Jesus on Television
The latest attempt to understand the person of Jesus has
been launched on NZ television. Titled ‘The Son of God’ the three-part BBC
production, first aired in Britain in 2001,
sought to find out what the world was like when Jesus lived, what Jesus
looked like, and why he set out on his mission. Using forensic clues and
evidence drawn from the gospels and other records, the series attempted to reconstruct the
social, political and religious climate some 2000 years ago, and then closed
with an examination of the crucifixion and resurrection.
The BBC production
was not unique - there have been many attempts over the years to explain Jesus, and none of them have been fully adequate, so it is
no surprise, now that the series has been screened, that there are still many
questions to answer.
For example, the
BBC made very little of the claims made by Jesus to his deity. Nor did it have
much to say about his miracles, or to his call to people to trust in Him alone
for salvation. Almost nothing was said of his ability to foretell coming
events, or his claim to absolute power over the universe (what C.S.Lewis called “rampant megalomania”). Something was made of his sense of otherness in
the midst of his friends but this seems to have been attributed to his desire
to be identified with the prophets of old, or perhaps his political
aspirations.
The New Zealand TV Guide comment on the
series made this point : “For 2000 years Jesus has
been the source of faith to billions, the cause of many wars and the subject of
countless works of art and fiction.”
The interesting thing
about this comment is what it does not
tell us. Jesus has indeed been the source of inspiration for countless expressions of human creativity (for
example music, philosophy, psychology, drama, literature, science, dance,
exploration and archaeology to name a few) but it is misleading to place the
blame for war at his feet. Jesus never encouraged or advocated war.
War is a product of
various things - desire for more territory, racial bigotry, greed, lust for
power and so on, and of course religion. But did Jesus come to establish a new and rival religion,
using force and physical aggression? The only way I could be convinced that
Jesus was the direct cause of religious wars is by seeing in the Bible some
word from him, some instruction, some hint even, that he wanted his followers
to attack and kill anyone who did not follow him. But this is what I do not
find.
Using the principle
of ‘lead by example’ we can see that Jesus was no advocate of war. His whole
ministry was one of healing, helping, restoring, raising, caring, loving and
forgiving. He told his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ to their enemies, to
‘go a second mile’ when oppressed, to feed and care for those who mistreated
them, and when Jesus himself was nailed unjustly and cruelly to a cross, his
one prayer for his tormentors was for their forgiveness. Hardly a picture of a
warmonger!
So where did the
so-called ‘holy’ or religious wars come from? History books show that people
who disregarded the example of Jesus made up their own version of Christianity,
armed it with documents, oaths, swords and cannons, and went to war with the
cross on their shields and the Bible in their pockets. They hacked and
destroyed anyone who disagreed with their brand of Christianity, and tried to
establish an armed version of the church on earth – in much the same way as the
Romans tried to centre their power around the Caesar.
Totally wrong of
course, but so many people want to blame Jesus!
Another problem
which the BBC series will had was working out why Jesus began his mission and
then died at the end of it, apparently defeated. As the commentator pointed out
when the crucifixion came into view, Jesus had been a total and remarkable
failure. Everything he had worked for had fallen into ruins, and he hung on the
cross like a symbol of futility. From the secular point of view it seemed like
something only an extremely idealistic man might do, or a fanatic. This was how
the Romans viewed him. Other nationalities were confused too. The Greeks had no
idea who Jesus was. The Jewish leaders hated him because he trod on their
traditions and claimed things which they could not accept. People today are
generally mystified too, because Jesus has always been an enigma to them. Why
should something that happened 2000 years ago have any relevance to us today?
History is just a record of past events – why is Jesus continually
re-presented, as if he is still alive?
But there are many
answers, and they all make a lot of sense, if people are willing to set aside
their arguments and take a little time to listen.
The mission of
Jesus, according to the Bible, did not start a mere 2000 years ago. If we
believe the Bible, we have to begin with eternity.
At some point in
eternity (words make nonsense of the idea), there was a moment when the world
was created. For earth-bound organisms at least, time began. Jesus created the
first humans, then he waited about 4000 years and entered the world himself, as
a human baby. His mission was but a tiny part of the whole plan. He displayed
his power and established his credentials through prophecy and miracles and by
the perfection of his own life, then he died. His
apparent failure suddenly became a majestic victory, because he came back to
life. As C.S.Lewis put it “Death worked
backwards”. Having taken control over
death, Jesus returned to ‘heaven’ (our simple word for it), henceforth waiting
for the moment of his return. After that he intends to establish an
ever-growing empire which apparently has no limit.
The BBC could never
do justice to the subject of Jesus, but it is probably better for them to make
an attempt than to give up in frustration. No mere documentary could ever do
justice to this man. As the TV Guide said “Was he a rebel, a
prophet or just a nice man?” I think the answer is simple: he was not a
rebel, he was a conservative. His whole life was lived in strict obedience to
the Old Testament Law. He was perhaps the most conservative man who ever lived.
He was also a prophet, but much more than that. He spoke as a prophet, and he
fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in his own life. But he also claimed to be the
voice behind all the Biblical prophets. A nice man? If that
was all he was we might as well make a documentary about somebody’s kindly old
grandfather. He was so ‘nice’ that people fell at his feet and worshipped him.
One woman washed his feet with her tears. A nice man? Hardly.
While many
Christians have applauded the BBC for its attempt to present the greatest
personality of all recorded history, many have also squirmed uncomfortably at
the false facts and misleading comments made during the series.
For
example, the idea that the “star” of
Another comment
during the program was not so much stated but more implied, namely that the
crucifixion was the cause of Jesus’ death. The Bible says Jesus “gave” his
life. It is generally assumed, even amongst Christians, that Jesus was killed,
but there was no way anyone or anything could have killed him. Even on the
cross he said he could call for armies of angels for defence,
but he was determined to give his life. His timetable was exact. He had a
specific moment planned in which he would breath out, and then yield himself to
death. Man did not, and could not, kill the Christ, according to the Bible.
A possible
alternative scenario (hypothetically speaking) could have gone this way. Jesus
arrives in
But history records
a sad and horrible rejection of the Messiah, and a needlessly cruel and painful
crucifixion. Nevertheless Jesus went through the ordeal and died according to
his schedule. When he rose again his first mission was a final appeal to the
Jewish people, who continued to reject him nationally, so the gospel went out
to all the world. In some ways the Gentiles can be
thankful that the Jews rejected their Messiah.
The BBC presented
many archaeological points of interest. It revealed the lavish wealth in which
the
The program made
very little of Jesus’ healing miracles. Instead of showing how incredible the
miracles were, the commentator mentioned some other
people with ‘healing’ powers. What the program did not point out was the fact
that Jesus cured every person who came to him, of every sickness, every impairment and every genetic deformity. He restored
whole organs, gave legs and arms to cripples, eyes to the blind, ears to the deaf,
and he raised the dead. No healer before or since Jesus has ever come even
remotely close to this record.
Another point was
made that perhaps Jesus arranged for Judas to betray him. In other words Jesus
actually orchestrated his own crucifixion. The only support for this was the
translation of a single Greek work. Taken by itself this may have seemed
convincing to some, but placed in the context of the whole story, and with the
background evidence of the Old Testament prophecies, there is no way Judas can
be seen as a willing accomplice. He was so overcome with guilt after the event
that he went and hung himself – hardly the reaction of a willing accomplice.
In the crucifixion
scene, the idea was put forward that Jesus was given vinegar laced with a
painkiller to drink. It was implied that perhaps he did not feel the pain so
much after that. But the Bible says Jesus refused the vinegar.
The program
suggested that Jesus was nailed through his heels, yet the Bible says that not
a single bone in his body was broken.
Many of the
commonly suggested ideas about the ‘death’ of Jesus were put forward too, but
the commentator actually dealt with them quite well. The favourite theory is
probably the ‘swoon theory’, which proposes that Jesus didn’t actually die, but
lapsed into a faint, or an unconscious state and revived some time later, after
he had been buried.
This theory actually
raises more questions than answers. For example, is it possible for a man to go
through vicious whipping, crucifixion, days without medical aid or food,
confinement in a tomb wrapped with bandages, and then suddenly have the energy
to push aside the stone door and come striding out in good health? Would anyone
really believe in a resurrection if a man had dragged himself from a tomb,
gasping and trembling? Would the tomb guards have permitted it? Would
Christians proclaim a lie and base the whole Church on a deception? The
problems are many.
Jesus is the great
enigma of history. He seems to have
been just a man, but behind that superficial appearance of humanity there lies
something too great and too vast to understand. Behind his simple parables lie
deep mysteries. Behind his words and actions lie layers of meaning which all
the scholars over the last 2000 years have not yet fully fathomed.
C.S.Lewis
said “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God’ That
is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort
of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a
lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he
would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and
is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.”
What the BBC
program did was skate right round the essential, hard-core things about Jesus.
In the end, in the end, as the series finished, there was the usual
confirmation that a man called Jesus did in fact live, which is hardly a point
worth disputing, but what the program missed was the fact that this man called
Jesus was in fact the Son of God. The
title of the series was really a question. Was Jesus really the ‘Son of
God?’ Well, was he? And if he was the
Son of God, what then?
Of course, under
broadcasting policy, it was not the place of the program to “promote religion” and quite rightly
too, but if all the facts stack up, and if Jesus is quite clearly far more than
a mere man, isn’t it the responsibility of a director to present the facts,
rather than ask a lot of interesting questions. Of all events in the past the resurrection is the most thoroughly
attested. Of all historical figures, Jesus
is the most thoroughly documented. Of all testimonies, the New Testament is the most thoroughly confirmed and authenticated.
Why then do people still waver in their opinions about Jesus?
There is no doubt
in my mind that Jesus was the Son of God. Why should there be doubt in anyone
else’s mind – or do we need another two thousand years of programs, movies and stacks
of books before we decide?