This paper on the Beatitudes by my friend Lane Walker is in two parts.

Part One – A Philosophical Introduction To The Beatitudes As A Step Program.

Part Two – A Practical Orientation To The Beatitudes As A Step Program.

If you are philosophical start with Part One: if  you’re not, start with Part Two.

Part One – A Philosophical Introduction To The Beatitudes As A Step Program

 ” We thought it would be easier to see justice** in the individual if we looked for it first in some larger field which also contained it. We thought this larger field was the state, and so we set about founding an ideal state, being sure we should find justice in it because it was good. Let us therefore transfer our findings to the individual, and if they fit him, well and good; on the other hand, if we find justice in the individual is something different, we will return to the state and test our new definition. So by the friction of comparison we may strike a spark which will illuminate justice for us, and once we see it clearly we can fix it firmly in our own minds. . . . So there will be no difference between a just man and just city, so far as the element of justice goes.” Plato.1 Plato: The Republic, Translated by Desmond Lee. (Penguin Books, England 1974) Second edition (revised). pp. 208-9.

Henry David Thoreau: ‘beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.  If there is not an new man, how can the new clothes be made to fit? If you have any enterprise before you, try it in your old clothes’.  (14).  Henry David Thoreau, Thoreau on man and nature.  (Peter Pauper Press, N.Y. 1960).

George Grant: ‘In any sane educational system, scholarship must see itself not as an end, but as a means in the journey of minds towards the truth concern-ing the whole’.  George Grant, technology and justice (Anansi Press, Ontario 1986).  (83).

Plato, in pursuing the relationship of the individual to that of the social, looked to the ideal notion of justice which he built into a coherent understanding of how the divine and spiritual world relates to the physical and the material.  The ideal world of “the Good” is the foundational essence from which all of the visible world receives its intelligibility and interconnectedness.  For Plato ” the child of the good “, is that which is “begotten”, and is in the very likeness of “the Good”.  This is the historical philosophic tradition which is appealed to in sacramental theology. Thus, “the Good” is the very source of being and is not to be confused with that which it brings into being because it is above or transcendent to that which it begets .   306.

These ideas of Plato’s notion of “the Good”, which had originally been attacked by Aristotle, were eventually interpreted as the very thoughts of God, which gives the later platonic theology a more concrete form. These are the ideas which dominated the philosophic schools which developed into the traditional Hellenic paideia. 45.  Thus Plato becomes the philosophic father figure who brought to our realization the world of the soul and made it visible for the first time to ” the inner eye of man ” and this radically changed all of human life. 46.  This Hellenic paideia or education in culture was a holistic attempt toward the road of Happiness and the knowledge and understanding of man’s life in acquiring the true good. 59.  Jaeger, a scholar on the relationship between Greek philosophy and early Christianity, points out that this merging of Christian theology with Greek philosophy helps people to realize that both traditions could be viewed in common when seen as the notion of paideia or education.  Jaeger further points out that this was anticipated in Paul’s speech in Athens and comes to fruition in the early church fathers which developed into the monastic tradition. 62-3.

This Hellenistic paideia is seen throughout the New Testament.  Johnson, a New Testament scholar , particularly noticed the Platonic worldview in the book of Hebrews when trying to understand the perfection of Christ and his suffering. “The longstanding opinion that Hebrews reflects a kind of Platonic worldview is sufficiently accurate to include its author as first among the Christian Platonists of Alexandria.” Johnson notes that Plato’s classical metaphysical theories had become so commonplace they had become common consciousness. (465). Johnson understands that the author of Hebrews “plays on a commonplace of Hellenistic Education: “learning is suffering.”” And that enduring through temptations (inner) and trials (outer) is precisely the purpose and function of the Greek word “discipline” (paideia), not so much punishment as much as it is education. Italics mine. (The Writings Of The New Testament 473 and Some Hard Blessings 34-36 Jesus as the pattern for own existence). (see also Heb. 12:1-7 and James 1:2-4, Romans 5:3-4)

Jaeger points out that later, Origen influenced the whole monastic tradition in their understanding of Christian education. 51.  He points out that his Christian Platonism was not an education in which simple doctrines are taught, but a conscious attempt at the perfection of the human personality, which would be in line with the highest demand of Greek educational philosophy. 86.  Considering the function of the purpose for paideia as a unified culture, the Christianization of this tradition was a decisive step towards the realization of a Christian civilization. 61.  The Greek idea of the complete unity of mankind, found its basis not so much in Alexander’s conquests of the East, as much as in the divine Logos itself, the word that had created the world.  63-4.  The platonic notion that the seed of “the Good” is to be found in everything and is in the nature of being itself, was the grounds from which the Christian civilization could be built and is justified by the creators approval of recognizing it as his own begotten good.  65.

In dealing with the Jewish and Christian conviction regarding the sinfulness of human nature, Jaeger points out that philosophy teaches that man’s dignity resided in his free will, which contradicts the notion that evil is an independent, autonomous force in the world which deeply saturates human nature.  Christians could admit that man’s will was no longer as free as it once had been, on the other hand, they could not admit that it was impossible for him to choose between good and evil and decide in favor of “the Good”, even after the purity of his nature had been obscured by the fall of Adam.  In the platonic sense, everything depends on our ability to know the real good from the mere appearance of good, truth from false, being from non being.  And this is exactly how early church fathers such as Origen understood men as a free moral agent.  From this Origen borrows the platonic philosophy which had become paideia, the education of man.  Jaeger 66-7.  (see Johnson’s note regarding nature of sinful humanity 18-20.)

” The Spiritual process called education is not spontaneous in nature and requires constant care.  The virtues, be they moral or intellectual are the fruit of both a man’s nature and his training “.  Jaeger 87.  But this should not be confused with the commonly simplistic understanding of Pelagianism.  As Gregory of Nyssa understood, this education requires divine assistance, but he understood that the co-laboring of the human effort increased the assistance of the divine power proportionately.  This is because Gregory understood that all human activity and striving towards perfection, by its very nature, ” aims at the good.” This is also furthered by the understanding that evil is the absence of, or, ” privation of the good”.  Jaeger 88-9.  Consequently and purposefully this paideia, through effort and ascesis, was not about dogma as much as it was about a life of perfection, based on the contemplation of God, seeking ” perfect union with him.  It is deificatio, and paideia is the path, the divine anabasis.  ” 90.

John Chrysostom in his homily on the Beatitudes, understood the unifying principle behind its educational purpose. He refers to this instruction in the Beatitudes as a process of studying “Wisdom” through the process of those things which were ” needful ” in the emulation of “virtue”.  This pursuit of wisdom, in relationship to the kingdom of God, is described as a foundation for Christ’s ” new polity “, from which we understand both paideia and Politics.  Chrysostom said that the Beatitudes were addressing both soul and body and this unified perspective silences the heretics. The early Christian heretics were involved in heated discussions regarding the relationship between the divine and the human.  Hinted at in Plato’s comments regarding “The Good” begetting in its own image, a similar (theological) friction emerges regarding unification between the anthropological and divine nature of Christ. In contrasting one characteristic over/against another, (such as anthropology over that of Divinity, as in Arianism) instead of finding justice or equilibrium, often people came to a point of denial, denigration or division between the two. This schismatic propensity  would eventually come to a mediated position through accepting the interdependent nature of reality. Interdependance was theologically and philosophically understood through metaphysical limits which maintain the integrity of each attribute or characteristic, yet, “neither confounding… nor dividing,” the integrity between the two.3 See Athanasius, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Maritain, a French personalist philosopher, cautions us, ” however evident it may seem, in order to avoid misunderstandings and nonsense, we must emphasize that they are not two separate things. There is not in me one reality, called my individual, and another reality, called my person. One and the same reality is, in a certain sense an individual, and, in another sense, a person. Our whole being is the individual by reason of that in us which derives from matter, and a person by reason of that in the us which derives from spirit.  ” (43).

“The beatific vision is therefore the supremely personal act by which the soul, transcending absolutely every sort of created Common Good, enters into the very bliss of God and draws its life from the uncreated Good, the Divine essence itself, the uncreated common good of the three divine persons. . . . Together, God and the soul, are two in one; two natures and a single vision and a single love. The soul is filled with God. It is in society with God. With him, it possesses a common good, the divine good itself” 13 Martain

This is precisely the vision within the monastic tradition.  Cassian and the hesychast tradition attempt to unify the head with the heart.  The monastic tradition, as an integration of life, similar to philosophy and paideia, seeks to love God and “the Good” with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind.  Matthew 22:37.  Carthusian 8.  But contrary to the Reformation attitude, it is not a struggle against nature, it is a struggle towards and within nature, as nature is seen as infused with grace.  This cooperation with the Holy Spirit is the pursuit of truth in the nature of creation and the self.  The integration of heart and head, is a perfection toward purity which results not from fear, leading to negation and abstinence, rather it is that of love or devotion.  This monastic formation is not a question of a body of doctrine which the novice is to learn, as Gregory of Nyssa noted, rather, it is the transmission of a way of life because of our common solidarity in Humanity, therefore body and soul.  ” The body manifests the practical.  .  The soul is the ideal “.  Carthusian 1.

An integration of the emotions, mind and will.  Clarification of the role of the will in salvation: In the Gospel of Matthew we are called to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.  This term perfect is the Greek word teleios. Matt.5:48. Crosby says ; “teleios relates to the completion or the reaching of a goal.” 46.  He points out that it is both a goal and a process or what I would understand to mean philosophically and ethically as a means and an end.  But I believe he misses some of the more holistic understanding of the word teleios.  The word teleios carries with it the sense of a moving towards, from that we get the philosophic term teleology, which is the study of our rightful ends or to which purpose a thing is destined for or towards. The word teleios here means the congruency between source and destination, with the expression (or means) which is compatible with both source and destination. Crosby points to the fact that it is the nature of man, being in “the image of God”, who is our rightful or appropriate source, and it is ” the reign of God ” which is our destination, and holiness and perfection is the expression of being human 45-47 Crosby.

The role of the will within paideia or discipline is a process of seeking perfection or congruency between the image of God and the reign of God among men and is of critical importance.  The function of discipline or paideia, through education of the emotions, mind and will, brings all of our life completely into its appropriate expression, thus the blessedness.  The difference between this notion of the will in the process of integrated living and that of the notion of the will in the modern sense of Nietzsche, as a will to power, disconnected from any teleological limit, is ethically and philosophically incompatible.  Emphasizing the absolute necessity of a will harmonious with existence is radically different than a simple and self defining will of autonomous authentication.

Part Two – A Practical Orientation To The Beatitudes As A Step Program.

An Overview:

There are many terms which people use to try to catch the overall sense of what these Beatitudes are from a modern perspective.  Some refer to it as ” the charter of the church, containing the ideal summary of the teaching of Jesus.  ” Friedlander xxxvii.  Billy Graham refers to the Beatitudes as ” revolutionary! ” (Graham ix.) Some refer to this as a kind of rabbinic pronouncement, comparable to what is said from the professor’s chair or when the pope makes official “ex cathedra” statements.  Barclay 12.  Some refer to it as the moral law of the kingdom of Christ, for the development of mankind, a whole moral education which is ” one piece from and to end.  ” Gore 1.  Others see it as a call to live a life in counterculture.  Stott 16.  Johnson refers to this as a fulfillment of the law, which brings about the kingdom as the effective rule of God. 1-15.

The Structure:

The opening and closing phrase, “theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (verses. 2 and 9) is known as a literary parentheses: it shows where the catechism begins and ends. In between the opening and closing phrase carries the sense of the process, which is why the middle Beatitudes are always “…they will be comforted…, …will inherit…, …will be filled…etc (verses :4-9).

Another interpretive key is to recognize the flow from internal, individual, alone or personal discipleship issues (verse :3-6) into external, social, together or public discipleship issues (verses :6-11). Verse six; Hungering and Thirsting, is the center or pivotal passage which moves us from internal righteousness (dikai-osunen), along with and into external justice (dik`e), the same word Plato used to describe the justice sought between the individual and the social. (see note** above) Therefore, verse six could be written as a call to personal righteousness and to social justice (hunger and thirst). It is a theological bias which has constantly translated this Greek word for just or justness into only a fragmented, personal or internal issue of spirituality, to the neglect of the flow of the passages and the intent of the text, which is growing and shifting in its concerns of salvation and discipleship into the larger world of relationships involving society and politics, where each of us bears the responsibility to play a part in the whole.

“These Beatitudes follow one another, as St. Chrysostom says, in a golden chain.”Gore 28.  The first Beatitudes, contrasts with the values of the world negatively, the world clutches for gold, avoids all pain and suffering and shrinks from humiliation.  This is contrasted with the poor, the meek and the mourners. Then the Beatitudes reflect a positive characteristic: a strong spiritual appetite for Righteousness; active and vigorous compassion; purity of heart or single mindedness; the deliberate aim it has to promote the kingdom of peace and it’s likely rejection from the world in the negative sense.  Gore 21-22.

The book of Matthew can be structurally seen as five parts divided by the saying ” when Jesus had finished . . . ” (7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, 26:1).  Thus the parallel with the Pentateuch. Although this is dismissed by Stott, 21. it is exegetical reinforced by Johnson, who agrees with the Pentateuch formation in Matthew’s Gospel which is also full of other mosaic imagery. 13.  Johnson thinks it is unlikely that Jesus spoke all these words in one sitting and therefore Matthew presents them as a thematic unity. Johnson 13.

Johnson points out the coupled clauses or the parallelism which is familar to Hebrew poetry and wisdom literature. Johnson 24.  The point is that there is an internal connection between the clauses of the sentence.  In the case to the Beatitudes, it is important to realize that the promise attached to a certain condition is not arbitrary. Johnson 26.  “The first phrase blessed are they is the internal condition for the achievement of the promise extended by the second clause ” for they. . .  “.  To put it in as sharp away as possible: Internal dispositions spoken of in the first clause make this promise of the second clause a reality.  It is precisely because people are poor in spirit, for example, that they will be members of the kingdom, simply because God’s kingdom is such that it is made up of the poor in spirit.” 27.

The Blessed:

Although some understand these beatitudes as a blessedness that is possible for us right now, Norquist 9. , and although they are not easily or readily attainable by everyone, nor are they totally unobtainable by anyone Stott 29. , some contradict this, and even contradict themselves, seeing these as only revealing our ” inability to please God.” Norquist 8 .  Stott 36.  The problem with attaining perfection has to do with our understanding of sin and the nature of evil more as a metaphysical problem than a moral problem.  (see the philosophical understanding of “the Good” in relationship to sinful nature above).  It is beyond the bounds of this paper to discuss the metaphysical doctrines of sinful nature and the philosophic and ethical problems that result from this misunderstanding of the unity between metaphysics and morals.  Suffice it to say that I do not believe that obedience to God is impossible, rather that it is expected, required and our natural condition, to which we are called and assisted by the divine will and purpose for being human.

The Poor:

In discussing the characteristic of the poor in spirit, there arises the question of whether this and the others are merely spiritual and inner qualities, (Patrick 170 .  Norquist 22.  Gramm 11.  Gore 24-25.  Stott 39.  Swindoll 25. ) or whether it has a unified understanding of the soul and body, so that the questions of poverty are both spiritual and material.  (Barclay 24 .  Crosby 49-62.  Johnson 32-39.  Talbot 32-43. ).

John Chrysostom recognizes that the term in spirit indicates aspects of the soul, but unifies this with an understanding of outer action and the faculty of choice.  Although it is common to associate this characteristic as inner qualities of peace, security, serenity, and various other interior dispositions, few writers grasp the holistic concern.  Crosby and Johnson seemed to have the best integrated understanding.

“Blessed are the poor: In no way does this beatitude reinforce the concept that says it is God’s will that there be poverty.  On the contrary, poverty is a sign that God’s plan is not been fulfilled.” Crosby49.  “This Beatitudes does not say you can be unconcerned about external riches as long as you have some sort of ‘inner poverty.’ ” “In terms of the rich young ruler, by not sharing his resources with the poor, he remained under the control of the main obstacle to the perfection demanded of disciples.  The rich young man typifies everyone with wealth who refuses to be converted.”  Again it must be remembered, “The poor in spirit is not a sanctioning of poverty as a condition.  Neither is it an idealized state of life to be valued.  Poverty never glorifies those who suffer its misery. There’s nothing beautiful about poverty.  It is miserable.  In itself, poverty denies the goodness of God.” Crosby further calls into question the historical nonsense regarding the supposed gate in the wall of Jerusalem called the needle’s eye and sees this as simply theological shenanigans which is refusing to take Jesus requirements literally.  Crosby 50-3.

Johnson recognizes also the temptations and problems with wealth in relationship to poverty and notes the disciples response, “who can then be saved?”, regarding the Camel getting through the eye of a needle.  Both Johnson and Crosby recognize that a type of spiritual abandonment or self emptying is required in this beatitude.  This self emptying is related to Jesus’ own dispossessing of power, position and privilege which is a model for our own way of life.  Johnson 36.

Crosby says poverty of spirit, internally means, “Authentic abandonment or …. realizes that God is not ‘out there.’ God is ‘with us’ “, inviting us to work actively as “co-creators, totally dedicating our lives to accomplish the divine plan in that part of history entrusted to us by the span of our life. . .  We are to submit to its ethic in our life and proclaim it to our world.  This kind of abandonment finds us freely choosing to live under the authority of this power of God within us to accomplish God’s purposes in our society. . .  Realizing our own needs and our powerlessness, we can respond in God’s power to care about other powerless brothers and sisters whom we see in need. . .  Such abandonment is neither passive nor romantic. It is both a commitment to radical discipleship and a realization that this discipleship must be exercised in the face of very powerful infrastructure that penetrates all aspects of our world.” Crosby 62.

The addictive, fragmenting and anti-integral nature of this anti-kingdom of power, position and privelege was articulated by the Brazilian Archbishop Dom Helder Camara as the “spiral of violence”. Myers points out the utility of this analysis as showing us that this is “a system of which we are all a part (in the body politic) and which is part of each of us (in our political body).” Myers, p. 242.   Thus we have a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the inner and outer Dynamics of poverty.

The Mournful:

Chrysostom says this commandment is suited for the purpose of teaching us “entire self control.” This involves a sorrow, in the biblical sense of repentance for our sins and the sins of others.  But not just our sins but the consequence of our sins, alienation, grief, pain and the sense of loss which accompanies the letting go and abandonment experienced in poverty.  Although there’s a detachment that comes up from abandonment, it does not come without a certain emotional involvement in physical risks.

The Meek:

Chrysostom reminds us that this is not a figurative earth but a literal earth which is inherited.  Crosby relates this to the coming of the kingdom of God on earth not through violence, but in meekness or self control.  Then he sees an integration between Platos visible world and the intelligible world in understanding the relationship between the image of God and the reign of God.  He reminds us of John Kenneth Galbraith’s connection between wealth in relationship to self-esteem.  Galbraith 88.  Similar to Chrysostom comments above, from the various ego issues which are dealt with in poverty of spirit and the pain from loss and letting go or abandonment, we are led to the need for developing self control or temperance.  This meekness is related to the Old Testament notion of the Anawim in psalms 37:11.  Barclay 39.  Johnson 42.  Here the will to power found in Nietzsche and modern science is counter to that of the Anawim and the kingdom, who receive or inherit everything as a gift.   others see this meekness as the requirement of self control in the face of poverty and pain, replaced by a trust.

The Just:

Most writers understand this as an attribute related to holiness and a few understand its relationship to Justice.  Crosby reminds us that this requirement is a form of Righteousness which must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees Crosby 122.  This Righteousness required the full political and sociological implications of almsgiving, a prayer and fasting.  Although this is a ” longing ” for the unity and likeness of God, in fellowship with him Barclay 50. , this purity demands the absence of hypocrisy and therefore and externalized expression of Justice.  Justice is the fulfillment of God’s will, or God’s commands and this relates to our neighbors thus we begin to move to the outer concerns and characteristics of the Beatitudes.  Crosby 138-139.

The Merciful:

Crosby says this aspect of mercy relates to God’s perfection (see philosophic understanding of teleios above) .  From it we see that Jesus himself, as God’s ideal model for perfection, was motivated in his teaching, preaching and healing from this mercy.  Crosby reminds us that Abraham Heschel focused the understanding of the mercy of God as revealing his pathos.  This pathos is the unification of the eternal and the temporal, thus the mercy of God is the spiritual form from which we ourselves learn to show mercy.  Crosby 141-3.  Gore understands this mercy as the kind of great awakening that pity and mercy brought to the Buddha, and which leads to effective action in removing the misery.  39.  Johnson further clarifies the quality of mercy as a refusal to see anyone as totally out side our realm of responsibility, care and community.  He rightly understands this beatitude when he says there’s a great wonder when we finally risk our hearts in trust and giving mercy, and we are shown or receive mercy back.  62.

The Pure:

Here gain the notion of purity of heart can be reduced to mere internal questions or disposition.  But the Scripture is understood through Proverbs 22: 9 ” he who has a good eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor.  ” The purity of eye, is what Jesus said leads the body.  If the inner light is pure, in its unbroken sincerity it reflects in the whole life.  This of course is what the philosophic notion of right vision, discernment and judgment means.  It is the indivisibility between the beatific vision and seeing the world as it is, which allows us to participate in the light of God within creation and the natural order.  Having purify our hearts from all of our own wrong sightedness, we receive the truth and “the Good” everywhere.  The question is how we purified our site through the kind of philosophic ascesis described in the previous Beatitudes?

Johnson again wisely understands the bias towards spiritual purity and piety because of our philosophic view of dualism.  He said the dualism in which the spirit is seen as good and the world of ” things ” is secondary or even evil, leads to a kind of material escapism in which we neglect to understand God correctly in relationship to creation and the poor.  He correctly says that purity of heart, similar to the monastic intention, is not about separation but dedication, it’s not about isolation from the world, but communion with God and neighbour.  Where the First commandment is inseparable from the second.

Johnson says the nature of the heart is to be a center, from which we see.  It is the fragmented and broken aspect of seeing which is counter to our nature.  Johnson also understands the heart as that place referring to human freedom, and it is this freedom which we must use in dedication to God in his holistic concern for the kingdom of heaven on earth.  Because our hearts need to be centered we must oppose all idolatry and everything that distracts our vision.  Thus we can say that the poverty of spirit could be seen as an act of renunciation, and purity of heart, the act of dedication.  Removing all things impure and clinging to all things good. “The Good”, God, being of one whole, is pure, Integral, and beatific. This philosophic ascesis and asceticism is not that which closes off from the world, but frees us to receive it as a gift.  70-2.

The Peacemakers:

Billy Gramm, quoting Quincy Wright, says that from 1482 to 1941 the various nations experienced war as follows: Great Britain 78, France 71, Spain 64, Russia 61, Austria 52, Germany 23, China and 11, Japan nine; United States 13, and, in addition, 110 wars were fought, often ruthlessly, against the Indians within the United States. . .  “War (is) the earth’s chief industry.” Graham 106.  Nevertheless Graham is quick to dismiss ” pure pacifist ” notions of peace.

Johnson again sees the need for peace rooted in our understanding of the fall, as something flawed in our hearts, misdirecting our freedom. 86.  He traces the rupture with God as the source which leads to the divisions between humans, making the philosophic holistic connections between the beginning means leading inevitably to the end.  What man had originally been given in freedom as a gift, he, through his freedom, chose to seized by force and pride.  Johnson says that St. Irenaeus describes the history of God’s salvation as one where God is nurturing Humanity into a capacity to receive an know himself, which was fully realized in Jesus.  This nurturing, Johnson describes as an educative tool (a term for paideia) which will bring men back into a peaceful covenant with God and with his fellow man.  Lastly, the primary method for God’s peace making was the very great mystery of Christ and violent death, which must be understood pedagogically within the paideia model of discipline, humility and obedience.  Colossians 2: 14, Ephesians 2: 16, Philippians 2: 8, Hebrews 12: 1-9.

Similarly , Crosby says that peace from God’s favor results through faithful obedience to God’s order in our life and our efforts to establish that order in society 180.

The Persecuted:

This one I close with a simple reminder which is suitable to Matthew’s understanding of the role of the law and the Prophets, and the philosophical understanding of means and end, if this is how they treated the master of the House, how much more will they you?

 

Plato: The Republic, Translated by Desmond Lee. (Penguin Books, England 1974) Second edition (revised). pp. 208-9.

Thoreau on Man and Nature.  (Peter Pauper Press, N.Y. 1960). p. 14.

George Grant, Technology and Justice. (Anansi Press, Ontario 1986). p. 83.

The Republic. p. 306.

Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1961). p. 45.

Ibid. p. 46.

Ibid. p. 59.

Ibid. pp. 62-3.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of The New Testament (Fortress Press, Minn. 1999). p. 465.

Ibid. p. 473. See also Johnson, Some Hard Blessings.  (Argus Communications, Texas 1981). Jesus as the pattern for our own existence pp. 34-36.

Jaeger. p. 51.

Ibid. p. 86.

Ibid. p. 61.

Ibid. pp. 63-4.

Ibid. p. 65.

Ibid. pp. 66-7. see also Johnson Some Hard Blessings  note, regarding the nature of sinful humanity 18-20.

Ibid. p. 87.

Ibid. pp. 88-9.

Ibid. p. 90.

Chrysostom. HOMILY 15. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/matthom15.html

See Athanasius, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

A Carthusian, The Way Of Silent Love.  (Cistercian Publications, Great Britain 1993). p. 8.

Ibid. p. 1.

Michael H. Crosby, Spirituality Of The Beatitudes.  (Orbis Books, thought 1981). p. 46.

Ibid. pp. 45-7.

Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources Of The Sermon On The Mount. (KTAV publishing house, N.Y. 1969). p. xxxvii.

Billy Graham, The Secret Of Happiness.  (Pocket Books, Inc., New York 1955). p. ix.

William Barclay, The Beatitudes And The Lord’s Prayer For Every Man.  (Harper and Row, Publishers, N.Y. 1968). p. 12.

Charles Gore, The Sermon On The Mount: a practical exposition.  (Hazell, Watson and Viney, London 1910). p. 1.

John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture : the message of the Sermon on the Mount.  (InterVarsity Press, 1978). p. 16.

Luke Timothy Johnson, Some Hard Blessings.  (Argus Communications, Texas 1981). pp. 1-15.

Dike: Greek term for legal compensation or justice; the corresponding human virtue of being just is dikaiÙsunÍ. According to Plato, justice in this sense is best exemplified by harmonious relations in the ideal state. (http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?dike) The highest knowledge, according to Socrates, is the knowledge of what is best for oneself and the city — what is just (dike, Greek word meaning justice or right), what is the proper arrangement and prioritizing of one’s own life and what is the proper arrangement of citizens in the city — where each one is doing what he ought to do.  (http://www.fred.net/tzaka/apology.html)

Gore. p. 28.

Ibid. pp. 21-22.

Stott. p.  21.

Johnson. Some Hard Blessings, p. 13.

Ibid. p. 24.

Ibid. p. 26.

Ibid. p. 27.

Marilyn Norquist, The Beatitudes.  (Liguori Publications, Missouri 1981). p. 9.

Stott. p. 29.

Norquist. p. 8. and Stott. p. 36.

Christian character, virtue, and bioethics / edited by Dr. Edwin Hui.  (region college, Vancouver 1996). p. 170. Norquist. p. 22. Graham. p. 11. Gore 24-25. Stott 39. Charles Swindoll, Simple Faith.  (Word Publishing, Dallas 1991). p. 25.

Barclay. p. 24. Crosby. pp. 49-62. Johnson. Some Hard Blessings, pp. 32-39. John Michael Talbot, Blessings.  (Crossroad, N.Y. 1991). pp. 32-43.

Crosby. p. 49.

Ibid. pp. 50-53.

Johnson. Some Hard Blessings  p. 36.

Crosby. p. 62.

Ched Myers, Who Will Roll Away The Stone?. (Orbis Maryknoll 1994). p. 242.

Crosby. pp. 96-116.

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. (A Mentor Book, NY. 1969). p. 88.

Barclay. p. 39. and Johnson. p. 42.

Crosby. p. 122.

Barclay. p. 50.

Crosby. pp. 138-139. see also definition of Dike above, note 32.

Crosby. pp. 141-143.

Gore. p. 39.

Johnson. Some Hard Blessings p. 62. (often inverted as; first we receive love and mercy then give?)

Johnson. Some Hard Blessings  pp. 70-72.

Graham. p. 106.

Johnson. Some Hard Blessings, p. 86.

Crosby. p. 180.