posted
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3 )
Now, I couldn't care less about the religious implications of this, but I always thought it was worded in an interesting way. I've heard many people (mis)interpret it to refer to intellectual capability, and see it as a blessing of the cognitively unfortunate.
Then once, somebody claimed it meant having a spirit untied to worldly possessions. "Poor" not in actual material ways, but in how you regard your wealth, no matter how much there is of it. I found that interpretation rather charming.
And it reminds me of this: [If you can...] watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss...
What do YOU think?
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that the "in spirit" was added in Matthew to an earlier version in Luke that did not contain the qualifier and was more unambiguously about the material world. Matthew was written in a time when spiritual humility was becoming important, so I suspect that the verse was altered to discourage the holier-than-thou.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* In Luke 6 the beatitudes are rendered as:
quote:“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.
These all speak of physical, emotional, or social woes: being poor, being hungry, being hated and persecuted.
Now look at how it's rendered in Matthew 5:
quote:“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 will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
First of all, he completely does away with the "woes", but you'll notice that he transforms each of the more physical or worldly attributes described into more spiritual or metaphysical ones. In high school, anyway, my Biblical studies teacher theorized this is because Luke in general focuses a lot more on things like class warfare and social justice in general, and makes Jesus out to be an advocate and savior for the poor and oppressed. For example, in Luke 4:18 Jesus' first recorded sermon at the beginning of his ministry is:
quote:“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
The "year of the Lord's favor" being the year of Jubilee - every 7 years all debts were to be forgiven and all slaves be set free, and every 49 years, all property taken from it's previous owners and equitably reassigned to all the men by tribe. This was mandated in the Pentateuch but not actually done in Jesus' day. So Luke was in many respects portraying Jesus as a revolutionary.
Whereas Matthew either omits, or changes the wording, to get rid of the condemnations of the rich and powerful, but also make Jesus' message about spiritual poverty and darkness and suffering rather than physical and social. It makes Jesus a lot more palatable for the rich, and also much more compatible with the government and society of the time.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How very interesting. I was not aware of that.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Matthew [...] makes Jesus a lot more palatable for the rich, and also much more compatible with the government and society of the time.
I find the Matthew's version more compelling because most of those are things you can actually achieve, while Luke's criteria require that something is done to you.
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, because I think the message is fundamentally different between the two versions. The beatitudes in Luke are, IMO, essentially written to comfort and console the beleaguered, poor, and oppressed. Matthew takes the same sermon and transforms it into something prescriptive: in order to do that, he has to make it general enough to be universally applicable.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Not that I'm saying one is better than the other. In many ways it's the most mature of the synoptic gospels, by which I mean, the most theologically consistent with Christianity, and most likely to jive well with Paul's epistles. I just like Luke's version of Jesus better )
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although it may be an unpopular opinion, I wish they'd do that nowadays. Rewrite the bible, I mean. People do, of course, but they'll be flamed for it instead of included with the other writings...
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I just like Luke's version of Jesus better )
In which way do they differ?
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one thing, Luke's Jesus is more focused on making the world a better place, whereas Matthew's Jesus is clearly focused on the afterlife, having given up this world as a lost cause.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Well, yes, because I think the message is fundamentally different between the two versions. The beatitudes in Luke are, IMO, essentially written to comfort and console the beleaguered, poor, and oppressed. Matthew takes the same sermon and transforms it into something prescriptive: in order to do that, he has to make it general enough to be universally applicable.
I think that Luke also applies some spurs to the rich and comfortable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: And you prefer one over the other? Why?
Aside from what Tom said, Luke is often called "the women's gospel" because Luke talks a a lot more about Jesus' interactions with various women (including naming some of his female disciples, like Joanna), and gives women a place of respect and importance that isn't really found in the other gospels. For example, in Luke Jesus is blessed by a prophetess when he is taken to be circumcised, he's seen in conversation with women at various times, women are the first to witness(and believe) in his resurrection, etc.
Also, he generally writes with a compassion and attention to human misery, suffering, and injustice that is lacking in the other gospels. According to tradition, the Gospel According to Luke was written by Saint Luke the Evangelist who was a physician, and I think maybe that shows in how he chose to write it.
Mostly, though, I just like the humanity and immediacy and directness and, well, realness of Luke's Jesus. I feel like in Matthew, he's become more of an abstraction or an archetype, maybe more what the author feels like someone as important and holy as Jesus would act like than anything.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Also, he generally writes with a compassion and attention to human misery, suffering, and injustice that is lacking in the other gospels.
Mostly, though, I just like the humanity and immediacy and directness and, well, realness of Luke's Jesus.
I've never read the bible in a way that made me feel the above. Your description makes me want to read it (again). Although I do not believe in God, I have always loved Jesus.
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in a very religious household (thankfully with parents who left the cult we were part of when I was 6, and then the IFB movement as a whole when I was 12 so I escaped some of the worst aspects of that) that believed in Biblical literalism, by which I mean that the Bible is the inerrant word-of-God and that pretty much everything described in it literally happened: up to and including believing the world was created in 7 days roughly 6000 years ago, that there was a great flood that literally covered the entire Earth and all the animals fit onto one ark, etc. I've been hearing Bible stories for as long as I can remember, and memorized my first scripture verses when I was 4 years old. (John 3:16. When I was 5, I memorized Psalm 1:1-3) I spent a lot of my childhood as part of a Bible memorization club where I memorized hundreds, if not thousands of verses, and later entire passages of scripture.
I've read the entire bible through several times, and read certain books and passages countless times, but because of the literalist approach I was taught from, it wasn't until I was older that I was able to go back and think "wait, what exactly did the author mean by this?" or "what were the cultural and social norms and commonly held philosophical beliefs when this was written, what meaning would this have that is no longer immediately apparent?" In many respects, reading the gospels as literature rather than scripture transformed my understanding and appreciation of them in a very positive way. Like finally understanding what the first chapter of John is all about, for example.
That being said, I'd hate for you to go back and read it only to be disappointed by the experience - which is something that I think happens a lot to people who try to read it for the first time. For better or worse, it was so ingrained in me from a young age, that it informs a rather large part of the lens through which I view reality. There are always verses I memorized in the back of my mind, and I see the allusions to scripture in literature and art all the time. I'm sure there are a lot of aspects of it that I find meaningful or powerful that will probably - rightfully - seem silly or even nonsensical to you.
All that being said, Luke is probably a good place to start if you want to read it again. The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) is a pretty neat primer for the tone of the rest of the book, and one of my favorite passages to boot.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for sharing this, Breath. If there ever was a religious person I'd be thrilled to argue with, it would be you.
I was impressed by your vast knowledge before and thought it hinted at great intelligence. Now I am convinced of the latter. Your religious (self-)reflection in spite of your upbringing and the person you turned out to be (from the glimpse I've been allowed yet) are proof of a longing for truth and humanity that I admire deeply.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Like finally understanding what the first chapter of John is all about, for example.
posted
Oh wow, thank you. That's very sweet of you to say.
I actually really enjoy discussing religion and theological musings with other people, but often don't really get the chance, as I find that it's something that people are often hesitant to talk about. For example, in a lot of places I've run into people who are either frightfully dogmatic about their interpretation of the Bible (often having never actually read most of it, and having a very mistaken idea of what it actually contains), or I run into people who are pretty dogmatic in their contempt for it, and try to dismissively end any conversation about it by saying things like "why would anyone want to read that silly book of fairy tales" or something.
And of course, there's also the glaring fact that I'm by no means a Biblical scholar or theologian by any means, I'm a just a lay person who's read the Bible and various books about the Bible, and a lot more about theology in general. I probably know more than your average person, but probably just enough to be dangerous, or at least highly irritating to some of the people here who literally are clergy or biblical scholars.
That being said, we've had a number of interesting discussions about the Bible here that I really enjoyed (I'm sure you've run across quite a few of them), and I've love to know more about what you think about it. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I actually really enjoy discussing religion and theological musings with other people, but often don't really get the chance, as I find that it's something that people are often hesitant to talk about.
Trivia: When I practiced medieval swordplay a few years back, my trainer (and best friend at the time) was also a student of theology. We talked for hours - quite some of them standing up underneath a certain street lamp in Berlin where we had to go different directions but often could not bring ourselves to abandon the discussion we had started while on our way home. When we decided to actually sit down to it, we literally talked through the night more often than not. Most of those discussions were centered around theology, but the manner was always respectful and never smug. Those were some of the best discussions I ever had.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: And of course, there's also the glaring fact that I'm by no means a Biblical scholar or theologian by any means. I probably know more than your average person, but probably just enough to be dangerous, or at least highly irritating to some of the people here who literally are clergy or biblical scholars.
Since I am not trying to prove a point when discussing theology, I actually want to hear what intelligent people think about certain topics. Being a Biblical scholar or theologian arguably decreases your ability to "discuss" (as opposed to preach) theology. That's not to say I would not find it interesting to listen to them; but for different reasons.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That being said, we've had a number of interesting discussions about the Bible here that I really enjoyed, and I've love to know more about what you think about it.
Thanks. Will be looking at it.
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3 )
Now, I couldn't care less about the religious implications of this, but I always thought it was worded in an interesting way. I've heard many people (mis)interpret it to refer to intellectual capability, and see it as a blessing of the cognitively unfortunate.
Then once, somebody claimed it meant having a spirit untied to worldly possessions. "Poor" not in actual material ways, but in how you regard your wealth, no matter how much there is of it. I found that interpretation rather charming.
And it reminds me of this: [If you can...] watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss...
What do YOU think?
I have to admit this is one the beatitudes I don't really understand - either in Luke's version or in Matthew's version. I don't see being poor in material wealth as either a vice to be condemned or a virtue to be rewarded, so the cause and effect doesn't make sense to me. Should I change my thinking about it? Does it mean something else?
Maybe it is a statement of fact, and it isn't ONLY the poor in spirit. It could be the New Testament version of "Black Lives Matter" - the poor [in spirit] can/will inherit the kingdom of God. Other people can/will as well, but he was focused on lifting up those who had nothing at that time.
I once went through the scripture and tried to mark all the If/Then statements I could find - there are hundreds, and at lesat 50 different If statements have the "Then" promise of "shall have eternal life/salvatation/be saved/inherit all the Father hath/etc." Does that mean we should do all 50? A majority? One of them? I see the poor in spirit like that - "If you identify with this statement, if you feel poor, then the Gospel of Christ is for you as well. There is hope."
In support of this, being poor or poor in spirit doesn't seem mutually exclusive from the other virtues/states in the other If statements of the rest of the beautitudes, but those If statements get different promises.
Maybe it is also an instruction to the powers that be - a warning that the social/economic status of the material world holds no water in the kingdom of God.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In many ways it's the most mature of the synoptic gospels, by which I mean, the most theologically consistent with Christianity, and most likely to jive well with Paul's epistles. I just like Luke's version of Jesus better ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
