The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 4 of 5)

The biblical affirmation, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (Matt. 5:5),¹ has been communicated through at least three layers of context: the 37th Psalm, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew’s historical record. To accurately discern the meaning of this enigmatic statement, all three layers, via Hebrew poetry, Aramaic speech, and literary homily in Greek translation, ought to be considered.

The original saying in its original setting is directed to Israelites faced with the age-old question of why the wicked seem to prosper while the righteous suffer. The reassuring response is that godless prosperity is only temporary, whereas righteousness leads to divine beneficence. Evildoers will ultimately be cut off. Those whose trust is in Yahweh are the ones truly blessed, with recurring emphasis on the covenantal land inheritance (Psa. 37:3, 9b, 11, 18, 22a, 29, 34a). Contextually the statement in question, “but the meek shall inherit the land” (v. 11a), offers comfort and peace as a proverbial expression of Yahweh’s favor and providential care.

This single line from the poem’s sixth stanza is then incorporated into Jesus’ message preached to a gathering of early-1st-century men and women of Abrahamic descent, subjugated and oppressed in their own homeland. The sermon begins with eight beatitudes (Matt. 5:1-12), where the six blessings of vv. 4-9 are bracketed between the repeated blessing of vv. 3 and 10: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus was “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (4:23) with projected fulfillment in the near future (3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 16:18-19, 28). In this environment, where God’s kingdom takes precedence over temporal distractions (6:33), what would it have meant to these particular listeners to hear, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’”? Familiar with the poetic imagery of the psalms, those influenced by Christ’s teachings would have had greater awareness of an everlasting inheritance and its spiritual significance (19:29; 25:34; cf. Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18).²

Matthew is the only Gospel writer to employ the expression “the kingdom of heaven,” synonymous with “the kingdom of God” (19:23-24), underscoring the transcendental nature of the long-anticipated kingdom “not of this world.”³ At the time of writing, the resurrected and exalted Christ was presently reigning as king (Acts 2:30-36; 1 Cor. 15:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:14-15). Matthew, his reading audience, and all other mid-to-late-1st century Christians were citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom as members of Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 1:22; 2:19; Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:13, 18), anticipating a future inheritance in the eternal heavenly realm (Matt. 5:12; 25:34; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18; 2 Pet. 2:11).

Contextual Layer #4: Our Contemporary World

Present-day readers should be attuned to what any speaker or writer in the biblical record was seeking to convey to his original audience and how they were meant to understand the message in the context in which it was first communicated.⁴  Before any biblical text says anything to you or me or anyone else far removed from the ancient Mediterranean world, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. Keeping this in mind places modern interpreters in a much better position to grasp the intended meaning and make application to our 21st-century environment.

Missing the Point With Faulty Hermeneutics

Following chiliastic interpretations of the 2nd century and beyond, the 18th-century reformer John Wesley believed “the Third Beatitude, ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ refers to the Millennial Age.”⁵ In more recent times advocates of premillennial eschatology, viewing “the land” of Psalm 37:11 and Matthew 5:5 as the entire world, conclude: “Considering the physical and material character of the promise, the fulfillment must similarly be physical and material. When Abraham’s descendants, that is, all believers alive at the parousia, rule over the earth in the millennium with their Messiah, God’s promise of blessings will be materialized physically on this earth.”⁶ Robert Alter, on the other hand, offers an apt reminder: “In great works of literature, almost always more is going on than one initially realizes, and this is especially true of the Bible, to which readers are likely to come with a baggage of preconceptions and habits of automated or inappropriate response.”⁷ It is reasonable to ask that if the fulfillment must be “physical and material,” how is it that Abraham’s descendants are spiritualized as “all believers” rather than consistently understood in the physical and material sense? 

A More Contextual Approach

As we analyze this seemingly perplexing beatitude through all its layers of context, the poetic nature of the original statement in Psalm 37 should caution against literalization. One of the most common features of Hebrew poetry is symbolism. An underlying truth or insight is conveyed with greater effect by employing expressive metaphors that strike the emotions of a particular reading audience.⁸ Jesus borrows familiar imagery from the ancient Israelite hymnbook that would resonate with his Jewish audience, which Matthew records in Greek translation for a Jewish Christian community.

It is helpful to observe Matthew’s copious usage of a form of the word ouranós (“heaven”): eighty-two occurrences, more than any other NT writer. With the distinction understood between the atmospheric heavens and the Godhead’s eternal abode (e.g. Matt. 5:16, 18),⁹ that which is earthly and physical is contrasted throughout the Gospel with the heavenly and spiritual. “Be glad and rejoice exceedingly, for your reward is great in heaven …” (5:12). “Do not store up for yourselves treasures upon the land, where moth and corrosion destroy, and where thieves break in and steal, but you store up yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor corrosion destroys, and where thieves do not break in nor steal, for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:19-21). “For what will a man profit if he gains the whole world but loses his soul, or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?” (16:26). “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for the sake of my name, will receive a hundred times, and will inherit life everlasting” (19:29). “Come, those having been blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom having been prepared for you from the world’s foundation” (25:34b).

Concluding Thoughts

Awareness and appreciation of these spiritual truths has often been clouded by a poetic verse wrenched from its context and interpreted through the distorted lens of elaborate eschatological theories. The message is much clearer and more meaningful when the words of the psalmist, quoted by Jesus, then recorded by Matthew, are viewed from the vantage points of their respective audiences, leading to a more fitting application in different times and settings.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² This emphasis carried on beyond the earthly ministry of Jesus: Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:14, 18, 29; 5:21; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5; Col. 3:24; Heb. 1:14; 6:12; 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:4; 3:9; Rev. 21:6-7.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, The Kingdom of God (Part 1).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Biblical Exegesis (Part 1).

     ⁵ Nathaniel West, John Wesley and Premillennialism (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits, 2018): 25. The concept of a literal messianic kingdom on earth can be traced as far back as Jewish apocalyptic literature of the intertestamental period and the first couple of centuries of the common era (e.g. I Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, 2nd & 4th Esdras, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs), as well as prevalent misconceptions during the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matt. 11:12; Luke 24:21; John 6:15; Acts 1:6). Within the Christian movement, the gnostic Cerinthus (ca. 100) was among the earliest proponents of this view, along with the late 2nd-century Ebionite and Montanist sects. The 2nd-century writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and the 3rd-century writings of Tertullian also referenced a 1000-years’ earthly kingdom at Christ’s return. The view was revived in the mid-19th century as biblical interpretation became less concerned about historical context, and the expression “premillennialism” replaced older descriptive terms like “chiliasm” and “millenarianism.” 

     ⁶ Sung Wook Chung, “Toward the Reformed and Covenantal Theology of Premillennialism: A Proposal,” in A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Theology, eds. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009): 133-46. Other contemporary theologians espousing some form of premillennial eschatology include Craig L. Blomberg, D. A. Carson, Wayne A. Grudem, Robert H. Gundry, Craig S. Keener, Douglas J. Moo, Robert H. Mounce, Grant R. Osborne, and Ben Witherington III. Premillennialism relies on the literal interpretation of figurative language and a materialistic concept of the Lord’s spiritual kingdom. The book of Revelation, a major focus of these proponents, is highly symbolic (apocalyptic) and should not be taken literally.

     ⁷ Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, Rev. and Updated (NY: Basic Books, 2011): xi.

     ⁸ See Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 212-16; and David G. Firth, “The Teaching of the Psalms,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. D. Firth and P. S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005): 163.

     ⁹ Both the singular and plural forms of ouranós are used in scripture, sometimes in the same context, to describe the spiritual realm of deity, as well as the future home of the righteous. The former is worded in the plural (Matt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17, 19; 18:10, 14, 19; 24:36) and the singular (Matt. 5:34; 6:10; 11:25; 18:18; 21:25; 22:30; 23:22; 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:47; Col. 4:1; 1 Pet. 1:12; 3:22). The latter is also conveyed in the plural (Matt. 5:12; 19:21; 2 Cor. 5:1) and the singular (Matt. 6:20; Luke 6:23 [plural parallel, Matt. 5:12]; Rom. 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:2). In Phil. 3:20 ouranoîs is plural (lit. “heavens”), while the corresponding relative pronoun hoũ, in the prepositional phrase “from which,” is singular.

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://www.news965.com/news/national/arkansas-bill-would-require-schools-offer-bible-class-enough-students-want/lgWyEyjzH962zQOoqNDR8I/

Noah and Her Sisters

     Noah was the great-great-great-great granddaughter of the patriarch Joseph. Her sisters were Mahlah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They were the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, the son of Joseph (Num. 26:28-33).

Background

     After four decades of living as nomads in the Sinai wilderness, it was time for the people of Israel to settle in the land of Canaan.¹ The fertile region was to be divided among all Israelite tribes except the Levites, who would be supported by the tithing system as they rendered spiritual service to the nation.²

     The land was partitioned according to tribes and families, and the head of each family was to pass his inheritance on to his sons. But Zelophehad, the great-great-great grandson of Joseph, died in the wilderness and had no sons (1 Chron. 7:15). Although he did have five daughters, there was no provision in the law for a man’s daughters inheriting an estate.

An Exceptional Case

     Realizing their father’s legacy was in jeopardy, Zelophehad’s daughters took action. Despite the firmly established patriarchal society in which they lived, the five sisters stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the tribal leaders, and the entire community. They made the following appeal: “Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers” (Num. 27:4 NKJV).

     Such an unprecedented request caught Moses off guard. He didn’t know what to do. So he brought their case before the LORD, and this is what the LORD decreed: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them” (Num. 27:7). Moreover, additional provisions were made for others who might otherwise get overlooked in inheritance claims (vv. 9-11).

The Promise Fulfilled

     After Moses’ death, as the Israelites began inhabiting the Promised Land, the daughters of Zelophehad reminded Eleazar and Joshua that God had commanded Moses to give them an inheritance (Josh. 17:4a). “Therefore, according to the commandment of the Lord, he gave them an inheritance among their father’s brothers” (v. 4b). Accordingly, the territory of the tribe of Manasseh was significantly increased (vv. 5-6). Noah and her sisters, to ensure the property remained in the family, then married sons of their father’s brothers (Num. 36:10-12).

A Historical Moment

     Contrary to modern-day misconceptions, women in ancient Israel were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and mistreated with God’s approval. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, one needs only to understand the plight of women in the ancient world in general, where male domination was the norm.

     Among contemporary Greeks, females had few rights in comparison to their male counterparts. Since they were considered by nature inferior to men,³ women were not allowed to inherit or own property. In the early Roman Republic, females were under the authority and control of their fathers and husbands. Because they were deemed incapable of acting for themselves, ladies were legally obliged to have a male tutela (“tutor”) to ensure property was kept in the male-dominated family.⁴ Among the ancient Egyptians, where equity between the sexes was afforded some consideration, men still held the positions of authority and controlled their respective households and land ownership.⁵

     Even though it was very much a man’s world, Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be protected, supported, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 18-21; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment of women among the Jews was contrary to and in violation of the divine will.⁶

Lessons to Learn

     Of the approximately two million Jews who entered the Promised Land (Num. 26:2, 51, 62), how is it that only one family had no sons? If we concede the providence and foreknowledge of God, this certainly made the allotment of property much less complicated according to customary birthright conventions. But what about the daughters of Zelophehad?

·      God expects his people to step out in faith and take action (Jas. 2:17). He doesn’t work through apathy, passivity, or laziness. Noah and her sisters took initiative in the pursuit of fairness.

·      God expects his people to trust him enough to confront fear (Psa. 27:1). Noah and her sisters, in a male-dominated culture, had the courage to take a stand for what is right.

·      God expects his people to put the interests of others before themselves (1 Cor. 10:24). Noah and her sisters were not selfishly demanding their perceived rights but seeking to preserve the legacy of their father and provide a future for their families.

·      God will always do what’s right (Deut. 32:4). Noah and her sisters were a test case, and the Lord turned a potential injustice into a blessing, not only for these five ladies but for many others who might otherwise be neglected.

·      While God has designated different roles for men and women, neither is superior to the other; both are equally valued in his sight (Gen. 1:27). Noah and her sisters provide a clear demonstration of this fundamental truth.

     Hopefully we can appreciate that the celebrated ark-builder was not the only hero of faith named “Noah” in the biblical record. Noah, the daughter of Zelophehad, along with her four sisters, impacted the world in which they lived and future generations as well. They remain worthy of our gratitude and recognition.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The ancient land of Canaan roughly corresponds to present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel.

     ² Num. 18:20-31; Josh. 13:7–19:48.

     ³ Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b; cf. also Cicero, Pro Murena 12.27; Epictetus, Discourses 2.4.

     ⁴ William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890) <Link>. Under the Empire, it was not legal for women to buy or sell property until the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), although they still could not vote or hold office (see A. Bell, Jr. Exploring the NT World 195-96).

     ⁵ Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs, Ancient Egypt: Everyday Life in the Land of the Nile (New York: Sterling, 2013): 89 <Link>; Robert C. Ellickson and Charles DiA. Thorland, “Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel,” Faculty Scholarship Series 71:321 (1995): 354-56. <Link>

     ⁶ The Talmud prescribed that a Jewish man offer the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).

Related Posts: Lineage of Jesus, Woman's Service in the Church, The Bible's Radical View on Women 

Image credit: http://ldsmag.com/were-ancient-israelite-women-named-sariah/