Emphatic Pronouns and Salvation—Matt 5:3 (Monday with Mounce 53)

Coming to a clear and accurate understanding of the emphatic use of pronouns can be a little tricky. It is a matter of nuance and often difficult (if not impossible) to translate. The oblique cases of the first and second pronouns have distinct forms, but what about the third person personal pronoun, αυτος?

Since the verb contains the reference to its object, αυτος ακουει and ακουει have the same basic meaning, “he hears.” And so the reasoning goes, αυτος is unnecessary and its presence is making a point.

That point is most often seen in contrasts. John the Baptist says, “I (εγω) baptize you with water... He (αυτος) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11).

But one of the most theological powerful and provocative uses of the emphatic third person pronoun is in the beatitudes. All have the same construction. “Blessed are the … for they (αυτοι) will ….” The nuance of αυτος is that they they alone will receive the blessing.

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
2. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
3. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is not saying that the poor in spirit, among others, are blessed. He is saying that they and they alone will inherit the kingdom. The merciful, and they alone, will receive mercy. Only those who are persecuted with inherit the kingdom. The meaning of the αυτος is nuanced, but it is there, and its force is devastating to much of modern theology and its easy believism.

Notice that it does not say, “Blessed are those who have had a conversion experience, for theirs is the kingdom.” In fact, Jesus later says that many who claim to have done great things for him are in fact strangers (Matt 7:23). What will you do with this?

My suggestion is to first of all confirm that I correctly understand the emphatic use of αυτος. (I am.) Secondly, ask yourself if your theology can handle this. If you have been following my blog for very long, you have probably gleaned that I am moderately reformed. But what I most try to be is biblical, and the Bible says that God shows mercy only to those who have shown it themselves. That the only people who will be filled are those who hunger and third for [His] righteousness. That the only ones who will inherit the kingdom are those who are poor in spirit and have been persecuted for that fact.

Talk of this kind is often met with angry blog comments, but the fact of the matter is that this is what the Greek text says. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs, and theirs alone, is the kingdom of God.”

If a person’s theology can’t handle that, then their theology is simply wrong. How does the emphatic αυτος fit your theology?

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek (third edition coming in 2009!), and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.  

Comments

[Deusdecorusest.blogspot.com]

Does the same emphatic construction appear in Luke 6:20?

[Richard W. Wilson]

I love this. It reminds me of Jesus saying "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 6:14-15
Oh, so rather worksie that we can't fit it within our so usually definitively conceived Protestant theologies, wherein nothing we do is worth considering significant in our relationships with God.
All the best for those in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson

[Brad]

This has been picked up and discussed by Joel Hoffman at his "God Didn't Say That" blog as well as others. Link below...

http://goddidntsaythat.com/2009/12/15/on-translating-pragmatics/

[Bert de Haan]

Dr. Mounce, your example from Matt 5:3 doesn't seem to fit with your argument. μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
αὐτῶν is not the subject of the verb so it cannot be said of this pronoun that it "is unnecessary and its presence is making a point."
Could you clarify?

[Bill Mounce]

Very good. I passed over that. The first and last Beatitude is a different construction. So the blog applies to the remaining Beatitudes. Thanks. --Bill

[William Ross]

I find Matthew 5:3 to be about the most difficult verse in the scriptures to understand.

First, let me say that my understanding of the scriptural components of humankind does not include a "spirit" as Moses clearly describes mankind as composed of a clay statue of himself animated by his own "breath." So "spirit" and "Spirit" are false concepts to me.

But what in the world does "destitute to the breath" mean?! It is meaningless, as far as I can tell.

The only idea that has an ethical dimension that I can imagine is the idea of being "destitute in response to the breath [gospel]" but I would be surprised to hear that that is a feasible reading, linguistically.

Given the definite article, I want to read this as referring to God's breath, though I note you give it a small "s" - ?

Might it mean "one who doesn't have any answers?" This would imply being humble and teachable.

So, any interpretive help on this would be appreciated.

[CaptainFaris]

Of course, this isn't the first time that this exact point has been brought up in a provocative blog. So we don't have to solve this major theological debate here.

However, "reformed" thinking has long had its own way of interpreting the word "alone", hasn't it? As in, "God alone" gets the glory. So your "real" hermeneutics of the passage must be flavored by your core Calvinist use of language; so how can we know what you think about the word "alone" in this passage unless we know how you think of God's glory?

Likewise, the analogy of the faith is more critical to interpreting these Beatitudes than this exegetical point. How did the retrospectively writing gospel authors think theologically, since they were putting into Greek the Aramaic that Jesus actually uttered.

And haven't even you yourself (heh) said, "God alone knows..." when you knew that probably some other people knew? Or wait, did I just say that "even you alone said..."? I'd better check the Greek.

Nevertheless, thanks for showing how important it is to think about these details.

[Bill Mounce]

Reactions to this blog here and elsewhere have been interesting. My primary point was to say something about the Greek, and that the use of αυτος in Beatitudes 2-7 is making a theological point carried by the use of αυτος. I am not aware of any other way to read the emphatic use of the pronoun here other than putting force on "they." "They and they alone" is perhaps too strong (although I believe exegetically and theological accurate), but a simple "they" is too far undertranslated. But it is fun to watch the debate. Hopefully it is helpful.

[Steve Runge]

What are the parameters that you would provide for determining when a subject pronoun is emphatic and when it is not? You identify it in the Beatitudes, but without clearly defining the qualities that make it such. I was surprised that you conceded v. 3 to Bert as non-emphatic, as it seems to bear the qualities you claim in the others. If it is merely the subject role that makes the pronoun emphatic and thus "X and X alone", it would be fairly simple to produce counter-examples where your claim could not apply. I included a few in my response to your post.