Categories
  Biblical
  English
  Greek
  Hebrew
  Latin
  Readings
  Technical

View All

The verb to heal can be both transitive and intransitive, and I think this evokes the mystery of participating in God's restorative work.

Transitive verbs take a direct object, and intransitive verbs don't. Most verbs can function either transitively or intransitively: "I sing" makes just as much sense as "I sing a song." So from this point of view, it might be more precise to say transitive senses of verbs take a direct object while intransitive senses don't.

So it's not that heal is unique. But it is a bit unusual in that its intransitive sense is really shorthand for a reflexive sense. That is, "to heal" (intransitive) really means "to be healed." Here is an example:

I have two observations here:

On the one hand, the slippage of the reflexive sense into the form of the intransitive potentially obscures the hidden subject of the verb, the agent who really does the healing. When we say "my injury healed," we might forget that that really means "my injury was healed." And healed by whom? I hope that using this intransitive-for-reflexive sense won't ever lull me into forgetting to be thankful to the healer, that the healer won't remain unknown though unnamed.

But on the other hand, it's intriguing and rightly humbling that to heal can either take a direct object — clearly linking the healing power to the immediate agent at hand (doctor, drug, or therapy) — or just as easily evoke that mysterious healer, the unstated subject of the intransitive. What's more, under the theological concept of immanance, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. God is great and somehow stands beyond the whole universe, but he also expresses himself within the creation and in the lives of his creatures. The kingdom of God is at hand.

So it's often true that we've been healed not only by God, but also by a nearer hand —and vice versa. And not only healed, but also taught, shaped, nurtured, and loved.

first published Nov 18, 2005