Beatitude Check part 3

Before we get to my take on those words. I wanted to take an opportunity to say that I was never a believer in the idea that anagrams held secret meaning until today. Today I discovered that Regan Clem is an anagram for "mere clang". A reference to 1 Corinthians 13, no doubt. And Samuel Long is a an anagram for "one all smug" or "unsmall ego" or "soul mangle". So "mull on, sage". I'm on to you. I could not find a good one on me. Just "Scandal? An honor."

Moving on... Let me briefly refresh you on what we covered. The traditional understanding of the Beatitudes can be summed up thusly: Because of these meritorious conditions you receive these blessings. Conversely, Willard's understanding is this: Despite your pitiable conditions, your blessings are this.

His is much, much better, but it is is still lacking. After laying out his perspective he says;

Sometimes I am told that the reading of the Beatitudes given here works well for all except the ones about hungering and thirsting for righteousness and being pure of heart.

[I might add to that the one about the merciful and maybe even the one about the meek.]

But if the "old engineering" or legalistic interpretation is wrong, it is wrong for those as well.

I agree with this. However, it is not either the old "engineering" or Willard. I think both are wrong. The way the old way interprets "poor in spirit" is a very terrible manipulation of the given words. It is classic eisogesis. Willard's use of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the pure in heart, the merciful, and the meek are not quite as bad. But they do follow the same technique of ignoring the obvious meaning of the terms to try to make them fit a theological construct. His are not quite as heinous, but still, we should want better.

We need a third option. I propose that Willard was right that Jesus was pointing to the crowds and announcing how the kingdom would impact them. I just do not agree that all of them were in such pitiable conditions. Some were had some very good qualities that were going to to be blessed far beyond what they currently were. We are not saved by works, but that does not mean that are works are forgotten (Revelation 14:13).

Since Christ had come into their lives, they are blessed. Certainly not because of who they were, but I don't think this is simply saying that it is despite our character either. We are saved despite our character, I just think this text says more. I think it talks about how his kingdom effects various people from all conditions. The mourners find comfort. the poor and the abused enter the greatest kingdom of all time. The less aggressive find material blessing.

But those who have set their hearts toward God, those who hunger for righteousness, those who have found some purity of heart (perhaps through sincere Jewish worship and devotion) will find gigantic blessings for being that way. They are not saved by it. But they are rewarded for it. Think of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2:21-40, for instance. Are they not a perfect representation
of how the pure in heart see God at the dawning of the Kingdom?

Grace does not simply make bad things good. That is too simplistic. Grace makes good things better too.

Love to hear what you think. Signing off, I'm Shannon Caroland (Hosanna! Land Corn)