the poor as such whom He blessed, but His own disciples although they were poor. It was not poverty, hunger, sorrow or suffering in themselves to which He promised great rewards, but those experiences as coming to spiritual men and thus transformed into springs of spiritual blessing. And so when Matthew, setting down the Lord's words with a view to their universal application rather than with reference to the particular circumstances in which they were uttered, changes "the poor" into "the poor in spirit," and those that "hunger" into those that "hunger and thirst after righteousness," he is giving the real purport of the words of Jesus and recording them in the form in which by all men and through all coming time they may be read without any chance of misunderstanding.
As regards the Beatitudes of the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, which are given by Matthew only, they may have been spoken by Jesus at the same time as the rest and have been intended by Him in their association with the other four to fill out a conception of the ideal character of the members of the Kingdom of God. In view, however, of their omission from Luke's list, it is impossible to affirm this with certainty. That they are all authentic utterances of Jesus Himself there is no reason to doubt. But they may have been originally scattered through the discourse itself, each in its own proper place. Thus the Beatitude of the meek would go fitly with Lk 6:38 ff, that of the merciful with Lk 6:43 ff, that of the pure in heart with Lk 6:27 ff, that of the peacemakers with Lk 6:23 ff. Or they may even have been uttered on other occasions than that of the Sermon on the Mount and have been gathered together by Matthew and placed at the head of the Sermon as forming along with the other four a suitable introduction to our Lord's great discourse on the laws and principles of the Kingdom of God.
3. Number, Arrangement, Structure:
With regard to the number of the Beatitudes in Matthew's fuller version, some have counted 7 only, making the list end with Mt 5:9. But though the blessing pronounced on the persecuted in Mt 5:10-12 differs from the preceding Beatitudes, both in departing from the aphoristic form and in attaching the blessing to an outward condition and not to a disposition of the heart, the parallel in Lk (Luke 6:22f) justifies the view that this also is to be added to the list, thus making 8 Beatitudes in all. On the arrangement of the group much has been written, most of it fanciful and unconvincing. The first four have been described as negative and passive, the second four as positive and active. The first four, again, have been represented as pertaining to the desire for salvation, the second four as relating to its actual possession. Some writers have endeavored to trace in the group as a whole the steadily ascending stages in the development of the Christian character. The truth in this last suggestion lies in the reminder it brings that the Beatitudes are not to be thought of as setting forth separate types of Christian character, but as enumerating qualities and experiences that are combined in the ideal character as conceived by Christ -- and as exemplified, it may be added, in His own life and person.
In respect of their structure, the Beatitudes are all alike in associating the blessing with a promise -- a promise which is sometimes represented as having an immediate realization (Mt 5:3, 10), but in most cases has a future or even (compare Mt 5:12) an eschatological outlook. The declaration of blessedness, therefore, is based not only on the possession of the quality or experience described, but on the present or future rewards in which it issues. The poor in spirit are called blessed not merely because they are poor in spirit, but because the kingdom of heaven is theirs; the mourners because they shall be comforted; those that hunger and thirst after righteousness because they shall be filled; those who are persecuted because a great reward is laid up for them in heaven. The Beatitudes have often been criticized as holding up an ideal of which limitation, privation and self-renunciation are the essence, and which lacks those positive elements that are indispensable to any complete conception of blessedness. But when it is recognized that the blessing in every case rests on the associated promise, the criticism falls to the ground. Christ does demand of His followers a renunciation of many things that seem desirable to the natural heart, and a readiness to endure many other things from which men naturally shrink. But just as in His own case the great self-emptying was followed by the glorious exaltation (Phil 2:6 ff), so in the case of His disciples spiritual poverty and the bearing of the cross carry with them the inheritance of the earth and a great reward in heaven.
LITERATURE.
Votaw in HDB, V, 14 ff; Adeney in Expositor, 5th series, II, 365 ff; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 106 ff, 327 f; Gore, Sermon on the Mount, 15 ff; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, 25-200.[20]
BEATITUDES are the opening sentences of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount which describe the quality of life of a citizen of the kingdom of God.
The word “Beatitude” comes from a Latin word meaning “happy” or “blessed.” Various forms of the word “bless” are used many times in both the Old and New Testaments, but this passage alone is known as the Beatitudes. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) sets forth the spiritual principles of the kingdom of God. They define the character of a child of the King. The Beatitudes are not to be seen as separate blessings for different believers. All the Beatitudes are to be applied and developed in all disciples both now and in the future. The eight Beatitudes have continuity. 1. “The poor in spirit” denotes the fact of sin (5:3). 2. “They that mourn” means to repent of sin (5:4). 3. “The meek” describes not the weak, but rather strength that is surrendered to God in a new birth experience (5:5). 4. To “hunger and thirst after righteousness” signifies the strong desire to become more Christ-like (5:6). 5. “The merciful” show an attitude of forgiveness (5:7). 6. “The pure in heart” strive daily for clean living (5:8). 7. “The peacemakers” exert a calming influence in the storms of life (5:9). 8. “They which are persecuted” denotes faithfulness under stress (5:10-12). Each Beatitude carries with it a strong promise of ultimate good for those who develop the blessed life.[21]
The New Sinai (Matthew 5:1-16)
‘And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him: 2And He opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God, 10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. 13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be oast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.’—Matthew 5:1-16.
An unnamed mountain somewhere on the Sea of Galilee is the Sinai of the new covenant. The contrast between the savage desolation of the wilderness and the smiling beauty of the sunny slope near the haunts of men symbolises the contrast in the genius of the two codes, given from each. There God came down in majesty, and the cloud hid Him from the people’s gaze; here Jesus sits amidst His followers, God with us. The King proclaims the fundamental laws of His kingdom, and reveals much of its nature by the fact that He begins by describing the characteristics of its subjects, as well as by the fact that the description is cast in the form of beatitudes.
We must leave unsettled the question as to the relation between the Sermon on the Mount and the shorter edition of part of it given by Luke, only pointing out that in this first part of Matthew’s Gospel we are evidently presented with general summaries; as, for example, the summary of the Galilean ministry in the previous verses, and the grand procession of miracles which follows in Matthew 8–9. It is therefore no violent supposition that here too the evangelist has brought together, as specimens of our Lord’s preaching, words which were not all spoken at the same time. His description of the Galilean ministry in Matthew 4:23, as ‘teaching’ and ‘healing,’ governs the arrangement of his materials from Matthew 5 to the end of Matthew 9. First comes the sermon, then the miracles follow.
The Beatitudes, as a whole, are a set of paradoxes to the ‘mind of the flesh.’ They were meant to tear away the foolish illusions of the multitude as to the nature of the kingdom; and they must have disgusted and turned back many would-be sharers in it. They are like a dash of cold water on the fiery, impure enthusiasms which were eager for a kingdom of gross delights and vulgar conquest. And, no doubt, Jesus intended them to act like Gideon’s test, and to sift out those whose appetite for carnal good was uppermost. But they were tests simply because they embodied everlasting truths as to the characters of His subjects. Our narrow space allows of only the most superficial treatment of these deep words.
I. The foundation of all is laid in poverty of spirit.
The word rendered ‘poor’ does not only signify one in a condition of want, but rather one who is aware of the condition, and seeks relief. If we may refer to Latin words here, it is mendicus rather than pauper, a beggar rather than a poor man, who is meant. So that to be poor in spirit is to be in inmost reality conscious of need, of emptiness, of dependence on God, of demerit; the true estimate of self, as blind, evil, weak, is intended; the characteristic tone of feeling pointed to is self-abnegation, like that of the publican smiting his breast, or that of the disease-weakened, hunger-tortured prodigal, or that of the once self-righteous Paul, ‘O wretched man that I am!’ People who do not like evangelical teaching sometimes say, ‘Give me the Sermon on the Mount.’ So say I. Only let us take all of it; and if we do, we shall come, as we shall have frequent occasion to point out, in subsequent passages, to something uncommonly like the evangelical theology to which it is sometimes set up as antithetic. For Christ begins His portraiture of a citizen of the kingdom with the consciousness of want and sin. All the rest of the morality of the Sermon is founded on this. It is the root of all that is heavenly and divine in character. So this teaching is dead against the modern pagan doctrine of self-reliance, and really embodies the very principle for the supposed omission of which some folk like this Sermon; namely, that our proud self-confidence must be broken down before God can do any good with us, or we can enter His kingdom.
The promises attached to the Beatitudes are in each case the results which flow from the quality, rather than the rewards arbitrarily given for it. So here, the possession of the kingdom comes by consequence from poverty of spirit. Of course, such a kingdom as could be so inherited was the opposite of that which the narrow and fleshly nationalism of the Jews wanted, and these first words must have cooled many incipient disciples. The ‘kingdom of heaven’ is the rule of God through Christ. It is present wherever wills bow to Him; it is future, as to complete realisation, in the heaven from which it comes, and to which, like its King, it belongs even while on earth. Obviously, its subjects can only be those who feel their dependence, and in poverty of spirit have cast off self-will and self-reliance. ‘Theirs is the kingdom’ does not mean ‘they shall rule,’ but ‘of them shall be its subjects.’ True, they shall rule in the perfected form of it; but the first, and in a real sense the only, blessedness is to obey God; and that blessedness can only come when we have learned poverty of spirit, because we see ourselves as in need of all things.
II. Each Beatitude springs from the preceding, and all twined together make an ornament of grace upon the neck, a chain of jewels.
The second sounds a more violent paradox than even the first. Sorrowing is blessed. This, of course, cannot mean mere sorrow as such. That may or may not be a blessing. Grief makes men worse quite as often as it makes them better. Its waves often flow over us like the sea over marshes, leaving them as salt and barren as it found them. Nor is sorrow always sure of comfort. We must necessarily understand the word here so as to bring it into harmony with the context, and link it with the former Beatitude as flowing from it, as well as with the succeeding. The only intelligible explanation is that this sorrow arises from the contemplation of the same facts concerning self as lead to poverty of spirit, and is, in fact, the emotional side of the same disposition. He who takes the true measure of himself cannot but sorrow over the frightful gulf between what he should and might be and what he is, for he knows that there is more than misfortune or unavoidable creatural weakness at work. The grim reality of sin has to be reckoned in. Personal responsibility and guilt are facts. The soul that has once seen its own past as it is, and looked steadily down into the depths of its own being, cannot choose but ‘mourn.’ Such contrition underlies all moral progress. The ethical teaching of the Sermon on the Mount puts these two, poverty of spirit and tears for sin, at the foundation. Do its admirers lay that fact to heart? This is Christ’s account of discipleship. We have to creep through a narrow gate, which we shall not pass but on our knees and leaving all our treasures outside. But once through, we are in a great temple with far-reaching aisles and lofty roof. Such sorrow is sure of comfort. Other sorrow is not. The comfort it needs is the assurance of forgiveness and cleansing, and that assurance has never been sought from the King in vain. The comfort is filtered to us in drops here; it pours in a flood hereafter. Blessed the sorrow which leads to experience of the tender touch of the hand that wipes away tears from the face, and plucks evil from the heart! Blessed the mourning, which prepares for the festal garland and the oil of gladness and the robe of praise, instead of ashes on the head and sackcloth on the spirit!
III. Meekness here seems to be considered principally as exercised to men, and it thus constitutes the first of the social virtues, which henceforward alternate with those having exclusive reference to God.
It is the grace which opposes patient gentleness to hatred, injury, or antagonism. The prominence given to it in Christ’s teaching is one of the peculiarities of Christian morals, and is a standing condemnation of much so-called Christianity. Pride and anger and self-assertion and retaliation flaunt in fine names, and are called manly virtues. Meekness is smiled at, or trampled on, and the men who exercise it are called ‘Quakers’ and ‘poor-spirited’ and ‘chicken-hearted’ and the like. Social life among us is in flagrant contradiction of this Beatitude; and as for national life, all ‘Christian nations’ agree that to apply Christ’s precept to it would be absurd and suicidal. He said that the meek should inherit the earth; statesmen say that the only way to keep a country is to be armed to the teeth, and let no man insult its flag with impunity. There does not seem much room for ‘a spirited foreign policy’ or for ‘proper regard to one’s own dignity’ inside this Beatitude, does there? But notice that this meekness naturally follows the preceding dispositions. He who knows himself and has learned the depth of his own evil will not be swift to blaze up at slights or wrongs. The true meekness is not mere natural disposition, but the direct outcome of poverty of spirit and the consequent sorrow. So, it is a test of their reality. Many a man will indulge in confessions of sin, and crackle up in sputtering heat of indignation at some slight or offence. If he does, his lowly words have had little meaning, and the benediction of these promises will come scantily to his heart.
Does Christ mean merely to say that meek men will acquire landed properly? Is there not a present inheritance of the earth by them, though they may not own a foot of it? They have the world who enjoy it, whom it helps nearer God, who see Him in it, to whom it is the field for service and the means for growing character. But in the future the kingdom of heaven will be a kingdom of the earth, and the meek saints shall reign with the King who is meek and lowly of heart.
IV. Righteousness is conformity to the will of God, or moral perfection.
Hunger and thirst are energetic metaphors for passionate desire, and imply that righteousness is the true nourishment of the Spirit. Every longing of a noble spirit is blessed. Aspiration after the unreached is the salt of all lofty life. It is better to be conscious of want than to be content. There are hungers which are all unblessed, greedy appetites for the swine’s husks, which are misery when unsatisfied, and disgust when satiated. But we are meant to be righteous, and shall not in vain desire to be so. God never sends mouths but He sends meat to fill them. Such longings prophesy their fruition.
Notice that this hunger follows the experience of the former Beatitudes. It is the issue of poverty of spirit and of that blessed sorrow. Observe, too, that the desire after, and not the possession or achievement of, righteousness is blessed. Is not this the first hint of the Christian teaching that we do not work out or win but receive it? God gives it. Our attitude towards that gift should be earnest longing. Such a blessed hungerer shall ‘receive … righteousness from the God of his salvation.’ The certainty that he will do so rests at last on the faithfulness of God, who cannot but respond to all desires which He inspires. They are premonitions of His purposes, like rosy clouds that run before the chariot of the sunrise. The desire to be righteous is already righteousness in heart and will, and reveals the true bent of the soul. Its realisation in life is a question of time. The progressive fulfilment here points to completeness in heaven, when we shall behold His face in righteousness, and be satisfied when we awake in His likeness.
V. Again we have a grace which is exercised to men.
Mercy is more than meekness. That implied opposition, and was largely negative. This does not regard the conduct of others at all, and is really love in exercise to the needy, especially the unworthy. It embraces pity, charitable forbearance, beneficence, and is revealed in acts, in words, in tears. It is blessed in itself. A life of selfishness is hell; a life of mercy is sweet with some savour of heaven. It is the consequence of mercy received from God. Poverty of spirit, sorrow, hunger after righteousness bring deep experiences of God’s gentle forbearance and bestowing love, and will make us like Him in proportion as they are real. Our mercifulness, then, is a reflection from His. His ought to be the measure and pattern of ours in depth, scope, extent of self-sacrifice, and freeness of its gifts. A stringent requirement!
Our exercise of mercy is the condition of our receiving it. On the whole, the world gives us back, as a mirror does, the reflection of our own faces; and merciful men generally get what they give. But that is a law with many exceptions, and Jesus means more than that. Merciful men get mercy from God—not, of course, that we deserve mercy by being merciful. That is a contradiction in terms; for mercy is precisely that which we do not deserve. The place of mercy in this series shows that Jesus regarded it as the consequence, not the cause, of our experience of God’s mercy. But He teaches over and over again that a hard, unmerciful heart forfeits the divine mercy. It does so, because such a disposition tends to obscure the very state of mind to which alone God’s mercy can be given. Such a man must have forgotten his poverty and sorrow, his longings and their rich reward, and so must have, for the time, passed from the place where he can take in God’s gift. A life inconsistent with Christian motives will rob a Christian of Christian privileges. The hand on his brother’s throat destroys the servant’s own forgiveness. He cannot be at once a rapacious creditor and a discharged bankrupt.
VI. If detached from its connection, there is little blessedness in the next Beatitude.
What is the use of telling us how happy purity of heart will make us? It only provokes the despairing question, ‘And how am I to be pure?’ But when we set this word in its place here, it does bring hope. For it teaches that purity is the result of all that has gone before, and comes from that purifying which is the sure answer of God to our poverty, mourning, and longing. Such purity is plainly progressive, and as it increases, so does the vision of God grow. The more the glasses of the telescope are cleansed, the brighter does the great star shine to the gazer. ‘No man hath seen God,’ nor can see Him, either amid the mists of earth or in the cloudless sky of heaven, if by seeing we mean perceiving by sense, or full, direct comprehension by spirit. But seeing Him is possible even now, if by it we understand the knowledge of His character, the assurance of His presence, the sense of communion with Him. Our earthly consciousness of God may become so clear, direct, real, and certain, that it deserves the name of vision. Such blessed intuition of Him is the prerogative of those whose hearts Christ has cleansed, and whose inward eye is therefore able to behold God, because it is like Him. ‘Unless the eye were sunlike, how could it see the sun?’ We can blind ourselves to Him, by wallowing in filth. Impurity unfits for seeing purity. Swedenborg profoundly said that the wicked see only blackness where the sun is.
Like all these Beatitudes, this has a double fulfilment, as the kingdom has two stages of here and hereafter. Purity of heart is the condition of the vision of God in heaven. Without holiness, ‘no man shall see the Lord.’ The sight makes us pure, and purity makes us see. Thus heaven will be a state of ever-increasing, reciprocally acting sight and holiness. Like Him because we see Him, we shall see Him more because we have assimilated what we see, as the sunshine opens the petals, and tints the flower with its own colours the more deeply, the wider it opens.
VII. Once more we have the alternation of a grace exercised to men.
If we give due weight to the order of these Beatitudes, we shall feel that Christ’s peacemaker must be something more than a mere composer of men’s quarrels. For he has to be trained by all the preceding experiences, and has to be emptied of self, penitent, hungering for and filled with righteousness, and therefore pure in heart as well as, in regard to men, meek and merciful, ere he can hope to fill this part. That apprenticeship deepens the conception of the peace which Christ’s subjects are to diffuse. It is, first and chiefly, the peace which enters the soul that has traversed all these stages; that is to say, the Christian peacemaker is first to seek to bring about peace between men and God, by beseeching them to be reconciled to Him, and then afterwards, as a consequence of this, is to seek to diffuse through all human relations the blessed unity and amity which flow most surely from the common possession of the peace of God. Of course, the relation which the subjects of the true King bear to all wars and fightings, to all discord and strife, is not excluded, but is grounded on this deeper meaning. The centuries that have passed since the words were spoken, have not yet brought up the Christian conscience to the full perception of their meaning and obligation. Too many of us still believe that ‘great doors and effectual’ can be blown open with gunpowder, and regard this Beatitude as a counsel of perfection, rather than as one of the fundamental laws of the kingdom.
The Christian who moves thus among men seeking to diffuse everywhere the peace with God which fills his own soul, and the peace with all men which they only who have the higher peace can preserve unbroken in their quiet, meek hearts, will be more or less recognised as God-like by men, and will have in his own heart the witness that he is called by God His child. He will bear visibly the image of his Father, and will hear the voice that speaks to him too as unto a son.
VIII. The last Beatitude crowns all the paradoxes of the series with what sounds to flesh as a stark contradiction.
The persecuted are blessed. The previous seven sayings have perfected the portraiture of what a child of the kingdom is to be. This appends a calm prophecy, which must have shattered many a rosy dream among the listeners, of what his reception by the world will certainly turn out. Jesus is not summoning men to dominion, honour, and victory; but to scorn and suffering. His own crown, He knew, was first to be twisted of thorns, and copies of it were to wound His followers’ brows. Yet even that fate was blessed; for to suffer for righteousness, which is to suffer for Him, brings elevation of spirit, a solemn joy, secret supplies of strength, and sweet intimacies of communion else unknown. The noble army of martyrs rose before His thoughts as He spoke; and now, eighteen hundred years after, heaven is crowded with those who by axe and stake and gibbet have entered there. ‘The glory dies not, and the grief is past.’ They stoop from their thrones to witness to us that Christ is true, and that the light affliction has wrought an eternal weight of glory.[22]
Matthew 5
Jesus Gives the Beatitudes—Matthew 5:1-12 / 49
Matthew 5–7 is called the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus gave it on a hillside near Capernaum. This “sermon” probably covered several days of preaching. In it, Jesus revealed his attitude toward the law of Moses, explaining that he requires faithful and sincere obedience, not ceremonial religion. The Sermon on the Mount challenged the teachings of the proud and legalistic religious leaders of the day. It called people back to the messages of the Old Testament prophets who, like Jesus, had taught that God wants heartfelt obedience, not mere legalistic observance of laws and rituals.
The most well-known and provocative portion of the Sermon on the Mount is known as the Beatitudes (5:3-10). These are a series of blessings promised to those who exhibit the attributes of God’s kingdom. Over the centuries since Jesus first presented the Beatitudes, many interpretations of them have been offered. There are strengths in each one, and combinations of elements from several can create new interpretations. Five of the main interpretations are as follows:
1. Perfectionist legalism. This view was developed during medieval times and teaches that there are higher standards for “disciples” (clergy and the monastic orders). It teaches that true followers should live on a level of righteousness above normal Christians. However, Jesus’ sermon does not teach two different standards for Christians, and we must not read into the sermon salvation by works.
2. Impossible ideal. Widely accepted after Martin Luther, this view states that the sermon functions like the Old Testament law, forcing people to realize their sinfulness and helplessness and so turn to God. However, Jesus provides enablement to fulfill his requirements, so these demands are not impossible. Scholars also see the use of hyperbole (overstatement to make a point, as in “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” in 5:30) as an accepted teaching method during Jesus’ time to stress moral urgency.
3. Only for Jesus’ disciples. Albert Schweitzer said that this teaching was only for the disciples, who thought that Jesus would return in their lifetime and that the moral demands were not for all time. However, Jesus makes no reference to the end of the world or to his return in this sermon.
4. Kingdom age. Dispensationalism teaches that these laws are for the kingdom age (Millennium) and are only an example for us and our day. Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected it. Thus, the reality was postponed until the Second Coming. However, nothing in Jesus’ teaching ever exempted the disciples then or now from these principles. They are principles for disciples for all ages.
5. Social gospel. Protestant liberals have used the ethics of the sermon as a mandate for the church to usher in the kingdom of God by means of reforming society. However, the teachings of Jesus here cannot be isolated from all his other teachings about himself, evangelism, personal faith, and devotion.
There is another way to understand the sermon in light of a double-pronged interpretation. The kingdom has been inaugurated (beginning), but not yet realized (completion). So there remains a creative tension between the “already” and the “not yet” aspects. Those who obey Jesus now experience, in a partial way, the wonderful benefits he described.
We must not let the promise of future blessing deter us from the radical demands for discipleship that Jesus presented. We must ask what the Beatitudes meant in the Jewish milieu in which Christ delivered them. We must also interpret the phrases in their historical (cultural) and logical (the developing message) contexts.
So then, the Beatitudes
t present a code of ethics for the disciples and a standard of conduct for all believers,
t contrast kingdom values (what is eternal) with worldly values (what is temporary),
t contrast the superficial “faith” of the Pharisees with the real faith that Christ wants, and
t show how the future kingdom will fulfill Old Testament expectations.
Matthew 5:1-2
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying: … (niv) Large crowds were following Jesus—he was the talk of the town, even of the entire province, and everyone wanted to see him. Jesus had already been preaching throughout Galilee (4:12-25). During that preaching mission, Jesus had healed several people: a government official’s son in Cana (John 4:46-54), Peter’s mother-in-law and many others in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-17), a man with leprosy (Matthew 8:1-4), and a paralyzed man also in Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8). (See the Harmony of the Gospels at the end of this commentary.) These events happened prior to this sermon. (Matthew’s Gospel is arranged topically rather than chronologically.) The many miracles that Jesus had performed throughout Galilee accounted for his immense popularity. When people learned of this amazing preacher with healing words and healing power, they sought him out and followed him.
Jesus often presented his teaching up on a mountainside. Jesus did not have access to public address systems or acoustical amphitheaters. So he used what he himself had created—the natural stage of a sloping hill, which were plentiful on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee. The people sat on the slope below him. After Jesus went up, he sat down (a typical teaching position for a rabbi).
Matthew then reported that his disciples came to him, and he began to teach them. Some scholars say that the word “disciples” refers to the crowds, many of whom were Jesus’ followers (and therefore, his disciples). However, others say that this refers specifically to the Twelve, whom Jesus had just chosen (see the Harmony of the Gospels and Mark 3:13-19). Most scholars agree that Jesus gave these teachings primarily to the disciples, but that the crowds were present and listening (see 7:28). Much of what Jesus said referred to the ideas that had been promoted by the religious leaders of the day.
The disciples, the closest associates of this popular man, might easily have been tempted to feel important, proud, and possessive. Being with Jesus gave them not only prestige, but also opportunity for receiving money and power. However, Jesus told them that instead of fame and fortune, they could expect mourning, hunger, and persecution. Jesus also assured his disciples that they would receive rewards—but perhaps not in this life.
Matthew 5:3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (nkjv) The Beatitudes are not multiple choice—pick what you like and leave the rest. We must take them as a whole. The Beatitudes describe how Christ’s followers should live. Each beatitude tells how to be blessed. “Blessed” means more than happiness; it means singularly favored, graciously approved by God. Jesus’ words throughout this sermon seem to contradict each other. According to worldly standards, the types of people whom Jesus described don’t seem to be particularly “blessed.” But God’s way of living usually contradicts the world’s. The Beatitudes don’t promise laughter, pleasure, or earthly prosperity. To Jesus, a person who is “blessed” experiences hope and joy, independent of his or her outward circumstances. The disciples, riding on the wave of Jesus’ popularity, needed to first understand kingdom priorities.
Jesus explained that the poor in spirit are blessed. The poor in spirit realize that they cannot please God on their own. They are “poor” or “bankrupt” inwardly, unable to give anything of value to God and thus must depend on his mercy. Only those who humbly depend on God are admitted into the kingdom of heaven. In this beatitude and in the very last one (5:10) the reward is the same. And in both places the reward is described in the present tense—“theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The intervening beatitudes describe the reward in the future tense. The final consummation of all these rewards, and of the kingdom itself, lies in the future. However, believers can already share in the kingdom (as far as it has been revealed) by living out Jesus’ words. It must be remembered, one is not rewarded for being virtuous; virtue is its own reward.
Acting Strangely
People who want to live for God must be ready to say and do what seems strange to the world. Christians must be willing to give when others take, to love when others hate, to help when others abuse. By putting aside our selfish interests so that we can serve others, we will one day receive everything God has in store for us. To find hope and joy, the deepest form of happiness, we must follow Jesus no matter what the cost.
| The Unbeatitudes |
| We can understand the Beatitudes by looking at them from their opposites. Some, Jesus implied, will not be blessed. Their condition could be described in this way: |
| Wretched are the spiritually self-sufficient, for theirs is the kingdom of hell.Wretched are those who deny the tragedy of their sinfulness, for they will be troubled.Wretched are the self-centered, for they will be empty.Wretched are those who ceaselessly justify themselves, for their efforts will be in vain.Wretched are the merciless, for no mercy will be shown to them.Wretched are those with impure hearts, for they will not see God.Wretched are those who reject peace, for they will earn the title “sons of Satan.”Wretched are the uncommitted for convenience's sake, for their destination is hell. |
Matthew 5:4
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” (nrsv) In another seeming contradiction in terms, Jesus explained that those who mourn are blessed. Jesus reminded his disciples that the prophet Isaiah had promised that the Messiah would “comfort all who mourn” (Isaiah 61:2 niv). Scholars differ on the exact nature of this mourning. Some say that Jesus was referring to the nation of Israel mourning for its sins; others interpret this more personally, explaining that it refers to those who mourn for their own sins or even for personal grief or oppression. Tied with the beatitude in verse 3, this means that humility (realization of one’s unworthiness before God) also requires sorrow for sins. Still other scholars see in the word mourning a picture of God’s people who suffer because of their faith in him.
Whether Jesus’ followers mourn for sin or in suffering, God’s promise is sure—they will be comforted. Only God can take away sorrow for sin; only God can forgive and erase it. Only God can give comfort to those who suffer for his sake because they know their reward in the kingdom. There he will “wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:17 niv). Jesus explained to his disciples that following him would not involve fame, popularity, and wealth. Instead, it could very well mean sorrow, mourning, and suffering. But they would always know that God would be their comfort.
Matthew 5:5
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” (nrsv) The word translated “meek” (praeis) occurs only three other times in the New Testament (Matthew 11:29; 21:5; 1 Peter 3:4). In all three other places, it is translated “gentle.” The meaning conveys humility and trust in God rather than self-centered attitudes. The psalmist, contrasting the destinies of the meek and wicked, wrote, “For evildoers shall be cut off; but those who wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; indeed, you will look carefully for his place, but it shall be no more. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (Psalm 37:9-11 nkjv).
Meek people realize their position before God (5:3) and gladly live it out before their fellow humans. They do not look down on themselves, but they do not think too highly of themselves either. Such people exemplify the Golden Rule. They are not arrogant; they are the opposite of those who seek to gain as much for themselves as possible. Ironically, then, it will not be the arrogant, wealthy, harsh people who get everything. Instead, the meek will inherit the earth. To the Jews, this implied the Promised Land; Jesus used the “earth” to refer to the future inheritance of the kingdom. According to Revelation 21–22, believers will enjoy a new heaven and a new earth. God will one day freely give his true disciples what they did not grasp for themselves on earth.
Matthew 5:6
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” (nrsv) The words “hunger and thirst” picture intense longings that people desire to satisfy—necessities that they cannot live without. The psalmist wrote, “As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (Psalm 42:1-2 nrsv). Those who have an intense longing for righteousness are blessed. What kind of righteousness? Most likely, this refers to personal righteousness—being so filled with God that the person completely does God’s will, without tripping up, sinning, making mistakes, and disappointing God. Righteousness refers to total discipleship and complete obedience. It may also refer to righteousness for the entire world—an end to the sin and evil that fill it. In both cases, God’s promise is sure—they will be filled. He will completely satisfy their spiritual hunger and thirst.
Regarding the longing for personal righteousness, John, one of Jesus’ disciples, later wrote, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2 niv). Regarding the longing for a righteous world, Peter, another of Jesus’ disciples hearing this message, later wrote to persecuted believers: “But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13 niv).
The fourth beatitude bridges the God-centered concerns of the first three and the neighbor-centered focus of the last four. The appetites and satisfaction Jesus promised were directed at both external and internal desires. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness experience that longing in at least three forms:
1. The desire to be righteous—to be forgiven and accepted by God; to be right with God.
2. The desire to do what is right—to do what God commands; imitating and reflecting God’s righteousness.
3. The desire to see right done—to help bring about God’s will in the world.
Starved
Hungry for hamburgers, maybe; hungry for victory on the tennis court, normally; hungry for the love of that special someone, usually … but hungry for righteousness? We don’t hear about that one too often.
We must proceed carefully here. Christians are not to get hungry for self-righteousness. We’re not to be prickly and perfect and proud about our morals. That just feeds the ego.
Christians growing closer to the Lord Jesus want what he wants. When evil happens, they hurt for victims and long for the end of evil’s influence and strength. They want God’s victory over evil to be complete soon—even now. They hunger for the end of trouble, for the full measure of God’s peace and righteousness.
Whenever you pray for God’s will to be done, you are getting hungry for righteousness. Pray often, until the little pangs become a passion and your heart becomes centered on what God wants most.
Matthew 5:7
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (niv) Merciful people realize that, because they received mercy from God, they must extend mercy to others. The word “merciful” implies generosity, forgiveness, and compassion, and it includes a desire to remove the wrong as well as alleviate the suffering. Jesus repeated this warning several times in this Gospel (see 6:12, 14-15; 18:21-35). We must be people who show mercy. That they will be shown mercy is not contingent upon how much mercy they showed; it is not that God will be merciful because these people have been merciful. Instead, believers understand true mercy because they have received mercy from God. Also, this promise does not guarantee mercy in return from people. The believers’ comfort comes in the knowledge that, no matter how the world treats them, God will show them mercy both now and when he returns.
Matthew 5:8
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” (nrsv) People characterized as pure in heart are morally pure, honest, and sincere. They are people of integrity and single-minded commitment to God. Moral purity, honesty, and integrity come only through such a commitment. In turn, people committed totally to God will seek to be morally clean. Because of their sincere devotion to Christ, they will see God, here and now through the eyes of faith (Hebrews 11:27), and finally face-to-face (1 John 3:2).
Matthew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (nrsv) Jesus came as “the Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6-7) and gave the ultimate sacrifice to bring peace between God and humanity (Ephesians 2:14-18; Colossians 1:20). God calls his children to be peacemakers. This involves action, not just passive compliance. Peacemakers do more than just live peaceful lives; they actively seek to “make peace,” to cause reconciliation, to end bitterness and strife. This peace is not appeasement but dealing with and solving problems to maintain peace. Arrogant, selfish people do not concern themselves with peacemaking. Peacemakers will be called children of God because they reflect their Father’s character. This has a royal sense—they will share the glories of the Messiah’s kingdom.
Making Peace
How do you resolve conflict? Most people use different means for different settings.
Making peace with your children includes defining the boundaries between right and wrong, enforcing discipline, and affirming each child with love and affection.
t Making peace with friends includes broadening your mind to include the possibility that someone else’s ideas make sense. It means accepting your friend’s explanation at face value and applying the least hurtful meaning to the offensive words you heard. It means taking a step toward trust, away from anger, and onto an unmarked playing field called vulnerability. That’s the risky price of friendship.
t Making peace with your spouse can be the most difficult of all. Sometimes it requires outside help, often a lot of listening, mutual confession, and rebuilding of love that’s been burned. Too often today, the alternative is to quit.
Make peace your aim. Not sloppy acquiescence—the Milque-toast peace of people without backbone or principle. But strong peace—hard won, committed to the other, centered on God, ready for the wear and tear that another day may bring.
Matthew 5:10
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (nkjv) Unfortunately, people who exemplify the characteristics already mentioned, who put others before themselves and who attempt to make peace, will seldom receive applause and honors. Often, they will be persecuted instead. Because they are “righteous,” having oriented their lives around God and his will (see 5:6), they stand out from the world and become marks for enemy attacks. The world is under Satan’s control, and believers belong to the opposing army. Persecution should not surprise Christians. Later, when Peter wrote to persecuted believers, he urged them to be sure that their persecution was truly for righteousness’ sake and not for wrongdoing on their part (1 Peter 4:12-19). The reward for these believers will be the kingdom of heaven. God will make up for the suffering that his children have undergone because of their loyalty to him. The reward here matches the reward in 5:3, rounding out this list of characteristics of those who belong to God.
Ten Steps of Blessing
The order and orientation of the Beatitudes provide several key insights. The Beatitudes begin and end with the promise of the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10). They progress from the point of greatest need (spiritual bankruptcy) to the point of greatest identification with Christ (experiencing rejection for his sake). The first four beatitudes outline a deepening relationship with God; the second four depict the impact of our relations to others. Clearly, the Beatitudes are not stages through which we pass and go on, but responses that we must keep on making. Each day we must utilize our opportunities to show mercy, practice peacemaking, and purify our intentions.
| Key Lessons from the Sermon on the Mount | ||||
| In his longest recorded sermon, Jesus began by describing the traits he was looking for in his followers. He called those who lived out those traits “blessed” because God had something special in store for them. Each beatitude is an almost direct contradiction of society's typical way of life. In the last beatitude, Jesus pointed out that a serious effort to develop these traits would create opposition. Jesus gives us the best example of each trait. If our goal is to become like him, the Beatitudes will challenge the way we live each day. | ||||
| Beatitude | Old Testament anticipation | Clashing worldly values | God's reward | How to develop this attitude |
| Poor in spirit (5:3) | Isaiah 57:15 | Pride and personal independence | Receive kingdom of heaven | James 4:7-10 |
| Mourning (5:4) | Isaiah 61:1-2 | Happiness at any cost | Receive comfort | 2 Corinthians 1:4; James 4:7-10 |
| Meekness (5:5) | Psalm 37:5-11 | Power | Inherit the earth | Matthew 11:27-30 |
| Righteousness (5:6) | Isaiah 11:4-5; 42:1-4 | Pursuit of personal needs | Be filled (satisfied) | John 16:5-11; Philippians 3:7-11 |
| Mercy (5:7) | Psalm 41:1 | Strength without feeling | Be shown mercy | Ephesians 5:1-2 |
| Pure in heart (5:8) | Psalm 24:3-4; 51:10 | Acceptable deception | See God | 1 John 3:1-3 |
| Peacemaker (5:9) | Isaiah 57:18-19; 60:17 | Pursuit of personal peace, unconcern about the world's problems | Be called sons of God | Romans 12:9-21; Hebrews 12:10-11 |
| Persecuted (5:10) | Isaiah 52:13; 53:12 | Weak commitments | Inherit the kingdom of heaven | 2 Timothy 3:12 |
Matthew 5:11
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” (niv) The Beatitudes end at 5:10, despite the word “blessed” at the beginning of this verse. This thought expands on 5:10, that the persecuted are blessed. Up to this point, the beatitudes were spoken in the third person: “Blessed are those.” Here Jesus switched to the second person, focusing his comments directly at his listening disciples. Jesus was telling his disciples that they shouldn’t be surprised when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Jesus would face such treatment. Later he explained to his followers that they should expect nothing different (10:18; 24:9; John 15:20). In 5:10, the persecution is because of righteousness; here it is because of me. To imitate Jesus is to live righteously, and, as explained above, this evil world hates righteous living.
Discipleship means allegiance to the suffering Christ, and it is therefore not at all surprising that Christians should be called upon to suffer. In fact it is a joy and a token of his grace.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Matthew 5:12
“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (nrsv) Jesus clearly described the way the disciples should respond to this kind of treatment: Rejoice and be glad. The word translated “be glad,” agalliasthe (also translated “exult”), refers to deep, spiritual joy (see Luke 1:46-47; Acts 16:34; 1 Peter 4:13). This type of rejoicing is eternal—unhindered and unchanged by what happens in this present life.
How can anyone rejoice when being insulted, persecuted, or slandered? While that would not be the first and most natural response, a person with righteous character can rejoice and be glad because of the promise: Your reward is great in heaven. When God judges the world, the persecution will pale in comparison to the great reward that awaits. The reward is heaven itself. See 16:24-27 and 19:28-30 for more on rewards.
Besides that, the disciples had good company. The Old Testament described many prophets who had come with God’s message and had faced persecution, rejection, and even death (see 21:33-46). Jesus placed his disciples in a long line of God’s followers who lived righteously and spoke truthfully—only to suffer for it. The Jews held the ancient prophets of God in high esteem; to be placed among them was a great honor. Jesus explained that to live and speak for God in the face of unjust persecution, as did the ancient prophets, would bring great reward in heaven.
In Good Company
Jesus said to rejoice when we’re persecuted. There are four reasons that persecution can be good: (1) It can take our eyes off earthly rewards, (2) it can strip away superficial belief, (3) it can strengthen the faith of those who endure, and (4) our attitude through it can serve as an example to others who follow. We can take comfort in knowing that God’s greatest prophets endured persecution (Elijah, Jeremiah, Daniel). Persecution proves that we have been faithful; faithless people would be unnoticed. In the future, God will reward the faithful by receiving them into his eternal kingdom, where there is no more persecution. No matter what you face today, if you remain faithful to Christ, one day you will receive a joyful reward.[23]
B. First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29)
The Sermon on the Mount is the first of five major discourses in the Gospel of Matthew. All five follow blocks of narrative material; all five end with the same formula (see on 7:28-29; and Introduction, section 14). Not only because it is first and longest of the five, and therefore helps determine the critical approach toward all of them, but also because it deals with ethical issues of fundamental importance in every age, this "sermon" has called forth thousands of books and articles. Some orientation is necessary.
A useful starting point is Warren S. Kissingers The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975). K. Beyschlag ("Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 74 [1977]: 291-322) and Robert M. Grant ("The Sermon on the Mount in Early Christianity," Semeia 12 [1978]: 215-31) unfold the treatment of these chapters in the earliest centuries of Christianity. For clarification of the varied treatment of the sermon during the present century, we are now indebted to Ursula Berner (Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979]). Popular, recent expositions of use to the working preacher include James M. Boice, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972); Carson, Sermon on the Mount; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 2 vols. (London: IVP, 1959-60); F.B. Meyer, The Sermon on the Mount (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959); Stott.
Four introductory matters demand comment:
1. Unity and authenticity of the discourse. since the work of Hans Windisch (The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, tr. S.M. Gilmour [1929; reprint ed., Philadelphia: Fortess, 1951]), few have regarded Matthew 5-7 as thoroughly authentic. The most common proposal today is that these Chapters preserve some authentic teaching of Jesus, originally presented at various occasions and collected and shaped by oral tradition. To this the evangelist has added church teaching, taught, perhaps, by an inspired prophet speaking for the exalted Christ; and the discourse has then been further molded by catechetical and liturgical considerations (so, for instance, J. Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], and the magisterial shady by Davies, Setting). According to these critics, at best the so-called sermon on the Mount preserves no more than isolated sayings of Jesus.
Much of one's judgment in these matters depends on conclusions as to source, form, and redaction criticism (cf. Introduction, sections 1-3). For instance, if one insists that every saying elsewhere in the Gospels similar to any saying in Matthew 5-7 must be traced back to one utterance only (thus ignoring Jesus' role as an itinerant preacher), one may develop a more or less plausible theory of the growth of oral tradition in each case (so, e.g., H.T. Wrege, Die aberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt [WUNT 9; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1968]). This can be done precisely because so many sayings in these chapters do occur elsewhere, either in roughly similar or in identical language (see on 5:13, 15, 18, 25, 29, 32; 6:9, 22, 24-25; 7:2, 7, 17, 23). Moreover, where parallels exist, Matthew's forms are often more stylized or structured.
There is no need to repeat introductory remarks about authenticity. Several observations will, however, focus the approach adopted here.
a. We cannot make much out of Matthew's clear tendency to treat his material topically. Nor can we conclude from his grouping of miracles that he has composed his discourses out of grouped but independent sayings. In the former case Matthew does not pretend to do otherwise, whereas in all his discourses he gives the impression, especially in his concluding formulas (7:28-29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), that the material is not only authentic but delivered on one occasion.
b. We dare not claim too much on the basis of the unity or its lack in the discourses. Even if the Sermon on the Mount represents material Jesus delivered on one occasion, perhaps over several days, its extreme compression, necessary selection, and problems of translation from Aramaic to Greek (assuming Jesus preached in Aramaic) might all unite to break the flow. If the unity of the discourse be defended (e.g., by A. Farrar, St Matthew and St Mark [London: Dacre/A. and C. Black, 1954, 1966], but cf. Davies, Setting, pp. 9-13), that unity might be nothing more than the evangelist's editing. He must have seen some coherence in these chapters to leave them in this form. Thus neither unity nor disunity are sufficient criteria for the authenticity of a brief account of extensive discourse.
c. We must suppose that Jesus preached the same thing repeatedly (see on 4:23-25); he was an extremely busy itinerant preacher. The pithier the saying, the more likely it was to be repeated word-perfect. The more common the natural phenomenon behind a metaphor or aphorism, the more likely Jesus repeated it in new situations. Any experienced itinerant preacher will confirm the inescapability of these tendencies. More important, if one distances oneself from the more radical presuppositions of form and tradition criticism, the NT documents themselves confirm this approach (cf. 11:15 with 13:9; 18:3 with 19:14, and cf. 20:26 [and Luke 12:24-31; John 13:13-17]; Matt 17:20 with 21:21; 10:32 with Luke 9:26 and 12:8; Mt 10:24 with Luke 6:40 and John 13:16 and 15:20; Mt 10:38-39 with 16:24-25 and Luke 17:33 and John 12:25). Even longer sections like Jesus' model prayer (Mt 6:9-13; see discussion below) are susceptible of such treatment, if for different reasons.
d. Jesus himself was a master teacher. In his sayings, whose authenticity is not greatly disputed, there is evidence of structure, contrast, and assonance. So when some scholars tell us that Matthew's account has more structure (perhaps from catechetical influence) than the other Synoptics, is this a sign of greater nearness to or distance from Jesus? What criteria are there for distinguishing the two possibilities? Surely if we do not pretend to be able to retrieve all the ipsissima verba of Jesus but only his ipsissima box, most of the common criteria for testing authenticity evaporate.
e. The assumptions of some form critics make their work more questionable than they think. For if a certain kind of saying tends to take on a certain form in oral tradition, and if the period of oral transmission is long enough to develop that form, then the repetition of the saying on half-a-dozen different occasions in slightly different words would ultimately lead to one common form of the saying. Thus, far from enabling the critic to trace a precise development, form criticism obliterates the richness of the tradition attested by the evangelists themselves.
f. As Matthew's Gospel stands, we must weigh two disparate pieces of evidence: (1) that all five of Matthew's discourses are bracketed by introductory and concluding remarks that cannot fail to give the impression that he presents his discourses as not only authentic but delivered by Jesus on the specified occasions and (2) that many individual bits of each discourse find synoptic parallels in other settings. Many think the second point to be so strong that they conclude that Matthew himself composed the discourses. Conservative writers in this camp say that all of Jesus' sayings are authentic but that Matthew brought them together in their present form. Therefore the first piece of evidence has to be reinterpreted; i.e., the introductory and concluding notes framing each of Matthew's discourses are seen as artistic, compositional devices.
A more subtle approach is to say that Jesus actually did deliver a discourse on each of the five occasions specified but that not all the material Matthew records was from that occasion. In other words the evangelist has added certain "footnotes" of his own, at a time when orthography was much more flexible and there were no convenient ways to indicate what he was doing. While either of these reconstructions is possible, each faces two steep hurdles:
(1) the introductory and concluding brackets around the five discourses do not belong to any clear first-century pattern or genre that would show the reader that they are merely artistic devices and not the real settings they manifestly claim to be; and
(2) it is remarkable that each conclusion sweeps together all the sayings of the preceding discourse under some such rubric as "when Jesus had finished saying these things" (a possible exception is 11:1). That the introductory and concluding formulas were not recognizable as artistic devices is confirmed by the fact that for the first millennium and a half or so of its existence, the church recognized them as concrete settings. (This is not a surreptitious appeal to return to pre-critical thinking but a note on the recognizability of a literary genre.)
In view of the above, it seems the wiser course to believe Matthew intended to present real, historical settings for his discourses; and the parallels found elsewhere, though they must be considered individually, do not seem to present insurmountable problems. While many sayings in the Gospels appear in "loose" or in "floating" settings, where an evangelist ostensibly specifies the context, the authenticity of that context must be assumed. This is particularly easy to maintain in Matthew if the date and authorship are as stated in the Introduction (sections 5-6). Thus this commentary takes Matthew's settings seriously. Not that it takes all the discourses as verbatim accounts or unedited reports of Jesus' teaching, it rather assumes that they are condensed notes, largely in Matthew's idiom, selected and presented in accord with his own concerns. But behind them stand the voice and authority of Jesus.
2. Relation to the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49). Augustine claimed that Matthew 5-7 and the passage in Luke are two separate discourses, and almost all writers agreed with him till the Reformation. Even after it some scholars followed Augustine (e.g., Alexander, Plumptre), and today some are returning to Augustine's view.
Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and the majority of recent scholars, however, de fend the view (often with appropriate theorizing about Q) that the two accounts represent the same discourse. This has much to commend it. The two sermons begin with beatitudes and end with the same simile. Nearly everything in the Sermon on the Plain is in some form in the Sermon on the Mount and often in identical order. Both are immediately followed by the same events—viz., entrance into Capernaum and healing the centurion's servant. (The point is valid even if it indicates nothing more than a common link in the tradition.) Luke's sermon is much shorter and has its own thematic emphases (e.g., humility); and much of the extra material in Matthew is scattered elsewhere in Luke, especially in his "travel narrative" (Luke 9:51-18:14; discussed at Mt 19:1-2). Moreover Matthew speaks of a mountain, Luke a plain; and Luke's discourse follows the choosing of the Twelve, which does not take place in Matthew till chapter 10.
But these problems can be readily solved.
a. Much of what Luke omits, mostly in Matthew 5:17-37; 6:1-18, is exactly the sort of material that would interest Matthew's Jewish readers more than Luke's readers. Luke has also omitted some material from his "Sermon on the Plain" that he has placed elsewhere (Matt 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31). It is possible that Jesus gave the sermon more than once. Alternatively, Luke's context is so loose that he may have been responsible for the topical rearrangement. In any case to insist that a writer must include everything he knows or everything in his sources is poor methodology. In the other Matthean discourses, Matthew includes much and Luke includes less; in the Sermon on the Mount, though Matthew's account is much longer than Luke's, in certain places Luke preserves a little more than Matthew (compare Matt 5:12 with Luke 6:23-26; Matt 5:47 with Luke 6:33-35).
b. Of the several solutions to the mountain or plain, the most convincing one takes Matthew's "on a mountainside" to mean "up in the hills" and Luke's "plain" as being some kind of plateau. The linguistic evidence is convincing (see on 5:1-2).
c. Luke's order, placing the sermon after the choosing of the Twelve, is historically believable. But Matthew is clearly topical in his order. Connectives at 5:1; 8:1; 9:35; 11:2; 12:1; 14:1 et al. are loose; his favorite word "then" is general in meaning (see on 2:7). It is unlikely that Matthew intends his readers to think that the Sermon on the Mount succeeded Jesus' circuit (4:23-25). Rather, this sermon was preached during that circuit. Moreover some of Matthew's reasons for placing it here instead of after 10:1-4 are apparent (see below under 4). It seems best, then, to take Matthew 5:7 and Luke 6:20-49 as separate reports of the same occasion, each de pendent on some shared tradition (Q?), but not exclusively so. Space limitations prevent tracing all the likely connections; but some attention will be given selected critical problems within this overall approach.
3. Theological structure and affinities. Whatever its sources and manner of compilation, the inclusion of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew must be significant. Some have noted its similarities to Jewish thought. G. Eriedlander's classic work, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Ktav, 1911), shows that virtually all the statements in Matthew 5-7 can be paralleled in the Talmud or other Jewish sources. Of course this is right, but it is a little like saying that the parts of a fine automobile can be found in a vast warehouse. Read any fifty pages of the Babylonian Talmud and compare them with Matthew 5-7, and it becomes obvious that they are not saying the same things. Sigal ("Halakhah") argues that the forms of argument in Matthew 5-7 fit into well-accepted patterns of the early rabbis ("proto-rabbis"); Gary A. Tuttle ("The Sermon on the Mount: Its Wisdom Affinities and Their Relation to Its Structure," JETS 20 [1977]: 213-30) draws attention to connections with the forms of argument in wisdom literature. Both are too restrictive: rabbinic and wisdom argumentation overlap much more than is commonly acknowledged, and Jesus (and Matthew) echo both and more yet they must be interpreted first of all in their own right.
The attempt to do that has not produced consistent results. Schweizer lists seven major interpretive approaches to the Sermon on the Mount; Harvey K. McArthur (Understanding the Sermon on the Mount [New York: Harper and Row, 1960], pp. 105-48) lists twelve. Some of the most important are as follows:
a. Lutheran orthodoxy often understands the Sermon on the Mount as an exposition of law designed to drive men to cry for grace. This is Pauline (Rom 3-4; Gal 3), and grace is certainly presupposed in the sermon (e.g., see on 5:3). But though one of Jesus' purposes may have been to puncture self-righteous approaches to God, the sermon cannot be reduced to this. The righteousness envisaged (see on 5:20) is not imputed righteousness. Moreover, Paul himself insists that personal righteousness must characterize one who inherits the kingdom (Gal 5:19-24). Above all, this view fails to grasp the flow of salvation history (see below).
b. Some have argued that Jesus' eschatology is so "realized" that the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is a sort of moral road map toward social progress. Classic liberalism has been invalidated by two world wars, the Great Depression and repeated recessions, the threat of nuclear holocaust, and post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, post-OPEC malaise. Nor can it be integrated with apocalyptic elements in Jesus' teaching (e.g., Matt 24) or with the vision of a suffering and witnessing community (Matt 10).
c. Today the sermon is commonly interpreted as a set of moral standards used catechetically within Matthew's community. While that may be so if there was a Matthean community, this view is reductionistic. It fails to wrestle with salvation history. The entire Book of Matthew presents itself as Jesus' teaching and ministry before the church was called into existence in the full, post-Pentecost sense. This Gospel does not present itself as the catechesis of a church but as a theological portrayal of the one who fulfilled Scripture and introduced the end times.
d. The Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition interprets the ethical demands to apply to all believers in every age and every circumstance. The resulting philosophy of pacifism in the context of a power-loving world demands the conclusion that Christians should not seek to be involved in affairs of state. This tradition rightly perceives the separate status of the believing community, which must not be confused with the world (e.g., 7:13-14, 21-23). But it is insensitive to the place of this sermon in the progress of redemption and absolutizes some of its teaching in a way incompatible with its context and with other Scripture (see on 5:38-42; 6:5-8).
e. Existential interpretation finds in these chapters a summons to personal decision and authentic faith but jettisons the personal and infinite God who makes the summons. Also, by denying the uniqueness of the Jesus who delivers the sermon, it fails to cope with its fulfillment theme and its implications.
f. Still others claim that Jesus is advocating an "interim ethic" to remain in force till the soon-expected consummation. But Jesus, they assume, erred as to the timing of this event; so the "interim ethic" must be toned down accordingly. All this rests on a view of Jesus derived from other passages (not least Matthew chs. 24-25 and parallels).
g. It is common among evangelicals and others to interpret the Sermon on the Mount as an intensifying or radicalizing of OT moral law. But this depends largely on a doubtful interpretation of 5:17-20 (cf. below).
h. Classic dispensationalism interprets the Sermon on the Mount as law for the millennial kingdom first offered by Jesus to the Jews. This has faced so many objections (e.g., Can any age be justly described as "millennial" that requires "laws" to govern face slapping?) that the approach has been qualified. J. Dwight Pentecost ("The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount," BS 115 [1958]: 128ff., 212ff, 313ff.) and Walvoord take the ethical content of the sermon to be binding on any age but continue to drive a wedge between these chapters and the Christian gospel by pointing out that they do not mention the cross, justification by faith, new birth, etc. On that basis the Epistle of James is also non-Christian! Moreover they misinterpret Matthew's fulfillment motif and impose a theological structure on this Gospel demanding improbable exegesis of numerous passages (occasionally identified in this commentary). The disjunction between Matthew 5-7 and the Christian gospel is theologically and historically artificial.
This sketch overlooks many variations of the principal interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Recently several scholars have narrowed the focus: C. Burchard ("The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount," in Schottroff, Command, pp. 57-75) understands chapters 5-7 to provide rules of conduct for the Matthean church in the light of opposition to its witness; G. Bornkamm ("Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt," NTS 24 [1977-78]: 419-32) interprets the sermon around the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13). Though these perspectives highlight neglected themes, they overlook both the thrust of the sermon as a whole and its place in Matthew.
The unifying theme of the sermon is the kingdom of heaven. This is established, not by counting how many times the expression occurs, but by noting where it occurs. It envelopes the Beatitudes (5:3, 10) and appears in 5:17-20, which details the relation between the OT and the kingdom, a subject that leads to another literary envelope around the body of the sermon (5:17; 7:12). It returns at the heart of the Lord's Prayer (6:10), climaxes the section on kingdom perspectives (6:33), and is presented as what must finally be entered (7:21-23). Matthew places the sermon immediately after two verses insisting that the primary content of Jesus' preaching was the gospel of the kingdom (4:17, 23). It provides ethical guidelines for life in the kingdom, but does so within an explanation of the place of the contemporary setting within redemption history and Jesus' relation to the OT (5:17-20). Tile community forming around him, his "disciples," is not yet so cohesive and committed a group that exhortations to "enter" (7:13-14) are irrelevant. The glimpse of kingdom life (horizontally and vertically) in these chapters anticipates not only the love commandments (22:34-40) but also grace (5:3; 6:12; 7:7-11; cf. 21:28-46).
4. Location in Matthew. Unlike Luke, Matthew does not place the sermon after the calling of the Twelve (10:1-4); for there he puts a second discourse, one concerning mission. This links the call with the commission, a theme of great importance to Matthew (see on 11:11-12; 28:16-20). Not less important is the location of the Sermon on the Mount so early in the Gospel, before any sign of controversies between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as to the law's meaning. This means that, despite the antitheses in 5:17-48 ("You have heard … but I tell"), these should not be read as tokens of confrontation but in the light of the fulfillment themes richly set out in chapters 1-4 and made again explicit in 5:17-20: Jesus comes "to fulfill" the Law and the Prophets (i.e., the OT Scriptures). Therefore his announcements concerning the kingdom must be read against that background, not with reference to debates over Halakic details. This framework is Matthew's; by it he tells us that whatever controversies occupied Jesus' attention, the burden of his kingdom proclamation always made the kingdom the goal of the Scriptures, the long-expected messianic reign foretold by the Law and the Prophets alike.
1. Setting (5:1-2)
1 The "crowds" are those referred to in 4:23-25. Here Jesus stands at the height of his popularity. Although his ministry touched the masses, he saw the need to teach his "disciples" (mathetai) closely. The word "disciple" must not be restricted to the Twelve, whom Matthew has yet to mention (10:1-4). Nor is it a special word for full-fledged believers, since it can also describe John the Baptist's followers (11:2). In the Lukan parallel we are told of a "large crowd of his disciples" as well as "a great number of people" (6:17). This goes well with Matthew 4:25, which says large crowds "followed" Jesus. Those who especially wanted to attach themselves to him, Jesus takes aside to instruct; but it is anachronistic to suppose that all are fully committed in the later "Christian" sense of Acts 11:26 (cf. Matt 7:13-14, 21-23). Matthew sees the disciples as paradigms for believers in his own day but never loses sight, as we shall repeatedly notice, of the unique, historical place of the first followers (contra U. Luz, "Die Junger im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 62 [1971]: 141-71—though Luz wisely avoids reducing Matthew's disciples to the Twelve. On the importance of the theme of discipleship in this Gospel, cf. Martin H. Franzmann, Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew [St. Louis: Concordia, 1961]).
At this point in his ministry, Jesus could not escape the mounting crowds; and by the end of his sermon (7:28-29), he was surrounded by yet larger crowds. This suggests that his teaching covered several days, not just an hour or two (cf. the three-day meeting, 15:29-39). The place of retreat Jesus chose was in the hill country (cf. Notes), not "on a mountainside." He "sat down" to teach. Sitting was the accepted posture of synagogue or school teachers (Luke 4:20; cf. Matt 13:2; 23:2; 24:3; cf. DNTT, 3:588-89). The attempt of Lachs (pp. 99-101) to find an anachronism here fails because his sources refer to the position of one who is learning Torah, not teaching it. Luke has Jesus standing (6:17) but ministering to the larger crowd from which he could not escape (6:17-19).
2 NIV masks the idiom "he opened his mouth and taught them," found elsewhere in the NT (13:35; Acts 8:34; 10:34; 18:14) and reflecting OT roots (Job 3:1; 33:2; Dan 10:16). It is used in solemn or revelatory contexts. "To teach" (edidasken) is imperfect and inceptive: "He began to teach them." Contrary to Davies (Setting, pp. 7-8), one must not draw too sharp a distinction between preaching (kerysso, Mt 4:17) and teaching (didasko: see on 3:1 and the linking of these categories in 4:23; 9:35. SBK (1:189) notes that teaching was not uncommonly done outdoors as well as in synagogues.
2. The kingdom of heaven: its norms and witness (5:3-16)
a. The norms of the kingdom (5:3-12)
(1) The Beatitudes (5:3-10)
The Beatitudes (Lat. beatus, "blessed"), otherwise called macarisms (from Gr. makarios, "blessed"), have been the subject of many valuable studies, the most detailed being J. Dupont's Les Beatitudes, 3 vols., 2d ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1969). As to form beatitudes find their roots in wisdom literature and especially the Psalms (for the best discussion of the OT background, cf. W. Zimmerli, "Die Seligpreisun gen der Bergpredigt und das Alte Testament, Donum Gentilicium, ed. E. Bammel et al. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1978], pp. 8-26; cf. Pss 1:1; 31:1-2; 144:15; Prov 3:13; Dan 12:12). OT beatitudes never bunch more than two together (e.g., Ps 84:4-5 elsewhere, cf. Ecclesiasticus 25:7-9).
Comparison of 5:3-12 with Luke 6:20-26 shows that, along with smaller differences, the four Lukan beatitudes stand beside four woes—all in the second person. But Matthew mentions no woes, and his eight beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10) are in the third person, followed by an expansion of the last one in the second person (vv. 11-12). Pre-NT beatitudes are only rarely in the second person (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 late adaptations.
No doubt both Matthew and Luke selected and shaped their material. But though this results in differences in the thrust of the two sets of beatitudes, such differences are often overstated (e.g., C.H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies [Manchester: University Press, 1968], pp. 7-8). Dupont (Les Beatitudes) and Marshall (Luke) argue that Luke describes what disciples actually are, Matthew what they ought to be; Luke, the social implications of Jesus' teaching and reversals at the consummation, Matthew, the standards of Christian righteousness to be pursued now for entrance into the kingdom. Similarly, G. Strecker ("Les macarismes du discours sur la montagne," in Didier, pp. 185-208) insists that in Matthew's beatitudes ethics has displaced eschatology: the Beatitudes become ethical entrance requirements rather than eschatological blessings associated with the Messianic Age.
A more nuanced interpretation is presented by R.A. Guelich ("The Matthean Beatitudes: `Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" JBL 95 [1973]: 415-34). He notes that Matthew 5:3-5 contains planned echoes of Isaiah 61:1-3, which is certainly eschatological in orientation. Moreover both Isaiah 61:1-3 and the Matthean beatitudes are formally declarative but implicitly hortatory: one must not overlook function for form. The Beatitudes "are but an expression of the fulfillment of Isaiah 61, the OT promise of the Heilszeit ['time of salvation'], in the person and proclamation of Jesus. This handling of the Beatitudes is certainly in keeping with Matthew's emphasis throughout the Gospel that Jesus comes in light of the OT promise" (ibid., p. 433). The implicit demands of the Beatitudes are therefore comprehensible only because of the new state of affairs the proclamation of the kingdom initiates (Mt 4:17, 23), the insistence that Jesus has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (5:17).
3 Two words and their cognates stand behind "blessed" and "blessing" in the NT. The word used in vv. 3-11 is makarios, which usually corresponds in the LXX to asre, a Hebrew term used almost as an interjection: "Oh the blessednesses [pl.] of." Usually makarios describes the man who is singularly favored by God and therefore in some sense "happy"; but the word can apply to God (1Tim 1:11; 6:15). The other word is eulogetos, found in the LXX primarily for Hebrew berakah, and used chiefly in connection with God in both OT and NT (e.g., Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom 1:25; 2Cor 1:3). Eulogetos does not occur in Matthew; but the cognate verb appears five times (Mt 14:19; 21:9; 23:39; 25:34; 26:26), in one of which it applies to man (25:34), not God or Christ. Attempts to make makarios mean "happy" and ealogetos "blessed" (Broadus) are therefore futile; though both appear many times, both can apply to either God or man. It is difficult not to conclude that their common factor is approval: man "blesses" God, approving and praising him; God "blesses" man, approving him in gracious condescension. Applied to man the OT words are certainly synonymous (cf. Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, 1:356).
As for "happy" (TEV), it will not do for the Beatitudes, having been devalued in modern usage. The Greek "describes a state not of inner feeling on the part of those to whom it is applied, but of blessedness from an ideal point of view in the judgment of others" (Allen). In the eschatological setting of Matthew, "blessed" can only promise eschatological blessing (cf. DNTT, 1:216-17; TDNT, 4:367-70); and each particular blessing is specified by the second clause of each beatitude.
The "poor in spirit" are the ones who are "blessed." Since Luke speaks simply of "the poor," many have concluded that he preserves the true teaching of the historical Jesus—concern for the economically destitute—while Matthew has "spiritualized" it by adding "in spirit." The issue is not so simple. Already in the OT, "the poor" has religious overtones. The word ptochos ("poor"—in classical Gr., "beggar") has a different force in the LXX and NT. It translates several Hebrew words, most importantly (in the pl.) anawim ("the poor"), i.e., those who because of sustained economic privation and social distress have confidence only in God (e.g., Pss 37:14; 40:17; 69:28-29, 32-33; Prov 16:19 [NIV, the oppressed; NASB, "the lowly"]; 29:23; Isa 61:1; cf. Pss Sol 5:2, 11; 10:7). Thus it joins with passages affirming God's favor on the lowly and contrite in spirit (e.g., Isa 57:15; 66:2). This does not mean there is lack of concern for the materially poor but that poverty itself is not the chief thing (cf. the Prodigal Son's "self-made" poverty). Far from conferring spiritual advantage, wealth and privilege entail great spiritual peril (see on 6:24; 19:23-24). Yet, though poverty is neither a blessing nor a guarantee of spiritual rewards, it can be turned to advantage if it fosters humility before God.
That this is the way to interpret v. 3 is confirmed by similar expressions in the DSS (esp. 1QM 11:9; 14:6-7; 1QS 4:3; 1QH 5:22). "Poor" and "righteous" become almost equivalent in Ecclesiasticus 13:17-21; CD 19:9; 4QpPs (37) 2:8-11 (cf. Schweizer; Bonnard; Dodd, "Translation Problems," pp. 307-10). These parallels do not prove literary dependence, but they do show that Matthew's "poor in spirit" rightly interprets Luke's "poor" (cf. Gundry, Use of OT, pp. 69-71). In rabbinic circles, too, meekness and poverty of spirit were highly praised (cf. Felix Bohl, "Die Demut als hochste der Tugenden," Biblische Zeitschrift 20 [1976]: 217-23).
Yet biblical balance is easy to prostitute. The emperor Julian the Apostate (332-63) is reputed to have said with vicious irony that he wanted to confiscate Christians' property so that they might all become poor and enter the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, the wealthy too easily dismiss Jesus' teaching about poverty here and elsewhere (see on 6:24) as merely attitudinal and confuse their hoarding with good stewardship. France's "God and Mammon" (pp. 3-21) presents a fine balance in these matters.
To be poor in spirit is not to lack courage but to acknowledge spiritual bankruptcy. It confesses one's unworthiness before God and utter dependence on him. Therefore those who interpret the Sermon on the Mount as law and not gospel—whether by H. Windisch's historical reconstructions or by classical dispensationalism (cf. Carson, Sermon on the Mount, pp. 155-57), which calls the sermon "pure law" (though it concedes that its principles have a "beautiful moral application" for the Christian)—stumble at the first sentence (cf. Stott, pp. 36-38). The kingdom of heaven is not given on the basis of race (cf. 3:9), earned merits, the military zeal and prowess of Zealots, or the wealth of a Zacchaeus. It is given to the poor, the despised publicans, the prostitutes, those who are so "poor" they know they can offer nothing and do not try. They cry for mercy and they alone are heard. These themes recur repeatedly in Matthew and present the sermon's ethical demands in a setting that does not treat the resulting conduct as conditions for entrance to the kingdom that people themselves can achieve. All must begin by confessing that by them selves they can achieve nothing. Fuller disclosures of the gospel in the years beyond Jesus' earthly ministry do not change this; in the last book of the canon, an established church must likewise recognize its precarious position when it claims to be rich and fails to see its own poverty (Rev 3:14-22).
The kingdom of heaven (see on 3:2; 4:17) belongs to the poor in spirit; it is they who enjoy Messiah's reign and the blessings he brings. They joyfully accept his rule and participate in the life of the kingdom (7:14). The reward in the last beatitude is the same as in the first; the literary structure, an "inclusio" or envelope, establishes that everything included within it concerns the kingdom: i.e., the blessings of the intervening beatitudes are kingdom blessings, and the beatitudes themselves are kingdom norms.
While the rewards of vv. 4-9 are future ("they will be comforted," "will inherit," etc.), the first and last are present ("for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"). Yet one must not make too much of this, for the present tense can function as a future, and the future tense can emphasize certainty, not mere futurity (Tasker). There is little doubt that here the kingdom sense is primarily future, post-consummation, made explicit in v. 12. But the present tense "envelope" (vv. 3, 10) should not be written off as insignificant or as masking an Aramaic original that did not specify present or future; for Matthew must have meant something when he chose estin ("is") instead of estai ("will be"). The natural conclusion is that, though the full blessedness of those described in these beatitudes awaits the consummated kingdom, they already share in the kingdom's blessedness so far as it has been inaugurated (see on 4:17; 8:29; 12:28; 19:29).
4 Black (Aramaic Approach, p. 157) notes how the Matthean and Lukan (6:21b, 25b) forms of this beatitude could each have been part of a larger parallelism—an observation that goes nicely with the hypothesis that the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are reports of one discourse, relying somewhat on common sources (cf. introductory comments).
Some commentators deny that this mourning is for sin (e.g., Bonnard). Others (e.g., Schweizer) understand it to be mourning for any kind of misery. The reality is subtler. The godly remnant of Jesus' day weeps because of the humiliation of Israel, but they understand that it comes from personal and corporate sins. The psalmist testified, "Streams of tears flow from my eyes, for your law is not obeyed" (Ps 119:136; cf. Ezek 9:4). When Jesus preached, "The kingdom of heaven is near," he, like John the Baptist before him, expected not jubilation but contrite tears. It is not enough to acknowledge personal spiritual bankruptcy (Mt 5:3) with a cold heart. Weeping for sins can be deeply poignant (Ezra 10:6; Ps 51:4; Dan 9:19-20) and can cover a global as well as personal view of sin and our participation in it. Paul understands these matters well (cf. Rom 7:24; 1Cor 5:2; 2Cor 12:21; Philippians 3:18).
"Comfort, comfort my people" (Isa 40:1) is God's response. These first two beatitudes deliberately allude to the messianic blessing of Isaiah 61:1-3 (cf. also Luke 4:16-19; France, Jesus, pp. 134-35), confirming them as eschatological and messianic. The Messiah comes to bestow "the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair" (Isa 61:3). But these blessings, already realized partially but fully only at the consummation (Rev 7:17), depend on a Messiah who comes to save his people from their sins (1:21; cf. also 11:28-30). Those who claim to experience all its joys without tears mistake the nature of the kingdom. In Charles Wesley's words:
He speaks, and listening to his voice
New life the dead receive,
The mournful, broken hearts rejoice,
The humble poor believe.
5 This beatitude and those in vv. 7-10 have no parallel in Luke. It would be wrong to suppose that Matthew's beatitudes are for different groups of people, or that we have the right to half the blessings if we determine to pursue four out of the eight. They are a unity and describe the norm for Messiah's people. The word "meek" (praus) is hard to define. It can signify absence of pretension (1 Peter 3:4, 14-15) but generally suggests gentleness (cf. 11:29; James 3:13) and the self-control it entails. The Greeks extolled humility in wise men and rulers, but such humility smacked of condescension. In general tie Greeks considered meekness a vice because they failed to distinguish it from servility. To be meek toward others implies freedom from malice and a vengeful spirit. Jesus best exemplifies it (Mt 11:29; 21:5). Lloyd-Jones (Sermon on the Mount, 1:65-69) rightly applies meekness to our attitudes toward others. We may acknowledge our own bankruptcy (v. 3) and mourn (v. 4). But to respond with meekness when others tell us of our bankruptcy is far harder (cf. also Stott, pp. 43-44). Meekness therefore requires such a true view about ourselves as will express itself even in our attitude toward others.
And the meek—not the strong, aggressive, harsh, tyrannical—will inherit the earth. The verb "inherit" often relates to entrance into the Promised Land (e.g. Deut 4:1; 16:20; cf. Isa 57:13; 60:21). But the specific OT allusion here is Psalm 37:9, 11, 29, a psalm recognized as messianic in Jesus' day (4QpPs 37). There is no need to interpret the land metaphorically, as having no reference to geography or space; nor is there need to restrict the meaning to "land of Israel" (cf. Notes). Entrance into the Promised Land ultimately became a pointer toward entrance into the new heaven and the new earth ("earth" is the same word as "land"; cf. Isa 66:22; Rev 21:1), the consummation of the messianic kingdom. While in Pauline terms believers may now possess all things in principle (2Cor 6:10) since they belong to Christ, Matthew directs our attention yet further to the "renewal of all things" (Mt 19:28).
6 "Hunger and thirst" vividly express desire. The sons of Korah cried, "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God" (Ps 42:2; cf. 63:1) for the deepest spiritual famine is hunger for the word of God (Amos 8:11-14).
The precise nature of the righteousness for which the blessed hunger and thirst is disputed. Some argue that it is the imputed righteousness of God—eschatological salvation or, more narrowly, justification: the blessed hunger for it and receive it (e.g., Grundmann; Lohmeyer; McNeile, Schniewind, Schrenk [TDNT, 2:198], Zahn; Bornkamm, Tradition [pp. 123-24]; Bultmann [Theology, 1:273]). This is certainly plausible, since the immediate context does arouse hopes for God's eschatological action, and hungering suggests that the righteousness that satisfies will be given as a gift.
The chief objection is that dikaiosyne ("righteousness") in Matthew does not have that sense anywhere else (Przybylski, pp. 96-98). So it is better to take this righteousness as simultaneously personal righteousness (cf. Hill, Greek Words, pp. 127f.; Strecker, Weg, pp. 156-58) and justice in the broadest sense (cf. esp. Ridderbos, pp. 190f.). These people hunger and thirst, not only that they may be righteous (i.e., that they may wholly do God's will from the heart), but that justice may be done everywhere. All unrighteousness grieves them and makes them homesick for the new heaven and earth—the home of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13). Satisfied with neither personal righteousness alone nor social justice alone, they cry for both: in short, they long for the advent of the messianic kingdom. What they taste now whets their appetites for more. Ultimately they will be satisfied (same verb as in Mt 14:20; Philippians 4:12; Rev 19:21) without qualification only when the kingdom is consummated (cf. discussion in Gundry, Matthew).
7 This beatitude is akin to Psalm 18:25 (reading "merciful" [ASV] instead of "faithful" [NIV]; following MT [v. 26], not LXX [17:26]; cf. Prov 14:21). Mercy embraces both forgiveness for the guilty and compassion for the suffering and needy. No particular object of the demanded mercy is specified, because mercy is to be a function of Jesus' disciples, not of the particular situation that calls it forth. The theme is common in Matthew (Mt 6:12-15; 9:13; 12:7; 18:33-34). The reward is not mercy shown by others but by God (cf. the saying preserved in 1 Clement 13:2). This does not mean that our mercy is the causal ground of God's mercy but its occasional ground (see on 6:14-15). This beatitude, too, is tied to the context. "It is `the meek' who are also `the merciful'. For to be meek is to acknowledge to others that we are sinners; to be merciful is to have compassion on others, for they are sinners too" (Stott, p. 48, emphasis his).
8 Commentators are divided on "pure in heart."
1. Some take it to mean inner moral purity as opposed to merely external piety or ceremonial cleanness. This is an important theme in Matthew and elsewhere in the Scriptures (e.g., Deut 10:16; 30:6; 1Sam 15:22; Pss 24:3-4 [to which there is direct allusion here]; 51:6, 10; Isa 1:10-17; Jer 4:4; 7:3-7; 9:25-26; Rom 2:9; 1Tim 1:5; 2Tim 2:22, cf. Matt 23:25-28).
2. Others take it to mean single-mindedness, a heart "free from the tyranny of a divided self" (Tasker; cf. Bonnard). Several of the passages just cited focus on freedom from deceit (Pss 24:4; 51:4-17; cf. also Gen 50:5-6; Prov 22:11). This interpretation also prepares the way for Mt 6:22. The "pure in heart" are thus "the utterly sincere" (Ph).
The dichotomy between these two options is a false one; it is impossible to have one without the other. The one who is single-minded in commitment to the kingdom and its righteousness (6:33) will also be inwardly pure. Inward sham, deceit, and moral filth cannot coexist with sincere devotion to Christ. Either way this beatitude excoriates hypocrisy (cf. on 6:1-18). The pure in heart will see God—now with the eyes of faith and finally in the dazzling brilliance of the beatific vision in whose light no deceit can exist (cf. Heb 12:14; 1 John 3:1-3; Rev 21:22-27).
9 Jesus' concern in this beatitude is not with the peaceful but with the peacemakers. Peace is of constant concern in both testaments (e.g., Prov 15:1; Isa 52:7; Luke 24:36; Rom 10:15; 12:18; 1Cor 7:15; Eph 2:11-22; Heb 12:14; 1 Peter 3:11). But as some of these and other passages show, the making of peace can itself have messianic overtones. The Promised Son is called the "Prince of Peace" (Isa 9:6-7); and Isaiah 52:7—"How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, `Your God reigns!'"—linking as it does peace, salvation, and God's reign, was interpreted messianically in the Judaism of Jesus' day.
Jesus does not limit the peacemaking to only one kind, and neither will his disciples. In the light of the gospel, Jesus himself is the supreme peacemaker, making peace between God and man, and man and man. Our peacemaking will include the promulgation of that gospel. It must also extend to seeking all kinds of reconciliation. Instead of delighting in division, bitterness, strife, or some petty "divide-and-conquer" mentality, disciples of Jesus delight to make peace wherever possible. Making peace is not appeasement: the true model is God's costly peacemaking (Eph 2:15-17; Col 1:20). Those who undertake this work are acknowledged as God's sons. In the OT, Israel has the title sons (Deut 14:1; Hos 1:10; cf. Pss Sol 17:30; Wisdom 2:13-18). Now it belongs to the heirs of the kingdom who, meek and poor in spirit, loving righteousness yet merciful, are especially equipped for peacemaking and so reflect something of their heavenly Father's character. "There is no more godlike work to be done in this world than peacemaking" (Broadus). This beatitude must have been shocking to Zealots when Jesus preached it, when political passions were inflamed (Morison).
10 It is no accident that Jesus should pass from peacemaking to persecution, for the world enjoys its cherished hates and prejudices so much that the peacemaker is not always welcome. Opposition is a normal mark of being a disciple of Jesus, as normal as hungering for righteousness or being merciful (cf. also John 15:18-25; Acts 14:22; 2Tim 3:12; 1 Peter 4:13-14; cf. the woe in Luke 6:26). Lachs (pp. 101-3) cannot believe Christians were ever persecuted because of righteousness; so he repoints an alleged underlying Hebrew text to read "because of the Righteous One"—a reference to Jesus. But he underestimates how offensive genuine righteousness, "proper conduct before God" (Przybylski, p. 99), really is (cf. Isa 51:7). The reward of these persecuted people is the same as the reward of the poor in spirit—viz., the kingdom of heaven, which terminates the inclusion (see on 5:3).
(2) Expansion (5:11-12)
11-12 These two verses (cf. Luke 6:22-23, 26), switching from third person to second, apply the force of the last beatitude (Mt 5:10), not to the church (which would be anachronistic), but to Jesus' disciples. Doubtless Matthew and his contemporaries also applied it to themselves. Verse 11 extends the persecution of v. 10 to include insult, persecution, and slander (Luke 6:22-23 adds hate). The reason for the persecution in Mt 5:10 is "because of righteousness"; now, Jesus says, it is "because of me." "This confirms that the righteousness of life that is in view is in imitation of Jesus. Simultaneously, it so identifies the disciple of Jesus with the practice of Jesus' righteousness that there is no place for professed allegiance to Jesus that is not full of righteousness" (Carson, Sermon on the Mount, p. 28). Moreover, it is an implicit christological claim, for the prophets to whom the disciples are likened were persecuted for their faithfulness to God and the disciples for faithfulness to Jesus. Not Jesus but the disciples are likened to the prophets. Jesus places himself on a par with God. The change from "the Son of Man" (Luke) to "me" is probably Matthew's clarification (see excursus at 8:20).
The appropriate response of the disciple is rejoicing. The second verb, agalliasthe ("be glad"), Hill (Matthew) takes to be "something of a technical term for joy in persecution and martyrdom" (cf. 1 Peter 1:6, 8; 4:13; Rev 19:7). Yet its range of associations seems broader (Luke 1:47; 10:21; John 5:35; 8:56; Acts 2:26; 16:34). The disciples of Jesus are to rejoice under persecution because their heavenly reward (cf. Notes) will be great at the consummation of the kingdom (Mt 5:12). Opposition is sure, for the disciples are aligning themselves with the OT prophets who were persecuted before them (e.g., 2 Chronicles 24:21; Neh 9:26; Jer 20:2; cf. Matt 21:35; 23:32-37; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15). This biblical perspective was doubtless part of the historical basis on which Jesus built his own implied prediction that his followers would be persecuted. Treated seriously, it makes ineffective the ground on which some treat the prediction as anachronistic (e.g., Hare, pp. 114-21). Stendahl's suggestion (Peake, par. 678k) that Matthew here refers to Christian prophets is not only needlessly anachronistic but out of step with both Matthew's use of "prophet" and his link between the murder of "prophets" and the sin of the "forefathers" (Mt 23:30-32), which shows that the prophets belong to the OT period.
These verses neither encourage seeking persecution nor permit retreating from it, sulking, or retaliation. From the perspective of both redemptive history ("the prophets") and eternity ("reward in heaven"), these verses constitute the reasonable response of faith, one which the early Christians readily understood (cf. Acts 5:41; 2Cor 4:17; 1 Peter 1:6-9; cf. Dan 3:24-25). "Discipleship means allegiance to the suffering Christ, and it is therefore not at all surprising that Christians should be called upon to suffer. In fact it is a joy and a token of his grace" (Bonhoeffer, pp. 80-81). But in reassuring his disciples that their sufferings are "neither new, nor accidental, nor absurd" (Bonnard), Jesus spoke of principles that will appear again (esp. Matthew chs. 10, 24).[24]
BEATITUDES (Lat. beatitudo, blessedness). The word "beatitude" is not found in the English Bible. It means either (1) the joys of heaven or (2) a declaration of blessedness. Beatitudes occur frequently in the OT (e.g., Pss 32:1-2; 41:1; 65:4). The Gospels contain isolated beatitudes by Christ (Matt 11:6; 13:16; 16:17; 24:46 with the Lukan parallels; John 13:17; 20:29). But the word is most commonly used of the declarations in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:3-11; cf. Luke 6:20-22). The Beatitudes do not describe separate types of Christian character, but set forth qualities and experiences that are combined in the ideal character. [25]
BEATITUDES (be4 -a]t 'i-tu4ds , Lat. beatitudo, blessedness). The word “beatitude” is not found in the English Bible. It means either (1) the joys of heaven or (2) a declaration of blessedness, especially as made by Christ. Beatitudes occur frequently in the OT (e.g., Ps 32:1-2; 41:1; 65:4). The Gospels contain isolated beatitudes by Christ (Matt 11:6; 13:16; 16:17; 24:46 with the Lukan parallels; John 13:17; 20:29). But the word is most commonly used of the declarations of blessedness made by Christ in the discourses recorded by Matthew (5:3-11) and Luke (6:20-22) that are called the “Sermon on the Mount” and the “Sermon on the Plain.” Scholars are not agreed whether we have here two different records of the same discourse or records of two different but similar discourses.
The Beatitudes do not describe separate types of Christian character. Rather, they set forth qualities and experiences that are combined in the ideal character. In Matthew there are nine beatitudes and no woes; Luke has four beatitudes and four corresponding woes. In Matthew all the sayings except the last are in the third person; in Luke they are in the second. In Matthew all the blessings except the last are attached to spiritual qualities; in Luke they relate to outward conditions of poverty and suffering. The general declarations in Matthew require certain spiritual conditions, whereas the special declarations in Luke, since they were addressed to Jesus' disciples, do not. Luke omits the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh beatitudes of Matthew. Some scholars profess to find a gradation in the order in which the beatitudes are recorded. Much has been written on the grouping of the Beatitudes, but no grouping is generally accepted.
Bibliography: W. D. Davies, The Sermon on the Mount, 1966; C. H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies, 1968, pp. 1-10; R. A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, 1982.——SB [26]
THE BEATITUDES
A. W. PINK
INTRODUCTION:
Opinion has been much divided concerning the design, scope, and application of the Sermon on the Mount. Most commentators have seen in it an exposition of Christian ethics. Men such as the late Count Tolstoi have regarded it as the setting forth of a “golden rule” for all men to live by. Others have dwelt upon its dispensational bearings, insisting that it belongs not to the saints of the present dispensation but to believers within a future millennium. Two inspired statements, however, reveal its true scope. In Matthew 5:1, 2, we learn that Christ was here teaching His disciples. From Matthew 7:28, 29, it is clear that He was also addressing a great multitude of the people. Thus it is evident that this address of our Lord contains instruction both for believers and unbelievers alike.
It needs to be borne in mind that this sermon was Christ’s first utterance to the general public, who had been reared in a defective Judaism. It was possibly His first discourse to the disciples, too. His design was not only to teach Christian ethics but to expose the errors of Pharisaism and to awaken the consciences of His legalistic hearers. In Matthew 5:20 He said,
“Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
Then, to the end of the chapter, He expounded the spirituality of the Law so as to arouse His hearers to see their need of His own perfect righteousness. It was their ignorance of the spirituality of the Law that was the real source of Pharisaism, for its leaders claimed to fulfill the Law in the outward letter. It was therefore our Lord’s good purpose to awaken their consciences by enforcing the Law’s true inner import and requirement.
It is to be noted that this Sermon on the Mount is recorded only in Matthew’s Gospel. The differences between it and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 are pronounced and numerous. While it is true that Matthew is by far the most Jewish of the four Gospels, yet we believe it is a serious mistake to limit its application to godly Jews, either of the past or the future. The opening verse of the Gospel, where Christ is presented in a two-fold way, should warn us against such a restriction. There He is presented as Son of David and as Son of Abraham, “the father of all them that believe” (Romans 4:11). Therefore, we are fully assured that this sermon enunciates spiritual principles that obtain in every age, and on this basis we shall proceed.
Christ’s first preaching seems to have been summarized in one short but crucial sentence, like that of John the Baptist before Him:
“Repent ye: for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17).
It is not appropriate in a brief study such as this to discuss that most interesting topic, the Kingdom of heaven—what it is and what the various periods of its development are—but these Beatitudes teach us much about those who belong to that Kingdom, and upon whom Christ pronounced its highest forms of benediction.
Christ came once in the flesh, and He is coming yet again. Each advent has a special object as connected with the Kingdom of heaven. The first advent of our Lord was for the purpose of establishing an empire among men and over men, by laying the foundations of that empire within individual souls. His second coming will be for the purpose of setting up that empire in glory. It is therefore vitally important that we understand what the character of the subjects in that Kingdom is, so that we may know whether we belong to the Kingdom ourselves, and whether its privileges, immunities, and future rewards are a part of our present and future inheritance. **
Thus one may grasp the importance of a devout and careful study of these Beatitudes. We must examine them as a whole; we cannot take one alone without losing a part of the lesson they jointly teach. These Beatitudes form one portrait. When an artist draws a picture, each line may be graceful and masterful, but it is the union of the lines that reveals their mutual relation; it is the combination of the various artistic delineations and minute touches that gives us the complete portrait. So here, though each separate aspect has its own peculiar beauty and grace and shows the hand of a master, it is only when we take all the lines in combination that we get the full portrait of a true subject and citizen in the Kingdom of God (Dr. A. T. Pierson paraphrased).
God’s great salvation is free, “without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1).
This is a most merciful provision of Divine grace, for were God to offer salvation for sale no poor sinner could secure it, seeing that he has nothing with which to purchase it. But the vast majority are insensible of this; yea, all of us are until the Holy Spirit opens our sin-blinded eyes. It is only those who have passed from death to life who become conscious of their poverty, take the place of beggars, are glad to receive Divine charity, and begin to seek the true riches. Thus “the poor have the Gospel preached to them” (Matthew 11:5), preached not only to their ears, but to their hearts!
cafuffle
Thus poverty of spirit, a consciousness of one’s emptiness and need, results from the work of the Holy Spirit within the human heart. It issues from the painful discovery that all my righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). It follows my being awakened to the fact that my very best performances are unacceptable (yea, an abomination) to the thrice Holy One. Thus one who is poor in spirit realizes that he is a hell-deserving sinner.
Poverty of spirit may be viewed as the negative side of faith. It is that realization of one’s utter worthlessness that precedes a laying hold of Christ by faith, a spiritual eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood (John 6:48-58). It is the work of the Spirit emptying the heart of self, that Christ may fill it. It is a sense of need and destitution.
This first Beatitude, then, is foundational, describing a fundamental trait that is found in every regenerated soul. The one who is poor in spirit is nothing in his own eyes, and feels that his proper place is in the dust before God. He may, through false teaching or worldliness, leave that place, but God knows how to bring him back. And in His faithfulness and love He will do so, for the place of humble self-abasement before God is the place of blessing for His children. How to cultivate this God-honoring spirit is revealed by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 11:29.
He who is in possession of this poverty of spirit is pronounced blessed: because he now has a disposition that is the very reverse of that which was his by nature; because he possesses the first sure evidence that a Divine work of grace has been wrought within him; because such a spirit causes him to look outside of himself for true enrichment; because he is an heir of the Kingdom of heaven.
THE FIRST BEATITUDE
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).
It is indeed blessed to mark how this sermon opens. Christ began not by pronouncing maledictions on the wicked, but by pronouncing benedictions on His people. How like Him was this, to whom judgment is a strange work (Isaiah 28:21, 22; cf. John 1:17). But how strange is the next word: “blessed” or “happy” are the poor—“the poor in spirit.”
Who, previously, had ever regarded them as the blessed ones of earth? And who, outside believers, does so today? And how these opening words strike the keynote of all Christ’s subsequent teaching: it is not what a man does but what he is that is most important.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What is poverty of spirit? It is the opposite
of that haughty, self-assertive, and self-sufficient disposition that the world
so much admires and praises. It is the very reverse of that independent and
defiant attitude that refuses to bow to God, that determines to brave things
out, and that says with Pharaoh,
“Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice?” (<020502>Exodus 5:2).
To be poor in spirit is to realize that I have nothing, am nothing, and can
do nothing, and have need of all things. Poverty of spirit is evident in a
person when he is brought into the dust before God to acknowledge his
utter helplessness. It is the first experiential evidence of a Divine work of
grace within the soul, and corresponds to the initial awakening of the
prodigal in the far country when he “began to be in want” (<421514>Luke
15:14).[27]
B. First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29)
The Sermon on the Mount is the first of five major discourses in the Gospel of Matthew. All five follow blocks of narrative material; all five end with the same formula (see on 7:28-29; and Introduction, section 14). Not only because it is first and longest of the five, and therefore helps determine the critical approach toward all of them, but also because it deals with ethical issues of fundamental importance in every age, this "sermon" has called forth thousands of books and articles. Some orientation is necessary.
A useful starting point is Warren S. Kissingers The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975). K. Beyschlag ("Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 74 [1977]: 291-322) and Robert M. Grant ("The Sermon on the Mount in Early Christianity," Semeia 12 [1978]: 215-31) unfold the treatment of these chapters in the earliest centuries of Christianity. For clarification of the varied treatment of the sermon during the present century, we are now indebted to Ursula Berner (Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979]). Popular, recent expositions of use to the working preacher include James M. Boice, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972); Carson, Sermon on the Mount; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 2 vols. (London: IVP, 1959-60); F.B. Meyer, The Sermon on the Mount (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959); Stott.
Four introductory matters demand comment:
1. Unity and authenticity of the discourse. since the work of Hans Windisch (The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, tr. S.M. Gilmour [1929; reprint ed., Philadelphia: Fortess, 1951]), few have regarded Matthew 5-7 as thoroughly authentic. The most common proposal today is that these Chapters preserve some authentic teaching of Jesus, originally presented at various occasions and collected and shaped by oral tradition. To this the evangelist has added church teaching, taught, perhaps, by an inspired prophet speaking for the exalted Christ; and the discourse has then been further molded by catechetical and liturgical considerations (so, for instance, J. Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], and the magisterial shady by Davies, Setting). According to these critics, at best the so-called sermon on the Mount preserves no more than isolated sayings of Jesus.
Much of one's judgment in these matters depends on conclusions as to source, form, and redaction criticism (cf. Introduction, sections 1-3). For instance, if one insists that every saying elsewhere in the Gospels similar to any saying in Matthew 5-7 must be traced back to one utterance only (thus ignoring Jesus' role as an itinerant preacher), one may develop a more or less plausible theory of the growth of oral tradition in each case (so, e.g., H.T. Wrege, Die aberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt [WUNT 9; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1968]). This can be done precisely because so many sayings in these chapters do occur elsewhere, either in roughly similar or in identical language (see on 5:13, 15, 18, 25, 29, 32; 6:9, 22, 24-25; 7:2, 7, 17, 23). Moreover, where parallels exist, Matthew's forms are often more stylized or structured.
There is no need to repeat introductory remarks about authenticity. Several observations will, however, focus the approach adopted here.
a. We cannot make much out of Matthew's clear tendency to treat his material topically. Nor can we conclude from his grouping of miracles that he has composed his discourses out of grouped but independent sayings. In the former case Matthew does not pretend to do otherwise, whereas in all his discourses he gives the impression, especially in his concluding formulas (7:28-29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), that the material is not only authentic but delivered on one occasion.
b. We dare not claim too much on the basis of the unity or its lack in the discourses. Even if the Sermon on the Mount represents material Jesus delivered on one occasion, perhaps over several days, its extreme compression, necessary selection, and problems of translation from Aramaic to Greek (assuming Jesus preached in Aramaic) might all unite to break the flow. If the unity of the discourse be defended (e.g., by A. Farrar, St Matthew and St Mark [London: Dacre/A. and C. Black, 1954, 1966], but cf. Davies, Setting, pp. 9-13), that unity might be nothing more than the evangelist's editing. He must have seen some coherence in these chapters to leave them in this form. Thus neither unity nor disunity are sufficient criteria for the authenticity of a brief account of extensive discourse.
c. We must suppose that Jesus preached the same thing repeatedly (see on 4:23-25); he was an extremely busy itinerant preacher. The pithier the saying, the more likely it was to be repeated word-perfect. The more common the natural phenomenon behind a metaphor or aphorism, the more likely Jesus repeated it in new situations. Any experienced itinerant preacher will confirm the inescapability of these tendencies. More important, if one distances oneself from the more radical presuppositions of form and tradition criticism, the NT documents themselves confirm this approach (cf. 11:15 with 13:9; 18:3 with 19:14, and cf. 20:26 [and Luke 12:24-31; John 13:13-17]; Matt 17:20 with 21:21; 10:32 with Luke 9:26 and 12:8; Mt 10:24 with Luke 6:40 and John 13:16 and 15:20; Mt 10:38-39 with 16:24-25 and Luke 17:33 and John 12:25). Even longer sections like Jesus' model prayer (Mt 6:9-13; see discussion below) are susceptible of such treatment, if for different reasons.
d. Jesus himself was a master teacher. In his sayings, whose authenticity is not greatly disputed, there is evidence of structure, contrast, and assonance. So when some scholars tell us that Matthew's account has more structure (perhaps from catechetical influence) than the other Synoptics, is this a sign of greater nearness to or distance from Jesus? What criteria are there for distinguishing the two possibilities? Surely if we do not pretend to be able to retrieve all the ipsissima verba of Jesus but only his ipsissima box, most of the common criteria for testing authenticity evaporate.
e. The assumptions of some form critics make their work more questionable than they think. For if a certain kind of saying tends to take on a certain form in oral tradition, and if the period of oral transmission is long enough to develop that form, then the repetition of the saying on half-a-dozen different occasions in slightly different words would ultimately lead to one common form of the saying. Thus, far from enabling the critic to trace a precise development, form criticism obliterates the richness of the tradition attested by the evangelists themselves.
f. As Matthew's Gospel stands, we must weigh two disparate pieces of evidence: (1) that all five of Matthew's discourses are bracketed by introductory and concluding remarks that cannot fail to give the impression that he presents his discourses as not only authentic but delivered by Jesus on the specified occasions and (2) that many individual bits of each discourse find synoptic parallels in other settings. Many think the second point to be so strong that they conclude that Matthew himself composed the discourses. Conservative writers in this camp say that all of Jesus' sayings are authentic but that Matthew brought them together in their present form. Therefore the first piece of evidence has to be reinterpreted; i.e., the introductory and concluding notes framing each of Matthew's discourses are seen as artistic, compositional devices.
A more subtle approach is to say that Jesus actually did deliver a discourse on each of the five occasions specified but that not all the material Matthew records was from that occasion. In other words the evangelist has added certain "footnotes" of his own, at a time when orthography was much more flexible and there were no convenient ways to indicate what he was doing. While either of these reconstructions is possible, each faces two steep hurdles: (1) the introductory and concluding brackets around the five discourses do not belong to any clear first-century pattern or genre that would show the reader that they are merely artistic devices and not the real settings they manifestly claim to be; and (2) it is remarkable that each conclusion sweeps together all the sayings of the preceding discourse under some such rubric as "when Jesus had finished saying these things" (a possible exception is 11:1). That the introductory and concluding formulas were not recognizable as artistic devices is confirmed by the fact that for the first millennium and a half or so of its existence, the church recognized them as concrete settings. (This is not a surreptitious appeal to return to precritical thinking but a note on the recognizability of a literary genre.)
In view of the above, it seems the wiser course to believe Matthew intended to present real, historical settings for his discourses; and the parallels found elsewhere, though they must be considered individually, do not seem to present insurmountable problems. While many sayings in the Gospels appear in "loose" or in "floating" settings, where an evangelist ostensibly specifies the context, the authenticity of that context must be assumed. This is particularly easy to maintain in Matthew if the date and authorship are as stated in the Introduction (sections 5-6). Thus this commentary takes Matthew's settings seriously. Not that it takes all the discourses as verbatim accounts or unedited reports of Jesus' teaching, it rather assumes that they are condensed notes, largely in Matthew's idiom, selected and presented in accord with his own concerns. But behind them stand the voice and authority of Jesus.
2. Relation to the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49). Augustine claimed that Matthew 5-7 and the passage in Luke are two separate discourses, and almost all writers agreed with him till the Reformation. Even after it some scholars followed Augustine (e.g., Alexander, Plumptre), and today some are returning to Augustine's view.
Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and the majority of recent scholars, however, de fend the view (often with appropriate theorizing about Q) that the two accounts represent the same discourse. This has much to commend it. The two sermons begin with beatitudes and end with the same simile. Nearly everything in the Sermon on the Plain is in some form in the Sermon on the Mount and often in identical order. Both are immediately followed by the same events—viz., entrance into Capernaum and healing the centurion's servant. (The point is valid even if it indicates nothing more than a common link in the tradition.) Luke's sermon is much shorter and has its own thematic emphases (e.g., humility); and much of the extra material in Matthew is scattered elsewhere in Luke, especially in his "travel narrative" (Luke 9:51-18:14; discussed at Mt 19:1-2). Moreover Matthew speaks of a mountain, Luke a plain; and Luke's discourse follows the choosing of the Twelve, which does not take place in Matthew till chapter 10.
But these problems can be readily solved.
a. Much of what Luke omits, mostly in Matthew 5:17-37; 6:1-18, is exactly the sort of material that would interest Matthew's Jewish readers more than Luke's readers. Luke has also omitted some material from his "Sermon on the Plain" that he has placed elsewhere (Matt 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31). It is possible that Jesus gave the sermon more than once. Alternatively, Luke's context is so loose that he may have been responsible for the topical rearrangement. In any case to insist that a writer must include everything he knows or everything in his sources is poor methodology. In the other Matthean discourses, Matthew includes much and Luke includes less; in the Sermon on the Mount, though Matthew's account is much longer than Luke's, in certain places Luke preserves a little more than Matthew (compare Matt 5:12 with Luke 6:23-26; Matt 5:47 with Luke 6:33-35).
b. Of the several solutions to the mountain or plain, the most convincing one takes Matthew's "on a mountainside" to mean "up in the hills" and Luke's "plain" as being some kind of plateau. The linguistic evidence is convincing (see on 5:1-2).
c. Luke's order, placing the sermon after the choosing of the Twelve, is historically believable. But Matthew is clearly topical in his order. Connectives at 5:1; 8:1; 9:35; 11:2; 12:1; 14:1 et al. are loose; his favorite word "then" is general in meaning (see on 2:7). It is unlikely that Matthew intends his readers to think that the Sermon on the Mount succeeded Jesus' circuit (4:23-25). Rather, this sermon was preached during that circuit. Moreover some of Matthew's reasons for placing it here instead of after 10:1-4 are apparent (see below under 4). It seems best, then, to take Matthew 5:7 and Luke 6:20-49 as separate reports of the same occasion, each de pendent on some shared tradition (Q?), but not exclusively so. Space limitations prevent tracing all the likely connections; but some attention will be given selected critical problems within this overall approach.
3. Theological structure and affinities. Whatever its sources and manner of compilation, the inclusion of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew must be significant. Some have noted its similarities to Jewish thought. G. Eriedlander's classic work, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Ktav, 1911), shows that virtually all the statements in Matthew 5-7 can be paralleled in the Talmud or other Jewish sources. Of course this is right, but it is a little like saying that the parts of a fine automobile can be found in a vast warehouse. Read any fifty pages of the Babylonian Talmud and compare them with Matthew 5-7, and it becomes obvious that they are not saying the same things. Sigal ("Halakhah") argues that the forms of argument in Matthew 5-7 fit into well-accepted patterns of the early rabbis ("proto-rabbis"); Gary A. Tuttle ("The Sermon on the Mount: Its Wisdom Affinities and Their Relation to Its Structure," JETS 20 [1977]: 213-30) draws attention to connections with the forms of argument in wisdom literature. Both are too restrictive: rabbinic and wisdom argumentation overlap much more than is commonly acknowledged, and Jesus (and Matthew) echo both and more yet they must be interpreted first of all in their own right.
The attempt to do that has not produced consistent results. Schweizer lists seven major interpretive approaches to the Sermon on the Mount; Harvey K. McArthur (Understanding the Sermon on the Mount [New York: Harper and Row, 1960], pp. 105-48) lists twelve. Some of the most important are as follows:
a. Lutheran orthodoxy often understands the Sermon on the Mount as an exposition of law designed to drive men to cry for grace. This is Pauline (Rom 3-4; Gal 3), and grace is certainly presupposed in the sermon (e.g., see on 5:3). But though one of Jesus' purposes may have been to puncture self-righteous approaches to God, the sermon cannot be reduced to this. The righteousness envisaged (see on 5:20) is not imputed righteousness. Moreover, Paul himself insists that personal righteousness must characterize one who inherits the kingdom (Gal 5:19-24). Above all, this view fails to grasp the flow of salvation history (see below).
b. Some have argued that Jesus' eschatology is so "realized" that the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is a sort of moral road map toward social progress. Classic liberalism has been invalidated by two world wars, the Great Depression and repeated recessions, the threat of nuclear holocaust, and post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, post-OPEC malaise. Nor can it be integrated with apocalyptic elements in Jesus' teaching (e.g., Matt 24) or with the vision of a suffering and witnessing community (Matt 10).
c. Today the sermon is commonly interpreted as a set of moral standards used catechetically within Matthew's community. While that may be so if there was a Matthean community, this view is reductionistic. It fails to wrestle with salvation history. The entire Book of Matthew presents itself as Jesus' teaching and ministry before the church was called into existence in the full, post-Pentecost sense. This Gospel does not present itself as the catechesis of a church but as a theological portrayal of the one who fulfilled Scripture and introduced the end times.
d. The Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition interprets the ethical demands to apply to all believers in every age and every circumstance. The resulting philosophy of pacifism in the context of a power-loving world demands the conclusion that Christians should not seek to be involved in affairs of state. This tradition rightly perceives the separate status of the believing community, which must not be confused with the world (e.g., 7:13-14, 21-23). But it is insensitive to the place of this sermon in the progress of redemption and absolutizes some of its teaching in a way incompatible with its context and with other Scripture (see on 5:38-42; 6:5-8).
e. Existential interpretation finds in these chapters a summons to personal decision and authentic faith but jettisons the personal and infinite God who makes the summons. Also, by denying the uniqueness of the Jesus who delivers the sermon, it fails to cope with its fulfillment theme and its implications.
f. Still others claim that Jesus is advocating an "interim ethic" to remain in force till the soon-expected consummation. But Jesus, they assume, erred as to the timing of this event; so the "interim ethic" must be toned down accordingly. All this rests on a view of Jesus derived from other passages (not least Matthew chs. 24-25 and parallels).
g. It is common among evangelicals and others to interpret the Sermon on the Mount as an intensifying or radicalizing of OT moral law. But this depends largely on a doubtful interpretation of 5:17-20 (cf. below).
h. Classic dispensationalism interprets the Sermon on the Mount as law for the millennial kingdom first offered by Jesus to the Jews. This has faced so many objections (e.g., Can any age be justly described as "millennial" that requires "laws" to govern face slapping?) that the approach has been qualified. J. Dwight Pentecost ("The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount," BS 115 [1958]: 128ff., 212ff, 313ff.) and Walvoord take the ethical content of the sermon to be binding on any age but continue to drive a wedge between these chapters and the Christian gospel by pointing out that they do not mention the cross, justification by faith, new birth, etc. On that basis the Epistle of James is also non-Christian! Moreover they misinterpret Matthew's fulfillment motif and impose a theological structure on this Gospel demanding improbable exegesis of numerous passages (occasionally identified in this commentary). The disjunction between Matthew 5-7 and the Christian gospel is theologically and historically artificial.
This sketch overlooks many variations of the principal interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Recently several scholars have narrowed the focus: C. Burchard ("The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount," in Schottroff, Command, pp. 57-75) understands chapters 5-7 to provide rules of conduct for the Matthean church in the light of opposition to its witness; G. Bornkamm ("Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt," NTS 24 [1977-78]: 419-32) interprets the sermon around the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13). Though these perspectives highlight neglected themes, they overlook both the thrust of the sermon as a whole and its place in Matthew.
The unifying theme of the sermon is the kingdom of heaven. This is established, not by counting how many times the expression occurs, but by noting where it occurs. It envelopes the Beatitudes (5:3, 10) and appears in 5:17-20, which details the relation between the OT and the kingdom, a subject that leads to another literary envelope around the body of the sermon (5:17; 7:12). It returns at the heart of the Lord's Prayer (6:10), climaxes the section on kingdom perspectives (6:33), and is presented as what must finally be entered (7:21-23). Matthew places the sermon immediately after two verses insisting that the primary content of Jesus' preaching was the gospel of the kingdom (4:17, 23). It provides ethical guidelines for life in the kingdom, but does so within an explanation of the place of the contemporary setting within redemption history and Jesus' relation to the OT (5:17-20). Tile community forming around him, his "disciples," is not yet so cohesive and committed a group that exhortations to "enter" (7:13-14) are irrelevant. The glimpse of kingdom life (horizontally and vertically) in these chapters anticipates not only the love commandments (22:34-40) but also grace (5:3; 6:12; 7:7-11; cf. 21:28-46).
4. Location in Matthew. Unlike Luke, Matthew does not place the sermon after the calling of the Twelve (10:1-4); for there he puts a second discourse, one concerning mission. This links the call with the commission, a theme of great importance to Matthew (see on 11:11-12; 28:16-20). Not less important is the location of the Sermon on the Mount so early in the Gospel, before any sign of controversies between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as to the law's meaning. This means that, despite the antitheses in 5:17-48 ("You have heard … but I tell"), these should not be read as tokens of confrontation but in the light of the fulfillment themes richly set out in chapters 1-4 and made again explicit in 5:17-20: Jesus comes "to fulfill" the Law and the Prophets (i.e., the OT Scriptures). Therefore his announcements concerning the kingdom must be read against that background, not with reference to debates over Halakic details. This framework is Matthew's; by it he tells us that whatever controversies occupied Jesus' attention, the burden of his kingdom proclamation always made the kingdom the goal of the Scriptures, the long-expected messianic reign foretold by the Law and the Prophets alike.
1. Setting (5:1-2)
1 The "crowds" are those referred to in 4:23-25. Here Jesus stands at the height of his popularity. Although his ministry touched the masses, he saw the need to teach his "disciples" (mathetai) closely. The word "disciple" must not be restricted to the Twelve, whom Matthew has yet to mention (10:1-4). Nor is it a special word for full-fledged believers, since it can also describe John the Baptist's followers (11:2). In the Lukan parallel we are told of a "large crowd of his disciples" as well as "a great number of people" (6:17). This goes well with Matthew 4:25, which says large crowds "followed" Jesus. Those who especially wanted to attach themselves to him, Jesus takes aside to instruct; but it is anachronistic to suppose that all are fully committed in the later "Christian" sense of Acts 11:26 (cf. Matt 7:13-14, 21-23). Matthew sees the disciples as paradigms for believers in his own day but never loses sight, as we shall repeatedly notice, of the unique, historical place of the first followers (contra U. Luz, "Die Junger im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 62 [1971]: 141-71—though Luz wisely avoids reducing Matthew's disciples to the Twelve. On the importance of the theme of discipleship in this Gospel, cf. Martin H. Franzmann, Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew [St. Louis: Concordia, 1961]).
At this point in his ministry, Jesus could not escape the mounting crowds; and by the end of his sermon (7:28-29), he was surrounded by yet larger crowds. This suggests that his teaching covered several days, not just an hour or two (cf. the three-day meeting, 15:29-39). The place of retreat Jesus chose was in the hill country (cf. Notes), not "on a mountainside." He "sat down" to teach. Sitting was the accepted posture of synagogue or school teachers (Luke 4:20; cf. Matt 13:2; 23:2; 24:3; cf. DNTT, 3:588-89). The attempt of Lachs (pp. 99-101) to find an anachronism here fails because his sources refer to the position of one who is learning Torah, not teaching it. Luke has Jesus standing (6:17) but ministering to the larger crowd from which he could not escape (6:17-19).
2 NIV masks the idiom "he opened his mouth and taught them," found elsewhere in the NT (13:35; Acts 8:34; 10:34; 18:14) and reflecting OT roots (Job 3:1; 33:2; Dan 10:16). It is used in solemn or revelatory contexts. "To teach" (edidasken) is imperfect and inceptive: "He began to teach them." Contrary to Davies (Setting, pp. 7-8), one must not draw too sharp a distinction between preaching (kerysso, Mt 4:17) and teaching (didasko: see on 3:1 and the linking of these categories in 4:23; 9:35. SBK (1:189) notes that teaching was not uncommonly done outdoors as well as in synagogues.[28]
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE KINGDOM
Part One
In the so-called sermon on the mount our Lord was not preaching the gospel, but He was revealing the principles of His kingdom, which should guide the lives of all who profess to be His disciples. In other words, this sermon states the law of the kingdom. The observance of this law must characterize the loyal subjects of the kingdom as they wait for the day when the King Himself will be revealed. Throughout, the sermon recognizes the existence of definite opposition to His rule, but those who acknowledge His authority in their lives are called on to exhibit the same meek and lowly spirit that was seen in Him during the days of His humiliation here on earth.
For the natural man this sermon is not the way of life, but rather a source of condemnation; for it sets a standard so high and holy that no unsaved person can by any means attain to it. He who attempts it will soon realize his utter helplessness, if he is honest and conscientious. He must look elsewhere in the Scriptures for the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Romans 1:16). The keenest intellects of earth have recognized in the sermon on the mount the highest of ethical teaching, and have praised its holy precepts even when conscious of their inability to measure up to its standards. So far as the unsaved are concerned, therefore, the teaching given here becomes indeed, as C. I. Scofield well said, "Law raised to its nth power." Just as the righteous requirements of the law are "fulfilled in us [the believers], who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:4), so the principles laid down in this sermon will demonstrate themselves in the lives of all who seek to walk as Christ walked.
It is not for us to relegate all these laws or principles to the Jewish remnant in the last days or to disciples before the cross, though fully applicable to both. But we discern here "wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 6:3) which we dare not refuse to obey. Those who refuse to obey are described as "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings" (1 Timothy 6:4) We need to remember that, though a heavenly people, we have earthly responsibilities, and these are defined for us in this greatest of all sermons having to do with human conduct.
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12)
"Blessed are the poor in spirit." These are the men and women who recognize the fact that they have no spiritual assets. They confess their lost condition and so rely upon divine grace.
"Blessed are they that mourn." The very sorrows men are called to pass through prove a means of blessing if they know the "God of all comfort" (2 Corinthians 1:3) who binds up broken hearts (Psalm 34:18). God makes our griefs become the means of our growth in grace when we trust His love and rest in the realization that all things work together for the good of His own (Romans 8:28).
"Blessed are the meek." The world admires the pushing, self-assertive man. Jesus Christ was meek and lowly in heart. Those who partake of His spirit are the ones who get the most out of life after all. It is they who "inherit the earth," for they see in all nature the evidences of the Father's love and care.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." Such hunger and thirst--such deep, earnest desire--gives evidence of the new life. These desires are not given to mock us. Satisfaction is the promised portion of all who thus yearn after God, in whom alone righteousness is found.
"Blessed are the merciful." To those who show mercy, mercy will be extended. This is a law of the kingdom. The hard, implacable man, who deals in stern justice alone, will be dealt with in the same way when failure comes into his own life.
"Blessed are the pure in heart." Purity is singleness of purpose. The pure in heart are those who put God's glory above all else. To such He reveals Himself. They see His face when others discern only His providential dealings.
"Blessed are the peacemakers." Strife and division are works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Sowing discord among brethren is one of the things that the Lord hates (Proverbs 6:16-19). We are commanded to follow after the things that make for peace (Romans 14:19). In doing this we display the divine nature, as children of Him who is the God of peace (Romans 15:33).
"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake." This intimates clearly that the instruction set forth here is intended not, as many have insisted, for the millennial kingdom of Christ when there will be no persecution for the sake of righteousness. Rather, this instruction is intended for the disciples of Christ during the time of His rejection, when His followers are exposed to the hatred of a godless world.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you . . . and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." We all shrink from false accusation, but we may find comfort as we remember that our Lord Himself was not exempt from this. There is blessing as we go through these experiences in fellowship with Him, not even attempting to justify ourselves, but leaving it to Him to clear us in His own way and time.
"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad," instead of giving way to depression of spirit, "for great is your reward in heaven." God is taking note of all that His people suffer at the hands, or by the lips, of a godless world or false brethren. He will make up for it all in His own way when we see His face. His prophets in every age have been called upon to endure similar treatment, but He has observed it all and will reward according to the lovingkindness of His heart.
In the next section we have Christ's disciples presented through various symbols, all speaking of the importance of faithfulness to the trust He has committed to us.[29]
THE ETHICS OF GOD’S KINGDOM
Matthew 5–7
Jesus summons those who would be his followers to radical devotion and radical dependence on God. His followers must be meek, must not retaliate, must go beyond the letter’s law to its spirit, must do what is right when only God is looking, must depend on God for their needs and pursue his interests rather than their own, and must leave spiritual measurements of others’ hearts to God. In short, true people of the kingdom live for God, not for themselves. (My overall approach to the Sermon on the Mount combines some approaches, but still remains one among many. For a more complete summary of various views on this sermon’s message, see, for example, Guelich 1982:14–22; Cranford 1992; Allen 1992.)
Readers should contemplate the message of this sermon. Having summarized Jesus’ message as repentance in view of the coming kingdom (4:17), Matthew now collects Jesus’ teachings that explain how a repentant person ready for God’s rule should live. Only those submitted to God’s reign now are truly prepared for the time when he will judge the world and reign there unchallenged. This sermon provides examples of the self-sacrificial ethics of the kingdom, which its citizens must learn to exemplify even in the present world before the rest of the world recognizes that kingdom (6:10).
To be faithful to the text, we must let Jesus’ radical demands confront us with all the unnerving force with which they would have struck their first hearers. At the same time, the rest of the Gospel narrative, where Jesus does not repudiate disciples who miserably fail yet repent (for example, 26:31–32), does season the text with grace. Most Jewish people understood God’s commandments in the context of grace (E. Sanders 1977; though compare also Thielman 1994:48–68); given Jesus’ demands for greater grace in practice (9:13; 12:7; 18:21–35), we must remember that Jesus embraces those who humble themselves, acknowledging God’s right to rule, even if in practice they are not yet perfect (5:48). Jesus preached hard to the religiously and socially arrogant, but his words come as comfort to the meek and brokenhearted.
Of course one also needs to read grace in light of the kingdom demands; grace transforms as well as forgives. Jesus is meek and lowly in heart to the broken and heals and restores the needy who seek him; it is the arrogant, the religiously and socially satisfied, against whom Jesus lays the kingdom demands harshly (compare Mt 23).
Although the sermon’s structure does not fit some modern outlines, it reflects a consistent pattern. Matthew gathers a variety of Jesus’ teachings on related topics that appear in the source he shares with Luke. Ancient writers exercised the freedom to rearrange sayings, often topically; sometimes they also gathered sayings of their teachers into collections. Evidence within the sermon itself suggesting various audiences (5:1; 7:28) may also support the view that the sermon is composite. Scholars debate its precise structure, but 5:17–48, 6:1–18 and 6:19–34 are its largest complete units.
Kingdom Blessings for True Disciples (5:1–16)
The Setting of Jesus’ Sermon (Matthew 5:1–2)
Various features of the setting contribute to Matthew’s portrait of Jesus.
First, “mountain” settings in Matthew are usually significant (17:1; compare 15:29; 28:16; although Moses is not alluded to in 4:8). Many scholars think that Matthew probably recalls Moses’ revelation on Mount Sinai (Ex 19:3) here. If so, Jesus’ superior revelation also makes him superior to those who “sit in Moses’ seat” (Mt 23:2); the One greater than Moses, first encountered in 2:13–20, has begun his mission.
Second, Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’ teaching is appropriate. That Jesus sat to teach (5:1; compare 13:1–2; 23:2) fits expected patterns of Jewish instruction (see also Lk 4:20). Thus Jesus takes the role of the scribes, but Matthew also indicates that Jesus is greater than the scribes (Mt 7:29).
Finally, Jesus’ audience is also relevant to Matthew’s point. Jesus’ ethics specifically address disciples, but Jesus also invites those who are not disciples to become disciples and live according to the values of God’s kingdom. The crowds following Jesus (4:25–5:1) function as at least potential disciples; disciples in the Gospel provide models for later believers (Guelich 1982:53). Matthew explicitly indicates that Jesus taught his disciples (5:1–2) but also that the crowds were present (5:1; 7:28–8:1), implying that Jesus wanted both to hear, calling both to decision (7:24–27; see Guelich 1982:60).
Kingdom Rewards for the Repentant (5:3–9)* If we truly repent in light of the coming kingdom, we will treat our neighbors rightly. No one who has humbled himself or herself before God can act with wanton self-interest in relationships. Those with the faith to await the vindication of the righteous in God’s kingdom can afford to be righteous, to relinquish the pursuit of their own rights (5:38–42; compare 1 Cor 9:3–23), because they know the just judge will vindicate them as they seek his ways of justice.
Jesus employs a standard Jewish literary form to express this point, a beatitude, which runs like this: “It will go well with the one who … for that one shall receive … ” (“Fortunate” or “it will be well with” may convey the point better than blessed or “happy.”) In this context Jesus’ beatitudes mean that it will ultimately be well with those who seek first God’s kingdom (Mt 6:33).
Because various themes pervade all or many of Matthew’s beatitudes here, the principles are summarized by topic rather than by verse in this section of the commentary. Matthew intends his audience to hear all the beatitudes together (his Gospel would have been read in church assemblies), not for them to be taken piecemeal. What themes emerge from these brief pronouncements of blessing?
Jesus lists promises that pertain to the coming kingdom. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven frames most of this section (5:3, 10). All the blessings listed are blessings of the kingdom time. In the time of the kingdom God will “comfort all who mourn in Zion” (Is 61:2); he will satisfy the hunger and thirst of his people (Mt 8:11; 22:2; 26:29; Is 25:6) as in the first exodus (Deut 6:11; 8:17). God’s ultimate mercy will be revealed on the day of judgment (1 Enoch 5:5; 12:6; 92:4; Ps. Sol. 16:15). At that time he will ultimately declare the righteous to be his children (Rev 21:7; Jub. 1:24), as he had to a lesser degree at the first exodus (Ex 4:22). God is technically invisible (1QS 11.20; Jos. Apion 2.191), but in the future the righteous will fully see God (1 Enoch 90:35; ARN 1A).
The blessings he promises come only by God’s intervention. Because the future kingdom is in some sense present in Jesus, who provides bread (Mt 14:19–20) and comforts the brokenhearted (14:14; compare Lk 4:18), we participate in the spiritual down payment of these blessings in Christ in the present (see Gal 3:14; Eph 1:3). But such blessings come only to the meek—those who wait on God to fight God’s battles.
The blessings of the beatitudes are for a people ready for the kingdom’s coming. This passage shows what kingdom-ready people should be like; hence it shows us prerequisites for the kingdom as well as kingdom promises.
First, kingdom people do not try to force God’s whole will on a world unprepared for it. Many first-century Jews had begun to think that revolutionary violence was the only adequate response to the violence of oppression they experienced. Matthew’s first audience no doubt could recall the bankruptcy of this approach, which led to crushing defeat in the war of a.d. 66–73. But Jesus promises the kingdom not to those who try to force God’s hand in their time but to those who patiently and humbly wait for it—the meek, the poor in spirit, the merciful, the peacemakers.
Of course Jesus’ demand does not merely challenge the bloodshed of revolution. Peacemakers means not only living at peace but bringing harmony among others; this role requires us to work for reconciliation with spouses, neighbors and all people-insofar as the matter is up to us (Rom 12:18).
Second, God favors the humble, who trust in him rather than their own strength (5:3–9). For one thing, the humble are not easily provoked to anger. These are the poor in spirit, … the meek, those who appear in Jewish texts as the lowly and oppressed. Because the oppressed poor become wholly dependent on God (Jas 2:5), some Jewish people used “poor [in spirit]” as a positive religious as well as economic designation. Thus it refers not merely to the materially poor and oppressed but to those “who have taken that condition to their very heart, by not allowing themselves to be deceived by the attraction of wealth” (Freyne 1988:72).
Jesus promises the kingdom to the powerless, the oppressed who embrace the poverty of their condition by trusting in God rather than favors from the powerful for their deliverance. The inequities of this world will not forever taunt the justice of God: he will ultimately vindicate the oppressed. This promise provides us both hope to work for justice and grace to endure the hard path of love.
There are, of course, exceptions, but as a rule it is more common for the poor to be “poor in spirit”; Matthew’s poor in spirit does have something to do with Luke’s “poor.” Surveys in the United States, for example, show that religious commitment is generally somewhat higher among people with less income (Barna 1991:178–81; Gallup and Jones 1992), and Christians in less affluent countries like Nepal, Guatemala, Kenya or China often are prepared to pay a higher price for their faith than most Western Christians. In Bible studies among students from different kinds of colleges and backgrounds I have found that students from poor homes, struggling to pay their way through college, frequently understand this passage better than those students for whom the road is easier. Feeling impressed by the wealth and status of others, the less privileged students are amazed to learn how special they are to God and embrace this message as good news. Those of us who have attained more income or education would do well to imitate their meekness, lest the self-satisfaction and complacency that often accompany such attainments corrupt our faith in Christ (13:22).
Further, these humble people are also those who yearn for God above all else. Luke emphasizes those who hunger physically (Lk 6:21); Matthew emphasizes yearning for God’s righteousness more than for food and drink, perhaps also implying that those who hunger physically are in a better position to begin to value God more than food (Mt 5:6; this may include fasting). In this context hungering for righteousness probably includes yearning for God’s justice, for his vindication of the oppressed (see Gundry 1982:70); the context also implies that it includes yearning to do God’s will (5:20; 6:33; 21:32; 23:29). This passage reflects biblical images of passion for God, longing for him more than for daily food or drink (Job 23:12; Ps 42:1–2; 63:1, 5; Jer 15:16; compare Mt 4:4). God and his Word should be the ultimate object of our longing (Ps 119:40, 47, 70, 92, 97, 103).
“Mourners” here (5:4) may thus refer especially to the repentant (Joel 1:13; see also Jas 4:9–10; Lev 23:29; 26:41), those who grieve over their people’s sin (Tobit 13:14). Given the promise of comfort, however, the term probably also applies more broadly to those who are broken, who suffer or have sustained personal grief and responded humbly (see Fenton 1977:368). God is near the brokenhearted (Ps 51:17) and will comfort those who mourn (Is 61:1–3); the people of the kingdom are the humble, not the arrogant. The pure in heart (Mt 5:8) in Psalm 73 refers to those who recognize that God alone is their hope.
Likewise, this lifestyle of meekness Jesus teaches challenges not only Jewish revolutionaries but all Christians in our daily lives. If we are to walk in love toward our enemies (Mt 5:43), how much more should we walk in love toward those closest us (compare 5:46–47; 22:36–40)? I am always awed by the presence of the truly humble—like three of my friends from Ethiopia, one of whom was imprisoned by the old Marxist regime for a year and two of whom led about two thousand fellow Ethiopians to Christ in their refugee camp. Not only did these brothers regularly offer me their most gracious hospitality when I visited them, but every time I came they would insist on my teaching them the Bible—though I am sure that I had far more to learn from them!
Encouragement for Those Persecuted for the Gospel (5:10–12)* In his final beatitudes Jesus declares not “Happy are those,” but “Happy are you.” Here Jesus takes his ethic of nonretaliation (5:38–47) to its furthest possible length: not only must we refuse to strike back, but we are to rejoice when persecuted. The persecution itself confirms our trust in God’s promise of reward, because the prophets suffered likewise (13:57; 23:37; 26:68; 2 Chron 36:15–16; Jer 26:11, 23). The prophetic role of a disciple is analogous to (Mt 10:41–42; 23:34) and greater than (11:9, 11; 13:17) that of an Old Testament prophet. When we represent Jesus and his message faithfully and suffer rejection accordingly, we may identify with ancient prophetic leaders like Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel.
But here Jesus summons us to a greater honor than being prophets; he summons us to bear the name—the honor—of Jesus. The characteristics Jesus lists as belonging to the people of the kingdom are also those Jesus himself exemplifies as the leading servant of the kingdom and Son par excellence of the Father (11:27; 20:28). Jesus is meek and lowly in heart (11:29); he mourns over the unrepentant (11:20–24); he shows mercy (9:13, 27; 12:7; 20:30); he is a peacemaker (5:43–45; 26:52). If he is lowly, how much more must be his disciples, who are to imitate his ways (10:24–25; 23:8–12)—in contrast to worldly paradigms for religious celebrities (23:5–7).[30]
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
As we have already seen, Matthew has a careful pattern in his gospel.
In his story of the baptism of Jesus he shows us Jesus realizing that the hour has struck, that the call to action has come, and that Jesus must go forth on his crusade. In his story of the Temptations he shows us Jesus deliberately choosing the method he will use to carry out his task, and deliberately rejecting methods which he knew to be against the will of God. If a man sets his hand to a great task, he needs his helpers, his assistants, his staff. So Matthew goes on to show us Jesus selecting the men who will be his fellow-workers.
But if helpers and assistants are to do their work intelligently and effectively, they must first have instruction. And now, in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew shows us Jesus instructing his disciples in the message which was his and which they were to take to men. In Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount this becomes even clearer. In Luke the Sermon on the Mount follows immediately after what we might call the official choosing of the Twelve (Luke 6:13 ff.).
For that reason one great scholar called the Sermon on the Mount “The Ordination Address to the Twelve” Just as a young minister has his task set out before him, when he is called to his first charge, so the Twelve received from Jesus their ordination address before they went out to their task. It is for that reason that other scholars have given other titles to the Sermon on the Mount. It has been called “The Compendium of Christ’s Doctrine,” “The Magna Charta of the Kingdom,” “The Manifesto of the King.” All are agreed that in the Sermon on the Mount we have the essence of the teaching of Jesus to the inner circle of his chosen men.
THE SUMMARY OF THE FAITH
In actual fact this is even truer than at first sight appears. We speak of the Sermon on the Mount as if it was one single sermon preached on one single occasion. But it is far more than that. There are good and compelling reasons for thinking that the Sermon on the Mount is far more than one sermon, that it is, in fact, a kind of epitome of all the sermons that Jesus ever preached.
(i) Anyone who heard it in its present form would be exhausted long before the end. There is far too much in it for one hearing. It is one thing to sit and read it, and to pause and linger as we read; it would be entirely another thing to listen to it for the first time in spoken words. We can read at our own pace and with a certain familiarity with the words; but to hear it in its present form for the first time would be to be dazzled with excess of light long before it was finished.
(ii) There are certain sections of the Sermon on the Mount which emerge, as it were, without warning; they have no connection with what goes before and no connection with what comes after. For instance, Matthew 5:31, 32 and Matthew 7:7–11 are quite detached from their context. There is a certain disconnection in the Sermon on the Mount.
(iii) The most important point is this. Both Matthew and Luke give us a version of the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew’s version there are 107 verses. Of these 107 verses 29 are found all together in Luke 6:20–49; 47 have no parallel in Luke’s version; and 34 are found scattered all over Luke’s gospel in different contexts.
For instance, the simile of the salt is in Matthew 5:13 and in Luke 14:34, 35; the simile of the lamp is in Matthew 5:15 and in Luke 8:16; the saying that no one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away is in Matthew 5:18 and in Luke 16:17. That is to say, passages which are consecutive in Matthew’s gospel appear in widely separated chapters in Luke’s gospel.
To take another example, the saying about the mote in our brother’s eye and the beam in our own is in Matthew 7:1–5 and in Luke 6:37–42; the passage in which Jesus bids men to ask and seek and find is in Matthew 7:7–12 and in Luke 11:9–13.
If we tabulate these things, the matter will become clear:
| Matthew 5:13 | = | Luke 14:34, 35 |
| Matthew 5:15 | = | Luke 8:16 |
| Matthew 5:18 | = | Luke 16:17 |
| Matthew 7:1–5 | = | Luke 6:37–42 |
| Matthew 7:7–12 | = | Luke 11:9–13 |
Now, as we have seen, Matthew is essentially the teaching gospel; it is Matthew’s characteristic that he collects the teaching of Jesus under certain great headings; and it is surely far more likely that Matthew collected Jesus’ teaching into one whole pattern, than that Luke took the pattern and broke it up and scattered the pieces all over his gospel. The Sermon on the Mount is not one single sermon which Jesus preached on one definite situation; it is the summary of his consistent teaching to his disciples. It has been suggested that, after Jesus definitely chose the Twelve, he may have taken them away into a quiet place for a week or even a longer period of time, and that, during that space, he taught them all the time, and the Sermon on the Mount is the distillation of that teaching.
MATTHEW’S INTRODUCTION
In point of fact Matthew’s introductory sentence goes a long way to make that clear.
“Seeing the crowds, Jesus went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them.”
In that brief verse there are three clues to the real significance of the Sermon on the Mount.
(i) Jesus began to teach when he had sat down. When a Jewish Rabbi was teaching officially he sat to teach. We still speak of a professor’s chair; the Pope still speaks ex cathedra, from his seat. Often a Rabbi gave instruction when he was standing or strolling about; but his really official teaching was done when he had taken his seat. So, then, the very intimation that Jesus sat down to teach his disciples is the indication that this teaching is central and official.
(ii) Matthew goes on to say that when he had opened his mouth, he taught them. This phrase he opened his mouth is not simply a decoratively roundabout way of saying he said. In Greek the phrase has a double significance. (a) In Greek it is used of a solemn, grave and dignified utterance. It is used, for instance, of the saying of an oracle. It is the natural preface for a most weighty saying. (b) It is used of a person’s utterance when he is really opening his heart and fully pouring out his mind. It is used of intimate teaching with no barriers between. Again the very use of this phrase indicates that the material in the Sermon on the Mount is no chance piece of teaching. It is the grave solemn utterance of the central things; it is the opening of Jesus’ heart and mind to the men who were to be his right-hand men in his task.
(iii) The Authorized Version has it that when Jesus had sat down, he opened his mouth and taught them saying. In Greek there are two past tenses of the verb. There is the aorist tense, and the aorist tense expresses one particular action, done and completed in past time. In the sentence, “He shut the gate,” shut would be an aorist in Greek because it describes one completed action in past time. There is the imperfect tense, and the imperfect tense describes repeated, continuous, or habitual action in past time. In the sentence, “It was his custom to go to Church every Sunday,” in Greek it was his custom to go would be expressed by a single verb in the imperfect tense, because it describes continuous and often repeated action in the past.
Now the point is that in the Greek of this sentence, which we are studying, the verb taught is not an aorist, but an imperfect and therefore it describes repeated and habitual action, and the translation should be: “This is what he used to teach them.” Matthew has said as plainly as Greek will say it that the Sermon on the Mount is not one sermon of Jesus, given at one particular time and on one particular occasion; it is the essence of all that Jesus continuously and habitually taught his disciples.
The Sermon on the Mount is greater even than we think. Matthew in his introduction wishes us to see that it is the official teaching of Jesus; that it is the opening of Jesus’ whole mind to his disciples; that it is the summary of the teaching which Jesus habitually gave to his inner circle. The Sermon on the Mount is nothing less than the concentrated memory of many hours of heart to heart communion between the disciples and their Master.
As we study the Sermon on the Mount, we are going to set at the head of each of the beatitudes the translation of the Revised Standard Version; and then at the end of our study of each beatitude we shall see what the words mean in modern English.
THE SUPREME BLESSEDNESS
Matthew 5:3
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Before we study each of the beatitudes in detail there are two general facts which we must note.
(i) It can be seen that every one of the beatitudes has precisely the same form. As they are commonly printed in our Bibles, each one of them in the Authorized Version has the word are printed in italic, or sloping, type. When a word appears in italics in the Authorized Version it means that in the Greek, or in the Hebrew, there is no equivalent word, and that that word has had to be added to bring out the meaning of the sentence.
This is to say that in the beatitudes there is no verb, there is no are. Why should that be? Jesus did not speak the beatitudes in Greek; he spoke them in Aramaic, which was the kind of Hebrew people spoke in his day. Aramaic and Hebrew have a very common kind of expression, which is in fact an exclamation and which means, “O the blessedness of …” That expression (asherē in the Hebrew) is very common in the Old Testament. For instance, the first Psalm begins in the Hebrew: “O the blessedness of the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly” (Psalm 1:1), that is the form in which Jesus first spoke the beatitudes. The beatitudes are not simple statements; they are exclamations: “O the blessedness of the poor in spirit!”
That is most important, for it means that the beatitudes are not pious hopes of what shall be; they are not glowing, but nebulous prophecies of some future bliss; they are congratulations on what is. The blessedness which belongs to the Christian is not a blessedness which is postponed to some future world of glory; it is a blessedness which exists here and now. It is not something into which the Christian will enter: it is something into which he has entered.
True, it will find its fullness and its consummation in the presence of God; but for all that it is a present reality to be enjoyed here and now. The beatitudes in effect say, “O the bliss of being a Christian! O the joy of following Christ! O the sheer happiness of knowing Jesus Christ as Master, Savior and Lord!” The very form of the beatitudes is the statement of the joyous thrill and the radiant gladness of the Christian life. In face of the beatitudes a gloom-encompassed Christianity is unthinkable.
(ii) The word blessed which is used in each of the beatitudes is a very special word. It is the Greek word makarios. Makarios is the word which specially describes the gods. In Christianity there is a godlike joy.
The meaning of makarios can best be seen from one particular usage of it. The Greeks always called Cyprus hē makaria (the feminine form of the adjective), which means The Happy Isle, and they did so because they believed that Cyprus was so lovely, so rich, and so fertile an island that a man would never need to go beyond its coastline to find the perfectly happy life. It had such a climate, such flowers and fruits and trees, such minerals, such natural resources that it contained within itself all the materials for perfect happiness.
Makarios then describes that joy which has its secret within itself, that joy which is serene and untouchable, and self-contained, that joy which is completely independent of all the chances and the changes of life. The English word happiness gives its own case away. It contains the root hap which means chance. Human happiness is something which is dependent on the chances and the changes of life, something which life may give and which life may also destroy. The Christian blessedness is completely untouchable and unassailable. “No one,” said Jesus, “will take your joy from you” (John 16:22). The beatitudes speak of that joy which seeks us through our pain, that joy which sorrow and loss, and pain and grief, are powerless to touch, that joy which shines through tears, and which nothing in life or death can take away.
The world can win its joys, and the world can equally well lose its joys. A change in fortune, a collapse in health, the failure of a plan, the disappointment of an ambition, even a change in the weather, can take away the fickle joy the world can give. But the Christian has the serene and untouchable joy which comes from walking for ever in the company and in the presence of Jesus Christ.
The greatness of the beatitudes is that they are not wistful glimpses of some future beauty; they are not even golden promises of some distant glory; they are triumphant shouts of bliss for a permanent joy that nothing in the world can ever take away.
THE BLISS OF THE DESTITUTE
Matthew 5:3 (continued)
It seems a surprising way to begin talking about happiness by saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” There are two ways in which we can come at the meaning of this word poor.
As we have them the beatitudes are in Greek, and the word that is used for poor is the word ptōchos. In Greek there are two words for poor. There is the word penēs. Penēs describes a man who has to work for his living; it is defined by the Greeks as describing the man who is autodiakonos, that is, the man who serves his own needs with his own hands. Penēs describes the working man, the man who has nothing superfluous, the man who is not rich, but who is not destitute either. But, as we have seen, it is not penēs that is used in this beatitude, it is ptōchos, which describes absolute and abject poverty. It is connected with the root ptossein, which means to crouch or to cower; and it describes the poverty which is beaten to its knees. As it has been said, penēs describes the man who has nothing superfluous; ptōchos describes the man who has nothing at all. So this beatitude becomes even more surprising. Blessed is the man who is abjectly and completely poverty-stricken. Blessed is the man who is absolutely destitute.
As we have also seen the beatitudes were not originally spoken in Greek, but in Aramaic. Now the Jews had a special way of using the word Poor. In Hebrew the word is ’ani or ebiōn. These words in Hebrew underwent a four-stage development of meaning.
(i) They began by meaning simply poor.
(ii) They went on to mean, because poor, therefore having no influence or power, or help, or prestige.
(iii) They went on to mean, because having no influence, therefore down-trodden and oppressed by men.
(iv) Finally, they came to describe the man who, because he has no earthly resources whatever, puts his whole trust in God.
So in Hebrew the word poor was used to describe the humble and the helpless man who put his whole trust in God. It is thus that the Psalmist uses the word, when he writes, “This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles” (Psalm 34:6). It is in fact true that in the Psalms the poor man, in this sense of the term, is the good man who is dear to God. “The hope of the poor shall not perish for ever.” (Psalm 9:18). God delivers the poor (Psalm 35:10). “In thy goodness, O God, thou didst provide for the needy” (Psalm 68:10). “He shall defend the cause of the poor of the people” (Psalm 72:4). “He raises up the needy out of affliction, and makes their families like flocks” (Psalm 107:41). “I will satisfy her poor with bread” (Psalm 132:15). In all these cases the poor man is the humble, helpless man who has put his trust in God.
Let us now take the two sides, the Greek and the Aramaic, and put them together. Ptōchos describes the man who is absolutely destitute, the man who has nothing at all; ‘ani and ebiōn describe the poor, and humble, and helpless man who has put his whole trust in God. Therefore, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” means:
Blessed is the man who has realized his own utter helplessness, and who has put his whole trust in God.
If a man has realized his own utter helplessness, and has put his whole trust in God, there will enter into his life two things which are opposite sides of the same thing. He will become completely detached from things, for he will know that things have not got it in them to bring happiness or security; and he will become completely attached to God, for he will know that God alone can bring him help, and hope, and strength. The man who is poor in spirit is the man who has realized that things mean nothing, and that God means everything.
We must be careful not to think that this beatitude calls actual material poverty a good thing. Poverty is not a good thing. Jesus would never have called blessed a state where people live in slums and have not enough to eat, and where health rots because conditions are all against it. That kind of poverty it is the aim of the Christian gospel to remove. The poverty which is blessed is the poverty of spirit, when a man realizes his own utter lack of resources to meet life, and finds his help and strength in God.
Jesus says that to such a poverty belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should that be so? If we take the two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer and set them together:
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven,
we get the definition: the Kingdom of God is a society where God’s will is as perfectly done in earth as it is in heaven. That means that only he who does God’s will is a citizen of the Kingdom; and we can only do God’s will when we realize our own utter ignorance, our own utter inability to cope with life, and when we put our whole trust in God. Obedience is always founded on trust. The Kingdom of God is the possession of the poor in spirit, because the poor in spirit have realized their own utter helplessness without God, and have learned to trust and obey.
So then, the first beatitude means:
O THE BLISS OF THE MAN WHO HAS REALIZED HIS OWN UTTER HELPLESSNESS, AND WHO HAS PUT HIS WHOLE TRUST IN GOD, FOR THUS ALONE HE CAN RENDER TO GOD THAT PERFECT OBEDIENCE WHICH WILL MAKE HIM A CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN![31]
Matthew 5.1–2
SECTION HEADING: “The Sermon on the Mount.” It may be necessary to identify who delivered the sermon, “Jesus,” and also possibly to whom he delivered it. The heading can be, therefore, “The sermon of Jesus on the mountain,” “The sermon Jesus preached on the mountain (to the people),” or “Jesus preaches on the mountain to the people.” Of course, “sermon” does not appear in the text, and it is only a tradition to call it that. “Jesus teaches (people) on a mountain” may be quite acceptable.
Matthew 5–7 is the first in a series of five discourses in the Gospel, each of which is concluded by what is essentially the same formula. (7.28; 11.1; 13.53; 19.1; 26.1). All five of these discourses generally follow the Marcan arrangement, though sometimes Matthew expands his text (see in particular chapters 8–9) to give more complete examples of what is to be included in the discourse.
The composition of this section, as well as its location in the Gospel, is clearly a unique feature of Matthew’s Gospel. Some of the material is found in Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” (6.20–49) and in his “Travel Narrative” (9.51–18.14), but both Matthew and Luke each reflect their own unique features of composition. In the exegesis to follow, attention will occasionally be called to the differences between the Matthean and Lukan arrangements, particularly in passages where this information may be important for interpretation and translation.
Matthew 5.1.
Seeing (so also NJB) translates a participle which Matthew elsewhere uses to introduce something unexpected that leads to further action (3.7; 9.2, 4, 22, 23, 36; 21.19; 27.24). A number of translators give it the temporal sense of “when he saw” (Mft, AT, NAB, Brc, Phps, NEB, GeCL), while TEV simply translates it as a finite verb, coordinate with the one which follows: “Jesus saw ... and went up.” Some scholars ascribe to the participle a causative force, on the assumption that Jesus went up the mountain where he could avoid the crowd and instruct his disciples without being disturbed. But Matthew intimates that the whole crowd heard (7.28–29), and so it seems doubtful that a causative force is intended.
Since chapter 5 is treated as beginning a new section, some translations have introduced the crowds as if new information. “There were crowds following Jesus. He saw them and went up ... (or, When he saw them, he went up ...).” However, the participle Seeing indicates that the narration is continuing from 4.25 (as would the phrase “When he saw”). That is, the crowds have already been introduced to the readers. Therefore it may be better to use a sentence that does in fact follow on from 4.25. For example, translators can say “When he saw the crowds that were following him” or “He saw all those crowds following him and went up.”
Crowds is the object of the participle seeing; this noun often carries an important meaning in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew uses the plural form about thirty times, and on most occasions the “crowds” are receptive to the person and teaching of Jesus; the religious leaders are the ones who reject him. Thus in this context it is rather likely that the “crowds” of 4.25 and 5.1a are to be equated with the disciples of 5.1b. In 4.25 the crowds were great groups of people coming from different places to follow Jesus. Here, although the text still has the crowds, they have obviously come together into one large crowd. Translations can have “the large group (or, crowd) of people” or “all the people.”
The place where Jesus went up can be either a mountain or a “hill,” since the Greek word can mean either. Some commentators see here an intended contrast to Sinai, where the Law was given. However, there are no grounds, implicit or explicit, for identifying the mountain as a “New Sinai.”
The Greek noun, whether translated “mountain” or “hill,” has the definite article before it, which leads several scholars to believe that it signifies a well-known location (see also 8.1; 14.23; 15.29; 24.3; 28.16; and especially 17.1, where there is no definite article). At least one commentator thinks that the reference is to the hill country that rises from the western shore of Lake Galilee, while according to the NJB footnote it is: “one of the hills near Capernaum.” But the evidence is too inconclusive to be dogmatic. Modern translations vary in their renderings: RSV, AT have mountain; NAB “mountainside”; NEB, Mft, Phps, JB, Brc have either “hill” or “hillside.”
Jesus went up on the mountain or hill. There is no reason to use a word like “climb.” The normal word “went” or “went up” is all the translation needs.
A Jewish rabbi usually sat down to teach his disciples (see 13.2; 23.2; 24.3), as did teachers in the synagogue (Luke 4.20). So then the Sermon on the Mount actually reflects a teaching situation, and this is confirmed by Matthew’s choice of verbs.
In many languages the phrase when he sat down is too elliptical or shortened. In these languages one cannot speak of when he sat down without first having said that he did it. Translators will therefore do something like TEV, “where he sat down,” or say “he sat down there.”
“Disciple” means “one who learns from another,” but in the special context of the New Testament the disciples are those persons whom Jesus called, not only to learn his teachings, but to share his life and his destiny. Usually, as here, they are spoken of as his disciples, thus intimating something of the closeness of the relation between the Lord and those whom he called to follow him. In the Gospels the term may refer to the limited circle of the twelve or to Jesus’ followers in general. Although the context here is not specific in its usage of the term, taken in light of 4.25 and 5.1, the larger group seems to be intended.
For disciples most translators have tried to avoid a word that simply means “students,” but it has often been possible to use “apprentices.” Some have used “followers.” “Apprentices” and “followers” are especially appropriate translations in languages where these words are actually used to speak of people who stay with and learn from a teacher, doctor, skilled craftsman, or a person known in Asia as a guru. Other translations have used “companions,” but this is far too general a word to be a good translation of “disciples.” “Helpers” is sometimes acceptable.
Came translates the same verb discussed in 4.3. It is quite possible that the meaning “gather for a formal teaching session” is to be preferred here (see NEB “had gathered round”), especially if the “crowds” of verse 1 and the “disciples” of verse 2 are thought to constitute the same group. Some scholars see here a parallel with the men who stood around Ezra when he read the Law (Neh 8.4), and with the priests who gathered around the High Priest at the offering of sacrifice (Sirach 50.11–21). This intimates that the scene is that of a solemn hour of worship: God’s people stand in his presence to hear his teachings from the one who teaches with God’s own authority. As in 4.3, came might have to be “went.” Here it can be translated “gathered around him” (TEV), or “went close to him to listen to him.”
Matthew 5.2.
He opened his mouth is the literal rendering of a formula that is found in classical literature and in Jewish rabbinical sources. Scholars classify it as both “a Semitic idiom” (Dan 10.16; Job 3.1; 33.2) and “a traditional formula” (Acts 8.35; 10.34). On the basis of its usage in Daniel 10.16 and Job 3.1, at least one commentator believes that it functions to give emphasis to what follows, and that may well be its function here. However, the more acceptable solution is that which understands the expression to mean “begin (verb of) discourse” (see TEV “began to teach”).
Taught them. The verb “teach” may have as its object either the person who is taught or the content of the teaching; in certain contexts it may be followed by both objects. But in Matthew the content of the teaching appears as an object of the verb only in 15.9, which is within a quotation from Isaiah 29.13. Interesting also is the location of Jesus’ teaching in this Gospel; it is always done away from the crowded places, whether on a hill or along the shore of Lake Galilee.
The nearest antecedent to them is “his disciples” (verse 1). It may be necessary in the receptor language to make explicit the persons intended by the pronoun. Some translators interpret them in a wider sense by saying “all the people,” “the people,” or “the crowd.” But it is probably better to leave it as “them” or “his disciples,” as we said above.
The use of the participle saying also reflects Semitic style in which the participle serves merely to indicate that direct discourse is to follow. It then becomes equivalent to quotation marks at the beginning of direct discourse in English. He opened his mouth and taught them, saying is best represented in English as “he began to teach them,” followed by quotation marks. Accordingly NEB restructures as “... he began to address them. And this is the teaching he gave”; Phps has “Then he began his teaching by saying to them.” Brc seems to have overtranslated the expression: “He opened his mind and heart to them, and this was the substance of his teaching.” Luke begins his discourse with a different, yet equally challenging structure: “he lifted up his eyes” (6.20).
Matthew 5.3–12
SECTION HEADING: “True Happiness.” The translation of this section heading will depend on how one translates Blessed or “Happy” (TEV) in the beatitudes that follow. It may not be possible in a language to use an abstract noun such as “Happiness,” especially if it stands alone without being part of a clause or sentence. The section heading may be “People who are truly happy” or “Jesus tells what makes people really happy.”
Luke has four beatitudes (6.20–22), but how many are contained in Matthew 5.1–12? There is no justification for making the beatitudes number seven (a sacred number among the Jews) by regarding verses 10–12 as transitional. And it is no less arbitrary to make them number ten, following the pattern of the Ten Commandments, by making verses 11 and 12 two separate beatitudes. Verse 12, which lacks the affirmation Blessed are ..., must be taken as a continuation of the beatitude begun in verse 11. Had Matthew intended a series of ten beatitudes, he could easily have accomplished it without leaving any doubt in the reader’s mind, for he includes similar structures at other places (11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46).
But how does verse 10 fit into the pattern of the beatitudes? And are verses 11–12 to be interpreted as a separate beatitude or as an expression of the one in verse 10? Some scholars have raised the objection that verse 10 should not be considered a beatitude, because the happiness referred to in it arises from persecution, whereas the happiness of verses 3–9 grows out of internal conditions under the believer’s control. But this is a false distinction. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, persecution is viewed as inevitable for one whose life is regulated by the Spirit of Christ. Persecution may arise from without, but it is a response to what is within the believer. Nor is the argument that the reward of verse 10 is the same as that promised in verse 3 a valid argument against the inclusion of this as a separate beatitude; the parallelism between verse 10 and verses 3–9 is too definite to be overlooked.
But the more difficult question concerns the relation of verses 11–12 to the entire series of beatitudes. Do these verses contain a separate beatitude, thus resulting in a series of nine? Or are the verses to be considered an expansion of verse 10, thus resulting in only eight beatitudes?
Either conclusion is possible. In defense of the verses as a separate beatitude is its opening, Blessed are ..., which parallels the other beatitudes. On the other hand one may argue to the contrary, on the basis of the shift from the third person “they” of the previous beatitudes to the second person “you.” No firm decision is possible, though the majority of scholars today interpret verses 11–12 as a separate beatitude, parallel to those of verses 3–10.
In terms of structure, it should be noted that verses 3–6 and 7–10 form two parallel divisions, even to the point of having the same number of words in the Greek text. And finally, the first group of four (verses 3–6) is parallel to the Lukan series (6.20–23), while the second group of four (verses 7–10) is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. In place of this last series of four beatitudes, Luke has four “woes” (6.24–26).
Blessed (TEV “Happy”) translates a Greek word which is used quite frequently in the Septuagint as a translation of a Hebrew word meaning “Oh the happiness of.” In the Old Testament this word is used most often in the Psalms and in the Wisdom literature; elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel it appears in 11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46.
The religious usage of the word may have had its origin in the pronouncement by the worship leader upon the pilgrims who came to ascend the sacred hill in Jerusalem. It perhaps meant something like “You are the fortunate recipients of God’s mercy and blessing.” In the present passage a number of English translations have Blessed (KJV, RSV, AT, Mft); NEB and NAB have “How blest”; Brc “Oh the bliss”; Phps, JB “How happy” then “Happy”; Anchor Bible (AB) “Fortunate are.” What these translations do not indicate clearly is that the one doing the good is God.
In the Old Testament, beatitudes are most generally in the third person. Here verses 3–10 follow the third person form, though the shift is made in verses 11–12 to the less frequent second person form (see also 13.16; 16.17). Beatitudes found in Greek literature are similar to those of the Old Testament in that they too occur in series and are usually given in the third person: “Blessings on him who...!”
Blessed has been a very difficult problem for translators, as seen by the variety of ways it has been handled. “Blessed” or “blessing” are simply not common events in all societies. Further, the word used in some languages refers to a superficial happiness or good thing rather than to a right and harmonious relationship in which one party, usually the superior, does good to the other. “Happy” has as its primary meaning an emotional state. “Fortunate” too often is understood to mean “to have good luck.” And yet each of these words can have the intended meaning in some contexts. The same is true of expressions such as “to be well off.” One translation that has often worked is “to be in a good position,” that is, “to be favorably placed to receive something good.”
In many languages translators find that it is more natural not to start the sentence with the notion of blessed or happiness. Instead they use a construction such as “People who are poor in spirit (or, who mourn) are in a good position (or are well off, or are truly fortunate), because...."
The beatitudes say that certain people are well placed (or, happy) for, that is, “because” of something that God will do for them. Some languages do not use a word or phrase to indicate this relation. TEV is an example in English. Others will use “for” or “because,” and still others will start a new sentence with “The reason for that is ...” or “These people will receive ....”
Matthew 5.3.
Poor in spirit is understood by some few interpreters to mean “poor for the sake of their spirit.” The reference would then be to persons who impoverish themselves for the sake of strengthening their spiritual condition. But it is more natural to take the Greek phrase following “poor” with the meaning “in the realm of,” after the analogy of such expressions as “pure in heart” (Matt 5.8) or “humble in spirit” (Psa 34.18 RSV: “crushed in spirit”), rather than with the meaning of “for the sake of.”
TEV translates poor in spirit as “who know they are spiritually poor” (AT “who feel their spiritual need”). Almost all commentators agree that there are two Hebrew words which provide the background for this saying; these words are synonymous, and each one may mean either “poor” or “humble.” For example, the word poor is essentially synonymous with the word translated “meek” (“humble”) in verse 5, and there is scholarly agreement that the meanings should not be too neatly distinguished. The word here translated poor is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words which mean not only “poor” and “needy,” but also “broken in spirit” and “humble.” During the time for which Isaiah 40–55 was written, the term “poor” was used of all Israelites who were living in exile without a land of their own. Later the lower social classes used this term to distinguish themselves from the upper classes, who lorded over them and oppressed them. By Jesus’ day it had become a kind of “title of honor” for the faithful of God’s people, who had accepted the difficult way of life that he had marked out for them.
In Jesus’ thinking, the “poor” are most probably those people whose outward circumstances force them to look to God for everything, but who also receive from God the gift of the spirit (faith) to look to him for everything. Therefore, the “poor” of Luke 6.20 and Matthew’s “poor in spirit” are the same trusting, though afflicted, poor people; but Matthew has made the sense explicit by adding “in spirit.” But by this slight alteration Matthew introduces a significant safeguard, which leads away from the thought that poverty in itself is automatically a sign of closeness to God. Jesus’ words may not be interpreted legalistically. True “blessedness” comes only as God’s Spirit is capable of leading the human spirit to trust absolutely in God.
It may be that the renderings of TEV and AT are too narrow and represent a modern overinterpretation. For the meaning is not so much that people recognize their spiritual need as separate from any other needs, but rather that they stand before God and recognize their absolute need of him. NEB translates “who know their need of God” (Phps “who know their need for God”). Brc translates “who realize the destitution of their own lives,” and GeCL 1st edition is strikingly picturesque, “who stand with empty hands before God,” symbolizing absolute dependence on him.
In addition to the examples we have cited here, other possible ways of expressing the meaning are “who place all their hope in God” and “who stand before God knowing how (or, how much) they need him.”
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven is typical of most translations: JB “theirs is the kingdom of heaven”; NEB, Phps “the kingdom of Heaven is theirs”; NAB “the reign of God is theirs”; Mft “the Realm of heaven is theirs.” In fact some scholars assume, and rightly so, that this is the best sense for the present passage. But whether one interprets the meaning to be “belong to” or “consist of,” the emphasis is on the benefits or blessings shared by those persons who experience the rule of God in their lives. Only a few translations have really taken seriously the meaning of this part of the verse. GeCL 1st edition translates “they will be God’s people when he completes his work”; Brc has “for the blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven are theirs here and now.” The Greek text is actually in the present tense (“the kingdom of heaven is ...”), and so the basis for Brc’s rendering; but it is possible to take the present with a future force and translate as GeCL 1st edition has done. Both Brc and GeCL have obviously realized the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of rendering “the kingdom of heaven belongs to them”; for if the kingdom refers to God’s rule, how can it be spoken of as “belonging to” someone? This is one of those passages where the focus is actually on the benefits shared by persons who experience God’s rule, and both translations have attempted to make this meaning explicit. MaCL translates “they enjoy the blessings of God’s rule.” In some cultures the idea of a rule always conveys negative connotations, suggesting coercion, oppression, and violence. And there are some few cultures which do not know the meaning of strong or powerful rulers. In such language situations one may want to translate “God accepts (or, will accept) them as his own people” or “they enjoy (or, will enjoy) the blessings that God gives his people.”
There are other cultures where the idea of a rule generally conveys positive connotations, so that to say “they are a part of God’s kingdom (or, rule)” is enough to be considered happy or well off. Translators can also say “God accepts them in his kingdom.” Otherwise translators may need to make explicit these positive benefits of being in God’s kingdom, much as MaCL (cited above) has done; for example, “They enjoy the benefits that come to those who are under God’s rule” or “The good things God gives to those who are a part of his reign are for them.” For a fuller discussion of kingdom, see 3.2.
Matthew 5.4.
The original order of verses 4–5 is not certain; manuscripts dating from the second century differ in the order of presentation. The manuscript evidence, though rather certain, is not conclusive (the UBS Greek New Testament gives its choice of text a “B” rating). The argument that verse 5 may have been placed prior to verse 4 by an early scribe is suggested by the possibility that the scribe may have tried to make a type of antithetical parallelism between verse 3 (mention of heaven) and verse 5 (mention of earth). On the other hand, there seems to be no obvious reason for suggesting why he may have placed verse 4 before verse 5, had verse 5 originally come first, unless this was an attempt to place verses 3–4 together on the basis of their common background in Isaiah 61.1–2. Among the translations, NJB, Bible de Jerusalem (BJ), and TOB (with a footnote) depart from the traditional order; NAB retains the order but places verse 5 in square brackets.
Those who mourn points in the same direction as the previous beatitude; taken together, verses 3 and 4 are an allusion to Isaiah 61.1–2.
“To comfort those who are mourning” is one of the promises of the anticipated Messianic salvation (see Luke 2.25). In the Septuagint the verb mourn is used both for mourning in behalf of the dead and for the sins of others. It is a common verb in biblical Greek and cannot be confined to the idea of mourning for sin. According to Matthew, one hates sin and forsakes it; one does not mourn it. In the present context the idea is best interpreted as a contrast between the “mourning” of the present age and the “comfort” of the coming age. At least this is highly probable in light of its connection with the words from Isaiah. Translators can show this contrast with a phrase such as “people who are mourning now (or, at this time).”
As we said, no reason for the mourning is given, nor should it be in the translation. If a language does require some kind of reason for the mourning, translators should try to be indefinite or use a phrase such as “because they need God.” This is not ideal, however.
It would have been immediately evident to any Jewish reader of Matthew’s Gospel that shall be comforted was merely a way of affirming the result of divine activity: “God will comfort them” (TEV). Such a so-called “divine passive” construction was typical of Semitic language usage, and the theological outlook of Judaism expected that God himself would save and comfort his people. Comforted means “consoled” or possibly “made happy again.” Thus translations can have “God will restore their happiness” or “God will console them.”
Matthew 5.5.
In the same way that verses 3–4 are based on Isaiah 61, so verse 5 finds its background in Psalm 37.11. As the psalm indicates, the metaphor was taken over from the possession of Canaan by the Israelites. The meek (TEV “humble”) of this verse and the “poor” of verse 3 are the same people viewed from a different perspective (see comment at verse 3). In fact, in the language of Jesus the word could hardly be distinguished from “poor.” It contained echoes of “insignificant, lowly,” and may even be rendered “powerless.” These people possess no power because they do not need it; they rest their entire hope on God. Instead of trying to overpower others, they serve him. Phps translates “those who claim nothing,” and Brc “whose strength is in their gentleness.” Once again GeCL 1st edition is dynamic: “who renounce the use of force.” Elsewhere in the New Testament the word meek is used only in Matthew 11.29; 21.5; and 1 Peter 3.4, where TEV renders either “gentle” or “humble.”
Meek in modern English has negative connotations of someone who is submissive and easily imposed on. Words such as “gentle,” “humble,” or “nonaggressive” are perhaps better. One good translation is “who don’t trust in their own power.”
They shall inherit the earth. The verb translated inherit carries the more general meaning of “to receive as one’s possession” or “to share in” (see 19.29; 25.34; 1 Cor 6.9–10; 15.50; Gal 5.21; Heb 1.14). To translate with the equivalent of the English word inherit may intimate that someone has died (in this context, God!) and has left someone else his possessions.
The promise of possessing the land was originally limited to the land of Canaan (see Gen 17.8) but then was extended to include the entire earth, over which God would someday rule. In essence, then, this is simply another expression for the Kingdom of heaven of verse 3 (TOB note). Both of these ideas existed side by side in Israel’s expectation for the future. The God of heaven has given earth to mankind as a place for their existence. But the time would come when God’s people would enjoy the benefits of heaven and the joys of a redeemed earth. TEV completely spiritualizes this promise (“they will receive what God has promised”), while GeCL attempts to maintain some of the imagery (“since God will give them the earth for their possession”). NEB (“they shall have the earth for their possession”) and Phps (“for the whole earth will belong to them”) are similar to GeCL, except that they have maintained the passive rather than making God the explicit subject.
Those translators who follow the interpretation of TEV may need to use an active construction instead of a passive one. Further, they may have to specify what God is going to give; for example, “the blessing” or “the good things.” Consequently, possible translations are “God will give them what he has promised” or “God will give them all the blessings (or, good things) he has promised.” But other translators who want to retain the image of “earth” will find GeCL 1st edition a useful model, as in “God will give them the whole earth to possess.”
Matthew 5.6.
Hunger and thirst for righteousness. Hungering and thirsting are figures for longing after God, both in the Old Testament (Isa 55.1; Psa 42.2; Baruch 2.18) and in the New Testament (John 4.13; 7.37; Rev 21.6; 22.17). The meaning of the figure is to seek something with all one’s heart, to desire it above all else. Most translations maintain the original figure of speech, but those that do away with it include TEV (“whose greatest desire is to do”) and GeCL (“who burn as they wait for God’s will to be done”).
The parallel passage in Luke reads “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied” (6.21). But Matthew moves from a literal, physical hunger to that of hungering after righteousness, a term which is not easily defined (see comments at 3.15). Some translations reflect the meaning as “the desire to do right” (AT “uprightness”; Mft “goodness”; Phps “true goodness”; and NAB “holiness”). TEV renders “what God requires,” while GeCL prefers “that God’s will may be done.”
In many cases translators have felt that the metaphor hunger and thirst will be clearly understood by their readers. Other translators have felt that a simile is better, as in “those who desire righteousness as if they were hungering and thirsting” or “who long for God’s will to be done like people who are hungry and thirsty long for food and drink.” This can make for a rather long and awkward construction, so many translators do find it better to drop the image altogether, as TEV and GeCL have done. Other examples of this are “who want more than anything else to do God’s will” or “who seek with all their heart to do God’s will.”
As we pointed out, another acceptable translation of righteousness here is “to see God’s will done.” Thus translators can say in this verse “whose greatest desire is for people to do what God tells them to do” or “whose greatest desire is that people do what God wants.”
Translators will probably not translate satisfied with a word that only means to be full from eating enough, especially if they have dropped the image of hungering and thirsting. The idea of getting what one desires, however, can be used: “God will give them what they desire” or “God will satisfy them completely.”
Matthew 5.7.
This beatitude is best interpreted in light of a passage such as the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us the wrongs that we have done, as we forgive the wrongs that others have done us”) or of Jesus’ prayer on the cross in Luke 23.34 (“Forgive them, Father! They don’t know what they are doing”). The same teaching is also reflected in other New Testament passages, as well as in a familiar rabbinic saying: “as God is merciful, so you must be merciful.” This beatitude is in contradiction to traditional Pharisaic theology, which would have affirmed “Happy are those who are righteous, for God will be merciful to them.” For Matthew the point is that a person who does not show mercy cannot count on God’s mercy. Occasionally this verse has been wrongly understood to mean that the believer is to be merciful towards others so that they will treat him in the same way. This is not the meaning, and no Jew of Jesus’ day would have understood it in this way; it is imperative for the translator to make the meaning explicit, as TEV has done (“God will be merciful to them!”).
Mercy is defined as having a feeling of sorrow over someone’s bad situation and trying to do something about it. People who are merciful can be said to be “kind” or “forgiving,” or to be “people who take pity on others,” “people who show mercy to others.”
Similarly, then, “God will take pity on them,” “will forgive them,” or “will show mercy to them.” Some translators may have to specify when people will obtain this mercy from God; for example, “on the Judgment Day.” In that case the translation can be “on the Day when he judges the world, God will show mercy to them.”
Matthew 5.8.
According to Psalm 24.3–4 “clean hands and a pure heart” are demanded of persons who would come into the presence of God in his Temple. In this context the heart represents more than the seat of emotions; it refers to one’s innermost being, that which shapes a person’s life. The purity referred to means singleness of motive and of devotion, as opposed to a divided motive, without specific reference to either moral perfection or sexual purity. In Hebrew thought the heart is used as a symbol of one’s mind or thoughts, and here the reference is to thoughts or to a mind concerned solely to please God. For example, it is applicable to one’s attitude toward people of the opposite sex (5.28), or money (6.20–21), or even toward one’s own words (5.37). NAB translates “single-hearted” with a note: “... those who serve God loyally for his own sake and not primarily out of self-interest.”
People who are pure in heart, can be “people whose only interest is to serve God,” “whose lives are directed only to serving God,” “whose devotion to God is complete (or, total),” or “who are completely devoted to God (or, to serving God).”
To see God is a gift which is impossible for humans to experience in this life. It is available only in the coming age. Perhaps the best way to translate see God is to say “be where he is, to see him” or “to see God in his presence.”
Matthew 5.9.
Who are the peacemakers spoken of in this verse? Are they people who make peace between man and God or between man and man? Either interpretation is possible, but both the nonbiblical Jewish literature and the biblical writings themselves support the idea that the peace spoken of is that which is established among people. (See especially Heb 12.14; Eph 2.15; James 3.18.) Brc translates “those who make men friends with each other.” Some other ways to speak of peacemakers are “those who cause people to be friends,” “those who help people to live in peace,” “those who make peace between people,” or “those who work to stop people from being enemies.”
They shall be called sons of God translates a Greek passive structure which presupposes that God is the actor. Therefore TEV has “God will call them his children.” “To be called” means “to become,” as the Old Testament examples in Genesis 21.12 and Isaiah 56.7 indicate. GeCL translates “They will be children of God.” Brc renders “for they shall be ranked as the sons of God” (see also Mft). Phps translates “for they will be known as sons of God!”
Sons does not here refer only to male offspring, but means “children.”
In addition to the examples cited above, there are many ways translators have handled this passive construction shall be called. Some translators keep the idea of called with phrases like “God will say to them, ‘You are my children,’ ” “God will say that they are his children,” or “God will consider them his children.” Or translators can do the same as TEV: “God will call them his children.” Others put the emphasis on the idea of becoming, and say “they will become God’s children” or “God will make them his children.”
The phrase sons of God (or, children of God) causes a problem in cultures where readers would not understand this phrase to be figurative and, further, would not accept the idea of God having physical offspring. Translators in these cases sometimes use similes, as in “God will say they are like children to him,” “God will consider them as if they were his children,” or “God will have a relationship with (or, will care for) them like a father with his children.”
Only with great reserve does the Bible refer to people as sons (better “children”) of God. This is a status established solely as an act of God’s mercy and grace. In the context the reference is to the final judgment, and verses 44–45 are the best commentary on the verse. See also 4.3 and comments.
Matthew 5.10.
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven occurs in both the first and the eighth beatitudes. This signals the beginning and the end of a section, and it is an example of a literary device known as “inclusion,” found elsewhere as well in Matthew. One can easily see the differences between the form of these beatitudes and the form of the last one, verses 11–12.
Are persecuted translates a perfect participle in Greek, which suggests that as Matthew writes, the church of his day is suffering persecution. Most translations, such as TEV (“who are persecuted”), give something of a timeless force to the participle; only Phps and NEB take seriously the perfect tense (“who have suffered persecution”). Are persecuted is often translated “receive suffering,” so that this phrase can be “the people whom other people make suffer (or, persecute).” (Of course, any of these can be rendered as past or future if translators prefer those interpretations.)
For righteousness’ sake is translated “because they do what God requires” by TEV. GeCL and FRCL translate as TEV does, and Brc renders “for their loyalty to God’s way of life.” Other translations are similar: NEB “for the cause of right”; NAB “for holiness’ sake” (with note: “fidelity to the divine precepts through which holiness is attained is deepened by the test of persecution”); JB “in the cause of right” and Mft “for the sake of goodness!” (Phps “for the cause of goodness”). See comments at 3.15 and 5.6 on “righteousness.” Many translations have had “because they do what is right” as a translation of for righteousness’ sake. But as we pointed out above, what is right is in fact that which conforms to God’s will, so that the phrase can also be as in TEV, “because they do what God requires,” or “because their lives are right before God,” or “because they live as God wants people to.”
See verse 3 for comments on theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5.11.
Verses 11–12 form a parallel to verse 10; they apply verse 10 specifically to the persecuted disciples and the Church. In the face of opposition and oppression, Jesus’ promise becomes a reality here and now. This explains the shift to the second person pronoun you, which also anticipates the transition to verses 13–16.
When here means “on those occasions,” “at those times when,” or “whenever.”
Revile (TEV “insult”) is used of strong verbal abuse (see 27.44; 1 Peter 4.14). One commentator notes that the Jews considered verbal abuse to be extremely vicious. The rabbis considered it as evil as idolatry, fornication, and bloodshed all combined. By defamation of character a person lost his place in the community and, according to the circumstance of that day, almost the possibility of continuing his life. The insulting word itself was believed to have a power of its own. Revile can be translated “say evil about” or “say you are bad.” Many translators in West Africa use the idiom “spoil your name.”
For persecute, see comments on verse 10. Here translations can have “whenever people make you suffer” or “when people harm you.”
There is a textual problem regarding the adverb falsely. The UBS Greek text includes the word within square brackets, and the reason, according to TC-GNT, is that it may not have been an original part of the text. On the one hand, its absence may be accounted for as a scribal attempt to make the passage resemble the Lukan form (Luke 6.22). On the other hand, scribes would have been tempted to insert the word in order to limit an overgeneralization of Jesus’ teaching, and to express specifically what was believed to be implied by the very nature of Jesus’ words. But whether it is regarded as an integral part of the text or a later addition, it does explain the true meaning of the text, and this information must somehow be conveyed through translation. So then, whether on textual or translational grounds, it has been retained in a number of translations. For example, it is found in RSV, GeCL, and TEV (“tell all kinds of evil lies”), though omitted by NEB and Phps.
To translate utter all kinds of evil against you falsely, phrases such as “say bad things about you that aren’t true” or “tell all kinds of wicked lies about you” can be used.
The phrase on my account is taken by TEV to mean “because you are my followers.” Most translations follow the text literally, while GeCL translates “because you belong to me.”
A translation of on my account such as “for my sake” is also literal, but many translations have used it. “Because they are against me” is less so, although the clearest translation would be very similar to either TEV or GeCL: “because you follow me” or “because you are my people.”
This sentence is longer than those in verses 3–10, but it can still be made to flow smoothly: “Whenever people say evil about you and do harm to you, and tell all kinds of wicked lies about you simply because you follow me, then you are in a good position,” or “... you are fortunate,” or “... you are happy.”
Matthew 5.12.
Matthew uses the command Rejoice in the present tense to encourage the disciples to be happy and to keep on being happy in the face of difficult circumstances. The verb is the same one used of the wise men in 2.10; elsewhere Matthew employs it in 18.13; 26.49; 27.29; 28.9.
Matthew includes a second verb, be glad, not found in Luke’s Gospel. Commentators differ in their evaluation of its meaning. For example, one commentator notes that it is a “strong word of Hellenistic coinage” which means “to leap much, signifying irrepressible demonstrative gladness.” On the other hand, another commentator affirms: “Matthew’s word for ‘be glad’ ... does not contain the idea of the physical expression of joy, such as is contained in Luke’s ‘leap for joy.’ ” However, it seems to express extreme joy, especially as it is used in the Septuagint (in particular see Isa 12.6; 25.9; 29.19; 35.1, 2; 41.17; 49.13; 61.10; 65.14, 19). One of the standard lexicons gives the following definitions: “exult, be glad, overjoyed.” And in 1 Peter 4.13, where both these verbs occur together, this same lexicon translates “that you might shout for joy.” Elsewhere in the New Testament the word occurs in Luke 1.47; 10.21; John 5.35; 8.56; Acts 2.26; 16.34; 1 Peter 1.6, 8; 4.13; and Revelation 19.7. The related noun form is found in Luke 1.14, 44; Acts 2.46; Hebrews 1.9; and Jude 1.24.
Most translators will treat rejoice and be glad together. They are close in meaning, and one gets the impression that the two terms together simply emphasize the point being made here that people should really be happy. Besides, many languages simply do not have two separate words they would use together in this kind of context. Therefore translators will use an expression that means to be very happy, to exult, to be overjoyed. They may use an imperative, as in “Be really happy,” “Make this an occasion for rejoicing,” or “Rejoice.” Or they may have a sentence with “should,” such as “You should rejoice greatly” or “You should rejoice and celebrate.”
The concept of a reward may be difficult for many readers. The main idea is that of a compensation which is valuable and special. If the idea of a reward sounds strange, one should realize that it is a reward of God’s grace, that is, a reward not merited but which God wills to give to those who serve him faithfully. It is not a compensation for work done, but rather a gift which far exceeds any service rendered.
The Greek passive construction, for your reward is great in heaven, is given an active form in GeCL: “God will reward you richly.” This is a legitimate and perhaps even necessary restructuring, since heaven was a frequent synonym for God. One commentator warns: “It is important not to read into this phrase the notion of ‘going into heaven,’ but rather ‘with God.’ ”
Some translations will use “gift” for reward, or even “great (or, valuable) gift.” This is kept in heaven, which means that it is God who will give it, as we pointed out. Thus the translation can be “God is keeping a valuable reward for you in heaven,” “God will reward you greatly in heaven,” or “the gift God is keeping for you in heaven is great.”
For so men persecuted the prophets who were before you: the Old Testament tells how prophets like Elijah, Amos, and Jeremiah were persecuted. In addition the Jews of the first century A.D. believed that the prophet Isaiah had been sawn in two, after he had hidden himself in a hollow tree. Hebrews 11.37 may be a reference to this event. Moreover, Jesus was certainly familiar with the tradition that the prophets were persecuted by the people of their own generation (Matt 23.29–36).
For comments on persecuted, see verse 10. The prophets who were persecuted were before you, that is, “they lived long ago” or “they lived back before your own time.”
So means “in the same way.” Thus this whole clause can be translated “people made the prophets of long ago suffer in the same way.”
It may be necessary to reorder this verse, since as the text stands, it is possible to take “This is how men persecuted the prophets who lived before you” (TEV) as a reference to “for a great reward is kept for you in heaven” (TEV). To avoid this ambiguity, one need merely to reverse the order of the two sentences: “They persecuted the prophets who lived before you in this way. Be glad and happy, because there is a big reward which the Lord has prepared for you.” Another way to handle it is to say “Be happy and glad, because God is keeping a great gift for you in heaven. In fact, people persecuted the prophets of long ago in the same way they now persecute you.”[32]
THE DISCIPLES’ JOY: THE BEATITUDES
5:1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.
2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
—Matthew 5:1–12
Matthew is the teaching Gospel, and it presents Jesus as the Teacher. The context shows that, pressed by the crowds, Jesus withdrew to teach—an act which let those who were most sincerely interested gather to listen. “When He was seated” expresses the symbol of the rabbi who sat to teach, a phrase similar to our references to a professor’s chair. It designates this message as a presentation of the essence of Jesus’ teaching. The double phrase, “He opened His mouth and taught them” has special significance in the Greek. It is used of an oracle or of intimate teaching, making clear that Matthew wants us to see the sermon as the summary or the essence of Jesus’ teachings. Barclay says this phrase should be translated, “This is what he used to teach them.”7 In an emphasis on evangelical faith, it is important that we not only recognize God’s saving grace but also His transforming grace; both His forgiving grace and His enabling grace. In our fear of works-righteousness we have minimized “the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). T. W. Manson says,
To divorce the moral teaching of Jesus from His teaching as a whole is thus to make it practically useless: it is also to make it theoretically unintelligible. For all the moral precepts of Jesus, in the last resort, flow from a single principle which is not of itself moral but religious; and the understanding of any part of the ethical teaching demands a grasp of the whole religious context in which it has its place.8
The context of Christian ethics is that of the coming of the kingdom of God. For people of faith, the kingdom is coming and will always be coming, as we pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.” While it is coming wherever and whenever God is ruling, it will ultimately come in its fullness in the Parousia (the Second Coming of Christ). To make it solely a present happening would minimize its greatness, and to make it only a future happening would destroy the meaning and authority of Jesus’ present lordship. Yoder says,
Men may choose to consider that kingdom as not real, or not relevant, or not possible, or not inviting; but no longer may we come to this choice in the name of systematic theology or honest hermeneutics. At this one point there is no difference between the Jesus of Historie and the Christ of Geschichte, or between Christ as God and Jesus as Man, or between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus, (or between the Jesus of the Canon and the Jesus of history). No such slicing can avoid His call to an ethic marked by the cross, a cross identified as the punishment of a man who threatens society by creating a new kind of community leading a radically new kind of life.9
The Beatitudes should be thought of as be-attitudes. This is, in reality, a deeper-life sermon. A comparison with Luke’s account and with the teachings of Jesus in such stories as the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:10–14) or of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) will help avoid a tendency to regard the sermon legalistically. Here Jesus is probing the inner being, raising the question of motive. As has often been said, the larger question in ethics is not what a person does but why he does what he does. And motive is the source from which our acts issue. As C. H. Dodd has pointed out, “The ethics of the sermon on the mount are the absolute ethics of the Kingdom of God.”10
In presenting this sermon, Jesus called for a change in the thinking of the people about the kingdom of God. He rejected the more popular messianic expectations and outlined the creation of a new covenant community of God’s people, a disciples’ community. In contrast to the revolutionary zealots preparing persons for guerrilla war, He prepared disciples in grace and sent them out in missions of healing.
Blessed are the poor in spirit—the humble—for theirs is the kingdom. Barclay calls this “the supreme blessedness.” The Greek word makarios, which is translated “blessed,” is difficult to translate into English. It incorporates the meaning of wholeness, of joy, of well-being, of a holistic peace expressed by the Hebrew word shalom. The word describes a condition of inner satisfaction expressed by Jesus in John 14:27: “My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you” (kjv). The poor in spirit are those who, in absolute poverty of spirit, are solely dependent upon God. Such persons have no confidence in their own successes or achievements, for they enjoy the gift of God’s acceptance and fellowship.
Blessed are those who mourn—those who care deeply—for they shall be comforted. The Greek word used for “mourn” is the strongest word in that language for mourning; it is the word used to designate mourning for the dead. To mourn is to care deeply, to know godly sorrow for sin, to be deeply concerned about the evil in the world and to know the meaning of suffering because of the sin, injustice, and perversion in society. Jesus assures such of the comfort of God, for in this realism one draws near to God and God in turn draws near to him. There is a direct relationship between the word for “comfort” and the word describing the Holy Spirit as the Comforter for the believer (John 14:16). As we live with a repentant spirit we open ourselves to the presence of God. The psalmist wrote, “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17, kjv).
Blessed are the gentle—the meek—for they shall inherit the earth. And it is the meek person who does enjoy or receive the deepest satisfaction from God’s created order. Meekness is not weakness; rather it is the gentle spirit, the disciplined or controlled spirit. In Greek the word for meek, praus, is an ethical word. Aristotle spoke of meekness as the mean between anger and indifference. It is a word that denotes self-control, but also means genuine humility. There is progress from the reference to the “poor in spirit” to the reference in the second beatitude on caring deeply, to this third beatitude on the “meek.” The pride of the rabbis was in learning; of the Greeks, in intellect; and of the Romans, in power. But it is only the humble who can receive, who can learn or be taught, who can accept forgiveness, who can walk in grace, who can live in love.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness—those who seek God—for they shall be filled. “Righteousness” means right-relatedness, and Jesus’ emphasis is not on right-relatedness with Torah but on right-relatedness with God! The apostle Paul, in Philippians 3:9, contrasts the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness that is “through the faith of Christ” (kjv); i.e., in Christ we have an actual righteousness, an actual right-relatedness with God. In Matthew 6:1–8 Jesus shows the difference between religious rites and genuine hunger for God. His statement of “hungering and thirsting” reminds us of the words of the psalmist, “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, oh God” (Ps. 42:1, kjv). This longing for God is a longing to see God’s kingdom established in His people, who then practice justice themselves.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The disciple is a follower of Christ because he has been called and accepted by God. Having thus received mercy, he becomes in turn a channel to convey mercy to others. One who truly understands the freedom of being forgiven will share the same release with others. On the other hand, one who refuses to forgive “breaks down the bridge over which he himself would pass.” James writes, “He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy” (James 2:13, kjv). Jesus illustrated this in the story of the unforgiving debtor who, having been forgiven ten million dollars, was unwilling to forgive another man a mere twenty dollars! Jesus followed His model prayer by showing a direct relationship between experiencing God’s grace and expressing God’s grace.
The word “mercy” must be seen in its historic and positive meaning. Jesus’ use of the word is based on the Hebrew word chesedh, used frequently in the Old Testament to express the unique quality of the everlasting mercy of Jehovah. The word carries the meaning of identification in the suffering of others, of going through something with another, of entering into another’s problem with understanding and acceptance. And this is what God did for us in Christ; identifying with humanity and suffering on behalf of our sin.
Blessed are the pure in heart—those of integrity—for they shall see God. The word “pure” means unmixed, without alloy. Blessed are those with unmixed motives. Throughout the Gospel of Matthew Jesus speaks of this integrity of commitment: “No one can serve two masters… . You cannot serve God and mammon” (6:24); the narrow way leads to life and the broad way leads to destruction (7:13); “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (7:21). One is reminded of Kierkegaard’s conviction, Purity of Heart is to will one thing: a call for unmixed motives that seek only the will of God. This is the way of the disciple and the reward is that such “shall see God.” The inference and requirement is that only such actually see Him.
This beatitude calls us to the most exacting self-examination. Perhaps we need to examine our motives in religious exercises more than in any other area. How easy it is to cover selfish ambition with the cloak of religious service. Throughout the sermon Jesus raises the issue of motive, asking that we serve not for the praise of men, not for conventional respectability, but with integrity of heart. It has been said that in religious service there are three temptations: the first, the temptation to shine; the second, the temptation to whine; and the third, the temptation to recline.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. The Greek word used for “peacemakers” means the founders of peace. Bruce Metzger points out that the emphasis is on the verb “make.”11 In chapter 7, verses 1–6, Jesus gives us qualifications of the peacemaker. But above all He personified this peace in Himself. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:14–17, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us… . for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh” (kjv). The message of peace is the message of the gospel; for people find peace within themselves and among themselves as they enter right-relatedness with God in Christ. Such persons are known in society as “the sons of God.” The word peace, shalom in the Hebrew, is not a negative state; it denotes not simply the absence of evil, but is a positive word which has to do with the well-being of another, seeking for him the highest good. Consequently, being a peacemaker is to work for right relations between persons, all persons. The Christian church has a calling which will separate the children of God from people of violence and war, a calling to work for peace and well-being among men.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom. The progress from one beatitude to the next is obvious here. Being a peacemaker by practicing justice and love and living by kingdom standards is initiating a confrontation with society which can be taken as a judgment. To will God’s will is to be different from those who will their own will. This is the way of the Cross in which God’s will cuts across the will of humanity. The kingdom is breaking into time, calling persons to be disciples of Christ, living by His mercy and love. The response of humanity is either repentance and faith, or rejection and persecution. The King Himself came as the “suffering servant,” as one who identified with humanity in its problems without altering His own relation with the Father, thereby calling us to the kingdom of the Father. This confrontation led to the Cross, a fact which led Paul to say, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12, kjv).
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you … for My sake. This beatitude is often merged with the preceding one. However, it has the direct focus of persecution for the person of Christ. One can stand for religious ideals or for moral principles and be accepted in a society that is pluralistic. However, when one affirms that in Christ alone we are truly related to God, the very exclusiveness of this claim subjects one to persecution. And this is our message: “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, kjv).
Later Jesus informed His disciples that they would be persecuted because of identification with Him. Is it not strange that in most universities we can speak freely of Freud, or of Marx, but cannot find open discussion of Christ and His teachings? In the first centuries of the Christian church the disciples met emperor worship with the words, “Caesar is not Lord; Jesus Christ is Lord.” And to this day the issues of nationalism, of secularism, and of materialism confront us with the same issue. These principalities and powers are not Lord; Jesus is Lord. Notice how Jesus picks up this issue near the conclusion of the sermon in chapter 7, verses 21–23, in a manner which interfaces word and deed. The witness to His lordship is expressed in our being His servants.
In summary of this review of the Beatitudes, we see, as Dr. Richard C. Halverson says, that “the way of the Kingdom of God is antithetical to the way of our contemporary culture.”12 God says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” but we say blessed are the achievers. God says, “Blessed are those who mourn,” but we say blessed are the self-fulfilled. Jesus says, “Blessed are the meek,” but we say blessed are the powerful. Jesus says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,” but we say blessed are the unrestrained. Jesus says, “Blessed are the merciful,” but we say blessed are the manipulators. Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart,” but we say blessed are the uninhibited. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” but we say blessed are the strong. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteous-ness’ sake,” but we say blessed are the expedient. Jesus said we are blessed when persecuted for His sake, but we say blessed are the aggressors. Jesus challenges the very selfishness that determines so much of our social behavior.[33]
CHAPTER V
Ver. 1.—And seeing the multitudes; i.e. those spoken of in ch. 4:25—the multitudes who were at that point of time following him. He went up. From the lower ground by the lake. Into a mountain; Revised Version, into the mountain (εἰς τὸ ὄρος); i.e. not any special mountain, but “the mountain nearest the place spoken of—the mountain near by” (Thayer); in contrast to any lower place, whether that was itself fairly high ground (as probably Luke 9:28) or the shore of the lake (ch. 14:23 [parallel passages: Mark 6:46; John 6:15]; 15:29). The actual spot here referred to may have been far from, or, and more probably (ch. 4:18), near to, the Lake of Gennesareth. It cannot now be identified. The traditional “Mount of Beatitudes” is Ḳarn-Ḥattin, “a round, rocky hill” (Socin’s Bædeker, p. 366), “a square-shaped hill with two tops” (Stanley, p. 368), about five miles north-west of Tiberias. This tradition, dating only from the time of the Crusades, is accepted by Stanley (cf. also Ellicott, ‘Hist. Lects.,’ p. 178), especially for the reasons that
(1) τὸ ὄρος is equivalent to “the mountain” as a distinct name, and this mountain alone, with the exception of Tabor which is too distant, stands separate from the uniform barrier of hills round the lake;
(2) “the platform at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds precisely to the ‘level place’ (τόπου πεδινοῦ, Luke 6:17) to which our Lord would ‘come down,’ as from one of its higher horns, to address the people.” But these reasons seem insufficient. And when he was set; Revised Version, had sat down; as his custom was when preaching (ch. 13:1; 24:3; Mark 9:35). His disciples; i.e. the twelve, and also those others out of whom they had, as it seems, just been chosen (Luke 6:12, 20). The word is used of all those personal followers who, as still more distinctly indicated in the Fourth Gospel, attached themselves to him to learn of him, at least until the time of the crisis in John 6:66, when many withdrew (cf. also infra, ch. 8:21, and for an example in the end of his ministry, Luke 19:37). In English we unavoidably miss some of the meaning of μαθητής, to our loss, as may be seen from the saying of Ignatius, ‘Magn.,’ § 10, Μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι μάθωμεν κατὰ Χριστιανισμὸν ζῇν. Came unto him (προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ). Came up to him, and, presumably, sat down in front of him to listen.
Ver. 2.—And he opened his mouth. Frequent in the Old Testament; e.g. Job 3:1. A Hebraism, indicating that the words spoken are not the utterance of chance, but of set will and purpose. In the Gospels (in this sense) only ch. 13:35 (from Ps. 78:2, LXX); also in Acts 8:35 (Philip); 10:34 (Peter); 18:14 (Paul); Rev. 13:6 (the beast); cf. 2 Cor. 6:11, of perfect frankness of expression, and Eph. 6:19, perhaps of courage in the utterance of the Divine message. And taught them (ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς). That which follows is represented, not as a proclamation, but as teaching, given to those who in some measure desired to follow and serve him. Some progress already made by the listeners, if only in a relation of respect and reverence, is implied in “teaching.” The discourse was therefore spoken, not simply to the multitudes, a chance audience, but with primary and special reference to those who had already made some advance in relation to him. The multitudes, however, were standing by, and were amazed at the unique character of his teaching (cf. ch. 7:28, 29; cf. also Luke 6:20 with 7:1).
Ver. 3—ch. 7:27.—The Sermon on the Mount. The following may serve as a brief summary.
1. The ideal character of his disciples (ch. 5:3–10), which must be allowed to appear (ch. 5:11–16).
2. The relation that they ought to hold towards the religion of the day, of which the Law was the accepted standard (ch. 5:17–6:18).
(1) The fundamental principle of this relation is found in the relation which Christ himself holds towards the Law (ch. 5:17–20).
(2) Their relation further defined by illustrations taken from the religion of the day, as this is seen in—
(a) Cases deduced directly from the Law (ch. 5:21–48).
(b) Cases not so deduced (ch. 6:1–18).
3. General principles regarding—
(1) Their relation to wealth. They must remember that only the single eye receives the light (ch. 6:19–34).
(2) Their relation to men. They must remember the dangers of differentiating others. They must treat them as they would themselves be treated (ch. 7:1–12).
4. Epilogue (ch. 7:13–27). A call to decision and independence of walk (ch. 7:13–23). Assent is useless if it becomes not action (ch. 7:24–27).
There is little doubt that the two accounts (here and Luke 6) represent one and the same discourse, the main arguments for this belief being thus given by Ellicott (‘Hist. Lects.,’ p.179): “That the beginning and end of the Sermon are nearly identical in both Gospels; that the precepts, as recited by St. Luke, are in the same general order as those in St. Matthew, and that they are often expressed in nearly the same words; and lastly, that each Evangelist specifies the same miracle, viz. the healing of the centurion’s servant, as having taken place shortly after the Sermon, on our Lord’s entry into Capernaum.”
Vers. 3–16.—1. The ideal character of his disciples.
Ver. 3.—Blessed (μακάριοι); Vulgate, beati; hence “Beatitudes.” The word describes “the poor in spirit,” etc., not as receipients of blessing (εὐλογημένοι) from God, or even from men, but as possessors of “happiness” (cf. the Authorized Version of John 13:17, and frequently). It describes them in reference to their inherent state, not to the gifts or the rewards that they receive. It thus answers in thought to the common אשׁרי of the Old Testament; e.g. 1 Kings 10:8; Ps. 1:1; 32:1; 84:5. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The first Beatitude is the sum and substance of the whole sermon. Poverty of spirit stands in contrast to self-sufficiency (Rev. 3:17) and as such is perhaps the quality which is most of all opposed to the Jewish temper in all ages (cf. Rom. 2:17–20). For in this, as in much else, the Jewish nation is the type of the human race since the Fall. Observe that vers. 3, 4 (οἱ πτωχοί, οἱ πενθοῦντες, possibly also ver. 5, vide infra) recall Isa. 61:1, 2. As recently in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:18, 19), so also here, he bases the explanation of his work on the prophecy of that work in the Book of Isaiah. The poor (οἱ πτωχοί). Πτωχός, in classical and philosophical usage, implies a lower degree of poverty than πένης (2 Cor. 9:9 and LXX). “The πένης may be so poor that he earns his bread by daily labour; but the πτωχός is so poor that he only obtains his living by begging.… The πένης has nothing superfluous, the πτωχός nothing at all” (Trench, ‘Syn.,’ § xxxvi.). Hence Tertullian (‘Adv. Marc.,’ iv. 14; cf. 15) purposely altered Beati pauperes of the Old Latin to Beati mendici, and elsewhere (‘De Idol.,’ 12) rendered it by egeni. But in Hellenistic Greek, so far as the usage of the LXX and the Hexapla goes (vide Hatch, “Biblical Greek,’ p. 73), the distinction seems hardly to hold good. Hatch even infers—on, we think, very insufficient premisses—that these two words, with ταπεινός and πραΰς (but vide infra), designate the poor of an oppressed country, i.e. the peasantry, the fellahin of Palestine as a class, and he considers it probable that this special meaning under-lies the use of the words in these verses. Whether this be the case or not, the addition of τῷ πνεύματι completely excludes the supposition that our Lord meant to refer to any merely external circumstances. In spirit; Matthew only (τῷ πνεύματι). Dative of sphere (cf. ch. 11:29; 1 Cor. 7:34; 14:20; Rom. 12:11). Jas. 2:5 (τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ) forms an apparent rather than a real contrast; for the dative there marks, not the sphere in which, but the object with reference to which, the poverty is felt (“the poor as to the world,” Revised Version; Wiesinger in Huther), or possibly the object which is the standard of comparison, i.e. in the judgment of the world (Winer, § xxxi. 4, a). Christ here affirms the blessedness of those who are in their spirit absolutely devoid of wealth. It cannot mean that they are this in God’s opinion, for in God’s opinion all are so. It means, therefore, that they are this in their own opinion. While many feel in themselves a wealth of soul-satisfaction, these do not, but realize their insufficiency. Christ says that they realize this “in (their) spirit;” for the spirit is that part of us which specially craves for satisfaction, and which is the means by which we lay hold of true satisfaction. The actual craving for spiritual wealth is not mentioned in this verse. It is implied, but direct mention of it comes partly in ver. 4, and especially in ver. 6. For theirs. Emphatic, as in all the Beatitudes (αὐτῶν, αὐτοί). Is. Not hereafter (Meyer), but even already. The kingdom of heaven (vide note, p. 150). The poor in spirit already belong to and have a share in that realm of God which now is realized chiefly in relation to our spirit, but ultimately will be realized in relation to every element of our nature, and to all other persons, and to every part, animate and inanimate, of the whole world.
Ver. 4.—In some, especially “Western” authorities, vers. 4, 5 are transposed (vide Westcott and Hort, ‘Appendix’), possibly because the terms of ver. 5 seemed to be more closely parallel to ver. 3 (cf. Meyer, Weiss), and also those of ver. 4 fitted excellently with ver. 6. But far the greater balance of evidence is in favour of the usual order, which also, though not on the surface, is in the deepest connexion with the preceding and the following verses. They that mourn (cf. Isa. 61:2). Our Lord does not define that which causes the mourning, but as the preceding and the following verses all refer to the religious or at least the ethical sphere, merely carnal and worldly mourning is excluded. The mourning referred to must, therefore, be produced by religious or moral causes. Mourners for the state of Israel, so far as they mourned not for its political but for its spiritual condition (cf. similar mourning in the Christian Church, 2 Cor. 7:9, 10), would be included (cf. Weiss, ‘Life,’ ii. 142); but our Lord’s primary thought must have been of mourning over one’s personal state, not exactly, perhaps, over one’s sins, but over the realized poverty in spirit just spoken of (cf. Weiss-Meyer). As the deepest poverty lies in the sphere of the spirit, so the deepest mourning lies there also. All other mourning is but partial and slight compared with this (Prov. 18:14). For they shall be comforted. When? On having the kingdom of heaven (ver. 3); i.e. during this life in measure (cf. Luke 2:25), but fully only hereafter. The mourning over one’s personal poverty in spirit is removed in proportion as Christ is received and appropriated; but during this life such appropriation can be only partial.
Ver. 5.—Blessed are the meek. In this Beatitude our Lord still quotes Old Testament expressions. The phrase, “shall inherit the earth,” comes even in Isa. 60:21, only two verses before 61:1, 2, to which he has already referred. In the present copies of the LXX it is found also in Isa. 61:7, but there it is evidently a corruption. It occurs also in Ps. 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34; and since in the eleventh verse of the psalm it is directly said of the meek: “But the meek shall inherit the land (LXX, οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσιν γῆν),” it is, doubtless, from this latter passage that our Lord borrows the phrase. The meaning attributed by our Lord to the word meek is not clear. The ordinary use of the words πραΰς, πραΰτης in the New Testament refers solely to the relation of men to men, and this is the sense in which of οἱ πραεῖς is taken by most commentators here. But with this sense, taken barely and solely, there seems to be no satisfactory explanation of the position of the Beatitude. Vers. 3 and 4 refer to men in their relation to God; ver. 6, to say the least, includes the relation of men to God; what has ver. 5 to do here if it refers solely to the relation of men to men? It would have come very naturally either before or after ver. 9 (“the peacemakers”); but why here? The reason, however, for the position of the Beatitude lies in the true conception of meekness. While the thought is here primarily that of meekness exhibited towards men (as is evident from the implied contrast in they shall inherit the earth), yet meekness towards men is closely connected with, and is the result of, meekness towards God. This is not exactly humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη which, as regards God, is equivalent to a sense of creatureliness or dependence; cf. Trench, ‘Syn.,’ § xlii.). Meekness is rather the attitude of the soul towards another when that other is in a state of activity towards it. It is the attitude of the disciple to the teacher when teaching; of the son to the father when exercising his paternal authority; of the servant to the master when giving him orders. It is therefore essentially as applicable to the relation of man to God as to that of man to man. It is for this reason that we find ענו, ענוח, very frequently used of man’s relation to God, in fact, more often than of man’s relation to man; and this common meaning of ענו must be specially remembered here, where the phrase is taken directly from the Old Testament. Weiss (‘Matthäus-ev.’) objects to Tholuck adducing the evidence of the Hebrew words, on the ground that the Greek terms are used solely of the relation to man, and that this usage is kept to throughout the New Testament. But the latter statement is hardly true. For, not to mention ch. 11:29, in which the reference is doubtful, Jas. 1:21 certainly refers to the meekness shown towards God in receiving his word. “The Scriptural πραότης,” says Trench, loc. cit., “is not in a man’s outward behaviour only; nor yet in his relations to his fellow-men; as little in his mere natural disposition. Rather is it an inwrought grace of the soul; and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God (Matt. 11:29; Jas. 1:21). It is that temper of spirit in which we accept his dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting; and it is closely linked with the ταπεινοφροσύνη, and follows directly upon it (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; cf. Zeph. 3:12), because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek; and which, as such, does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with him.” Yet, as this meekness must be felt towards God not only in his direct dealings with the soul, but also in his indirect dealings (i.e. by secondary means and agents), it must also be exhibited towards men. Meekness towards God necessarily issues in meekness towards men. Our Lord’s concise teaching seizes, therefore, on this furthest expression of meekness. Thus it is not meekness in the relation of man to man barely stated, of which Christ here speaks, but meekness in the relation of man to man, with its prior and presupposed fact of meekness in the relation of man to God. Shall inherit the earth. In the Psalm this is equivalent to the land of Palestine, and the psalmist means that, though the wicked may have temporary power, yet God’s true servants shall really and finally have dominion in the Land. But what is intended here? Probably our Lord’s audience understood the phrase on his lips as a Messianic adaptation of the original meaning, and as therefore implying that those who manifested a meek reception of his will would obtain that full possession of the land of Palestine which was now denied to the Israelites through the conquest of the Romans. But to our Lord, and to the evangelist who, years after, recorded them, the meaning of the words must have been much fuller, corresponding, in fact, to the true meaning of the “kingdom of heaven,” viz. that the meek shall inherit—shall receive, as their rightful possession from their Father, the whole earth; renewed, it may be (Isa. 11:6–9; 65:25; Rev. 21:1), but still the earth (Rom. 8:21), with all the powers of nature therein implied. Of this the conquest of nature already gained through the civilization produced under Christianity is at once the promise and, though but in a small degree, the firstfruits.
Ver. 6.—They which do hunger and thirst. The application of the figure of eating and drinking to spiritual things (cf. Luke 22:30) is not infrequent in the Old Testament; e.g. Isa. 55:1. Yet the thought here is not the actual participation, but the craving. The Benediction marks a distinct stage in our Lord’s argument. He spoke first of the consciously poor in their spirit; next of those who mourned over their poverty; then of those who were ready to receive whatever teaching or chastisement might be given them; here of those who had an earnest longing for that right relation to God in which they were so lacking. This is the positive stage. Intense longing, such as can only be compared to that of a starving man for food, is sure of satisfaction. After righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην). Observe: (1) The accusative. In Greek writers πεινάω and διψάω are regularly followed by the genitive. Here by the accusative; for the desire is after the whole object, and not after a part of it (cf. Weiss; also Bishop Westcott, on Heb. 6:4, 5). (2) The article. It idealizes. There is but one righteousness worthy of the name, and for this and all that it includes, both in standing before God and in relation to men, the soul longs. How it is to be obtained Christ does not here say. For they. Emphatic, as always (ver. 3, note). Shall be filled (χορτασθήσονται); vide Bishop Lightfoot on Phil. 4:12. Properly of animals being fed with fodder (χόρτος); cf. Rev. 19:21, “All the birds were filled (ἐχορτάσθησαν) with their flesh.” At first only used of men depreciatingly (Plato, ‘Rep.,’ ix. 9, p. 586 a), afterwards readily. Rare in the sense of moral and spiritual satisfaction (cf. Ps. 17:15). When shall they be filled? As in the case of vers. 3, 4, now in part, fully hereafter. “St. Austin, wondering at the overflowing measure of God’s Spirit in the Apostles’ hearts, observes that the reason why they were so full of God was because they were so empty of his creatures. ‘They were very full,’ he says, ‘because they were very empty’” (Anon., in Ford). That on earth, but in heaven with all the saints—
“Ever filled and ever seeking, what they
have they still desire,
Hunger there shall fret them never, nor
satiety shall tire,—
Still enjoying whilst aspiring, in their joy
they still aspire.”
(‘Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family,’ ch. 9., from the Latin Hymn of Peter Damiani, † 1072.)
Ver. 7.—Our Lord here turns more directly to the character of his followers in relation to men; and in the next three Beatitudes mentions particulars which might be suggested by the sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments. The merciful (οἱ ἐλεήμονες). The mercy referred to here is not so much the almost negative quality which the word usually suggests to us (not dealing harshly, not inflicting punishment when due, sparing an animal or a fellow-man some unnecessary labour), as active kindness to the destitute and to any who are in trouble (cf. ch. 9:27; 15:22; 17:15; Mark 5:19). As compared with οἰκτίρμονες (Luke 6:36), it seems to lay more stress on the feeling of pity showing itself in action and not only existing in thought. To this statement of our Lord’s, that they who show mercy to those in need shall themselves be the objects of mercy (i.e. from God) in their time of need, many parallels have been adduced, e.g., by Wetstein. Rabbi Gamaliel (? the second, circa a.d. 100), as reported by Rabbi Judah (circa a.d. 180), says (Talm. Bab., ‘Sabb.,’ 151 b), on Deut. 13:18, “Every one that showeth mercy to others, they show mercy to him from heaven, and every one that showeth not mercy to others, they show him not mercy from heaven;” cf. also ‘Test. XII. Patr.:’ Zab., § 8, “In proportion as a man has compassion (σπλαγχνίζεται) on his neighbour, so has the Lord upon him;” and, probably with reference to this passage, Clem. Rom., § 13, ἐλεᾶτε ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε. (For the converse, cf. Jas. 2:13.) Calvin remarks, “Hoc etiam paradoxon cum humano judicio pugnat. Mundus reputat beatos, qui malorum alienorum securi quieti suæ consulunt: Christus autem hic beatos dicit, qui non modo ferendis propriis malis parati sunt, sed aliena etiam in se suscipiunt, ut miseris succurrant.”
Ver. 8.—The pure in heart. Our Lord naturally passes in thought from the sixth to the seventh commandment (cf. vers. 21, 27), finding the basis of his phraseology in Ps. 24:3, 4, “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? … He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart (LXX ἀθῷος χερσὶν καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ)” (cf. also Ps. 72:1). Καθαρός (besides speaking of mere physical cleanness, ch. 27:59) specially refers to freedom from pollution, judged by God’s standard of what pollution is, whether it be a matter of ceremonial enactment (meats, Rom. 14:20; cf. Mark 7:19; cf. leprosy, 8:2, 3; 10:8, et al.) or of ethical relation (John 13:10, 11; 15:3); cf. Origen. ‘Hom. in Joh.,’ lxxiii. 2 (Meyer), “Every sin soils the soul (Πᾶσα ἁμαρτία ῥύπον ἑντίθησι τῇ, ψυχῇ)” (cf. also Bishop Westcott, ‘Hebrews,’ p. 346). In heart. The seat of the affections (ch. 6:21; 22:37) and the understanding (ch. 13:15), also the central spring of all human words and actions (ch. 15:19); cf. καθαρὰ καρδία (1 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:22), which implies something deeper than καθαρὰ συνείδησις (1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3). Shall see God. Not in his courts (Ps. 24) on Mount Moriah, but above; and in one complete vision fully grasped (ὄψονται). The thought of present spiritual sight of God, though, perhaps, hardly to be excluded (contrast Weiss, ‘Matthäusev.’), is at least swallowed up in the thought of the full and final revelation. Those who are pure in heart, and care not for such sights as lead men into sin, are unconsciously preparing themselves for the great spiritual sight—the beatific vision (Rev. 22:4; cf. 1 John 3:2). In Heb. 12:14 holiness (ἁγιασμός) is an indispensable quality for such a vision of “the Lord.”
Ver. 9.—The peacemakers (οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί). More than “peaceable” (εἰρηνικός, Jas. 3:17; εἰρηνεύοντες, Rom. 12:18; Mark 9:50). This is the peaceable character consciously exerted outside itself. The same compound in the New Testament in Col. 1:20 only: Εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ (cf. Eph. 2:14, 15). Christians, in their measure, share in Christ’s work, and, we may add, can attain it generally as he did, only by personal suffering. Observe that this Beatitude must have been specially distasteful to the warlike Galilæans. Mishna, ‘Ab.,’ i. 13 (Taylor), “Hillel said, Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace,” hardly refers to peace-making, but in Mishna, ‘Peah,’ i. 1, “These are the things whose fruit a man eats in this world, but which have their capital reward in the world to come: honouring one’s father and mother, showing kindness, and bringing about peace between a man and his neighbour, but study of the Law is equivalent to them all.” For they; αὐτοί, omitted by א, C, D, 13, 124, Latt., Peshito. Possibly it is an addition inserted from a desire to make this Beatitude harmonize with the others. But more probably it is genuine, and was omitted by accident, either by homoiot. of υἱοὶ (Meyer), or (better) because the scribe forgot the αὐτοί in the emphatic υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, the form of the second clause being peculiar to this Beatitude. Shall be called; by God and angels and men. The children of God; Revised Version, sons of God; to show that the word used here is υἱοὶ, not τέκνα. Christ’s reference is, that is to say, not so much to the nature as to the privileges involved in sonship. The earthly privileges which peacemakers give up rather than disturb their peaceful relations with others, and in order that they may bring about peace between others, shall be much more than made up to them, and that with the approving verdict of all. They shall, with general approval, enter on the full privileges of their relation to God, who is “the God of peace” (Rom. 15:33). Dr. Taylor (‘Ab.,’ i. 19) has an interesting note on “Peace” as a Talmudic name of God. For language similar to our Lord’s, cf. Hos. 1:10 [LXX], equivalent to Rom. 9:26. Here, as often in this Gospel, there may be a tacit contradiction to the assumption that natural birth as Israelites involves the full blessings of sons of God; cf. ‘Ab.,’ iii. 22 (Taylor).
Ver. 10.—Which are persecuted; which have been persecuted (Revised Version); οἱ δεδιωγμένοι. “Those who are harassed, hunted, spoiled. The term is properly used of wild beasts pursued by hunters, or of an enemy or malefactor in flight” (Wetstein). Our Lord, by the use of the perfect, wishes to indicate (1) the fact that they have endured persecution, and still stand firm; and probably (2) the condition of temporal loss to which they have been reduced by such persecution. They have “suffered the loss,” possibly, “of all things,” but they are “blessed.” For righteousness’ sake (ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης). No article (contrast ver. 6), either as indicating that for even a part of righteousness persecution can be undergone, or, and more probably, simply dwelling on the cause of persecution without idealizing it. St. Peter also says, perphaps with a reference to our Lord’s words, that they who suffer διὰ δικαιοσύνην are μακάριοι, (1 Pet. 3:14). For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The same promise that was given to “the poor in spirit” (ver. 3) is here given to the persecuted for righteousness’ sake. In the former case, poverty in the sphere of the spirit obtains the fullest possessions; here the same promise is given to temporal loss produced by faithfulness to the cause of righteousness. In ver. 3 our Lord removed all occasion for intellectual and spiritual pride. Here he comforts for temporal and social losses (cf. especially 2 Cor. 6:10; further see ver. 3, note). Clement of Alexandria, ‘Strom.,’ iv. 6 (p. 582, Potter) (1) confuses this and the preceding Beatitude; (2) gives a curious reading of some who alter the Gospels: “Blessed are they who have been persecuted through righteousness (ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης), for they shall be perfect; and blessed are they who have been persecuted for my sake, for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted” (cf. Westcott, ‘Introd. Gospp.,’ Appendix C).
Vers. 11–16.—Some critics (e.g. Godet, Weiss) think that vers. 13–16 are no part of the original sermon, but only an interweaving of sayings which were originally spoken at other times. This is possible, but external evidence exists only in the case of vers. 13 and 15 (for vers. 14 and 16 are peculiar to Matthew); and even in the case of these verses it is by no means clear (vide infra) that the occasions on which, according to the other Gospels, the savings were uttered are the more original. Weiss’s assertion (‘Life,’ ii. 144), “The remarks in Matt. 5:13–16, bearing on the calling of discipleship, … cannot belong to the sermon on the mount, carefully as they are there introduced, for the prophesied sufferings of his followers might have made them disloyal,” is wholly gratuitous. In fact, the sufferings have been much more strongly spoken of in vers. 11, 12.
The disciples are now addressed directly. and are urged to “walk worthily of the vocation wherewith they are called.” The mention of those who have endured persecution leads our Lord to warn his disciples not to faint under persecution in any of its forms; they are but entering on the succession of the prophets; their work is that of purifying and preserving and of illuminating; they must therefore allow their character as disciples to appear, as appear it must if they are true to their position. There is a purpose in this, namely, that men may see their actions, and glorify their Father which is in heaven.
Vers. 11, 12.—Parallel passage: Luke 6:22, 23.
Ver. 11.—As ver. 10 spoke of the blessedness of those who had suffered persecution and had endured it, so this verse speaks of the blessedness of those who are suffering from it at the moment, whether it be in act or word. Whilst Christ still keeps up the form of the Beatitudes, he speaks now in the second person, this and the following verse thus forming the transition to his directly addressing those immediately before him. His present audience was not yet among of οἱ δεδιωγμένοι, but might already be enduring something of the reproach and suffering now referred to. Revile (ὀνειδίσωσιν); Revised Version, reproach; as also the Authorized Version in Luke 6:22. “Revile” in itself implies moral error in the person that reviles. Not so ὀνειδίζειν (cf. ch. 11:20; Mark 16:14). Our Lord purposely uses a word which includes, not only mere abuse, but also stern, and occasionally loving, rebuke. Falsely, for my sake. The comma in both the Authorized (Scrivener) and the Revised Versions after “falsely” is opposed to that interpretation (Meyer) which closely connects ψευδόμενοι with both καθ᾽ ὑμῶν and ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ. Ψευδόμενοι is really a modal definition of εἴπωσιν (Sevin, Weiss), and ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ goes with the whole sentence “when men,” etc. For my sake. In ver. 10 he had said ἕι εκεν δικαιοσύνης: here he directly speaks of himself. In Luke 6 the phrase is transitional, “for the Son of man’s sake.” In ch. 4:19 he had claimed to be the Source of power for service; here he claims to be the Object of devotion. His “Messianic consciousness” (Meyer) is, at even this early stage of his ministry, fully developed (cf. also vers. 17, 22). It is possible that Heb. 11:26 (vide Rendall, in loc.) and 1 Pet. 4:14 refer to this expression.
Ver. 12.—Rejoice, and be exceeding glad (χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε). Our Lord uses no weaker expressions than those which describe the joy of the saints over the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7). The first word expresses joy as such, the second its effect in stirring the emotions; this thought St. Luke carries still further in σκιρτήσατε. (For joy felt under persecution, cf. Acts 5:41.) For great. The order of the Greek, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς, does not bear out the emphatic position assigned to “great” in the English Versions from Tyndale downwards (except Rheims), including Revised Version. Is your reward. The doctrine of recompense, which has so large a place in Jewish thought (for a not offensive example, cf. ‘Ab.,’ ii. 19, Taylor) comes also in Christ’s teaching. In ch. 20:1–16 reward is expressly divested of its merely legal side, and exhibited as ultimately dependent on the will of the great Householder. But here it is mentioned without reference to the difficulties involved in the conception. These difficulties centre round the thought of obligation from God to man. But it may be doubted whether these difficulties are not caused by too exclusively regarding the metaphor of contracting, instead of considering the fact indicated by the metaphor. In God’s kingdom every action has a corresponding effect, and this effect is the more certain in proportion as the action is in the sphere of morality. The idea of “quantity” hardly enters into the relation of such cause and effect. It is a question of moral correspondence. But such effect may not unfitly be called by the metaphors “hire,” “reward,” because, on the one hand, it is the result of conditions of moral service, and, on the other, such terms imply a Personal Will at the back of the effect, as well as a will on the part of the human “servant.” (For the subject in other connexions, cf. Weiss, ‘Bibl. Theol.,’ § 32; cf. also ver. 46; ch. 6:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.) In heaven. Our Lord says, “your reward is great,” because the effect of your exercise of moral powers will be received in a sphere where the accidents of the surroundings will entirely correspond to moral influences. The effect of your present faithfulness, etc., will be seen in the reception of powers of work and usefulness and enjoyment, beside which those possessed on earth will appear small. On earth the opportunities, etc., are but “few things;” hereafter they will be “many things” (ch. 25:21). For. Not as giving a reason for the assurance of reward (apparently Meyer and Weiss), but for the command, “rejoice, and be exceeding glad,” and perhaps also for the predicate “blessed.” Rejoice if persecuted, for such persecutions prove you to be the true successors of the prophets, your predecessors in like faithfulness (cf. Jas. 5:10). So. By reproach, e.g. Elijah (1 Kings 18:17), Amos (7:12, 13); by persecution, e.g. Hanani (2 Chron. 16:10), Jeremiah (37:15); by saying all manner of evil, e.g. Amos (7:10), Jeremiah (37:13), Daniel (6:13). Which were before you. Added, surely, not as a mere temporal fact, but to indicate spiritual relationship (vide supra).[34]
March 25, 2007 at FBC, Comanche; Expositional studies: Matthew
Matthew 5:1-12 (NASB)
1When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, 3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5“Blessed are the £gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
“The Beauty of Poverty”
Introduction: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.” With whom did our Lord Jesus have conflict during His earthly ministry among men, with those who recognized Him as Lord and Master and who saw themselves as sinful in His sight, or with the “righteous who thought that they did not repentance”? [Matthew 9:13; 12:7]
The beatitudes “sacred paradoxes” in that they point both to present and to future blessedness. (TDNT 4:368)
Psalms 33:18
· Blessed— μακάριος [makários]; A prose form of the poetic mákar, blessed one. Blessed, possessing the favor of God, that state of being marked by fullness from God. It indicates the state of the believer in Christ; said of one who becomes a partaker of God’s nature through faith in Christ (2 Pet. 1:4). The believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit because of Christ and as a result should be fully satisfied no matter the circumstances. Makários means to be blessed, is equivalent to having God’s kingdom within one’s heart (Matt. 5:3, 10). Makários is the one who is in the world yet independent of the world. His satisfaction comes from God and not from favorable circumstances.[35]
· Poor in spirit— πτωχός [ptochos] adj. to crouch;
1 reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms.
2 destitute of wealth, influence, position, honor.
2a lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches.
2b helpless, powerless to accomplish an end.
2c poor, needy.
3 lacking in anything.
3a as respects their spirit; destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ’s teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure). [36]
· Kingdom of heaven-- βασιλεία [basileia]; also translated as “kingdom (of God)” 71 times
1 royal power, kingship, dominion, rule.
1a not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom.
1b of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah.
1c of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah’s kingdom.
2 a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king.
3 used in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah.[37]
That which God had promised from the earliest days, which reached its fullest expression in the prophets’ glowing description of a golden age of blessing, is now on the verge of being realized and experienced, at least to a degree, by those whose preparedness of mind and heart make them receptive to the message
1. Deity of God – His Holiness; His perfection; light
A. Supreme—
1. His Person [holiness]
2. His Presence [heavenliness]
Psalms 121
1 I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; From whence shall my help come? 2 My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth. 3 He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber. 4 Behold, He who keeps Israel Will neither slumber nor sleep. 5 The LORD is your keeper; The LORD is your shade on your right hand. 6 The sun will not smite you by day, Nor the moon by night. 7 The LORD will £protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul. 8 The LORD will £guard your going out and your coming in From this time forth and forever.
B. Sovereign—
1. His Pleasure
2. His Purpose
@ The first prerequisite for true biblical salvation is an understanding of Who God is and how God is [faith]. We can only come to God [into the “Kingdom of heaven”] on His terms, in His time, and according to His truth.
2. Depravity of Man – our unholiness; our imperfection ; darkness
1. The poor in spirit -- receive forgiveness of sin and God's continued remembrance: the assurance that God will never forget.
2. The poor in spirit -- receive a fellowship with other believers who walk as they walk. (Acts 2:41-47 ; Ephesians 2:19-22.)
A. Sinful
++ The “Total Depravity of Man” means there’s “nothing good about us, no not one, none who seek God” [Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Rom 3:10-18].
B. Selfish
!! Sometimes God gives us current and / or living illustrations
@ The second prerequisite for salvation is an understanding of who we are [by nature] and how we are [by choice]. Our hearts are naturally rebellious, not repentant, and must be brought under the Lordship of Christ Jesus. We deceive ourselves thinking we are “right with God” if we are not [present tense, not past tense] fulfilling God’s Word by doing God’s will [Matthew 7:13-13].
Conclusion and Application: Is your heart deceiving you today? Are you being and doing [acting; present tense] what brings praise and pleasure to God, fulfilling His purposes; our hearts naturally covet [what is pleasing to the flesh, to the eye; 1 John 2:15-17], instead of commit [submit to the will of God]. With must constantly be on our guard, watch over our hearts, and present our bodies as a living and holy sacrifice.
Titus 1:15-16
15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.
16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
1. The Deity of God [His Perfection; Light]
A. God is Supreme [holy, worthy of worship]
B. God is Sovereign [all-powerful, over all; He is Lord]
@ The first prerequisite for true biblical salvation is an understanding of Who God is and how God is [faith]. We can only come to God [into the “Kingdom of heaven”] on His terms, in His time, and according to His truth.
2. The Depravity of Man [our imperfection; our darkness]
A. Sinful
B. Selfish
----
[1] Willmington, H. L. (1999). The Outline Bible (Mt 5:3). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
[2] Word in Life Study Bible. 1997, c1996 (Mt 5:3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[3] Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Mt 5:1-11). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Rev. Revised Version of the New Testament.
Wyc. Wycliffe’s Version of the New Testament.
A. V. Authorized Version.
Tynd. Tyndale’s Version of the New Testament.
[4] Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament (1:33-38). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
ed. editor; editted by
v. verse
cf. confer (Lat.), compare
[5] MacArthur, J. (1989). Matthew (153). Chicago: Moody Press.
[6] Ryle, J. C. (1993). Matthew. Originally published: New York : R. Carter, 1860. The Crossway classic commentaries (24). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
[7] Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[8] Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 93). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
cf. confer, compare
OT Old Testament
Q “Qumran”, “Qere” Qere (To be “read.” Masoretic suggested pronunciation for vocalized Hebrew text of the OT), or Quelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels)
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
esp. especially
NTS New Testament Studies
cf. confer, compare
Pirqe Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer
i.e. id est, that is
Tr. translation, translator(s), translated by, transpose(s)
OT Old Testament
[9] Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (85). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT
lit. literally
cf. confer, compare
1QM Milḥāmāh (War Scroll) from Qumran
cf. confer, compare
NT New Testament
i.e. id est, that is
[10] Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (47). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ET (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)
Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4 vols. (Munich: Beck’sche, 1926–28)
i.e. id est, that is
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
t Targum
B. Qam. Baba Qamma
* h. The critical text places ψευδόμενοι, “lying,” in brackets because of uncertainty about whether the word (which is omitted in D it sys) should be included. The word was possibly omitted in the Western textual tradition by way of harmonization with Luke 6:22. On the other hand, the word may be a scribal addition designed to clarify the text. See TCGNT, 12–13.
[11] Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (91). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
[12] Life Application Bible Studies New Testament
[13] Preacher's Outline and Sermon Bible - Commentary
[14] Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (735). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
Mft Moffatt
AT American Translation
NAB New American Bible
Brc Barclay
Phps Phillips
NEB New English Bible
GeCL German common language version
TEV Today’s English Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
JB Jerusalem Bible
KJV King James Version
AB Anchor Bible
MaCL Malay common language version
UBS United Bible Societies
TOB Traduction oecuménique de la Bible
TEV Today’s English Version
Phps Phillips
NEB New English Bible
GeCL German common language version
FRCL French common language version
Brc Barclay
NAB New American Bible
JB Jerusalem Bible
Mft Moffatt
UBS United Bible Societies
TC-GNT A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
RSV Revised Standard Version
A.D Anno Domini (in the year of our Lord)
[15] Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS handbook series (114). New York: United Bible Societies.
[16] Preacher's Outline and Sermon Bible - Commentary
[17] H.A. Ironside Commentaries
[18] Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
[19] Bible Knowledge Commentary
[20] International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[21] Holman Bible Dictionary
[22] Expositions of Holy Scripture: Gospels and Acts by Alexander MacLaren
[23] Life Application Bible
[24] Expositor’s Bible Commentary
[25] NIV Dictionary of the Bible
[26] New International Bible Dictionary
[27] Pink, A. W., Commentary on the Beatitudes
[28] Expositor’s Bible Commentary
[29] H.A. Ironside Commentaries
* 5:5 When Jewish people thought of the meek “inheriting the earth,” they went beyond the minimal interpretation of Psalm 37:9, 11, 29 (where those who hope in God alone “will inherit the land”; compare Ps 25:13) and thought of inheriting the entire world (Rom 4:13; 4QPs 37).
Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
Jub. Jubilees
1QS Serek hayyaḥad or Manual of Discipline from Qumran Cave 1
Jos. Josephus Against Apion
ARN ˒Abot de Rabbi Nathan
* 5:11–12 Literarily these verses seem to be a somewhat different unit, meant to drive home the impact of what precedes in the light of persecution, including the rejection experienced by Matthew’s audience.
[30] Keener, C. S. (1997). Vol. 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 5:1). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
[31] The Gospel of Matthew: Volume. 2000, c1975 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily Study Bible series, Rev. ed. (83). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
Mft Moffatt
AT American Translation
NAB New American Bible
Brc Barclay
Phps Phillips
NEB New English Bible
GeCL German common language version
TEV Today’s English Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
JB Jerusalem Bible
KJV King James Version
AB Anchor Bible
MaCL Malay common language version
UBS United Bible Societies
TOB Traduction oecuménique de la Bible
FRCL French common language version
TC-GNT A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
A.D Anno Domini (in the year of our Lord)
[32]Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series (102). New York: United Bible Societies.
7 7. Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, 1:82.
8 8. T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1939), p. 286.
9 9. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, p. 63.
10 10. C. H. Dodd, The Bible Today (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1947), p. 84.
11 11. Metzger, “The Sermon on the Mount,” p. 6.
12 12. Richard C. Halverson, in Perspective 31, no. 7 (March 28, 1979).
[33]Augsburger, M. S., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1982). Vol. 24: The Preacher's Commentary Series, Volume 24 : Matthew. Formerly The Communicator's Commentary. The Preacher's Commentary series (18). Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.
[34]The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew Vol. I. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (145). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ET (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)
[35]Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G3107). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
adj adj: adjective
[36]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G4434). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
[37]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G932). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.