NOTES for Mar 2:23-28

The law and rules are only the starting point for any creative work. Let us compare them to scales: every pupil must practise scales day after day for many years in order to learn to play Bach. The Pharisees' objections then become as absurd as it would be to object to a brilliant performance of Bach.

Yes, unlike the Lord, we are still pupils. We must therefore practise our scales. But even a first-year pupil already tries to play simple studies, understanding that scales are not an end in themselves and that practising them serves a higher purpose.

So it must be with all our rituals. This is what the words “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” really mean. One can often see a different, loose interpretation of these words, leading to a “philosophical” attitude towards fasts and rules of prayer. We must be very sure that we play our scales well before we allow ourselves that.

The Sabbath, Shabbat in Judaism, is the foundation of foundations. Without observance of Shabbat there is no Judaism; this is clear to every observant Jew, and Gospel times differ from ours in this respect not at all. But what does it mean to observe Shabbat? For the religious consciousness it means above all observing the corresponding ritual prohibitions. Already in those days there were practically as many such prohibitions as there are today, so many that a person, unless he was born and raised in an Orthodox Jewish environment, usually found it completely impossible to observe them all: he would inevitably forget something, make a mistake somewhere, and do something forbidden.

The Pharisees, being deeply and in their own way sincerely religious people, were precisely the ones who watched to make sure the prohibitions were not violated. Plucking ears of grain is also work, and like any work it is forbidden on Shabbat, which means that Jesus' disciples violated Shabbat.

The Pharisees point out this violation to the Teacher. They think that He is simply instructing His disciples poorly, that He is not teaching them to observe Shabbat as they should, and therefore He is the first one to be held accountable. But Jesus answers them in a completely unexpected way, recalling the well-known story described in the Book of Kingdoms, when the high priest gave the bread of the Presence to David, who was hiding from Saul, food reserved exclusively for priests. By doing this he appeared to violate the Torah, which forbids anyone except priests to eat the bread of the Presence. And the prohibition here is direct; this is not a list of Shabbat ritual prohibitions compiled by commentators.

There are, however, situations in which even what is usually forbidden may be done. Shabbat cannot and must not turn into an end in itself; it is only a means, as is the whole cult and the whole ritual. Once this is forgotten and they are made the goal, religious ritualism and legalism take the place of spiritual life and communion with God, and they kill that life. These are simple things, but they have to be remembered, above all by people who are deeply and, in their own way, sincerely religious.

In the Pharisees' disputes with Christ about the Sabbath, the fundamental difference lies in what is considered important. The Pharisaic position, at first glance, is simple: it is written, "Do not do any of your work on the Sabbath," so we will not do it. Come what may, we will be at peace. After all, we have fulfilled the commandment, and we will not let anyone find fault with us, not even the One who gave that commandment. He will simply be forced to give the Pharisee the blessings of paradise, because everything has been fulfilled. Thus the Pharisee himself and his experience of his own righteousness stand at the center. The drive toward formal fulfillment of the commandments carries within it a hidden desire to shield all the "rest" of life, the part not reducible to commandments, from the Creator's intervention.

But for the Son of God, the living person stands at the center: the one who suffers and is in need. Formally the commandment may even be violated, but at the same time God's love and God's mercy enter the world and act within it. Rebuking the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus says that goodness and the salvation of the soul must be the true value: "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?" When we need to make decisions of this kind, it is important to remember the simple and practical criterion Christ Himself gives us here.

Once again the Lord, in answering the Pharisees, also addresses all of us. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" - these words are comforting, sometimes, it seems, excessively so. The Sabbath day, Shabbat, is the legally prescribed, obligatory day of rest for every Jew. It is a day on which no work may be done; for example, food for that day must be prepared in advance. Jesus answers the Pharisees' legitimate reproach: how can one pluck heads of grain on the day that the Lord Himself appointed as a day of rest? The immediate meaning of His words is quite simple: mercy and the need to sustain life stand above any law. And often, when breaking one rule or another, we want to comfort ourselves with these words: after all, nothing terrible has happened, and Christ Himself said... Yet it seems that these words have an even deeper meaning.

The Sabbath was not given merely for "doing nothing," for lying on the sofa. To remember the Sabbath day means to try to enter into the peace and repose of God's perfect design for the world. It means becoming like Him and rejoicing in how beautifully and wisely He arranged the nature around us, the birds, beasts, and animals, and in how delicate and fragile is the balance that the Lord placed in the world. "The Sabbath was made for man" - that is, each of us was created to keep in our heart not only contrition for sins, but also the remembrance of the depth of God's mercy toward the world He created. And if we are able to heed this call, our life will be guided not by the fear of violating one prohibition or another, but by the mercy and peace of the seventh day of creation.

The commandment about the Sabbath is given by God Himself in the Law of Moses; moreover, its observance is declared to be the sign of the covenant God made with His people. Can one call a human being (and the phrase "son of man," without capital letters, which do not exist in oral speech, simply means "a human being") lord over such an important commandment of God? Yet Jesus does exactly this. In what case is this possible? Not when the commandment is not fulfilled, but when it is surpassed. The meaning of this commandment is that a person should devote one day out of seven to the works of God. It is a kind of "tithe" offered to God, only not in money or fruit, but in time. Then it becomes clear that a person becomes not the slave of this commandment, but its lord, when he gives God more than one seventh of his life. For example, like the Son of Man, he gives his whole life. Once again we see that for Jesus it is obvious that service to God is not "calendar-based" but constant. He is free from slavery to this commandment because every day of His is a "Sabbath," a day given to God.

The Sabbath is a day dedicated to God, a day on which one is commanded not to do any work of one's own, but only the works of God. What is one's own work? Well, work, for example. And what is God's work, that is, work pleasing to God? To answer this question one must either ask Him Himself directly or know well what He is like. Of course, it is simpler not to work and in general to prohibit whatever resembles work. The Pharisaic interpretation of the law followed precisely this path, and therefore Jesus was constantly accused of violating the Sabbath commandment because of His healings. But He tries to turn people toward the living God. His question means: people, what is your God like? Is He good or evil? What is His will: salvation or destruction? Do you know your God? These same questions are addressed to us. The Pharisees were silent in response. And what will we answer?

Today's reading is a short but rich description of Jesus' preaching in His native Galilee, where He, as is clear, often preached not only in houses and synagogues, but also in the open air (v. 13; by "sea" here is meant not the Mediterranean Sea, but Lake Gennesaret). People whose reputation in the society of believers was not very good often found themselves in the same house with Him and at the same table (v. 15).

In the Gospels, "tax collectors" are collectors of taxes and tribute, like Levi son of Alphaeus, who is mentioned in the passage (v. 14). In Jewish society they were considered traitors, because they collected taxes for the treasury of the Roman Empire, under whose power Palestine was at that time, and many regarded them as accomplices of the occupying authorities. It is no wonder that such respected people among believers as the scribes and Pharisees did not care for this kind of company (v. 16).

In the Gospels, "Pharisees" are members of special religious brotherhoods that existed at that time around the synagogues. They were the most active part of the Synagogue; the Pharisees devoted much time to preaching, not only among Jews but often among Gentiles, to charity, and to religious education. With good reason they considered themselves the core of the synagogue community, and being near people who, from this point of view, had no standing, people known for an obviously unrighteous way of life, of course had to offend them. Besides, they did not consider such people worthy of fellowship with a Teacher like Jesus, and they considered it shameful for Him to sit at one table with them.

As for Jesus Himself, on the contrary, He considers such people worthy not of rejection, but of help: each of them can repent of his sins and turn to God (v. 17). And He does not treat religious life as formally as many religious people did at that time. For Him both fasting and the Sabbath are not ends in themselves, but means for establishing a relationship with God, so necessary for the human person, who always remains the main goal (vv. 27-28). Such a position, of course, inevitably had to lead to conflict with religious formalists, for whom any departures from established norms and rules are unacceptable by definition. So the image of new wine poured into an old wineskin, or skins (v. 22), could hardly have produced anything in them except irritation.

In today's passage, three episodes can be distinguished: the calling of Levi son of Alphaeus, the conversation with the disciples of the Pharisees and of John the Baptist about fasting, and the conversation with the Pharisees about keeping the Sabbath. In all three episodes, the growing conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is shown. The Pharisees cannot accept the newness in relations with God and with people that Christ offers them. In their view, the main thing is the letter of the law. They condemn Jesus because He associates with tax collectors, who collected taxes for Rome. Such people were considered traitors and great sinners. For a pious person, it was considered unacceptable to sit at the same table with them. But for Christ something else proves important: the thirst for salvation that makes many tax collectors and sinners follow Him. Levi leaves his profitable place and immediately follows Jesus.

Jesus' attitude toward fasting is also incomprehensible to the Pharisees. Fasting is an ascetic means to which ascetics have resorted since ancient times in the hope of drawing near to God. But Christ's disciples cannot fast, because the One toward whom they strive is already with them. The time for fasting will come when Christ is no longer nearby. Christ compares the Pharisees' lack of understanding to the way old cloth cannot be mended with a patch of new cloth, and old, fragile wineskins cannot hold new wine. In order to receive the new relationships that Jesus offers, people themselves must be renewed.

Thus Christ places the Old Testament law about the Sabbath not above the human being, but at the service of the human being. For God, the human being is more important. The Sabbath has no value in itself, but was established for the human being. Christ, God become man, the "Lord of the Sabbath," affirms the primacy of the human being over the letter of the law, replacing it with relationships of love and faith.

The question of Shabbat, of observing and violating it, arises constantly in the Gospels. This is understandable: the problem of observing Shabbat was one of the main problems in Judaism. Entire treatises were written by interpreters of the Torah to justify what exactly could be done on Shabbat and what could not, in what cases a given action would be a violation of Shabbat and in what cases it was permitted.

For example, with regard to treatment, the consensus came down to the understanding that on Shabbat one can and must save a person from death if death threatens him. This means that one can and must carry out the medical procedures that are necessary, to use modern language, for vital indications, emergency procedures without which the sick person will die. If there is no such urgency, however, there is no need to hurry with treatment, because that too is work, and work is forbidden on Shabbat.

For the sake of saving life, Shabbat may be violated; for the sake of immediate healing, no. The case of the man with the withered hand was precisely one in which there was no need to hurry: death did not threaten him, for he had already lived this way for more than one year, which means he could have been healed after Shabbat ended. Jesus, however, looks at Shabbat in a completely different way, returning it to its original meaning. The original meaning of Shabbat consisted not at all in ritual restrictions and prohibitions, but in spending the day in God's presence, devoting it entirely and without remainder to communion with God. All the prohibitions and restrictions were ultimately directed toward removing a person from that everyday rush which greatly hinders communion with God and at times makes it simply impossible. Meanwhile the healing performed by Jesus manifested to those gathered the very fullness of the Kingdom that opened the possibility of communion with God, previously unknown to the people of God. And now it turned out that ritual prohibitions, when understood in a purely formal way, began to hinder communion with God instead of helping it.

It is not by chance that Jesus asks the people around Him a question about saving the "soul," about saving life. In healing, He joins the person He heals to the fullness of the life of the Kingdom, and He is told that by doing this He violates Shabbat. So what, then, is Shabbat: the fullness of communion with God, or a system of prohibitions for the sake of prohibitions? Each person had to answer this question for himself.

In today's story Jesus touches on the very meaning of the Sabbath commandment. It was given to God's people in order to teach them to dedicate their life to God. To begin with - one day a week. In this connection the Lord asks the Pharisees what this dedication means: simply doing nothing on the Sabbath (and sometimes inaction is evildoing), or doing good? This question is addressed directly to us as well. Having entered into the New Covenant with God, we have dedicated our whole life to Him - all our deeds, words, thoughts, and every aspect of our being. What, then, does this dedication mean? And what should it be like? And how can we make our life dedicated not to fulfilling the Sabbath commandment as we understand it, but to God Himself, who is love?

At times Jesus' behavior looks frankly provocative. Why, one asks, did He need to heal a man with a withered hand specifically on Shabbat and specifically in the synagogue? This was a direct and obvious challenge not only to the Pharisees in particular, but also in general to the ideas already established by that time about the norms and rules of Shabbat, and in particular about the ritual prohibitions connected with it.

The usual rule was this: help to a person on Shabbat, including medical help, was given in the form and to the extent necessary for vital indications. If, for example, the healed man's withered hand had directly threatened his life, no one would have reproached Jesus for the healing.

If, however, there was no direct and immediate threat to life, treatment was not performed on Shabbat and was postponed until it ended. It is worth noting, by the way, that in medical institutions in Israel, for example, these rules are still followed today: on Shabbat only necessary planned medical procedures are carried out, and emergency help necessary for vital indications is provided.

The situation with the man healed by Jesus was clearly different: the presence of a withered hand in no way threatened his life, and the healing therefore could have been postponed until the end of Shabbat. But Jesus, as we see, does not do this and heals the man specifically on Shabbat. At first glance such a healing can look like a demonstrative and therefore provocative violation of Shabbat.

In reality, however, the situation is exactly the opposite. In this case the matter is not medical help, but healing: the manifestation of the Kingdom and its power. That is, the very thing for which Shabbat as such exists. In Gospel times there was much debate about the ritual norms and prescriptions connected with Shabbat, and amid the restrictions people often forgot the main thing: Shabbat is not a day of ritual prohibitions, but a day to be spent in God's presence.

Jesus is precisely striving to return Shabbat to its true meaning. Indeed, where can Shabbat be more itself, not in form but in essence, than in the Kingdom? To enter the Kingdom means to enter the rest of Shabbat, and in a fullness that is unthinkable anywhere else. This is exactly what Jesus offers those who witnessed the healing He performed: in fact, all of them, as many as were there, found themselves on the threshold of the Kingdom. But many of those present did not notice the Kingdom at all; instead, they noticed very clearly a violation of the religious prescriptions connected with Shabbat. This emphasis on the external at the expense of the essential, on religion at the expense of the Kingdom, was the chief obstacle on the way into the Kingdom for religious people. It was an obstacle that had to be overcome, or else one had to abandon the way into the Kingdom altogether. Here each person chooses his own. And bears all the consequences of his choice.

How can the behavior of the Pharisees in this passage be explained? — that is the first question. Parallel to it is the second: how can Jesus' behavior be explained? For a modern reader of the Gospel, raised on the values of humanism, it is easy to see the Pharisees as a kind of "spawn of hell." We ourselves are unreservedly on Jesus' side — and does that not mean that we are far better than they are, even if in daily life we do not remember God especially often? Let us think about it...

The Pharisees were a religious party with a tradition based on a scrupulous study of the Law of Moses. Many things seemed self-evident to them, for example, that a man with a withered hand had been punished by God for something. To accept the fact that spirituality could come from some other source was equivalent to losing everything. And if the miracle of healing on the Sabbath was plain to see, it was the fruit of some "other" spirituality... perhaps even satanic?

Now let us look once more at our episode. Here I am, a witness of an obvious miracle... It breaks into my habitually explainable world and destroys it. What is easier for me: in the exultation of my heart to bow before what has happened with meek gratitude, or to turn away, muttering that the miracle was performed "by the power of Beelzebul"?

On the other hand, what would it have meant for the man with the withered hand, who had suffered for many years already, to wait one more day? What would it have cost Jesus to wait one more day and not put the Pharisees to the test? After all, truly, a delay of one day against the background of an entire life plays no role. But apparently that is not so for the love of God. Can an unexpected meeting be postponed? Can loving wait? Could the Physician and the sick man who met in this Gospel text have delayed opening themselves to each other? The point is not Jesus' revolutionary spirit, not the deliberately provocative nature of His behavior. The point is simply that His love is real.