Commentary on Matthew 5:3

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; 32:1–2; 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 ʾašrê, 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 (1 Tim 1:11; 6:15). The other word is eulogētos, found in the LXX primarily for Hebrew berāḵāh, and used chiefly in connection with God in both OT and NT (e.g., Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3). Eulogētos 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 eulogētos “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 Handwörterbuch 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 ptōchos (“poor”—in classical Gr., “beggar”) has a different force in the LXX and NT. It translates several Hebrew words, most importantly (in the pl.) ʿanāwîm (“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 themselves 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, postconsummation, 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).