Peacemakers

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

I have seen some people argue that this is talking about making peace between God and human beings and so this would, in effect, be paraphrased as 'blessed are the evangelists ....'. And I can see that there is a logic to that interprestation and I suspect that it is even a legitimate way of looking at the verse in part. However, I can't see my way to thinking that it is tha main interpretation or the right place to start: it seems evasive of the main point. If we look at the rest of the seromon of the mount we don't find anything else that really supports the 'evangelist' interpretation. We do find, however, a reference to being 'children of your heaven;y father' in conjunction with taking a stance to others which eschews retaliation in favour of loving responses. That allied to the 'obvious' meaning of the term drives me to suggest that we should first take the meaning to be the plain one of those who make peace between humans.



There is something Godly about not retunring evil for evil but rather good. There is something Godly about creating the conditions for harmonious human living together. There is something Godly about reconciling enemies. Further, given the normal biblical resonances of 'peace' as encompassing ideas of welfare and health; more than the absence of conflict; more the promotion of the common good and of conditons that make for human flourishing and making common cause for the welfare of humanity



I guess why a number of Christinas are concerned about this 'direct' interpretation is that it seems to bypass the need for faith in Christ for salvation: it looks like salvation by works. If being a peacemaker leads to being a child of God, then where is the confessing of faith in Christ, baptism etc? I think that this is an important question and ther may be a couple of responses. One response is to note that Jesus is talking to disciples; people who have already [however incohately and undefinedly] put their faith in Christ; and beyond them Jesus via Matthew is addressing those who gathered in Christian house-churches in the first century; the baptised Christian community. So,as with the Law of Moses, this is ethical teaching that presupposes that those who are already are 'saved' are the ones listening. 'Sons of God' is probably a semitism meaning 'likeness to God' rather than making a categorical statement about salvation. So in that perspective what is being said is something like 'Those who are peacemakers are lucky because thay are like God'.



Another response to the issue of it appearing to be a criterion of salvation is to note that it isn't the only place that this kind of thing seems to be the case: Matthew 25 seems to do something similar. It may be that all these things can be dealt with as variants on the theme of 'in house' ethical teaching'. However, I have to confess that I am wondering whether we are being too tied down to response to Christ being in terms of rational-verbal acknowledgements. I want to think further about the possibility that there are salvific responses to Christ that are responses to the work of the Holy Spirit working at a pre-verbal level and are more about the being of God evidenced through what we might call 'values' and shown through behaviour that is conformity with the character of God ... maybe.