The Bible on History Channel – Part 3

Posted on by March 21, 2013
2

The History Channel ran the third installment of The Bible earlier tonight. After each of the first two episodes, I posted reviews highlighting the “good” and the “bad” in how the filmmakers portrayed the Scriptures on the screen. So here are some of my initial thoughts on tonight’s program (this is not intended to be an exhaustive review so I won’t cover everything).

The Good

The first hour covered the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. It focused on King Zedekiah, Jeremiah the prophet, and then Daniel and his three friends: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (better known as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego). As with the depictions in other weeks, many of the events were compressed for the sake of time (and budget), so many elements were cut. However, there were still some good things here. Although it was hard to watch, the horrors of the siege (such as cannibalism in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28) were effectively shown.

I’m always interested to see how Daniel is portrayed. It is one of my favorite books of the Bible, and Daniel is one of my heroes of the faith. Perhaps the best part of the way the Daniel account was shown here was the emphasis on how God fulfilled His promises to the Jewish people. It was mentioned several times that God had promised to bring the people back to the land of Israel, even though they had been exiled in Babylon. I also thought it was interesting how the wise men convinced the king to sign the decree that would lead to Daniel being thrown into the den of lions.

The second hour of the program showed the birth of Jesus and the early stages of His adult life, including His baptism, the temptations, and the calling of Peter. I liked that Mary expressed some emotion in this portrayal and that she clearly loved Joseph. Oftentimes, she is too stoic and doesn’t seem to care much about Joseph.

Just as with the other episodes, the program offered viewers a great opportunity to compare the movie with the Bible. This is perhaps the best part of the program—if viewers will take advantage of it. Since so many people are watching this show, Christians can use it as a springboard to discussing Scripture, particularly the gospel message.

The Bad

I’ll try not to critique the program’s errors that were made for the sake of compression. Instead, I’ll focus on the errors that were actually portrayed rather than the false impressions made because events were skipped (which were numerous).

The scene with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the fiery furnace was inaccurately shown, although it was interesting to see Daniel at these proceedings (the Bible doesn’t say where Daniel was during this time, but we can be quite confident that he would not have bowed to the statue if he were there and the program didn’t have him bowing). In Scripture, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than normal and the men who threw Daniel’s friends into the fire were killed by the flames. In this show, they were covered with some sort of oil and Nebuchadnezzar himself threw a torch on them.

A similar mistake was made with Daniel in the lions’ den. The film had Daniel thrown into the den through a door on the side. The Bible tells us that Daniel was cast into the den, and later that the other wise men who set Daniel up were crushed by lions before they even hit the ground (indicating they were dropped in from above). Not only does this make sense (who would want to open a door with hungry lions on the other side?), but archaeologists have found dens in the region of Babylon that were probably used for this very purpose, and the holes were on the top.

There is some question about whether or not they properly portrayed the Persian ruler who took over after Babylon fell. The program called him Cyrus (a Persian), while the Bible calls him Darius the Mede. There are a couple of possible solutions to this dilemma. One views Darius as another name for Gubaru, the governor of Babylon under Cyrus, the king of the Medo-Persian Empire. The other (and probably better) view sees Darius the Mede as the same person as Cyrus the Persian. I don’t have time to get into the arguments here, but there are several good commentaries on Daniel that address this point.

There were several problems in the portrayals of Christ’s birth and early ministry. As expected, the magi were shown at the birth of Jesus, yet they really didn’t show up until a while later. I’ve addressed this in detail elsewhere (We Three Kings, A Matter of Time, Timeline Twisting, More Timeline Twisting). Also, Herod rudely sent the magi away before ascertaining from the scribes where the Messiah was supposed to be born. Yet the Bible has the scribes telling Herod the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and Herod sends them away, asking them to report back so that he could go and worship (which he had no intention of doing).

The film also had Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee Bethlehem right away, presumably on the night he was born. This does not fit into the Bible’s timeline. They presented Jesus to be circumcised on the eighth day. They also went to the temple after Mary’s purification time (forty days). It wasn’t until after these things that they needed to flee. See above links for more details.

In the temptations of Jesus, the second one showed them at a high point in the wilderness, but Matthew 4:5 and Luke 4:9 state that they went to the pinnacle of the temple. The final scene in the show was the beheading of John the Baptist. The program made it seem like Herod wanted to kill John because he was announcing the coming of the Messiah. In reality, John was arrested because he spoke out against Herod’s adulterous relationship and Herod grudgingly beheaded John to fulfill a promise to his wife’s daughter.

Conclusion

As with each of the other programs, I think there is some value in watching this series, but I would encourage viewers to keep an open Bible at hand. Each scene needs to be compared with Scripture. At the same time, all of us who have read these passages (or are familiar with them) have in our mind a certain image of how we think it probably looked. One of the interesting things about watching these accounts on screen is seeing how someone else pictures these events. I’ve found myself thinking a few times, “I never thought of it that way.” Each time this happened, I would compare it with the Bible to see if what was shown was plausible. Too many Christians are overly critical when something doesn’t conform to how they think it should look, but we should be more concerned about whether or not it matches Scripture.

The Bible on History Channel – Part 2

Posted on by March 10, 2013
1

Last week’s blog post addressed the first of five programs airing on the History Channel based on the Bible. This miniseries has been a popular topic of conversation in some Christian circles and has received mixed reviews. So before commenting on tonight’s episode, I’d like to offer a few comments about the reactions to last week’s episode. If you read my post, you know that I thought there were some strengths and some weaknesses to it, but overall, I think it is worth watching. Even the inaccuracies will give you an opportunity to watch with an open Bible, comparing the movie with Scripture to see for yourself what they got right and what they missed.

Based on some feedback I’ve seen, several Christians have been overly critical of the series for various reasons. Some of them don’t like the producers or consultants. Some of them have complained about the inaccuracies or the glossing over (or skipping over) of certain events. Others have charged the filmmakers with blasphemy because they don’t like the way something was portrayed.

I read a blog post earlier today where the writer claimed that the program bordered on blasphemy by making God seem capricious. How did they do this? According to this blogger it was because in the account of Abraham and Isaac the filmmakers didn’t teach that the sacrifice pointed to what Christ would ultimately do at the Cross. While I’m all for taking every opportunity to share the gospel with people, there are a couple of problems with this charge.

First, the Bible never tells us that the Abraham and Isaac pericope was pointing to what Jesus would do (although I think there are some obvious parallels that can be drawn and it’s easy to use the account to talk about Christ).

Second, the filmmakers are attempting to adapt the accounts in Scripture in a dramatic manner so that they come alive for the viewers. It would seem a little strange to add commentary after each account saying something like, “And this happened because it was a foreshadowing of…” While some Christians think that every OT passage should be taught this way, and others think we need to make sure we point every lesson in that direction, it should be noted that the Bible doesn’t do that. That is, when you read Genesis 22, you read about Abraham and Isaac, and how God provided a ram (not a lamb as shown in the program) for the sacrifice. But the end of the chapter does not say, “And this was a foreshadowing of what Jesus would do on the Cross.” So according to the logic of this blogger, you would be bordering on blasphemy if you simply read Genesis 22 to someone.

Now let’s take a look at some of my initial thoughts about what aired on tonight’s program.

The Good

One thing I have really liked about the series so far is how they portray the angels (my wife pointed this one out). In many Bible programs, angels show up as overly squeaky-clean and extremely mild-mannered, soft-spoken, and somewhat effeminate. Not in this series. The angels show up as tough warriors. While the non-fallen angels are holy beings, they are also extremely powerful, as evidenced by one angel’s killing of 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (Isaiah 39:36).

Tonight’s episode covered three major accounts: Joshua and Jericho, Samson and the Philistines, and Saul and David. It was interesting to see these passages brought to life. After conquering Jericho, Joshua proclaimed that God had kept His promise to the Israelites, and that if they obeyed Him, then they could accomplish what He had planned for them.

I thought the story of Samson was done fairly well, even though it was greatly compressed. That is, several events were cut out or compressed into one for the sake of time. This is often necessary when adapting a text for the screen, so I don’t think it’s fair to automatically accuse the filmmakers of taking away from God’s Word when they are simply compressing events, although there is a big risk of misrepresenting the Bible (or any other text) when you do this. In this case, I thought the Samson account was pretty well done, and I really liked the part where he fought the Philistines with a jawbone (although it would have taken the whole two hours to show him killing a thousand of them). Yes, they skipped Samson’s riddle, which ultimately led to the reason his wife was burned, and they skipped some of Delilah’s whining when she was trying to get Samson to tell her the secret of his strength.

As for the account of Saul and David, I thought there were some strengths here as well. For once, David was not just a pipsqueak when he fought Goliath, although this still wasn’t presented accurately (see below). I really liked how they portrayed the part about Saul slaying his thousands and David his ten thousands. That can really help the viewer understand some of the reasons for Saul’s jealousy of David.

The Bad

As mentioned above, one of the dangers with compression is that you can mislead people about what happened. In the film, Rahab didn’t really hide the spies, and the order of events was messed up. The anointing of David was inaccurately portrayed. Rather than calling the people of Bethlehem for a sacrifice and then meeting with Jesse and his sons, the film had Samuel just meet David while he was out in the field with a flock. When Nathan confronted David about his sin, the story of the rich man and poor man was not told, but this was vital to David’s recognition of his own sin and ultimately his repentance, so it should have been included.

Not only was the David and Goliath account greatly compressed, it was also inaccurate. David was already Saul’s armor bearer at the time, although he had just come from his father’s place because he had occasionally helped out there. David was also already known as a mighty man of war, a man of valor before he fought Goliath (1 Samuel 16:18); he didn’t just become a great warrior after the fight as shown in the movie. There are several other indications that David was indeed a mighty man, and not small when he fought Goliath.

While the film did a pretty good job of showing Saul’s anger and jealousy toward David, it also rearranged some of the events. For example, the first time Saul tried to kill David was before his plan to give his daughter Michal to David (in hopes that the dowry price of 100 Philistine foreskins would lead to David’s death). But the film had Saul throw a spear at David right after Michal had been given to him.

Conclusion

There were some other things that were done well and others that were not. Should Christians trash this miniseries because of the inaccuracies or should they use it as an opportunity to instruct people who are talking about it? While I certainly think it is extremely important to point out error, we need to be gracious toward people when we do it. Sadly, I’ve seen too many overly zealous Christians ranting against the filmmakers and the production as a whole, and yet many of them have not even watched it.

We all need to be on our guard against error, and we should compare everything we read, watch, or listen to with the Word of God. The Bible miniseries has given Christians a great opportunity to share the truth with unbelievers. If viewed properly (with open Bible in hand), then viewers can have a great learning experience and come to know the Word of God in a better way.