Scot, I am still struggling with the suggestion that Jesus is calling followers to take on the characteristics of those described in the Beatitudes. Isn’t it (more) likely that he is blowing up the categories of the cogniscenti describing who they thought were the “unblessed?” Jewish leadership was sure that wealth, or position, or power or similar attributes were evidence of God’s favor. I think Jesus was blasting their exclusivity and opening the Kingdom invitation to those thought disfavored. Paul too inverts conventional wisdom, but as to those thought favored he says “not many;” he does not say not “any.” Mabe I am being too Western and “either/or” whereas an Eastern or Middle Eastern “both/and” is more in order. Thanks for your teaching.

Duane,
What I think is that the beatitudes are “sorts” of persons Jesus sees entering the kingdom; the curses (in Luke) those sorts who are not. Yes, he is blowing up categories. But, what I’m saying also is that these are not moral virtues to pursue so much as sorts of people.
I agree with you.

Don’t you think he’s echoing Mary’s teaching here, too? (That’s a rhetorical question because I know you do). Did I jump in too late here and you’ve already said that?

Scot, Lukas, can you elucidate a bit? What do you mean by “echoing Mary’s teaching?”

“anyone who thinks final redemption is secure because one has “received Christ” will not find support in the Sermon on the Mount.”
Is a comment like this, misplaced in this context? Since this is neither the concern nor the point of the teaching, does a theological inference like this one help us to better understand what Jesus is trying to accomplish?
To me, the whole idea of “can one lose one’s salvation” appears to be a theological system imposed on the text by our set of questions/assumptions/presuppositions. If one had asked Paul “can you lose your salvation?”, what would he have said? Keep following Jesus, remain in Christ and the love of God will never fail you. Which to my mind, dodges the actual question and gets to the heart of the matter.
Or did I miss something?

Duane, if the summons of the Sermon on the Mount is a summons to be God’s good people by pursuing God’s will, then the Magnificat of Mary, which praised God for that being what God was about to do with his people, anticipates the Sermon on the Mount.
Sean,
Loss of salvation was not on my mind either; I am suggesting that the rather casual sense that redemption is reception of Christ is inconsistent with Jesus. For him, works and faith are two sides of the same coin.

Thanks! “Anticipates” is a bit softer than “echoing” although I am not disagreeing in the least. Too often we Protestants fail to give Mary her just due. It was startling (but refreshing) to consider that Jesus may have learned from his Mommy like you and me! Thanks for a new thought!

Hi all, been out and about… Scot, you will probably never see this as you have moved on since this post, but, it was nice to meet you briefly at Midwinter. The posts on the Sermon on the Mount have been timely for me since I’m currently preaching through Matthew and have been focusing on the SOTM the past several weeks.
The Beatitudes are wonderful and and certainly multivalient… I’ve come to see a progressive/parallel model of “spiritual formation” in them. The first four building successively and the second four the maturation in parallel to the first four:
The Poor in spirit —— Merciful
Those who mourn ——— Pure in heart
The Meek —————- Peacemakers
Hunger and thirst ——- Persecuted for
for righteousness righteousness sake
The blessedness of the progression/parallel moves form heaven to heaven!
The ninth then has to do with our ultimate identity in Christ.
All in all, as you point out these aren’t virtues so much as sorts of persons or perhaps the sort of person who comes to know the Kingdom (again the beginning and ending points of blessedness).
In Jesus Creed terms, I can see the beatitudes as the Love the Lord your God with all… and the righteousness that exceeds as the Love your neighbor as yourself… a thought… what do you think…