I've been pondering for some time now the significance of a discussion that occurred at lunch time two days ago. Prof. Elness Hanson has been hosting a series of "table discussions" wherein all are welcomed to participate in and bring a voice to various topics of religious significance. Wednesday's discussion was hosted by Dr. Grigsby and moderated by Prof. Elness Hanson. The topic was the Beatitudes, and the impression that was left on me was of particular significance.
I have always been the sort to require a philosophical understanding of a thing before I can accept its practical application; it's no use to employ a quadratic equation until I can grasp what it means to employ its use. Another way of saying that would be that it's no use describing the mechanics of a vacuum until I can understand its nature and why it exists in the first place. Theory before application.
So what do the Beatitudes mean? What is their purpose? Why would Jesus choose to speak these words? I cannot simply accept God's many blessings until I can understand why I am being blessed in the first place. And I certainly cannot employ the blessing's use if I don't understand its intended function, nor if I cannot reconcile the fact that I certainly do not deserve it. But finally, after some great while, I have been given an open window into the fundamental concepts that Jesus (according to the implied author of the Gospel according to Matthew) was trying to communicate.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." These are Jesus' reported first words in his famous "Sermon on the Mount" as recorded by the author of the Gospel according to Matthew. Without detailing a complete exegesis on the passage, I'll focus on the point that Dr. Grigsby made concerning that interesting phrase, "poor in spirit."
Both Matthew and Luke Gospel accounts use the word "poor" when describing those who are blessed by God. It is the same Koine Greek word, "ptochos," which communicates the same concept that "beggar" does in American English, but with the added socio-political quality that is of one who pertains or belongs to a mendicant social hierarchy (Strong, James. "New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance." Nashville, Tennasse: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1996. Greek Dictionary, 78). Vine's adds the connotation "metephorically," suggesting that the Greek word, as it is used in context (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20), is not necessarily to be taken literally (Vine, W.E. "Vine's Concise Dictionary of the Bible." Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2005. 282).
Dr. Grigsby suggested a number of possibilities; none of which I can entirely recall, and all of which I desperately wish to. Nonetheless, I do recall Dr. Grigsby presenting the idea that if the Biblical passage were to pertain only to those who were financially destitute or socially marginalized, there would be no "blessing" for anyone else.
Does this mean that Jesus wanted us to live our lives bereft of financial security? Cast aside by every wind of political upheaval? Eschewing any political and social voice in our communities? Certainly not, as verified by the whole of the Gospels. In my studies, I have found that God does not promise that we all will become financially wealthy Christ-followers. But Jesus' had a tendency to address issues of the human heart at the very core of human existence. It is not wealth that God takes issue with; it is the heart behind the wealth that makes all the difference. So then, were Jesus' words meant to direct us into an impoverished lifestyle in order to please God and receive His blessing? Certainly not; that conclusion is far to exclusive. However, that is an overwhelming conclusion one may come to if the Gospel according to Luke were to be taken literally.
So then, what was Matthew trying to communicate to his original audience? It seems that a more inclusive language was necessary to persuade not just those who were ptochos to begin with. Matthew included this concept of being poor in a more holistic way. One could then be financially affluent and politically influential while remaining entirely bereft of God's blessing. If one was not "poor in spirit" one then could not ever truly take hold of the "kingdom of heaven."
Again, Dr. Grigsby made an insightful suggestion; Psalm 51:17; "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." The Hebrew word for "broken" is "shabar" meaning, "to burst (lit. or fig.):— break (down, off, in pieces, up). . ." (Strong, Hebrew Dictionary, 136). Another English term one could employ would be "shattered" or "fragmented."
What Dr. Grigsby suggests is that Jesus' words were not simply meant as a literal interpretation of those among us who are "poor." Rather, Jesus' words were decidedly inclusive and extended to anyone belonging to any socio-political hierarchy. Jesus was certainly not referring to the kingdom of heaven as another earthly possession to be accumulated, but a reward for those who endeavored to empty themselves of their own arrogant self-importance and accept by faith that what Jesus said was fundamentally irrefutable truth.
It is my initial conclusion that Jesus was issuing a call to anyone who would listen to participate in something altogether beyond our comprehension: Jesus was communicating to us that the new reign of God on earth—the participation of God in our lives and in our midst; making his "dwelling place" within and throughout us—has come, and those who remain "fractured" of their pride and self-entitlement will take hold of this "blessing." This all leads into a very missiologically minded series of "blessings" which I will attempt to address in a later posting. But for now, it remains enough for me to have come this far in my initial understanding of this well-worn scripture.
So then why the discrepancy between Gospel accounts? What of the issue of faith? How is one truly "blessed" by God when they are "fractured?" When does the fracture itself become a "stumbling block?" These are the things that keep me up this late at night. Perhaps tomorrow I may find an answer. Until then. . . goodnight, God bless, and be sure to tip your theologeon.
No comments:
Post a Comment