Blessed are the Merciful…

 

…for they shall obtain mercy.

MHA: The merciful who are spoken of in the fifth Beatitude are those who possess the compassion and love that reflect divine love, who do not divide people into friends or enemies, evil or good, righteous or unrighteous. 

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

This Beatitude makes clear the turn toward the internal disposition of the Christian.  As shall be seen later in the Sermon, Jesus places a great emphasis on “being,” and not only on “doing”; one can consider the entire gospel in this manner.  Doing will come, but only after being – disposition – is understood and lived.

DMLJ: A Christian is something before he does anything; and we have to be Christian before we can act as Christians. … To be a Christian, I say, is to possess a certain character and therefore to be a certain type of person.

It is our attitude and character that identifies us as Christians, and this is necessary before the “doing” means anything.  We see this around us: individuals, avowedly not Christian, “do” many good things.  Due to a strong human will, they can, largely, control their actions.  But what is their disposition?  What is their attitude?  Have they walked through the previous Beatitudes to come to this point?

DMLJ: Going a step further, we can put it like this.  We are not meant to control our Christianity; our Christianity is meant to control us.

Works are only “good” if they come out of this Christian attitude.  It is the Spirit that controls me; because of this, I act. 

So, what is this mercy?  First, what it is not.  It doesn’t mean we are to be easygoing, to not see things, or if we see things, to act as if these do not matter.  This is to believe that there is such a thing as mercy while ignoring the law or pretending it does not exist or apply.  But there is law.

Metropolitan Alfeyev points to the references in the Old Testament of God’s mercy, often combined with His benevolence and lovingkindness.  However, he takes it somewhere that I am not comfortable to go, separating law and justice from mercy:

MHA: …the God of the Old Testament…

Metropolitan Alfeyev describes the Old Testament God as primarily a just judge, with God’s mercy tied to the person’s conduct.  The New Testament God demonstrates mercy independent of the human condition.  He makes a distinction of the behavior and actions of God in the Old Testament vs. the New Testament.

Metropolitan Alfeyev continues by citing Isaac the Syrian, who writes “mercy is opposed to justice.”  This is true enough, but mercy can only come into play if one considers that there is something that is just, the violation of which will call forth mercy.  In other words, the law.  There is no possibility of mercy without the law and without a just lawgiver and a just adjudicator.  The two go hand in hand, which is one reason I cannot separate the Old Testament God from the New Testament God.  Mercy and justice both exist throughout.

Lloyd-Jones explains this point:

DMLJ: …whatever I may decide as to the meaning of ‘merciful’ is also true of God … breaking the law is unthinkable when we are talking about God.

God is merciful; He is also righteous and just.  However we are to understand mercy, it must include these.  Mercy and truth have to come together; to think of mercy at the expense of considering truth and law is not true mercy.

God did show mercy, truth, and justice through the death and resurrection of Christ.  Mercy, truth, and justice were all on display.  And this, among other reasons, is what gives me great pause when reading Metropolitan Alfeyev’s words on this point.

Blessed are They Which do Hunger and Thirst After Righteousness…

 

…for they shall be filled.

DMLJ: In this verse we have one of the most notable statements of the Christian gospel and everything that it has to give us.  Let me describe it as the great charter for every seeking soul, the outstanding declaration of the Christian gospel…

MHA: Righteousness is the quality that, according to the Sermon on the Mount, is to be the distinguishing mark of Jesus’ disciples, who constitute the Church.

DMLJ: I do not know of a better test that anyone can apply to himself or herself in this whole matter of the Christian profession than a verse like this.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

Jesus speaks of righteousness five times in this Sermon.  He speaks of it in other gospel accounts as well, for example at the Last Supper in John’s account.  It is a key Biblical concept: in the Old Testament it referred primarily to following God’s commandments; to be righteous and just was a necessary condition for taking possession of the promised land.

What does it mean to hunger and thirst?  Metropolitan Alfeyev offers:

In the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Psalms, the image of thirst is used to describe a person’s strong and burning desire for God, to fulfill his law and commandments.

“My soul thirsteth for God…”; “My soul has thirsted for thee”; “…my soul thirsteth after thee.”

It is to be aware of a very deep need; in physical terms, as offered by Jesus, it is the most fundamental need we have in order to sustain life.  These are not passing feelings – hunger and thirst do not go away until they are satisfied.  In fact, these increase without intervention.  To increasingly hunger and thirst is to cause pain, even agony.  It puts us in the state of desperately wanting to resolve our condition.

Lloyd-Jones points out: we are to hunger and thirst after righteousness.  Jesus did not say we are to hunger and thirst for righteousness.  This would suggest that the righteousness is something we can strive for on our own.  No, we are to hunger and thirst after righteousness.  It is something outside of us, beyond our ability.

DMLJ: …whenever you put happiness before righteousness, you will be doomed to misery. …They alone are truly happy who are seeking to be righteous.

In other words, our highest purpose isn’t to search out happiness (blessedness) – even in the proper understand of Beatitudo: other-regarding action.  If we are after happiness as the highest value, we will fall short, always.  It is only by holding righteousness – to be Christ-like – as the highest value that we will find true happiness.

What does righteousness mean?  It is certainly something more than honoring contracts; it is more than general respectability or general morality.  In a concordance, one will find it sometimes will mean justification, but often it means even more than this – to include sanctification.  In other words, it is the desire to be free from sin in all its forms; it is a desire to be right with God.

DMLJ: The man who hungers and thirsts after righteousness is the man who sees that sin and rebellion have separated him from the face of God… Our first parents were made righteous in the presence of God.  They dwelt and walked with Him.  That is the relationship such a man desires.

Blessed are the Meek…

 

…for they shall inherit the earth.

“Meekness is an immovable state of soul which remains unaffected whether in evil report or in good report, in dishonour or in praise….it is a mark of extreme meekness, even in the presence of one’s offender, to be peacefully and lovingly disposed towards him in one’s heart.”

-          John Climacus, as quoted by Metropolitan Alfeyev

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

The world understands that the opposite of meek, as the world commonly understands the term, is necessary if one is to succeed: to “inherit the earth.” Strength, power, self-assurance, and aggressiveness.  These are the characteristics of those who will inherit – at least this is how the world sees it.

DMLJ: Once more, then, we are reminded at the very beginning that the Christian is altogether different from the world.  It is a difference in quality, an essential difference.  He is a new man, a new creation….

And if we are not “altogether different” and a “new creation,” this speaks to us and where we stand in our Christian faith, not to the teaching of Jesus.

MHA: Jesus’ commandments can seem difficult to fulfill, but fulfilling them brings peace to the soul, because doing so frees the soul from the burden of earthly cares.  The means of acquiring this inner peace is meekness and humility.

John Chrysostom paraphrases this as follows:

“…if thou duly perform His words, the burden will be light… But how are they duly performed?  If thou art become lowly, and meek, and gentle.”

I am reminded of a Jordan Peterson story: he would ask a student if he would like to play a game.  After an affirmative reply, Peterson would simply state: “You go first.”  No discussion of rules, objectives, etc.  No game board.  Nothing like that.  Of course, with this unlimited and absolute freedom, the student stood frozen, unable to do anything.

Fulfilling Jesus’s commandments frees us; doing this bring peace to our soul.  This gives us freedom to now play the game.

Lloyd-Jones reminds that Matthew was writing primarily to the Jews, and the Jews had a different idea of the kingdom: materialistic, military, with a Messiah that would lead them to victory (not much has changed in this regard).  Therefore Matthew, early in his gospel account, strives to disabuse the Jews of this notion.

DMLJ: Meekness is essentially a true view of oneself, expressing itself in attitude and conduct with respect to others. … It is my attitude towards myself; and it is an expression of that in my relationship to others.

Metropolitan Alfeyev examines the word “meek,” and how it is used in the Septuagint to translate a whole range of Hebrew words (and then offers these in English): whole, perfect, in both a physical and religious sense; humble, stooping; destitute, poor, needy, uncomplaining, submissive.  There is another Greek word also close in meaning that can be understood as calm or soft.

He also offers a few verses from Proverbs that contrast meekness with envy, wrath, or anger.  Some other Old Testament passages about meekness are interpreted in the New Testament as foreshadowings of Jesus Christ.  Christ, who is called or referred to as a lamb multiple times, offers a picture of meekness.

Blessed are They That Mourn…

 

…for they shall be comforted.

DMLJ: To ‘mourn’ is something that follows of necessity from being ‘poor in spirit.’  It is quite inevitable.  As I confront God and His holiness, and contemplate the life that I am meant to live, I see myself, my utter helplessness and hopelessness.

MHA: …in Matthew’s version mourning as an inner spiritual state is transformed into being comforted, which again is of a spiritual nature.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

It is ‘blessed,’ or ‘happy,’ to mourn.  Talk about a statement that marks off Christians as something far different than those who are not Christians, for whom this is an utterly ridiculous statement.  They say: We don’t mourn, we chase pleasure.  We do everything we can to not face our troubles.  This is the world that many inhabit today.

Instead, Jesus teaches that the only ones who are truly happy are the ones who mourn.  Here again, the idea is a spiritual one, not a physical one; it references a spiritual attitude.  A fundamental conviction must occur – one that comes with mourning.  This conviction must precede conversion (the term used by Lloyd-Jones); a real sense of sin must come before there can be the true joy of true salvation.  Instead, this defect regarding a true understanding of what sin is produces a superficial person and offers a wholly inadequate kind of Christian life.

DMLJ: They have failed to see that they must be convicted of sin before they can ever experience joy.  They do not like the doctrine of sin.  They dislike it intensely and they object to its being preached.  They want joy apart from the conviction of sin.

To be happy and blessed via true conversion, first one must mourn by seeing sin and its consequences for what these truly are.  We mourn because we see our sin.  The Christian knows this feeling of utter hopelessness: the good that I would do, I do not; the evil which I would not do, I do. 

MHA: The second Beatitude, like the first, has a rich history of interpretation.  In the Eastern Christian tradition, the interpretation that became established connected this Beatitude with the theme of repentant mourning, which must be the Christian’s lifelong labor.

There is nothing of glib joviality in the apostle Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus.  We are taught to be sober, grave, temperate; sober-minded.  The Christian examines what principles are in him that move him to act to sin.  By examining, he finds a war in his members; he hates this and mourns because of it.

MHA: Another type of mourning is found in tears of compunction.  …tears of repentance first arise out of a person’s consciousness of his own sinfulness; these tears are accompanied by bitterness of heart and contrition.

From Metropolitan Alfeyev, Isaac the Syrian teaches:

For a man comes from mourning into purity of soul. …All the saints strive to reach this entrance-way, because by means of tears the door is opened before them to enter the land of consolation.

Mourning is an attitude that Lloyd-Jones finds wholly lacking in the church of his time, and consider this was written over sixty years ago.  He is writing at a time when men are not at all attracted to the church, something that has only grown more problematic in the intervening years:

DMLJ: …men who are outside the Church always become attracted when the Church herself begins to function truly as the Christian Church, and as individual Christians approximate to the description here given in these Beatitudes.

I have heard the author Tom Holland offer, during the covid madness, that he didn’t want to hear from the Church of England the same public health mumbo-jumbo that came out of the NHS.  Instead, he wanted real meat – explain the mysteries, hold individuals accountable, teach the virtuous life.

DMLJ: But I also think that another explanation of this is the idea which has gained currency that if we as Christians are to attract those who are not Christian we must deliberately affect an appearance of brightness and joviality.

I saw a video of the worship team at Andy Stanley’s church opening with “Stairway to Heaven,” an even louder and more raucous version than the original, with band members that made Led Zeppelin look like the Osmond family.  Then again, Stanley attracts large crowds.  But does any of this indicate a life different and separate, as Jesus is teaching here?  To ask that question is to answer it.  Just because large crowds are attracted says nothing of what they are being attracted to.

Instead of joy and happiness arising from within, it is a manufactured “joy,” to use the term loosely.  It is really more of a glibness or joviality than true inner joy.  And whether by design or not, it is a superficial joy that hides or overcomes any sense of sin:

Blessed are the Poor in Spirit…

 

…for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

DMLJ: …if one feels anything in the presence of God save an utter poverty of spirit, it ultimately means that you have never faced Him.  That is the meaning of this Beatitude.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

Lloyd-Jones says this opening Beatitude is the key to all that follows – that there is a definite spiritual order to Jesus’s teaching; these are not just randomly sequences ideas.  There is no entry to the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God apart from this first Beatitude.  To be poor in spirit is the fundamental characteristic of the Christian.

To be poor in spirit, unlike the Beatitudes that follow, is an emptying – the rest that follow are manifestations of a filling.  We must first be emptied before we can be filled.  This opening Beatitude brings us face to face with a fundamental reality of the complete Sermon:

DMLJ: You see, it at once condemns every idea of the Sermon on the Mount which thinks of it in terms of something that you and I can do ourselves.

This idea, that it can be preached and then immediately put into practice is a dangerous one; in fact, it is an utter denial of the Sermon itself as the opening and fundamental proposition is that we must be poor in spirit.  The one poor in spirit is at a loss to “do” the Sermon on his own, but it takes one poor in spirit to be open to God for the teaching and ultimately the doing of the Sermon.

DMLJ: The Sermon on the Mount, in other words, comes to us and says ‘There is a mountain that you have to scale, the heights you have to climb; and the first thing you must realize, as you look at that mountain which you are told you must ascend is that you cannot do it, that you are utterly incapable in and of yourself, and that any attempt to do it on your own strength is proof positive that you have not understood it.’

It isn’t a program meant to be followed.  One must be emptied before one can be filled.  Both actions imply that there is one who empties and one who fills.

This, in contrast to how some understand this Beatitude, influenced by the wording from the parallel passage in Luke chapter 6: 20 Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.  There is no mention of “spirit.”  Metropolitan Alfeyev offers as explanation for this difference:

Scholars see this as a reflection of Luke’s interest in the theme of wealth and poverty, which occupies much more space in his Gospel than in the other Gospels. … If anything, one could say that each of them emphasized certain aspects of Jesus’ teaching to greater or lesser degrees.

Per Llyod-Jones, to assume that the teaching is a commendation of poverty is an incorrect assumption; in the context of the passage, he sees it as a call to not rely on riches – and this is a risk whether one is rich or poor in material wealth. 

So how might one understand Luke’s wording as opposed to Matthew’s?  When considering the overall ecclesiastical tradition, poor in spirit is to be understood as poor in some spiritual quality:

MHA: In the words of Macarius the Great, to be poor in spirit means to be “never thinking [oneself] to be anything, but holding [oneself] in a lowly and humble attitude as one knowing or having nothing, even though [one] does know and does have much.”

John Chrysostom says that it means to have a humble and contrite in mind.  So why not say “humble” instead of “poor in spirit”?  Because it means much more: it means to be awestruck, to tremble at the commands of God. 

The problem is, in English we don’t have another singular word to describe poor in spirit that works better than “humble” or “humility,” so I will lean on this occasionally throughout this post – as both authors do in their writing.

This is the teaching of the poverty of spirit.  It regards a man’s attitude toward himself.  As noted in an earlier post, the Sermon is the clearest indicator of the difference between the natural man and the Christian, demonstrating the line that divides those within the Kingdom from those without.  In a world that emphasizes self-reliance, self-confidence, self-expression, and implores you believe in yourself, nothing emphasizes this division more than “blessed are the poor in spirit…”

There is no human way, through self-confidence and the like, to bring in the kingdom.  No “Act of Parliament” will bring in the perfect society:

DMLJ: Everywhere we see displayed this tragic confidence in the power of education and knowledge as such to save men, to transform them and make them decent human beings.

It is humility that the Bible regards as the greatest virtue, and as demonstrated by the opening of the Sermon, it is the necessary first step in living the complete Christian life. 

The Beatitudes

 

DMLJ: Do we belong to this kingdom?  Are we ruled by Christ?  Is He our King and our Lord?  Are we manifesting these qualities in our daily lives?  Is it our ambition to do so?  Do we see that this is what we are meant to be?  Are we truly blessed?  Are we happy?  Have we been filled?  Have we got peace?

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

There you have it.  The Christian will answer yes to each of these.  Others, who may display one or more of the characteristics found in the Beatitudes, will answer no to one or more of these.  And this is how Lloyd-Jones makes the division – the Christian vs. the non-Christian.

Each author offers an overview of the Beatitudes, an introduction.  Before getting into the first “Blessed are,” each author presents how we might understand this first section of the sermon.  Once again, the whole – its meaning and purpose – must be understood before examining, or debating, the parts. 

MHA: Even within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes constitute a complete spiritual program; in them Jesus enumerates the qualities that his followers are called to possess.

The purpose first is to understand the Christian character, before we consider right conduct.  Focusing on the parts without understanding the purpose of the whole leads to heresy.

This idea of Lloyd-Jones has been one of the most helpful to me this early in the study.  How often do I consider one of the “Blessed are…” statements and say to myself – no way, that doesn’t make sense; no one can live like that?  Lloyd-Jones would say I am starting at the wrong place for understanding, and, in fact, any understanding based on this could lead to heresy.

DMLJ: The only man who is at all capable of carrying out the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount is the man who is perfectly clear in his mind with regard to the essential character of the Christian.

Character first, conduct later.  This is the point being driven home.  Lloyd-Jones describes the Beatitudes as a “delineation of the Christian man in his essential features and characteristics.” 

Metropolitan Alfeyev offers a listing of dozens of beatitudes to be found in the Psalms.  He notes that these texts were well-known not only to Jesus, but also to those to whom he was preaching the sermon.  This was not a coincidence – Jesus was using a formula familiar to the audience. 

There are further beatitudes found in the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Proverbs as well as the Wisdom of Sirach.  Metropolitan Alfeyev even points to a list from a recently discovered Qumran manuscript dating from right around the time of Christ.  However, while there are a few overlaps, there is an important difference:

MHA: The former beatitudes (Qumran) praise the wisdom that comes from following the law of Moses, while the latter (Gospel) have as their central theme the kingdom of heaven.  In the evangelical Beatitudes Jesus speaks of a reward for righteousness and sufferings on earth, while in the Qumran beatitudes this theme is absent.

There is no reversal in the Qumran: for example, the poor do not become rich.  So, while Metropolitan Alfeyev points to all of these non-Gospel examples for the purpose of clarifying that this method of teaching was well-known, he does conclude that what Jesus taught was unique at least when compared to what else was being taught during His time.

In this sermon, Jesus is telling us that this is the only kind of man who is truly blessed, who is happy.  Happiness – Beatitudo in Latin, Makarios in Greek.  Metropolitan Alfeyev offers that this happiness is beyond earthly happiness – there is a clearly expressed religious dimension. 

In my prior examinations of this word, I have come to understand it as meaning fulfillment through other-regarding action.  In other words, love.  The word “love,” however, is a rather empty basket – it can be and has been filled in many ways by many people.  Think of today’s “love is love.”

How Should We Then Live?

This blog began as a pretty hard-core thin-libertarian blog.  When I was a child and all that.  As I have grown into a man, I came to understand that moving toward liberty required much more than perfecting an abstract non-aggression principle.

As this understanding has evolved, more of my writing has focused on topics that are Christian.  I won’t belabor the reasons behind this in detail; those of you who have been around for awhile understand this evolution and the reasons behind it.  Let’s just say there is no liberty without this foundation.

I have mentioned a couple of times that I am spending and plan to spend some meaningful time on the Sermon on the Mount.  I didn’t think that I would be writing about my studies here, and still am not sure that I will after this post – I will have an “ask” at the end of this post regarding this.  My studies will involve the following two books:

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

So, why am I writing about it here?  I have read the introductions to each of these books – these are before getting to the first verse in Matthew chapter five.  There are some good points that are a little more in the ballpark of where this blog has led me, so I thought it made sense to at least dive in this far.

I selected these two books because I wanted an examination of this sermon from two different theological traditions.  The book by Lloyd-Jones was recommended to me by a couple of pastors who are strong on the exegetical, expository sermon path.  Metropolitan Alfeyev, the author of the second book, is a bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church.  So, the Catholics among us don’t feel left out, the first endorsement of this second book is from Pope Benedict XVI: “This is a work of great importance…”

Why study this sermon?  In hindsight, the question answers itself, yet I never really came to the answer until recently.  First, of course, it is the longest discourse of Jesus during His earthly ministry recorded; that’s reason enough.  Per Metropolitan Alfeyev:

No other Gospel contains such as extended and systematic exposition of Jesus’ spiritual and moral teaching.

But, second, it is the ultimate statement of how we should live – man’s purpose, or telos.  In other words, by properly identifying our purpose and holding this as the north star, we are then able to properly determine natural law ethics.  And living in accord with natural law moves us toward liberty and gives our lives meaning.

How do I differentiate quotes from two different books by two authors with very long names / titles?  Let’s go with DMLJ and MHA.

DMLJ: The Sermon on the Mount is nothing but a great and grand and perfect elaboration of what our Lord called His ‘new commandment.’  His new commandment was that we love one another even as He has loved us.  … It is a perfect picture of the life of the kingdom of God.

MHA: Its very position in this Gospel, and in the entire corpus of the four Gospels, compels one to see in it a sort of spiritual and moral program that is further uncovered on the pages of the New Testament.

Yet, I have read this sermon numerous times and never really dealt with it.  Lloyd-Jones deals with this:

It is possible for us to read the Bible in such a mechanical manner that we derive no benefit from doing so.

I certainly have experienced this.  I read a couple of chapters, content to get through this.  Then what?  Nothing.  I have taken away nothing but the feeling of having progressed through the Bible.  Or, perhaps worse, I take away the verses that support my preconceived notions, and ignore those that seem to get in the way.

DMLJ: There is a sense in which it is true to say that you can prove anything you like from the Bible.  That is how heresies have arisen.

 This is clear.  Certainly, many of the earliest heretics were sincere men, in search of truth.  But in Lloyd-Jones’ view, they may have come to the Word with preconceived ideas, then found support for these everywhere in Scripture. 

He sees this manifest especially in the area of law and grace.  Yes, we are under grace, but does this mean we have nothing to do with law?  No, he offers – we aren’t under the law in the sense of being condemned by it, but we are still meant to live it – and based on this sermon, go beyond it!

DMLJ: Christ kept the law; He lived the law….

We (at least many Protestants) have so overemphasized grace that we neglect Christ’s teaching of not only living to the law, but exceeding it.  And the best way to face this question, as Lloyd-Jones sees it, is to squarely face the Sermon on the Mount.

DMLJ: what does the Sermon on the Mount mean to us?  Where does it come in our lives and what is its place in our thinking and outlook?

I will stand first in line in having failed to stare these questions right in the face.  Perhaps because to live as such seems impossible.  Well, it kind of is: