What does “authority” mean, and who qualifies as an “authority”? Sometimes people who are equally knowledgeable about a subject may reach different conclusions. For example, archaeologists with comparable education and experience may examine the same evidence but disagree strongly about the meaning of an artifact or the dating of a site.  

 

At other times, people whose authority lies in different areas may come into conflict because they approach the issue with different agendas. As the world has dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic for more than a year now, political authorities primarily concerned with protecting the economy and preserving a sense of normality have clashed with medical authorities whose central focus is on protecting public health. 

 

What authority should we believe? Who can we really trust?

 

Wouldn’t it be nice to know there’s someone who could cut through the endless debates and internal quibbling – at least with regard to faith and practice – and speak with real authority? 

 

Our text for the day describes just that person. Mark believed that Jesus fit the bill. 

 

 

 

The passage continues the Epiphany theme of Jesus’ public manifestation and growing fame, and its primary purpose is to demonstrate Jesus’ authority. Through two vignettes, Mark portrays Jesus as displaying a kind of authority that was as shocking as it was convincing. 

 

On the surface, Mark’s account seems to imply that Jesus’ first synagogue sermon was proclaimed in Capernaum, and that it immediately followed the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John. Mark indicates that Capernaum was their hometown, and it was an appropriate place to begin. [DD]

 

We often think of Jesus’ first synagogue sermon as the controversial appearance in his hometown of Nazareth. Luke’s gospel puts greater emphasis on that sermon, in which Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah and declared himself to be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, an anointed deliverer come to bring good news to the poor, vision to the sightless, and freedom to the oppressed (Luke 4:18-19). 

 

Luke acknowledged, however, that Jesus had been teaching in synagogues prior to his sermon in Nazareth (Luke 4:14-15), and Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth specifically referenced his previous work in Capernaum (Luke 4:23). [DD]

 

Mark says little about the circumstances of Jesus’ teaching in Capernaum, only that “when the Sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught” (v. 21). 

Likewise, Mark tells us nothing about the content of Jesus’ teaching, focusing on his confident stance. Jesus spoke with a certainty that caught other worshipers off guard: “They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (v. 22).

 

The verb translated as “astounded” suggests not just surprise, but discomfort. It consists of the preposition ek (meaning “out”) and the verb plesso (“to strike”). The combination takes on the sense of being struck with panic, hence, “to be so amazed as to be practically overwhelmed”  

(from Louw and Nida’s Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains). 

 

If those present had worn socks with their sandals, Jesus would have knocked them off. They had never heard such teaching. It was unlike what they were accustomed to, because Jesus taught with authority. 

 

To understand the difference, we must consider how the scribes taught. The word translated as “scribe” is grammateis (notice the similarity to the English word “grammar”). The term could describe someone skilled in writing new documents or copying old ones that needed to be preserved, such as the scriptures. It also came to be used in a technical sense to indicate Jewish rabbis who specialized in the study and interpretation of the law – not just commands found in the Torah, but also the 365 derivative rules the rabbis had developed in the postexilic period in order to “build a hedge about the law.”  

 

In periodic conclaves, rabbis engaged in lengthy debates over the interpretation of laws both big and small. Many of these were carefully recorded and ultimately compiled into a series of judicial commentaries that came to be called the Talmud. [DD] 

 

Long before the completion of the Talmud, however, opinions of the most respected rabbis were committed to memory. Local scribes who taught in synagogues or elsewhere often cited previous rulings. In doing so, they taught on the authority of generations of scribes who came before them. 

 

The practice of finding authority mainly in the teaching of others could be problematic, because the rabbis often disagreed with each other. Thus, a scribe in a given synagogue might teach and agree with the opinions of Rabbi Hillel over those of Rabbi Shammai (two popular first century teachers), but there was no real certainty about whose conclusions were best. [DD]

 

In contrast, Jesus did not cite rabbinical opinion other than to call it into question with the occasional “You have heard it said …” (Matt. 5:38, 43), or to affirm a traditional opinion on the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:34-40). 

 

More commonly, Jesus’ teachings were focused on living in the present with an eye to the future and a heart for other people. He expressed no doubt about his own teaching, but spoke with an authority that came from within. Jesus’ sense of certainty both amazed and offended some of his hearers. We all know it is possible for someone to be dead certain and also dead wrong. How could they know that Jesus was not only confident, but correct? 

 

It may be helpful to take a closer look at the Greek term translated as “authority.” The word is exousía. Its makeup suggests the literal meaning “out of one’s being,” but in practical use it meant “power to act,” or “authority to act.” In some cases, it was used to mean “power” alone. One who spoke or gave a command with exousía had the power to back up his or her words with actions. 

 

Did Jesus have such power? Was he more than just a convincing preacher?

 

 

 

Mark immediately presents an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate the inner power needed to confirm his unsettling teachings. “A man with an unclean spirit” was in the synagogue (v. 23), according to Mark. At some point the man screamed at Jesus: “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (v. 24). [DD]

 

Mark, like others in the ancient world, attributed various mental and physical illnesses to evil spirits. Most modern people would explain the same conditions with medical and psychological terminology. In addressing the man, Jesus spoke in keeping with the beliefs of those around him.

 

The afflicted man’s cry, “What have you to do with us?” (NRSV, literally, “what to us and to you”) could carry the sense of “Leave us alone” (NET). It would have been spoken, we presume, from the perspective of the unclean spirit, who spoke in the plural and who feared destruction, knowing that “the Holy One of God” could not abide its presence. 

 

Jesus had no interest in harming the man, but in restoring him to health. Speaking in a way that both the man and those surrounding him would understand, Jesus addressed the perceived unclean spirit with a rebuke and a command to leave (v. 25). The man then convulsed and cried out before presumably assuming a peaceful posture that made his healing apparent to all (v. 26).

 

The following verse ties this powerful sign to Jesus’ powerful teaching. As Jesus had shown authority to teach (v. 22), he now demonstrated his authority to heal, even to command the dreaded unclean spirits. Once again, the people were amazed. This time Mark uses a word that describes astonishment over an unusual event. 

 

It seems surprising to us that the people described Jesus’ act of power as “a new teaching – with authority” (v. 27). We would not think of a miraculous display of power as a “teaching,” but Jesus’ audience apparently saw it as a revelation of a new truth, and therefore a teaching that demonstrated Jesus’ uncanny authority in yet another way. 

 

Jesus’ authoritative teaching in both word and deed was bound to have consequences, so we are not surprised that his “fame” (literally, “the hearing of him”) spread quickly throughout the region of Galilee. People came from miles around, and Jesus was soon inundated with supplicants who came to hear his words and seek his healing touch (see 1:32-34). 

 

The radical nature of Jesus’ teaching does not spread as rapidly today, and many do not consider it to be authoritative. Could it be that the version of the gospel we proclaim has drifted from Jesus’ focus on loving God and loving others, thus lacking the clarity and power that attracts attention and calls for response? 

 

What would it take for guests attending our churches to express amazement and spread the word that something new has come, a teaching that cuts through the moral quagmire of our self-focused culture, and does so with authority?