Julyan has a series on the beatitudes this week on Radio Cornwall at 6.50am. I thought it might be worthwhile to host a blog to go alongside Julyan's broadcast.
A reminder of the collection of sayings that are referred to as the Beatitudes.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed ae the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5 : 3-10 Revised Standard Version)
The question I want to explore is, what are the beatitudes? are they about those who call themselves disciples or about Jesus? Are they aspirations for the followers of Jesus or are the 8 charachteristics attributes Jesus possessed? Are they the keys to the Kingdom? Are they an invitation to increasing grace and abundant life?
What do you think, I invite you to share your thoughts.
Shalom
Stephen
16 comments:
Enid Blytons "The Faraway Tree" is a book about three children who discover that at the top of the above mentioned tree, different lands were to be discovered. One of the visiting communities was the land of Topsy Turvy. The children discover that everything is opposite to the way their experience says it should be. For example houses rested on their roofs. People walked on their hands etc.
William Barclay says that the first 4 beatitudes in particular are "startling contradictions of the worlds standards, sayings which no one could hear for the first time without a shock of amazement"
There are many contraditons to "worldly views" found in the Gospels. Values and structures that would seem to be absurd within the human systems that we operate in (The greatest in the Kingdom is the one who humbles himself like a child. If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last and the servant of all. To achieve the greatest treasure the rich young man had to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Just to name a few). The Beatitudes seem to be in the same catagory.
In the Lord's Prayer we ask for God's Kingdom to come, Gods' will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Are the Beatitudes the signs of the Kingdom of God visible within the fabric of human existence? I think they are.
Deinsman said of the Beatitudes, "they are not quiet stars but flashes of lightening, followed by the thunder of surprise and amazement"
It would seem to me that although the Beatitudes are a "collection of sayings" I have not experienced all of them at the same time. Rather (taking the analogy of Deinsman's flashes of lightening)I seem to observe a "Beatitude" at different times. "Flash" I am poor in spirit, "Flash" Now I am not poor in spirit but mournful etc (I hope you understand where I am coming from??!!) Is this your experience?
I wonder if the Beatitudes are about vulnerability and within that vulnerability that the world shys away from or looks upon as weakness, the Kingdom of God is visible and present and dynamic.
You know I also wonder, in the "Faraway Tree" is Topsy Turvey land at the top of the tree or at the bottom? What do you think?
Shalom
Thanks trinityblogger, the beatitudes certainly seem to turn things on their head but I wonder sometimes if Matthew has over spiritualised them, and whether Luke's blessings vs. cursings is not truer to the original. The Faraway Tree picture is a practical one, selling our riches is a practical act; embracing poverty may be a spiritual act (in Matthew) but it will have practical consequences if entered into fully. I wonder how easy it is to live like this in complex, modern societies and whether we need to find the Beatitudes for our day. Nevertheless, they stand, In either form, as challenges to all who will read them seriously. Blessings all.
Thanks Julyan, Lots of food for thought. I think you are right with regard to the observation about Matthew over spiritualising. Is this a case where we have to do a bit of detective work?
In AD 70 The Roman commander Titus destroyed the temple of Jerusalem. The position of High Priest along with the council (Sanhedrin) that directed the Israelite nation in religious matters ceased to exist.
Where now could the dispersed find guidance with regard to service of God and the Law?
Does the gospel of Matthew (assumed to be written in Antioch after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in AD 70), seek to direct the Church (still heavily rooted in Jewish customs and thinking) regarding values, ideas and aims for the future?
If it does then we have to embrace the beatitudes in its wider context. The "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5 - 7) would seem to offer the fledgling Church a means to distance itself and break away from its Jewish traditions. Matthew seems to take this opportunity to reinvigorate the law of God and to define what it means to live under God's sovereignty.
Question for all visitors to the blog. The word "Blessed" seems to be a key component of the Beatitudes. What is this blessing? Is it the receiving of something good that was not present before?
Shalom
Some interesting thoughts Steve. What of the thought of Matthew recasting the law of Moses in the setting of this "sermon" on a Mount (where Moses received the law for the people on the mountain) and while, of course, Luke's blessings and cursings are et in the plain.
Interesting question too about blessed: For me it is not something that od offers that wasn't there before, or that is available in a new way; rather it is something that is gift to those who will find it through a certain lifestyle / mindse. There is an inevitability about blessedness as there is for Luke in the cursing: "If you do this, that happens." Blessed are you when, we read, rather than God will bless you if...... It seems to me that this is a more adult approach to discipleship than is sometimes offered.
I should have reviewed that before I posted it. here's the post with the mistakes corrected! Some interesting thoughts trinity blogger. What of the thought of Matthew recasting the law of Moses in the setting of this "sermon" on a Mount (where Moses received the law for the people on the mountain) and while, of course, Luke's blessings and cursings are et in the plain?
Interesting question too about blessed: For me it is not something that God offers that wasn't there before, or that is available in a new way; rather it is something that is gift to those who will find it through a certain lifestyle / mindset. There is an inevitability about blessedness as there is for Luke in the cursing: "If you do this, that happens." "Blessed are you when", we read, rather than God will bless you if...... It seems to me that this is a more adult approach to discipleship than is sometimes offered.
Thanks Julyan, yep I certainly would agree with what you said in your last post. There would certainly seem to be a symbolic connection with Matthew depicting Jesus on a high mountain delivering his sermon with the Law given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. I wonder if this is why Matthew's version of the beatitudes is talked about and thought of more than Luke's. Indeed I know very little about Luke's version so I am going to have to delve into it. Thanks for your comments about Blessed. Very sensible and helpful. If I read it right I think (and I emphasise this is a personal view not a general) it makes a connection with the comment I made in my first post using the analogy of the lightening. That the blessings are a gift in response to lifestle/mindset as you say. Perhaps we can explore what blessing means (what does it mean to bless God, what does it mean for us to be blessed by God?) in the next blog?
I wonder if there might be a Cornish dialect translation for "blessed". Happy is how GNB translates the word but I'm not sure that's quite right, at least in the way we generally see happiness. How about "fitty" - with apologies to all who've never known the term of heard it used in context. Things are as they should be, they are right and proper. Blessedness is possible in the midst of strife (so in the hunger and thirst after righteousness, or in the midst of peacemaking). To go back to the beginning of this blog, the young man's riches were not giving him blessedness, indeed they were preventing his blessedness. In the act of letting go, making himself materially poor, Jesus is suggesting the young man might find his spiritual wealth, his blessedness. Certainly Luke's version brings this home in a way Matthew's doesn't. Wansborough calls Luke's approach "blows between the eyes, direct and challenging" and says that, not making an attempt to spiritualise as Matthew does, Luke's version is "fiercer and more paradoxical." How would they have been heard and why does Matthew choose to spiritualise (water them down)? Certainly Jesus' words (closer to the original in Luke, I suspect) would have been heard differently by different groups of society, different individuals. For some they would have sounded like liberation, others like condemnation. Isn't that always the way, or something like it, with the Bible? How we read it, how we hear it, depends on who and where and what we are.
Thanks Julyan. Interesting you mention that reading and hearing the bible depends on who where and what we are. Reminds me of Prof "Jack" Drane who referred to the bible as a book of stories. First there is God's story, then there are other peoples stories. Finally we need to bring our story. In joining the stories together we might begin to make sense of what the bible means for us.
I have read Luke's version of the beatitudes and it seems more intense than Matthew's. For me it is interesting to note that Luke places his version of the beatitudes directly after choosing the 12 disciples. I wonder what they would have made of it? Lukes beatitudes seem to illuminate that God is on the side of the poor, the disadvantaged, the despised, and this would be a familiar theme to those hearers who were aware of the writings of the Old Testament prophets.
I wonder what those who advocated armed resistance against the Roman occupier would have made of the words "Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you" Interesting to note that in Luke chapter 7 following his discourse Jesus heals the Roman Centurion's slave.
I have no idea as to why Luke does not spiritualise the beatitudes as Matthew does. Could it be to do with the readership? Is Luke writing to a very different audience to Matthew?
Thanks trinityblogger. For me the more interesting question than what the disciples made of the Luke style beatiudes is why Mark puts them in the place he does, that is, as you rightly notice, after Jesus has chosne his disciples. the bgaetitudes are often refererred to as Jesus' manifesto. if you become a disciple then this is what is expected of you? You refer to Jack Drane's "stories"; within the other people's stories, I guess we need to hear the voice of the editor, the compiler. Why did the gospel writers, the Genesis editor, etc. place the stories they collected, heard, received, in the order they did. What are they trying to tell us by their varying juxtapositioning of these stories and sayings? Did Matthew write the Sermon on the Mount in such a way as it might be read alongside the readings about Moses on Sinai in the Jewish lectionary as Michael Goulder suggests? What do they reveal of their thinking when they alter what they receive from their original sources. And as you suggests again, what does that say about their audiences? Matthew's more Jewish, Luke's more Gentile? And is a more spiritualised version of these sayings not less dangerous, politically? You're in charge of an occupying power: which looks more dangerous, more seditious to you? Indeed Luke's version does chime with some of the OT prophets' words, and as we know they weren't always that popular! Plenty more to be dug from this mine, I think! Blessings.
Thanks Julyan, I wonder what the world economists and and chief executives who worship the human economic system that is the "Market" would make of Lukes version. What was it that the character Gordon Gekko said in the film Wall Street. "Greed is Good". Well in some ways it is I suppose.
For example many who defend the level of professional footballers salaries who play at the highest level would say a great deal of tax is being generated, and this benefits public institutions such as the NHS and welfare benefits. There would also be the argument as I think Gordon Gekko uses that striving for a big "payday" individuals push themselves and realise their full potential. Again going back to the football example. Many players outside the premier league are not that well paid so for them there is an incentive to improve and develop their skills.
The problem is what happens to those who don't make it? Further is it fair that a supporter who has remained loyal to a club for years in good times and largely for a lot of fans bad times, now find themselves priced out of going to watch their team, because the players are being paid the "market rate". (Apologies to those of you who have no interest in football, hope i didn't bore you too much but I hope you understand where I am coming from)
Greed is not just about financial gain, it is about power and influence. Greed is seductive and whispers that it is better to serve self interest than the greater good.
Thankfully within our human makeup there is something that helps us to realise that social wealth is as important if not more than individual wealth. (I am sure Jerry in his understanding of Dicken's book the "Christmas Carol" could elaborate on this) That the drive to be part of a thriving community, to be benevolent and charitable is just as important (maybe more) so than the ambition to be in our counting houses counting out our money. (Your theology of community idea Julyan.) For me both sets of beatitudes provide tension but also freedom. How do I fulfill the Jesus manifesto in the market dominated world with its powerful systems and the pressure of conformity. (Painfully is my first reaction)
Then there is freedom. The beatitudes consist of a different values system to the market values (which seem to be sink or swim) One where in the act of service and love God/Jesus liberates from the desire/need to accumulate that can so easily enslave me.
Thanks trinityblogger. One of the most important issues around wealth is how it is made. Can one become very rich without exploiting another? I thnk Wesley said something like "gain all you can and give all you can." He never got very rich and left at the end about the same as Gandhi. But wealth is seductive, as are material things (I'm a sucker for those gadget catalogues that come in the papers but fortunately I manage to stop at looking - most of the time anyway!). Another difficulty with the "greed" culture is that it makes money, or the acquisition of it, the highest objective. Duty, responsibility, service, pride in a job well done, fall well down the list. I used to rage daily at a sign the manger put up in the hospital when I worked there: "Quality up, costs down, mkes for good business." Now, i'm all for high quality as i am for not wasting money, and making sure it is spent wisely but what made me angry was the idea of a hospital as a business. the purpose of a business is to make money; if it has shareholders its highest priority will be to make money for those shareholders. It may sill provide very good medical care but its priority will be the financial bottom line. That is its nature. Build a society where that is the bottom line for all and we will find service and volunteering and so on reducing which is what is happening to most of the west it seems, and certainly here in Britain. There are other factors at work here such as the rise of anonymity in larger settlements meaning that I do not know my neighbour therefore I cannot "love" my neighbour. Anyway, that's my little rant for now. shall go and throw water over my fevered head and get back to writing my essay. Shalom.
Thanks Julyan. I have just re read both Matthew's and Lukes versions of the beatitudes and the subsequent teaching. It seems to me (I may be wrong) that in Luke's version, success, good fortune, blessedness whatever you want to call it of those who are followers of Jesus is linked to relationships with others and attitudes to our fellow humans. There are demands placed on the disciples which seem to go against logic instinct and self interest. yet it would seem that in fulfilling these demands the disciples receive not only the favour of heaven/God, but the goodwill, mercy and good faith they show towards others will be reciprocated. This would seem to me to be what community is all about.
Thanks trinityblogger. Interesting thoight that the beatitudes might provide a way of loving our neighbouirs, of creating and maintaining community. I wonder how changes to our cultural situation affect the way we read these things. The rules for living in the Torah were, for example, for one culture, those in Matthew and Luke for another but both those cultures are lightyears away from what we now experience even in the far west of Cornwall and far from, say, an inner city environment where community might be a very different concept. Catholic Missionary Vincent Donovan tells in his book Christianity Rediscovered of how his thinking about the gospel and about mission was changed by his experiences with the Masai people, a people without a future tense in their language, a nomadic, cattle herding people for whom the Garden of Eden story made little sense - who in their right mind would dig up the land that fed their cattle and make it a desert in a short while, and for whom the Cain and Abel story - the herdsman killed by the farmer had somne very negative connotations. The Kingdom of God became for Donovan in his dealings with the Masai "God's rich land of green pastures." How do we hear these old "rules" for living / relationship / community in our own day and in our own contexts? That's all for now. Shalom.
Hi - just to add a few comments to the blog. My church history is a bit on the weak side, but by the time the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were written down, would the persecution have started? Would these words have encouraged the early believers who were maybe having a tough time of it, and have had special significance for them?
When I read the Beatitudes I find it impossible not to read all that comes afterwards, as the whole of the teaching at that point seems to be so revolutionary and different to the norm - as amazing today as then surely. It always seems fresh and new, and inspiring - and difficult! Matthew gets harder to relate to after the Beatitudes as he is talking about the Law of Moses, but the Beatitudes stretch beyond the context of the time in both versions.
Thanks seagull. Good point. Matthew was written probably around 85-90 and Luke a decade or so later (according to "Interpreter's Commentary) so, yes, the persecutions would have started by then. Might that lend extra meaning to Luke's version? How about Matthew linking Jesus to Moses by setting the "sermon" on the Mount? I agree, whatever the context we read from the Beatitudes remain inspiring .. and difficult! Be blessed.
Thanks Seagull, I think you are right that the correct way to read the beatitudes is too include the teaching that comes after it. Indeed it would seem to me that to help us in our understanding of a particular text or piece of scripture, it is worthwhile to read around the writing we are considering. So often I find it gives a context within which I can begin to understand what the significance is to the writer. Further comparing different versions of biblical text (i.e New international with Revised Standard Version) is an interesting exercise in itself.
keep up the mining!
Shalom
Post a Comment