delivered 1 February 2009
by Rev. Dr John Evans
In the gospel of Mark, the crowd who gathered on the occasion of Jesus’ first public act of ministry at the synagogue in Capernaum were astounded at this teaching:
He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
And later, having healed a man with unclean spirits,
They were all amazed and they kept asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching – with authority!”
Authority. Jesus had authority – but it was different authority from what people were used to – different at least from what they had experienced with the scribes. Today I want to explore this authority and see its importance; explore why it is different and, through looking at what seems a remote and strange practice of eating food offered to an idols – the problem Paul is grappling with in his letter to the Corinthians – how we are to exercise the authority we have been offered in Christ.
Authority, then and today, is a critical issue for any organised community – or our lives generally. Why does a society do anything – by what authority does it act; or by what authority do we act or respond?
Does authority only grow out of the barrel of a gun; or from great wealth; or is authority based on common sense – that for example, we all should at least drive on the same side of the road and don’t just randomly drive down the street? Is authority tradition – what has gone before? Lawyers within the common-law system get their authority from precedent; what has been decided previously in similar cases. Or is authority more subtle? I have often puzzled by what authority my family can deride me for my choice of clothes, or a tie or the colour of my socks. Somewhere out there there is a style or fashion authority or a good-taste or etiquette authority – where does that come from?
Is authority from God? If so, how?
Jesus’ authority was not as the scribes . . . or as the lawyers of his time.
While on my recent holidays I enjoyed reading Geoffrey Blainey’s rather pretentiously entitled A Short History of the World. It is an interesting book. Mostly you know about the various bits of the mosaic: bits here about the Egyptians, or there about the Greeks or Romans or ancient Chinese, or more contemporary themes and epochs, but what he endeavours to do is weave all of this together into, well, a short history of the world. This affords him the opportunity to dwell on the common themes or contrasts between people and times – and he obviously delights in comparing and contrasting the various world religions. It is these which makes the book most interesting.
So speaking of ancient Israel, he says:
The Jews were more obsessed with their own history than any other people the world had known. They busily record their trials and tribulations, their defeats as well as their victories. . . Their own sacred writing proclaimed they were a people of destiny. They believed that as a people they knew where they had come from and where they were destined to go, so long as they honoured and obeyed God. . . Although at times they were almost overwhelmed by rules and guideposts. There were detailed rules governing diet and cleanliness and defining Jewishness. (pp169-171)
Blainey concludes it was this legal structure that was their great gift to the world, but in reality they were “just an insignificant troubled nation that had been no more influential than hundreds of other states and monarchies, peoples and tribes.”
Thus the law for the scribes was everything for these people’s identity – especially at this time of Roman occupation. The law was not a bad thing – it had great authority. It was about the nation, about God, but Jesus’ authority was different.
Jesus’ authority went to a person’s inner life; the depth of their self understanding and their personal relationship with God. This was the new covenant of which the prophet Jeremiah spoke, in which God would place the law within them: ‘I will write it upon their hearts’ (Jer 31:33). It was a new authority which would overcome the forces and the authority of evil within people’s lives – as Jesus showed in healing this man.
This new authority would act in a different way; it would thus not rely on the external observance of laws – dietary, cleanliness and identity regulations. It would rely on a person’s own relationship with God – a relationship that with hindsight we see forged through Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Jesus’ dangerous new authority freed the individual from the power and authority of earthly powers, who would determine whether one had fulfilled the law – like the scribes, or Pharisees or temple officials. Jesus removed their power and placed that power within the freedom of the heart of the individual to be in relationship with God. Right from the outset, he preached and, it must be said, acted with different authority. He addressed the very heart of people’s lives. It was love he showed. His was a call to a new kingdom, a new reign of God. It was a call for people to follow him.
However, you can quickly see you will have a problem. What happens to all these laws grown up over the centuries? How do you have an organised society if there are those who say – you have not authority over me – I have this relationship with God. That is all I need.
Jesus – and later Paul, the great interpreter of Jesus’ ministry – were at pains to say there was still a need for law and structure in people’s lives. Thus Jesus saw his ministry as a fulfilment of the law – the end and purpose of why the law was there in the first place: the leading of a fulfilled life. And Paul would humpf, perhaps even scoff, that one indeed needed the law to know if one had sinned – so one could confess and seek forgiveness.
However, for Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth, there was a more pressing issue. There were people who believed that as a follower of Jesus they could do as they liked, and in this instance the issue concerned dietary laws – and in particular, food that had been offered to idols.
Here was a classic conundrum. In the old dispensation it would have been quite clear: be careful what you eat. Some foods are permitted, others are not. This food is not permitted. But then if there is no law as to what you can eat – even food that is offered to idols – because of that freedom which is offered to you in Christ, won’t this leave people very confused about what they are meant to do? About their personal ethics and morality?
The issue was, does personal freedom always trump any restrictions on behaviour and action which the law might have set out? Are there limits on our personal freedom? What becomes the direction of our own moral compass? What authority governs our actions when others are affected?
Food offered to idols is a strange problem – and not likely to be encountered today. We assume what was happening then was that in the market place there was available food which had previously been a part of another faith’s worship or ritual. Perhaps it would be like us today eating kosher or hallal food. Do we validate that other worship, or affirm that other faith by eating that food? Or another example would be that in our Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational traditions we had laws (I think that is how they could be described) against the consumption of alcohol and gambling and for the promotion of Sunday observance. Today we have far more liberal attitudes towards these matters. If we take these more liberal positions – that is, the liberty or freedom we have in Christ – do we create broader social consequences when these prohibitions are relaxed and even waived?
Paul, in a roundabout way, says that there are limits.
He, perhaps in awkward patronising language, recognises that there may be problems for those whom he calls our “weaker” brothers and sisters.
But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block for the weak. (8:9)
There can be limit on our own freedom, out of our love for others. Paul views very dimly action which may be done out of our freedom, that wounds the conscience of others. The prohibition he sees, or if you want to use stronger language, the sin he sees, is that our actions can wound the conscience of those within the family of the Church. Somehow our action can validate or approve of worshipping idols. We leave a member of the body of Christ confused, unclear where they stand and what they should do or say. We do not show love towards them. This is not to say that as Christians we are not to cause offence by our actions – just tip-toe around moral issues and causes. Rather, are we causing problems if we blindly exercise our Christian liberty? Paul, in this instance, is famously saying – there is no black-and-white answer to a range of ethical issues (which of course the strict interpretation of the law would deliver). It will depend on the circumstances and those involved.
This is a new authority; a new authority which Jesus offers. This is the gospel, the good news. We each are given our own authority in Christ: Christian freedom. Through the grace of God in Christ, we who believe are offered new life; we are a new creation. We are not subject to the old authorities in our life; the authority of the past, the authority of fear, the authority of guilt and sin, or the authority of the religious official.
This new authority, this new freedom we possess is, however, not limitless. And this is the paradox about this new freedom we have here. Paul addresses it in his letter to Corinth in terms of love for the weaker brother or sister. The great reformer Martin Luther addressed this paradox this way:
A Christian is a perfect, free lord of all, subject to none …. [but he goes on
A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.
Because of Christ we are free, but we are set free to love, to love others as ourselves, to be servants of others. To be subject to all.
Jesus taught them as one having authority, not as the scribes. And this is the great freedom we also have.
