Because he lives. . .
Author Archives: Dan C.
‘The Bible’ series on History Channel: Review of Part 4, March 24
By Margaret Minnicks, The Examiner
The fourth episode of “The Bible” series aired on the History Channel on March 24. Many stories were packed into two hours.
Last night’s episode was jam packed with a lot of stories from the Bible; however, they were just snippets and if people didn’t know the stories already, they sure wouldn’t have recognized them by the quick flashes that were shown.
Admittedly, the series is making for good discussions about the Bible, but there are so many discrepancies. If the Bible is to be told, why not tell it as it is written?
Part 4 compacted the stories of Jesus feeding the multitude and raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey on what we have come to know as Palm Sunday. Then on the first day of Holy Week, Jesus turns on the money-changers in the temple.
By the way, in the feeding the multitude story, the fish and bread were nothing like the Bible describes. Not to be picky, but the fish were big and they looked raw. The bread was big, round, and flat. The Bible clearly said there were 2 small fish (similar to our sardines) and five small barley loaves.
The next segment was about Caiphas coaxing Judas into betraying Jesus; Jesus throwing the disciples into turmoil at the Last Supper; Jesus is arrested and condemned to death as the disciples scatter.
The biggest misconception in this episode was the fact that Mary Magdalene was popping up in scenes that she wasn’t supposed to be in. Some of the scenes could have been labeled, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
In the Bible, Mary Magdalene was definitely not in the boat when Peter walked on water; however, she was in last night’s episode. In the Bible, during the Sermon on the Mount, one of the disciples and not Mary Magdalene asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, and He responded by reciting what we know today as the “model prayer” found in Matthew 6. Mary Magdalene showed up at the feeding of the 5,000. Mary Magdalene is in the Garden of Gethsemane scene with the disciples when Jesus was praying before He was taken by the guards. She was not included in any of these story in the Bible. So, what were the producers thinking to add her to these scenes?
One of the more powerful scenes was when Jesus healed a leper by a simple touch where you could actually see the healing taking place.
Not only was the story of Nicodemus visiting Jesus by night out of the biblical sequence, but in a conversation Caiaphas asked him, “Can anything good come out of Galilee?” In the Bible that line belongs to Nathanael who asks Philip, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46)
The raising of Lazarus was nothing at all like it is depicted in the Bible. For instance, Jesus doesn’t go in the tomb and touch the top of Lazarus’ face to get him to come alive. The biblical account says Lazarus was wrapped in grave clothes and Jesus said in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” (John 11:41-46) The series didn’t have Lazarus in grave clothes at all, and Jesus did not call him forth.
No doubt, the dramatization of “The Bible” series is great. The concern is that if the producers took time to do it at all, why not do it according the written word.
People are falling in love with this series. It has been said that President Obama and the first lady have given it “thumbs up” after meeting with Roma Downey.
The reaction of “The Bible” series is like “The Emperor New Clothes.” Everybody is saying what everybody else is saying because no one wanted to admit that the emperor was wearing no clothes at all.
Bible scholars know there are discrepancies in the series; however, not many people are willing to say so.
Overall, “The Bible” series on the History Channel is not sticking to the text no matter how high the ratings are.
The Seismic Shift in OUTREACH You Need to Know
by James Emery White
As much as this article, posted at ChurchLeaders.com unsettles me, I am including it in it’s entirety and commenting afterward. I think it defines much of today’s evangelical culture on several levels – at least the purpose driven/seeker friendly segment, which is quite large.
The Seismic Shift in OUTREACH You Need to Know
There has been a seismic shift in outreach that few church leaders are understanding, much less pursuing.
From the 1950’s to the 1980’s, the vanguard of evangelistic outreach was direct proclamation of the gospel.
Whether it was in the crusades of Billy Graham or the creative approaches of Willow Creek Community Church, presentation led the way.
This led to joining a community, and, eventually, being discipled into participation with the cause.
From the 1990’s thru the 2000’s, community took the lead.
People wanted to belong before they believed. Skepticism was rampant, and trust had to be earned. Once enfolded, Christ was often met in the midst of that community.
Cause, again, was the last to take hold.
From the 2010’s forward, “cause” has become the leading edge of our connection with a lost world, and specifically the “nones” (and it is increasingly best to replace the term “unchurched” with the “nones”).
Consider the recent Passion Conference in Georgia. What arrested outside media attention was the commitment to eradicate modern-day slavery, not the 60,000 students in attendance, much less the messages related to the Christian faith.
In a word, “cause.”
This made the gathering of 60,000 college students in the Georgia Dome for that cause become attractive. In other words, then and only then did “community” come into play. Then, after exploring that community, Christ could be — and was — introduced.
Think of this shift in terms of moving people through stages of introduction:
1950’s-1980’s:
Unchurched >>> Christ >>> Community >>> Cause
1990’s-2000’s:
Unchurched >>> Community >>> Christ >>> Cause
2010’s and on:
Nones >>> Cause >>> Community >>> Christ
It is important to note how far the message of Christ is from the mind and sentiment of the average “none.”
It’s not that the church should “bury the lead” in terms of putting Christ at the end of the line — remember, we’re talking strategy. It’s just that leading with Billy Graham’s simple “the Bible says” was a strategy designed for people in a different place spiritually than many are today.
The more post-Christian a person is, the more evangelism must embrace not only “event/proclamation,” but “process” and “event/proclamation.” Earlier models were almost entirely “event/proclamation” oriented, such as revivals, crusades or door-to-door visitation. As I’ve written about in other places, this is only effective in an Acts 2, God-fearing Jews of Jerusalem context.
“Process” models are needed in Acts 17, Mars Hill, nones/skeptical contexts.
Like the one we live in today.
The presentation of Christ must remain central to our thinking, to be sure. That is the only reason we are even talking about strategy; the goal is to present Christ and Him crucified. But is that where we start? On Mars Hill, the spiritual illiteracy was so deep that Paul had to begin with cultural touchstones, lead in to creation, and work his way forward.
It took him a while to get to Christ.
And community? It matters, but the average person has tastes of that already. Maybe it’s not functional, but they don’t seem as drawn to it as they used to be. Perhaps it is because of the lure and illusion of social media, or because they’ve simply given up on it, but it’s not the great “search” it once was.
So there has been a great seismic shift. Today, it is cause that arrests the attention of the world.
Which brings us to the challenge.
First, to recognize the seismic shift, and begin to strategize accordingly.
Second, to realize how difficult this will be. If cause is in the lead, and community close behind, the church is at a deficit. In the minds of many, our causes have been mundane (let’s raise money for a fellowship hall!) or alienating (Moral Majority!). And the close second of community? Our reputation for dysfunction in that area is legendary.
But there is great irony in the challenge. Jesus wed mission and message together seamlessly, proclaiming the Kingdom that had come while healing the leper and feeding the hungry. He mandated concern for the widow and the orphan, the homeless and naked, the imprisoned and hungry, while speaking of the bread of life and a home in heaven.
In other words, we should have been nailing this all along.
And if community is lurking in the back of the minds of people as a felt need, that should be a calling card as well. Jesus challenged his followers about the importance of observable love toward one another as the ultimate apologetic for His life and ministry and message.
And even if it takes a while to get to Christ, He should be presented raw and unfiltered in all of His scandalous specificity; as Moltmann proclaimed, “the crucified God.”
So as we ponder the rise of “cause” as the cultural bridge over which to walk, perhaps the greater truth is more elemental:
Do all three.
Imagine a church that had community, cause and the undiluted message of Christ in the vanguard of its efforts.
It might just become the church Jesus had in mind all along that would reach the world.
_______________________________
So we need to understand the ‘seismic shift in outreach’ and develop strategies to adapt to it, in order to become the church Jesus had in mind? There might be a scripture that applies here:
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 ESV)
I suppose it works if the church Jesus had in mind solves all the world’s social ills and fallen men have the natural ability to love and serve God. In that case, it might be the perfect plan. So we ask a few simple questions.
1. Why DID Jesus come into the world?
The Angel who appeared to Joseph has something to say about that:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:18-21 ESV)
The preeminent missionary of the NT church, the Apostle Paul, reaffirmed the Angel’s words to Joseph years later:
“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)
2. Do fallen men have the natural ability or desire to love and serve God?
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” – (Romans 8:7 ESV)
“The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.”
(Psalm 14:2-3 ESV [See also Romans 3:11)“And even if our (Paul’s) gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV)
Do the ‘nones’ of America love causes and community enough to ‘volunteer’ for the Jesus who came to solve the ills of society, as the article proposes? Sure they do! We even have the latest Passion Conference as an example. According to a report at the CNN Belief Blog Passion 2013 raised $3,170,639 to fight human trafficking.
3. Is is true that “Process” models are needed in Acts 17, Mars Hill, nones/skeptical contexts, as the author suggests?
Here’s Paul addressing the Areopagus in Athens concerning their idols and imaginings:
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:29-30 ESV)
To think that we need to follow the ‘seismic shifts’ and develop strategies to see lost people saved, is clever imagination, nothing more. For lost sinners to be saved only two things are absolutely necessary; a ‘God-opened’ heart and the application of the true gospel message to that heart. (See Acts 16 and the story of Lydia)
One last thing needs to be said here – get the gospel right! The Apostle Paul speaks one last time:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)
4. What should we do, as believers and followers of Christ?
We should pray that God open hearts to hear the gospel as we connect with people in our daily lives, and we should be ready and eager to present Christ to those with whom we connect.
Have a wonderful today and rest of your lives, as you labor in the vineyards!
The Bible: “Viewer discretion is advised”
by Lutheran Pastor, Ted Giese
As might be expected, Lutherans are keen on the Bible. Our churches read aloud from the Scriptures every week during worship. In those same services our pastors preach sermons based on the readings for the day. We encourage our members to read their Bibles in personal devotions, and to attend Bible studies at our churches so that they can grow in their knowledge of God’s Word.
Helping people know the Scriptures better is the goal behind Mark Burnett and his wife Roma Downey’s new television adaptation of the Bible for the History Channel. In a recent interview, Burnett says he believes there’s a growing “Biblical illiteracy” among young people. It is admirable that someone would want to tackle that problem, not just among young people but among all people.
Each episode of the new series begins with a disclaimer. “This programme is an adaptation of Bible stories,” it says. “It endeavours to stay true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence. Viewer discretion is advised.”
That warning—to use your discretion—is good advice. The best advice is to watch this programme with your Bible next to you. Use your Christian discretion, your gift of discernment, while you watch (Matthew 24:4-5). Or, if this is not a strength of yours, turn to a fellow Christian with this gift (Luke 24:25-27).
Jesus talks about the need for discernment in Matthew 24: “See that no one leads you astray,” He tells his disciples. “For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.” Discernment then is about being able to look at something and tell if it’s accurate or not, if it’s true or not, if it’s genuine or not.
St. Peter tells us that we should “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:14). One way to be prepared is to know your Bible and know it well. When your co-workers say, “I was watching that Bible thing on TV last night,” you will be a help and a benefit to them if you’ve both watched the episode and followed that up with careful reading of the biblical passages it was based on. Just be sure to bring the conversation back around to “the hope that is in you.” That hope is Jesus.
Jesus Himself explained that all of Scripture was about Him. After His resurrection, He traveled the Road to Emmaus with two of his followers. They were discussing the events of the previous days (they didn’t recognize Jesus) and were sad because they could not understand what had happened. “O foolish ones,” Jesus says to them, “and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into His glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27).
What does this mean? It means that no matter what part of the Bible you find yourself in, it will be about Jesus. This is an important detail to consider as you watch the Bible miniseries; every part of the show should be about Jesus.
Abraham and Isaac
Keeping this in mind, let’s look at a familiar Bible story that appears in the first episode of the series. In “Beginnings,” Abraham and Sarah give birth, despite their advanced age, to a son they name Isaac. Isaac came as the realization of God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of the night sky. But as the Scriptures continue, God commands Abraham to sacrifice this special son Isaac; you can read the story in Genesis 22:1-18.
In the new television series, when asked by an inaudible voice to sacrifice his son, Abraham replies: “Sacrifice? No, no! Have I not shown you enough faith?” These are not words spoken by the biblical Abraham.
In other parts of this television series, the writers have God speak audibly. Here, however, they do not make God’s voice audible even though His words are present in the biblical account. This is a small detail but an important one; it informs the rest of how they tell the story of Abraham and Isaac. The Scriptural account has Abraham as an obedient follower of God’s command; he trusts God even in the face of this difficult request. The miniseries, however, presents Abraham as deeply conflicted. This is all speculation on the part of the writers.
Moreover, they show Isaac struggling with his father when he’s put on the altar. This too is not in the Biblical account. And just as he’s about to sacrifice Isaac in the television series, Abraham begs him to forgive him—again something not in the biblical account. The series does have Abraham being stopped at the last moment by the angel of the LORD, but it cuts out what God tells Abraham through that angel: “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him,” the Scriptures record, “for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12).
On the surface, the television programme resembles the biblical account; but it fails to accurately portray what the Scriptures say happened. Sarah is shown rushing to the mountain top in a series of scenes not found in the Bible. The sacrifice provided by God to Abraham in place of Isaac is not a ram with its horns caught in a thicket, as the Scriptures record, but instead a little lamb standing beside a small tree. At the very end of the story, the narrator tells us that “Abraham has passed the ultimate test” and that “he will become the father of God’s nation.” It then passes on.
The book of Genesis was written by Moses, and Jesus says that Moses wrote of Him; so where is Jesus in this? If all the Scriptures were written concerning Jesus, as He says they are, then Jesus should be in this story. In the biblical story, Jesus is found in a number of ways. One way He is found is in the obedience of Isaac who goes willingly without complaint to the place of sacrifice trusting his father, just as Jesus would later do. Jesus is also found in the ram caught in the thicket, which prophetically points to the substitutionary nature of Jesus: just as the ram dies in the place of Isaac, Jesus dies for you. The television series curiously replaces this ram with a lamb. And while Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “Lamb of God” in the New Testament, there is no lamb in the biblical account of Abraham and Isaac. Why the change was necessary is unclear.
The Book of Hebrews tells us that it was “by faith [that] Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Hebrews 11:17-19). From this we see that the story of Abraham and Isaac is ultimately about trust in God and the promised resurrection of the dead: Abraham knew that God could raise his son Isaac from death even if he sacrificed him.
The story is also about God’s love for us. It points to God the Father’s willingness to sacrifice His beloved Son, Jesus, for us. But the Bible miniseries here and in other Old Testament stories misses Jesus and salvation history.
What to make of the series?
What then can be made of the Bible miniseries? Sadly, the focus is not on Jesus but instead on examples of God testing people’s goodness and leadership skills. The Bible miniseries is, in the end, more about you than it is about Jesus for you.
On a technical note, the production values for the series are adequate but pale in comparison to other recent epic television and films projects. The acting is uneven and includes some cringe-inducing moments. The writing frequently moves away from the text of the Bible: there are many things subtracted and many things added to the biblical account. Fight scenes not in the actual biblical stories are added, apparently for entertainment value. And there are significant passages of biblical dialogue absent which would help the audience to make sense of the narrative. This last criticism is particularly puzzling because the producers sought out the help of Christian advisors in making the miniseries.
One positive thing to note about this series is that the History Channel is notorious for airing documentaries that are openly negative and hostile towards Christians and their faith. While the new Bible miniseries is by no means perfect, it certainly isn’t deliberately negative in the way some other programmes on that channel are.
The question then is this: “Did the Bible miniseries do what it intended to do? Did it fulfill its purpose?” Mark Burnett’s desire to stem the tide of “biblical illiteracy” is not greatly helped by this miniseries, unless it gets people interested in reading the actual book itself. If it sends people back into the pages of the Bible to see what’s there, then maybe it will have served its purpose. It would be great if people young and old could be encouraged to pick up their Bible and do some fact checking while they watch the production.
If you are planning to watch or are watching this miniseries, be careful to use viewer discretion; it is both advisable and recommended. You can also use the series as an opportunity to encourage others to read their Bibles and get involved with a Bible study in their church.
Does the series succeed in staying “true to the spirit of the book,” as it claims in its initial disclaimer? That question requires discernment. Thankfully, you are blessed to have God’s actual written Word to see for yourselves.
________________________
NOTE: There is a short but good interview with Ted Giese at the Issues, Etc., a Christian Talk Radio program.
“Part 3 of The Bible gets a 4 star review”
Author: Donna Sundblad, Atlanta Bible Study Examiner
Part 3 of the History Channel‘s The Bible aired on March 17 with the prophet Jeremiah warning Israel’s King Zedekiah about the coming siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians. Jeremiah’s warnings go unheeded and he delivers a final message to Zedekiah. “Surrender to Nebuchadnezzar or die. God is bringing disaster.”
The biblical account of this historical time explains that Zedekiah was placed on the throne as king by Nebuchadnezzar, after King Jehoiachin was taken captive and brought to Babylon. As the television miniseries fast forwarded through the remainder of the Old Testament and into the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus and the start of his ministry on earth they did a good job.
“In the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon advanced against Jerusalem with his entire army. They laid siege to the city and built a siege wall against it all around. The city was under siege until King Zedekiah’s eleventh year” (2 Kings 25:1-2 HCSB)
The prophet Daniel
The Bible offered a realistic portrayal of the massive Babylonian army camped outside the walls of Jerusalem. No one escapes the city and after 18 months the Israelites start to starve. The TV miniseries showed the Babylonians shooting fiery arrows over the wall and King Zedkiah turning to the prophet Jeremiah for help. The prophet tells the king to “repent and all will be well. God will save us.” Then almost in the same breath he says, “You’re too late,” and the scene moves to a battering ram at the gates. Jerusalem is destroyed and the temple is plundered and burned to the ground. The Jewish people flee including a man named Daniel who is taken captive. This works for the miniseries for the sake of time constraints, but in actuality he was taken captive to Babylon when Jehoiachin was deported.
“Nebuchadnezzar deported Jehoiachin to Babylon. Also, he took the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officials, and the leading men of the land into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:15)
The Daniel in episode 3 of The History Channel’s the Bible looked old compared to Daniel of the Bible who was taken captive as a youth (Daniel 1:3). The condensing of events is understandable for TV, but in actuality Daniel was in captivity about three years before he was to be “evaluated” by the king. The miniseries did a good job of showing Daniel’s visionary powers, and how Nebuchadnezzar grows to trust him after none of the other wise men, sorcerers, or seers could tell him his dream. Daniel not only tells him his dream, but what it means. Of course in the Bible more than one dream is interpreted, but the miniseries did a great job with the condensed version.
A large gold statue is constructed and everyone is expected to bow to it. When the music is played all the people bow except three Jewish men who remain standing. This was a powerful scene that created a strong visual of the faith they lived. Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar, “They will only worship God.” An angry Nebuchadnezzar vows that he will “make them bow.”
The scene of the fiery furnace left a little to be desired but overall the producers got the idea across when Daniel’s friends do not burn in the fierce flames and a fourth “man” appears in the fire with arms outstretched. His friends are not harmed and the miracle unites the people. They reaffirm their trust in God.
Daniel and the lions’ den
Cyrus, King of Persia conquers Babylon without a fight, and Daniel finds favor in his sight. Others who serve the new king are jealous of Daniel, and develop a plot. They know the only way to bring Daniel down is his God. The men flatter the king and trick him into creating a law that forbids the people to pray for a month. They know Daniel will not abide by this man-made law, and it will mean his life. Daniel goes up to his room, puts on his prayer shawl, faces east, and prays. Through lattice work in the room, his enemies witness the breaking of the law and Daniel is arrested and thrown into the lions’ den.
Cyrus does not sleep and asks for the door to be open. In the miniseries this happens the same night, but in the biblical account he waits until the following morning because it is the law. Daniel is found unharmed. Cyrus calls for Daniel to come out and says, “God is with you. You’re God is real. Your God has saved you. Your people will return to Jerusalem. Sadly they no longer have a temple to worship him.”
The Jews get to return to Jerusalem, but Daniel stays in Babylon. He says, “I fear for their future. I saw a great beast. It had great iron teeth and it devoured the whole world, but I saw one … this isn’t the end. It’s the beginning.” The narrative was a nice lead in to the New Testament.
Birth of Jesus
The miniseries featured flash scenes covering the next 500 years including information from extra-biblical texts. This worked as a segue to the New Testament times where Mary and Joseph are introduced through a modern day lens as Joseph thinks about how pretty Mary’s eyes as they gather in worship. Romans crash in and Joseph tells Mary to go back to her Father’s house. On the way she hears a voice. A burgundy-caped angel says, “The Lord is with you. Don’t be afraid. You will soon give birth to a son. He will be the son of the most high. The Holy Spirit will move in you. Don’t be afraid.”
By the time Joseph and Mary are shown next, he sees she’s is pregnant. She explains it is the work of God, but Joseph grows angry and says, “I thought I knew you.” When she explains that it is God’s child, he says, “Mary God doesn’t do this to people like us,” but an angel tells him, “Joseph son of David, be at peace. Take Mary as your wife. She is pure. The child she carries is from God.”
Joseph returns to Mary, where a crowd is surrounding her and calling her “whore.” Joseph shouts, “I believe her and I will still take her as my wife if she will have me.” This is much different than the biblical account where Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy but it does get the story across.
The miniseries depicts Mary and Joseph alone against the world, as the birth of the king of the Jews is announced in the heavens. Wise men quote scripture, “a scepter will rise out of Israel.” Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem and are caught in a fierce rain storm as she goes into labor and they can’t find a place to stay.
Herod
While the Bible doesn’t name the wise men, tradition names them: Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. The miniseries cuts to the astrologer Balthasar as he stands before Herod. He asks, “What can you tell me of the new king?”
Herod is portrayed as a crazy, self-indulgent King disturbed by this inquiry. “King of the Jews? Did you not come here to see Herod, King of the Jews. Then who is claiming to be king.”
Balthasar answers, “No one. He is not born yet. Surely your scribes have received the prophecy.” He returns to his companions and they follow the star as Herod goes into a tirade. This scene is rushed as Herod learns through the Scribes that the king will be born in Bethlehem. He sends his troops to kill all the babies in Bethlehem before Jesus is born.
“Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity, from eternity” (Micah 5:2)
In the biblical account, Herod doesn’t order the babies killed until he realizes the wise men are not returning to tell him where he can find the baby. In fact, in the Bible, when the wise men come to Jesus and Mary they are in a house and he is referred to as a “child” not a baby. This is why Herod’s order is to kill the baby boys two years and under.
In the miniseries, Joseph has a nightmare. He sees all the babies in Bethlehem being killed. “We have to leave now,” he says to Mary. “I can’t explain. Just trust me.”
Return to Galilee
After Herod dies, the people sense an opportunity to win their freedom, but the Roman response is brutal. The uprising is crushed and in Galilee alone, 2,000 people are crucified. In the scene where Joseph and Mary return to Galilee, Jesus looks to be about four or five years old. They come upon victims of crucifixion. Joseph reminds Mary that they must trust in God’s plan.
John the Baptist
At the River Jordan crowds flock to John the Baptist in the desert. Some people call him the Messiah, the Redeemer of the Jews, and the anointed by God, but he makes it clear “There is one to come, greater than me. I’m just a voice in the wilderness preparing the way.”
Jesus walks on the scene and tells John, “John what you are doing is right. Baptize me.” Following his baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness. For 40 days his spirit is tested, preparing him for the challenges to come. He walks like he is about to faint, then collapses with labored breathing. A snake slithers up beside him. Jesus trembles. A black robed Satan walks up to him, and Jesus stands. Satan tempts Jesus, but Jesus resists Satan’s temptations and gets ready for his ministry which will be without John the Baptist who has been arrested.
Jesus returns to his home region and goes to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. His mission begins here with Peter, a fisherman. When Peter asks, “What are we going to do?” Jesus answers, “Change the world.”
John the Baptist beheaded
John the Baptist continues to preach in prison. This part of the miniseries is quite different from the biblical account, but it ends with the prophet losing his head.
The History Channel’s The Bible part 3 overall did a good job of depicting biblical events within the time constraints needed for a project of this magnitude. While the miniseries is very good, it is important to remember it is not a replacement for actually reading God’s Word.
Donna Sundblad has read through the Bible more than 20 times in her life, but reading the Bible isn’t enough. In 2 Timothy, 2:15 we are told to “study.” Study involves many aspects including a look at the original …
_____________
My thoughts:
I’m stll enjoying engaging in discussions around the miniseries. Not a bad review, but still glaringly MIA (Missing In Action) is the story of redemption! I had hoped that the angel who told Jesus’ earthly dad Joseph would have included the rather important statement concerning the child in Mary’s womb “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
I was disappointed that the demonstration of the Trinity at Jesus’ baptism was omitted. to me that would have been something NOT to leave out. On the other hand, since the miniseries has in no way attempted to teach any actual doctrine in the first three segments, perhaps I should be complementing the miniseries on its consistency.
Also, I don’t remember hearing in this episode Jesus’ words recorded in the NT at the beginning of his ministry, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”, which is perhaps the best demonstration of the Trinity in the NT, if not the entire Bible.
Lastly (not really, but enough for now), the allegedly episode ending climactic answer to Peter’s question about what they would do, “Change the world.” is nowhere in scripture and probably sets the stage for Jesus’ ministry being portrayed mainly as a the ‘social gospel’ so prevalent in today’s liberal minded evangelical climate. Rick warren is undoubtedly proud of the miniseries and his own contribution as a technical;/spiritual advisor for the project.
According to the Apostle Paul,
“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)
The miniseries still has a couple of more episodes, but my hopes that it will get to the MIA plan of redemption are becoming dim.
Evangelistic Thoughts
“If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on public preaching of ‘the plan of salvation’ in America for one to two years. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airwaves and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God, and the Law of God until sinners would cry out, ‘What must we do to be saved?" Then I would take them off in a corner and whisper the gospel to them. Don’t use John 3:16. Such drastic action is needed because we have a gospel hardened generation of sinners by telling them how to be saved before they have any understanding why they need to be saved.” – Paris Reidhead
“The gospel of submission, commitment, decision, and victorious living is not good news about what God has achieved but a demand to save ourselves with God’s help. Besides the fact that Scripture never refers to the gospel as having a personal relationship with Jesus nor defines faith as a decision to ask Jesus to come into our heart, this concept of salvation fails to realize that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified coheir with Christ and adopted child of the Father.” – Michael S. Horton
“Let eloquence be flung to the dogs rather than souls be lost. What we want is to win souls. They are not won by flowery speeches.” – Charles H. Spurgeon
“Our business is to present the Christian faith clothed in modern terms, not to propagate modern thought clothed in Christian terms. Confusion here is fatal.” – J. I. Packer
“The Holy Spirit can’t save saints or seats. If we don’t know any non-Christians, how can we introduce them to the Savior?” – Paul Little
“Evangelism is not salesmanship It is not urging people, pressing them, coercing them, overwhelming them, or subduing them. Evangelism is telling a message. Evangelism is reporting good news.” - Richard C. Halverson
“Love your fellowmen, and cry about them if you cannot bring them to Christ. If you cannot save them, you can weep over them. If you cannot give them a drop of cold water in hell, you can give them your heart’s tears while they are still in this body.” – C. H. Spurgeon
“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46)” ― Jesus Christ
The Blogs, the Battles and the Gospel
by Tim Challies
The blogosphere in general and the Christian blogosphere in particular has had its share of successes, but also its share of failures. Many of its most egregious and public failures have been in the realm of polemics—discussing or debating controversial topics. Many bloggers have mastered all the practical rules of blogging, the short paragraphs, the use of subheadings, the best times and dates to post their articles. But these same bloggers, myself included, would do well to work toward mastering the spiritual rules of blogging.
I recently found help in an unusual place, Robert R. Booth’s Children of the Promise, a book on the always-controversial subject of baptism. He says
We know we understand an opposing view only when we are able to articulate it and receive the affirmation of our opponent that we have accurately represented his position. Only then can we proceed to argue against it. It does not take a big man to push over a straw man—little men are up to this simple task. Nor is it enough to say that our brother is wrong, or silly, or that his arguments make no sense; we must be prepared to demonstrate such claims. Some argue that they do not need to demonstrate such claims. Some argue they do not need to understand opposing views. But they cannot expect to engage people who disagree with them.
Indeed, and this applies to discussions far beyond baptism. In a recent article Tony Payne turns to football (soccer) to provide the helpful illustration of playing the ball rather than the man. “As in football, so in debates and arguments, we should strive to play the ball not the man; to discuss the issue itself rather than attack the person presenting the issue. This is not easy. It requires the ability to separate the pros and cons of a particular argument or issue from the personality who is presenting them, and to subject your own arguments to the same honest scrutiny that you bring to bear on the alternative view.”
You know you’re dealing with someone who is playing the man not the ball when he makes a straw man of your view; that is, when he presents your side of things in an extreme or ugly light, or describes or illustrates it in such a way as to make it unattractive. By contrast, a ball-player endeavours to describe and present the opposing view as fairly and reasonably as he would like someone to present his own view.
Ball-players also freely and honestly acknowledge what is good and right in the opposing view, and avoid intemperately damning the whole because of a defect in the parts. They seek to stick to the issue at hand, and not broaden or generalize the disagreement into a questioning of character or bona fides.
Playing the ball also means seeking to remain in good relationship with the person you’re disagreeing with, so that you can hopefully shake hands and share a coffee after your debate, or continue to work together on other projects or platforms. This is the ideal, and we should strive for it—to avoid targetting the person, and to deal instead with the issue, in the hope of coming to a common mind.
A very helpful and extensive word on gospel polemics comes from Tim Keller. It bears regular and repeated readings. Keller looks to D.A. Carson and several other theologians and arrives at seven rules that should guide our discussions, our polemics, our controveries, our words.
#1. Carson’s Rule
The first rule comes from D.A. Carson and states You don’t have to follow Matthew 18 before publishing polemics. ”[I]f someone is publicly presenting theological views that are opposed to sound doctrine, and you are not in the same ecclesiastical body with this person (that is, there is no body of elders over you both, as when, for example, both of you are ministers in the same denomination,) then you may indeed publicly oppose those without going privately to the author of them. Carson does add a qualifier, but that comes under the next rule.”
#2. Murray’s Rule
The second rule comes from John Murray and states You must take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of someone’s views. “In our internet age we are very quick to dash off a response because we think Mr A promotes X. And when someone points out that Mr A didn’t mean X because over here he said Y, we simply apologize, or maybe we don’t even do that. John Murray’s principle means that polemics must never be ‘dashed off.’ Great care should be taken to be sure you really know what Mr A believes and promotes before you publish.” To rule #2 I might add that if you have a relationship with a person with whom you disagree, it may be wise to attempt to contact that person to ensure that you have, indeed, understood their position and are now able to accurately represent it.
#3. Alexander’s Rule
The third rule comes from Archibald Alexander and states Never attribute an opinion to your opponent that he himself does not own. “[E]ven if you believe that Mr A’s belief X could or will lead others who hold that position to belief Y, do not accuse Mr A of holding to belief Y himself, if he disowns it. You may consider him inconsistent, but it is one thing to say that and another thing to tar him with belief Y by implying or insisting that he actually holds it when he does not. A similar move happens when you imply or argue that, if Mr A quotes a particular author favorably at any point, then Mr A must hold to all the views that the author holds at other points. If you, through guilt-by-association, hint or insist that Mr A must hold other beliefs of that particular author, then you are violating Alexander’s Rule and, indeed, Murray’s Rule. You are misrepresenting your opponent.”
#4. Gillespie’s Rule A
The fourth rule is from George Gillespie and states Take your opponents’ views in total, not selectively. “Just because someone says (or fails to say something) in one setting—either for good reasons or because of a misstep—does not mean he fails to say it repeatedly and emphatically in the rest of his work. Gillespie is saying, ‘Be sure that what you say is Mr X’s position really is his settled view. You can’t infer that from one instance.’ If we build a case on such instances, we are in danger of falling afoul of Murray’s rule as well. We must take responsibility for misrepresenting the views of others.”
#5. Gillespie’s Rule B
The fifth rule also belongs to Gillespie and states Represent and engage your opponents’ position in its very strongest form, not in a weak ‘straw man’ form. “Do all the work necessary until you can articulate the views of your opponent with such strength that he says, ‘I couldn’t have said it better myself.’ Then and only then will your polemics not misrepresent him, take his views in toto, and actually have the possibility of being persuasive.”
#6. Calvin’s Rule
The sixth rule is Calvin’s and states Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives! “It is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of a self-centeredness, rather than a God-centeredness. We may do it to be popular. On the other hand, it is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking very closely at our motives, we should be sure our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of them.”
#7. Everybody’s Rule
The seventh and final rule belongs to each of the previous six theologians and states Only God sees the heart—so remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology. Keller goes to John Newton and says “no one has written more eloquently about this rule than John Newton, in his well-known ‘Letter on Controversy.’ Newton says that first, before you begin to write a single word against an opponent, ‘and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing.’ This practice will stir up love for him and ‘such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.’ Later in the letter Newton says, ‘Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who ‘when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.’ ‘It is a great danger to aim to ‘gain the laugh on your side,’ to make your opponent look evil and ridiculous instead of engaging their views with ‘the compassion due to the souls of men.’”
I commend these seven rules to my fellow bloggers and to all of us who engage in online discussion. May we exemplify gospel-centered and God-glorifying polemics.
____________________
It’s NOT about marriage, it’s about normalization. . .Al Mohler
There is a most excellent commentary that explains the title of this post at AlbertMohler.com this morning. I for one agree with Dr. Mohler’s evaluation.
The History Channel’s “The Bible” Part 2
Well, Part 2 of the epic miniseries has come and gone.
It began of course with the same caveat at the outset that it was an ‘adaptation of Bible stories’ and would’ endeavor to stay true to the spirit of the book’. I will also say that it this viewing served as good ‘refresher’ concerning the details of the stories presented in this second installment, but not because of the accuracy of the miniseries. I watched it with IPhone in hand, ESV Bible loaded, easily navigating to the actual accounts of each story and doing a little ‘real time’ fact checking.
Concerning the accuracy of Part 2, I found an online source that provided a high level overview:
Jericho
The second part of The Bible opened with the story of Jericho. Two men scaled the walls of the ancient city, killed some men who spotted them and run from others as they seek a place to hide. The spies find sanctuary in the home of Rahab the harlot because her door is unlocked. Those details are not in the Bible, but can work as a possible scenario. However, in the TV miniseries, instead of hiding them under flax drying on the roof, they escape over the wall with little help from Rahab.
“But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. So she said, “Yes, the men did come to me, but I didn’t know where they were from. At nightfall, when the gate was about to close, the men went out, and I don’t know where they were going. Chase after them quickly, and you can catch up with them!” But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them among the stalks of flax that she had arranged on the roof. (Joshua 2:4-6 HCSB)”
In The Bible miniseries, when the angel appeared to Joshua he delivered God’s message and says that God parted the water for Moses and that for Joshua he would split rock. Joshua 6:5 tells it differently:
“When there is a prolonged blast of the horn and you hear its sound, have all the people give a mighty shout. Then the city wall will collapse, and the people will advance, each man straight ahead.”
Samson
The story of The Bible fast forwarded to 100 years after Joshua. The 12 tribes were spread out throughout the Promised Land, and viewers met the Israel’s oppressors, the Philistines, and the Bible’s strong man, Samson the judge. An angel appeared to Samson’s mother and predicts she will bear a son but there is no mention of his father, Manoah. The angel explains her son will be raised as a Narzarite. The entire Samson scene was loosely based on the biblical account…very loosely. The Samson of the miniseries was portrayed as a godly man seeking what God wanted him to do, when the biblical account reveals a man set apart for God, but who often lives in rebellion to God’s desires to follow his own fleshly desires.
Prophet Samuel
The prophet Samuel was introduced when he is old in the March 10 airing of The Bible. The people come asking him for a king. The Bible says they wanted a king like other nations.
“They said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not follow your example. Therefore, appoint a king to judge us the same as all the other nations have” (1 Samuel 8:5 HCSB)”
They were putting the world’s ways and their own desires above God’s ways. In The Bible miniseries, they asked for a king because Samuel’s sons were corrupt and they wanted someone in place to lead them when Samuel died. This is a plausible scenario. King Saul was chosen. The account of Saul’s disobedience, while abridged, did a decent job of getting across the fact that he displeased God.
King David
The shepherd boy David was introduced without his brothers being mentioned. The fight with Goliath and the troubled relationship with King Saul were depicted with less literary license and once Saul died, they showed David sneaking through the aqueducts into the city of Jerusalem with his men to claim his kingship. The series skipped over the seven year gap between Saul’s death and Jerusalem accepting David as king, and it didn’t include the many wives and children he acquired before Bathsheba was introduced. More importantly it doesn’t show David’s humility, true desire to do God’s will, or his repentant heart.
While this second installment of The Bible miniseries made for good TV, for this viewer it strayed a little too far from the actual accounts.
http://www.examiner.com/review/the-bible-part-2-strays-from-biblical-account
There is much more to say in the ‘accuracy’ department for this installment and there is still more to come, however there seems to be a ‘theme’ emerging for the miniseries; that of finally securing the ‘promised’ land and a unified Israel. Call it the grand vision for the nation of Israel, hindered by poor leadership on the part of prophets, judges, and kings.
If that is an accurate assessment, the miniseries is failing the ‘staying true to the spirit of the text’ test. The ‘spirit’ of the text of the Bible isn’t just about the nation of Israel, but about God’s initial creation, the Fall into sin and depravity, and God’s plan to redeem His chosen people in spite of their continuous sin and rebellion against Him.
So far, the overarching theme of sin and redemption is conspicuously MIA (missing in action).
Heavy sigh. . . . .
If you want to listen to a detailed and well done critique, go to Fighting For The Faith and Chris Rosebrough’s broadcast.
“The work is not mine, but Thine.”
Those are words from Martin Luther and part of a prayer Luther wrote in the hours before his second appearance at the Diet of Worms, which had convened in 1521 and before which Luther was summoned and asked to recant his writings. At his initial appearance before the Diet, when asked by Johann vn Eck if he recanted his writings, Luther asked for time to think it over. It was during that time between sessions that he wrote the following prayer:
O God, Almighty God everlasting! how dreadful is the world! behold how its mouth opens to swallow me up, and how small is my faith in Thee! . . . Oh! the weakness of the flesh, and the power of Satan! If I am to depend upon any strength of this world – all is over . . . The knell is struck . . . Sentence is gone forth . . . O God! O God! O thou, my God! help me against the wisdom of this world. Do this, I beseech thee; thou shouldst do this . . . by thy own mighty power . . . The work is not mine, but Thine. I have no business here . . . I have nothing to contend for with these great men of the world! I would gladly pass my days in happiness and peace. But the cause is Thine . . . And it is righteous and everlasting! O Lord! help me! O faithful and unchangeable God! I lean not upon man. It were vain! Whatever is of man is tottering, whatever proceeds from him must fail. My God! my God! dost thou not hear? My God! art thou no longer living? Nay, thou canst not die. Thou dost but hide Thyself. Thou hast chosen me for this work. I know it! . . . Therefore, O God, accomplish thine own will! Forsake me not, for the sake of thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, my defence, my buckler, and my stronghold.
Lord – where art thou? . . . My God, where art thou? . . . Come! I pray thee, I am ready . . . Behold me prepared to lay down my life for thy truth . . . suffering like a lamb. For the cause is holy. It is thine own! . . . I will not let thee go! no, nor yet for all eternity! And though the world should be thronged with devils – and this body, which is the work of thine hands, should be cast forth, trodden under foot, cut in pieces, . . . consumed to ashes, my soul is thine. Yes, I have thine own word to assure me of it. My soul belongs to thee, and will abide with thee forever! Amen! O God send help! . . . Amen!
While Luther’s “Here I stand!” speech at his next appearance before the Diet is by far his most famous, and has been memorialized on the silver screen forever, this humble prayer prepared Luther for the ‘final showdown’, as it were, and set the course of the rest of Luther’s life.
Perhaps this is a prayer to remember and pray even today, but from within the ranks of Protestant evangelicalism.
Foor for thought. . .
The Battle Cry 