Leithart refers to an obscure article from 1927 that deals with the Beatitudes in the context of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hebrew ideals of kingship. This fits, as Jesus preached the “kingdom of heaven” and the early Christians saw Jesus as the true Lord and King of the world.

One common thread throughout those ancient ideals was that a just King would stand up for the poor. Not necessarily give them handouts, but would treat them with justice and mercy, and look at them as equals when comparing them to the rich. This is what Jesus offers. A better Kingdom.

This was obviously a problem, as bad treatment of the poor is one of the main judgments against Israel in the Prophets, and the Psalms contain lament after lament about their predicament.

From the article:

A distinct tradition of divine justice and protection of the poor and weak is traceable through three thousand years of history. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus suddenly steps aside from it, that he restricts the hope of the poor to even narrower limits than the Jewish apocalypticists had done, that he is less sensitive to social wrong and economic injustice than the patesis of Sumer or the social prophets of Egypt or the rabbis of the Talmud?

Although the writer seems to think that Jewish apocalyptic references the end of the world, he is right to reject that what Jesus offered was some postmortem bliss. A king who offers justice and mercy only after all of his subjects are dead is not really a king worthy of loyalty.

Don't forget to subscribe to my full RSS feed to get daily updates of this blog!