View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 301
View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 2731
View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 75
View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 109
View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 17
View photo
  • 4 hours ago
  • 83
View photo
  • 6 hours ago
  • 85125
View photo
  • 1 day ago
  • 49

If we see Jesus’s beatitude [“blessed are the poor…”] in the context of common political theology of his time it is quite clear that his connecting of God’s kingdom and the poor is quite astonishing. The poor are powerless so why should they be connected with the supreme power of God? The emperor, rich and powerful, is the normal representative of divine power. His reign is the realization of the divine order. Jesus however ignores the common establishment theology of his time. He neither sees God and his kingdom much connected with the reign of a king or emperor nor does he connect the basileia with the wealthy upper class. The kingdom of God does not belong to those who dedicate to the temple and its cult, but to the poor. God’s kingdom does not belong to those who can afford doing philosophy instead of working, but to the poor. By explicitly connecting God and the poor in an unconditioned makarism, Jesus implicitly disconnects God and the upper class (emperor, high priests, rich and powerful families). The political, economic, and religious establishment seems out of sight when it comes to the Kingdom of God and to whom it belongs. Jesus obviously had no intention at all to legitimize and stabilize the status quo of ancient society. Just the opposite: his preaching derives from apocalyptic roots and can only be seen as a religious disenfranchisement of the political, social and religious conditions predominant in his world.

Joachim Kügler, “The (possible) function of the beatitude of the poor in the context of the struggle against poverty.” Good News for the Poor and the Sick, Acta Theologica Supplementum 16, ed. Pieter Verster. (via locusimperium)
View quote
  • 1 day ago
  • 39
View photo
  • 1 day ago
  • 13
x