Hebrew Tradition of Parables

Most Christians, and perhaps all Christians, have been taught that the parables of Jesus were a unique teaching form that he created during the period of his ministry on earth.  The standard meaning to the term in Christian circles is that a parable is a story about common earthly events with a deeper spiritual meaning.  In the Gospels the explanation as to why Jesus spoke in parables was this: To you (the disciples) it is granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but it is not granted to those outside your circle (Mat 13:11). 

The idea that Yeshua presented much of his teaching to the masses in the form of parables is well founded based on the content of the Synoptic Gospels; however, the idea that he came up with this methodology on his own without precedent from the Hebrew bible or cultural example is completely false.  The term 'parable' is merely a transliteration of the Greek term παραβολη, which literally means place beside, comparison.  A different Greek term – παροιμια – is used for 'proverb'.  The single Hebrew term משל is used for both parable and proverb; in modern Hebrew the expression למשל means for example. Christians with even the most superficial knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures know that there is a whole book of Hebrew proverbs in the bible, but most people, including many Jews, seem to be unaware of the pervasiveness of משלים in the entire Hebrew bible.  In point of fact, משלים can be found from the earliest chapters of Genesis through nearly every book in the Hebrew bible.  In addition, many if not all of the Midrashim are stores about life experiences designed to teach spiritual lessons – i.e., what the New Covenant Gospels call parables.  In short, the parabolic method of teaching has been a characteristic of the Semitic mindset from antiquity to the present day.

There are far too many examples of parables/proverbs in the Hebrew bible to be comprehensive, but this article will present examples from various portions of scripture to illustrate how extensive and flexible the use of משלים actually is in the Hebrew text.  In some instances (e.g., in the case of names) the didactic point is missed by readers due to cultural expectations, in some cases it is missed because the passage is read by rabbinic tradition as a law, and in some cases it is missed because of translation.  To catch the force of a משל within the text, one must return to the original language and attempt to reconstruct the mindset of the original author and audience.  This is neither easy nor foolproof.  Consequently, I will first present a list of my presuppositions.

1.      God superintended all that was recorded in the Hebrew bible for our instruction from lives of those who preceded us.

2.      The historical narratives were accurate in their original autograph content.  Over the period of roughly 2000 years of manual copying various changes were introduced by scribes either intentionally or by accident.  These changes include complete replacement of the original orthography, uneven introduction of vowel letters, replacement of archaic vocabulary, introduction of explanatory glosses and anachronisms, and occasional intentional changes of content based on theological biases.

3.      The historical content of the bible though accurate in its original autograph texts is far from comprehensive.  All events recorded present a single point of view – God is in control, and human experiences, whether pleasant or not, are the direct consequence of their own choices as well as circumstances beyond their control; but everything is in accordance with the specific will of God.

4.    Based on historical references within the bible, the text of the books that constitute the Hebrew bible were composed over a period of nearly 1000 years.  No living language remains static for such a period of time.  (For example, the original Middle English text of Chaucer would be unintelligible to anyone who only knows Modern English without either a translation into modern English or detailed notes from a Middle English expert.)  Consequently, the language of earliest biblical texts would necessarily have been different from that of the last texts composed.  However, no such dramatic difference has been preserved in the bible as we have it.  There are two scholarly approaches to explain this situation.  Wellhausen asserted that the Torah and all the other books were assembled in their present form from various traditions during a period of a few hundred years following the Babylonian Exile.  The other alternative is that scribes updated the language and vocabulary of their received texts on a hit or miss basis with the result that some archaic forms are preserved within a generally uniform textual tradition.  I accept the latter view.

These presuppositions are the basis for understanding essentially all of the historical narratives as parables for our instruction.  In addition, as anyone familiar with the various uses of the parables of Yeshua will know, any single parable may have a wide variety of specific applications.

Names

Originally, nearly every Semitic name had a meaning, and this continues to be practiced to some degree to this day in Israel.  For example, BDB translates the name Nebuchadrezzar (נבוכדראצר) from Nibu-kuduirru-utsur, or Nebo protects the boundary.  When I was studying Babylonian, this name was presented as Nibo-kudur-utsar, or Nebo has granted an heir.  In either case, the name was culturally significant to the people and time.  The same can be expected of other names found in the fabric of the Hebrew bible.  Sometimes the meaning of the name is significant to the content of the narrative.

Adam and Eve

According to Genesis 2, God formed אדם – Red – from the dust of the ground (אדמה) and then brought all of the animals to him in order for him to name them and to seek a helper companion.  When no helper corresponding to him (עזר כנגדו) was found, God put him into a deep sleep, took one of his ribs and the surrounding flesh, built a woman, and brought her to him.  He recognized the correspondence immediately and named her אשה because she was taken from איש.  The last verse of chapter 2 states that the man and the woman were naked (ערומים) but not ashamed.  The next verse (Gen 3:1) states that the snake (נחש) was more ערום than all of the other beasts of the field.  The ערום here is normally translated subtle, but a play on words seems to be clearly intended.  The serpent deceived אשה intending that she should die, but איש chose to accept the same judgment as his wife.  As the consequence God imposed a judicial sentence on all three.  After that the man changed her name from אשה to חוה – Life – because she would be mother of all living.

I accept this narrative as historical, but it also forms a parable having direct application for human relationships.  God made woman to be a helper corresponding to man, and that relationship is reflected in the name first given: she is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, a helper corresponding to me.  The first part of chapter 3 describes how she failed to fill her intended role effectively after being deceived by the snake.  The judicial consequence imposed by God on the woman was this: the number of conceptions and the pain of child birth were greatly increased, her desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.  This changed the fundamental relationship between the man and the woman, and this change is reflected by the change in the name he gave her.  The man's role was also changed.  Rather than the two of them living in the garden of Delight that produced abundant fruit without requiring hard physical effort on their part, they were expelled, and the man was compelled to obtain food through strenuous effort for the rest of his life.

Cain, Abel, and Seth

The beginning of Genesis 4 is the first example of the new relationship between the man and his wife. Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve, she conceived and gave birth to a son.  At his birth, she made the peculiar statement קניתי איש את יהוה.  This is usually translated 'I have acquired a man with יהוה.'  However, this is not the only possibility.  When God pronounced judgment on the woman, he had promised that she would produce a seed who would crush the head of the snake.  Her statement above could be understood to say 'I have acquired a man, even יהוה,' indicating that she thought that this child might be the realization of God's promise.  The name she gave the child was קין.  The name קין has bad connotations today because of this narrative, but it is not a bad name.  It means 'forger, fabricator, metal worker'.  Some interval of time later she had a second son she called הבל.  This term literally means 'breath, vapor, mist', but it is most commonly used metaphorically in the bible to describe something transitory or insubstantial.  Evidently, the interval between the two sons was long enough that Eve could see that her great expectations for Cain would not be realized.  Mr. Fabricator turned out to be a man without personal faith in יהוה, and he resented the favor that יהוה bestowed on Mr. Insubstantial because of his faith.  After Cain killed Abel, God expelled him from his presence and then gave Adam and Eve a replacement son they named שת – ותקרא את שמו שת כי שת לי אלהים זרא אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין (So she named him Seth, because God has appointed me another seed in place of Abel, for Cain has killed him).  Both the name שת and the verb in the first subordinate clause are derived from the root שית.  The narrative also states that Adam and Eve had other children, none of whom are identified.  Consequently, Seth is the one appointed for the continuation of the line to the promised seed, but there is no longer any hint of expectation as to who this individual might be or when he might appear.

Viewed as a parable, one lesson that might be drawn from it is as follows: God's promises are certain to be realized, but human expectations based on experiences have no capacity to compel divine activity.

Narratives

The Torah and the former prophets are filled with selected narratives that describe the lives of individuals.  At the surface level, these narratives are presented as historical events describing how specific individuals dealt with the vicissitudes of life and how they responded to God.  However, because God does not change, these same narratives present reliable cause-effect principles that are as significant today as they were at the time that the original events occurred.  The book of Ruth is presented as a specific example.

Book of Ruth

At the surface level, the book of Ruth is a historical narrative describing the physical descent of David from his great-great grandparents, Ruth, a woman of Moab, and Boaz, a man from Bethlehem of Judah.  It also provides a rationale for the interactions between David, his son Absalom, and the king of Moab, even though Moab was a historic enemy of Israel.  At another level it provides a more general lesson that is not necessarily connected with the specific history of Israel.  The meaning of the names in the narrative are significant:

·         בית לחם – House of Bread, the place of sustenance

·         מואב – Moab, not generally translated, but it could be rendered as from father or water of father.  The significance is that the people of Moab arose from the child born to Lot and his eldest daughter.

·         אלימלך – My God is King

·         נעמי – Pleasant

·         מחלון – Rabbinic tradition connects this name with the root חלה and interprets it as Sickly.

·     כליון – Rabbinic tradition connects this name with the root כלה and interprets it as Destruction, Feeble.

·       ערפה – Derived from the female form of  ערף– back of the neck – indicating one who flees, or Departs.

·         רות – Derived from רעות meaning Friendship

·         בעז – Derived from בעוז meaning With Strength

·      פלוני אלמוני – So-And-So.  This is a method of referring to a person without mentioning his name.

·         עובד -- Servant

The overall story using these names can be summarized as follows.

Mr. My God is King leaves the House of Bread during a famine and journeys with his family, Pleasant, Sickly, and Feeble, to Moab, a place where no Israelite should go or dwell.  While there Sickly and Feeble take Moabite wives, Depart and Friendship.  The family remains in Moab about 10 years.  During that time, first My God is King and then Sickly and Feeble all die.

Pleasant hears that YHWH has ended the famine in Israel, so she resolves to return.  Before leaving Moab, Pleasant urges Depart and Friendship to return to their families, because she has no means of providing for their material or emotional needs.  Depart returns to her family, but Friendship professes that she will never leave the side of Pleasant in life or even in death.  When they finally reach House of Bread, the people there recognize Pleasant, but she said, 'Call me Bitter, not Pleasant, because YHWH has made my life bitter.'

After they take up residence in House of Bread, Pleasant tells Friendship that she has a close relative, Mr. With Strength, who may redeem them both.  Friendship went out to collect gleanings from the barley harvest, and by chance she ended up at the field of Mr. With Strength.  Mr. With Strength then showed her favor because of her fidelity to her dead husband and to Pleasant, and she continued gleaning there throughout the period of the barley harvest.

At the time of the barley threshing, Pleasant tells Friendship to go secretly to the threshing floor and lie at the feet of Mr. With Strength during the night, and he would do what was necessary for their welfare.  When Mr. With Strength discovered Friendship at his feet, she asked him to cover her with his wing (protect her).  He instructed her to return to Pleasant before sunrise, and he would take care of the necessary details the following day.

There was a closer relative to Pleasant, Mr. So-and-So, than Mr. With Strength, and So-and-So had the right of first refusal to redeem Pleasant.  The next morning Mr. With Strength collected So-and-So and the village elders at the city gate to deal with the issue.  The requirement was to redeem the field of Mr. My God is King and marry Friendship to raise up an heir for his clan.  Mr. So-and-So was willing to redeem the field, but he was not willing to take Friendship as his wife, because he felt this might jeopardize his own posterity.  Mr. With Strength did so, and in the course of time Friendship became pregnant and gave birth to Mr. Servant, who was the grandfather of David (Beloved) the King.  The name of Mr. So-and-So, who was concerned about his posterity, has been lost to history, but Mr. With Strength has been remembered through the years.  (He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.  John 12:25)

 Intentional Parables

The previous examples were not obviously presented as parables, but they are often used as such by those who read and apply biblical principles to their lives.  The following examples are more similar to the parables of Yeshua in that they are clearly stories created to present a message obliquely.  As in the case of Yeshua, these parables are sometimes interpreted specifically within the text and sometimes they are not.

2 Sam 12:1-4

Then YHWH sent Nathan to David.  He came to him and said, "There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb that he bought and nourished.  It grew up together with him and his children.  It would eat his from bread and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.  Now, a traveler came to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take anything from his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him.  Rather, he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

This story constituted Nathan's method for confronting King David with his sin with Bathsheba.  Had he confronted him directly, he might have been rebuffed or even killed.  Instead, David pronounced his own condemnation before he realized that he was himself the guilty party.

Is 5:1b, 7

My well beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill.  He dug it all around to remove its stones and planted it with the choicest vine.  He built a tower in the middle of it and hewed out a wine vat in the middle of it.  Then he expected it to produce good grapes, but it only produced worthless ones.  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.  What more was there to do for my vineyard than I have done in it?  Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes, did it produce worthless ones?  So now let me tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge, and it will be consumed.  I will break down its wall, and it will become trampled ground.  I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, briars will come up, and I will command the clouds not to rain upon it.  For the vineyard of YHWH of hosts is Israel, and his delightful plant is the men of Judah.  He was looking for justice but there was bloodshed, for righteousness but there was a cry of distress.

This parable is about the godlessness present in both Judah and Israel.  The time of Isaiah extended from c. 740 to 681 BCE.  Israel never responded to the warnings of the prophets, so their end came in 722 BCE.  There were two major revivals in Judah – one under Hezekiah during Isaiah's lifetime and one under Josiah about 60 years after Isaiah's death.  As a result, judgment on Judah was delayed for about 150 years.

Amos 9:11, 12

Parabolic imagery such as that in the above example is very common among the prophets.  Usually the intended significance of the imagery is explained by the prophet himself, but occasionally the oracles contain just the images without explanation.  This has resulted in considerable debate among modern interpreters.  I have addressed my understanding of Amos 9 previously.  The point here is not the intended meaning but the presence of the parabolic method itself.

In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David and wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that are called by my name, declares YHWH who does this.

It is worth noting that this oracle includes a mixed metaphor indicating that its meaning extends beyond what the literal words state.  The fallen booth uses the term סכה, which is a temporary shelter that can be easily assembled and dismantled. The reference to restoring breaches and ruins implies stone walls, which are characteristic of a permanent structure.  This methodology for constructing a parable is quite common in prophetic oracles.

Ecc 9:13-16

The entire book of Ecclesiastes is constructed using proverbs and parabolic passages as the primary fabric of its message.  If these structures are not recognized as such, the author's message becomes convoluted and confused, and this is the response of many modern readers of the book.  The following is one of many examples of a parable in this book.

Also this ­ I considered wisdom under the sun, and it was significant to me.  There was a small city with few men in it; but a great king came to it, surrounded it, and built a great siege works against it.  But a poor wise man was found in it in it, and he delivered the city by his shrewdness.  Yet no man remembered that poor man.  So I said, ‘Wisdom is better than might, but the wisdom of a poor man is despised, and nobody listens (attends) to his words.’ 

This parable occurs in a context asserting that life experiences under the sun may not prove to be fair.  Here the individual responsible for the deliverance of the city and all its inhabitants receives no acknowledgement for his contribution because he is a poor man within the society.  This emphasizes the author's point: everybody is subject to circumstances over which they have no control.

Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation

Rabbinic tradition has developed four levels, or methods, for interpreting biblical passages.  The acronym for these methods is PaRDeS, which signifies the following:

·         פשט – Pashat.  This is the plain meaning of the text.  This corresponds to the literal, grammatical, historical, contextual meaning demanded by most conservative Christians.

·         רמז – Remez.  This literally means clue or pointer.  Within rabbinic thinking, many clues from various passages may be combined together to come up with a construct that forms the basis for a conclusion.

·         דרש – Drash.  This literally means inquire and is the source for Midrash.  One use of this method would be to turn a historical narrative into a parable for instruction of a timeless principle.

·    סוד – Sod.  This literally means secret.  The method uses numerology, bible codes, or other methods for generating hidden or secret meanings of the text.  From the rabbinic perspective, Sod was the highest level of interpretation.  From my perspective, it is the one most susceptible to abuse.

At any rate, the parabolic interpretation of scripture was and is central to the teaching methods used within Israel, so it is hardly surprising that it was employed by Yeshua throughout his ministry.   

   

The Beatitudes of Matthew

Introduction

The Beatitudes appear in Matthew 5:3-12 and in Luke 6:20 -23; however, the two versions are quite different.  The version in Matthew serves as the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and includes nine different assertions.  The version in Luke also occurs as part of a large gathering, but it includes just four assertions, some of which correspond to those in Matthew, but they are verbally different.  The two accounts may represent different recollections of the same event, or they could represent Yeshua presenting similar content on different occasions.  At any rate, the verses in Luke do not provide significant insight into the presentation in Matthew and so will not be addressed further.

First off, the language in which Yeshua presented his teachings – Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew – has long been the subject of scholarly debate.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the scholarly consensus was that Greek was the common language of the area.  After all, Greek speaking peoples had dominated the area for at least 200 years, and it had become the dominate language of commerce throughout this part of the Roman Empire.  Yet various Aramaic dialects were and remained the dominant language of the common people in the Fertile Crescent until the rise of Islam.  Not only that, but the LXX and the Aramaic targums were first created starting about 200 BCE, indicating that some groups of Jews did have difficulty with the Hebrew text preserved in the bible.   However, due to archaeological discoveries and the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholarly opinion now generally holds that the Jews spoke a version of Hebrew – Mishnaic Hebrew as opposed to the Rabbinic Hebrew that developed later.  So my operating assumption is that Yeshua presented most of his teachings in the dialect of Mishanic Hebrew common in Galilee, but he also spoke some dialect of Aramaic, and he may have known some version of Koine Greek.  Even though Yeshua probably presented the content of the Beatitudes in Hebrew, no Hebrew text of Matthew or any other New Testament book has been preserved from antiquity.  The text below includes Greek from the UBS critical text, Deilitsch's translation (his version of Mishnaic Hebrew), and a modern Hebrew translation when different from Deilitsch's version.

Textual Analysis

Mat 5:3

Μακαριοι οι   πτωχοι   τω   πνευματι, oτι  αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων.

Deilitzsch and Modern Hebrew

אשרי עניי רוח כי להם מלכות השמים.

            The poor in spirit are blessed, for the kingdom of heaven is for them.

Each of the Beatitudes are structurally parallel consisting of an assertion that is contrary to common perception followed by an explanatory clause to validate that assertion.  Every one of the Beatitudes begin with the same word – μακαριοι in Greek or אשרי in Hebrew.  The Greek term is an mp adjective meaning happy or blessed.  In Greek usage the term μακαριος  is generally restricted to the state of the gods or departed humans; in the LXX μακαριοι is the tern regularly used to translate אשרי, which is an mp noun in the construct form.  The general meaning of אשר is happiness or blessedness.

Hebrew has two terms used to express the state of happiness or blessedness, אשר and ברוך.  These terms are similar but not identical in either meaning or usage.  The noun form אשר comes from a verbal root meaning go straight, go on, advance in the qal stem and pronounce happy, call blessed in the piel stem.  The noun form occurs in the Hebrew text a total of 44 times in the plural construct form and 26 times in other forms.  The usage appears to describe a state of happiness or blessedness arising from the manner of life chosen by the individual being described.  The term ברוך is an ms passive participle from a verbal root meaning kneel, bless.  The verbal root occurs a total of 327 times in both active and passive stems, and the passive particple occurs 71 times.  ברוך is the term used when an individual of relatively greater position or authority pronounces a blessing for a lesser individual, as suggested by the root meaning of kneeling, the position of the recipient of the blessing.  (This is reflected by the assertion in Hebrews 7:7 Without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.)

The poor in spirit are blessed              The grammatical structure of the Greek and Hebrew texts are not the same, and they do not convey quite the same meaning.  The Greek text is a verbless clause whose subject is οι πτωχοι τω πνευματι, which is a plural collective phrase for a class of individuals.  Μακαριοι is a predicate adjective describing the state of that class.  אשרי עניי רוח is a construct chain consisting of three words: אשרי, an mp noun; עניי mp adjective used as a noun, and רוח ms noun.  The result is a noun phrase whose literal meaning is Oh blessednesses of a poor of spirit person.  Such constructions are relatively common in biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages, but not in Greek or any modern European language.  As a result, this phrase is never translated so literally but rather paraphrased as a verbal clause. 

The ultimate question is what did this phrase mean to those who heard Yeshua in the first century CE.  This question is impossible to answer with any certainty, because there is no example of this exact wording in the Hebrew bible or in the LXX.   There are two possibilities: 1) The person who rendered the text of Matthew into Greek started with a different Hebrew text than that presented above; 2) This construction is a regional expression unique to Galilee of the time.  Despite the lack of exact parallels, there are some expressions that may be adduced both from the contemporary first century Greek and from the biblical text.

·      From the standpoint of Koine Greek, πτωχος  describes the attitude and posture of a beggar, or in the words of the traditional Hebrew song,אין לנו מעשים  אבינו מלכינו חננינו כי – Our father our king have mercy on us, for we have no works.

·      1 Sam 2:8 – He raises the poor from the dust, he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with nobles and inherit a seat of honor….

·       Is 66:2 – For my hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being, declares YHWH.  But to this one will I look, to one who is humble and contrite of spirit and who trembles at my word.

·         Ps 34:18 – YHWH is near to the broken hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

·         PS 113:7 – He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap.

The opposite of poor in spirit is haughty, arrogant, and scripture has a fair amount to say about such individuals.  The overall position of scripture is that God opposes the proud, the haughty, the arrogant but gives grace to the humble.  Suffice it to say that the expression in this verse identifies the class of people who know that they are spiritually needy and personally have no claim on God.

oτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων       This clause is generally translated 'for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'  This translation is at best misleading, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to YHWH, not any mere human or any class of humans.  The ambiguity arises because the Greek genitive and the Hebrew expression of ל followed by a noun or pronoun is a regular way of expressing ownership.  However, both the Greek and Hebrew expressions have around 12 different semantic possibilities depending on context.  The best fit for the Greek expressing is genitive of description; that is, the heavenly kingdom will be populated by those that know they have no claim on God.  The best fit for the Hebrew expression is advantage – the kingdom of heaven is for them.

Mat 5:4

Μακαριοι οι  πηθουντες, οτι αυτοι  παρακληθησονται.

Deilitzsch and Modern Hebrew

אשרי האבלים כי הם ינחמו.

  

          The mourners are blessed, for they will be comforted.

אשרי האבלים  Mourning and divine comfort for those who mourn are fairly common themes in the Hebrew bible, though nothing like this compressed statement is to be found.  Here is just a selection of many that express this theme.

·   Deut 32:28-36 – Judgment and destruction are pronounced for Israel because of their future faithlessness; however, God also promises subsequent compassion and vindication after the surviving remnant returns to God in repentance.

·         Is 24:4-7 – The material creation is in a state of mourning because of the effects of divine judgment on to human wickedness.

·       Is 25:6-9 – Following divine judgment on the wicked, God will wipe away the tears from every eye.

·         Is 49:13 – God will comfort his afflicted people and have compassion on them.

·         Is 51:3, 52:9, 54:11 – YHWH will comfort Zion and restore joy to her.

·         Is 61:2, 3 – YHWH proclaims comfort to all those who mourn.

·       Hosea 2:14-23 – Following the total destruction of Israel, YHWH will woo them back, restore them, and have compassion on them.

The overall tenor of these and similar passages is that judgment for covenant unfaithfulness is certain, and this will produce mourning for the death and destruction experienced.  But when the remnant turns back to YHWH and observes their covenant with a whole heart, YHWH will turn back to his people with compassion and comfort them.  

Mat 5:5

Μακαριοι οι  πραεις, οτι  αυτοι κληρονομησουσιν την γην.

Deilitzsch and Modern Hebrew

אשרי הענוים כי המה יירשו הארץ.

            The meek are blessed, for they will inherit the land (i.e., Israel)

pραεις , הענוים           The Greek term means humble, meek, but the Hebrew term has a somewhat broader range of meaning – poor, afflicted, humble, meek – and sometimes it seems to be used in place of  עניor vice versa.  The Greek term was uniformly positive in significance as a description of personal character, the Hebrew term less so.  The Hebrew term occurs a total of 25 times in the bible with seven of these occurrences marked with either Qtiv or Qre, meaning that the original text was questioned by the masorites.  BDB lists four different contexts for these uses.  The first three uses refer to those who are poor and weak and usually afflicted by those having greater power.  The last category is probably the one intended here:

·      Ps 37:11    The last clause of this verse is virtually identical to the last clause of this beatitude: וענוים ירשו ארץ.  The point in context compares the humble person with the arrogance of the wicked.  The wicked are full of themselves and have power for a time, but their end is destruction; the humble will inherit the land (i.e., Israel).

·         Nu 12:3     Moses was the most meek man in all the earth.

·         Prov 3:34   Though he scoffs at the scoffers, he gives grace to the humble (Qre).

·         Prov 16:19   Better is lowliness of spirit with the humble than dividing spoil with the proud (Qre).

The ultimate example is that of Moses, who did not exert or impose himself on the people but always waited and depended on YHWH to uphold his part, except for once.  At the second occurrence of the waters of meribah, he got angry at the people and asserted personal authority to bring forth water from the rock.  He ignored the specific command of YHWH and did his own thing.  At that point he ceased to be the most meek man of the world, and as a result he forfeited the blessing of entering into the land.

הארץ   Literally this means the land, and it can be a reference to the earth, as commonly translated.  However, for Jews the expression הארץ is probably the most common way to refer to the land of promise, Israel, not the whole earth.  At the time these words were spoken, Jews occupied and controlled only a small part of the land that had been promised by God to Abraham and subsequently promised through Moses.  The point of this beatitude is that those who depend and wait on God will at the right time receive the benefits of those promises in their entirety.

Mat 5:6

Μακαριοι οι πεινωντες και διψωντες την δικαιοσυνην, οτι αυτοι χορτασθησονται.

Deilitzsch and Modern Hebrew

אשרי הרעבים והצמאים לצדקה כי הם ישבעו.

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are blessed, for they will be satisfied.

הרעבים והצמאים לצדקה        I have found no passage that duplicates these words, but there are several passages that duplicate its fundamental message.

·       Deut 10:12              What does YHWH required of you but to fear him, to walk in all his ways, to love him, and to serve him with all your heart and soul.

·      Lev 23:27  On the first day of Yom Kippur, you are to afflict your soul.  This has been interpreted by rabbinic tradition as requiring a total fast (no food, no drink) for 25 hours.  During this fast each person is expected to perform detailed introspection concerning sins he may have committed during the previous year, seek forgiveness from those wronged, and then come before God for divine forgiveness.  (This sequence is reflected in Mat 5:23, 24: If you are bringing an offering to God and realize your brother has something against you, leave your offering, go and be reconciled with your brother, and then present your offering.)

·      Micah 6:8      What does YHWH require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.

All such passages assert that the person who pursues single-minded devotion to what YHWH has proclaimed to be right will realize his desire.  The most prominent example of this is David, a man with significant character flaws and guilty of profound sin.  Yet, God's final assessment of him is that he was a man after My own heart.  This is what each follower of YHWH should aspire to.

Mat 5:7

Μακαριοι οι ελεημονες, οτι αυτοι ελεηθησονται.

Deilitzsch and Modern Hebrew

אשרי הרחמנים כי הם ירחמו.

            The compassionate are blessed, for they will be shown compassion.

Teachings on giving and receiving compassion are a significant theme in the Hebrew bible, but this exact wording is not to be found.  However, the content of this beatitude are contained in several different passages.

·      Am 1:11    Stated negatively: Because Edom stifled compassion for his brother, they will experience the full fury of God's judgment.

·    Zech 7:9, 10  Stated negatively: YHWH commanded Israel to dispense true justice, and practice compassion for the helpless.  Because they failed to respond YHWH made their hearts hard, sealing them for great wrath.

·      1 K 3:26    Stated positively: When Solomon judged between the two women, one of whom had lost her child to death, he commanded the living child to be cut in half with each woman to be giving half.  The mother of the living child had compassion and rather wanted to give the child up than to see it die.  On this basis Solomon identified the real mother and had compassion on her.

·         Shab 127b   This entire section of the tractate expresses exactly the same content of this verse.

Although most of the statements in the bible are stated negatively, Yeshua's positive statement is clearly consistent with the force and content to be found there.  Additionally, this content survived with essentially no change into later rabbinic tradition as preserved in the Talmud.

Mat 5:8

Μακαριοι οι καθαροι καρδια, οτι αυτοι τον θεον οψονται.

Deilitzsch

אשרי ברי לבב כי הם יחזו את האלהים.

Modern Hebrew

אשרי ברי לבב כי הם יחזו את אלהים.

            The pure of heart are blessed, for they will behold God.

ברי לבב           This expression occurs twice in the Hebrew bible.

·     Ps 24:3, 4  Who may ascend the mount of YHWH, or who may arise in His holy place?  The one with clean hands and a pure heart….

·         Ps 73:1      Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart.

The passage in Ps 24 is closest to the content here.  Such a one may enter into the presence of God, and there he will see, behold God.  The verb יחזו is a 3mp qal imperfect from the root  חזה meaning see, behold, and it can refer to physical sight, a prophetic vision, or mental perception.

Mat 5:9

Μακαριοι οι ειρηνοποιοι, οτι αυτοι υιοι θεου κληθησονται.

Deilitzsch

אשרי רדפי שלום כי בני אלהים יקראו.

Modern Hebrew

אשרי עושי שלום כי בני אלהים יקראו.

Those who make peace are blessed, for they shall be called sons of God.

The renderings of the Greek and modern Hebrew translation are essentially the same, but Deilitzsch's version uses a different verb in the first clause, meaning aim to secure.  There is no exact duplication of either Hebrew version in the bible, but there are several related passages.

 רדפי שלום      Several passages have a related, but not identical theme:

·         Dt 16:20    Ardently pursue righteousness (צדק( that you may live and possess the land that YHWH your God is giving you.  (The NASB translation has justice, but more specifically the noun refers to what is right.)

·         Ps 34:15    Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

·      Prov 21:21    One who pursues righteousness and loving kindness will find righteousness, life, and honor.

·       Is 51:1       Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, who seek YHWH….

עושי שלום      Is 32:17   The work of righteousness is peace, and the labor of righteousness will be quietness and security forever.

בני אלהים        Throughout the Hebrew text of the bible Israel, or individual tribes of Israel, are described variously as the creation of YHWH, the bride of YHWH, or the children of YHWH.  In the vast majority of cases the description is negative, denouncing the people for their covenant unfaithfulness and so proving themselves as unworthy children.  This condition demanded judgment, but after the completion of judgment the remnant would pursue righteousness and accomplish peace.  This is the point of contact between this beatitude and the Hebrew scriptures.  Those who are truly the sons of God will manifest his character in their daily lives, as stated most clearly in Lev 19:2:  קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני – You shall be holy because I am holy.

Mat 5:10

Μακαριοι οι δεδιωγμενοι ενικεν δικαιοσυνης , οτι αυτων εστιν η βασίλεια των ουρανων.

Deilitzsch

אשרי הנרדפים על דבר הצדקה כי להם מלכות השמים.

Modern Hebrew

אשרי הנרדפים בגלל הצדקה כי להם מלכות השמים.

Those who are persecuted because of righteousness are blessed, because the kingdom of heaven is for them.

אשרי הנרדפים בגלל הצדקה   I have found no place in the Hebrew bible where this exact wording is present, but there are very many examples where this theme is played out.  A few examples should suffice.

·       The story of Cain and Abel in which Abel's sacrifice was accepted because it was presented in faith, but Cain's was not because it was offered out of mere duty.

·      The experience of Lot in Sodom when he offered himself and his daughters to the crowd to protect the messengers from God.

·         The entire Joseph story is an extended example of this principle.

·         Saul's pursuit of David

·         The life experiences of Elijah

·         The suffering servant of Isaiah

·         The persecution of Jeremiah at the hand of the king and others in authority

להם מלכות השמים      This clause has two interpretive problems to be addressed.  First, as in verse 5:3 the term להם does not, and cannot, refer to ownership.  The kingdom of heaven was created by and belongs to God alone, and he does not share his glory or assign his ownership to any mere human or group of humans.  This is most directly stated in Lev 25:23 – The land is mine; you are merely dependent temporary residents with me.  The best resolution in my opinion is to understand  להםas expressing advantage – that is, the class identified in the introductory clause will be beneficiaries of this kingdom.

Second, both verse 5:3 and this verse mention the kingdom of heaven.  This expression occurs 30 times in Matthew and nowhere else in the New Covenant Greek text, but the expression kingdom of God also occurs three times in Matthew and four times in Mark.  Restricting the evaluation to the text of Matthew, the first observation is that there is no significant textual variation for the three occurrences of the kingdom of God.  So the remaining question is this: are these essentially equivalent or is a difference implied by the change in wording?

·       A relatively common conservative Christian interpretation is that the true followers of Jesus in the Church are promised eternal life in heaven, whereas the redeemed of Israel are promised eternal life in the land (interpreted as either earth or Israel).  There are several problems with this view.  First, every occurrence of the kingdom of heaven occurs in the book of Matthew, and they are all addressed to Jews.  Second, Paul's statement, 'To be absent from the body is to be present with Messiah,' refers to the interval of time prior to establishment of God's kingdom on the earth.  Following the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, Messiah will rule over all nations from Jerusalem, not just the restored Israel.  Thus, if the 'Church' is to be present with Yeshua at that time, they will need to be on earth.

·    The verbal difference between the two expressions suggests a slight difference in meaning.  The Greek expression for kingdom of heaven could be generally descriptive, descriptive of location, or indicate origin.  The corresponding Hebrew expression could only be descriptive – i.e., the heavenly kingdom – and the general context is an offer to those who are willing to enter into the realm of God's divine rule.  In contrast, the expression the kingdom of God occurs in contexts (Mat 12:28, 21:31, 21:43) where Yeshua is confronting opponents with the assertion, 'You will not enter into God's kingdom'.

Mat 5:11, 12

Μακαριοι εστε οταν ονειδίσωσιν υμας και διωξωσιν και ειπωσιν   παν   πονηρον καθ' υμων ψευδομενοι ενεκεν εμου.  χαιρετε και αγαλλιασθε, οτι o μισθος υμων    πολυς εν τοις ουρανοις.  ουτως γαρ εδιωξαν τους   προφητας τους   προ υμων.

Deilitzsch

אשריכם אם יחרפו וירדפו אתכם וידברו בשקר עליכם כל רע בעבורי.  שמחו וגילו כי שכרכם רב בשמים כי כן רדפו את הנביאים אשר היו לפניכם.

Modern Hebrew

אשריכם אם יחרפו וירדפו אתכם ויעלילו בגללי.  שמחו וגילו כי שכרכם רב בשמים, כי הרי כך רדפו את הנביאים שהיו לפניכם.

You are blessed if they reproach you, persecute you, and slander you (falsely) because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

This is the last of the beatitudes in Matthew, and it differs from all the others in that it includes two verses.  The content of verse 11 is very similar to the first half of 2 Ch 36:16 – … and they mocked the messengers of God, despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets … – and it is also consistent with the previous verse about those who suffer because of righteousness.  The justification for the promised blessedness (very great reward in heaven) is somewhat more obscure, but the following parallel may be noted: Gen 15:1, Do not fear Abram.  I am your shield, and your reward is very great.  This is a kind of repetition of the original promise to Abram in Gen 12:2, 3: I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and it will be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, And those who curse you I will curse; all the families in the earth will be blessed in you.  For the most part, these promised blessings were never experienced during Abram's – Abraham's – physical life, so his experience of these blessings was stored up with God for an unstated future time.  Implicit in such a promise is continued relation between Abraham and God beyond physical death as well subsequent resurrection.

Conclusion

The beatitudes of Matthew cover just nine verses of chapter 5, but it constitutes the introduction to what has become known as the Sermon on the Mount, which continues to the end of chapter 7.  This entire section of three chapters amounts to a detailed commentary on various themes from the Torah, the prophets, and the writings.  Throughout this section Yeshua repeatedly contrasts the traditions of the fathers as they existed in his time with the intent actually present in the text of scripture. 

For nearly 2000 years both gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism have asserted that Yeshua and his followers introduced a major discontinuity with the content of the Hebrew bible.  I have attempted to demonstrate that the beatitudes are consistent with – and in most cases verbally similar to – various passages in the Hebrew bible as it has been preserved in the Massoretic Text.  Additionally, any fair comparison of the content of the entire Sermon on the Mount will find consistency between Yeshua's summary presentations and the overall content of the Hebrew scriptures.

The major prominence of Rabbinic Judaism and their traditions did not begin until after the destruction of the second temple.  Strident anti-Jewish sentiment did not begin to appear in Church writings until the early second century CE.  Rabbinic Judaism provided the mechanism by which the exiled Jews were able to maintain their distinct identity for the past 2000 years, ensuring their survival as a people.  However, part of that rabbinic tradition included total rejection of all Jews who believed Yeshua to be the promised Messiah.  The Gentile Church, which had initially been totally dependent on Jewish believers in Yeshua, progressively rejected or changed all traditions derived from the Hebrew bible along with rejection of any Jewish believer that continued to cling to them.  The predictable result was that the Jewish expression of faith in Yeshua died out by the third or fourth century CE.  There was a price to pay.  First, the mutual enmity spoken about in Ephesians chapter 2 became more strident than ever before.  Second, Gentile Christians replaced the Semitic approach to life that dominates both the Hebrew bible and the New Covenant writings with Greek speculative thought patterns.  The methods of Greek philosophy are not necessarily evil, but they are alien to the Semitic approach to life presented in the bible.  This has resulted in theological disputes that are often completely irrelevant to the biblical message as well as sectarian violence between groups with differing views.