"Going"
THE "EASTER" BLITZ (PART 1)
Two to three weeks ago, neighborhoods were bombarded with religious materials placed inside plastic bags and hung on (or simply left at) doors. Different denominational churches included different materials in their packets, but they all contained a DVD advertising three Jesus films in 8 languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, and Vietnamese). It claims it is "the most widely distributed film in history, seen by billions worldwide."
It also claims that it is "the most accurate film produced on the life of Jesus Christ," which is not saying much—even if the claim were true—since so many have been produced with glaring errors. It is, however, one of the most accurate. The DVD contains three movies. The first is The Life of Jesus (83 minutes), which is the fullest version. The second is Magdalena (60 minutes), which covers the life of Jesus from her perspective. The third version is called The Story of Jesus (61 minutes), which sees His life through the eyes of children in the first century.
The Life of Jesus
As background, the movie begins with the Creation of the world, along with Adam and Eve (who could have used a better hair stylist). After showing the forbidden fruit being taken (congratulations; it was not an apple), it dwells briefly on the results of sin. Adam is agonizing in a desert, and Eve sheds tears as well. Next, Abraham is introduced as he is offering Isaac as a sacrifice. The transition is made to the need for a perfect Lamb of God, which brings us to the New Testament. On the way there, however, one stop is made in Isaiah, who prophesied of the virgin birth.
The producers of the film make it clear that they are following Luke's account of the Life of Christ by citing Luke 1:1-3. However, they do borrow from the other accounts of Jesus' life by including some things that Luke does not mention. The movie includes the appearance of the angel to Mary, as well as her visit to Elizabeth. As is customary, they have Mary giving birth to Jesus on the night they arrive in Bethlehem and staying in a stable. The Biblical account does not record the birth upon their arrival to the city. They appear to have already been there (Luke 2:6).
The word translated "inn" is not the same word used later by Luke to refer to the place the good Samaritan took the man who had been beaten and robbed. It referred to the first floor of the house where animals were sometimes kept, the manger being built in. Ironically, when the viewer watches the children's version, one of the children keeps and cares for a donkey on the first floor of the house and even has a feeding trough there. But at least they had the angels appearing to the shepherds in the field and did not erroneously have wise men present the night of Jesus' birth.
They include Jesus being brought to the temple in Jerusalem and Simeon's blessing of Him (Luke 2:22-35) but omitted the meeting with the prophetess Anna, which immediately followed Simeon (Luke 2:36-38). They also omitted it even in the second movie, told from Mary Magdalene's perspective, which highlighted several instances of Jesus interacting with women. And there is no mention of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt because of Herod's determination to put Jesus to death, but then Luke does not record that event.
The film includes Jesus' family going to Jerusalem when He was twelve. Joseph and Mary find Him on the temple grounds, standing and talking with two or three men, but this portrayal does not accurately reflect Luke 2:46: "Now it was so that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions." In this manner they greatly reduced a very significant event to a kind of casual conversation. Also, they have Him using the less accepted translation, "Did you not know I must be in My Father's house?" instead of, "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" (Luke 2:49).
Now we come to a more serious objection to these movies, and that involves John and his baptism. First of all, it is hard to imagine a face with any more hair sprouting forth from it. His face and scalp could be an ad for Hair Gone Wild. But more importantly, John barely touches the people coming out to be baptized. When they come to him, they bow down in the water before him. One is not even totally immersed. The only contact seems to be when they begin to bow, John puts his hand on the shoulder. Who baptizes this way? One wonders why John needed to be in the water at all. The folks mainly baptized themselves.
The movie shows Jesus reading the scroll from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth and saying that those words were just then fulfilled. So how would He escape when they wanted to throw Him down from the cliff? Luke says that He passed "through the midst of them" (Luke 4:30), but in the movie they just unhand Him, and He walks around them back into town, which was not a good depiction.
When Jesus' life reaches Luke 5, He does indeed get into a boat to teach, and He tells of the Pharisee and the publican, which is a great text, but Luke does not record it until 18:10-14; so that one is out of place. It was surprising to hear Jesus advise people to "dance for joy" as part of the beatitudes. In light of what many denominations currently practice, it is not surprising that dancing was snuck into the movie text, but to what does it refer? Luke 6:22-23 is similar to Matthew 5:10-12. Jesus says: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!" The word is correctly translated "leap" (John "leaped" in the womb). Not even paraphrases use "dance."
Luke 5:32 is another example of some of the strange translations that are used. They have Jesus saying, "I have not come to call respectable people, but sinners, to repentance." Most people know the word should have been righteous, not respectable people. When the Legion of demons entered the herd of swine, they did seem "possessed," but instead of running headlong into the sea, they just scrambled off.
When it came time for the Last Supper, Jesus did take the first cup, bless it, and tell them to divide it amongst themselves (Luke 22:17). Then He took the bread, gave thanks for it, broke it, and gave it to them, as per Luke 22:19. The bread makes it around faster than the cup; so one disciple is eating and drinking both together. But they omitted Luke 22:20. When Jesus passed the first cup around, He only commented that He would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God came. It is not until He took the cup after supper (the second one) that He said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." The movie omits that entirely, thus leaving the impression that the Lord's Supper is observed with the cup first and the bread second instead of the other way around.
When it comes time for the events of the crucifixion, Jesus is whipped with His outer garment on, which seem a bit strange. His back has four blood marks showing through the garment. They did not put on Him the crown of thorns; His head and face remains unmarred. Luke does not mention the scourging; so if the movie producers wanted to be consistent, they should have omitted it. They were careful to include only the three sayings on the cross which Luke records.
They also conflated events after Jesus' resurrection. He appears to all His disciples at once and invited all of them to examine His wounds instead of just Thomas. When it comes time for Jesus to ascend into heaven, He begins with, "The Lord bless you and keep you," the first line of the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6:24). Why they chose to have Him say that at this moment is anyone's guess. Then He quotes Matthew 28:18-20. No one objects to that inclusion, but it is not in Luke. Still, it is the only time they mention baptism since the baptism of Jesus.
Magdalena
The second of the three movies retains many of the scenes of the first movie, but the story is told to other women by Mary Magdalene. Other scenes are added, however, including Jesus casting the seven demons out of the narrator. One of the interesting new scenes portrays Jesus' meeting with the woman at the well. They are not alone, however. Two men are nearby observing the conversation. The impressiveness of the meeting is marred by another bizarre translation of verses that many people have memorized: John 4:23-24. These verses speak of true worshipers worshiping "in spirit and in truth." Most recognize worshiping in spirit refers to being sincere (enthusiastic).
However, the movie changes this familiar expression to there being a time coming when "by the power of the Spirit people will worship the Father as He really is, offering Him the pure worship that He wants." Say, what? This unrecognizable gobbledygook is not even used by paraphrases. It must be the first Pentecostal version or something invented by Todd Deaver. These words are nowhere close to translating the Greek correctly into English. It is unwarranted interpretation.
At least this movie did not end with Mary Magdalene marrying a revived Jesus and running off to France. That was the theory proposed by Dan Brown (aka Word Bann and Brand Now), author of The DaVinci Code and the more recent Origin, both of which were reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives. [Actually, that idea was not orginal with him; it is advanced by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln in a book titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail.]
The Story of Jesus
Some inconsistencies attend the children's version, also. The children would not know, by experience, what happened at the Last Supper. But most of the other events they could have witnessed. Some of it is a little hokey. When Jesus gives the illustration of the Good Samaritan, He is among children, and a little girl answers the question that the Samaritan is the neighbor. It's the same little girl whose donkey is missing one day. The other kids ask, "What happened to it?" The answer is that Jesus is riding it into the city. This does not quite fit the Biblical account.
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? was the name of a television quiz show, hosted by Jeff Foxworthy. Fifth graders could be called on to give answers to the questions asked, and the contestant had to decide if they were right or not (if he was unsure of the answer). The kids in the movie could have played. They were sharp. When Jesus was crucified, they were all sad, asking, "Why did this have to happen?" Then suddenly one of them had a flash of inspiration. "I remember. Jesus said in three days He would be alive again?" The others also remembered. Voile! Their sadness left.
Now Peter, James, and John had heard all three of these pronouncements (Mark 8:31-33; 9:30-32; and 10:32-34). Yet they did not figure out the meaning of these things and did not even believe early reports of Jesus rising from the dead. But the children? They figured it out immediately—which is pretty incredible—because they did not hear Him say it in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8) nor as He was traveling through Galilee (Mark 9). It is not even likely that they heard Him on the road going up to Jerusalem (Mark 10), since they lived in town. The movie stretches somewhat in this incident.
So, the three productions are flawed at times—just like all their cinematic predecessors. But these discrepancies are trivial compared to what is done at the conclusion of each portrayal, which, Lord willing, we will get to next week (to be continued).