Blessed Are the Peacemakers

The Colt Peacemaker.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

This is one of the most popular of the Beatitudes, but one over which there is much debate.

What exactly is a “peacemaker”?

I have some personal interest. An old census entry shows that some of my Irish ancestors were “peasemakers.”

My own guess is that this meant they made pea porridge.

The more distant listeners in Life of Brian hear it as “blessed are the cheesemakers.”

It is not, surely, a question of avoiding war—of pacifism. That, at best, is not “making” peace, but keeping it. And generally not really even that. The object lesson is Neville Chamberlain returning from Munich declaring “peace in our time.” Peace in our time is often bought at the price of worse war in good time.

Nor does it tend to fit the winners of the Nobel “Peace” Prize who earn it by negotiating a peace in an ongoing war. Because, inevitably, they are the same people who fought that war, and, inevitably, one or both of them is guilty of warmongering. There is no great boon to mankind in making peace if you made the war.

So what counts as actually “making” peace?

In Jesus’s time, the term “peacemaker” was most often applied to the better Roman emperors, on the grounds that they were responsible for the general peace: Pax Romana. Police are called “peace officers” for the same reason. You may say that they only preserve the peace, but they really do more than that: they prevent crime and violence by their presence.

It has to do, perhaps, with governing or acting justly, and justly resolving disputes, without fear or favour, in such a way that resentments and ill feelings are not aroused. The core idea is perhaps found in the Canadian constitutional phrase, “peace, order, and good government.”

It requires fairmindedness, and courage.

Blessed Are the Merciful

Daniel O'Connell

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

But what is mercy?

Doing good to others beyond what is required by your formal responsibilities to them; beyond what justice requires.

The church has traditionally listed seven corporal “acts of mercy.” These are not all Biblical, and cannot be derived directly from the Sermon on the Mount, but they have the warrant of established tradition.

1. To feed the hungry.
2. To give water to the thirsty.
3. To clothe the naked.
4. To shelter the homeless.
5. To visit the sick.
6. To visit the imprisoned, or ransom the captive.
7. To bury the dead.

Then there are the seven “spiritual works of mercy”:

1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To counsel the doubtful.
3. To admonish sinners.
4. To bear patiently those who wrong us.
5. To forgive offenses.
6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To pray for the living and the dead

Doing these thinks is not self-evident, not spontaneous to the conscience. For they involve actions above and beyond what justice requires. Those whose morality derives from the Confucian rather than the Christian tradition do not observe the corporal acts of mercy. Western foreigners are often shocked by this when they visit China.

One is not exempted from the corporal acts of mercy because one pays taxes to the government, and the government does it. It is great that the government does it, but you do not pay taxes voluntarily, so that does not redound on you.

Nor does one demonstrate this virtue by voting for candidates who promise to do more on these matters. While that might make your own taxes go up, for the most part, you are demanding that others do this, not doing it yourself. Politicians usually promise to make “the rich” pay, not the average voter.

And we are worse at the spiritual acts of mercy. In contemporary life, there is obvious resistance to admonishing sinners. There is even resistance to the idea of instructing the ignorant. Instead, everyone now is supposedly entitled to “their truth.”

And “forgiving offenses” and “bearing wrongs patiently” are widely misrepresented. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking them. This would conflict with the virtue of admonishing sinners.

The proper sense of these virtues was modelled by Gandhi or Martin Luther King, both of them following a trail blazed by Daniel O’Connell. You point out the wrong as loudly as possible, but refrain from revenge or exacting punishment.

Righteousness

Fighting for truth, justice, and the American way...

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.

This beatitude implies that those who seek righteousness, who most eagerly strive for the moral good, are those who have themselves been treated unjustly.

One does not hunger and thirst surrounded by food and wine.

So this beatitude describes someone whose overall experience of the world is one of injustice.
This again puts the lie to the “Hallelujah” chorus of some contemporary Christian thought.

It also puts the lie to the common modern psychological claim that being abused causes one to abuse, and being favoured causes one to treat others better. This idea, now so widespread, is social and spiritual poison.

This is also an argument for Purgatory.

A bad person fears punishment.

A good person, one who hungers for righteousness, does not fear punishment as much as injustice.

Such a person could not accept entering Heaven and the divine presence without atoning for any wrong they had done.

Blessed Are the Meek

Jesus modelling meekness

Blessed are the meek
For they shall inherit the earth.

This beatitude has earned praise from Gandhi, and criticism from Nietzsche, who described it as a “slave morality.”

Both assume it means to bear injustices patiently, without resisting. The “turn the other cheek” gambit—or at least, both passages are given this same interpretation.

But is this right?

The obvious objection is that Jesus himself is not meek. He openly berates the authorities, the scribes and Pharisees. He drives moneychangers out of the Temple as though he owns the place. He says he owns the place. He more or less declares himself the rightful king; at least, he won’t deny it.

You might say Jesus is unique. He is fully divine; we are not. But we are also all told to “imitate Christ.” John the Baptist is also conspicuous in condemning civil and religious authority; and Jesus declares him the greatest man of woman born.

Jesus concludes the Beatitudes with the commandment to “let your light shine”; which again does not sound like meekness in this retiring, submissive sense. He calls such beatified people prophets; and the prophets, again, were not submissive or meek in berating governments, kings, or the popular consensus.

Moses, the ur-prophet, was not one to meekly accept injustice. He murders a man he sees abusing a slave. Later, in the desert, to enforce discipline:

Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

So bearing injustices passively cannot be the meaning of the word “meek” here.

The original Greek term refers most literally to a bridle as placed on a horse: “blessed are the bridled.” The image seems kin to Jesus’s analogy of sheep and goats: the “meek” are those who submit to guidance, rather than doing as they wish.

But then the necessary question is, who is the rider? Who is the shepherd? For Jesus makes the point that this matters vitally: false shepherds are common on the ground.

Obviously, the proper shepherd is God. It is Jesus, who says “I am the good Shepherd,” and “my yoke is light.” As William Blake clarified, “Humble before God; not before men.”

This means the opposite of the usual understanding, in an important way. Being obedient to God means acting against injustice, rather than submitting to it. Injustice is an offense against God.

And this is just the behavior Jesus, John, and the prophets model to us. Proper meekness requires fighting wrong.

Such meekness is more than just a matter of restraining desires; that is covered by “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” This is restraint of self, of the will, the opposite of pride. To use the current psychological jargon, it is the opposite of narcissism. It overlaps the current psychological term “low self-esteem”; but modern psychology cannot distinguish, as Blake could, between humility before man, and before God.

Fighting wrong commonly requires a sacrifice of self. Self-interest most often suggests going along to get along with whoever is powerful, regardless of the morality of the situation.

We must see instinctively that this is immoral; which is why Nietzsche earned so many listeners for his condemnation of such false, co-dependent “meekness.” He would be right, if this is what the Bible indeed meant.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this Beatitude is that it promises a reward on earth: “For they shall inherit the earth” (or, “the land.”) Not in heaven, but now, in this life.

But perhaps this should not surprise; it is the premise of the Old Testament. Jesus rewards the Hebrews with land for their submission to his covenant, taking it away from the Canaanites for their depravity.

Is it true? If we trace history, does success and prosperity come to those who submit to the moral law?

It seems to me that it surely does not at the individual level: for individuals, the advantage at least as often goes to those who cut corners and act cynically, so long as they are not caught. There is experimental evidence that this is so.

But it does seem to work at the group level. And Jesus uses the plural.

As one would expect: deferring to the will of God, over self-will, means that people will work in tandem for the general good.

The Second Commandment

Something smells.

“You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who misuses his name.” (WEB)

Aka

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.”

This is ambiguous; so much so that Judaism has chosen to prohibit using the name of God, in any variant, in any circumstances, just to be safe. This is why English Bibles commonly refer to God as “Our Lord,” or “The Lord,” avoiding the use of the proper name.

But why is this a problem? Who is hurt by the misuse of a word? Would not, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?

It is commonly understood as a prohibition against making a false oath; against perjury, and against breaking promises or contracts. This seems reasonable, since in the Bible itself oaths are taken in the name of Yahweh.

But then, why not say so directly? Why be this circumspect?

Catholics believe this is a prohibition against cursing. Which again seems reasonable enough.

But again, why not say so directly?

Perhaps because it is about something more literal as well.

Literally, to misuse a name, or use a name in vain, is to apply it to the wrong person or thing: to look at a cat, for example, and call Puss a dog.

This may be an important issue; because Confucius, in the East, more or less makes it the first commandment in his moral system. Asked what would be his primary task if given power, he responded, “the rectification of terms.” 

Master Kung--Confucius.

“A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.” – Analects 8:3:4-7, Legge trans.

This may not matter on the simple physical level: if you call a cat a dog, it just seems silly. If you call a rose a stinkweed, it fools no one. It increases in importance as the things referred to become more abstract; it matters a great deal more, for example, if you call lust love, or prejudice justice. The potential for deception is far greater, and the consequences far more severe.

Logically, then, the greatest danger begins with misidentifying the most important entity, God: and this can stand for the whole issue.

This is more or less the same point Orwell made with Newspeak in 1984. It is vital that language should always be in accord with objective reality, and not manipulated for political purposes. Otherwise you can just declare “freedom is slavery,” and start enslaving with abandon in the name of liberty. All manner of evil can thus be justified. Perhaps this is why, in turn the Devil himself is called the “Father of Lies.” Tinkering with the language itself is a kind of primordial meta-lie.

Jesus declares in the New Testament that “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is the one unforgivable sin. It is the same sin cited here:

“Then one possessed by a demon, blind and mute, was brought to him; and he healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. All the multitudes were amazed, and said, “Can this be the son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.”

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then God’s Kingdom has come upon you. Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn’t gather with me, scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in that which is to come.”

The sin itself is illustrated by the passage: the Pharisees, knowing that Jesus had exorcised by the power of the Holy Spirit, said it was done by the demon Beelzebul. They were, in effect, calling the Holy Spirit the Devil. They were taking the name of the Lord in vain. 

Jesus exorcises the man both blind and mute.

There is another subtext here: what opens the eyes and allows us communication is from God; what closes the eyes and prevents effective speech is from Satan. Correct use of terms and concepts allows things to be seen clearly, and allows dialogue to occur.

Again, Jesus gathers together; Satan scatters. Devil, “dia-bol,” literally means “to scatter.” And an obvious instance of scattering is to separate the word from the object.

For every word is a “sym-bol,” a drawing of things together: most fundamentally, word and referent. The sound or visual character, and the thing it represents.

The image of the strong man being bound also seems relevant. Given the context, an exorcism, the plunderer would be the possessing demon. The demon gains possession of the will by first binding the self with the misapplication of terms.

This may be why, in turn, an essential act, perhaps the essential act, in any Christian or Muslim exorcism is getting the demon to clearly state his name. Rectify terms, and the possession must end.

Perhaps this is also why John the Baptist came before Jesus: in order to make the Truth apparent, we must first “make the ways straight for the Lord,” and this is a speech act. For that is what the Baptist does: he speaks. He is a herald.

This tendency to falsify language is, sadly, becoming endemic in our society. It is the driving force behind political correctness. Abortion is called “choice.” Government expenditures are “investments.” We are now required to assert that, if a man says he is a woman, he is a woman. And we must say he is, despite all appearances to the contrary, or face serious consequences. The list is growing faster than it can be enumerated. It is all, to quote Orwell, to “make lies sound truthful, murder respectful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

There is another curious part of the passage. So curious it must hold some special meaning:

“If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then God’s Kingdom has come upon you.”

Why this reference to children? Would it not be more natural to say, “by whom did your fathers cast them out”? Wouldn’t that have made his point stronger, showing that this was established usage? Wouldn’t it be more natural to warn that their forefathers, not their children, would judge them for such a sin? Do children commonly judge the acts of parents?

It seems there is something peculiar about this sin that inverts this more natural order.

It sounds like Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” 

The sincerity of a child is a threat to any corrupt social order based on a shared falsification of terms. Given such a situation, in which fundamental concepts are being falsified, it is children who are going to be best able to spot it. Because they are looking at it all with fresh eyes, without preconceptions—in this case, falsified preconceptions.

This may be why “a child shall lead us,” as the New Testament says. This may be why Jesus says “suffer to come unto me the little children; for of such is the Kingdom of God.”

This may explain in turn why, as Freud and many others have observed, it is the brightest and most perceptive children who come to be abused in any dysfunctional family.