Mark on Mondays: People are More Important than the Law.

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some ears of corn. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"


He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."


Then 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 (NIV (UK))

Welcome back to Mark on Mondays. There was no post last week because I was away on holiday - on Fuerteventura since you asked. However, given that one of the central points of today's passage is about the human need for rest, it seems entirely appropriate that this is how things have turned out.

Today's passage is, on the surface, pretty straightforward but, as usual, there are all sorts of undercurrents to watch out for.

To us, the issue of picking a few ears of corn whilst walking through a cornfield seems trivial. It's the kind of thing you would probably do without thinking. But, for the Pharisees of Jesus' time, it was a serious offence. It was harvesting crops on the Sabbath, and Sabbath-breaking was considered to be very serious indeed. Now that might have been bad enough, but Jesus did nothing to stop his disciples from "doing what is unlawful." This meant that, at least in the eyes of the Pharisees, he was condoning law-breaking, which was the actual substance of the Pharisees complaint.

When we understand that, we begin to see more clearly why Jesus reminds them of David's actions when he and his companions were in need. By taking the consecrated bread, eating it and giving it to his companions, David - a great hero of Jewish faith and ancestor of the expected Messiah - was clearly a law-breaker. Of course, as we can read in the Bible, his law-breaking extended much further than this, and included adultery and murder amongst other transgressions.

But, in the situation described, David had only two choices. He could either break the Law of Moses or he could let his companions starve. Clearly, breaking the Law was the least bad option available. And this is important for us to remember. There are times when breaking the rules is the least bad option available to us. When it is, we should go ahead and break the rules.

What Jesus brings to light here is the relationship between the Law and people. He says that people were not created in order to serve the Law, to carry it as some kind of burden. Rather, the Law was given as an aide and a guide to better human living in the world. So people are more important than the Law. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

But Jesus doesn't stop there. If the Law was so important in the eyes of the Pharisees - and it was - then the one who gave the Law must be more important still, and would be Lord over the Law. Since the Law was given by God, then by claiming to be "Lord even of the Sabbath" Jesus, here referring to himself as Son of Man, makes a claim to equal status with God i.e. to be God.

Suddenly a trivial dispute over a few ears of corn has taken on enormous significance, which we too easily miss by focusing on the details - exactly the mistake Jesus was accusing the Pharisees of.

Dancing Priest by Glynn Young – A Review

Dancing Priest is Glynn Young’s first published novel and I, like many others, hope it will not be his last. What we have in the pages of this book are several love stories; the burgeoning love of Michael Kent and Sarah Hughes, of David Hughes and Betsy, of Tommy McFarlane and Ellen, and of all these characters (and others) and God. We also have a story of faith in the face of trials, of triumph in and over adversity, of the importance and influence of good character, and much, much more.

Like all good novels, this book is a beautifully written page turner. The quality of Glynn Young’s prose is such that I found myself engrossed in the story, scarcely noticing the passage of the 4-hour flight on which Michael, Sarah et al were my companions. The story is well told, with sufficient twists in the plot to keep a readers interest, but….

Like all books this one is not perfect, and there are parts of it that jarred with me, a Scottish reader:

i) Michael and Tommy are British but they are often found using American English in conversation rather than UK English. Here in the UK we use mobile phones, not cell phones. Students in university accommodation are in residences, not dorms. UK cities have city centres, not down-town. While these may seem small matters, ensuring that they are correct helps to set the scene and to make the characters more believable.

ii) The book opens in Edinburgh, where the major characters meet at the University. Michael’s family own a small estate some 40 miles from the city where, from the hills, you can still see the city in the distance. I know the area pretty well, and I can’t immediately think of many places where that is actually possible. I appreciate that most readers won’t notice this, but I did. Similarly, an area of north London is referred to as Hampton Heath. I know of Hampstead Heath in north London (my Dad used to take me fishing there when he was stationed in London) and Hampton Court to the west of the city, but as far as I am aware, there is no Hampton Heath.

iii) I found it difficult to work out what the setting of the book actually is. Whilst the geographic locations are obvious – subject to the above – what is less clear is the chronology. When is this book set? Much of the book describes a world that is very familiar to me – mobile phones, lap-tops, Scottish Nationalism, the difficulties in the Anglican Communion of Churches, Starbucks etc. – but every now and again something cropped up that left me feeling disorientated. Two examples will suffice:

a)      In the book the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom is James III. To date there have only been two James’s on the UK throne, and none of those currently in the line of succession is called James.

b)      The Olympic Games which form a significant part of the story take place in Athens and are to be followed by games in London. To my knowledge, the policy of the International Olympic Committee is to ensure that consecutive Olympiads are not celebrated on the same continent. This being so, games in Athens would not be followed by a Games in London.

These niggles aside – and I appreciate that for most readers they will be minor – I enjoyed reading the book and I look forward to being able to read more about English, Shoes, Tomahawk, California and the rest in the not-too-distant future.

---------------

I sent a preview of this to Glynn who made the following responses to points made above:

I changed certain geographic things deliberately. The setting of the McLaren's farm would actually fit the western side of Scotland better than the eastern side. The farm is actually based on An Cala.

 

I knew about the Olympics and how sites are selected. It's a case of novelistic license to provide a realistic reason for bringing Michael's brother into the story.

 

I totally changed the royal family. I could say that I wanted to avoid identification with any specific member of the real royal family, but the real reason why will be found in the second book.

  

Back from Holiday

Mrs Believer and I came back from our week in the sun and received a traditional local wlcome home - drenched by the time we had dashed from the arrivals' lounge to the Airport Parking bus-stop.

I come home refreshed and looking froward to the challenges that lie ahead. Watch this space...

Blog Vacation

I just thought I'd post a note to let my regular readers - all 15 of you - know that there will be no posts on this blog until 26th January. Mrs Believer and I are heading off for a week's winter sunshine.