Critical Review: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Tim Miller

Entitled The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, the book by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright is divided into eight parts and each part has two sections, one for each author. In essence, it is a civilized debate between Borg and Wright. To say this is to establish the primary function of the book: to show that civilized debate on Jesus and the issues surrounding him is not impossible.

Neither of them is out to convert the non-believer; rather, they only wish to cast some light on the current issues of debate on Jesus in an “interesting and refreshing” fashion (ix). Both hope to achieve some understanding for the reader, and for themselves, on their opposing views, which are many. Perhaps the primary point they disagree on is just how much of the material in the Bible is directly attributable to Jesus, himself. Wright, through years of study of study into the Judaism and culture of the first century A.D., attributes much more of the material to Jesus than does Borg. But Borg does not deny how important the New Testament is in fashions other than literal-historical when it comes to following Jesus.

And follow Jesus they both do. Borg and Wright agree on the most fundamental of points, seeing “Jesus of Nazareth as Lord” (x). They also agree that studying the historical man is not in conflict with worshipping their figure of faith, making this book possible. Jesus is broken down into two halves: a pre-Easter Jesus and a post-Easter Jesus; more familiar terms would be “Jesus of History” and “Christ of Faith.” All of their discussions flow from this division: the flesh versus the divine.

It is on the debate of the combination of the two that I wish to speak. Was the flesh divine? As the authors put it, “Was Jesus God?” This question, at the core of issues regarding Jesus and Christianity, has been one of the most hotly debated issues since the time of Jesus himself. Borg and Wright are no exception to this; although their civilized manner of debate may be unique.

To answer this most central of questions in the affirmative, Borg requires a qualification: the aforementioned division of Jesus into his pre- and post-Easter parts. Even then his answer is not unequivocal. No and yes, in that order, would be how Borg thinks of Jesus as being divine. He does not believe that pre-Easter Jesus thought of himself as being the Son of God, the Messiah. A man like any other man, perhaps more open to God than others and thus, as Borg puts it, “the embodiment and incarnation of the God who is everywhere present” (148), but nonetheless flesh and blood; this was the Jesus of history.
The post-Easter Jesus is a whole other story. Now he becomes a divine reality, one with God. Borg sees the Christological imagery of the New Testament not as the voice of Jesus himself, but rather as the voice of the community after Easter and thus more compelling coming from the community of Jesus followers than from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Yet all the imagery must be metaphorical. Two major images of Jesus, the Son of God and the Sophia of God, are in opposition. One sees Jesus as male the other as female. Both images must be metaphors. Thus they have much greater meaning than if both were taken literally, seeing in Jesus a “disclosure of God” (152), not a second God, but one with Him.
Wright opens his argument with an emphasis on Jewish monotheism, the one God, the only God. He grounds the idea of Jesus as the son of God in Jewish tradition, enumerating early Christianity’s use of the traditional Jewish images of Spirit, Word, Law, Presence/Glory and Wisdom.

Within the Wisdom tradition Jesus is elevated to a place of equality with God, because he has done what only God can do. Citing Colossians 1:15-20, Wright argues that Jesus, as the redeemer of the world, must also be its creator, as the creator and the redeemer are one. “But at every point of creation and redemption we discover, not Wisdom, but Jesus” (161).
This led naturally, then, into Jesus as the Son of God. In him, Christians were able to hold their Jewish grounded belief in the immanent and transcendent God together, a belief still central to modern Judeo-Christianity. The belief that Jesus’ death was a victory meant that Jesus had done what God has said he, Himself, would do: save his people. As Wright says, “It is as though they discovered Jesus within the Jewish monotheistic categories they already had” (163).

Wright believes that Jesus believed this about himself. He does not believe that Jesus said to himself that he is the messiah, “Rather…he believed he had to do and be…that which according to scripture only YHWH could do and be” (166).

This was perhaps one of the most interesting chapters of the book. Borg, while the more difficult to thoroughly grasp the first time round, makes a compelling argument for his beliefs. But I find myself more often opposing than assenting. There are points on which we agree, for instance the metaphorical nature of some of the things said in the Bible. However, I feel that Borg takes this “metaphoricity” too far. Wright’s argument just feels more genuine. But because feeling an argument is right is no strong basis for belief in it, I have reasons. Wright comes much closer to my own Catholic theology. I believe that Jesus, being both fully human and fully divine, knew exactly both of those things, and what they entailed. I have a hard time reconciling Borg’s assertion that he can say the Nicene Creed without qualm and still deny the full divinity of Jesus.

Because of the nature of the book, that is the scholarly level at which it is written, I would not recommend it to everyone. While it is an interesting debate on important issues in Christianity it would probably only serve to confuse those who are not very familiar with the faith or those Christians who are not well grounded in their own faith. It has been said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to listen to opposing argument without automatically accepting it. An educated mind would be the least of the requirements for potential readers.

<<< Return to Journal Contents