His Eminence Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic
Archbishop Emeritus of Toronto
Biography :: Letters, Homilies, Statements :: Articles

Through the Prism of Christ
May 1993

We are told by a number of those who devote themselves to the study of the New Testament that Jesus did not describe himself as the Messiah during his days on earth. It is rather his disciples who gave him this title very soon after his death and resurrection, so that Christ is, for us, not so much a title as part of Jesus' proper name. How are we to explain it, our knowing Jesus by a title which he, according to some, did not give to himself? The answer is simple: the notions of what the Messiah was to be and to do current at his time did not measure up to Jesus' own awareness of his being and of his mission. Had he described himself as the Messiah, he would have misrepresented himself to his followers and listeners. Once, however, Jesus mission was accomplished, once he died and rose from the dead, the disciples could and did say that Jesus was the Messiah promised by the Old Testament. It is only the death and resurrection of Jesus that effectively exorcised the triumphalist elements from the image of the Messiah. He could thus safely be called Messiah without the danger of being misunderstood.

We must look carefully at the way Jesus' disciples went about it: convinced by Jesus that he was the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises, they did not begin with the Old Testament prophecies, create a composite picture of the Messiah, and then impose their picture on Jesus. Rather, they began with Jesus, his words, and acts, but above all with his death and resurrection, and read the Old Testament in the light thus provided. The Church continues to read the Old Testament through the prism of Christ, for it is in his light that it acquires new radiance and a truth more profound than it was aware of. For academic and historical purposes, we can, admittedly, read the Old Testament without Christ, but in our life of prayer and in our liturgy we cannot read it as if Christ had not happened. It would be the same as if a father and mother thought of their marriage as if their children had not been born. Fulfilment is always greater than the promise. Once it takes place, it illuminates the promise.

If Jesus is the prism through which we see what happened before him, he must remain the prism for what takes place after him. Speaking of poverty, for instance, we do not begin with our notions of it and our plans for its alleviation, but with what Jesus had to say and do about it in his words, acts, his way of life and in his death. Likewise, we do not begin with our notions of freedom asking Christ to help us with the work of liberation which we have conceived without him. It is to him we must go to find out what true freedom is. For it is Jesus who tells us, by saving us from it, of the depth and nature of our captivity, blindness, and sinfulness. We ask Jesus who he is, we look at the gifts he offers us, and in the light of these gifts we shall discover the true nature of our need.

It is customary these days to blame the Church for her failure to embrace the bright light of political and social liberation of the 19th century, for resisting the progress of democracy and freedom and economic development. It is said that the Church, locked into the power-structures of the past, failed to let go of what was no longer tenable. In some respects this reproach may well be justified. But it is hardly the whole truth: the Church was not blind to the evil lurking in the bright promises of the Enlightenment and of the 19th Century Liberalism and Capitalism. We might now give her the credit for seeing things more clearly than did the politically correct leaders of thought and action, and for having the courage to call things by their true name.

Jesus is our Alpha and our Omega, the beginning and end of everything in the past, present and future. He is the Light of the world, the final and definitive Word of God, in whom our truth and the truth of the world resides.