There is a definite Old World context for this particular blessing. Conditions in Israel at the time of Christ were tense. After years of domination by other nations, Israel was in both a familiar and unfamiliar relationship with yet another nation. Rome was the new boss. Rome introduced types of taxes and land ownership that disrupted traditional patterns, pushing many Israelites into poverty. The religious issue was sacrilege; the land that Yahweh had promised in perpetuity to Israelites was now owned by the Romans. Unlike previous overlords who had exacted taxes but left land ownership, the stripping of land from the Israelites completely removed from them not only their ability to produce for themselves but also from their conceptual ties to place. They were not only poor because their production was given to others; they were poor because they had nothing of their own.
The political tensions were on the brink of erupting into warfare. A little more than thirty years after Jesus’s sermon, violent rebellion would once again erupt (A.D. 66); and this time the Romans would destroy the temple (A.D. 70).
In the Old World, Jesus was speaking in an explosive political climate. Many were doubtless looking for the Triumphant Messiah, the military leader who would vanquish all of Yahweh’s (and Israel’s) enemies. But the Atoning Messiah’s message was quite different—a blessing on the peacemakers. This was not an admonition to talk politely to one’s next-door neighbor but a firm repudiation of aggravating the volatile situation with Rome. Guelich suggests: “We should take the adjective in its more literal, active sense of one who makes peace, who brings reconciliation between opposing parties rather than one who patiently endures in a passive posture of nonresistance for the sake of peace.”
Thus, the reversal of this beatitude comes, not in the statement itself but against the expectations. Given the political climate, some expected to become members of Yahweh’s kingdom by creating it through violence and following/creating the Triumphant Messiah who would lead this earthly political uprising. They intended to be “children of God” by violently overthrowing the Romans and restoring Israel’s political glory. In rebuking contrast, Jesus tells them that peacemakers will become “the children of God.” Access to Yahweh’s kingdom would come to the peacemakers, not to the revolutionaries.
Book of Mormon Context: The political situation was quite different in the New World. However, a cult of war was developing in the larger Mesoamerican culture, impinging on the Nephites. (See commentary accompanying Alma 24:9–11.) The recent confrontation with Gadianton “robbings and plunderings” may refer to the types of wars typical among Mesoamerican city-states. (See commentary accompanying Helaman 6:17.) When the Gadianton robbers had governed the Nephites fifty-three years previously, the Nephites themselves engaged in such “robbings and plunderings.” And certainly, the Nephites had been involved in warfare. Thus, this beatitude instructed them to eschew a culture of warfare.