Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Wednesday of the Third Week in Ordinary Time


Lectionary: 319

I will be a father to him,
and he shall be a son to me.
And if he does wrong,
I will correct him with the rod of men
and with human chastisements;
but I will not withdraw my favor from him
as I withdrew it from your predecessor Saul, whom I removed from my presence.
Your house and your kingdom shall endure
forever before me;
your throne shall stand firm forever.’”




The warrior king David understood correction "with the rod of men and with human chastisements." He was neither unfamiliar with nor averse to violence. He knew Moses' teaching and the Curses for Disobedience. found in Deuteronomy 28.:

But if you do not obey the voice of the LORD, your God, carefully observing all his commandments and statutes which I give you today, all these curses shall come upon you and overwhelm you
When he learned of the great favor the Lord was bestowing upon him, and that it came with the threat of extraordinary punishment, he was humbled and delighted. It did not seem like a blessing with strings attached. Rather it was a promise of "unconditional love." He and his descendants would never lose God's favor; they could be assured of God's mercy even when they sinned grievously. In fact, God's punishing hand for their injustice and immorality would prove God's enduring, engaged concern.
I often hear of this "unconditional love" in spiritual circles but the mystery, as I hear it celebrated, does not seem to expect rebuke or chastisement. Mothers are said to love their prodigal children with unconditional love; and sisters, their brothers. Even dogs are said to love their masters with UL, as if dogs have a divine facility which most people lack. There is only endless patience in their description of this otherworldly gift; and never a hint of irritability, much less anger.
I have never found the expression in any translation of the Bible.
But one could argue that God has given a promise of unconditional love to David and his descendants, including Jesus and his Church.
As I read the scriptures and watch the passing scene, I think receiving David's gift welcomes God's judgment on our guilt, the penalties of bad behavior, feelings of remorse, and the necessity for both reparation and atonement. Unconditional love recognizes the truth of Original Sin, that we inherit the guilt of our ancestors along with their gifts.
Don't wealthy people bequeath the privilege to their children? And if those children inherit a blood-stained wealth, the taint also falls on them.
As he was baptized in the Jordan River, Jesus anticipated the punishment for his past ancestors and his future descendants; that is, the yet-to-be-born Church. As he bore the cross, he bore our sins with their guilt, shame, grief, and remorse. He nailed them to the cross:

And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions; obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross
Accepting our baptism we accept both the guilt of original sin and the promise of salvation. We cannot ignore the duty to make reparation for crimes of the ancient past for they still haunt us; as, for instance, the slavery that evolved into Jim Crow segregation and racial violence. We cannot suppose "those people" should be over it by now. So long as anyone clings to the privilege of "white," some will be punished as "colored."
However, those who accept the Baptism of Jesus, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, are washed in the blood of the Lamb. Their guilt is expiated; their sins, atoned -- as they take up his cross of reparation and follow in his steps.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.

Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.

I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.

You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.