I read the excerpt that Evangelical Outpost pointed to, and I wasn’t impressed. Sinner that I am, even I recognized that Mr. Lindberg just wasn’t getting what Jesus Christ was talking about. If you keep in mind that when Christ walked the earth He was about His Father’s business, the beatitudes make much more sense.
Lindberg writes:
The Beatitudes provide a dizzying commentary designed to turn upside down the political and social world of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus and of the Jewish religious elite of Judea and Jerusalem. This is the opening move of a more drastic and fundamental reassessment of political and social affairs, applying not only to its own time but to all future times, down to our day. More still: It points to the increasing fulfillment in this world of the promise of the human condition as such — and of the struggle against vast and daunting but not insurmountable obstacles that such fulfillment will require.Well, sure--if you think Jesus wasn't at all concerned about our salvation and came merely to start a revolution. Lindberg seems to think that the beatitudes concern a conflict of sorts between the mighty and privileged versus the humble or gentle. He calls it the “Jesusian” political philosophy, whereby people should live by the guidelines Jesus laid out. It’s hard to distill in a few sentences what he says, so you’d have to read the whole thing. But in the end, he really just doesn’t understand. Here’s his conclusion:
In the world, we will always have among us those in mourning and the gentle; we will always have need of those who desire righteousness, of those who are merciful, of those who act out of pure intentions, and of those who seek peace. But if or when the world is organized in accordance with the principles embedded in the lives of those Jesus here deems “blessed,” we will no longer have the persecuted and the unvalued, nor their persecutors and tormentors. The Jesusian political agenda is thus organized around the pursuit of righteousness by those who are able — at potential risk to their own lives — for the sake of a world in which the unvalued (including they themselves when they are persecuted) are at last fully valued as human beings.OK, now, let’s talk about what they really mean. First off, you need to understand that the beatitudes have NOTHING to do with politics and everything to do with getting the sinner—us—right with God. If you think “blessed are the poor” and “blessed are the peacemakers” are political statements, then you are no different than the Jews who sought to crown Jesus king to drive off the Romans and re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
How, then, does Jesus envision that the gentle will come to inherit the earth? Because the once-mighty, under pressure of precisely this kind, will die out as a type. They will change their minds about defending their privileges at the expense of others. And the world will be their dying bequest to the gentle.
Let’s go through them (Matthew 5):
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” That passage has nothing to do with material want. It is concerned solely with spiritual want. The “poor in spirit” are those who are so crushed by the weight of their sins that they finally are turned to Jesus, and hence to the Father. That keeps with the theme of the rest of the Beatitudes, which concern spiritual matters, not physical or material matters.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” The mourning is not for their material condition, or grief from death or other kind of earthly loss, as Lindberg thinks it is. It is mourning over sin and the realization that the sinner’s actions have separated him from God. It is mourning over what he has become—and his comforting will come from God, because the sinner has finally turned to God. It is the kind of sorrow that leads to repentance.
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” Meek is not “gentle” as Lindberg says: “They walk softly upon the earth, seeking to impose themselves on others as little as possible. They see to their obligations as best they can, but they take nothing from others and ask for nothing from them for themselves. They are satisfied with what they have, however meager it may be. They do not strive, but accept their circumstances.” Well, not quite. Meek is what Jesus was: submitting to the Father while standing upright for truth. And Jesus certainly imposed Himself on others—witness what He did when He twice drove the money-changers from the Temple! A meek man is a man who stands tall for the gospel and kneels before God. A meek man is a man who humbles himself before God. A meek man is the man who would be first by being last. A meek man challenges kings and the powerful with the gospel of truth. He is humble, but no weakling who never makes waves. He is a man who knows that he is filthy and God is holy—and his reward for serving God will be eternal life.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” Lindberg thinks Jesus is abruptly switching tracks here and switching from the physical to the metaphysical, and that people are searching for some metaphysical or primordial thing that they themselves can’t quench, so they must seek “something outside themselves.” Lindberg says it’s a universal desire, that everyone seeks it—and only everyone’s desire for righteousness can be satisfied as long as everyone plays nice. Lindberg also claims Jesus makes a distinction that not everyone should thirst for his own righteousness.
What nonsense.
What Jesus was saying is that the sinner is blessed for seeking the righteousness that only comes from Jesus Christ. It is a foreign righteousness that covers our filthy sins and allows us to enter God’s holy presence. This has to do with seeking God, not others. Only those who seek the righteousness of Christ will be filled.
John MacArthur, in The Quest for Character, writes that (p27) “If your heart is dead and spiritually lifeless, you cannot by a sheer act of human will summon an appetite for true righteousness. Scripture says, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8)
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” This is the only one Lindberg approaches getting right—sort of. However, “don’t kick someone when he’s down,” as Lindberg says, is not quite the point. Rather, it has to do with God’s forgiveness. If you expect forgiveness from God for your sins but you never forgive a contrite heart, then God will not forgive your contrite heart.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Says Lindberg: “Such people will act out of no bad motive, but always in accordance with the purity of rightness within them. Uncorrupted inwardly, the pure in heart will act toward others without corruption, since it would not occur to such a person to cheat a friend or steal from a stranger or tell a lie.”
Uh…Who are the pure at heart? The beatitudes build upon one another and are completely interconnected. The “pure at heart” can only be those who have been crushed in their spirit, turned to Christ, confessed their sins and accepted/drank from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Only t hen can we enter into the presence of t he Father. Yes, yes, there are plenty of “good” people throughout the world who don’t lie, cheat or steal. That isn’t the point here. Lindberg’s interpretation, however, is NOT what Jesus meant.
To enter heaven, to enter His holy presence, we have to be pure. And because not one of us is worthy, we have to accept the sacrifice of Jesus, because there is “no other name given under which we might be saved.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” This is not concerned with anti-war, or being peaceful with one another, no matter how much liberals or anyone else wants it to be. The “peacemakers” are ones who have been reformed by the Holy Spirit, are cloaked by the righteousness of Jesus Christ and are at peace with God instead of being in rebellion against Him. That is why they can be called sons of God—and not because they oppose a war or are nice to one another!
Otherwise, “everyone” would be called a son of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Righteousness is not, as Lindberg claims, persecution for doing what is “right.” It is persecution for standing for Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, Jesus says, “the world hates you because it hated me first.” It is being persecuted falsely for standing for Christ’s truths.
Says Lindberg: “Jesus promises possession of “the kingdom of heaven” to those in two of his categories: the poor in spirit and those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness. As for those who run afoul of the overlords because they are following his teaching, he says “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Really? So people who merely follow his sayings but don’t believe in Him as Lord, Savior and God will inherit the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus actually laid out two categories of people? Where? In Lindberg’s mind? It is not possible for someone to not be poor in spirit according to how Christ means it yet be persecuted for His sake. One cannot exist without the other.
The two categories of people that Jesus Christ really talked about were not according to Lindberg’s “Jesusian political philosophy.” Rather, He said there are wheat and chaff, sheep and goats, believers and unbelievers.
In sum, Lindberg’s political interpretation of the beatitudes is extremely lacking. In attempting to wrest Jesus from political abuses from both ends of the political spectrum, he seems to have managed to leave out the most salient part: that Jesus came not to start a revolution, but to complete a mission. He was about His Father’s business, not revolutionizing a new way of life.
(Note: Luke presents a slightly different version of the beatitudes in his gospel (for example, Luke writes: “blessed are the poor” instead of “blessed are the poor in spirit”), but it is possible that Jesus was speaking on another occasion. John MacArthur writes in his study Bible that more than likely the disparities originate in the differences between in the audiences that Matthew and Luke were writing to, and the differences in the translations of the writing styles of Matthew and Luke into Greek. – note on Luke 6:17-49)
2 comments:
Good, thoughtful post, Truman.
I can't understand why modern man is trying to fit things about Jesus into a mold for modern man only.
What Jesus said is not so hard to grasp it one stops trying to put a different spin on His words.
Also, Luke wrote mainly for the Gentiles. Maybe he was recounting the Sermon on the Mount from one of the disciples and something didn't get put in the same way, but we know all Word is inspired by God, so I have no problem with any differences as any good reference Bible will point them out with the thoughts of Biblical scholars.
top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]001[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]free casino bonus[/url] autonomous no store bonus at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino
[/url].
Post a Comment