If we understand all this, if we understand the Lord's view of religion and religious life, then the meaning of all three answers, in which His disagreement with the Pharisees was revealed, will become clear to us.

When the Pharisees reproach Him for dishonoring His calling as a spiritual teacher by His proximity to tax collectors and sinners, the Lord answers them: "It is not the healthy who have need of a physician, but the sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The most valuable thing for God is the soul of man. Therefore, the duty of a religious teacher is precisely to enlighten this soul, darkened by sin, and having departed from God, to be enlightened, healed, and returned to the Creator again. There is no need for a teacher who does not follow this soul, abhorring its ulcers, and his majestic and arrogant standing at a distance from people who demand his guidance is meaningless. If he wishes to remain only in the unsullied Circle of the Righteous, then he is useless and does not do his work.

To the question why His disciples do not fast, the Lord answers: can the sons of the bridal chamber fast when the bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them, they cannot fast, but the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days (Mk. II, 19-20).

This means that fasting does not correspond to their current mood. Fasting is an outward expression of spiritual sorrow and contrition for sins. But now is a time of joy for them, for I, their Lord and Teacher, am with them. It would be ridiculous if the guests invited to the wedding feast grieved and fasted. In the same way, for their exultant souls, fasting is not only useless and meaningless, but would only be harmful hypocrisy. The days will come when I will not be with them, then they will mourn and fast. Then fasting will be for them a need of the soul and an expression of longing love. Then it will be needed.

When, finally, the Pharisees reproached the disciples of Jesus for plucking and eating the ears of grain on the Sabbath, the Lord answered and said: "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungered for himself and those who were with him?" How did he enter into the house of God in the presence of Abiathar the high priest, and eat the shewbread, which no man was to eat except the priests, and gave also to those who were with him? (vv. 25-26).

The episode that the Lord indicates refers to the time when David was fleeing from the persecution of Saul, and is described in detail in the first book of Samuel, chapter XXI, verses 1-6. The showbread was considered a great shrine (Lev. XXIV, 9), and no stranger dared to eat them according to the law of Moses. However, David violated this decree, for otherwise he and his retinue would be in danger of starvation. The Lord does not rebuke David, for the ordinances of the law have in mind the benefit of man and his soul, and where their literal fulfillment is associated with obvious harm to man, they can certainly be revoked.

In the same way, the apostles cannot be reproached with breaking the Sabbath out of necessity, for the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (v. 27).

The Pharisees looked at it quite differently. It is unlikely that they ever seriously thought about the need to perfect the soul first of all, it is unlikely that they saw this as the will of God and the main goal of religion, and hardly considered the provisions of the law as an educational means of religious development. For them, the fulfillment of the law was in itself a means of pleasing God, and, forgetting that God does not accept pleasure from the hands of men, they imagined that by the purely mechanical fulfillment of all the ceremonial precepts they secured for themselves the due mercy and reward. That is why, having fulfilled these instructions, the Pharisee was quite pleased with himself and cared for nothing else. "Have I not done everything, and in what have I gone wrong?" was the usual proverb of the Pharisee. In this way, the rites and regulations of the law acquired the meaning of a kind of magical means, the performance of which was obligatory for a person if he wanted to receive mercy from God. With the Pharisees, man was for the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath for man. He could starve to death if he pleased, but he had to keep the Sabbath ordinances, for otherwise he would incur the wrath of God.

This view of the sacramental meaning of rites has not been outlived even to this day even in Christianity, especially among our Old Believers. There, too, the rites acquired a completely uncharacteristic meaning of self-sufficient means of pleasing God, and therefore were declared immutable and inviolable. "It is prescribed to us: lie so forever and ever," said the first leader of the schism of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum.

But for us, of course, this opinion is unacceptable. Infinitely higher is the view of the Lord, Who considered all the rites and decrees of the external law from the point of view of their benefit for the human soul. In order to clarify this point of view all the more clearly, allow me to make a comparison.

When an architect begins to build a temple, he first of all puts up scaffolding. Without this, the work is impossible: you can lay five to ten tiers of bricks, but this will not work anymore. Scaffolding allows you to build to great heights, and the higher it goes, the higher ladders and worker platforms stretch across the scaffolding. Only when the construction is finished, the scaffolding is removed, and the wondrous building of the temple of God grows before you in all its beauty.

Forests are rituals and rules of external behavior. Their task is to contribute to the education of the soul and the construction of a temple of God in it, which is the main goal of spiritual work.

Are they needed?