Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Beatitudes: Blessed are the Meek
CatholicExchange.com ^ | April 28th, 2010 | Mark Shea

Posted on 12/29/2010 8:51:20 PM PST by Salvation

Blessed are the Meek

April 28th, 2010 by Mark Shea

Today’s Beatitude (Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. – Matthew 5:5) continues Jesus’ tradition of transmuting lead into gold. Just as nobody wants to be poor and nobody wants to mourn, so nobody wants to be “meek”. That’s because we think of the meek as doormats and dartboards. We assume the meek are timid little people who scatter like mice when somebody of consequence clears his throat. But our Lord does not say “Blessed are the weenies.” St. Joan of Arc was neither a weenie nor a wimp. Nor was St. Paul. Nor, of course, was Jesus.

That should be our first clue that to be meek is not to be a wimp. It is to be filled with the awesome power of the Holy Spirit; and to not be defined by earthly power. It is to know who you are, where you are coming from, and where you are going; as Jesus did. It is to be at home in your own skin and not to be afflicted with the itching envy of somebody else’s life. It is to be free enough inside that lowliness is as easy as power since you are not defined by what you or anybody else owns or does or is. To be meek, in short, is to be free. And to be free is find that the whole world is yours already, freely given by the Lord of heaven and earth—as St. Francis knew.

Jesus makes two remarks that bear on this sense of interior freedom and confidence that is the true mark of meekness. First, he says, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). Second, he comments that men of violence tried to take the kingdom of heaven by force (Luke 16:16). The paradox of this is that Heaven is impregnable to such people while it is wide open to his “little flock.” Why? Because you cannot kick down a door that stands wide open. It is the poor in spirit, the people who don’t think they have the “right” to heaven, the simple, the humble, the gentle, who find, to their astonishment, that Heaven has come looking for them with an invitation engraved on the hands of the Host who died to win it for them. While men of violence are off killing people and blowing up buildings to establish Heaven on earth, Heaven himself is quietly welcoming the wounded, the weak, the foolish, and victims that these ubermenschen have trampled in their pride.

Those who are meek—who are so comfortable in their skin that they can lay down their pride and be the least—are not weak but almost inconceivably strong. When St. Maximilien Kolbe lays down his life for a fellow inmate at Auschwitz, it is not the Nazi executioners who are in charge. It is the victim. For a similar reason, Paul says that Jesus “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:6-11). In the worst act of injustice in the history of the world, it is the victim, not the victimizer, who is in charge precisely because he knows his life is at the disposal of his Father. That is why Jesus says of his life, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:18).

We have, in the long run, the same power—by grace. For we too shall rise on the Last Day to everlasting glory in the Risen Christ, to dwell forever in the New Heaven and the New Earth. That, by the way, is the full meaning of “the earth” that we are to inherit. In the Old Covenant, the promise was about the inheritance of the Promised Land. But as the Old Covenant was provisional and ordered toward the dawn of the new and everlasting covenant, so the covenant blessings were also provisional—pointing forward to the fullness of blessing in the New Covenant. That is what the letter to the Hebrews is getting at when it says of the ancient patriarchs:

These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city (Hebrews 11:13-16)

Some people have a hard time believing ancient patriarchs could have been hoping for the thing Hebrews says they were hoping for. Such people feel sure that the horizon of the ancient mind ended with purely earthbound hopes of making a killing in Canaanite real estate and that all those “immortal longings” of the Christian tradition came later to more “highly evolved” spiritual types. But this is to indulge in Chronological Snobbery: the notion that we have slowly been getting 5000 years smarter and more spiritual than our ancestors. In fact, however, “immortal longings” have always been part of the human condition and there is not a reason in the world to think that the Patriarchs were not afflicted with the same sense of loss, longing and hope that we are—especially since no story out of antiquity better evokes it than the story of the fall that originates with the people who spring from the Patriarchs.

Indeed, we find precisely this hope for something that is both rooted in the earth and yet infinitely transcends the earth carried forward by the Levites who celebrate and sing all the psalms that speak of God as their “inheritance”. The funny thing about this inheritance is that it is given to those who rejoice, not because they got a lot of real estate from the Almighty, but because they didn’t. For Levites owned no property. The Lord alone was their inheritance. St. Thomas Aquinas felt the same way. In a vision, God asked him to name his reward and he would get it. Thomas’s answer was instant and miles away from what we think of as meekness (but precisely what Jesus means by it). He said: “I will have Thyself.” Seek first the Kingdom of God and all the rest, including the New Heaven and the New Earth, will be given to you as well.

Mark Shea is Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange and a weekly columnist for the National Catholic Register. You may visit his website at www.mark-shea.com check out his blog, Catholic and Enjoying It!, or purchase his books and tapes here.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: beatitudes; catholic; catholiclist; virtues
Redefining what the word "meek" means:

That should be our first clue that to be meek is not to be a wimp. It is to be filled with the awesome power of the Holy Spirit; and to not be defined by earthly power. It is to know who you are, where you are coming from, and where you are going; as Jesus did. It is to be at home in your own skin and not to be afflicted with the itching envy of somebody else’s life. It is to be free enough inside that lowliness is as easy as power since you are not defined by what you or anybody else owns or does or is. To be meek, in short, is to be free. And to be free is find that the whole world is yours already, freely given by the Lord of heaven and earth—as St. Francis knew.


1 posted on 12/29/2010 8:51:23 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...

Beatitude ping!


2 posted on 12/29/2010 8:53:02 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Ladies and Gentlemen: The Beatitudes!”


3 posted on 12/29/2010 8:54:59 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore
The Beatitudes: Blessed are the Meek

The Beatitudes: Blessed Are Those Who Mourn
The Beatitudes: Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit
The Beatitudes
Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 8 Beatitudes
The Beatitudes: Generosity and Happiness
Beatitudes by Bishop Fulton Sheen
Happiness of Sacrifice
The Danger of Spiritual Sloth [Reflection on The Beatitudes]
Satan's version of the sermon on the mount [Difficult read]
The Eight Beatitudes

4 posted on 12/29/2010 9:00:49 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You have a good definition of what the meek are-which is the opposite of what most people I know consider to be the meek. It is not being a doormat- but having the strength and understanding, and the faith to do/be what Christ teaches us to be. He gave us the example.


5 posted on 12/29/2010 9:34:43 PM PST by handmade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

According to dictionary.com
Meek
–adjective, -er, -est.
1. — humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.
2. — overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.
3. — Obsolete. gentle; kind.

Origin:
1150–1200; ME meke, meoc < ON mjukr soft, mild, meek

—Synonyms
1. forbearing; yielding; unassuming; pacific, calm, soft. See gentle.

Given that Jesus, who attributed to Himself “meek,” yet also threw out the monychangers from the temple, overturning tables & driving them with a whip, IO think it is safe to reject definition #2. He was not OVERLY submissive/compliant/spiritless.

Given His reactions during the period between the Garden of Gethsemane and His Death #1 is certainly applicable. Yet, given incidents such as the Woman Caught in Adultery (where was the man, by the way, doesn’t that crime require TWO?), the Samaritan Woman at the Well, and Zacharias the Tax-collector definition #3 also fits.

There is also the working definition I heard one pastor give*: Power under control.
{*He used Superman/Clark Kent as an example of what he meant.}

“Meek” is probably one of, if not THE, most misunderstood words there are.
{”Love” is a good contender for that title though.}


6 posted on 12/29/2010 9:36:46 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; handmade

Thanks for both your posts. I think you are both right about the use of the word ‘meek’ in the English language.

When you get to ‘love’ in the English language, we are so handicapped because there are so many Greek and Roman words for love.

agape
eros

(I’m missing one here.)

And brotherly or sisterly love.


7 posted on 12/29/2010 9:44:29 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Here a take on the Beatitudes from Monty Python’s “life of Brian.”

Spectator I: I think it was “Blessed are the cheesemakers”.
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what’s so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

“Life of Brian” 1979


8 posted on 12/29/2010 10:15:27 PM PST by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

>When you get to ‘love’ in the English language, we are so handicapped because there are so many Greek and Roman words for love.
>
>agape
>eros
>
>(I’m missing one here.)
>
>And brotherly or sisterly love.

I almost have to disagree here. Even these qualified-forms resist a real definition of ‘love’ but merely impose an “as applied to” qualification.
I am far more comfortable in the world of definitions and logic and implications than the realm of emotions [one reason I’m a programmer]; as such ‘love’ is something that I am somewhat hesitant to use: for I do NOT fully understand it, indeed I would hope that you should call me a fool if I *DID* claim to understand it.

However, understanding and accepting are two different things. I do not understand the trinity* (despite definition), but I can accept it.
*There’s the “One god, three ‘hats’” explanation which is just as wrong/ill-fitting as “three persons, utterly united as one God” perspective.
In programming you could contrast these two views in an Object Oriented Programming design, using Ada, as like this:
—The Hats analogy.
Type The_Father is Interface;
Type Jesus is Interface;
Type Holy_Spirit is interface;

Type God is Tagged Null Record — tagged record is Ada-speak for ‘object’; ‘Null’ in this instance means the record has no members.
And The_Father And Jesus And Holy_Spirit; — the interface list.

In the above a God-typed variable can be given to any procedure or function which wants as a parameter an object of The_Father-type, Jesus-type, OR Holy_Spirit-type. This is the sort of model that best fits a statement like “the word was with God and the Word was God [..] and became flesh.”

—the three-persons analogy.
Type Holy_Spirit is tagged Null Record; — the three persons are completely separate objects.
Type Jesus is tagged Null Record;
Type The_Father is tagged Null Record;

Type God is tagged record — each of which are ‘part of’ God.
HS : Holy_Spirit;
Son : Jesus;
Father : The_Father;
end record;

In this model ‘God’ is a term for the thing which consists of a Holy_Spirit object, a Jesus object, and a The_Father object all at once. This is the model that best fits things like Jesus saying “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” and praying in the Garden.

Which is “more true”? I don’t know; and I suspect that if I did know the real TRUE here I would be called crazy and quite possibly BE crazy. (God is not so simple that we can put Him in a box.)


9 posted on 12/29/2010 10:20:16 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

PS / Addendum / Elaboration — Love is as much a verb/action as it is a noun/emotion.


10 posted on 12/29/2010 10:22:39 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
 

Question:
I understand that there are four types of love expressed in the Bible. Agape, Eros, Philio and some other one I can’t remember. Can you explain them?

Answer:

Yes, there are four: Agape, Eros, Philo and the one you can’t remember is Storge. Here are some basic definitions:

Agape – agape is the noun and agapao, the verb form of this word, speaks of Godly love. It is the type of love that comes from God or because of God and is outside of circumstance or human determination. This type of love is not spoken about in secular literature because it is a concept it starts with God and depend on God. Agape love is a love that is chosen, applied an exercise by God towards humans strictly as a manifestation of his will and attributes. It is a type of love practice between humans in response to how God commands us to love each other. It is a word that has special significance for New Testament Christians as it is especially indicative of Christ’s love shown by his sacrifice on the cross for our sins. The writers of the Septuagint use the noun 20 times in the verb over 250 times replacing the Hebrew word “hesed” (lovingkindness) with agape, a word they had to create to convey the concept of a agape love.

Eros – Eros is the name of the Greek god of love and is the word used for physical, sensual and sexual love. We derive our word “erotic” from it and does not appear in the New Testament. Interestingly, this is the most common form of love that you will find in a society that is moving away from Godly standards or has already departed them.

Philo – Philo is a general term for affection for attraction between people not taking into account relationships. It can be used in a general way such as “the love of God’s Word” and we take its meaning in such words like Philadelphia “the city of brotherly love”. 2Peter 2:17; Colossians 2:8

Storge- Storge is a familial type of love such as parents to children, subject to royalty or perhaps even how a pet loves its master. The positive form can carry a meaning like devotion or dedicated in the negative form can communicate the concepts of heartless or without love. Romans 12:10; Romans 1:31; 2Timothy 3:3


11 posted on 12/29/2010 10:32:46 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

To be meek requires one to overcome the ego. Many of Jesus’ teachings involved overcoming the ego.

Holding grudges rather than forgiveness, self-centeredness rather than helping others, wanting attention and to finish ahead of others rather than meekness, unwillingness to sacrifice material things, impatience, and angry outbursts....are all outcomes driven by an untamed ego.

Personally, my ego(flesh/spiritual life) is in one of the three following modes.
MODE one: My actions and emotions are fully controlled by my ego. Ego mode.
MODE two: I’ve gathered the willpower and energy to push myself step by step towards changing my ego driven patterns with a prayerful heart. The ego transition mode. Depending on how strong and fast I push myself this transition phase typically lasts between 5 to 14 days.
MODE three: A greatly tamed ego. By withholding the tongue from bursting out in a moment of anger, 4,5,6, or 7 times during the transition period of one or two weeks, the ego ends up losing most of it’s potency for mode three and the typical angry outburst are replaced by a typical calm reaction often followed by a strangely pleasant inner sensation that may be described as inner peace. Same applies in that two week transition period for the other wholehearted pattern changing of the ego regarding new behaviors of meekness, helping others, etc. One can also force themself to eat the broccoli they don’t like to eat without complaint as a sacrifice to God, or drive behind the slow guy instead of speeding around him in order to crack away at the ego in the name of God and spirituality. In mode three one may literally feel 20 pounds lighter, gain a higher capacity to feel joy, play somewhat better at sports, feel an inner peace at various times frequently...All things I’ve noticed for myself that may or may not be universal gifts that accompany the transition into living the patterns prescribed by Jesus for us.

In my opinion, this particular path towards inner peace involves:
1) often physically and verbally doing the opposite of what your ego would want of you.
2) repeatedly deciding in the mind to forgive the other person, rather than letting thoughts pertaining to that person inflict you repeatedly from within.
3) often deciding in the mind(different than physical) to do the opposite of what you want rather than allowing the mind to obsess over something the ego interprets as a power struggle between you and another person.
4) often praying during times of self-sacrifice and obedience.
5) In ones mind, deciding to offer a mental anguish, a physical pain, or unpleasant temptation that is excessively plaguing you at the moment, as a “sacrifice to God” with the decision at that moment possibly resulting in a meaningful reduction in the amount of unpleasantness felt.
6) not following into the trap of guilt that would push one off the new spiritual path and back onto the default ego path. Guilt can cause one to immediately quit doing the ways of the spirit for an unreasonable amount of time even though the path you were just on and pushed off by guilt had become easy and often pleasant. I know this principal quite well, quite well indeed.


12 posted on 12/30/2010 9:00:46 PM PST by pf707
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pf707

**By withholding the tongue from bursting out in a moment of anger, 4,5,6, or 7 times during the transition period of one or two weeks, the ego ends up losing most of it’s potency **

For me, taming my tongue (fingers on FR) is the most difficult, but you are right, after we practice this over an extended length of time — I put it at 21 days, we do tend to change ourselves little by little.

I like what you said about guilt bringing you back to the old habits, too.

Thanks for your insights.

Gratitude does a lot here too. If I can just be thankful that I’m breathing — and not saying anything.....LOL! (I know you understand.)


13 posted on 12/30/2010 9:07:54 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson