One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years.
When Jesus saw him lying there
and knew that he had been ill for a long time, he said to him,
"Do you want to be well?"
The sick man answered him,
"Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up....
Much of the New Testament is written in an apocalyptic tone. That is: all or none, yes or no, hate or love, dark or light, blessing or curse, life or death. There is not much room for maybe, and less for excuses, like that of the paralyzed man in today's gospel. When Jesus asks a direct question, as he is wont to do, the reply is anything but direct.
On the First Sunday of Lent I cited a passage from Abraham Joshua Heschel's A Passion for Justice. It is worth hearing again:
Kierkegaard... felt that man's gravest danger lurked in the loss of his sense of the unconditional, the absolute. We conduct our lives according to conditionals, compromises, and concessions, all relatives. In faith an individual commits everything to the Absoluteness of God. But the Absolute is cruel; it demands all.
That demand for all is typically apocalyptic. Meeting the Lord is no time for maybe, and less for excuses.
When strangers meet, the first thing they do is exchange names; but this nameless man did not know the name of Jesus. Questioned about who healed him, he could not answer. Despite his healing, they had no relationship and no covenant. He remained in that unsubstantial place of conditionals, compromises, and concessions. When the Absolute demanded his all, he disappeared into the crowd.
Perhaps because it is so inconclusive, the story introduces a doctrine about naming Jesus's relationship to the LORD, and the Holy Trinity. He is the Son of the Father and we know him as "the Only Begotten Son of God."
I heard an invocation recently where the minister modified the prescribed prayer, preferring "God" to the name, "Father." He retained "the Son" in the prayer. But god is not God's name. Humans have believed in millions of gods throughout our long, sad history. The minister followed his preference for political correctness at the cost of leaving the Son fatherless, and the Trinity ill-defined.
Words matter, as radical feminists have said, but we cannot cede the use of words to one ideological party without the give-and-take of serious conversation. The Fathers of the Church knew that centuries ago as they hammered out the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Tomorrow's gospel will lead us deeper into this revelation of the Father and Son and their unity of love and will.
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.