The Self-Disclosure of Jesus

One of the most significant developments in modern discussion of the life and teaching of Jesus is the growing disfavor into which the Messianic element in the Gospels has fallen with a certain class of writers. We do not refer to scepticism or denial in regard to the reality of Jesus’ Messiahship, objectively considered. The question whether or not Jesus was the Messiah has meaning only within the limits of a strict Biblical supernaturalism. It presupposes the recognition of the supernatural provenience of both prophecy and the fulfilment of prophecy, and therefore finds its proper place in the controversy between Jesus and his opponents in the Gospel narrative, as also it has been the dividing issue ever since between the Christian Church and Judaism. With the modern Jew, on the other hand, who has lost his belief in the supernatural, it were foolish to argue about the fact of Jesus’ Messiahship. On his premises the unreality of this fact is a priori included in the impossibility of all supernatural phenomena. The question about the Messianic consciousness belongs to a totally different situation. It deals exclusively with the problem, whether Jesus believed and claimed to be the Messiah. Those who incline to answer it in the negative do not, as a rule, occupy the standpoint of supernaturalism. They are like the modern Jew in this respect, that for them the Messianic reality is an impossible thing, and in so far void of practical interest. From a religious point of view Jesus is not valuable to them in the capacity of Messiah, but under some other aspect, variously defined, be it as a religious genius, or an ethical teacher, or a social reformer. One might expect from this theological detachment that such writers would be peculiarly fitted to discuss the question of the Messianic consciousness on a purely historical and psychological basis, after the most calm and disinterested fashion, since, whichever way the balance of evidence may incline, the result should not affect nor disturb them in their inner religious conviction. The expectation is not verified. Toa careful observer of the trend of discussion it soon becomes apparent that something warmer and more exciting than an average academic interest is animating those who take part in it. Although the arguments plied to and fro are of a strictly exegetical and historical character, it is undeniable that the heart “which makes the theologian” is not so wholly absent from the debate as some would have us believe.

How is this controversial atmosphere which colors the discussion to be explained? The explanation is not far to seek. Absolute disinterestedness in regard to Jesus is possible only where one has lost all religious touch with Him and denies to Him all significance in the sphere of his own spiritual life. So long as any personal religious attachment to Jesus, of however attenuated a kind, is retained, the questions and problems centering around his Person can not wholly lose their significance. No one who prizes the name of Christian can dismiss Jesus absolutely from his field of religious vision, ‘There is always some category of preeminence or leadership under which He ts classified. Hence the live theological issues are bound to assume Christological form, and that a form which at no point is purely theoretical without practical bearings. But, if this be true in general with reference to all the elements and phases of the Christological question, it becomes far more pointedly true when the self-consciousness of Jesus is brought into the debate. Here all these objective issues mirror themselves, as it were, in the mind of Jesus. And, that being the case, they acquire an intensified practicalness for the religious life. Here lies the focal point in which all rays of religious contemplation of Jesus and communion with Jesus have to meet, and whence they derive their reflection. The controversy ceases to be a controversy about Jesus. It becomes a testingout of the practical experiment of getting into the presence of Jesus at all and having religious converse with Him face to face. We confess to not altogether liking the word “‘consciousness’ in connection with Christology. Not seldom it is exponential of the view, that Jesus possesses his importance and wields his power by thought and teaching rather than by nature and action. Asa piece of the movement towards the interiority of Jesus, it is dangerously akin to the large modern trend towards placing all essentials and values of religion in the subjective sphere, detaching them from outward norms and forces. But this is an abuse and not a legitimate use of the conception. Jesus most assuredly had a vocational consciousness of self. Provided we can ascertain its content, and this we believe to be feasible, this consciousness becomes of eminently strategic importance. For if it be once seen in the sign of Messiahship, no long argument is required to show why this must be so. The Messianic consciousness is of a peculiarly unifying and comprehensive character. It might in this respect be compared to a single-track mind. All.else entering into it is inevitably held in subordination and subservience to its one regnant purpose. It straightway assumes dominance in the mental world wherein it has once found lodgement. The Messianic concept has a long history behind it, and has in the course of time become subject to variations in content, but at no time has it allowed of relegation to a subordinate place in the mind of one regarding himself as fulfilling it. Now, looked at from this standpoint, the Messianic consciousness proves a most delicate subject to handle for all desiring to crystallize their religion in various attitudes towards Jesus. Can religious communion exist with a mind thus Messianically synthetized, if the Messianic synthesis proves uncongenial or even objectionable to the mind seeking such communion? Difference in theoretical scientific outlook, we are often told, need not preclude the sympathy and oneness in feeling and aspiration which many desire to continue cultivating with Jesus. …