I'm hoping to look at at blog a bit of the sermon on the mount each day in Lent, though I recognise it may be hard I will try to do so even if only a little comment. It will be unplugged comment -no commentaries: just native wit and memory! Also no 'authoritative comment' -just thinking and musing semi-publically.
So first off:
"5:1When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him.
5:2Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying"
Seeing the crowds seems to spur the trip up the mountain [unidentified]. Later his disciples are commissioned to teach everything he passed on to them so at the start of his ministry, Jesus needs to to them so they can reach the crowds in the fulness of time. Equipping for ministry means spending time with Christ and his teachings ...
Going up the mountain really does feel like it has deliberate resonances with Moses -though I know that the typology isn't fashionable and there are holes in it, nevertheless the phrase does seem to carry that freight. The differences seem interesting: Moses spoke with God on the mountain whereas Christ speaks with his disciples; Moses brought God's words down to the Israelites, Jesus has them hear the words on the mountain with him. But hang on; aren't those differences possibly the point? The mountain in Exodus signs the nearer presence of God. The disciples are no longer kept from the holy place and the nearer presence of God but are invited up. The 'law' isn't on tablet of stone but from the living mouth of Jesus. In fact the disciples are in the place of Moses; they are to take the 'law' to the people having met with God in the form of the Christ. There's an implicit identification of Christ and God in this detailing in the telling of the story. Christ isn't so much the new Moses as the Shekinah [later confirmed in the transfiguration], 'the new Moses is /are God's people. After all the desire was that all God's people should be prophets ... [Num29:29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit on them!" ]
The prophethood of all believers ... given the context seems to be about the immediacy of God's presence for all and the knowing of God by all. Anyway the disciples [includes us in a way] are called up onto the mountain of God to learn from God so that they may pass on what they learn to the crowds. Christ is the living source of the new Law, identified with God. We -the disciples- are the Moses-figures
This figuring of Christ as the Law relates to the 'yoke' saying in chapter 10 where the background is the characterising of Torah as the 'Yoke' that a person might take upon themselves, Jesus situates himself in place of the Law. The going up on the mountain seems to be doing the same sort of thing.
The danger, of course, is hearing 'law' with the same old baggage as legalism etc rather than as a living inward love-guided and directly God-inspired thing. All to often 'we are the pharisees'.
Crosswalk.com - Matthew 5:1-2:
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
2 comments:
Good thoughts, Andii. I see the parallels with the Law, but still think Matthew consistently portrays Jesus as the new Moses -- the better Moses. This accounts for both the similarities and differences you've mentioned. Certainly Jesus' birth and exodus (and Herod's killing of newborn males), etc. is part of this schema.
As to our being identified with Moses -- I don't think so. I say this only because the disciples were such bozo's!
Thanks Chris: I guess, since I'm trying to do this reading/pondering 'bottom up' to a certain extent, from that perspective it remains to be seen whether Matthew does portray Jesus as the new Moses consistently, and the question remains, even if he does, as to whether we are meant to see that motif as the only layer of tyopology in this passage and indeed whether we should expect it to be fully consistent. To me it seems, otomh, the typology of Chirst as God has lots of Matthean support too ... but, as I say this is a bit of an experiment in trying to read it theologically but afresh, as far as possible.
Post a Comment