quote:

---

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3

---

Specifically, whom would the people hearing the Beatitudes think Jesus was talking about?

(Sorry, to post and run, but I'm off to church and then out of town this afternoon. I've been wondering about this and keep meaning to post, but I've kept forgetting. )
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
It's interesting that the parallel passage in Luke has just "blessed are the poor," which makes more sense.

If it were a text written in English originally, my first thought would be that the meaning is the same in both, and that the "in spirit" in Matthew is meant to modify "blessed" rather than "poor" -- i.e. that what it really means is, "Those who are poor will be spiritually blessed, because theirs in the kingdom of heaven." This makes much more sense to me, but I have no idea whether it fits with the Greek in Matthew.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
One of the meanings of πτωχοι, the Greek word which is usually translated as 'poor', is 'beggar'. They know that they are spiritually needy, and they are willing to beg.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
If the Matthew text does mean "spiritually poor" rather than literally, economically poor, it would be in keeping with the general trend of Matthew's Beatitudes to spiritualize, because I think he also turns Luke's "hunger and thirst" into "hunger and thirst after righteousness," which again, is quite a different thing.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
If it were a text written in English originally, my first thought would be that the meaning is the same in both, and that the "in spirit" in Matthew is meant to modify "blessed" rather than "poor" -- i.e. that what it really means is, "Those who are poor will be spiritually blessed, because theirs in the kingdom of heaven." This makes much more sense to me, but I have no idea whether it fits with the Greek in Matthew.

---

But none of the other Matthean Beatitudes add a descriptive bit like that to "blessed". It's not "Blessed in spirit are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness", for example. So I don't think tacking "in spirit" onto "blessed" is the obvious first move, and I don't think it's the obvious interpretation even in case the Greek is ambiguous.
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
True. I guess I was thinking of it from the perspective (which makes sense to me as it's the first one) of Jesus saying, "Look at the poor. We consider them not to be blessed by God because they don't have wealth, but they are spiritually blessed. The following people are also blessed ..."

But, I admit, it's not the likeliest reading, just a way of trying to harmonize Matthew and Luke. If Jesus really meant "poor in spirit" then I'm not sure what He meant either.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I wouldn't try to harmonize Matthew and Luke here.

I wonder if perhaps this Beatitude has more shock value for us these days than the others. We're used to thinking that God cares about and is going to reward the poor, the hungry, the grieving and so on. But the poor in spirit? Those faithless, feckless wretches who feel no relationship with God and can't be bothered to try praying to establish such a relationship? Who positively hate praying? They're going to see the Kingdom of Heaven? And in some way ahead of the rich in spirit, and not just as second-best condescendingly let in because wink, wink, nudge, nudge, "God believes in you even if you don't believe in God", but because God cares about them enough to specifically comfort them with a Beatitude, as much as he cares about the hungry and the poor and the grieving? Them?

This may be a modern overlay, that "rich in spirit" means "has a relationship with God" (loathsome phrase). But we may find that the first century meaning (whatever it is) also gives it shock value.

Unless we think that Matthew in deliberately spiritualizing Luke's Beatitudes was also trying to reduce the shock value. Then I might chalk it up to Matthew leaving a shocker in anyway, even if he didn't mean to.

[ETA: or it may be as Moo suggests as a possible meaning "They know that they are spiritually needy, and they are willing to beg." In which case I'm much less enamored of this Beatitude, because it still only gives the kingdom of heaven to those who feel enough heard by God to beg. What happens when all your begging turns out useless, and you give up begging because God gives no recognizable answer? I guess no kingdom of heaven for you...]

[ 23. June 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I agree trying to harmonise Matthew and Luke is fraught with difficulty. However, reading the two texts on their own terms and reading them together appears to be a very good thing.

The first big difference, other than the "in spirit" addition in Matthew is that Luke includes a converse set of statements. "Blessed are the poor ... woe to the rich", "Blessed are the hungry ... woe to you who are well fed". To me, that makes Lukes version even harder. Without the converse, we could read it as the poor will receive extra blessing in compensation for their harder life here and now ... but, the opposite of blessings for the rich? For me (counting myself among the rich)? It is easier for a rich man to enter the Kingdom than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. That challenges.

Another point is that I wouldn't separate the beatitudes into individual phrases. I would take them as a whole. The poor, the hungry, the sorrowful, the persecuted are all blessed. Also, look at the blessings. Take them together, and they are what are promised to all (if not now, then when the Kingdom comes in its fullness). These are characteristics we should share - we should be poor, hungry, sorrowful etc.

An interpretation that I find interesting is that it should be read "blessed are you who become poor". When we use our wealth for the benefit of others, rather than hold it for ourselves, then we are blessed. When we weep with those who mourn, share our food with those in need, then we are blessed.

Though, that doesn't answer the question of what it means to be poor in spirit.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
web page]"Poor in spirit" is also called "humble in spirit" in Mishnah Avot 4:4-10’
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Thanks for the thoughts. I checked the thread last night and heard crickets chirping. Uh oh!

As a modern person with my own issues I have tended to think of "poor in spirit" as depressed, brought low by life, but I was pretty sure that this wasn't a first century kind of situation. Survival was motivation enough to get going in the morning. So I am interested in reading some of the alternatives.

The translation of "poor" as "beggar" gives an interesting spin on the verse. It reminds me of the Prodigal Son, or of an addict who has hit rock bottom, people who have gone so far down that even being the lowliest in the Kingdom is a step up. Any mercy feels incredible. I visited a church that serves many people in recovery. The pastor, who also was a musician, wrote and performed a song that said even when we have misfortune we are blessed, that we are thankful for that blessing of life and belonging to God's Kingdom.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I asked this question of a Catholic Priest in 1973 and he said it was sad or depressed people.

I don't find it too hard to think people of that time could be depressed. I can imagine them subject to disappointments and feeling that each day was the same boring drudgery, just as we are. Imagine all the people who were in chronic pain with no medications to relieve them, or the huge number of parents who had lost children to disease. Life was probably one long feeling of inferiority for barren women or men who weren't well respected by the others.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Sorry. Just looked at Leo's link.

If it's "humble" in spirit, then what would "spirit," have to mean there? Some sort of bragging, loud School Spirit, (which we all know smells?)

The one I have most trouble with is the "pure in heart." Is that someone who has never had a mean, jealous or lustful thought?
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
The one I have most trouble with is the "pure in heart." Is that someone who has never had a mean, jealous or lustful thought?

---

I think I have heard somewhere* that 'pure in heart' means faithful to God.


*How's that for a definitive statement?

Moo
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
That's as good as my "a priest I knew." I'm grateful for all suggestions in trying to make sense of this book.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Me, too.
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
If it's "humble" in spirit, then what would "spirit," have to mean there?

---

• who are the poor in money?
• who are the poor in land?
• who are the poor in social position?

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
If it's "humble" in spirit, then what would "spirit," have to mean there?

---

I would guess that the reference to "spirit" means it's about attitude rather than about circumstances or situation. A "humble spirit" sounds to me like an attitude that claims no merit for living the way God wants us to. The opposite would be someone who takes great personal pride in their virtues.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0