Emphatic Pronouns and Salvation (Matt 5:3)
Coming to a clear and accurate understanding of the emphatic use of pronouns can be a little tricky. It is a matter of nuance and often difficult (if not impossible) to translate. The oblique cases of the first and second pronouns have distinct forms, but what about the third person personal pronoun, αυτος?
Since the verb contains the reference to its object, αυτος ακουει and ακουει have the same basic meaning, “he hears.” And so the reasoning goes, αυτος is unnecessary and its presence is making a point.
That point is most often seen in contrasts. John the Baptist says, “I (εγω) baptize you with water... He (αυτος) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11).
But one of the most theological powerful and provocative uses of the emphatic third person pronoun is in the beatitudes. All have the same construction. “Blessed are the … for they (αυτοι) will ….” The nuance of αυτος is that they they alone will receive the blessing.
- Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
- Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
- Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Jesus is not saying that those who mourn, among others, are comforted. He is saying that they and they alone will be comforted. The merciful, and they alone, will receive mercy. Only those who are pure in heart will see God. The meaning of the αυτος is nuanced, but it is there, and its force is devastating to much of modern theology and its easy believism.
Notice that it does not say, “Blessed are those who have had a conversion experience, for theirs is the kingdom.” In fact, Jesus later says that many who claim to have done great things for him are in fact strangers (Matt 7:23). What will you do with this?
My suggestion is to first of all confirm that I am correctly understanding the emphatic use of αυτος. (I am.) Secondly, ask yourself if your theology can handle this. If you have been following my blog for very long, you have probably gleaned that I am moderately reformed. But what I most try to be is biblical, and the Bible says that God shows mercy only to those who have shown it themselves. That the only people who will be filled are those who hunger and third for [His] righteousness.
Talk of this kind is often met with angry blog comments, but the fact of the matter is that this is what the Greek text says.
If a person’s theology can’t handle that, then their theology is simply wrong. How does the emphatic αυτος fit your theology?
Bill,
If one takes your advice about testing one’s theology against Scripture, wouldn’t it in this case lead to a theology based on justification by works? Can we interpret the beatitudes correctly apart from the larger theological framework set down in say the book of Romans? Obviously, we need to qualify a statement like “the Bible says that God shows mercy only to those who have shown it themselves” otherwise it contradicts Titus 3:3-5:
“For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another...But... he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy...”
One could suggest that Christ is speaking here about the evidence of salvation, though, that’s not clear either. Some scholars seem to be quite adamant that this passage is referring to the future blessings faithful Israelites will experience in the millennial kingdom and that it has little to do with the church age (except for showing us moral guidelines). Whatever the case, I think it’s safe to say that understanding the theology of the Kingdom and how it's specifically developed in the book of Matthew is critical to interpreting this passage correctly.
(Sorry if I’m way off track from what you originally intended to say.)
God bless,
-bh
One could also say that we should cannot interpret Romans apart from the larger theological framework set down in the Beatitudes. As long as we don't believe in a canon within a canon, the discussion must go both ways. No, I do not believe the Beatitudes are thinking about a millennial kingdom, no matter how adamant my dispensational brothers are. Yes, all of God's promises are not fully realized until heaven, but I don't think that is what the Sermon on the Mount is primarily discussing.
I agree with you very much.
When I was translating the sermon on the mount I considered turning the construction around (which, as I understand it, is permissable) so that the beatitudes became:
It is the poor in spirit who are the blessed... and so on.
It then became clearer that what Jesus was saying was perhaps more like "You think it is the rich and powerful who have been blessed. Well think again, for it is the poor in spirit...".
This would be very much in line with His usual "turning our understanding on its head" style.
It also turns out that translating it that way puts it into iambic pentameter, but thats another story.
Hope you and yours have a truly blessed Christmas.
David.
No angry blog comment here. I'm just trying to understand your point of view. The grace v. works debate is one of the most interesting Biblical debates of our time, because it is the fundamental concept relating to our salvation (which, after all, is the whole reason we study the Bible to begin with). How do you believe one should interpret the beatitudes in relation to Eph. 2:8-9 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.")?
You are right. I think that is the coming debate for the church and one that has to happen. I think the old adage is still right: The faith that saves is faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone. However, the sad state of the church must serve as a wakeup call that for too long we have been emphasizing the narrow gate without any emphasis on the difficult path -- that changed people (justification) must live changed lives (sanctification). And for too long we have been hanging on to the Eph 2 type verses -- as precious as they are -- and almost totally neglected the warning passages in Hebrews. As a result we have an anemic church with many people thinking that they can slip in the door and sit in the back of the pew, do their few religious duties (i.e., legalism), and keep one foot on earth and one in heaven. We have to balance our theology.