A Critical Analysis of the Beatitudes from the Gospel According to Luke

J. Jacob Tawney

1. The Text and an Introduction.

Douay-Rheims
Luke 6:20-26
20. And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is
the kingdom of God.

21. Blessed are ye that hunger now; for you shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep
now, for you shall laugh.

22. Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you,
and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of manʼs sake.

23. Be glad in that day and rejoice; for behold your reward is great in heaven. For
according to these things did their fathers to the prophets.

24. But woe to you that are rich; for you have consolation.

25. Woe to you that are filled; for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh; for you
shall mourn and weep.

26. Woe to you when men shall bless you; for according to these things did their
fathers to the false prophets.

Thus begins the greatest sermon ever composed. These blessings are commonly
referred to as the Beatitudes, which stems from the Latin word Beati, meaning
“Blessed.” Servais Pinkares writes, “[T]he sermon on the Mount has been one of the
chief sources of spiritual renewal known to the Church through the ages. Its fruitfulness
is amply attested by its constant reappearance. There are few passages in Scripture
that touch the Christian heart more surely and deeply, or that have a greater appeal for
nonbelievers. Then Sermon on the Mount was one of Ghandiʼs favorite texts; he
reproached Christians for their neglect of it” (The Sources of Christian Ethics, 135). As
familiar as the words are to Christians and non-Christians alike, there is one word in
particular that can very easily go unnoticed: is. In verses 21-23, every blessing
promises a future reward for a present circumstance. Consider the first half of verse 21:
“Blessed are ye that hunger now; for you shall be filled.” This indicates that those who
experience hunger during their earthly time will be filled in the eschaton. The first
beatitude (verse 20), however, seems to deliberately use the word is: “Blessed are ye
poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

2.  An interpretation of tense based on the Latin and Greek manuscripts.

I have three goals in this article. The first is to conduct a brief textual analysis of the
Latin and the Greek from which the translation comes. The second is to present a gloss
of several interpretations of the passage from the Church Fathers. The third is to
address the question why Luke would speak of poverty in this manner and what Christ
means when he says, “Yours is the kingdom of heaven.” This last part will involve a
discussion about the nature of the kingdom of God, the nature of poverty, and a
commentary on the role of the beatitude as a whole for the Christian moral life.

To begin with, let us examine the Latin for this text from the Nova Vulgate. In verse 20
we find the verb est, translated “to be.” This particular conjugation is the third-person
singular form of the verb in the present tense. It uses third-person because the subject
of the sentence is “the kingdom of God.” Contrast this with verse 21. We find the
construction, “Beati, qui nunc esuritis, quia saturabimini.” The Latin word nunc
translates as “now,” and the verb saturabimini is the second-person plural form of the
verb saturo, meaning “to satisfy.” The “-bimini” ending indicates a future passive tense,
hence the rendering “you shall be satisfied.” An identical construction governs the verb
ridebitis (from rideo, meaning “to smile” or “to laugh”) in the second half of the verse.
The only difference is that the ending is not future passive, but future active, thus the
rendering “you shall laugh” (with “you” as the subject). It is clear from the Latin the the
Douay-Rheims translation is accurate. In verse 20, the action is clearly written in the
present tense (“for your is the kingdom of God”) while in verse 21 the verb tense is
future (“your shall be filled” and “you shall laugh”).

Verse 23 is more interesting. The Douay-Rheims reads, “your reward is great in

heaven.” At first glance this appears to be a present tense verb. However, the state of
receiving a reward in heaven must be a future event by its very nature as the faithful are
not yet in heaven. Using a present tense verb to indicate a future state is commonly
known as “future-present” tense. This tense is often used as opposed to simple future
tense to indicate either the immediacy of event or the assurance of its future
occurrence. Consider another example: in the middle of an athletic competition we
exclaim, “The game is won.” Clearly the game has not yet been won, but it is a way of
describing the assurance we have of a future event. While it seems very reasonable to
interpret this verse as a future-present tense, we should nonetheless examine the Latin.
The corresponding Vulgate text reads, “ecce enim merces vestra multa in caelo.” Ecce
means “behold” (as in Pilateʼs devastatingly concise, “Ecce homo!” translated, “Behold
the man!”) Enim is best translated “for” or even “truly.” Merces means “reward,” and
vestra means “yours.” Finally, the phrase multa in caelo is rendered “great in heaven.”
This exhausts all the words in the phrase, and we must note that the verb “to be” (in this
case “is”) is found nowhere in the sentence. While the absence of a conjugation of “to
be” is more common in Latin than in English (it is often implied), we should note that this
particular sentence is not without a verb. At the start of the phrase we find the
imperative ecce (“behold”). This phrase is essentially a command, and therefore is
rendered literally, “for behold your great reward in heaven.” The Douay-Rheims places
the verb “is” in as a deliberate choice, probably as a literary device intended for
clarification purposes and for aesthetic enhancement. Without it, the meaning of the
phrase can be ambiguous. Are we to behold a reward that is in heaven or to behold a
great reward while we are in heaven? The present tense of the imperative (ecce) is
fitting as Luke is commanding the reader to “behold” in the here-and-now, but the
reward which will be received in heaven is (from context) a future event. Thus, it seems
reasonable to interpret the Douay-Rheims tense for this passage as future-present
instead of merely present.

In light of this, why could we not interpret verse 20 as a future-present tense? Why
could we not see the phrase, “yours is the kingdom of God” in a similar vein as “the
game is won” and “your reward is great in heaven?” The key to this is found not merely
in verse 20, but rather in the contrast between 20 and 23. The absence of the verb est
in verse 23 draws our intention even more to its presence in verse 20. The Latin could
have chosen a similar construction here as it used in verse 23. A possible English
rendering could have been, “Blessed are ye poor, for behold your kingdom in heaven.”
If this had been the case, we could perhaps make a case for an implied future-present
tense in verse 20 to parallel the tense in verse 23. It seems more reasonable, however,
to see the placement of the verb in verse 20 as deliberate, and hence to interpret it as a
present tense phrase.

We next turn to the Greek. To do so, we use the Textus Receptus. While I recognize
that this might not be the best source to use for Lukeʼs Gospel, it is representative of the
other Greek sources in terms of the verb tenses. My experience in textual criticism is
quite limited, but I from what I understand, the verb tenses in most of the respectable
Greek sources are consistent in the passage I am considering. As with the Latin, we
begin with verse 20. As a side note, we must recognize that some English translations
will use the phrase “poor” while others use the phrase “poor in spirit.” This difference is
due to variations in the ancient Greek manuscripts. While “poor in spirit” is common in
many of the Greek variations, two of the most prominent manuscripts use the
construction “poor” (without the addition of the modifier “in spirit”). The first is Papyrus
75, which contains the earliest known transcription of Lukeʼs Gospel. This is a key
manuscript because of its early dating (175-225 A.D.). The second, dating to the middle
of the fourth century, is the Codex Vaticanus. While this phrase is not the essential part
of the passage under discussion at the moment, it will become important when we later
discuss the meaning of Christʼs words.

Moving on to the question of verb tense, we note that the Greek word humetera,
meaning “yours,” is an adjective that is modifying the noun “kingdom” (basileia). While
at first it seems that this construction need not contain a verb at all (in English we could
simply say “your kingdom” instead of “the kingdom is yours,” it should be noted that
Luke deliberately places the present tense form of the verb eimi (“is”) here. Thus, much
like in the case of the Latin, there is a clear emphasis on the present tense.

The deliberateness once again becomes more obvious when looking at the subsequent
passages. In verse 21, as in the Latin, the Greek uses a future passive voice. The
Greek word kortasthaysesthe is rendered “you shall be fed,” as the passive voice is
indicated by the thay and the s (indictating a future tense) preceding the esthe
(indicating second-person plural). In the second part of verse 21, we find a similar
construction but for the lack of passive voice (again parallel to the Latin). Gelasate is
best translated as “you shall laugh.” It should be noted that other Greek manuscripts
contain the word gelasousin instead, which is still the future active tense verb for “laugh”
but is in the third-person plural (rendered “they shall laugh”). While this is certainly a
variant worthy of discussion in its own right, it is not critical for our analysis at this time.

Verse 23 remains an interesting verse as it was in the Vulgate. Recall that the Douay-
Rheims translated the second part of the beatitude in the present tense, “your reward is
great,” but we made an argument that this carries with it a future indication based on (1)
context and common sense, and (2) the fact that the Latin specifically does not contain
the verb est (“is”), so a more literal translation would be “Behold your great reward in
heaven.” In Greek we have a similar construction. Where the Latin used the imperative
ecce, the Greek uses the imperative idou. Where the Latin was missing a form of est,
the Greek is missing a form of eimi (“is”). However, in Greek it is more common to
leave off the verb “to be.” For instance, in verses 20 and 21, the phrase “blessed are
the” is missing a form of eimi. Instead, the word “are” is implied. While this is
consistent with the Latin Vulgate and the English Douay-Rheims, it is more profound in
Greek. Because the Greek (particularly in Luke, whose syntax is quite refined
alleviating him of the need to add the unnecessary forms of eimi) more often leaves out
the verb of being it is all the more pertinent that Luke chooses to include it in verse 20.
It strengthens the argument that the evangelist is deliberately emphasizing the present
tense in the phrase, “Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” and not
simply allowing for an implied future-present.*

Before moving on to the Fathers of the Church, let me briefly mentioned the parallel
passage in Matthewʼs Gospel. In Chapter 5, beginning with verse 3, we find perhaps
the more familiar version of the Beatitudes. While the Nova Vulgate for Matthewʼs first
beatitude differs slightly from Lukeʼs (Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est
regnum caelorum) the text still maintains the present tense verb est to allow for the
accurate translation “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Because of the rapid listing of
the next six verses (4-9), the consistency of future tense is perhaps more striking than in
Luke. We have ipsi consolabuntur (“they shall be comforted”), ipsi possidebunt terram
(“they shall possess the land”), ipsi saturabuntur (“they shall have their fill”), ipsi
misericordiam consequentur (“they shall obtain mercy”), ipsi Deum videbunt (“they shall
see God”), and filii Dei vocabuntur (“they shall be called children of God”). The
interesting verse is 10. The English reads, “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for
justiceʼ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This serves as a complimentary
bookend of sorts for the first beatitude as the “promise” portion of the first and last
beatitude is identical (both in the English and the Latin). Many scholars have seen this
as Matthewʼs way of indicating that the promise “yours is the kingdom of heaven” is to
be included not only in the first beatitude and the last beatitude, but indeed everywhere
in between. This only begs our question, though. Given the deliberate use of the
present tense, what does it mean to say, “yours is the kingdom of heaven” in the here-
and-now? Moreover, why would Luke choose to place this construction only with the
beatitude of poverty? To answer this question, we begin with the Church Fathers.
(Note that while I did not go into the Greek for Matthewʼs rendition of the Beatitudes, the
verb tenses are consistent with both the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims.)
3. Patristic Background from the Catena Aurea
Latin for “The Golden Chain,” St. Thomas Aquinasʼ Catena Aurea is the Angelic Doctorʼs
compilation of commentaries by the early Church Fathers on each of the four Gospels.
What follows is a gloss of the provided commentaries for Luke 6:20-23.

We begin with Ambrose. While I have not said much about the first part of verse 20
(“And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples”), Ambrose asks, “What is lifting up the
eyes, but to disclose a more hidden light?” Christ is calling his hearers to a deeper
understanding of God and His plan for mankind. If I could, allow me to briefly return to
the Greek for the word “Behold” (idou). An alternate translation of the imperative is
“Look!” or even “See!” While Luke is using a common Greek word, this command to
“See!” is reminiscent of Christʼs observation, “they have eyes but cannot see.” The Lord
is not simply calling us to pay attention, but rather he is calling us to see with the eyes of
faith. He is speaking directly to the heart of man. In a way, he is telling his listeners,
“My friends, you have heard the Prophets, you have read the Scriptures, but you know
not their fullness. I will, if you let me, show you the fullness of the heavenly mysteries.
Everything you think you know is only the beginning. You have heard the ethic in the
Ten Commandments, but I call you to the ethos of these Beatitudes.”

Ambrose next observes that Luke mentions only four blessings, while Matthew eight.
Nonetheless, “those eight are contained in these four, and in these four those eight.”
He ties each of the blessings in a specific way to a particular virtue. Poverty yields
temperance because it “seeks not vain delights.” Hunger leads to righteousness in that
he who is hungry suffers with the hungry, and this brings righteousness. In weeping,
man learns to weep for those things eternal rather than those things of time, which
requires the virtue of prudence to distinguish between the two realms. In “Blessed are
you when men hate you,” one has fortitude, a fortitude which allows one to suffer
persecution for faith. These virtues are then paired with Matthewʼs Beatitudes in order
to demonstrate continuity between the two Gospels: “temperance therefore brings with it
a pure heart; righteousness, mercy; prudence, peace; fortitude, meekness. The virtues
are so joined and linked to one another, that he who has one seems to have many.”

In both cases, each evangelist has placed the blessings of poverty first. For Ambrose,
this is indicative that “it is the first in order, and the purest, as it were, of the virtues.” In
other words, the subsequent blessings depend on the condition of being impoverished.
If one is overcome by the desires of the world, he “has no power of escape from them.”

In a similar fashion, Eusebius observes, “But when the celestial kingdom is considered
in the many gradations of its blessings, the first step in the scale belongs to those who
by divine instinct embrace poverty. Such did He make those who first became His
disciples; therefore He says in their person, ʻFor yours is the kingdom of heaven.ʼ”

Cyril agrees: “After having commanded them to embrace poverty, He then crowns with
honor those things which follow from poverty.”
While Basil is consistent in placing the primacy of the blessings with that of poverty, he
also warns that the blessing is not automatic but requires the correct disposition. “[N]ot
everyone oppressed with poverty is blessed, but he who has preferred the
commandment of Christ to worldly riches. For many are poor in their possessions, yet
most covetous in their disposition; these poverty does not save, but their affections
condemn. For nothing involuntary deserves a blessing, because all virtue is
characterized by the freedom of the will. Blessed then is the poor man as being the
disciple of Christ, Who endured poverty for us.” Perhaps this is why Cyril notes that in
Matthewʼs Gospel, the Lord says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” I have noted above
the textual variants in this regard, but it should be recognized that the Fathers in no way
see “poverty of spirit” as mere detachment that can exist even in the absence of actual
material poverty. Instead, they see material poverty as a pre-requisite for poverty of
spirit, a disposition that must be had to convert the pre-existing material poverty into a
blessing.

Each of the Fathers then shows how poverty leads to the other blessings in Christʼs
sermon. Cyril says, “It is the lot of those who embrace poverty to be in want of the
necessities of life, and scarcely to be able to get food.” Continuing, “[P]overty is
followed not only by a want of those things which bring delight, but also by a dejected
look, because of sorrow. Hence it follows, ʻBlessed are you that weep.ʼ” Finally,
Theophilus indicates, “He then who on account of the riches of the inheritance of Christ,
for the bread of eternal life, for the hope of heavenly joys, desires to suffer weeping,
hunger, and poverty, is blessed. But much more blessed is he who does not shrink to
maintain these virtues in adversity. Hence it follows, ʻBlessed are you when men shall
hate you.ʼ For although men hate, with their wicked hearts they cannot injure the heart
that is beloved by Christ.”

This gloss of the Catena Aurea is sufficient for examining the portion of the Beatitudes
dealing with poverty. It is evident that each of the represented Fathers sees poverty as
having a place of primacy among the beatitudes. This is indicated by both Gospel
writers in their placement of the virtue first in their respective lists, lists that are
renderings of the very words of Christ. However, we must not ignore the second part of
the beatitude: “for theirs is the kingdom of God.” For patristic background on this, we
depart from the Catena Aurea and take up Origen.

Origen referred to Jesus as the autobasileia, that is, the Kingdom in person. In other
words, for Origen, the kingdom is not a geographical location; Jesus himself is the
Kingdom, or rather the Kingdom is Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth
insists (in light of his reading of Origen) that the phrase “Kingdom of God” is a “veiled
Christology.” The Holy Father states, “By the way in which he speaks of the Kingdom of
God, Jesus leads men to realize the overwhelming fact that in him God himself is
present among them, that he is Godʼs presence” (Benedict, 49). Delving deeper into
the linguistic nuances of the word “kingdom,” Pope Benedict (quoting Stuhlmacher)
says, “The underlying Hebrew word malkut is a nomen actionis [an action word] and
means - as does the Greek word basileia [kingdom] - the regal function, the active
lordship of the king. What is meant is not an imminent or yet to be established
ʻkingdom,ʼ but Godʼs actual sovereignty over the world, which is becoming an event in
history in a new way” (Benedict, 55).

It should be noted that the Holy Father is not actually speaking of the Sermon on the
Mount when he makes these linguistic observations. Instead, he is engaged in
exegesis of Matthew 1:14-15, when Jesus says, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom
of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel.” Nonetheless, the Greek word
basileia that is used in Matthew 1 is the same Greek word found in Lukeʼs first
beatitude. Therefore, not only are the linguistic observations still relevant for the current
project, but establishing the connection (both spiritually and linguistically) between
Christʼs Proclamation of the Kingdom and the Sermon on the Mount will be of prime
importance in the final part. I will have more to say about Pope Benedictʼs thoughts in
this matter, but this mention of Origen and his interpretation of the phrase “kingdom of
God” as the person of Jesus is sufficient for this section on patristic background.

4. Commentary on the Kingdom and Poverty

There are two goals for this final section. The first is to investigate what is meant by
Christʼs phrase, “the Kingdom of heaven,” and the second is a reflection on why the
here-and-now-ness of the kingdom has particular relevance for the blessing of poverty
in Lukeʼs Beatitudes.

As stated in the previous part, Christʼs promise, “yours is the kingdom of heaven”
immediately harkens back to His own proclamation, “The Kingdom of God is at hand;
repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). We have already seen the
interpretation given by Origen/Pope Benedict, but let me diverge for a moment and
examine one other interpretation. During the later half of the 20th century, a particularly
secular view (held mostly in Catholic theological circles) of the Kingdom of God gained
considerable ground (Benedict, 53). This position is motivated by the desire to apply
Christʼs supposed message to the widest possible audience. It is a slow process of
moving from any kind of specificity with regards to Godʼs people to a meaningless
generality. Beginning with the rejection of Judaism in general (for in Judaism the focus
is on a specific people), Christ, it is claimed, came not for a chosen subset of people,
but for the individual; he came to establish a Church that is inclusive of all people. This
desire for an all-inclusiveness is seen as violated by the Church in her so-called “pre-
Vatican II nature,” a nature that was guilty of “ecclesiocentrism.” Thus, to continue this
search for all-inclusivity there was a move towards “Christocentrism” (and away from
the Church herself) which strived for a less “divisive” message. However, the next two
steps were quick to follow. Since Christ belongs exclusively to Christians, perhaps we
should be concerned only with the general idea of God, hence a “theocentrism.” The
final step was a surrender of the very idea of God, since even God can be a cause of
division among people and the various religions of the world. In the end, we are left
only with man, and in this stripped down theology, the “Kingdom” is simply a name given
for a world governed by “peace, justice, and the conservation of creation” (Benedict,
53). The task of religion, it is held, is to work in harmony to bring forth this kingdom on
earth.

On one hand, this seems laudable; it finally allows all people to enjoy Christʼs message
in harmony, to appropriate it in their own belief systems and world views. On the other
hand, there is not much left of the message itself; it has been stripped down to what
amounts essentially to secular humanism.

To rescue Christʼs message from such deprivation, we must first recognize that the Lord
never preaches simply a “Kingdom” but instead preaches the “Kingdom of God” or the
“Kingdom of Heaven.” “When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God, he is quite simply
proclaiming God, and proclaiming him to be the living God, who is able to act concretely
in the world and in history, and is even now so acting.... The new and totally specific
thing about his message is that he is telling us: God is acting now - this is the hour in
which God is showing himself in history as its Lord, as the living God, in a way that goes
beyond anything seen before. ʻKingdom of Godʼ is therefore an inadequate translation.
It would be better to speak of Godʼs being-Lord, of his lordship” (Benedict, 55-56). This
is consonant with the prior observation that the Hebrew word malkut and the Greek
word baseleia are action words. It is also consonant with the use of the present tense in
Luke 6:20.

To further our understanding of Christ as the Kingdom of God incarnate, let us examine
Saint Thomas Aquinasʼ observation that manʼs final cause is identical with his efficient
cause, i.e. from God we have come and to God we must return. Our fulfillment, our
telos, is in nothing other than God himself. In order to be fully man, we must give our
entire existence back to the very source of our existence. Man is unique in the world in
that he alone can actively strive away from his proper telos. That is, man can, by the
gift of free will, choose not to give himself back to God. To do so is to be in-human, to
remain unfulfilled. Given that manʼs proper end is God himself, we can understand why
Vatican II says, “Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father
and His love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling
clear” (Gaudium et Spes 22). Finally, if what it means to be human is to give of
ourselves to God and to possess God deep within our souls, and if the Kingdom that
Christ promises is none other than His very self, we can conclude that the promise,
“Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven” can be understood as,
“Blessed are ye poor, for yours is Christ,” or rather, “Blessed are ye poor, for you have
already within you what it means to be fully human.” When understood this way, if it is
true that the poor already possess within their being their own fulfillment, then is is
abundantly clear why they are “blessed.” **

It remains now to try to come to grips with why poverty brings with it such blessing.
What is it about poverty that is so authentically human? We must first make a critical
distinction between poverty and destitution. All human beings are entitled to have their
basic needs met. The fact that millions are living in our world in the state of destitution,
where hunger and disease ravage entire cultures, is a great sin against humanity, and it
cannot be ignored that Christ was relentless in his call for a preferential option for the
destitute. Every time we withhold our cloak from the naked or our food from the hungry,
we perform sin not only against the human person, but also against Jesus himself.
Poverty, on the other hand, is not identical with destitution. The Latin word used in the
Nova Vulgate is pauperes. It is true that this is best translated as “poverty,” but what is
perhaps more noticeable is that the Gospel does not use the word egenus or the word
inops, both of which could be translated as destitute (though inops is more often
rendered as “helpless”). Nor did the author use a form of the verb destituo (forsaken).
Poverty (pauperes), as opposed to destitution, is the state of having only what one
needs. It is this state of simplicity that Christ calls “blessed” and to which he attaches
the promise of the kingdom of heaven.

As the Fathers of the Church unanimously observed, to advance in the life of virtue,
poverty must come first. This is due to the ontological difference between God and the
world. It is the unique Christian distinction that God is absolutely other to the world.
God is not part of the world, nor is the world as a whole equivalent to God. Because of
this distinction and because of our call to return to God, this world becomes Godʼs gift to
us to be used as a means for this return. Simply put: God is the end; things are means
to this end. On one hand, when one is deprived of the basic needs of life, this physical
state of destitution necessarily brings with the challenge of spiritual destitution (for the
human person is a body-soul unity). This is precisely why we must work to eliminate
destitution in the world, not primarily because of the physical sufferings, but first and
foremost to allow Godʼs people the freedom to worship Him in health of body, mind, and
soul ***. On the other hand, the possession of goods beyond that of basic necessity
brings with it the risk of using goods as ends in themselves. It is interesting that, while
Christ cured the sick, made the blind see, made the deaf hear, to my recollection, he
never once made a poor man rich.

Christ, in this first beatitude, does not say, “To those who are impoverished, I say to you,
do not think that this most unfortunate state is permanent, for the day will come when I
will relieve you of this poverty and make you rich.” Instead, he says, “Blessed are you
poor.” Poverty itself bring with it blessing, or rather sanctity. If the possession of goods
beyond that of basic needs bring with it the risk of treating this excess as an end in
itself, then it follows that the more we possess, the further we find ourselves from
pursuing our proper end: God. The further we are from our proper end, the less human
we find ourselves. We are now in the position to reason our main thesis.

In proclaiming, “Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven,” Christ is
making an ontological observation. Poverty brings with it the simplicity to give oneself
to God, which is the final cause of all of humanity. In other words, poverty provides a
more authentic human experience. In this, there is blessing.

Of course, all of this is more pressing given the large percentage of humanity that are
living in the state of destitution, a state that potentially hinders their ability to know, love,
and serve God. It becomes all the more crucial for us to divest ourselves of our
excesses to satisfy the basic needs of others. However, we must be careful to avoid
misrepresenting the Gospel as a kind of call for a distributive justice. Virtue is always
performed in the heart of the individual. We cannot expect political agendas and
government policies to force virtue upon the hearts of its citizens. To do so ignores the
authentic freedom that is at the core of the dignity of the human person. The ends of
such policies can only be atheistic ends, as history has demonstrated. This does not
mean that charity and generosity cannot be cultivated among groups of people, but the
Church has consistently and wisely taught the principle of subsidiarity, that things are
best handled by the smallest competent authority.

In summary, I would be remiss if I did not clarify one last thing. The state of poverty is
not purely material; material poverty alone does not bring salvation. Recall Basilʼs
comment from the second part, “For many are poor in their possessions, yet most
covetous in their disposition; these poverty does not save, but their affections
condemn.” On the other hand, neither is poverty is purely spiritual. There are those
who want to reduce Christʼs call to poverty to the mere detachment from goods. This
too is a distortion of the Gospel message. Recall also from the first part the two critical
Greek manuscripts (Papyrus 75 and Codex Vaticanus) deliberately avoid the phrase
“poor in spirit” and instead opt for simply “poor.”

Finally, there are many other aspects of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount
that could enrich this discussion, such as the connection the Beatitudes share with the
presentation of the Ten Commandments. Many writers far more learned than myself
(Pope Benedict, Servais Pinkares, and Thomas Dubay to name only but a few) have
already done so; thus, I humbly leave the reader to take up the various texts on this
topic for further spiritual reading.

* I am deeply indebted to C. Dewitt for his very knowledgeable rendering the ancient
Greek. None of the observations regarding the Greek texts, their translations, or the
notes on textual variants found in this piece are my own. My profound gratitude goes
out to Mr. Dewitt.

** As a side note, the present possession of our eschatological fulfillment is at the heart
of the Christian virtue of hope. See Pope Benedictʼs second encyclical letter Spe Salvi
for a more lengthy discussion of this.

*** In Pope Benedictʼs first encyclical letter, Deus Caritas Est, he warns against
separating the preaching of the Gospel from humanitarian efforts to alleviate people
from their sufferings. Primarily, we are called to preach Christ crucified.