The fourth episode of The Bible aired last night on the History Channel covering much of the ministry of Jesus, from the healing of a paralytic in Capernaum (Mark 2:1–12) to His arrest and trial before Caiaphas. This series has certainly seen its share of controversy. Many conservative Christians have been highly critical of the program—some saying it is heretical and others are a little more cautious but still offer harsh critiques. Others were upset that the actor who portrays Satan in the film bears a striking resemblance to President Obama. Whatever one’s view is on this series, it is safe to say that Christians should be informed about it since it has led to opportunities to discuss the Bible with those who are curious about it.

This review will be lengthier (but by no means exhaustive) since so many different scenes were covered, whereas in previous episodes, only a handful of accounts were depicted. I will offer a brief review of the good and bad elements of the program, and in today’s article, I’ll add a third category: those things that were not necessarily mistakes but could have been better. Let’s start with the good.

The Good

One area that was done well in this series is the portrayal of the various factions in Israel during the time of Jesus. In a short time, the viewer is able to capture a sense of the tensions caused by the Romans, Pharisees, Zealots (represented by Barabbas), and Sadducees. This bit of historical background helps the viewer understand some of the setting in which Jesus lived and will help make better sense of the New Testament. The Romans were ruthless and many of the Jews continued to disrupt the “peace” Rome wanted. This tension was shown in Caiaphas’ fear that the Romans would crack down on the Jews during the Passover, which drove him to attempt to arrest and kill Jesus as soon as possible. Although some artistic license was taken, this concept is consistent with the words of Caiaphas in John 11:49–50.

To help illustrate this tension, the film also included a dramatic scene described by Josephus (and not found in the Bible), where some Jews rioted because of Pilate’s plan for an aqueduct. They were killed by Roman soldiers who had disguised themselves and mixed in with the crowd. See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.60–62. While I like this type of background information, it would have been much better if the program would have developed a way to differentiate biblical material from extra-biblical material. For example, when the scene was from Scripture, they could have easily placed a verse reference in a bottom corner of the screen, and when it was from extra-biblical material, they could have shown that reference. As it is, some viewers may think some of the scenes are from the Bible when they really are not.

One of the benefits of watching something like this on television is that you get a glimpse at how something might have really happened, although you definitely run the risk of getting a wrong idea too. Often when we read the Bible, we don’t stop to think about the setting in which the words are spoken. For example, when Nicodemus met with Jesus in the film, the wind picked up for a moment before Jesus used it as an object lesson for Nicodemus. Did it really happen this way? We don’t know, but it is interesting to think about, and I’ve thought of other passages where this type of thinking would be helpful in understanding what is taking place.

I really liked the opening scene in which the paralytic was lowered through the roof to be healed by Jesus. Instead of healing the man right away, Jesus told him that his sins were forgiven. A scribe is upset and says that only God can forgive sins. Jesus then tells the man to get up and walk, proving that Jesus had to power to both heal a paralyzed man and to forgive his sins. The obvious implication here is that Jesus is God. This was pretty accurate to the Scripture in Mark 2, except that we are told that the scribes were thinking these things and Jesus knew what they were thinking.

Did the Film Undermine the Deity of Christ?

It is at this point that the film receives some of its greatest criticisms from conservative Christians. I have heard several people say that the film minimizes the deity of Christ, but I don’t think this is entirely accurate, although at times they seem to do that. Could they have made this point clearer than they did? Yes. Did they portray Jesus as the Son of God? Yes—on multiple occasions.

I’m not sure how to say this without sounding strange, so please try to understand what I’m about to say. I think it would be helpful if these Christians could (just one time) look at the Gospel accounts for the first time again. I’m not saying that I want them to forget all that they’ve learned, but it would be nice if we could see the Gospels with fresh eyes. Why do I say that? Because it is easy for us to read our theology into every passage. I’ve seen this in many of the critiques of the series. “The film didn’t do this…the film didn’t do that…they should have shown this…” But often, the things people want to see the film do are not part of the text. They are part of one’s theological background. New Testament scholars have long written about the so-called “Messianic Secret.” While some liberal scholars have overemphasized this notion, the fact is that in Jesus’ ministry (particularly early on) He often told people not to spread the idea that He was the Messiah or that He was performing miraculous signs (Mark 1:44; 5:43; 9:9, etc.). Why would He do that? Is that diminishing His deity? Didn’t He want people to know that He was/is God? In my estimation, the best explanation for this “secret” is that Jesus didn’t want people to try to fully explain His mission until after He had risen from the dead (as He says in Mark 9:9, regarding the Mt. of Transfiguration experience, Jesus told Peter, James, and John that “they should tell no one the things they had seen, till the Son of Man had risen from the dead”)—it probably would have just caused more confusion, since they didn’t yet understand that He needed to die and rise again.

As the Gospel of John shows, Jesus clearly did claim to be the Son of God on some occasions, such as John 8:58 and John 10:30 (as He did indirectly with the forgiving of the paralytic’s sins in Mark), but it is not like everywhere He went, He told people that He was the Son of God and that they needed to worship Him. This is clear from the famous account of Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Son of the living God in Matthew 16. Jesus replied to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). Wait, if flesh and blood had not revealed this to Peter by this point in Jesus’ ministry, then what does that say about what Jesus was teaching wherever they went?

It is at the point of the deity of Christ that the film also gave some impressions that were inaccurate. So let’s turn to the bad things from last night’s program.

The Bad

There were a few times in the program when Jesus seemed to have a vision about what was about to happen to Him, and the way it was set up, it was as if He didn’t know until that moment that this event was coming. This happened with the announcement of Judas as the betrayer and also when Peter was told that he would betray Jesus three times. After the feeding of the 5,000 they made it look as if Jesus was surprised that the crowd would chant that He was the Messiah, yet He often told people not to mention this, so it would not have surprised Him.

Is it possible that Jesus did not know those things until that moment? Perhaps. He stated that He didn’t know the timing of His Second Coming (Matthew 24:36). If He is God, then how could He not know this? The Bible tells us in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus “emptied Himself” (NASB). This is known as the kenosis from the Greek word translated as “emptied.” The idea here is that during His earthly life, Jesus willingly set aside some of His divine attributes, such as His omnipresence. There is much disagreement over the degree to which He “emptied” Himself. Did He set aside all of His divine attributes and only function supernaturally through the power of the Holy Spirit? Did He only set aside a small amount of His power? The Bible doesn’t specifically tell us, but much more often than not, we see that Jesus knew full well what was about to happen. John 18:4 states that Jesus, “knowing all things that would come upon Him” went out to face the soldiers who would arrest Him. In the program, it was almost the opposite. It seemed as if He wasn’t quite sure what was going to happen until just before it took place. This could easily be seen as a diminishing of Christ’s knowledge and the filmmakers should have been more careful here.

The chronology of Christ’s ministry was severely jumbled. It was as if the film wanted to show all of the events of Christ’s ministry as taking place over a one year period (at minimum, His ministry lasted a little over two years—at least 3 Passover celebrations). On several occasions, they put the words of one character in the mouth of another (e.g., Nathanael’s line about Nazareth was given to Caiaphas). At other points, something recorded later was combined with an earlier event. For example, in the film’s version of the calling of Matthew (early in the Gospels), Jesus used the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee (from Luke 18, late in the Gospels). However, while this is not how it is depicted in Scripture, it is not necessarily inaccurate. It is very likely that Jesus told similar or the same parables in different areas, so that a new audience would hear the same message. So this was an interesting way to combine elements from the Gospels, but it would have been safer to simply stick with the biblical chronology. There were many instances like this, so if a viewer did not really know the Bible, then he would quickly be misled as to when certain things took place and who said particular lines.

In a very odd moment in the film, they showed Jesus speaking with a little girl and laughing a bit, which was fine to show how He welcomed little children. The problem is that the subject matter was not a laughing matter and the words He spoke in the Bible at this point were spoken to the disciples who had just shown Him the buildings of the temple. He responded by foretelling the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:2). This was clearly not a laughing matter for Jesus who had just finished lamenting over the judgment that would come upon Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37–39).

I think my greatest concern with the series thus far has been the subtle tweaks to certain verses. I’m not necessarily against paraphrasing the Bible for the purposes of a film, but I am against removing parts because they would likely offend some viewers. For example, in the restatement of John 3:16, the film removed the phrase that those who believe “shall not perish.” Why would they do this? Perhaps for the same reason they left off the end of John 14:6. I’m glad they had Jesus say that He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” but they left off His statement about being the only way to the Father. These statements of judgment and exclusivity do not fly well in our politically correct society, so it seems that these types of statements have been tweaked or dropped to avoid offending certain people. But this is a serious problem. Unbelievers need to understand that God’s wrath abides on them and that if they do not repent they will be condemned to a Christ-less eternity in the lake of fire.

Finally, the portrayal of Christ’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane was greatly compressed and, other than healing Malchus’ ear, they made it seem as if Jesus was unable to do anything. Yet the Bible portrays this much differently. He went out to meet the guards and was in control of the entire situation. He secured the disciples’ freedom and caused the whole contingent of troops to fall to the ground (John 18:6). They also depicted Mary Magdalene as part of the inner group with Peter, James, and John, and this brings up my first point in the “Could Have Been Better” segment.

Could Have Been Better

The Bible is clear that several women traveled with Jesus and the disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna (Luke 8:2–3). The film showed Mary Magdalene as being the only female in the group. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if she was simply chosen to show that women also traveled with them, but in our modern setting, it can easily give the wrong impression. With the popularity of the Da Vinci Code, the Jesus Family Tomb, and the recent so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” all insinuating or proclaiming that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, the producers should have made it crystal clear that the two did not have any sort of relationship beyond Master / follower. I’ve written critiques of each of these views, so click on the links above for more details.

In keeping with popular views about the disciples, Thomas continues to get a bad rap. He is often shown complaining and being fairly sour. Of course, he is popularly known as “doubting Thomas,” but poor Thomas didn’t ask for anything more than the other disciples did. When the disciples told him that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, he didn’t believe them. He said he wouldn’t believe until he saw Jesus and put his hands in the scars. But the other disciples didn’t believe the women when they said that Jesus had risen. They didn’t believe until they saw Jesus. So how is Thomas any different? In John 11:16, he said, “Let us also go [to Judea], that we may die with Him.” People often think Thomas was being fatalistic here, but this is largely based on the misunderstanding just mentioned. Instead, it is far more likely that Thomas was being quite brave, being willing to follow Jesus to the death.

Conclusion

As I’ve stated in each of the previous reviews, I believe there is some value in watching this program, but I must stress this point: if you choose to watch this show, keep your Bible open and compare all parts of the program with Scripture. This should be a habit for everything we watch, read, or hear. One of the reasons this review is going up a day late is because it took us so long to watch the program as a family last night. Thanks to the DVR, we paused the show numerous times to discuss the depictions in the film.

How many people had in-depth discussions with their 15 year old and 10 year old kids last night about the doctrine of kenosis? We did. How about a discussion on the deity of Jesus? We did. This program lends itself to those types of conversations. I understand being critical of the things that are poorly done in the film—I’ve been critical of several points each week—but I think many of my fellow believers need to remember that we are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), gently correcting those who are in error (Galatians 6:1), rather than immediately pulling the heretic card whenever something is different than what we expect to see.

When there is serious error, we need to be faithful to call it out, but I’ve seen too many people misrepresent the program just to trash it. I read a blog post earlier today criticizing the program for having Noah say that God sent the Flood because Cain killed Abel. That just isn’t true. The program did not say that. Instead, they had him say, “Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. And with one choice, they learned both good and evil. Since then, since Cain killed Abel, God has seen too much evil in human hearts. Wrong choices. Wrong decisions. That’s why this is happening.”

If someone is going to critique others for their errors, then they should at least refrain from lying while doing it. As Christians, we must do better than that.