On Being Poor

For Theology Time this week, imagine that on November 19, 1863, shorthand writing had not been perfected and paper was scarce. Imagine further that individual reporters had been free to quote from memory. Might one have quoted President Lincoln as wishing that “ … government of the landed, white, male people, some who own slaves, shall not perish from the earth?”

That’s the predicament we find ourselves in when we try to compare the “Sermon on the Mount,” in the Gospel of Matthew with the “Sermon on the Plain,” as presented in the Gospel of Luke.” Heck, they couldn’t even agree on where he was.

Oh don’t worry, I’m no person to join in the countless volumes written by serious scholars, sincere Christians, charlatans, the wise, and the sinful trying to explain things. They only confuse us more. After all, mine is, Theology by a Heathen.

We all know the basics. In Matthew, Jesus speaks eight blessings, (some say nine) but in Luke he speaks only four, which are then followed by a series of “woes” in which he effectively curses people who are the opposite of those he has just declared blessed (Luke 6:24-26). Thus, “Blessed are you who are poor” is accompanied by “Woe to you who are rich.”

Say what?

Some say that Matthew’s beatitudes are more spiritual, while Luke’s are more down to earth. In Luke, Jesus blesses the poor, but in Matthew he blesses the poor in spirit; in Luke, Jesus blesses people who are hungry; in Matthew, he blesses those who hunger for righteousness.

Some claim the differences between texts to be on account of theological considerations of the Gospel authors.

Some say, and I drift toward this thesis, that mischievous scribes, devious popes, and malicious bishops, changed the wording to conform to their personal predilections and social needs.

That doesn’t explain some major differences between these four beatitudes. Consider that Luke writes in second person plural “yours” and Matthew in third person plural “theirs”.

Some say that Matthew tightened up Luke’s blessings After all, he had to pass the collection plate too. Some scholars have drawn links between the woes and the Matthean sermon, which suggests that Matthew knew the woes and decided against using them. Perhaps he saw that later preachers would have to take into account the existence of hyper-wealthy patrons.

Consider that we will never hear the likes of Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, or Jesse Duplantis employ Luke’s “Blessed are the poor,” preferring instead, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Actually, we probably won’t hear them speak of this moment in the Galilean’s life at all. As I say, you could probably chase a diehard evangelical with a copy of The Beatitudes, whichever version you chose. They would certainly act like a crucifix to a vampire when waved at Franklin Graham and his pals.

Could it be that, although his mission is first to the Jews, Luke's theology includes the Galilean’s  concern for social outcasts, such as immoral women, tax collectors, Samaritans and the poor. Someone once pointed out that it is especially clear from the Gospel of Luke that the author has a special concern for the economic poor of his world and much of the content of the beatitudes and the Gospel at large reflects this.

Perhaps, above all, as someone once suggested, the beatitudes teach us that we have both privilege and responsibility and for these, we must suffer, living out humility, meekness, hunger, thirst, mercy, purity and peacemaking in a world which will reject and revile us for the name of the Galilean.

Remember that the next time someone calls you a Libtard.

Deserving poor? or
Spiritually poor?