}So H. Holtzmann, Ibbeken, Kabisch, Klépper, Tholuck, B. Weiss. The zveiuars does not refer to the Holy Spirit, as main- tained by Achelis (Bergpredigt, p. 5); so that the phrase ‘the poor in spirit’ does not mean ‘the poor through the Holy Spirit,’ nor ‘the poor by the Holy Spirit,’ nor ‘the poor in the possession of the Holy Spirit.’ Rather, the rvejuers refers to the spiritual nature of the man himself. :
§ So the best of the ancient commentators, Origen, Chrysos- tom, Augustine, Theophylact, and nearly all modern scholars. Tholuck, Bergrede®, p. 63 f. (Eng. tr. p. 70f.): ‘a consciousness of poverty in the blessings of salvation... . The idea of
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
18
pee eee:
SERMON
ON THE MOUNT
This is in accordance with the tone of the whole group of Beatitudes, for they present an ideal of character and service in its egsential elements ; while external conditions, the possession or lack of property, are not essential. The Beatitudes and Woes, as given by Luke, speak only of material want and misery;* but that is a perversion of
physical poverty is here carried over into the sphere of poverty of spirit, . . . those poor are pronounced blessed who are sensible of their spiritual poverty.’ Kabisch, SK, 1896, says that the 7a aveowort is added ‘in order to remove the poverty into the realm of the religious sense.’ Klépper, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1894, holds that there is no reference in the Beatitude of Matthew to the poor in social position ; rather they are the Poor in spiritual things, those who in opposition to the wise and understanding (Mt 1125) are characterized as ‘babes’ or ‘little children’ (Mt 183); dissatisfied with the traditional wisdom of the scribes, they long for direct Divine instruction. J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2, 1900, pp. 130-182: ‘They are called “poor”... not because they have no money, but because, as the (287 OY, they have no religious, and therefore no social, stand- ing. They do not belong to the righteous, pious class, but are shunned by them like the lepers... . They could not and would not conform to the conventional standard of piety. But what was to hinder them from pouring out their heart before their God in their inner chamber? They live as children of God in a true simplicity, naive and unassuming, without great joy over their condition; because it has been so deeply im- pressed upon them that they never can attain the true righteous- ness according to the Pharisaic ideal. . . . They do not realize that they already have, what is precious in God’s sight, 7d pai’ ol qoixiov xveiue (1 P 34), They do not see that God, in his mysterious wisdom, has chosen to pass by the wise and the learned in order to reveal salvation to just such v4zi0: as they (cf. Lk 1021, Mt 181-4).’"—It is true that a materialistic interpre- tation of the first Beatitude prevailed in the early and middle Christian centuries, whereby voluntary poverty was pro- nounced blessed ; and this view is still taken by Roman Catholic commentators, as Hugo Weiss, Bergpredigt, p. 10. The Lukan form of the Beatitudes arose out of and gave a foundation for this false attitude towards material things. But the whole notion of asceticism is wrong: Jesus neither taught nor prac- tised it; He did not regard material poverty and physical misery as in themselves meritorious. It cannot be said that the poorer men are, the better they are; not even when the poverty is voluntary. Jesus did not require the abandonment of wealth, except in specific cases where it formed an insuper- able obstacle to spiritual well-being ; what He did require was oe supremacy of the spiritual life and the right use of material
ngs.
*So O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 186f. Similarly Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p.179: ‘In the four [Beatitudes] that Luke gives, the more spiritual words which occur in Matthew are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corresponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and ful- ness of bread (as being sources of temptation).’ Here the materialistic tone of the Lukan Beatitudes is recognized, but the writer has avoided the problem of adjusting the two accounts of the Beatitudes to each other by regarding them as two distinct utterances on different occasions; this is to ignore the facts and data of the Synoptic problem. Wendt,
ehre Jesu, li. 167 f., thinks that the economic poor are meant: ‘Because this salvation of eternal life offers an incomparably. rich return for all troubles of the earthly life, Jesus can at the beginning of His discourse concerning the true righteousness pronounce blessed the poor, the hungry, the mourning, the persecuted, because of their future participation in the heavenly blessedness of the Kingdom of God. His meaning here is not that in earthly poverty and unhappiness as such lies the ground for their longing for the future salvation of the Kingdom of God ; still less in the following Woes against the rich, the satis- fied, the laughing, and the praised, does He present earthly happiness as in itself the ground for the future loss of salvation. He intends only to affirm with the greatest emphasis that all future salvation is the single true and full salvation, in compari- son with which the earthly unhappiness is insiynificant and earthly happiness is not really such. Oonsequentily he declares that those very persons who from the world’s point of view are counted miserable are the truly happy ones because of the part which awaits them in that future salvation.’ Wendt holds that the Lukan form of the Beatitudes, together with the Woes, is authentic as against the Matthew report, and can therefore give this interpretation ; but if the Beatitudes of Matthew are the more authentic report, then Jesus’ teaching at this point must be understood as presented by them—and they give a very different set of ideas. Kabisch, SK, 1896, interprets: ‘Blessed are those who have freed their minds from the earthly wealth : for theirs is instead the heavenly wealth. . . . The absence of earthly goods and happiness is placed in the foreground, here {in Matthew] as in Luke; but not as there that accidental poverty must be blessed, only that voluntary, quiet and meek poverty will be blessed. .. . I regard the Lukan form [of the first Beatitude] as the more original, but at the same time hold that the First Evangelist in his added phrase has come nearer to the actual meaning of Jesus than the Third Evangelist, who