Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 5:3

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew 5:3 (ASV)

The Greek word for “blessed” (GK 3421) describes the person who is singularly favored by God and therefore in some sense “happy,” though the word can also apply to God (1 Timothy 1:11; 1 Timothy 6:15). The common factor between these two views is approval: humans “bless” God, approving and praising him; God “blesses” humans, approving them in gracious condescension. In the eschatological setting of Matthew, “blessed” refers to a promised eschatological blessing, specified by the second clause of each beatitude.

Because Luke has “poor” (GK 4777) rather than “poor in spirit,” many have concluded that he preserves the true teaching of the historical Jesus—concern for the economically destitute—while Matthew has “spiritualized” it by adding “in spirit.” But already in the OT, “the poor” has religious overtones, i.e., those who because of sustained economic privation and social distress have confidence only in God (e.g., Pss 40:17; 69:32–33; Isaiah 61:1). Poverty itself is not the chief thing; it can be turned to advantage only if it fosters humility before God. In other words, to be poor in spirit is not to lack courage but to acknowledge one’s spiritual bankruptcy and one’s need to depend on God alone.

The “kingdom of heaven” belongs to such people; it is they who enjoy Messiah’s reign and his blessings. They joyfully accept his rule and participate in the life of the kingdom (7:14). While the rewards of vv.4–9 are future (“they will be comforted,” “will inherit,” etc.), the first and last are present (“for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”). Yet one must not make too much of this, for the present tense can function as a future; and the future tense can emphasize certainty. There is little doubt that here the kingdom idea is primarily future, made explicit in v.12. However, though the full blessedness of those described in these beatitudes awaits the consummated kingdom, they already share in the kingdom’s blessedness so far as it has been inaugurated .

(38–39a) The OT prescription of the lex talionis (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:19–20) was not given to foster vengeance; the law explicitly forbade that (Leviticus 19:18). Rather, it was given, as the OT context shows, to provide the nation’s judicial system with a ready formula of punishment, not least because it would decisively terminate vendettas. The trouble is that a law designed to limit retaliation and punish fairly could be appealed to as justification for vindictiveness.

Jesus’ disciple is not to “resist [GK 468] an evil person.” In the context of lex talionis, the most natural way of understanding the resistance is “do not resist in a court of law.” This interpretation is required in the next example (v.40). As in vv.33–37, therefore, Jesus’ teaching formally contradicts the OT law. But in the context of vv.17–20, what Jesus is saying is reasonably clear: the OT, including the lex talionis, points forward to Jesus and his teaching. But like the OT laws permitting divorce, enacted because of the hardness of human hearts (19:3–12), the lex talionis was instituted to curb evil because of the hardness of the heart.

As this legal principle is overtaken by that toward which it pointed, so also is this hardness of heart. The OT prophets foretold a time when there would be a change of heart among God’s people, living under a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31– 34; Ezekiel 36:26). Not only would the sins of the people be forgiven (Jeremiah 31:34; Ezekiel 36:25), but obedience to God would spring from the heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27) as the new age dawned. Thus Jesus’ instruction on these matters is grounded in eschatology. In Jesus and the kingdom, the eschatological age that the Law and Prophets had prophesied (11:13) has arrived; the prophecies that curbed evil while pointing forward to the eschaton are now superseded by the new age and the new hearts it brings.

(39b–42) Four illustrations clarify Jesus’ point and drive it home. In the first, a man strikes another on the cheek—not only a painful blow, but a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand, probably considered more insulting than a slap by the open palm. Instead of seeking recompense at law under the lex talionis, Jesus’ disciples will gladly endure the insult again.

Although under Mosaic law the outer cloak was an inalienable possession (Exodus 22:26), Jesus’ disciples, if sued for their tunics (an inner garment like our suit but worn next to the skin), far from seeking satisfaction, will gladly part with what they may legally keep.

The third example refers to the Roman practice of commandeering civilians to carry the luggage of military personnel a prescribed distance, one Roman “mile.” Impressment, like a lawsuit, evoked outrage; but the attitude of Jesus’ disciples under such circumstances must not be spiteful or vengeful but helpful —willing to go a second mile.

The final illustration requires not only interest-free loans (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:37) but a generous spirit (cf. Dt 15:7–11; 112:5). These last two illustrations confirm our interpretation of vv.38–39, that the entire pericope deals with the heart’s attitude, the better righteousness. For there is actually no legal recourse to the oppression in the third illustration, and in the fourth no harm that might lead to retaliation has been done.

While these four vignettes have powerful shock value, they were not meant to be new legal prescriptions. Verse 42 does not commit Jesus’ disciples to giving endless amounts of money to everyone who seeks a “soft touch.” Verse 40 is clearly hyperbolic: no first-century Jew would go home wearing only a loincloth. Nor does this pericope deal with the validity of a state police force. Yet the illustrations must not be diluted by endless equivocations; the only limit to the believer’s response in these situations is what love and the Scriptures impose.