Key Takeaways
In the New Testament , the Beatitudes is the name for the hatchway poetry of the " Sermon on the Mount , " considered to be the heart of Jesus ' teachings . Jesus began each Beatitude with the words " Blessed are … " which in Latin is writtenbeati sunt . That ’s why we call them theBeatitudes , because they ’re a lean ofbeati .
For closely 2,000 year , theologian , scholars and everyday Christians have worm with these " self-contradictory " thanksgiving , says Rebekah Eklund , a theology prof at Loyola University of Maryland and writer of " The Beatitudes Through the Ages . "
The Beatitudes are paradoxical , and even " countercultural , " says Eklund , because they go against the standard " wins " of worldly culture . Jesus blesses the inadequate and hungry , not the rich and comfortable . He hallow the meek and maltreat , not the strong and democratic .
But if the Beatitudes are precept , as many Christians have interpreted them , then how are we supposed to survey them ? Does God really want us to be hapless and thirsty ? Is it a sinfulness to be racy ? Or do the Beatitudes serve a different function ? Let ’s start up by withdraw a closer aspect at the two different version of the Beatitudes and where they came from .
The 8 Beatitudes, According to Matthew
There are two versions of the Beatitudes : one inMatthew 5and another inLuke 6 . Matthew ’s version is longer and better known than Luke ’s ( and there aresome significant differencesthat we ’ll discuss in a minute ) . Here ’s the full text of the eight Beatitudes from Matthew :
The ‘Q’ Question
The four gospels — the New Testament books of Matthew , Mark , Luke and John — each tell the story of Jesus in a slightly different way . Mark and John do n’t even mention the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount , but Matthew and Luke do . And there ’s a possibility for why Matthew and Luke cite their own discrete versions of the Beatitudes .
" The standard scholarly explanation is that there ’s some original version of the Beatitudes that Jesus speak , and the authors of Luke and Matthew made their own modifications to that original text edition , " says Eklund .
In biblical subject area rotary , that mysterious original school text is called " Q , " which is myopic forquelle , the German word for " source . " No one has unearthed an genuine transcript of Q , but it ’s a ready to hand way for explaining why Matthew and Luke apportion several key Bible passages like the Beatitudes , while the other gospels do n’t .
‘Blessed Are the Poor’ vs. ‘Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit’
But if the authors of Matthew and Luke were both cite the same original text , then why are their two versions of the Beatitudes so unlike ?
Ian Paul at the blog Psephizo providesa good breakdown of all the differencesbetween Matthew 5 and Luke 6 , include the fact that there are only four Beatitudes in Luke while there are eight in Matthew . ( Some say nine but in world-wide , scholar count the last two"blesseds " as one beatitude ) . But the burry differences for Christians and other Bible readers is the language that Jesus use to distinguish the people he blesses .
In Luke , in the first beatitude , Jesus blesses the " wretched " and explicitly casts " woefulness " upon the copious . But in Matthew , Jesus blesses the " poor in emotional state " and makes no mention of the ample . " short in spirit " is generally understood as meaning " humble , " say Eklund , and blessing people for their humility strikes a very different honourable chord than blessing mass for being poor ( or at least not being rich ) . This spirit is dissimilar from the Holy Spirit , which Christians believe is the third person of the trinity ( along with God and Jesus Christ . ) In other words , self - righteousness wo n’t help . Only the ghostly beggars inherit the kingdom of God .
The same contradiction in terms holds for the Bible verses about hunger . In Luke , Jesus blesses those " who hunger now , for you will be satisfied " and say " woe to you who are well fed now , for you will go athirst . " Again , it sounds like the authors of Luke have Jesus lecture about strong-arm hunger .
But in Matthew , Jesus blesses " those who hunger and thirst for righteousness , for they will be filled . " hunger for righteousness is not the same as hungering for boodle , so which one is correct ?
" Most modern scholars think that Luke is closelipped to the original text , " aver Eklund , " and that Matthew has take up [ those ' earthly ' blessing in Luke ] and spiritualized them . "
That would explicate why there are so many more blessings in Matthew , if Matthew ’s author were indeed expand and " spiritualise " the substance for their interview . But Eklund also think that the remainder between the two versions nurture some really interesting questions .
" Can the deep really be baseborn , in a sense ? Do material ' lack ' and ghostly need go together ? Can I really experience ' poorness of life ' if I ’m materially affluent ? " inquire Eklund . " There have been a lot of bang-up conversations and meditations over the centuries about how to understand that Beatitude . "
What Does It Really Mean to Be ‘Meek’?
The third Beatitude , the blessing on the " meek " is easy the most contradictory . That ’s because in English , call somebody " meek " is not a compliment . Meek imply passive , slavish , timid , even weak . Does Jesus want his follower to be cinch ? Not likely , order Eklund .
The New Testament was originally drop a line in Greek and wasfirst translated and printed in Englishin the sixteenth century . In those early translation , the Greek wordprauswas translate as " meek , " but Eklund and other scholars mean that " soft " is a good translation and is near to the way that ancient writers would have used it .
" In Hellenic philosophic thought , prausis the virtue of knowing how to use ira well , " says Eklund . " Aristotle describedprausas know how to be tempestuous for the right length of clock time , in the right amount and for the right-hand reason . "
So when Jesus enjoin " blessed are the meek , " he ’s believably talking about people who can rein in a powerful emotion and be gentle , not shy or watery . Jesus himself is described asprausinMatthew 11andMatthew 21 , and in those case the word is translated as " gentle " and " humble , " not meek .
Commandments, Descriptions or ‘Invitations’?
While search her book , Eklund launch that there are two main ways the Beatitudes have been interpret through the ages : as precept or as descriptions . The commandment slant is easy enough to infer — if Jesus says that being merciful is a " blessed " thing , then I should reach to become more merciful so I can , in turn , obtain mercifulness , right ?
The idea of the Beatitudes as a " verbal description " also makes sense , especially in the circumstance of Luke ’s reading . In Luke , Jesus spends a tidy sum of time didactics and dish up the pitiful and outcast , who may have been powerless to change their condition .
" In that sense , the Beatitudes are n’t commandments — you ’re hypothesize tobecomepoor and athirst for be blessed , but if youarethose things , God is on your side , " says Eklund . " God promises special forethought and concern for you . "
For her part , Eklund choose a third interpreting of the Beatitudes — as an " invitation " to fall out Jesus ' object lesson and live as he lived .
" In the gospel of Matthew , in particular , Jesus shows in narrative bod what all of the Beatitudes count like , " says Eklund . " He mourn , he weeps over the city of Jerusalem , he ’s persecuted , he show mercy , he shows gentleness . He embodies all of these quality . "
For Christians , the Beatitudes can be a powerful invitation — albeit a paradoxical and challenging one — to be true disciples or follower of Jesus . What that look like for each person is loose for interpretation .
