Page History

This means, however, that one not only cannot, but also need not, think and speak of Jesus merely as prophet, sage, or saint. One _can_ not so think and speak of him because prophets, sages, and saints can never be constitutive of a faith or religion in the UNIQUE way in which Jesus is constitutive of Christianity. In the nature of the case, they are always only one among others \-\- EVEN IF THE FIRST AND FOREMOST \-\- AND ARE dependent for their authority upon the explicit SELF-UNDERSTANDING/understanding of existence that alone is thus constitutive of the faith they RE-PRESENT. In the specific case of Christianity, however, this \[ \] SELF-UNDERSTANDING/ understanding OF EXISTENCE is not MADE EXPLICIT, IN THE PRIMAL INSTANCE, IN some law or teaching or word of wisdom, but IN Jesus himself, through whom the meaning of ultimate reality for us is decisively re-presented. Consequently, the only way in which Jesus can be thought and spoken of consistently with his UNIQUE constitutive significance for the Christian religion is not as one more authority among others, even the first and foremost thereof, but as the EXPLICIT primal authorizing source by which all Christian authorities, be they prophets, sages, or saints, are \[ \] authorized as such.

But Jesus also need not be understood otherwise, since there is the obvious alternative of thinking and speaking of him with Rahner and others as the primal Christian sacrament. By 'sacrament' here, of course, I mean what is better referred to more generally as 'means of salvation' (IF NOT, MORE FORMALLY, AS 'MEANS OF ULTIMATE TRANSFORMATION'). In my view, ( ] sacraments in the ordinary sense are rightly thought of together with word as equivalent SUCH MEANS in that they are equally valid ways of REPRESENTING Jesus Christ as the explicit gift and demand of God's love. Thus it would be equally appropriate to develop an analogy between the word of preaching and Jesus and to think and speak of him, accordingly, as the primal Christian word, rather than as the primal Christian sacrament. In either case, the point of the analogy would be to assert both the similarity and the difference between ALL ordinary means of salvation and Jesus Christ. Like both word and sacraments, he does not constitute God's love, but RE-PRESENTS it. But whereas they RE-PRESENT God's love by also RE-PRESENTING him, he RE-PRESENTS God's love by also constituting them. Because this analogy is undoubtedly available, however, there is no need to think and speak of Jesus merely as prophet, sage, or saint. On the contrary, one can very well think and speak of him as savior, in the precise sense that, being the primal Christian word and sacrament, HE HAS THE UNIQUE SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND ECONOMY OF SALVATION THAT HE IS NOT MERELY REPRESENTATIVE BUT CONSTITUTIVE OF IT.