As Jonathan Pennington describes in The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary, if we translate makarios in the Beatitudes as “flourishing,” we must face the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ claims. As Pennington observes,
[W]hat Jesus proclaims as being a state of flourishing includes many things that humanity naturally and even vehemently seeks to avoid—poverty of spirit, mourning, humility, hunger and thirst, mercifulness, and peacemaking (things that are only required toward those who have wronged us), and especially suffering through persecution... [T]he overall and overwhelming sense of the Beatitudes is that Jesus is authoritatively yet perplexingly commending states of being in the world that are the opposite of flourishing.
Pennington argues that the solution to this paradox concerns how the protasis and apodosis of each Beatitude are related to each other. The words “protasis” and “apodosis” come from Greek grammar and logic and describe the two parts of a conditional sentence, an “if–then” statement. The protasis is the “if,” the proposed condition, and the apodosis is the “then,” the proposed result.
Most translations link the protasis and apodosis of each Beatitude with the vague “for.” For example: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” As we’ve seen in Pennington’s translation, he uses “because” to link the protasis with the apodosis: “Flourishing are the humble because they will inherit the earth.” Here’s Pennington defending that translation and how it addresses the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ vision of flourishing:
“Because” shows that the apodosis provides the essential explanation or causal grounds for the radical paradox being claimed in the protasis. The unexpected claim of flourishing found in each protasis needs an explanation or else it makes no sense. The apodosis of each Beatitude explains why the paradoxical protasis is true and not meaningless.
The reason Jesus can boldly claim that the poor in spirit are truly flourishing is because, despite appearances, these lowly ones are actually possessors and citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom. “Poor in spirit” may seem like a positive Christian virtue, but in an ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman setting of honor and shame, the poor in spirit are in low places in society, and are not identified as possessors of God’s kingdom. So too, the humble are flourishing—despite appearances in society and the world—because they are the true inheritors of the world...
And so on, through each of the Beatitudes. Linking the protasis and apodosis of each Beatitude with “because” makes clear that Jesus is setting forth a vision of flourishing that, while puzzling on its face, is rooted in a deeper reality. On the surface, mourning or being persecuted is not pleasant or desirable. But those who mourn and who are persecuted truly are flourishing because of how they stand in relation to God’s kingdom and promises.
I would suggest that the Beatitudes are presenting an apocalyptic vision of human flourishing. True flourishing, Jesus is saying, is hidden. The Beatitudes function to bring that hidden flourishing into the light. This explains their paradoxical presentation. The Beatitudes are not commands we obey in order to secure a blessing. Rather, Jesus looks upon those already mourning or poor in spirit and declares that, despite appearances, these are the ones who are truly living “the good life.” Why? Because of how they stand in relation to God’s kingdom, both now and in the age to come.
As Pennington highlights the eschatological aspect of the Beatitudes:
The Beatitudes “are invitations to a way of being in the world that will result in flourishing, while understanding that Jesus is redefining flourishing as suffering while awaiting the eschaton...What is radical and unique about Jesus’s [Beatitudes] is the unexpected eschatological twist that human flourishing is now found amid suffering in the time of waiting for God to bring his just reign from heaven to earth...”
There is, as mentioned in the last post, an eschatological aspect to the Beatitudes. But this future orientation is not set before us as an “entrance requirement” for the kingdom. Rather, the Beatitudes describe a present state of being in the world that, despite appearances, is already happy, blessed, and flourishing because of an eschatological hope.
