Matthew 5:9 reads, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (ESV). This verse is one of the most quoted lines of the Beatitudes, but that does not mean it is the best understood. In fact, it has been misprinted, as in the second edition of the Geneva Bible. There it reads, “Blessed are the placemakers.” Monty Python took the liberty of people in the crowd mishearing Jesus’ words for a few good laughs in Life of Brian—“…Blessed are the cheesemakers” (Refer here to the scene).
The problem goes beyond misprinting or mishearing the statement. Perhaps the Romans listening in or reading Jesus’ words thought he had Rome’s peace—the Pax Romana—in mind. After all, as Douglas R. A. Hare notes, Jesus uttered these words during the Pax Romana, when Rome had established peace and brought to an end small wars between various peoples, ended pirating, and diminished greatly highway banditry. However, its forces could not establish the Shalom that the Jewish Scriptures envision: “harmonious cooperation aimed at the welfare of all.”[1] Going further, Augustus’ reforms, known as the Roman peace, lasted a few hundred years and achieved a great deal for the Roman Empire politically, economically, and socially. Augustus sought to establish Rome as a capital for the entire world and instructed the Romans to view their destiny as that of all humanity. As one online source put it, “They were the chosen people who would bring peace and stability to a violent and changing world.”[2]
I always get a bit fearful when someone or some group takes it upon themselves to establish peace, especially by violent and oppressive force, like the Romans did. Rome created incredible turmoil to bring about its envisioned Messianic peace. Jesus did not have in mind the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) but the Pax Christi, which is the eschatological fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures’ emphasis on Shalom. As Jürgen Moltmann claims, Jesus confronts the Roman rule of retribution by way of redemption, grace, and the cross.[3]
Perhaps the Zealots understood Jesus’ words to entail the removal of the Pax Romana—by violent force (See this Jewish Encyclopedia account of the Zealots). After all, Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, the long-awaited Messiah or Christ. And yet, why would he establish his rule by way of the cross, and why would he take a tax collector like Matthew—the author of this gospel—into his inner circle along with Simon the Zealot? Tax collectors were traitors among the Jewish people who did the bidding of Rome in collecting taxes and making a great profit in the process at the expense of their countrymen. While Matthew left his tax collector booth behind (Luke 5:27-28), he did not become a Zealot, but Jesus’ disciple which involves an alternative or counter-kingdom order to what Romans and Zealots envisioned respectively. Jesus’ view of peace does not resonate well with Roman or Zealot peace (See Jesus’ words later in this very chapter—Matthew 5:38-49; note also that when given the opportunity to resist by force, Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off his would-be captor’s ear with a sword, heals the ear, and goes willingly with his would-be captors, ever in full control of all the proceedings (Luke 22:47-53; John 18:1-11). Jesus’ peace does not resonate with tax collector peace either; for Jesus tells his followers not simply to love those who love them—which even the tax collectors do—but also to love their enemies (See Matthew 5:46).
It is not just the Romans, Zealots or tax collectors that can miss what Jesus is trying to say. All of us can miss it. All too often, we function like the characters in the Monty Python movie noted earlier. We may not mishear Jesus to say, “Blessed are the cheesemakers.” Rather, we might be like some of the others in the crowd who for whatever reason fail to apply what Jesus says; instead, we start fighting rather than make peace with one another, or depart for a stoning, like the woman (Brian’s mother) who finds a stoning more entertaining or meaningful than listening to Jesus. Some of us might operate like the religious leader in the crowd who says we should not take cheese making literally (“cheese making” can refer to any dairy manufacturer); those of us who follow this religious leader’s example do the same thing with peacemaking—we think Jesus wants for us to take “peacemaking” figuratively.
But Jesus does want us to take his words literally. We are to be peacemakers. While we do not initiate peace with God—since God must be (and is) the one who initiates and reconciles us to himself, we are to respond affirmatively and be reconciled to God.[4] Following from being reconciled to God, we are to initiate and seek peace with one another. Indeed, peace with God that is established by God’s rule in our lives through the Pax Christi (peace of Christ) entails the effort to be at peace with our fellow humans. We must never separate reconciliation with God from reconciliation with neighbor. Matthew’s Gospel emphasizes both aspects, as does Luke’s Gospel. In the latter gospel, the chief tax collector Zaccheus makes peace with others by making amends for his wrongs against them, showing that salvation has come to his house and that he is a “son of Abraham” (Luke 19:1-10).[5] Peacemaking entails more than simply avoiding war with others or being “peaceful;” it involves making peace with people.[6]
There is nothing passive about making peace. It is hard, active work. It is God’s ongoing activity, as he reconciles the world to himself through his Son. God truly views those who make peace as his sons and children, as we make peace (Matthew 5:9 and 5:44-45 make a connection between “eschatological sonship and peace-making.”[7] Children copy what their parents do.
Think of Isaiah, who was truly a son of Abraham. As such, he was a bearer of God’s tidings of peace. In the previous blog post in this series—“‘Blessed are the pure in heart’—not the double-minded and those with cloudy vision,” I referred to Isaiah as one who became a bearer of God’s good news of peace and joy, when God cleansed him (See Isaiah 6). He exhorted the people in his day to be reconciled to God. The book of Isaiah declares, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’” (Isaiah 52:7; cf. Romans 10:15). The tragic irony is that the rulers and people ultimately rejected Isaiah’s message and him; tradition tells us that he was sawn in two (Hebrews 11:37) by the order of Manasseh king of Judah.[8] Like father, like son—Isaiah is a peacemaker like God. Or to put it in other terms, like God’s Messiah, like his prophets. It is no coincidence that in the very next beatitude Jesus declares that those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake will be blessed—the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Like Isaiah and other prophets of old, Jesus’ peacemaking followers bear witness to Jesus, the prince of peace; they are persecuted for it (Matthew 5:10-12).
Not everything that passes for peace functions as a form of God’s peace. God’s peace involves God’s reign, as Isaiah 52:7 referenced above makes clear. Not everyone wants God’s reign. God’s peace revealed in Jesus disturbs unjust tranquility. The prophets of old who foreshadowed Jesus also disturbed unjust tranquility. Further to what was said above, God’s righteous prophets of old told the rulers of Israel and Judah that calamity would befall them for their unjust dealings. There would be no peace no matter how much the rulers of the people wished or declared it because they did not obey God by following his Law, which involved justice for the people and the land. The rulers did not like hearing the message of the prophets that called them to repent and enter into God’s kingdom Shalom. As a result, those in power persecuted the godly prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah. Like them, we will be persecuted for calling for God’s peace to replace an unjust peace.
In closing, it is important to note that opposition and persecution are not always overt. Opposition can take the form of moderation—moderates often prefer order to justice.[9] Just think of Martin Luther King, Jr’s situation. King was jailed for confronting unjust laws of segregation with justice; he was imprisoned for disturbing the peace—an unjust peace; the preachers of Birmingham confronted him for it. We will close with a portion of his prophetic rejoinder in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” written in 1963:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Many of us may promote injustice by preferring a negative peace, which is the absence of tension. But King knew that justice often requires tension: “… I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’ I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” Perhaps this is the means through which we can harmonize Jesus’ blessing the peacemakers and his bringing a sword of some kind (See Matthew 10:34)? Regardless, we must not harmonize injustice with peace.
Do we avoid tension for the sake of order even if it puts justice on hold? There’s something very cheesy about such peace. Those who avoid tension for the sake of order apart from justice are not agents of peace. Peace with God involves the just ordering of our relationships, whereby we love God even as we love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31). Jesus would have us take his words about peace quite literally.
_______________
[1]Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), pg. 42.
[2]Lecture 12: Augustus Caesar and the Pax Romana. The History Guide: Lectures on Ancient and Medieval European History.
[3]See Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 136-45.
[4]Here I call to mind 2 Corinthians 5:18-21: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (italics added).
[5]Further to Jesus’ claim that Zacchaeus is a son of Abraham, John the Baptist and Jesus maintained that those who belong to Abraham by repentance and faith in God’s reconciling, peacemaking activity through the Messiah, God’s Son Jesus, belong to God (Matthew 3:9; John 8:39-47). Zacchaeus is a true child of Abraham, for he has repented of his past life and believed in Jesus, who has come to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).
[6]See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997), page 457.
[7]Davies and Allison, Matthew, page 459. They also write, “What is hoped for and symbolized by the notion of eschatological sonship is twofold—(1) a degree of intimacy with God heretofore not experienced and (2) a likeness to him (cf. 5.48).” (page 549)
[8]See the Jewish Encyclopedia’s account of “Isaiah.”
[9]I am not referring to political moderates as such, but to those who simply seek to maintain a sense of equilibrium between (seemingly) opposing schemes no matter the cost.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In