Reflection On Mark 2: 23-28

The issue under conflict on the Sabbath brings out relevant ideas. The question of Pharisees on the act of Jesus’ disciples picking ear of corn justified in the right examples.

“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath” is an idolized and ancient law of Moses. And we would hardly think of disputing it. The religious leaders of the people in the Old Testament had defined the precise limitations which one should not transgress, in order to keep the Sabbath rest. Jesus breaks the law and allows his disciples to do the same. The reason: He had a different, a higher law to follow. Jesus gave the example of David who worked on a Sabbath day and did what was necessary. Jesus gives approval of what David did, even though he had technically broken the law by doing what was prohibited on the Sabbath. Hence it is a conflict between two extreme thoughts whether to follow the law or to show emphasis on human needs.

For Jesus, human need was important than the written law. Since the law came from God originally, Jesus tells the Pharisees they had not interpreted the law properly. They might be literal and superficial. In reference to King David, Jesus shows the older interpretation was right one. That is why Jesus said the Sabbath was made for the good of man; man was not made for the Sabbath. For Jesus, as for us, the real priority is not to be slave to the law but to use the law, in the best way possible, to ease for human needs. In other words human life has to be the measure of everything but not the law. In the same way religion is for man and not man for religion. If our religion does not enable us to do good to men, it is useless. If the laws and observances do not help a man and meaningless to observe them, better keep them aside. Because they are not justified to the human will.

Once a missionary approached a Brahmin and went to help his wife who was in a labor pain. Since missionary and her companion belonged to different caste, the Brahmin refused their help. The practice of law of his religion did not permit different caste to touch the Brahmin wife. However the woman died of lack of medical care. The missionaries were pained and left the place. It’s a very small silly incident but awkward about the practice of law. We may laugh even at the ancient practice. Even in the modern times we may meet caught into such observances in the ultimate analysis.

It is not the fate; it is the fact.

It is not about religion; about human need.

Questions to ponder:

How often you’ve come across such situations and what was your observance?

How do you interpret various laws for others and you?

How do you eradicate such scrupulous thoughts?