Yes and No

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, Lord and Christ; the Light of the World and the Bread of Life; and the Way, Truth and Life. He is all of this for me, as a Christian who is also a historian of early Christianity.

And yet I do not think that Jesus spoke of himself with these grand terms and phrases.

Together with most mainstream scholars, I see the gospels as containing earlier and later layers of Christian traditions about Jesus as they developed during the first century. The gospels (and to some extent, the New Testament as a whole) contain the early Christian movement’s memory of Jesus and their testimony to what Jesus had become in early Christian experience, conviction and thought.

In shorthand that I often use, the gospels are about both the pre-Easter Jesus (Jesus as a figure of history before his death) and the post-Easter Jesus (what Jesus became after his death).

As a historian who is also Christian, I do not think that the pre-Easter Jesus spoke about himself as the Son of God, or as Lord, or as the Light of the World, and so forth. Of course, I know that the gospels attribute this kind of language to him, so it is not a refutation of this position to quote the gospels against it.

But – again with the majority of mainstream scholarship, a point that I repeat not to give my perception authority, but to indicate that it is not eccentric or peculiar to me – I see this language as the early Christian movement’s testimony, their witness, to what Jesus had become in their lives.

I see the pre-Easter Jesus as a Jewish mystic who knew God, and who as a result became a healer, wisdom teacher, and prophet of the kingdom of God. The latter led to his being killed by the authorities who ruled his world. But I do not think he proclaimed or taught an extraordinary status for himself. The message of the pre-Easter Jesus was about God and the kingdom of God, and not about himself.

Rather, I see the grand statements about Jesus – that he is the Son of God, the Light of the World, and so forth – as the testimony of the early Christian movement. These are neither objectively true statements about Jesus nor, for example in this season, about his conception and birth. To speak of him as the Son of God does not mean that he was conceived by God and had no biological human father. Rather, this is the post-Easter conviction of his followers.

Is that enough for me as a Christian? Yes, yes it is. To be Christian is to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and Lord, and that the would-be lords of this world are not.

So, even as I do not think that Jesus’ status as Son of God is because of his conception, I affirm the early Christians conviction that he is, for those of us who follow him the Son of God, the Lord, the Light of the World.

He is all of this for Christians – and we do not need to negate the other enduring religions of the world in order to say: for those of us who are Christian, he is the decisive revelation of God’s character and passion. He is for us the Son who discloses the Father, the light who shines in our darkness, the Lord who comes each Christmas. And there are other revelations of God. But affirming Jesus as the Son of God means: this is who he is for those of us who follow him.

Originally published on the Washington Post website.

10 thoughts on “Yes and No”

  1. I find it more valuable and impressive what the apostles who knew him thought he said. Why do we think scholars at a 2000 year distance are better able to judge what he said than his contemporaries? I find modern scholars to be a bit audacious and presumptuous. Do we now have a new canonical authority: the majority opinion at a Seminar? They are incredulous that Jesus said what is claimed; I am incredulous that they said what is claimed.

  2. Marcus Borg will be speaking here in Grand Rapids in just a few days. It will be at St. Marks Episcopal Church on Friday, May 2 at 7 PM and Saturday May 3 at 10 AM. I intend to be there and hope many of those of you who commented can be there as well.

    My own view of the historical Jesus is that he was fully human but not fully divine. There is evidence in the gospels that he differentiated himself from God. I think we have very few facts about his life, even the few years covered by the gospels. I believe he could well have been married and even had children. I frequently check out the authenticity of a text which a preacher may have used in his sermon on Sunday morning using “The Five Gospels” published by the Jesus Seminar. In it, the words attributed to Jesus are printed in one of four colors to reflect whether the scholars of the Seminar thought that Jesus really said what he is alleged to have said.

  3. Like others who have posted on this topic, I have struggled with the common Christianity belief that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on earth. I believe much of it comes from the Christian belief in the Trinity – 3 Gods in one with Jesus being God the Son. Now I look at the Trinity as more symbolic vs. thinking that it means three Gods in one: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

    If Jesus was God, who was he talking to when he went off to pray? Was he praying to himself? Also, how could Jesus be fully God and fully human at the same time? Did he have an on/off switch he could change at any moment? For example, while healing a blind man, would he become God but while suffering on the cross, he was only human? I have come to believe that though he was fully human, he was spirit filled to the degree that Marcus Borg writes: “he was and is the decisive revelation of God”. Marcus also made a very good point in an interview I heard about the pre-Easter Jesus. He asked, if the pre-Easter Jesus was God, how could he expect us to follow him?

    I can understand the struggle or confusion that Louise mentions above with the title “Son of God”. Like others, I now take that to mean that Jesus is Lord and the rulers of this world are not.

  4. Is it possible that each of us could be, to quote your post…. “the decisive revelation of God’s character and passion.”
    What make Jesus “the Son who discloses the Father, the light who shines in our darkness”?
    Could it be that an “enlightened” person fit that description also?
    I ask this with respect, and with no other motivation than to see if my beliefs coincide with your point.

  5. Something did happen on Easter morning – and just to put a label on it, we will call it the resurrection of Jesus. However, the resurrection of Jesus is of lesser importance. What is of critical and major importance is the resurrection of the disciples. If a burial box is found that contains the bones of Jesus, what is the ramification for the Good News message? Nothing – it changes nothing. The Good News remains the same.

    Whatever happened on Easter morning is nothing compared to the miracle of the resurrected lives of the disciples. They too, as faithful followers of Jesus, had become, because of the crucifixion, as though dead and buried. Crucifixion was more than an execution; it was the obliteration of an entire life. In the culture of the Roman Empire, it was as if the crucified person had never existed. The disciples were not just grievous or depressed, they felt obliterated – their life with Jesus was meaningless because it no longer existed. Because of the crucifixion, their life with Jesus never happened.

    On Easter morning, something happened that resurrected for the disciples, the life and teaching of Jesus. Within 40 days, not only were they resurrected, they were transformed. The Good News that resurrected and transformed their lives (and the thousands of other lives transformed by that same Good News) had nothing to do with sacrificial death, empty tombs, ascensions, virgin births, or miracles. The Good News is neither concerned with nor does it require the miracle of divine intervention. In any biblical story that involves such a miracle; to focus on the miraculous event is to miss the purpose and message of the story. To depend on or expect or require miracles is to worship at the altar of the false god of theological certainty.

    The Good News did not and does not succeed because of miracles. The initial success of the Good News was in how it demonstrated that anyone could live a resurrected and transformed life even in a world where death, cruelty, corruption, crime, war, systemic injustice, slavery, and extreme poverty were so rampant as to be the norm. The Good News is that a life of resurrection and transformation does not have to be preceded by death. The Good News is that the kingdom of God is not a future event or a distant place or a strictly post-mortal existence. The Good News is that the kingdom of God has arrived, it is here and now and available to anyone – without exception, without qualification, and without sacrifice.

    To have a loving intimate relationship with God; to serve others by practicing generosity and hospitality; to seek justice, mercy, healing, reconciliation, rehabilitation, inclusion, and participation; and then to live non-violently without vengeance and with a cheerful fearlessness of death and worldly powers – that is the radical and the defiant message and the transformational spirit of the universal and timeless Good News.

    Whatever we do –
    Whatever we are –
    Wherever we are –
    – can never separate us from the love and grace and
    the surrounding and inviting and welcoming and inclusive presence of God.

  6. One thing that has always confused me is the conflation of the term “Son of God” with the term “Messiah” or “Lord”. These terms don’t mean the same thing, do they? As someone who was raised Jewish but has been very inspired by your books, I really struggle with this. It seems to me that as soon as you call Jesus the “Son of God” – it implies that the pre-Easter Jesus was something more than human. In contrast, the term Messiah means (I think) that Jesus was a human being chosen by God to be “God’s ultimate message or revelation” – and thus, in his post-Easter incarnation, should be our “Lord” – the one we should follow in our lives, rather than the other ‘would be lords of this world’ such as money or power.

    I believe that something happened after Jesus died – something that we can’t explain and that the spirit of the post-Easter Jesus has touched millions of people (including myself). I view Easter as God’s way of saying ‘hey – that message I sent you was the real deal’. But I can’t accept that the pre-Easter Jesus was divine. Divinely inspired – yes – but God’s divine son on earth – no.

    I think a lot of Christians really struggle with the supernatural portrayal of the pre-Easter Jesus. Is there a different way to think of the term ‘Son of God’ that helps with this problem?

    1. Louise: I’m not sure how Professor Borg would respond to your question, but from what I understand, “son of God” was a label applied to Jesus just as it was applied to many revered Jewish prophets. A “son of God” was essentially the same thing as a “man of God” – a great prophet who brought God’s wisdom to people. It didn’t imply anything supernatural, at least not in terms of being the physical offspring of a God who is capable of impregnating human women. Psalm 82 illustrates this, where the Psalmist affirms that the people of God – the Jews – were “sons” of God. Hosea also references the people of Israel as the sons of God. “When Israel was a child I loved him; out of Egypt I called my son.”

      1. Scott – thank you – that is really helpful. I think Mark is getting at this point as well – that any human who is truly committed to God and helps us better understand God’s will can be viewed as one of God’s children. But, while this may be the way we are describing the term ‘Son of God’ or ‘Child of God’- I don’t think that is what is usually meant when people describe Jesus as THE Son of God. My impression is that the “Son of God” title has become hopelessly tied up with the birth narrative. Even though professor Borg tries in his post to make it clear that this is not how he is using the term, I guess I wonder why he chooses to use that term at all. If there have been many ‘Sons of God’ throughout history, then calling Jesus a son of God is nothing special. But if by calling Jesus the Son of God, we mean that he somehow was supernaturally God’s son, then it seems to be making Jesus unrealistically special. I personally find the title “Messiah” , or the phrase “God’s ultimate revelation” to be much more meaningful. Certainly to outsiders, the ‘Son of God’ title, in this day and age, is a concept that tends to alienate. I have found that Christians tend to be so comfortable with this phrase that they don’t realize how it is viewed by others.

      2. I agree with you, Louise. It’s a title that has such theological baggage, it’s hard to imagine how it can still be used without invoking those themes. The same is true of using phrases like “Lord and Savior” to refer to Jesus.

        But I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with using old, familiar terms in new ways…as long as you make clear what you mean by using the term. There is certainly a movement within modern Christianity to move out of the past, and redefining terms is one way that this is accomplished. And despite the criticisms of some, this is nothing new – Christianity has been redefining itself, redefining terms, and updating its image since the time of Paul. Consider, for instance, how the early Christian movement took a word that evoked very deep and explicit meaning in Judaism – Messiah – and redefined it to mean something else entirely.

    2. Dear Dr. Borg,
      Can you comment on what I once heard about Hebrew grammar and the phrase, “the son of God”? I was told that in Hebrew there are few adjectives. A key Hebraic way to describe someone in terms of a trait, if the proper adjective didn’t exist, was to use the possessive or genitive, i.e., if a man were wise, he would be described as a “son of wisdom.” If he were strong, a “son of strength.” Therefore, if he were seen as a godly man, “a son of God.” Could this grammar technicality possibly be involved when Jesus was called “the son of God”? And we mistakenly interpret this English translation in modern, “biological”, “related-by-blood” sorts of ways?

Comments are closed.