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 were saying 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, in the time of Abiathar the 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.”
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. - Mark 2:23 - 3:6
"The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him." The Pharisees didn't like Herod--they did not believe that Herod was the true king of Israel and firmly believed that he was too friendly with the Sadducees and the Romans--he was, in fact, Caesar's good friend and childhood playmate. The Herodians were on the opposite end of the political spectrum. They thought Herod kept Rome's anger away from Israel and allowed Israel-or at least some of Israel-to prosper under Rome's peace. Now, in these verses, we see that the Pharisees and Herodians "held counsel" about how to destroy Jesus. The Herodians were odious but Jesus was dangerous so they adopted common cause against him. Jesus was a danger to both. If Jesus won, the Pharisees control over the religious life of the average Jew was threatened. He didn't seem strict enough for them. If Jesus won, the Herodians control over the political life of the average Jew was threatened. He didn't line up in support of the political and secular power brokers.
Both groups had litmus tests-questions on certain issues that determined if you were acceptable. In these verses, Jesus failed both tests. It seems to me that when people create an "in or out" test, it is almost always a false dichotomy. Again and again, Jesus showed that there was a third way, neither this or that. This third way didn't avoid that fact that Jesus' way is hard, not always clear and often messy. One key item was the Pharisees had lost compassion for people who were suffering. What made Jesus angry? "he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart." In both stories, they placed rules above compassion. Yes, the rules were important. They placed guidelines that were to be aimed for. But they weren't boundary markers designed to indicate who was in or out. In many cases, the rules were more important in justifying my hardness of heart. I need to do a compassion check when I enforce important rules. Ultimately, I need to let God decide what he will accept. He did not make me the border guard on the kingdom of heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment