But It Isn’t Greek
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3 NASB
Blessed are – Perhaps you’ve read my book, The Lucky Life. If you haven’t, I forgive you. But you should. Because you will discover that Yeshua didn’t teach these lessons in Greek. Yes, of course, they have been transmitted to us in Greek, but the Greek text is a translation of what he really said in Hebrew. So if we want to know what he really said, we have to backwards translate the Beatitudes. And this first thing we discover is that none of the Beatitudes begin with “Blessed.” That word is the result of Latin influence and the agenda of the Roman Church. Even in Greek the first word cannot mean “Blessed.” It means lucky or fortunate or happy. So Matthew’s version of the “Beatitudes” should really be called The Lucky Citizens or The Happy-tudes. But no theologian wants to link the core teaching of the Messiah with luck, so the Latin sticks, even though it is totally wrong.
Since Yeshua spoke these cryptic statements in Hebrew, we need to know what Hebrew words he used. For the opening salvo, he most likely used ashrei. That means we need to know what ashrei means in the Hebrew context. This is pretty easy to do since the word is used many times in the Psalms. What is discovered is quite amazing.
“The word ashrei, ‘happy,’ derives from a root meaning ‘going straight,’ ‘setting right,’ ‘on sure footing.’ This happiness is well grounded, stable; it is the experience of one who speaks ken—which also refers to stability. Speaking in a way that coincides with God’s version of things generates true happiness. Both words, ken and ashrei, come together in Psalms 40:3, where the Psalmist praises God for stabilizing him in this way: ‘He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay, and set my feet on a rock, steadied my legs. He put a new song into my mouth . . .’ ‘He steadied my legs’—Konen ashurai—the two words are set on their firm common ground. Rashi[1]evokes the emotional satisfaction of one who has found this ground of accord with the divine. Redemption now means finding a new song in one’s mouth.”[2]
“The aim of such an existence is ‘not a state of being, but a moment of change.’”[3]
“‘Happy [ashrei] is the person with whose words God agrees!’ Here, too, Ashrei! acts as a performative—‘The happiness of it!’ It creates a confrontation of old and new values. And it brings onto the scene the voice of the speaker who creates this new perspective. . . In a sense, then, to say Ashrei! about a happy use of words is to wish happiness for oneself as well as the other. To find one’s voice is to transform both speaker and other, to open up a register of tenderness, intimacy, and tranquil communication.”[4]
“The peculiar strength of the ashrei usage in that in most cases the speaker speaks against the grain, in defiance of the commonsense view of stability.”[5]
“To speak in this transformative way is always to risk failure: this is the precarious reach of the Ashrei! language. . . . Ashrei! enjoys itself, while knowing that it may fail persuade.”[6]
Now read Matthew 5:3 as a Hebrew text. Yeshua isn’t telling you how to get a piece of the kingdom. He’s describing the happy (lucky) circumstances of those who are poor in spirit. He’s wishing them happiness. He’s breaking the conventional assumptions about their condition. He’s transforming who they are with his words. He’s validating their emotional distress. And he’s taking the risk of demonstrating that God needs them for the kingdom to arrive.
Topical Index: ashrei, happy, lucky, Matthew 5:3
[1]Shlomo Yitzchaki, today generally known by the acronym Rashi, was a medieval French rabbi and author of a comprehensive commentary on the Talmud and commentary on the Tanakh
[2]Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, Bewilderments: Reflections on the Book of Numbers, p. 270.
[3]Ibid., p. 273 citing Stanley Cavell, In Quest of the Ordinary (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 109.
I have an urgent request to ask of Skip’s prayer warriors. My grandson and I will fly from Israel in a few hours to reach the bedside of my daughter, his mother, She has just returned from a cancer clinic and her pain has her now awaiting the call of Avinu Malkenu. Would you pray with me that Adonai’s Presence fill her with His Shalom. Thank you.
Prayer, is the most important aspect of any Spirit-filled bible-believing group
Joining you in prayer.
My prayers are with her and you who love her.
Patricia…praying for HaShem’s perfect peace and understanding for all three of you. May your travels be smooth and the time you and your grandson spend with your daughter very special. I’m also praying that God would send relief from the pain. How special that you could fly from Israel to be at her bedside in her final stages.
Have prayed for you, my prayer brought to mind the body of Yeshua. When one part of the body hurts, we all hurt. Our hearts and our thoughts are with you all at this time.
So sad to hear. What kind of treatment is she receiving?
Father , may you be where you want them to be …amen
“Lucky” somehow seems to understate the
miraculous transformative results of God’s
intervention in any of our lives.
And I agree about Psalm 40. Verses 1-5 so
wonderfully describe the loving actions of God
to reach us, touch us, and completely change us
by His love.
My personal reaction to my encounter with Him
was being completely spellbound at first, and then
purely overjoyed. It still stuns me to this day that He
was “pleased to reveal His Son in me . . .”
Lucky? Perhaps, but for me it was, and continues to be
overwhelming!
THIS COMMENT IS FROM LAURITA
After reading Skip for a few years, I think I might be beginning to realize something (well, a few things) about the Western (Greek) way of thinking. It has been very helpful to be able to stand off a little and watch how I started out thinking. (I am grateful!) Especially when it comes to how we in the West seem to think about how God thinks. It seems we tend to focus on Him as someone Who arbitrarily ‘makes’ rules for the purposes of ‘testing’ loyalty (or disloyalty) and ‘rewarding’ (or punishing) accordingly. This thought permeates how we approach subjects like our relationship with this arbitrary power (unquestioning acquiesance to that power no matter what we happen to think about the rules) as well as how we feel about that power (either dominated and overwhelmed – for the ‘obedient’, anyway – or jealous of and rebellious against – for the disobedient). It’s all about power – the establishment of; the demonstration of; as well as the exercise of in either rewarding (“blessing”?) the blind faithful or punishing all the rest of those who dare to try to keep some power for themselves with strange stuff like disaster, withholding of favor or refusing to ‘hear’ their pleas or – the strangest of all – the angry eternal torment of the pagan (very Greek) hell.
From beginning to end, the way I see it, it’s all about who has the power. Those Greeks may have been talking about the ideal forms of the Beautiful and the Good, but when it comes down to the ultimate exercise of the ultimate Ideal Form of those ideals (“God”) it automatically morphs somehow into a power struggle with neither beauty or goodness anywhere in sight. The way I see it, there is nothing either beautiful or good about the raw exercise of power, y’all. On this strange frontier between the ideal of goodness and the exercise of power we can find all the political power grabbing; all the proclamations and use of force; all the persecution and coercion of people acting out what they believe they are the image of. It’s time to start over!
I used to wonder and wonder again about what the word “blessing” meant in the Beatitudes. When I read The Lucky Life it dawned on me that the word was being used as some sort of ‘reward’ system for folks who were ‘passing’ some sort of loyalty test: very Greek! Time to start over!
If God’s kingdom is run entirely without force, however, then rewards and punishments go out the window, including the ‘reward’ of “blessing”. “Blessing” cannot mean an arbitrary “atta boy”: it has to be an innate, built-in consequence of certain actions. The actions themselves trigger the “blessing”. Somehow, the actions themselves are their own reward. “Poor in spirit”, then, releases its own reason: its own PLEASURE: for in a reality with no force, pleasure is the only reward (goal) possible. Love is all about the Other: other-centeredness. God loves OTHERS. He seeks the pleasure of others, for then love is pleased. His pleasure is achieved in the pleasure of the others He created.
I now think of the Beatitudes as the ways – how – we go about seeking the good of others (as creatures made in the image of a God Who seeks the pleasure of others) in a broken and twisted world. From “poor in spirit” to “when men shall persecute you”; I think the pain that all the actions of the Beatitudes represent is the pain of repairing those breaks and straightening out those twists; either in ourselves or others. The pleasure of the resulting straightness is inherent – is built in – in a world where pleasure is all about making the “straight paths” necessary for getting up to the full speed pleasure wants most to run at. Our return to right-relatedness with others (which is the result of the exercise of all that the Beatitudes represent) is FUN, y’all! No ‘reward’ necessary!
Laurita,
I do not know you, but after reading your comments, 4 times, I felt the need to make a few comments.
Our Father and Creator indeed has awesome power, but that in no way leaves us powerless. In fact even as He was finished with creation on the 6th day, he expects us to pick and continue his creation on the 8th day… till the next sabbath and on from there. Adam had a job to manage and grow the creation that his Father started. We are called to live lives that add to and help restore this broken world.If you do that you will be blessed, just don’t expect to win the lottery.
The entire old testament shows us how we are to live. We see people who like us have faults and struggles, yet the Father uses them to accomplish his purposes. If he can use Rahab, a prostitute, as an ancestor in the line of David and our Messiah Yeshua, he can use us all.
Walking in His will doesn’t guaranty good fortune in this life. bad things happen to good people. What he tells us is that many of our rewards are stored for us in heaven. Also walking in our own will doesn’t guaranty failure. Look around and you can see that.
Take a look at Ruth and Naomi. A story of going your own way, struggles, and the eventual expression of hesed to Naomi through Ruth and Boaz.
Your Brother,
Daniel
Skip, I’m sure you have covered this before, but I’ll ask the question anyway. You have stated that Yeshua spoke in Hebrew and not Aramaic or Greek. Most believers I know seem convinced that Aramaic was the common language used by the Hebrew people in the 1st century. Can you please direct me to a TW or other source that refutes this claim?
Daniel Perkins
PS. I own your book but have not read it yet. I will correct that now.
dp
There’s actually quite of bit on information on this on the web. Look for material by David Biven and Roy Blizzard, et.al. The typical “Aramaic” idea found its home with seminaries, the assumption being that the people of Israel returned after the Babylonian captivity and brought the language with them, which is true but the assumption is that there was NO ONE LEFT in the Land after the Babylonians. That isn’t true. The Babylonians took only those who mattered. So those left in the Land continued to speak Hebrew. And we know (see above) that rabbinic teaching was in Hebrew, plus nearly 90% of the archeological material is in Hebrew. So Israel in the first century was a land of Hebrew – and Aramaic (which Yeshua also spoke) and Greek and Latin. Google the issue and see what you find. Plus check out Bob Gorelik’s material on his web site.
Thanks!
FWIW, in BDAG, one definition of μακάριος, makarios reads: of humans privileged recipient of divine favor. Included here is a reference to its use by Josephus and Matthew 5:3ff:
Here’s the passage in Josephus (transl. William Whiston): “He also sent to the Israelites, and exhorted them to leave off their present way of living, and to return to their ancient practices, and to worship God, for that he gave them leave to come to Jerusalem, and to celebrate, all in one body, the feast of unleavened bread; and this he said was by way of invitation only, and to be one of their own good will, and for their own advantage, and not out of obedience to him, because it would make them happy (makarios).”
Back to BDAG (bold added):
In the Maximus Tyrus quote above, the author dichotomizes the first part with the latter:
μακάριος εὐσεβὴς φίλος θεοῦ, δυστυχὴς δὲ ὁ δεισιδαίμων
makarios eusebēs philos theou, dystychēs de ho deisidaimōn
blessed/happy [is] the devout friend of God, but unlucky/unfortunate the superstitious (the one who fears God in a bad way)
Note how makarios is juxtaposed with dystychēs. A synonym for this latter word is atychēs (cognates used 3 times in LXX, never in NT), and the antonym of both is tychēs, lucky, fortunate. The LXX uses tychē, luck twice (Gen 30:11; Is 65:11), while the NT uses it only once (Luke 10:31). Makarios and its cognates are used many times in both LXX and NT, and makarios does not have a direct antonym (negating with “a”). Apparently, the Scriptures are careful not to import the pagan idea of ‘fortunate’ of ‘lucky’ by using the specific Greek words for it.
In the “Beatitudes”, the first portion of each is verbless, while the latter contains future verbs (except 5:3), e.g. 5:4:
μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται
blessed[/happy] those mourning, for they will be comforted/exhorted.
I contend that the blessing is to be understood as occurring in the future, the eschaton. This is borne out in the conclusion of this section (Matt 5:11-12):
I’m not saying God is not with those currently being insulted, persecuted, etc. or that these people do not feel God’s peace at the time necessarily, but the passage above clearly talks of future rewards. Yes the Kingdom of Heaven began at the time of Jesus (Matt 5:4 = inaugurated eschatology), but its consummation is yet future.
The bottom line is that I’m happy using “blessed” as a translation. And, contrary to Whiston’s translation of Josephus, I think the following is better:
μακαρίους γὰρ ἔσεσθαι
makarious gar esesthai
Blessed for they will be
because they would be blessed
The verb above is a future middle infinitive of “be”. In the middle voice the subject (they) performs an action of which it receives something in return. Sure, we could use “happy” here, but to my way of thinking, considering to the Deuteronomic cycle of obedience/disobedience and the attendant consequences, once the nation of Israel returned to obedience, God’s blessing returned, during times of disobedience God’s blessing was removed. They were certainly ‘happier’ during the former, but this was contingent upon obedience, this obedience being rewarded with God’s blessing.