The open road back to God
What did the act of healing mean to Christ? It has been said that he was the great friend of mankind. Characteristic of our own time is an extremely alert sense of social responsibility and responsiveness to works of mercy. So there has been a corresponding desire to see in him the towering helper of men, who saw human suffering and, out of his great mercy, hastened to relieve it.
But this is an error. Jesus is not a personification of the big-hearted charitable nature with a great social conscience and an elemental power of helping others, going after human suffering, feeling its pangs in sympathy, understanding it, and conquering it. The social worker and the relief worker are trying to diminish suffering, to dispose of it entirely, if possible. Such a person hopes to have happy, healthy people, well-balanced in body and soul, live on this earth. We have to see this to understand that Jesus had no such thing in mind. It does not run counter to his wishes, but he himself was not concerned with this. He saw too deeply into suffering. For the meaning of suffering, along with sin and estrangement from God, was to be found at the very roots of being. In the last analysis, suffering for him represented the open road, the access back to God-at least the instrument which can serve as access. Suffering is a consequence of guilt, it is true, but at the same time, it is the means of purification and return.
He took our sufferings upon himself
We are much closer to the truth if we say Christ took the sufferings of mankind upon himself. He did not recoil from them, as man always does. He did not overlook suffering. He did not protect himself from it. He let it come to him, took it into his heart. As far as suffering went, he accepted people as they were, in their true condition. He cast himself in the midst of all the distress of mankind, with its guilt, want, and wretchedness.
This is a tremendous thing, a love of the greatest seriousness, no enchantments or illusions-and therefore, a love of overwhelming power because it is a "deed of truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15; 1 John 3:18), unbinding, shaking things to their roots.
Once again we must see the difference: He did this, not as one carrying on his shoulders the black tragedy of the human condition, but rather as one who was to comprehend it all, from God's point of view. Therein lies the characteristic distinction.
His healings reveal the living God
Christ's healing derives from God. It reveals God, and leads to God.... By healing, Jesus revealed himself in action. Thus he gives concrete expression to the reality of the living God. To make men penetrate to the reality of the living God-that is why Christ healed.
What did the act of healing mean to Christ? It has been said that he was the great friend of mankind. Characteristic of our own time is an extremely alert sense of social responsibility and responsiveness to works of mercy. So there has been a corresponding desire to see in him the towering helper of men, who saw human suffering and, out of his great mercy, hastened to relieve it.
But this is an error. Jesus is not a personification of the big-hearted charitable nature with a great social conscience and an elemental power of helping others, going after human suffering, feeling its pangs in sympathy, understanding it, and conquering it. The social worker and the relief worker are trying to diminish suffering, to dispose of it entirely, if possible. Such a person hopes to have happy, healthy people, well-balanced in body and soul, live on this earth. We have to see this to understand that Jesus had no such thing in mind. It does not run counter to his wishes, but he himself was not concerned with this. He saw too deeply into suffering. For the meaning of suffering, along with sin and estrangement from God, was to be found at the very roots of being. In the last analysis, suffering for him represented the open road, the access back to God-at least the instrument which can serve as access. Suffering is a consequence of guilt, it is true, but at the same time, it is the means of purification and return.
He took our sufferings upon himself
We are much closer to the truth if we say Christ took the sufferings of mankind upon himself. He did not recoil from them, as man always does. He did not overlook suffering. He did not protect himself from it. He let it come to him, took it into his heart. As far as suffering went, he accepted people as they were, in their true condition. He cast himself in the midst of all the distress of mankind, with its guilt, want, and wretchedness.
This is a tremendous thing, a love of the greatest seriousness, no enchantments or illusions-and therefore, a love of overwhelming power because it is a "deed of truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15; 1 John 3:18), unbinding, shaking things to their roots.
Once again we must see the difference: He did this, not as one carrying on his shoulders the black tragedy of the human condition, but rather as one who was to comprehend it all, from God's point of view. Therein lies the characteristic distinction.
His healings reveal the living God
Christ's healing derives from God. It reveals God, and leads to God.... By healing, Jesus revealed himself in action. Thus he gives concrete expression to the reality of the living God. To make men penetrate to the reality of the living God-that is why Christ healed.
No comments:
Post a Comment