Thank you for this. It's a truly encouraging reading of what has been turned into a burdensome passage.
Question: Do you see "joy" as falling under the same "non-emotional" (or at least, not primarily emotional) category as blessedness? Is it proper, based on the way the words are used, to view them as overlapping?
Well, minimally, the command to be rejoice always or rejoice while persecuted cannot mean primarily a feeling of elation, such as when someone gives you a present or a slice of cake or even the celebration of a wedding. To rejoice while tortured is possible, but then it cannot mean we "feel great."
So I think of joy as having an emotional and character referent. Someone who is joyful will regularly break out in the emotion that we call joy. But we can be joyful during cancer but feel physically terrible.
Is anyone aware of any catechetical resource that uses the Apostles Creed, Lord's Prayer and the Beautitudes (instead of 10 Commandments) as a teaching structure?
In regards to your first point; Way 1: A Righteousness Impossible to Reach, and the use of the word, ‘perfect’…
The Geneva Bible notes on Matt 5:48, “We must labour to atteine unto y perfectiō of God, who of his free liberalitie, doeth good to them that are unworthie.”
(Lat. perfectio: perfection; viz., the highest or most complete condition of any thing or attribute)
Hey, thanks for writing this. I just wanted to let you know I couldn’t disagree more. It’s not that I’m so smart, but that Dallas Willard’s presentation of the beatitudes seems to fit best since the sermon on the mount, as you say, is wisdom. You should take a look if you haven’t, but it contrasts sharply with your, and histories, “the beautitudes as ascent up the golden moral/spiritual ladder.” You can find his written articulation of it in his work, “the divine conspiracy” I’m sure you could find something on YouTube as well. I’d say more but this is a comment section.
Thanks for this challenging comment. I am reading Willard now. And I think I can see your point, although I am not sure I am in his crosshairs either. He wants to say that all the typical people who seem "out" of the kingdom are actually in; I am saying that the Beatitudes are for all AND that they satisfy our deepest longings for joy.
Hey Wyatt, thanks for responding! I imagine you're a busy man! So yes, Willard argues these are conditions people in Jesus' day thought of as unblessable, but they are blessed, if they are in the Kingdom of God, not because of their conditions alone. So the main distinction is in the condition. Most people explaining the beatitudes argue that these conditions are where the blessing is (It seems like you're arguing this?) whereas Willard would say whether some state is righteous or not, materially blessed or not, in the Kingdom, these people can be "happy". Many poor people are miserable, and it's not virtuous to be poor. It may be virtuous to be pure in heart, but without the Kingdom, the pure in heart "can't get no satisfaction", as it were. Additional, one need not become poor (or poor in spirit), or pure in heart, to enter the Kingdom. Willard says an example of todays version of the beautitudes could be, "blessed are the fat".
Thank you for this. It's a truly encouraging reading of what has been turned into a burdensome passage.
Question: Do you see "joy" as falling under the same "non-emotional" (or at least, not primarily emotional) category as blessedness? Is it proper, based on the way the words are used, to view them as overlapping?
Well, minimally, the command to be rejoice always or rejoice while persecuted cannot mean primarily a feeling of elation, such as when someone gives you a present or a slice of cake or even the celebration of a wedding. To rejoice while tortured is possible, but then it cannot mean we "feel great."
So I think of joy as having an emotional and character referent. Someone who is joyful will regularly break out in the emotion that we call joy. But we can be joyful during cancer but feel physically terrible.
Excellent summary.
Is anyone aware of any catechetical resource that uses the Apostles Creed, Lord's Prayer and the Beautitudes (instead of 10 Commandments) as a teaching structure?
I am not, but I think by the 16th century, moralities of obligation had taken over as the normal way to do moral catechesis.
In regards to your first point; Way 1: A Righteousness Impossible to Reach, and the use of the word, ‘perfect’…
The Geneva Bible notes on Matt 5:48, “We must labour to atteine unto y perfectiō of God, who of his free liberalitie, doeth good to them that are unworthie.”
(Lat. perfectio: perfection; viz., the highest or most complete condition of any thing or attribute)
Fascinating!
Hey, thanks for writing this. I just wanted to let you know I couldn’t disagree more. It’s not that I’m so smart, but that Dallas Willard’s presentation of the beatitudes seems to fit best since the sermon on the mount, as you say, is wisdom. You should take a look if you haven’t, but it contrasts sharply with your, and histories, “the beautitudes as ascent up the golden moral/spiritual ladder.” You can find his written articulation of it in his work, “the divine conspiracy” I’m sure you could find something on YouTube as well. I’d say more but this is a comment section.
Thanks for this challenging comment. I am reading Willard now. And I think I can see your point, although I am not sure I am in his crosshairs either. He wants to say that all the typical people who seem "out" of the kingdom are actually in; I am saying that the Beatitudes are for all AND that they satisfy our deepest longings for joy.
Hey Wyatt, thanks for responding! I imagine you're a busy man! So yes, Willard argues these are conditions people in Jesus' day thought of as unblessable, but they are blessed, if they are in the Kingdom of God, not because of their conditions alone. So the main distinction is in the condition. Most people explaining the beatitudes argue that these conditions are where the blessing is (It seems like you're arguing this?) whereas Willard would say whether some state is righteous or not, materially blessed or not, in the Kingdom, these people can be "happy". Many poor people are miserable, and it's not virtuous to be poor. It may be virtuous to be pure in heart, but without the Kingdom, the pure in heart "can't get no satisfaction", as it were. Additional, one need not become poor (or poor in spirit), or pure in heart, to enter the Kingdom. Willard says an example of todays version of the beautitudes could be, "blessed are the fat".