God’s Welfare Package

Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor,  for yours is the kingdom of God.”  Luke 6:20 NIV

Poor – Don’t read it in Matthew—yet.  Matthew doesn’t report Yeshua’s statement quite the same way, and for good reason, as we will see.  No, read it in Luke.  It’s much more comforting.  All you have to do is be poor and God will give you a part of the Kingdom, right?  Sounds great.  Move over St. Francis.  I want my share too.

But, of course, this isn’t what Yeshua means, even if Luke’s Greek seems to say so.  If you’ve read my book The Lucky Life you know that the conjunction, hŏti, translated as “for” in “for yours” must be wrong.  hŏti is typically translated as “that” or “because.”  Other possibilities are “as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though,” and “why.”^[1]  In this case, it’s simply impossible that hŏti describes a share in the Kingdom because God doesn’t share His reign and rule, and that’s what the Kingdom is.  It’s not territory.  It’s not geography.  It’s not even political redistricting.  Only God reigns and rules.  If we participate in the Kingdom, we do so as citizens, not owners.  As I argued in my book, hŏti must be understood like this:  “Blessed are the poor, because of them the Kingdom is,” i.e., the Kingdom arrives because of some characteristic of these poor.  And in Matthew, that characteristic is desperation.  We know this because Matthew most likely translated Yeshua’s Hebrew expression from the word ʾebyôn.

Of course, that’s not obvious at all in English.  It takes some serious investigation to straighten this out.  Here’s the full explanation, if you have the time to read it (I promise you’ll learn something important).  By the way, this has been revised since I wrote it years ago for the Appendix of The Lucky Life:

Matthew has “Makárioi (lucky) the poor in spirit” while Luke has only “Makárioi the poor”.

Notice that both accounts choose the same word for “poor” – ptōchói.  Certainly, this choice is dictated by the deeper meaning of ptōchói and the distinction between ptōchói. and pénēs.  The real question is why Luke omits “in spirit.”  Perhaps the answer can be found in the usual association of the word ptōchói with religious assumptions.

Why did Matthew feel compelled to introduce the distinction ‘in spirit’ in his report?  The question is intensified by the following consideration:  If Yeshua said, “Makárioi the poor in spirit,” is it reasonable that Luke’s source would leave out this distinction?  And if Yeshua said only “Makárioi the poor,” why would Matthew deliberately add this distinction?

I believe that the answer is found in the ethnic background of the two authors.  In spite of the fact that both gospels are written in Greek, Yeshua did not speak Greek.  He spoke Hebrew.  So, the actual word he used was not ptōchói but a Hebrew word that Matthew and Luke each translated as ptōchói.

This presents a significant linguistic problem because except for a very few words and phrases, all of the New Testament is Greek.  Therefore, we have no direct way to determine what Hebrew word Yeshua used.  However, as we have already seen, Yeshua’s thoughts are seeped in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Newman and Stine point out that ptōchói “is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words that mean not only ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ but also ‘broken in spirit’ and ‘humble.’”[2]  Examination of the LXX shows that ptōchói is used to translate the Hebrew ʾebyôn (needy) in 1 Sam. 2:8 and ʿānî (afflicted, humbled) in 2 Sam 22:28, the cry of the poor (in parallel with the cry of the afflicted using both ʾebyôn and ʿānî) in Job 34:28 and ʿānî in Job 36:6.  ptōchói is ʾebyôn (needy) in Ps. 11:6 in the LXX (12:5 in the English translation), ʿānî (poor) in Ps. 68:30 LXX (69:29 English), ʾebyôn (needy) in Ps 71:12 LXX (72:12 English).

There is an important link between ptōchói and pénēs in many Psalms where the Hebrew linked words are ʿānî and ʾebyôn  (as in Ps. 85:1 LXX, 86:1 English).  The combination of ʿānî and ʾebyôn is linked to “brokenhearted” in 109:16 English (108:16 LXX).  The Hebrew word dal is connected in the combination of dal and ʾebyôn in Isaiah 14:30.

Of special note is the translation of Isaiah 61:1:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me to bring good news to the afflicted. 

Yeshua quotes this passage at the opening proclamation of his ministry.  In this verse, the Hebrew word ʿānāw (in the same word group as ʿānî) is translated by ptōchói.

These passages give us ample evidence that the LXX usage of ptōchói contained within it the concepts of ʾebyôn and ʿānî (ʿānāw), with clear parallel connections to dal.  Since Luke was Greek and was writing to a Greek speaking audience, in all probability he relied on the LXX as his reference for Hebrew concepts.   Therefore, he would have naturally felt that ptōchói incorporated the necessary emphasis on spiritual orientation capturing the nuance that Yeshua had in mind.  Any reference to ʾebyôn, ʿānî, ʿānāw or dal in the Hebrew of Yeshua would have led Luke to ptōchói as the proper Greek translation.  We can conclude that the Greek word ptōchói is an umbrella concept when compared to the Hebrew language.  All three Hebrew words, ʿānî, ʾebyôn and dal are translated or linked to this single Greek word.  By using ptōchói, Luke captured all of the nuances found in the Hebrew.  It was therefore unnecessary to further delineate for his Greek audience the extension “in sprit.”  The thought was already there.

Now that we have answered the question, “Why did Luke use only the word ptōchói rather than ptōchói in spirit?” we must address the other side of the coin – “Why did Matthew include the clarification “in spirit?”  The answer is found in the fact that ptōchói is a larger umbrella word than any of the several possible Hebrew words it could translate.

Hebrew gives us several possible choices for the thought behind the Greek word ptōchói.  These are:  ʿānî, dal, rāš, and ʾebyôn.  Each of these words carries the sense of “poor” but there are distinctions between them that help us determine which one is more likely to have been used by Yeshua.

ʿānî is primarily associated with the idea of affliction through oppression.  The verbal form (ʿānâ) is used more than two hundred times.  It describes the actions of an enemy, pain inflicted by bondage, suffering through war and the distress of slavery.  Theologically, the word is used to describe pain and suffering as the vehicle that leads to repentance.  As an adjective, ʿānāw “stresses the moral and spiritual condition of the godly as the goal of affliction implying that this state is joined with a suffering life rather than with one of worldly happiness and abundance.”[3]  ʿānāw is intended to produce humility.

dal is an adjective that means poor or weak.  However, it is often used as a noun.  This word emphasizes the lack of material worth.  It is used to describe those who are socially weak and materially deprived.  God protects these people and promises them justice.  Nevertheless, dal is rarely used to describe spiritual poverty.  Coppes provides the following distinctions:  “Unlike ʿānî, dal does not emphasize pain or oppression; unlike ʾebyôn, it does not primarily emphasize need and unlike rāš, it represents those who lack rather than the destitute.”[4]

rāš is used only thirty-two times in Scripture.  It describes the common plight of the lower classes – to be without resources or social standing.  It is used metaphorically to describe unworthiness.  Psalm 82:3 tells us that God will answer the needs of this group and provide them with justice.

Finally, ʾebyôn places significance on need as opposed to affliction or weakness.  While there may be a wide variety of reasons for the poverty of these people, their social status is always a concern with God.  The Mosaic code protected these people.  They are even called God’s favored ones (Isaiah 25:4).  The majority of the occurrences of this word are in the Psalms where the word expresses the sense of those whose only remaining help must come from God.  Psalm 72:4 tells us that those who are needy in this way are God’s true spiritual people.  Their cry is the basis of God’s action (Psalm 12:5 and 70:5).

It is speculation, of course, but I believe that this last word, ʾebyôn, is the Hebrew concept that lies behind the Greek translation ptōchói in Matthew. I dismiss ʿānî because ʿānî is undoubtedly the Hebrew thought behind the Beatitude, “Makárioi the meek.”  ʿānî is about forced affliction with the intention of producing humility.  Yeshua directs our attention to this connection in his statement about the happiness of those who are oppressed (meek = Greek praǘs).  The fact that the Beatitude about the meek is a quotation from Psalm 37:11 leaves little doubt concerning the Hebrew background.

Dal focuses attention on weakness and lack, not on destitution.  I find that dal is much closer to the concept behind the Beatitude, “Makárioi the ones hungry and thirsty”.  The emphasis of that Beatitude is on chronic need and continued insufficiency, not on total destitution.

Likewise, rāš is found in the context of weakness, unworthiness, and lack of resources.  For the same reasons that dal is rejected, I do not find rāš a probable candidate.

This leaves ʾebyôn.  But there is more in favor of this concept than simply process of elimination.  ʾebyôn is primarily about physical destitution and spiritual bankruptcy.  Those who are ʾebyôn can ultimately find relief only in the action of God.  They are His special, protected ones, and it is that awareness that enlightens them to see His handiwork.  ʾebyôn are the ptōchói in spirit.  They are precisely the ones who are crying out for the Kingdom because they have no other avenue for justice.  Furthermore, ʾebyôn is a consistent theme of the Psalms, a source that we know undergirds several Beatitudes.

Let’s suppose that this is the concept Yeshua has in mind when he spoke the Hebrew phrase that was translated as “Makárioi the ptōchói.”  We can imagine a reasonable explanation for the use of this word in Luke.  Luke was not at the event.  He had to gather his information by interviewing.  If the person or persons that Luke interviewed conveyed the Hebrew expression to Luke as a Greek word, they could easily have used ptōchói as the only necessary Greek equivalent because they understood the religious connections between ptōchói and ʾebyôn.  They would have had years to think about the real meaning of Yeshua’s statements.  When they wanted to convey this Hebrew concept to a Greek-speaking writer, they made the distinction between ptōchói and pénēs but found it unnecessary to make any further delineation.  Luke’s intended audience would associate ptōchói with those who were desperate physically and spiritually.  The Greek audience needed no further clarification.

But what about Matthew?

The puzzle about Matthew is also answered by paying attention to the intended audience.    Matthew writes to a Jewish audience.  If the readers of Matthew’s gospel where primarily Jews, then Matthew’s Greek would need to be written in a way that would distinguish precisely which Hebrew concept was implied by the broader Greek word ptōchói.  In order for Matthew to tell his readers that Yeshua had ʾebyôn in mind, he needed to add “in spirit” as a way of more precisely defining the broader Greek term ptōchói.  This addition delineated more accurately what Yeshua said when Yeshua used the Hebrew expression already distinguished from ʿānî, dal, and rāš.  Matthew was required to expand the Greek concept in order to capture the precise Hebrew idea of ʾebyôn without leaving open the possibilities that Yeshua may have had one of the other Hebrew words in mind. This was critical to an audience familiar with the four Hebrew words.  Matthew’s Greek would have been inadequate in capturing the precise meaning had he not specified the spiritual connection to ʾebyôn by adding “in spirit.”   This delineation was not important to Luke because Luke’s reader already associated ptōchói with the idea of spiritual destitution.

Does this mean that Matthew and Luke disagree?  Of course not.  Each man is translating an original Hebrew concept for a different reader.  Does this mean that there are errors in one or the other gospel?  Again, no.   What we see is the attempt by two different writers to capture a statement uttered in another language.  We should expect to have variations in the translation if the writers do not share the same linguistic heritage or target audience.

Topical Index:  Matthew 5:3, Luke 6:20, poor, poor in spirit, ptōchói, ʾebyôn

^[1] Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, p. 53). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[2] Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C,  A Handbook on The Gospel of Matthew (United Bible Societies, New York), 1988, p. 108.

[3] Coppes, Leonard J., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, Chicago), 1980, p. 682.

[4] Ibid, p. 190.