Jesus was often criticized for eating with tax collectors and sinners, and “the people of the land,” that is, Jews whom the Pharisees avoided because they did not practice the Law. But if Jesus has a certain “preferential option” for the poor, he does not neglect the rich and those held in esteem in society.

In the Gospel, Jesus goes to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees. This means that the host accepts Jesus as a social equal, given the honor ascribed to him by the crowd.

Nonetheless, there are scholars of the Law and Pharisees watching Jesus closely, to see if he observes the social and ritual codes of the meal on the Sabbath.

The test case comes immediately with the presence of a man suffering from dropsy, an abnormal swelling of the body because of the accumulation of fluid. Jesus can ignore the man, as those around may probably have done, but he faces the challenge by asking those who are experts in the Law whether it is lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not.

Interpreting their silence as refusal to commit to a stand, Jesus heals the man and thus violates the Sabbath rest. But for him, to end the suffering of the man is more important than the regulation of the Law, holy it may be. Not to attend to the sick man is as foolish and as callous as not attending to one’s child or even an ox if it falls into a cistern on the Sabbath day.

On a sabbath Jesus went to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees, and the people there were observing him carefully.

In front of him there was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus spoke to the scholars of the law and Pharisees in reply, asking, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not?” But they kept silent; so he took the man and, after he had healed him, dismissed him.

Then he said to them, “Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” But they were unable to answer his question.