Luke 14:1-5: in context

Jesus is invited to dine at the house of a leading Pharisee on the Sabbath, and the guests are watching him closely. In front of him is a man suffering from dropsy, a painful swelling. Jesus puts a question to the lawyers and Pharisees: is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? They will not answer; they stay silent. So he takes the man, heals him, and sends him away. Then he turns their silence back on them: which of you, if your son or your ox fell into a well, would not immediately pull him out, even on the Sabbath?

Jesus exposes an inconsistency at the heart of their objection. They would not hesitate to rescue their own son, or even their ox, from a well on the Sabbath; the moment their own interest or their own property was at stake, the Sabbath rule would bend at once. But let a stranger stand before them in suffering, and suddenly the rule becomes rigid, and mercy must wait for a more convenient day. Their scruple was not really about honoring God's Sabbath; it was about a religion that guarded rules meticulously while remaining unmoved by a suffering human being in front of them. And their silence when Jesus asks whether it is lawful to heal is telling, because they know the honest answer condemns them, and they would rather say nothing than admit that compassion is always lawful. Jesus heals the man anyway, in front of them, refusing to let a suffering person go on hurting for the sake of appearances. There is a warning here against a religiousness that keeps its rules scrupulously and its heart closed, that can watch a person suffer and think first about propriety. Mercy does not wait for a convenient day. The love of God was never meant to be pitted against the good of the person standing in need; the two belong together, and where they seem to conflict, it is usually our rules, and not God's heart, that need examining.

Do I ever guard my rules and my propriety while remaining unmoved by the person suffering in front of me, and would I bend at once for my own interest what I keep rigid when only another's need is at stake?