Blessed Are …

People have felt the weight of these sayings by Jesus for thousands of years. They seem of immense importance. Yet there are many different views of their meaning and how they apply to us.

The first thing we can notice about them is that they are in the “indicative” mood. They are descriptions — of something. They aren’t commandments — or questions.

They are descriptions, but of what?

At the time I became a Christian, the notion that there had to be some alternative to the way the world was loomed large in my thinking. I had a number of discussions with my best friend in High School about how to solve the world’s problems. I would put up ideas with all the earnestness — and ignorance — of young idealism, and he would knock them down. The common thread in his refutations was often the statement, “That’s not realistic.” The world is not like that.

I came to loathe the notion that the world was in the iron grip of what I called “assumptions.” Life had to be a certain way — why? Because that is just the way it is. People live as slaves to these assumptions and never examine them.

Of course my ignorance was immense, my thinking shallow. Yet in the midst of war taken for granted, of life as a sequence of inexorable choices leading to slavery to roles and to rules, the question itself — is there an alternative — was profound.

When I encountered Jesus it hit me. Here was a true alternative.

How could one see that Jesus presented a true alternative? Precisely because his way was unrealistic.

The notion that any solution to the world’s ills must be “realistic” simply meant that it could not be truly radical. For example, “the revolution” sought to do away with inequality and injustice. But the only realistic way it found to do that was to take up the means of violence. And of course the awful truth about violence is that it would always foster inequality and injustice. In every case where revolution was tried, some won and some lost. And those who lost lost big. And the new regime was always characterized by inequality and injustice. The band “The Who” even came out with a song called “Won’t Get Fooled Again” in 1971. It had the following chorus:

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

and it ends with the following cynical observation:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

What was different about Jesus? He had the unrealistic idea that one could lay down the means of violence. He taught love for enemies and not resisting the evil person (see Matthew 5:38-48).

Totally unrealistic! One constantly hears, by contrast, the refrain, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I’m sure this is in the Bible somewhere (given that it does not seem to appear in the works of Edmund Burke, to whom it is often attributed). The idea of actually loving and praying for one’s enemies instead of fighting back simply means that one will be destroyed.

But this is exactly why Jesus is the only one who could say it! Because when his enemies destroyed him — seemingly — he showed that there was a victory beyond death that invalidated all the world’s assumptions and values.

What role do the Beatitudes play in this teaching of a true alternative? My view is that they present the values of God. Luke, in 16:15, says that “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” This shows that human values are simply incompatible with God’s values. And the Beatitudes gives a snapshot of some of God’s values in their radical impracticality.

The word “beatitude” comes from the Latin word for “blessing.” The Greek word is “makarios”. This word is a “rich” word — one with many connotations and denotations. It is an important word in both Hebrew and Greek thought. In both cases it represents connection with the divine, though the character of that connection varies with the respective views of the divine. The Greeks found the concept of blessedness to be ambiguous and problematic. The gods were blessed but humans were at best fortunate — and fortune could change. The Hebrews on the other hand saw blessedness as the outcome of one’s relationship with God and guaranteed by God’s faithfulness.

So both Greeks and Hebrews thought that true blessedness took a person beyond the changeability of circumstance. Both saw blessedness as a participation in the eternal, free from the corruption and changeability of this life. While for the Greeks this blessedness was unattainable in this life, for the Hebrews one could be blessed through the Covenant.

We note in passing that when Jesus tells us to put our treasures in heaven rather than on earth, he reflects this notion of blessedness — set your heart on things that cannot be corrupted.

Update I updated this section in response to a question that someone asked.

The Beatitudes proper are found in Matthew 5:3-10. (While v. 11 begins with the word “blessed,” it is a segue that takes us into a new part of the teaching.) We notice that v. 3 and v. 10 both have the same blessing: “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This “bookend” structure emphasizes the unity of this passage.

Each “blessing” has the same form:

“blessed are the”
some descriptive characteristic of those who are blessed
“for”
something that ensures the blessing.

This simple, memorable format makes the paradoxical and radical nature of Jesus’ teaching stand out.

We notice that each beatitude begins with a statement in the present tense: “Blessed are …”. Each one proclaims present blessedness. But there is an interesting change in the tenses of the second part of each beatitude as we go along.

The first beatitude says,

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

All the verbs are in the present tense. The poor in spirit are blessed now because they have present entree into the kingdom of heaven.

The second beatitude, though, switches the tense of the second part:

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Again the first verb is in the present tense — those who mourn are blessed. The “reason” for this blessedness, though, is in the future. How does this work?

Mourning springs from relational loss. But we allow ourselves to suffer relational loss because we enter into relationships in the first place. C. S. Lewis says the following:

To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will
be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it
intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it
carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all
entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your
selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it
will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable,
impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.

--C. S. Lewis, THE FOUR LOVES

As Lewis implies, the way to avoid mourning is to avoid love. But the source of all joy in life is relational. In other words, our mourning is blessed because we have taken the risk of loving. And we are able to take that risk because we know that God is going to arrange for our comfort.

The rest of the beatitudes have this present/future duality — until we get to the last one, which again has two present-tense verbs. The logic of blessedness is similar to that which I’ve outlined above; the details will become apparent in further postings.

The question of what the Beatitudes mean and how they apply to us remains somewhat controversial even in this day. One view is that they are commandments telling us how to be. In particular we should be “poor in spirit” and the rest more or less follow from that.

I believe taking the Beatitudes as commandments misses the point somewhat. While they certainly embody things that God values, that does not mean we are to pursue them as goals. The idea, for example, that we should pursue mourning seems wrong. Rather, the idea seems to be that humans value things such as success, happiness, power and so on. But the lack of these things, from God’s point of view, does not represent tragedy, but rather puts you in the position to experience God’s favor.

Some have argued that the Beatitudes — and the Sermon on the Mount as a whole — represent a “kingdom teaching” that is not yet applicable, but will become fully actualized with the arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth. This seems strongly contradicted by Jesus’ own statement in Matthew 7:24-27.

In my view, the Beatitudes are God’s take on how life should be viewed. Instead of seeing mourning, for example, as a tragedy to be avoided, we should see it as the risk we take in loving, knowing that even our relational failures will connect us with comfort. Instead of seeing the focus of a pure heart as a privation, we should see it as the way to ultimate experience. And so on.

Life, then, should be lived in line with God’s values because that opens the door to God’s blessing.

In the next days I will explicate each Beatitude and show how this works.