Luke has four beatitudes (6.20-22), but how many are contained in Matthew 5.1-12? There is no justification for making the beatitudes number seven (a sacred number among the Jews) by regarding verses 10-12 as transitional. And it is no less arbitrary to make them number ten, following the pattern of the Ten Commandments, by making verses 11 and 12 two separate beatitudes. Verse 12, which lacks the affirmation Blessed are …, must be taken as a continuation of the beatitude begun in verse 11. Had Matthew intended a series of ten beatitudes, he could easily have accomplished it without leaving any doubt in the reader’s mind, for he includes similar structures at other places (11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46).

But how does verse 10 fit into the pattern of the beatitudes? And are verses 11-12 to be interpreted as a separate beatitude or as an expression of the one in verse 10? Some scholars have raised the objection that verse 10 should not be considered a beatitude, because the happiness referred to in it arises from persecution, whereas the happiness of verses 3-9 grows out of internal conditions under the believer’s control. But this is a false distinction. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, persecution is viewed as inevitable for one whose life is regulated by the Spirit of Christ. Persecution may arise from without, but it is a response to what is within the believer. Nor is the argument that the reward of verse 10 is the same as that promised in verse 3 a valid argument against the inclusion of this as a separate beatitude; the parallelism between verse 10 and verses 3-9 is too definite to be overlooked.

But the more difficult question concerns the relation of verses 11-12 to the entire series of beatitudes. Do these verses contain a separate beatitude, thus resulting in a series of nine? Or are the verses to be considered an expansion of verse 10, thus resulting in only eight beatitudes?

Either conclusion is possible. In defense of the verses as a separate beatitude is its opening, Blessed are …, which parallels the other beatitudes. On the other hand one may argue to the contrary, on the basis of the shift from the third person “they” of the previous beatitudes to the second person “you.” No firm decision is possible, though the majority of scholars today interpret verses 11-12 as a separate beatitude, parallel to those of verses 3-10.

In terms of structure, it should be noted that verses 3-6 and 7-10 form two parallel divisions, even to the point of having the same number of words in the Greek text. And finally, the first group of four (verses 3-6) is parallel to the Lukan series (6.20-23), while the second group of four (verses 7-10) is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. In place of this last series of four beatitudes, Luke has four “woes” (6.24-26).

Blessed (Good News Translation “Happy”) translates a Greek word which is used quite frequently in the Septuagint as a translation of a Hebrew word meaning “Oh the happiness of.” In the Old Testament this word is used most often in the Psalms and in the Wisdom literature; elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel it appears in 11.6; 13.16; 16.17; 24.46.

The religious usage of the word may have had its origin in the pronouncement by the worship leader upon the pilgrims who came to ascend the sacred hill in Jerusalem. It perhaps meant something like “You are the fortunate recipients of God’s mercy and blessing.” In the present passage a number of English translations have Blessed (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, An American Translation, Moffatt); New English Bible and New American Bible have “How blest”; Barclay “Oh the bliss”; Phillips, Jerusalem Bible “How happy” then “Happy”; Anchor Bible (Anchor Bible) “Fortunate are.” What these translations do not indicate clearly is that the one doing the good is God.

In the Old Testament, beatitudes are most generally in the third person. Here verses 3-10 follow the third person form, though the shift is made in verses 11-12 to the less frequent second person form (see also 13.16; 16.17). Beatitudes found in Greek literature are similar to those of the Old Testament in that they too occur in series and are usually given in the third person: “Blessings on him who…!”

Blessed has been a very difficult problem for translators, as seen by the variety of ways it has been handled. “Blessed” or “blessing” are simply not common events in all societies. Further, the word used in some languages refers to a superficial happiness or good thing rather than to a right and harmonious relationship in which one party, usually the superior, does good to the other. “Happy” has as its primary meaning an emotional state. “Fortunate” too often is understood to mean “to have good luck.” And yet each of these words can have the intended meaning in some contexts. The same is true of expressions such as “to be well off.” One translation that has often worked is “to be in a good position,” that is, “to be favorably placed to receive something good.”

In many languages translators find that it is more natural not to start the sentence with the notion of blessed or happiness. Instead they use a construction such as “People who are poor in spirit (or, who mourn) are in a good position (or are well off, or are truly fortunate), because….”

The beatitudes say that certain people are well placed (or, happy) for, that is, “because” of something that God will do for them. Some languages do not use a word or phrase to indicate this relation. Good News Translation is an example in English. Others will use “for” or “because,” and still others will start a new sentence with “The reason for that is…” or “These people will receive….”

Poor in spirit is understood by some few interpreters to mean “poor for the sake of their spirit.” The reference would then be to persons who impoverish themselves for the sake of strengthening their spiritual condition. But it is more natural to take the Greek phrase following “poor” with the meaning “in the realm of,” after the analogy of such expressions as “pure in heart” (Matt 5.8) or “humble in spirit” (Psa 34.18 RSV: “crushed in spirit”), rather than with the meaning of “for the sake of.”

Good News Translation translates poor in spirit as “who know they are spiritually poor” (An American Translation “who feel their spiritual need”). Almost all commentators agree that there are two Hebrew words which provide the background for this saying; these words are synonymous, and each one may mean either “poor” or “humble.” For example, the word poor is essentially synonymous with the word translated “meek” (“humble”) in verse 5, and there is scholarly agreement that the meanings should not be too neatly distinguished. The word here translated poor is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words which mean not only “poor” and “needy,” but also “broken in spirit” and “humble.” During the time for which Isaiah 40–55 was written, the term “poor” was used of all Israelites who were living in exile without a land of their own. Later the lower social classes used this term to distinguish themselves from the upper classes, who lorded over them and oppressed them. By Jesus’ day it had become a kind of “title of honor” for the faithful of God’s people, who had accepted the difficult way of life that he had marked out for them.

In Jesus’ thinking, the “poor” are most probably those people whose outward circumstances force them to look to God for everything, but who also receive from God the gift of the spirit (faith) to look to him for everything. Therefore, the “poor” of Luke 6.20 and Matthew’s “poor in spirit” are the same trusting, though afflicted, poor people; but Matthew has made the sense explicit by adding “in spirit.” But by this slight alteration Matthew introduces a significant safeguard, which leads away from the thought that poverty in itself is automatically a sign of closeness to God. Jesus’ words may not be interpreted legalistically. True “blessedness” comes only as God’s Spirit is capable of leading the human spirit to trust absolutely in God.

It may be that the renderings of Good News Translation and An American Translation are too narrow and represent a modern overinterpretation. For the meaning is not so much that people recognize their spiritual need as separate from any other needs, but rather that they stand before God and recognize their absolute need of him. New English Bible translates “who know their need of God” (Phillips “who know their need for God”). Barclay translates “who realize the destitution of their own lives,” and Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1st edition is strikingly picturesque, “who stand with empty hands before God,” symbolizing absolute dependence on him.

In addition to the examples we have cited here, other possible ways of expressing the meaning are “who place all their hope in God” and “who stand before God knowing how (or, how much) they need him.”

Theirs is the kingdom of heaven is typical of most translations: Jerusalem Bible “theirs is the kingdom of heaven”; New English Bible, Phillips “the kingdom of Heaven is theirs”; New American Bible “the reign of God is theirs”; Moffatt “the Realm of heaven is theirs.” In fact some scholars assume, and rightly so, that this is the best sense for the present passage. But whether one interprets the meaning to be “belong to” or “consist of,” the emphasis is on the benefits or blessings shared by those persons who experience the rule of God in their lives. Only a few translations have really taken seriously the meaning of this part of the verse. Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1st edition translates “they will be God’s people when he completes his work”; Barclay has “for the blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven are theirs here and now.” The Greek text is actually in the present tense (“the kingdom of heaven is…”), and so the basis for Barclay‘s rendering; but it is possible to take the present with a future force and translate as Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1st edition has done. Both Barclay and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch have obviously realized the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of rendering “the kingdom of heaven belongs to them”; for if the kingdom refers to God’s rule, how can it be spoken of as “belonging to” someone? This is one of those passages where the focus is actually on the benefits shared by persons who experience God’s rule, and both translations have attempted to make this meaning explicit. Malay common language version translates “they enjoy the blessings of God’s rule.” In some cultures the idea of a rule always conveys negative connotations, suggesting coercion, oppression, and violence. And there are some few cultures which do not know the meaning of strong or powerful rulers. In such language situations one may want to translate “God accepts (or, will accept) them as his own people” or “they enjoy (or, will enjoy) the blessings that God gives his people.”

There are other cultures where the idea of a rule generally conveys positive connotations, so that to say “they are a part of God’s Kingdom (or, rule)” is enough to be considered happy or well off. Translators can also say “God accepts them in his kingdom.” Otherwise translators may need to make explicit these positive benefits of being in God’s Kingdom, much as Malay common language version (cited above) has done; for example, “They enjoy the benefits that come to those who are under God’s rule” or “The good things God gives to those who are a part of his reign are for them.” For a fuller discussion of kingdom, see 3.2.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .