Red Herring
“One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?’ And he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (Mark 2: 23 -28).
The question the Pharisees asked of Jesus is whether or not someone can labor on the Sabbath, because they saw his disciples doing just that – picking some grain in order to eat it. Jesus’ answer seems to be “David broke the law, and ate what he shouldn’t have eaten when he was hungry; will you condemn him for it?” One might wonder, what does one have to do with the other? Certainly one can say both seem to be doing something which can be said to be “against the law,” but are both things the same thing? Is it really a just comparison? Or is Jesus diverting the attention away from his disciples? Isn’t this merely a red herring, trying to get the Pharisees to debate about David, instead of trying to answer their objections?
But to be a red herring, the diversion must remain a diversion, and the question at hand must not be answered. Jesus’ answer is not a diversion, but is used to introduce an answer, that which we find at the end of this text: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Before we address his point about David, we must understand what he is saying by this second statement. There are two parts to his answer: the first is the question of what the Sabbath is meant to be about, the second is about the authority to mediate that meaning to practical, real life situations. The Sabbath was originally made to give people rest, to make sure that they are not worn out by constant work. The day was meant to free people, to give them a chance to overcome the burdens of life. Connected with this, and important for all of us, is that it was a day of religious observance. We need rest, but we also need more than rest, we need to make sure we continually connect ourselves to the divine reality, for it is by opening ourselves up to God that we are made free and our limited, human level of freedom is given greater freedom and liberation by the grace of God. The two are intricately connected: we find perfect rest is found in God, and by freeing ourselves from the bonds which we establish for ourselves in our daily lives, we find that God returns to us a new meaning to our lives, directed by his unlimited freedom.
Now the legalistic interpretation of the day inverted this: we must not work, and that means anything which might look like work must be avoided. Anything which might be necessary, even for the well-being of the human person, is to be avoided, if it requires too much work. Instead of being freedom from the burdens of life, one is burdened by the chains of legalism. And it is this kind of legalism which could easily destroy lives. It is the kind of legalism which shows that even a truth can be perverted when used by people for the sake of control. The Pharisees made a mockery of the law by ignoring what the law was about, elevating the law into an absolute when it was merely a tool for something outside of itself. Thus, the Sabbath, like the law, was made for the benefit of humanity. When the enforcement of the law, such as the enforcement of the Sabbath, forgets this, then the law is not being kept. For the law is founded upon love, while the rigorist ignores this for the sake of the letter and what can be said about the letter when extracted and made into an absolute as we see here. Thus, Jesus’ point about David is not a red herring, because his point is about the law as a whole, in which the rules about the Sabbath are to be found. Jesus is saying that the Sabbath must be understood in connection to the whole of the law, and the use of the law which was firmly established with practical examples by Scripture. The legalism in his day made no sense when one read about how the law was understood by Scripture. Even Scripture points out how the law must be flexible and allow its “breaking” when there is such a need, such as when David went hungry. The law was put in place to help improve the lot of life of all, and to follow the law, one must put that as the primary means of interpreting it. Secondarily, Jesus points out that he is the authoritative interpreter, because he is the Son of Man, an assertion which Scripture will confirm by having him perform a miracle on the Sabbath (the healing of a man’s withered hand).
“As things are, however, such an one will do all he can to be like a bird, which the fowler shall not be able to catch. But, lo, let all men allow this to the servants of God, that when they will they should go forth into their fields, and thence depart fearless and refreshed: as it was ordered to the people Israel by the law, that none should lay hands on a thief in his fields, unless he wanted to carry any thing away with him from thence; for if he laid hands on nothing but what he had eaten, they would let him go away free and unpunished. Whence also when the disciples of the Lord plucked the ears of grain, the Jews calumniated them on the score of the sabbath rather than of theft.”[1] Augustine, interestingly enough, adds another dimension to the story: where were his disciples taking food from? The fields — fields which they do not own themselves. In this way, one could ask whether or not it was theft. The answer of course remains the same: obviously not, and this is why the Pharisees did not suggest it, for it was understood even by them that one could take and eat what one wanted as long as one had need and would eat all one would take, and eat and take without excess. Common law followed this principle until capitalism saw property rights as absolute. Perhaps we need to think this over today, as we ponder the rule of law – even secular law must be made for the benefit of all those within its sovereignty; anything which would over-ride the natural welfare of people must be regulated following the principles set forth here by Jesus. We do not need to follow the letter of the law, but the spirit, which is, an orderly society based upon justice for the betterment of all. When a law goes against this, when a rule or interpretation goes against this, even if “literally” it might be true, Christians must see it as null and void and contrary to all that which can be said to be a law. The letter of the law more often than not is used by those in positions of authority to put pressure on people, to break them down; and since it is “law” it is said to be justice when this happens. For us Christians, this can never be the case. Jesus has shown himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, but this is because he is also the Lord of the Law. He is the word of God incarnate, the law made flesh – and the law must always be seen in and through is life, the light of love. Anything else might claim to be the law, but it has no legitimate authority, no matter what books and legal opinion might say.
Footnote
[1] St Augustine, “On the Work of Monks,” 28 in NPNF1 (3):517.
Comments are closed.
Henry, One line in particular stood out for me about David and the others eating the bread that was only to be eaten by the priests. When my daughter was in Italy taking a course in international law about 4 years ago after her first year in law school she attended mass at St. Peter’s with her very close friend who was at another university for the same reason. At the time our daughter was not catholic and I had returned after 40 years away only 6 months earlier. Her friend went to Communion and our daughter being so beautifully innocent and naive thought she would also take Communion figuring it would do no harm and nobody knew her anyway.
She began to change after that and moved in the direction of being less angry with others, which by the way she had mirrored from her heathen father for 20 some years. Her voice softened and had an added tone of sweetness that just made me melt.
We live about 3000 miles away from her and never talked to her about becoming Catholic. Ash Wednesday of 2007 she gave us a call and told us she was going to be Catholic. When we asked her why, she stated that it has an intelligence and depth that she did not see anywhere. She does love our faith but she has been greatly disappointed by those who scream the loudest and sound the meanest.
We talk several times a week and she continues to love our faith but the hardness hurts her deeply and she can feel how impenetable that defense is. I keep telling her not to let them drive her away and that the faith that drew her in is still there for her to discover in infinite ways because she is created with the sensitivity of mystics who can see and feel what others cannot.
Ronald
There are many, in history, who have innocently taken communion like that — and have come to faith because of it. I know of one eucharistic miracle associated with a young Jewish woman who took communion like that, and it shows that of course, while the “rules” have validity, there is also something of the heat which God sees as well, and can and does work in extraordinary means for people who “break rules” through no fault of their own. One of the thing I like about the East (I’m Byzantine) is that it understands “economy” in this fashion and helps one deal with issues through “economy of God” which would bother legalists.
Henry, That is what I believe also. I am drawn toward the East in particular Byzantine. However, I am two and a half hours away. I have a question. Is the priest permitted to marry in the Byzantine rite? I ask because I believe that this opens the East more to the feminine heart of the faith and as a consequence a deeper living in the heart of the faith. It seems that reason overrides the heart and there is a great misunderstanding of the dynamics of emotion in the Roman rite. As a result of this overemphasis on reason it seems that the mystical beauty and truth of God’s Love is limited to intellectual expressions of theology without the action of love that unites us into a light that draws others to our faith.
Look how the mother reaches out to her child and nurtures her child or other children in need. I am too tired right now to formulate more. Thanks for your thought provoking writing.
Ronald
Well, the tradition is married men can become priests — though in the US there are all kinds of issues here. We do have married priests, but there were some restrictions placed in the early 20th century because of complaints by Romans that we had them, so in the US we had a long time without them; now it is possible but requires going through hoops so to speak, though the hope is it will become normalized in the US again someday soon.