Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary by Marcus J. Borg

Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary Reviews

• 
  Ericka Clou

  As a young person, I grew up nominally Catholic but was raised with people who held evangelical-style views, even when they were Catholic. Observing their attitudes and behavior, I was more or less pushed away from Christianity. I have been reading a lot of books about religion generally and also Christianity specifically in the last few years, and I read the Bible cover to cover maybe two years ago. This book is written by a serious religious historian, and is exceptionally well-written and reasoned. It also most closely expresses my understanding of Jesus Christ. Thank you so much for recommending this author, Renee Kahl!
• 
  Terry

  Although Borg makes clear in the epilogue that he's offering this reading of the Gospels as a rebuttal to America's religious right, he takes great pains in the text to present his argument with humility and fairness. Public commentators of all stripes could learn a lot about civil discourse from his example, but what is more important is his argument itself. Borg is an articulate and imaginative reader who brings to the New Testament a long career as an historian as well as a heart shaped by a lifetime of belief. He's at his most interesting when distinguishing between the historical context in which Jesus lived and the slightly different context in which the Gospels were written a generation or more later. Borg's Jesus is a first-century Jewish mystic who, experiencing God as all-compassionate and just, opposed the hierarchical purity laws of the Pharisees and the political oppression of the Roman Empire, as imposed by the empire's proxies, the Temple authorities. That is, he sees Jesus as both a religious and a political figure, but one with a political agenda almost entirely opposite that of the current political movement being conducted in his name. Borg side-steps a few of the stickier dogmatic issues (like the Incarnation) but finds agile ways of blending some his own metaphoric readings of the Gospels (for example, the Resurrection stories) with the more traditional literal reading of the text. My sense is that he's probably right about most things, and that, where he's wrong, he's wrong more often by omission than contradiction. The Gospels, after all, belong to that rare company of narratives that have proven, after generations of reading, inexhaustibly rich in meaning and inspiration. Borg does us all a great service by dusting them off and demanding that we look again.
• 
  David

  I grew up in a very conservative Christian tradition. When I heard of Borg he was portrayed as the enemy, as all that is wrong with Christianity. I first read Borg in a book he co-wrote with NT Wright, who is my favorite New Testament scholar. That book led me to want to read more of Borg's work. I am surprised to say how much I have enjoyed it.
  
  My beliefs still line up more with Wright's then with Borg's. Yet Borg gives a vision of Jesus and his ministry that is compelling. I found a lot of good in this book, a lot to be challenged by. If people like Borg are the problem with Christianity (and I don't think they are) then Christianity will be fine. I suppose the real question is, can liberals and conservatives, can the Marcus Borgs and NT Wrights of the world, unite amidst our differences for the good of the world and to work for the kingdom of God?
• 
  Brian Griffith

  Borg's tone and presentation speaks to scholars and laypeople at the same time. He patiently explores all segments of the Gospel accounts, turning them around like gem stones to expose various angles of meaning. His approach highlights the challenging questions raised by Jesus' words. What, for example, are the implications of giving to God what belongs to God, and to Caesar what is Caesar's? What do we say belongs to God? Everything? And what belongs to Caesar? Does anything?
  
  In all the stories, from the Prodigal Son to the various resurrection scenes, Borg stresses the search for intended meaning, without insisting on certainty about historical facts. He emphasizes the difference between believing doctrines about Jesus and actually following Jesus way of living. For modern America he raises an ancient concern: What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus and also a citizen of the world's most powerful empire? I found the book a pleasure to read. It's a lifetime labor of love, and every page is packed with insight.
• 
  Amy

  I could barely contain my joy and excitement as I read the remarkably thoughtful portrayal and consideration of pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus and related influences upon Christianity. I didn't know it beforehand, but while reading this I discovered that I have been yearning for this book for my entire adult life. Finally, a discerning consideration of Christ and Christianity that resonates with and fosters living compassionately within a Christian paradigm. Thank you, Marcus Borg, for empowering me to explore and to reclaim my Christian faith in ways that I find deeply and profoundly true yet have never heard expressed until now.
• 
  Grace

  "I recognize that there are many good and gentle people in congregations of the Christian right who love God and Jesus. But their theological and political attitudes are shaped by the most visible and vocal among them. This is what I am dismayed about." p.300, Epilogue
  
  This is precisely what I'm dismayed (to borrow a word from Borg, which is nicer than the one I would have used had I written that sentence) about, too. I can't really call myself a Christian at this point in my life, but I attended a Roman Catholic church as a kid, went to religious school for a few years, and made my first communion in the church (I didn't get quite as far as confirmation). Like Borg, I was taught that Jesus' primary purpose was to die for the sins of the world, that he was one and the same as God, and that they were everywhere, watching me, evaluating my every move. I could go on and on, but in short, this is what Borg terms a literal-factual way of understanding the Bible and Jesus' life. And like many others, it really fell out of favor with me when I was a teenager, and at various points I've declared myself both agnostic and atheist.
  
  But if you're like me and agnosticism or atheism isn't enough for you anymore, read this book. If you're unhappy with the current Christian paradigm (that is, a literal-factual way of understanding the Bible and Jesus' life and mission), you should read it. Even if you're not a Christian and you find religion interesting and intriguing (as I do), read this book! It's fascinating. It gave me what I was looking for about Jesus- that is, understanding his life and the gospel stories in a historical-metaphorical way. Borg contends that the gospel stories combine both historical memory and metaphorical narrative, as well as it documents the post-Easter traditions of a developing Christian community. Borg details what Jesus' world was like- Israel, the Jewish homeland, was ruled by Rome and it's "client kings" and other supporters (those in the aristocracy and high priesthood who collaborated with Roman rule because of the benefits they received by doing so- namely by exploiting the peasant class and thereby accumulating excesses of wealth). Jesus' mission, Borg argues, is partly to bring about an end to this domination system and to realize the "kingdom of God".
  
  What is the "kingdom of God"? Most of us who have any experience in the Catholic church (I can't speak for other denominations) were taught that to enter the kingdom of God meant to "believe" in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, to atone for our sins so we could enter the kingdom of God when we die. Borg says that this is not the kingdom of God that Jesus envisioned. Rather, Jesus was concerned with bringing about the kingdom of God in his own time. It was not something to look forward to after death; it was something that could be brought about in one's lifetime through certain thoughts, beliefs, and above all, action. It was meant to be enjoyed while living here on earth.
  
  I found this to be an incredibly fascinating and empowering read. The Christian right doesn't have to have a monopoly on Christian belief and practice- unfortunately, they are just the ones screaming the loudest and it's them the media gives all it's attention to. But it doesn't have to be this way. I fell out of favor with agnosticism and atheism because it's not satisfying enough to me. I find many atheists to be just as aggressive with their beliefs and convictions as the Christian right is- two sides of the same coin, one arguing that the Bible is literal and factual and a divine text, and the other arguing the exact opposite, that none of it is true, Jesus didn't even exist, and anyone who thinks so is an unenlightened moron for believing in a "man in the sky". Truly, both of these groups are missing the larger point. This book provides a solid middle way (to borrow a term from Buddhism :) ) to those of us who seek something more satisfying within Christianity.
• 
  zaK young

  i recommend this book to every literalist fundamentalist christian, also i recommend it to every sceptic doubter and atheist.
  
  
• 
  Linda Snow

  No ratings for the conclusions of any Jesus scholarship, but this writer is exceptionally interesting to read.
• 
  Trey Nowell

  One of the best books on the life of Jesus I have read. If teaching at the university level, this would be a required reading. Borg does an excellent job at a more4 liberal scholarship that better appeals to the historical Jesus and past remembered, something more beneficial to fact based and not faith based understanding. He makes an excellent outline of the life of Jesus up through the final days, crucifixion, and Jesus after death. This will be a challenging read for fundamental Christians, where the epilogue addresses many concerns with Christianity today within the United States on the same fundamental level. Borg addresses mistranslations and biblical misconceptions as well as any scholar, where he offers multiple schools of thought concerning biblical issues. He also does a superb job of showing how different centuries of Christians viewed Jesus and understanding of how scripture should be read. He explains how "literal" did not equal "factual" as we think in terms of today, for the people of Christianity's past, discussing the necessity of metaphorical meanings. Borg also shows more concern for Jesus as the man, the physical/spiritual healer, teacher of wisdom, social prophet, political movement initiator, Jewish Mystic, and the Christian Messiah. Describing the history of the area, Roman rule, etc. is essential to understanding what the biblical writers were trying to express, and Borg has a voice for all of them. Reading myself many commentaries on the NT and Jesus, this has been one of the best reads I've had and would recommend it to anyone.
• 
  Elfie

  Excellent! A book I very much appreciate. Borg's subdivision into a pre- and post-Easter Jesus and discussing Jesus within the framework of his historical and cultural background are just two of what I consider the many positive points.
  
  In a TV interview Borg was apparently asked to answer the question “What was Jesus like” in a minute and 15 seconds. His answer: “Jesus was from the peasant class. Clearly, he was brilliant. His use of language was remarkable and poetic, filled with images and stories. He had a metaphoric mind. He was not an ascetic, but world-affirming, with a zest for life. There was a sociopolitical passion to him – like a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, he challenged the domination system of his day. He was a religious ecstatic, a Jewish mystic, for whom God was an experienced reality. As such, Jesus was also a healer. And there seems to have been a spiritual presence around him, like that reported of St. Francis or the present Dalai Lama. And as a figure of history, Jesus was an ambiguous figure – you could experience him and conclude that he was insane, as his family did, or that he was simply eccentric or that he was a dangerous threat – or you could conclude that he was filled with the Spirit of God”.
• 
  John Martindale

  For some reason, ages upon ages ago my brain associated Borg with Spong. After going through a couple of books by Spong, I learned he is a dyed in the wool fundamentalist (of course not of the evangelical mold); a polemical, extreme partisan without any room for gray, a like a Richard Dawkins and yet a Bishop in the the Anglican church. Borg on the other-hand, I've now learned is so different. I can't help but get the sense of a genuine human being and humble scholar, who in pursuit of the truth acknowledges the grey. Missing is the venom and black and white thinking, and an overt mission to tear asunder evangelical faith. Maybe that is in part why Borg may be considered more of a threat to evangelicals, he presents he arguments and reasons in such a gentlemanly manner that people are less likely to be defensive and possibly will be influenced by his liberal theology.
  
  Today, among some segments of Christianity, there is a large emphasis that either a text is literally and historical true, and if it isn't so, it would then be without any value. Liberal theologians often dogmatically deny the historical accuracy and literal truth, but then point out the meaning, how it may contain metaphorical truth, that is no less true though it is from a story created the early Christian community enamored by Jesus. What Borg points out, it doesn't have to be either/or, if people want to hold on to the literal and historical truth of certain tales, good for them, he doesn't have a problem with this, though sometimes gives reasons why it would be difficult for him to do so as a historian. The deal is not to miss out on the metaphorical truth, to gather the significance, the why this story or saying was included. To take seriously the authors emphasis and message. Suppose we thought Jesus' parables had to all be literal truth to have any value? Wouldn't it be sad if people only concerned themselves with apologetic defending the historicity of the prodigal son, while missing the significance and truth contained within the tale? He does show there is reason to think some of the stories about Jesus are similar to parables, if they are, then the most important thing is the meaning that they're meant to convey. Some people intent on believing every word Jesus spoke and did, if recorded at that time, would play out exactly as it was recording in the gospels, can still take Borg's point to metaphorical truth being expressed in the story.
  
  I appreciate the context Borg gave about economic situation before Jesus time. There wasn't a middle class, there was around 90% people were were poor, many agricultural workers and then there were some of the extreme poor (beggars), and 10% of the population would be the ruling class, which provided the government, military. The rich received tribute from the poor. When Rome became overlords, the rich had to pay tribute to Rome, but they didn't generate money themselves, so they took it from the poor, so this meant now the taxes increased, not only did the poor have to support the lavish luxuries of the elite, now the had to also cover the tribute to Rome. Herod also started massive building projects and had to milk the poor even more. Things were hard, but still some of the poor owned their own land, but the wealthy started confiscating land for commercial interest, and many were forced to become day laborers, debt was feared, but to have enough food to survive, many had to go into debt. There were intense economic tensions, when Herod the Great died, revolts sprung up all over, Romans came down and crucified 2000 when Jesus was a toddler. The priest were not suppose to own land, they interpreted this was many they just couldn't work the land. They had to keep the peace. So their was top down oppression, then revolts and violence
  At this time, to be rich was to engage and to be a part of an oppressive system. It helps one to understand some of the harsher condemnations of the rich in Luke and James.
  
  It was cool learning about two non-violent resistance movements, 1000s willing to be slaughtered rather then disobey Mosaic law, and in both cases it worked. Jesus seemed to support this response.
  What Jesus gave in the sermon on the mount wasn't a be a subservient doormat theology. It may be a call to non-violent resistance within their oppressive system.
  Turn the other check, the oppresses could give a dismissive backhand on the right cheek, but to strike them on the left check, is how one strike an equal. Turning the other cheek, was a way for the poor to welcome another hit as an equal.
  When the poor were in desperate debt, a debtor could take their outer garment as surety. Jesus encouraged the people to then strip completely naked and offer their undergarment as well. This would make a scene, humiliate and expose what was being done.
  A soldier could make someone walk one mile, The oppressed have thrown a soldier off balance, throw the inner world of the soldier in confusion, depriving him of the predictability of his victims response. Indeed he might fear getting in trouble by superiors, he might think the other is challenging his strength.
  
  I do appreciate Borg rejecting the "Jesus a failed apocalyptic prophet" position common among scholarship, I'd have liked to hear more from him on this. There seems to be so much of what Jesus taught, that doesn't easily coincide with the imminent coming of the Son of Man on the clouds to bring judgment upon that generation. Instead of the kingdom coming in such a manner, Jesus seemed to say the Kingdom was now. He provided people with dignity, demonstrated how to live according to a different kingdom, how to live in empire, how to rise above the normalcy of civilization.
• 
  Chanita

  "Borg's Jesus is more revolutionary and possesses a more exciting moral vision than the church's traditional view. Here we meet Jesus as sage and prophet courageously and surprisingly confronting the social crises of his day. After a lifetime of work and study, Borg also discovers a Jesus that can continue to inspire, inform and guide those who have moved beyond archaic doctrines. Borg argues that there is a movement in the church today that is catching up with where scholarship has brought us in understanding Christian origins. Here readers will find an historically accurate Jesus, but one who is still worth following."
  (adapted from Amazon)
• 
  B.J. Richardson

  Marcus Borg brings to the table a long history of scholarship in Biblical history and also a lifetime of faith. There is no question that he loves Jesus. The problem is, the Jesus he proposes is very different than the one I do. Despite that this was an excellent read and worth my time. However, I cannot give it more than three stars because I disagree with two of his three major premises in this book.
  
  The first of those is the distinction Borg makes before the Pre-Easter Jesus and the Post-Easter Jesus. I cannot recall his exact wording when he first proposed this view at the beginning of the book but basically, Borg believes that the Pre-Easter Jesus was a man, a devout Jewish mystic proclaiming his message of a new kind of kingdom. After his execution, God raised him from the dead and Jesus became something more. He became the divine Son of God that we now worship today. Borg proposes that any pre-crucifixion hints that Jesus was truly God were actually post-easter impositions on the text and not anything Jesus actually said.
  
  The second major premise that I disagree with is that for Borg the meaning behind a story or event is all that really matters. He proposes that we get too caught up in worries like, "Did Jesus really say or do that?" Or even, "Did he really rise from the dead?" For Borg, all that really matters is what this story or facet of the life of Christ actually means. While I agree that our debates on the historicity of an event can sometimes overshadow the meaning or purpose of an event, that does not mean the actual truth (and not just the metaphorical truth) is also of very real value.
  
  His third premise is one I actually do agree with. Borg, drawing heavily from others like Crossan and Wink, leans very heavily on the fact that much of the statements and actions of both Jesus and the early church were indictments against the Roman Empire and its abuses. He highlights the civil disobedience acts of the Sermon on the Mount, the counter-imperial implications of his triumphal entry, and much more to show that Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords stood in very real opposition to the Caesars who also laid claim to the same titles. While I agree that this truth is often overlooked within the larger church, I do believe he took it too far with his final question "It isn't just 'Is Jesus Christ our personal Lord and Savior' we should also ask 'Is Jesus Christ our political Lord and Savior'."
  
  In all, there is much to love in this book, but I definitely not recommend it to anyone who is not a critical thinker and reader.
• 
  Don Mitchell

  This book deconstructs many modern American Christian faith givens and asks where did they come from, what was true in the time of Jesus, and why did the disciples decide to write what they wrote. It helps to get out from under bad religion and to question everything. It also has lots of small insights which opened my eyes and deepened my faith. E.g., in the Lord's Prayer what is the forgiveness phrase? Well, in his deeply researched opinion, it's 'free me from thinking I owe anything or anyone owes me anything so that I can freely live following your model here and now.'
  
  He pulls out lots of evidence that Jesus's main message was that earthly powers and leaders are bogus and that his main message was social justice: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, share the wealth, pursue peace, and accept all people from every time and place. His faith is a fairly universal faith: that Jesus's message was a message of grace--we can do nothing to merit God's forgiveness but we all already have that forgiveness. He debunks the expiation theology of the cross and yet doesn't lose the centrality of the cross as representing the human response to this contrarian, anti-nationalistic, anti-wealth, anti-conquest spiritualism trumped by some post-death reality.
  
  Yes, he's skeptical about the bodily resurrection--but what rational person isn't? Yes, he sees the text as the inspired work of human minds: so, he asks, what was the inspiration? He digs into who was Jesus in his time and how does he compare to contemporaries? Why did this one start a global religion whereas others didn't?
  
  Some quotes
  

  
  Jesus reveals: the character and passion, the nature and will, of God.
  
  The sense that there is something wrong is felt internally and seen externally—in injustice and wars and all the other suffering that we inflict upon one another
  
  Jesus was among those advocating and practicing active nonviolent resistance... [Pilate led the Roman army into Jerusalem for Passover to stifle any resistance with a show of power. Jesus entered on the opposite side of town at the same time] on the colt of a donkey. He would be a king of peace..planned political demonstration, a counterdemonstration. The juxtaposition of these two processions...commitment to the path of confrontation with domination systems, equally symbolized by the cross...“When Christ calls a man he bids him come and die.”
  
  “taking up the cross,” the path of confrontation with the domination system ...world of distributive justice in which everybody has enough, in which war is no more. [Not the system of oppression by Christians against non-Christians!]
  
  Jesus was a person radically centered in God, empowered by that relationship, and filled with God’s passion for the world.. he would teach the wrongness and futility of violence in human affairs. He would be passionate about compassion and justice as the primary virtues of a life centered in the God whom he knew. And of course, he would teach the importance of a deep centering in God... God’s passion is the world.
  
• 
  Todd

  I've read most of this before. I didn't realize it was a redo of a book he had written several years before. But, I still enjoyed it and you can't go wrong with Borg, as far as I'm concerned. He really brings out the humanness of Jesus, we see that he was more than just the Christ, he was a man of very strong passions concerning God and the way we treat our fellow human beings. And this is what got him killed, by the religious leaders and the political ones as well. Weather Jesus really did physically resurrect or not, He still lives on in the lives of those who choose to follow His teachings.
• 
  Ron Henderson

  Borg just feels like he understands Jesus better than so many other authors, preachers, etc. I have been exposed to. If you are interested in finding out more about "the Way," what the original followers of Jesus were called, this might be the book for you. I believe it shows how you can be deeply committed to something and yet not be certain about all aspects of it. Following Jesus and his philosophy can be a path to personal transformation, and you don't have to check your brain at the trailhead.
• 
  Blair H. Smith

  Easily readable, entirely rational review of what we know about Jesus, and how the Christian faith has evolved as a result. Very grounded, yet inspirational. This will be of equal interest to Christians, members of non-Christian faiths, and members of none. It has helped to rationalise and affirm my own views, and added new dimensions. It also dispels many of the views with which Christians are popularly associated, such as those of the American right.
• 
  Bailey Stolze

  This book gets 5 stars from me solely for his treatment on Jesus’ death towards the end of the book. He really built up to it throughout the whole book and then eloquently explained how everything he just talked about cumulated in the narrative of the death of Jesus. His discussion on substitutionary atonement was candid and to the point, and I enjoyed how it stretched my mind and made me view that particular theory from a different perspective.
• 
  Shannon Lewis

  There is much to like here, but so much that I disagree with that I could never suggest it for the average reader. I feel like, were he still alive, Marcus & I would get along profoundly well, yet rarely agree on much of anything apart from the fact that we deeply love Jesus - albeit quite different Jesuses. Well written, however, & I loved the man's heart.
• 
  Ken Orton

  Very solid writing about the true meaning and interpretation of the Bible, New Testament. Explodes the myth of inerrancy and most of what is called dispensationalism - with proof. A little dated at the end (written in 2005) in predicting the emergence of the new church but still the book is well worth the read.
• 
  Rocky Woolery

  While well written, and having much interaction with the scriptures, I have not found Borg's arguments persuasive. I do believe that there was a count-imperial meaning to Jesus teachings. But I believe that the Kingdom of God is both now and future; it is about this life and life beyond death.
• 
  James Hannon

  Borg is a fantastic author. He makes very complex ideas simple to understand. I was particularly impressed by his interpretation of the parables as commentaries of the socio-political injustices of the day, many of which can certainly be applied to our current society.
• 
  Lindsey

  I really enjoy Marcus Borg’s books. They are very thought-provoking and insightful. I’ll definitely read more books by this author.
• 
  Sanjay Somlal

  I THOUGHT IT WAS FREE TO READ ONLINE