|
Jesus' authority as a teacher
The crowds were astonished at his "teaching", for he
"taught" them with authority. yes, he presented himself
first and foremost as a teacher, and he amazed his listeners by the
substance, the quality and the manner of his instruction. But of
course there had been thousands of other teachers in Jewry and
elsewhere. Many were his contemporaries. What then was so
special about him?
He somehow assumed the right to teach absolute truth. he was a
Jew, but his message was not Jewish. he was interpreting Moses;
law, but in such a way as to show it was God's. What he had to say
was not culturally conditioned in the sense that it was limited to a
particular people (Jews) or a particular place (Palestine). Being
absolute, it was universal. So he spoke as one who knew what he
was talking about. 'We speak of what we know,' he said in another
context (John 3:11). He knew who would be great in God's kingdom
and who least, who was ' blessed' in God's sight and who was not, which
way led to life and which to destruction. With complete
self-confidence he declared who would inherit the kingdom of heaven, who
would inherit the earth, who would obtain mercy, see God and be fit to
be called God's children. How could he be so sure?
Commentators have searched for language adequate to describe this
peculiar flavour of Jesus' teaching. I have collected some of
their attempts. They have tended to depict Jesus as either a king
or a law-maker. 'He spoke royally,' wrote Spurgeon, 'with royal
assurance' or with 'sovereignty'. Gresham Machen's expression was that
'he claimed the right to legislate for the kingdom of God', while James
Denney combined the pictures of king and law-maker in writing both of
his 'practical sovereignty over man's conscience, will and affections'
and of his 'supreme moral authority, legislating without misgiving, and
demanding implicit obedience'. And Calvin said the crowds were
astonished 'because a strange, indescribable and unwonted majesty drew
to him the minds of men'.
His hearers naturally compared and contrasted him with the many other
teachers with whom they were familiar, especially the scribes.
What struck them most was that he taught them "as one who had
authority" and not at all "as their scribes". For
the scribes claimed no authority of their own. They conceived
their duty in terms of faithfulness to the tradition they had
received. So they were antiquarians, delving into commentaries,
searching for precedents, claiming the support of famous names among the
rabbis. Their authority lay in the authorities they were
constantly quoting. Jesus, on the other hand, had not received a
scribal education (cf. John 7:15), scandalized the establishment by
sweeping away the traditions of the elders, had no particular reverence
for social conventions, and spoke with a freshness of his own which
captivated some and infuriated others. A.B. Bruce summed up the
difference by saying that the scribes spoke '"by" authority',
while Jesus spoke '"with" authority'.
Next: Matthew 7:28-29. Conclusion: who is this preacher -
Jesus' authority as the teacher (cont'd)
|
