Now I’m hungry.

Nailed it.

Llamas with Steve Buscemi eyes.

(Original Photo)

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

So in Part 1, I — in a purely raw and uninformed way — came to the conclusion that hunger and thirst are not things to which man comes by choice. I can’t simply set out to hunger or just up and decide to thirst. These are things we have by nature, and therein, by the will of God. To that end, we can conclude that a person’s hunger and thirst for righteousness are not things that a person can simply decide to have either, and the hunger and thirst themselves must be given by God.

In thinking on this path, I came upon a question: what of those who DON’T hunger and thirst for righteousness? I suppose one answer (and maybe the least sensitive) is that God decides who is to have that hunger and thirst, and if someone doesn’t, then it’s by God’s will. (A variant on the predestination theology.) But that doesn’t sound quite right. For one, hunger and thirst aren’t constants. I’m not hungry all the time (although looking at me, you might think otherwise!), and I’m not thirsty all the time. There’s an ebb and a flow to it, primarily dependent on when I last ate or drank.

This leads briefly to another question — does the metaphor extend this far? Does a person’s hunger and thirst for rightousness abate once righteousness is had? I think, quite probably, to answer that question, you have to define righteousness, and I think that might be a topic for another discussion.

For the sake of right now, let’s step back from there and leave it that hunger and thirst do indeed wax and wane. If your hunger and thirst are not constants — if at some point in your life you may be more thirsty than at another point — then it’s reasonable to conclude that, if you don’t have a certain amount of hunger or thirst for rightousness RIGHT NOW, it doesn’t mean you won’t ever have a greater craving. This also lends credence to the argument that God didn’t simply decide whether you would have a hunger and will never take action to increase that hunger in you.

So, to the point. What if I currently don’t have that hunger and thirst? Do I DESIRE to? If I do, then I think all I can do is ask. As a caveat to this, because I know many of us believe that asking does no good — that God often does not respond — by way of encouragement, let me remind you of something Jesus said later in the same sitting:

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matt. 7:11)

And also, may I remind you that in the titular verse of discussion — as we found in Part 1 — Jesus may be painting a picture of a God who gives this craving as well as satisfies it. One who SETS OUT to give this gift of righteousness as a response to a craving that he implanted. If Jesus is talking about that God, then when we ask him to imbue in us a greater hunger and a deeper thirst for rightousness, I think then, too, he would respond.

It seems that, the more we discuss this, the more we make the same wonderful conclusion: God is generous and wants to satisfy.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

Let me just be clear — I have literally done NO study on this verse. Everything I’m about to say is at best my interpretation, and at worst pure conjecture. This is open for interpretation/correction/rejection. If you’re smarter than me (likely), and if you see some way I’ve misthought or miswritten, please let me know. I’m just a dude with no college degree who wants to think through a thing.

That said — here we go.

What does it mean to hunger? For that matter to thirst? The first thing that strikes me about this idea is that hunger and thirst are imbued. They just happen. I can’t make a decision to hunger. My thirst isn’t dependent on my mood. So what does that mean? If we believe that God created man (and, for the purpose of inclusivity, by “created,” I mean at least “engineered”. If you’re an evolutionist, this can simply mean that God guided evolution (which would also be God’s creation, mind you) to create man in His image), then we can infer that man’s physical hunger and physical thirst were planned and implanted by God. So for Jesus to say that those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” will be satisfied, is he really saying that to those whom God has granted a hunger and a thirst for righteousness, He will not fail to provide satisfaction?

If that’s the case, then we’re talking about a real microcosmic Abrahamic Covenant here — a transaction for which God provides the problem and the solution. In other words, a gift. If God has given you the gift of hungering and thirsting for rightness with Him, then HE WILL SATISFY that need.

If the picture you’ve been sold of God is that of a wrathful, angry overlord, I’d like to point out here that — if my own inference from this scripture is true — you’ve been sold a lie. This seems to be a personage who gives desires so that He can fulfill those desires. It’s a stark and generous contrast to the “disappointed dad” that’s been portrayed to many of us.

Part 2 is now posted, as well.