Sermon on the Mount

by Scot McKnight

  One final observation about the word “blessed.” Jesus is the one who says who is and who is not blessed. Our customary belief in Jesus somehow leads us at times to miss such a basic point, but one cannot fail to see that Jesus here steps into the pages of Israel’s history as someone who speaks uniquely for God, and he does so with a truth claim so vital that one sees him as more than God’s prophet.

  The Blessed Ones

  There are two “versions” of the Beatitudes of Jesus, and most scholars think the two versions derive from the hypothetical early Christian source called Q. Listing the two versions of the Beatitudes reveals both similarities and dissimilarities. Here are the two lists, and we italicize the beatitudes found only in Matthew:

  Matthew 5:3–12 Luke 6: 20–23

  1. Poor in spirit

  1. Poor

  2. Mourn

  3. Weep now

  3. Meek

  4. Hunger/thirst for righteousness

  2. Hunger now

  5. Merciful

  6. Pure in heart

  7. Peacemakers

  8. Persecuted for righteousness

  9. Insulted, persecuted, false statements

  4. Hated, excluded, rejected

  Most notably, Luke has not only beatitudes but “woe” statements that match the beatitudes in reverse: rich, well fed, laugh, and speaking well of you. One cannot know for sure, but it is reasonable to think Matthew “collected” other beatitudes of Jesus and brought them together here. It also seems likely that Matthew has “airbrushed” some of the beatitudes, as can be seen in adding “in spirit” in #1 and “for righteousness” in #4, but in so doing he has clarified the original intent rather than leaving a beatitude or two open to misunderstanding.

  It is risky to venture something new when it comes to organizing the Beatitudes, but I will try.16 They have no apparent logical or consecutive order, though a few scholars have done their best to convince others that there is an order; one of the more pastorally common suggestions is that they begin on our need of redemption.17 Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw instead a list of renunciations:18 the call of Jesus leads to a life of renunciation (v. 3), and this leads to renunciation of happiness and peace (v. 4), rights (v. 5), our own righteousness (v. 6), our own dignity (v. 7), our own good and evil (v. 8), and violence and strife (v. 9); and they finish with a renunciation summary (v. 10).

  Another suggestion has come from Mark Allan Powell, who believes the first four beatitudes promise reversal for those who are unfortunate (vv. 3–6) while the second four promise eschatological rewards to the virtuous (vv. 7–10), with verses 11–12 functioning as a concluding comment. He believes the second four blessings are addressing those who show mercy to the unfortunate ones in the first four.19 A final suggestion is that the first four pertain to God and the second four to our relationship with others.20 If I were to venture a suggestion here, it would be this: group the beatitudes into threes.21 Thus, three on the humility of the poor (“poor in spirit,” “mourn,” “meek”), three on those who pursue justice (“hunger and thirst … ,” “merciful,” “pure in heart”), and three on those who create peace (“peacemakers,” “persecuted … ,” “insult you …”). Thus, the three central moral themes of the Beatitudes are humility (of the poor), justice, and peace.

  More important than order we need to see this list in the context of Jesus’ major ethical idea. In another project of mine, a book called The Jesus Creed, I argued that Jesus understood the entire Torah through two basic commandments, to love God and to love others (Matt 22:34–40). When Jesus did this, he “amended” a standard Jewish moral creed called the Shema, “Hear,” which derives from Deuteronomy 6:4–9. The love-others commandment comes from Leviticus 19:18, which says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Adding the two together permits his followers to understand God’s basic demands as love of God and love of others. I call this combination the Jesus Creed.

  But there’s an element of ethics in the Jesus Creed that is sometimes overlooked. Love of neighbor in Leviticus 19:18 is rooted in proper love of self: “love your neighbor as yourself.” The Golden Rule, the other great reduction of the Torah by Jesus (Matt 7:12), also rings the bell of self-love: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” There is then, as many have seen, including New Testament ethicist Rudolf Schnackenburg,22 a threefold dimension to the essence of Jesus’ moral vision: love of God, love of self, love of others. If Jesus explicitly reduces the Torah to loving God and loving others as oneself, then every ethical statement of Jesus somehow needs to be connected to the double commandment of love. I want to use the threefold grid (love of God, self, and others) to examine the Beatitudes, partly as a test case and partly because I’m convinced this is one of the best ways to see into the essence of why Jesus blesses these people.

  Space permits only a brief commentary on each beatitude, which will begin with a description of how to define each people group, a sketch of the evidence shaping our understanding, and then a sketch of the promise for each people group. Because the first beatitude has drawn so much discussion, I will treat it in more depth.

  Three Blessings for the Humility of the Poor

  #1. Blessed are the poor in spirit (5:3). The “poor in spirit” (for which Luke has only “poor,” Luke 6:20) describes an economically, physically impoverished, or oppressed person who not only recognizes her or his need but also trusts in God for full redemption.23 This sort of person thus comprehends that he or she must be faithful in the midst of oppression and also form solidarity with other oppressed people. In other words, the poor in spirit love God enough to trust God, love the self aright, and love others enough to form alliances of hope, compassion, and justice. The antithesis of the “poor in spirit” is the rich oppressor; one hears this antagonism in James 1:9–11; 2:1–13; and 4:13–5:6. We need to remind ourselves that each beatitude is a reversal of cultural values: the self-dependent or wealthy oppressor is at odds with the economy of the kingdom.

  Christian Bible readers have often gone to one extreme or the other with Matthew 5:3, seeing in this beatitude either little more than the oppressed poor or nothing besides spiritual dependence on God.24 This dispute arises because of Luke’s version: “Blessed are you who are poor.” Luke can be read as reducing this beatitude to simple economics. The question then becomes whether Matthew has “spiritualized” the poverty to spiritual neediness/poverty alone,25 or whether a straight line can be drawn from economic poverty to spiritual trust in God. The second view finds strong support elsewhere in Matthew (see 11:5; 19:21; 26:9, 11). So, rather than being forced to choose between economic or spiritual poverty, it is wisest to see here a both/and: both spiritually dependent and economically needy.26 Moreover, the socioeconomic rootedness of the word “poor” (ptōchos) does not permit exclusively the spiritual poverty interpretation, and the “in spirit” demands that this be more than simple economic oppression.

  This both/and interpretation makes sense in the Jewish context. Jesus has in mind the Anawim, a group of economically disadvantaged Jews (Ps 149:4; Isa 49:13; 61:1–2; 66:2).27 Historians of Jewish history now mostly agree that the Anawim had three features: they were economically poor and yet trusted in God, they found their way to the temple as a meeting place, and they longed for the Messiah, who would finally bring justice. The archetype persons of the Anawim are Simeon in Luke 2:25–35 and Anna in 2:36–38, and I would add Jesus’ mother, Mary, whose Anawim hope we encounter in the Magnificat at Luke 1:46–55.28 Roughly at the time of Jesus the Qumran community saw themselves as the “poor” who were trusting in God. A good example can be found in this fragment:

  … [the] humble He has not spurned, and He has not overlooked the needy in trouble, He has kept his eyes on the weak, and paid attention to the cry of orphans for help. He has listened to their cry, and because of His abundant mercies, has shown favor to the meek. He has opened their eyes to see His ways and their ears to hear. (4Q434 f1
i:2)

  Our conclusion is that “poor in spirit” is a perfect blend of the economically destitute who nonetheless trust in God and put their hope for justice and the kingdom of God in God.

  To “the poor in spirit” is promised “the kingdom of heaven.” This expression pulls together the entire hope of Israel’s Story for the messianic age. It involves a King (Messiah), a land, a holy, loving people (Israel), and a redemptive power that will create holiness, love, and peace. The “kingdom” describes the fullness of God’s blessing. Those who are poor now, who nonetheless trust in God and wait for God’s Messiah with faithfulness, are and will be the ones who populate God’s kingdom. That kingdom has already begun to make its presence felt from the days of John and Jesus (11:11–12; 12:28), but it still awaits a future glorious consummation (7:21; 8:11; 19:23–24; 26:29). Notably, Jesus will later say the rich struggle to enter the kingdom (19:23–24).29

  #2. Blessed are those who mourn (5:4). Those who “mourn” both grieve in their experiences of tragedy, injustice, and death, and reach out to others in grief and compassion when they experience injustice, sin, evil, tragedy, and death. In other words, they suffer and they love those who suffer. It is reasonable to think “those who mourn” are Anawim. But this kind of mourning is also directed at God in a kind of “How long, O Lord?” plaint that waits on God to act in justice. Once again Jesus is countercultural. Jesus has in mind those who respond to exile properly. Exile for the mourner didn’t mean adaptation, accommodation, activism, and apostasy but instead grief, faithfulness, suffering, and hope.

  The meaning of this beatitude depends on what these blessed people are mourning about. Are they mourning for their loved ones? Israel’s condition in exile or oppression? Injustices they have experienced? The lack of love, peace, holiness, and justice in the land? Or, as so many have claimed, are they mourning over their own sins? The answer to this set of questions is found by exploring the historical context.30 We must begin with Isaiah 61:1–4 (in the context of the hope in chs. 40–66):

  The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,

  because the LORD has anointed me

  to proclaim good news to the poor.

  He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,

  to proclaim freedom for the captives

  and release from darkness for the prisoners,

  to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor

  and the day of vengeance of our God,

  to comfort all who mourn,

  and provide for those who grieve in Zion—

  to bestow on them a crown of beauty

  instead of ashes,

  the oil of joy

  instead of mourning,

  and a garment of praise

  instead of a spirit of despair.

  They will be called the oaks of righteousness,

  a planting of the LORD

  for the display of his splendor.

  They will rebuild the ancient ruins

  and restore the places long devastated;

  they will renew the ruined cities

  that have been devastated for generations. (Isa 61:1–4, emphasis added; cf. Ps 126:2–6).

  This text clearly suggests that the mourners are those who are grieved over both Israel’s and their own exile, who are teamed with one another in grief, and who long for Israel’s return, for the temple to be restored, and for God’s favor to return on Israel. It is a longing for grace and justice and for kingdom, and at the same time a commitment to faithfulness and hope.

  Jesus promises the mourners that God will comfort them by satisfying the longing of their hearts. Knowing God’s faithfulness and final justice, and anchoring one’s hope in what God will certainly do empower the “mourner” to carry on faithfully. One thinks of Paul in Romans 5:3 or 8:37–39 and of John in Revelation 21:4.

  #3. Blessed are the meek (5:5). The “meek” are those who suffer and who have been humbled, and yet they do not seek revenge but God’s glory and the welfare of others. In other words, they lovingly trust God and hope in God’s timing and God’s justice. An overemphasis in the first beatitude (“poor in spirit”) on humility leads to a near synonym with the third beatitude, which is a solid clue to keep the economic dimension of the first. Perhaps it is easiest to define “meek” by saying Jesus was meek: “for I am gentle [same word as our beatitude] and humble31 in heart” (11:29). Moreover, in entering Jerusalem on a donkey, Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament expectation of the meek king (21:5).

  In addition, we must take into consideration what the meek are promised: they will inherit the Land (more below). Because meekness connects here to land inheritance, and because the Beatitudes are so inherently countercultural, we suggest that meekness is framed over against wrath, anger, violence, acquisitiveness, rapaciousness, theft, violent takeovers, and brutal reclamations of property. The meek are unlike the Zealots, who used violence to seize the land. The meek choose to absorb unjust conditions in a form of nonviolent, nonretaliatory resistance that creates a calm, countercultural community of love, justice, and peace.32

  The promise stands out: “for they will inherit the earth [Land].” Clearly the promise evokes both the land promise in Genesis 12 and the promises to the oppressed and waiting in Psalm 37:11 (“the meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity”); 37:22 (“those the LORD blesses will inherit the land”); and 37:34 (“he will exalt you to inherit the land”). The Qumran community prized Psalm 37.33 While it has been customary for Christians to see in the NIV’s word “earth” a synonym for “world” now or in the new heavens and earth,34 there is little likelihood that Jesus would have “world” in mind.35 We must wrap our minds around the Bible’s Story for the first-century Jew: those to whom Jesus spoke didn’t care two figs for owning Italy or Gaul. They simply wanted shalom in the Land of Israel. The fundamental promise to Abraham, and a promise that shapes everything about exile and return and hope and promise (e.g., Deut 28) is dwelling in peace and holiness in the land God promised them. Or read Luke 1:67–79 to see that Zechariah’s idea of salvation is the elimination of enemies so Israel could dwell in the Land and worship in the temple in peace and holiness. This is the right context, so that this beatitude should be translated, “for they will inherit the Land.”

  If we put these first three beatitudes together, we find Jesus blessing the oppressed and the poor for their powerful trust in God, their willingness to wait on God for justice and the kingdom, and for their devotion that runs so deep they mourn over the condition of Israel and implicate themselves in the causes of that condition. These are the sorts of people, not the typical ones, that are (and will be) in the kingdom.

  Three Blessings on Those Who Pursue Righteousness and Justice

  #4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (5:6). Those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” are those who love God and God’s will (revealed in Torah as love and justice) with their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Because they love God and others, they are willing to check their passions and will in order to do God’s will, to further God’s justice, and to express their longing that God act to establish his will and kingdom.36 Their appetites, instead of being sated by the pleasures of food, sensualities, passions, and lusts, are satisfied only in communion with God, knowing and doing God’s will and seeking the welfare of others. One thinks of Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), but one also thinks of Abraham, who abandoned his home to strike out for God’s land; of Moses, who learned the hard way to be devoted to God; of Samson, whose erratic life embedded yearning for God’s will; and of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, each of whom left a life to follow God’s way and will.

  Once again, like the first beatitude, comparison with Luke’s version of this beatitude turns up significance: Luke has “who hunger now” (Luke 6:21), and Matthew edits this to “for righteousness.” Has Matthew spiritualized an originally socioeconomic issue? No.37 Again, we are to think of the poor and hungry who are chasing not just food but
even more God’s will being done on earth (as it is in heaven)—and their blessing is that they will be given that and more.38

  Everything hinges on the meaning of the word “righteousness.” We can only sketch some basics; I will begin with the two basic options for the meaning of “righteousness.” The behavior view emphasizes the Jewish Torah context and sees in this word “conformity to God’s will as expressed in Torah and its interpretation,” or simply “covenant faithfulness.”39 The gift view emphasizes God’s grace and salvation and understands “righteousness” as one’s “right standing before God [on the basis of Christ’s meritorious life, death, and resurrection].” The English word “righteousness” complicates things because it is used to translate a word that can mean either “just” (righteous behavior) or “justification” (declared righteous).

  The Jewish context40 prior to Paul overwhelmingly suggests the term meant “covenant faithfulness” or “Torah observant.” But Paul took all of this to a new level because he was involved in a completely different context, the Gentile mission. Paul shifted the focus of the term toward gift, toward “declared righteous [justified].” But with Jesus things are still pre-Pauline, and we would do well to remind ourselves of that. Instances in Matthew that almost certainly cannot mean “declared righteous” are 5:10, 20, 45; 6:1; 10:41; 13:17, 43, 49; 21:32; 23:28, 29, 35; 25:37, 46; 27:19. What clinches the case is that 5:10, which is to be read in conjunction with 5:6, cannot mean anything other than behavior that conforms to God’s will. A profound example of the “covenant faithfulness” sense of this term is Joseph, Jesus’ “father,” in 1:19, who, because he was Torah observant/righteous, chose to divorce Mary because he wanted to remain observant.