Marcus J. Borg was raised in a Lutheran family, with several family members who served as Lutheran pastors. He describes church activities such as Sunday-morning services, Sunday school, and youth groups as composing a significant chunk of his childhood. This information conveys Borg had a profoundly Christian upbringing, and he was familiar with the beliefs of the lay Christian. Borg will mention during his childhood era that the popular image of Jesus was inculcated in him, and this vision of Jesus would create theological problems, specifically relating to the nature of God, for Borg as he moved from the simplicity of childhood to the complexity of adolescence.
Borg’s misunderstanding of God at that time would also create a rift in the connection between Jesus and himself. Doubts began to fester inside him regarding the existence of God during his teenage years, where he would pray for belief, this would continue throughout his young adulthood. In seminary, Borg would come to understand the Gospels as “the accumulated traditions of early Christian communities” rather than a historical account of Jesus. The divide then emerges in his mind between the historical and theological Jesus, although it takes him time to refine his views on the later.
Borg vaguely describes the beginning of spiritual experiences within his life which lead him to a position which emphasizes experiencing God instead of just believing in God or religious doctrine. Borg decides that not much can be known about the historical Jesus, however, a “sketch” of Jesus may be created, which will inform people of what the Christian life should be. Borg’s spiritual experiences must play heavily in his interpretation of Jesus. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time is written to characterize Jesus as a spiritual person with an intimate knowledge of God, as opposed to the divine figure most know.
127 our experts are availableright now
The primary purpose of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time is the reconstruction of Jesus away from the simplistic divine Jesus introduced to most people in western civilization. To Borg, Jesus is two characters, the pre-Easter and non-divine Jesus, and the post-Easter Jesus, the divine Jesus formed by early Christian traditions. The author strongly insists that the image of Jesus within people’s minds informs the way they live as Christians. It is under this context that one may assume that part of Borg’s intentions for writing this book is to sway others to his interpretation of Christianity, which could be characterized as compassionate, inclusive, and dedicated to following the teachings of Jesus as he interprets them rather than pure belief in Christ.
If convinced of his portrayal of Jesus, readers will be more in line with his views on what constitutes ideal Christian behavior. To this end, Borg illustrates his interpretation of Jesus for his readers, focusing primarily on Jesus before the resurrection. The Jesus of Nazareth is a figure who had an awareness of God, but who did not see himself as the Messiah during his lifetime. He was a sage who taught unconventional wisdom that subverted cultural norms, preached a new vision for society, and founded a movement who would develop the theological Jesus most clearly seen in the Gospel of John. Borg argues that the primary quality of God, at least to Jesus, was compassion and that to be compassionate is to be close to God.
“Compassion, not holiness, is the dominant quality of God and is therefore to be the ethos of the community that mirrors God” (Borg, 54). The purity system of first-century Jews is antithetical to this end. Purity and holiness were synonymous to the ancient Jews. Dedication to purity encourages exclusion and a lack of compassion. Borg describes two types of wisdom: conventional and alternative. Things considered to be “common sense” would fall into the former, whereas Jesus preached the later, thus cementing him as a subversive religious figure such as the Buddha or Lao-tzu, which he acts on through aphorisms and parables. Chapter 5 of the book offers the most controversial reimaging of Jesus by Borg.
Borg argues that the title “Son of God,” is metaphorical, not literal. He does so by comparing it to “Sophia of God,” another early title of Jesus. Sophia being the Jewish, female personification of divine wisdom. Jesus’ relationship to God is described in a variety of ways within the early Christian tradition that are contradictory if literal. Sophia is feminine, and son is masculine, Jesus cannot be the “Sophia of God” and “Son of God” unless the terms are metaphorically but not literally true. Borg’s Jesus did not see himself as the Messiah, he was a person with an exceptional awareness of God, the primary quality of God would oppose the behavior of a great number of modern Christians, and the titles of Jesus, including “Son of God” are metaphorical, not literal. Readers “meet Jesus again for the first time” because the Jesus offered in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time is so unlike orthodox interpretations of Jesus.
Borg deduces that compassion is the defining characteristic of God and Jesus. Borg’s reasoning stems from combining his understanding of the Gospel verse, “Be compassionate as God is compassionate,” in combination with “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” To first century Jews, who would know the later verse from the Old Testament, holiness equated to purity. To maintain purity, there had to be a separation from the impure, which included sinners, the diseased, and some occupation holders, such as tax collectors. This view of God led to a system of harsh social boundaries. Borg summarizes this interpretation as an ethos, “You [Israel] shall be pure as God is pure.”
To Borg, the meaning of the Old Testament passage changes by the compassion demonstrated by Jesus in the New Testament and summarized in the former verse. This statement by Jesus substitutes holiness for compassion. Borg insists that the similarity between the two was deliberate on the part of Jesus whose message was rooted in a Jewish tradition, but whose interpretation of that traditional varied greatly from the norm, which made him a social, not just political, radical. With this view, the passage from the Old Testament could then be understood as, “You shall be [compassionate], for I the LORD your God am [compassionate].”
Being holy does not mean what was once thought by the majority of first century Jews, to be pure, rather it means to be compassionate. So, to be as God, which is called for by the verse, we must be compassionate. Compassion entails greater inclusion and abandonment of attitudes which indict others as unclean, as Jesus showed through his healing of the sick, openness to Samaritans, and his table fellowship. Examples of living this as a Christian in the 21st century would include a softening of opinion towards homosexuality, the poor, and sufferers of AIDs. To Borg, the marginalization of these groups by modern Christians is a holdover of the concept of purity, which the compassion of Jesus refuted he claims.
Borg’s interpretation of this passage as demonstrating compassion as the primary characteristic of God is tenuous. His overall argument in Chapter 3 is that the statements of Jesus about God should be interpreted in a way that God is always compassionate, not judging. Since Jesus is rooted in the Jewish tradition, this observation would also have to be plausibly transmitted onto the Old Testament’s characterizations of God. Stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the great flood, etc. do not indicate a sense of God being entirely on-judgmental. The appears to be lines which shall not be crossed. However, Borg’s observation is well reasoned when it is taken out of the context of the Bible as whole. Jesus seems to not be redefining the primary quality of God as compassion, but he is demonstrating a more nuanced view of God which does show ample compassion, rather than only punishment.
Borg discusses the opening passage of the Gospel of John; the following line is particularly important to Borg’s understanding of the passage. “He the word was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him… And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The predominate Christian interpretation of this passage is that Jesus himself is the word present at creation, a view encouraged by Trinity doctrine. To laypeople, the use of the masculine noun he, insinuates the passage is referring to Jesus. The word becoming flesh means that Jesus is actually the logos present at creation in human form. Borg states that masculine pronouns are utilized because the Greek noun logos is masculine, which is translated into English as “word.”
In the Jewish tradition, the personification of wisdom, Sophia, is feminine, so the pronouns should be feminine. The mainline interpretation of the passage is in error because female pronouns would encourage a metaphorical reading of the passage since Jesus of Nazareth is male. Borg argues that Sophia would be an accurate substitution for logos or the word. Jesus is the symbolic embodiment of wisdom present at creation, rather than literally being present at creation. “And [Sophia] became flesh and dwelt among us.” This alternation made by Borg is used to further reinforce this pint. Jesus is not actually Sophia, he could not be, as Sophia is the feminine embodiment of wisdom.
By Jesus of Nazareth serving a living embodiment of wisdom within the Jewish tradition, Sophia does become flesh in a sense through Jesus. Borg’s analysis of this passage, which results in Jesus figuratively being Sophia, is utilized later to argue for the metaphorical nature of the term, “Son of God,” just as calling Jesus the word (Sophia) is metaphorical. The implications of this view would result in a lower Christology than most others, including the popular opinion of John’ Christology, who Borg claims would actually be aware of all these facts. A Jesus in this worldview would not be divine but one who is deeply in touch with the divine, a spiritual person.
I completely disagree with the assessment of Borg here. Borg makes the claim that John would be aware of the feminine nature of the Hebrew concept of wisdom, however, John deliberately choose to write the passage in Greek. It would be assumed John would be intelligent enough to have foresight into the connotations of reading this passage with masculine pronouns/words. John could have made edits, which he was at liberty to do in order to convey his message on Jesus. Given the previously known Christology of John being high, I would state that John literally believed Jesus was the word.
Borg describes Jesus as a teacher of unconventional wisdom who challenges the norms of society through his parables. The parable of the prodigal son tells the story of a man who falls into an untouchable status after abandoning his father and squandering his inheritance. The son returns home to his father, who welcomes the son back with open arms and orders a banquet to be prepared in celebration for the son’s return. The son who remained obedient to their father does not wish to participate in the feast. The eldest son is left out of the celebration because he refuses to accept his brother’s return. Borg uses this parable as an example of the subversive, unconventional teaching style of Jesus.
Conventional wisdom, represented by the eldest son, works on a system of reward and punishment. To Borg, this story illustrates the God of Jesus as gracious and not judgmental, in opposition to the “common sense” ideas that encompass social norms. The listeners of the story are meant to see the folly in the elder son’s decision. Traditional interpretations would place less emphasis on the final act, the eldest son’s refusal to welcome his brother. Without this part, the passage would just underline themes of rejecting the norms of outcasting untouchables, forgiveness. The elder son is actively losing out by not accepting his brother. The occurrence of negative consequences for following conventional
I do not agree with Borg’s overall assessment of Jesus. I also, do not understand the significance of Jesus in Borg’s worldview. Borg separates Jesus into two distinct persons, the historical and theological. The historical Jesus of Nazareth is not indicated to be any more or less significant than others figures who have intimately experienced God. This is something that Borg indicates is possible for any person, such as himself, Jesus just had this connection which is far deeper than the norm, and the theological Jesus is one constructed by Jesus’ followers after his crucifixion.
The theological Jesus is real because he is real to those who worship him. In this mindset, Jesus seems to be something that should not be at the heart of any religion. However, Borg instructs people to look to this image of Christ to inform their worldview. The question remains, why? To orthodox Christians, Jesus is the logos incarnate and “Son of God,” which is why they follow him, there is no reason to place significance of the teachings of Jesus over other spiritual figures or be a Christian within this context. This form of criticism also denies the supernatural occurrences within the Bible while simultaneously acknowledging some form of spiritual experience outside of the material world without explaining why.
Borg seems to have the understanding that his interpretation of Jesus would have been known to the earliest Christians and it is through errors such as translation or cultural differences that created later Christian doctrine. The followers of Jesus would were been persecuted for their preaching. People do not die for something unless they view it as greater than their own lives, which is exactly what happened to many of the disciples, such as Peter’s crucifixion on the cross. Borg also leaves out the empty tomb. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, his appearances were metaphorical in nature, why did the stories of the empty tomb arise. If his earliest followers knew he was not actually going to rise from the dead, they would have not reason to spread this story. They also would have no reason to steal his body, as his physical resurrection would not be a requirement for the trueness of their religion.
