Precedent Set

Do two wrongs make a right?

One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 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 and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 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 he gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." - Mark 2:23-28

Jesus uses the example set by David to justify what his disciples do in the field when they pluck the heads of the grain to eat. 

Is this a good justification?

I remember my mom countering such as argument with this. "If he jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It's hard to come up with a good counterargument when Mom hits you with a question like that.

I guess the Pharisees didn't have moms like I had.

What David did was not lawful, and yet it was used as justification for the unlawful act of the disciples.

I am not surprised that the Pharisees found fault with him, especially when he says that the Sabbath was made for mankind.

Once a precedent is set, though, people tend to use it to justify their actions, or lack of them. So the lesson may be that we, as humans, look and follow what we see.

That could be good or it could be bad.

Most of the times, it leads to unexpected problems.

More to come...