Let's Talk About The Chosen
Introduction
I have been trained to write introductions with a witty or compelling sentence or paragraph to captivate the reader. However, I write this article knowing full well that not everyone will agree with what I am about to say, and I would rather skip all the waxing eloquently to get straight to the point. I cover a heavily controversial topic and I write this fearing no man on what may come. For, “I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot prevail” (Jeremiah 20:9b) and
I am full of words; / The spirit within my belly presses me. / Behold, my belly is like unvented wine, not opened; / Like new wineskins it is about to burst. / Let me speak that I may get relief; / Let me open my lips and answer. / Let me now be partial to no one, / Nor flatter any man. / For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon carry me away (Job 32:18–22).
And though I am young, I think I too may have a say in this discussion (Job 32:6–10).
That said, I wish to express my personal views of The Chosen. I have watched the first two seasons in full along with several additional videos the team has produced, so I feel that I have a knowledgeable say in this discussion. I will first survey some things I appreciate about the show; then, I will survey what I dislike; finally, I will touch on the more current controversy on the line “I am the Law of Moses.” I will also conclude this article with my personal advice to those wondering whether they should continue to watch it: I will say here, my answer is no and I will no longer watch it either for at least the reasons stated below.
What I Appreciate About The Chosen
I remember recently, a brother pulled a few other Christians and me aside into a small group meeting to talk about The Chosen. He probed our thoughts on the show as a whole seeking to gain some clarity and whether we, as a group, could confidently affirm that we had a united view of this show. I purposely did not go first, because I wanted to see where everyone else stood, so I could carefully craft what I needed to say and what did not need to be said. When it came time for me to answer, I started with what I appreciated; here’s what I contributed:
I appreciate the effort and scrutiny Jenkins puts in to crafting the show, both the script and the atmosphere. Jenkins wisely and purposefully included a team of what he considers to be the theological experts, who would carefully write and review all elements of the show.[1] This is for the purpose of setting up guards against blatant theological error and heresy, to test the creative licensing that naturally occurs in a television show, and to develop the personalities of the biblical characters—among many other purposes. The fact that Jenkins applies this principle indicates he is at least vaguely conscious of the dangers which have and could come along in creating a life of Christ film and series.
I also appreciate the cultural accuracy. When I first watched the show in Bible College, I was working through a Life of Christ class. My teacher did not recommend the show (and he critiqued it in class at times, among others). However, I thought it would be both fun and edifying for me to watch the free show as I went through the class, if nothing else, for the purpose of seeing whether or not it was accurate. I can confidently say that the writers and producers of The Chosen seem to do a sufficient job in recreating the culture of 1st century Israel and Rome.
Another aspect I enjoy (though cautiously) is the display of Christ’s true humanity. Most shows and movies make the leader of God’s people, especially in life of Christ films, very stoic and untouchable—or in some way, divine. Now it is true that Christ was true God of true God, Light from Light eternal; nevertheless, most films portray Christ’s true deity to the detriment of His true humanity, man from a virgin mother. The Chosen typically does a sufficient job at portraying Christ’s true humanity.[2]
This summarizes my thoughts on what I can appreciate about The Chosen. Nevertheless, though they do a good job on these 3 points, the show is not without its critiques.
What I Dislike About The Chosen
Before I begin, I recognize my points may differ with other God-fearing Christians. Part of that disagreement is due to different theological backgrounds (e.g., the violation of the second commandment of Moses, aka 2CV). Some of the disagreement, or lack thereof, is due to what I think some have stretched too far. So, some may find a critique of which they have never thought, others may find that I left something out which would be really important to them. Again, that is fine with me. I realize that by putting my honest thoughts out on the internet, I am practically begging like-minded folks from all sorts of denominations and organizations/associations to be offended or to disagree—or worse yet, become my brotherly enemy!—on these matters. Such does not bother me. I stand on my convictions from the Word and conscience.
That said, here are my dislikes and concerns:
The first aspect of this show I disliked was its lack of biblical chronology.[3] I am aware that Jenkins is particularly trying to display what the life of Christ was like to the eyes of those around Him. I suppose this is fine; however, I wish Jenkins would have put more effort into keeping it as close to the chronology as possible. It is not that difficult to pick up Robert Thomas’ and Stanley Gundry’s Harmony of the Gospels or One Perfect Life by John MacArthur and use it. Plus, he has a team of consultants that he deems are theological experts (more on this in a minute); surely they could do a better job of guiding the storyline, could they not?
One reason I have a problem with this is because it gives a bad portrayal of the life of the Messiah. Christians since the second century have put in painstaking efforts to preserve a legitimate and accurate chronology for apologetic and reading purposes.[4] In an age of people almost naturally assuming contradiction between the Synoptics and John, it would have been better to keep at least one form of legitimate chronology, if nothing else, as an extra benefit to the show.[5] I recognize that not everyone will even care about this point, or they will find me nit-picky. That is their right. But it was the first thing I noticed as a student in the Life of Christ class, and it was really annoying for me, if for no one else, and I feel I have provided sufficient reason for why it should have been done differently.
I also have a distaste for quite a bit of the creative liberties taken. I understand: if you’re going to make a show or movie on a historical event, naturally some creative details will be made. That honestly does not concern me too much (so long as the viewer understands that it is simply creative licensing). For example, the Ark Encounter, done by the wonderful people at Answers in Genesis took massive creative licensing (what they wittingly call “Arktistic” licensing) with Noah’s family and some of the story. However, there is such a thing as going too far, especially when it comes to the gospel and the Gospels.
For example, while I am not too concerned about Christ rehearsing His own sermon for the Sermon on the Mount event, I do find it a bit odd that He specifically has Matthew writing things down in the rehearsal and asking for Matthew’s advice. On the one hand, rehearsing is something that acknowledges Christ’s humanity and the reality that He might have had to think through some details via His incarnation; on the other hand, the aspect of Matthew seems a bit ridiculous.
And while we’re on the subject: I don’t understand why they made Matthew seemingly autistic. It seems it is for the sole purpose of making the point that Christ calls unlikely people for His work and to appeal to the idea that not everyone is “normal” in Christian service. But does that point really need to be made, at least with one of the future apostles? And especially with Matthew, who was already a tax-collector—how much more “abnormal” or “unlikely” does one need to get? Tax-collectors were hated by fellow Israelites because they were betrayers and, in the Jewish mind, too far from salvation or ministry. The whole thing seems forced and I don’t like it. I get that some will not like what I said or will disagree with me, but that is how I feel about the whole situation.
There is also some irreverence to deity in the show, and I strongly dislike that. Probably the biggest example of this is the episode in which the wedding at Cana occurs. At some point, the disciples begin to dance and Jesus joins in. As the whole crowd is celebrating in this interesting dance, Peter asks Jesus if He will help Andrew improve his dancing skills, to which Jesus responds wittingly, “Some things, even I cannot do.”[6] Now again, perhaps I am being too nit-picky, but it seems to me this is a bit irreverent. I highly doubt Christ would ever joke about His divine nature. After all, it is not just that Jesus is divine, or that He is God; it is a reality that Christ is Yahweh of Hosts and, if one is familiar with or gives a cursory glance at, the Old Testament—in which the theology of Yahweh is greatly established—this is no laughing matter. Yahweh is holy (Lev. 19:11) and the proclamation of His attributes would have been enough to slay Moses, were it not for Moses being covered both by the cleft of the rock and Yahweh’s hand while only looking at Yahweh’s backside (Ex. 33:22; 34:6–7). Isaiah presents not one witty comment about Christ’s glory, but instead confesses his sin in the presence of such holiness (Isa. 6:5; cf. John 12:41). So, perhaps I am nit-picky, but if so, then I am being nit-picky with the Old and New Testaments, and their company matters more to me than anyone else’s.
I further have strong concern that both some actors and consultants are not evangelical Christians, but are Roman Catholics. There is the issue with Mormonism as well, but I do not wish to focus on that in this article; however, the Roman Catholic aspect cannot be ignored. If one watches any of the behind the scenes content of the show, it will be painfully obvious that Roman Catholics are involved. There is a priest who is one of the consultants for the show. The man who plays Jesus is Roman Catholic. Now some might not be bothered by this, but I am, and it’s because I believe that evangelicals should not be ecumenical with Roman Catholics, giving the impression that they have the true gospel, and that we can work with them on portraying Scripture accurately. It is abundantly clear in church history that the Roman Catholic Church has lost the gospel and has become an apostate church by and large, and that they do not have a biblical view of Scripture. Because of that factor, we cannot expect that they will accurately handle Scripture. If they cannot accurately handle Scripture, why would anyone think that it is a good idea consulting a Roman Catholic on the life of Jesus, or letting Roman Catholics play key biblical roles? My mind cannot fathom this.
In fact, what’s most concerning is the man who plays Jesus. In an interview recently, Jonathan Roumie was asked how he prepares to have the mind of Jesus Christ when he gets into acting mode.[7] In it, he acknowledges rightly that no one can truly have the mind of Christ. However, he then describes what spiritual disciplines he practices to aid him in being the most mature and godly he could possibly be in his acting. He states, “I can never get into the mind of Jesus and I don’t even try; You don’t do that, how do you enter the mind of God.” The reporter then asks how he prepares for the role, to which Roumie replies, “I start by praying; it starts with prayer.” But catch what he says after this: “I go to my faith, I read my Bible, I pray, I go to Mass, I partake in the [assumingly Roman Catholic] sacraments—I do the things that fill me up spiritually to prep me for the weeks ahead. And that’s how I know that I’m suited up, you know? The armor of God literally; that’s my armor” (emphasis added).
Think about what Jonathan just said: going to Mass and partaking of the Roman Catholic sacraments is part of his armor of God (which I don’t find in Ephesians 6:10–18, by the way) and they are what fills him up spiritually for the role of Jesus Christ, the Savior of those who believe. I’m sorry, but if someone thinks that there is neutrality when it comes to how the actors are portraying their view of the Savior and the disciples, they are flat out mistaken. Space would not allow, but more could be said on the issue of Mary and how she is portrayed in the show, as well as many other moderate interpretations of certain events in the life of Christ. I do not apologize for this: the Roman Catholic aspect of Jesus is heavy in the show and I fear it will only increase more. That cannot be ignored.
Finally, I strongly dislike the culture this show is creating. This has less to do with content and more to do with following, I readily admit. However, while the creators cannot control something like this, it should not be ignored that the following is becoming more concerning. I cannot cite a specific example but if one does a casual scan through the comments of Facebook posts and YouTube videos, one will find several people who practically take the show as gospel. I recall one person remarking pointedly that he fears the day when someone will claim that Jesus said something that He never actually said, but rather that was said in the show. This is partly because people emotionally attach themselves so much to the messages that this show conveys to the point that they have a warped view of the biblical record and what Scripture actually states. I too fear what seems to be the cult following that this show brings. And again, I readily acknowledge that this may well be outside of the creators’ abilities to control, but it is a fearful thing and I fear that they will need to give an account to the Lord for these things.
I find people putting more hope in the message of The Chosen than in the message of the Bible. I find them looking for spiritual nourishment and food from a television show that has proven to inaccurately display the life of Christ on a variety of accounts, rather than going to the infallible word of God and study it deeply. Surely, this cannot be ignored in good conscience, can it?
Someone might think I have left some things out. I did. I do not have the space to write all of the concerns I have, plus some concerns people have raised are not necessarily concerns I share. But I think these five concerns are sufficient to make my point.
Is Jesus the Law of Moses?
One final controversial subject should be addressed: is Jesus the Law of Moses? In the season 3 trailer, what was considered the mic drop moment is that, Jesus said to the Pharisees He is the Law of Moses. This quickly gained backlash on social media accusing Jenkins of quoting the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 15:9); Dallas Jenkins responded accordingly.[8]
Some pastors I know said they would hold off some criticism of the line until they see it in context. To this, I would disagree because it seems to me that the trailer provides enough context to know what Jenkins was getting at.
The context appears to be that Jesus is doing something the Pharisees disagree with. The Pharisees obviously think that what Jesus is either saying or doing is contradicting God's precepts and the Jewish religion, and therefore if He does not recant, they must follow the Law of Moses (hinting at some sort of punishment, probably stoning Jesus to death).
To this, Jesus replies that He is the Law of Moses, which it appears that Jenkins, based on his response to criticism and the charitable assumption from the viewer, is implying that Jesus fulfills the Law of Moses. The point is that there is irony: the Pharisees wish to obey the Law of Moses but they miss the fact that Jesus fulfills it.
However, the problem still stands that Scripture never says Jesus actually is the law. It only says that He came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:18). To this, Jenkins replies that it is theologically plausible to say that Jesus is the Law of Moses because He is the Word of God, the Law of Moses is the word of God, and Jesus fulfills the Law of Moses. I understand what he is getting at. I also understand that he is not actively trying to quote the Book of Mormon.
That said, it is a problem that Scripture never goes as far to say that Jesus is the Law of Moses itself. Part of this is because theologically, Scripture argues that when Jesus comes, He establishes the new covenant and in the New Covenant, He establishes a new law with a new priesthood (Heb. 7:12, 22–24; 10:1). This law is called the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). It seems problematic to me to say that Jesus is the Law of Moses when He came to establish a new law.
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not Jenkins is trying to actively quote The Book of Mormon, the issue still stands that he had this portrayal of Jesus say something that Scripture does not say, and the Book of Mormon does explicitly say. Regardless of his intentions, what he is arguing to be theologically plausible is something that agrees with the Book of Mormon and probably very few Christians of church history ever argued. I'm not calling Jenkins a heretic for saying what he said. I'm just arguing that his defense is pretty weak. I'm also arguing that these people who say there needs to be more context are mistaken because the trailer itself provides a sufficient amount of context to understand the theological point the show is trying to make.
So, in my estimation, it is still problematic that this line was stated, regardless of Jenkins' intentions. Again, I understand that not everyone will agree with my point. But this is my point and I stand by it.
So What Should I Do?
In summarizing this article, I wish to simply give my personal advice. I would recommend that, unless one is a careful and discerning Christian, it is probably best to forego watching The Chosen. More could be said on other effects it causes, such as giving a picture of Jesus that one will impose upon the text of Scripture when they read it. Again, space simply does not allow me to address further issues like that.
Based on my list of appreciations and dislikes, this article can perhaps help guide the person interested in watching the show. It may also help them navigate what to do when the creators defend a position they take and to critically evaluate whether the defense should be accepted or not.
If one were simply watching The Chosen to gain a general idea of the cultural aspects on first century Rome and Israel, I think watching The Chosen could potentially give a visual picture of that. If one wishes to see a decently executed emphasis on Jesus’s true humanity, The Chosen could prove helpful to that degree.
But let me make haste in saying that, in general, one should not look to this show for robust theology. They should also be carefully discerning of the non-neutral Roman Catholic ties, as well as the inexcusable lack of chronological structure that this show has.
In sum, the reasons which most people have for watching the show are not the aspects in which I think the creators do a good job and so I personally do not encourage people watching it. What they do a good job on (e.g., the cultural aspect), most people are not looking to learn and even then, could be learned from reading Bible supplements.
And again, I get it: not everyone’s going to agree with me on all these points. I recognize that people who are close to me will strongly disagree with what I have written here. I don’t expect to change everyone’s mind on this. But I do wish to take a stand on what I find important. And I will stand here, based on my conviction of Scripture and my conscience in truth. May the Lord bless the reading of this article.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of any organization or affiliate associated with the author.
Obadiah serves as the Director of Admissions at Brookes Bible College in St. Louis, MO, and is currently pursuing an M.Div at Shepherds Theological Seminary located in Cary, NC. He has also served in a variety of teaching ministries in his local church, especially 1st–3rd grade Sunday school and other various children’s programs. You can find Obadiah on Facebook and Twitter, and read his personal blog at www.slaveofyahblog.wordpress.com.
References:
[1] I want to note here that while I appreciate Jenkins’ efforts in setting this up, this does not mean I agree with specifically how he did this or with whom he did this. I am merely pointing out the principle he is following is a wise principle. The execution of the principle is a whole other discussion.
[2] This does not mean the writers never go too far. I do think that is the case. However, I think some of the cases that have been argued by others have been a bit of a stretch.
[3] Perhaps the best example of this is found in season one, episode seven, in which the events of John 3 occur. It is obvious from the context of the previous episodes and following episodes that Jesus is still in Capernaum when He has His conversation with Nicodemus; it is also prevalent in episode seven itself as Jesus invites Nicodemus to join Him before He leaves Galilee. However, the Gospels indicate otherwise: Jesus had this conversation in Jerusalem (cf. John 2:23) before He would depart through Samaria.
Some might say this is an unimportant detail but it is problematic for two reasons: (1) chiefly, it is restructuring even the obvious chronology of the Gospels, which is concerning. It shows not only a problematic view of the questionable timelines, but it also shows a complete disregard of what Scripture is unequivocally clear on—all for what, the dramatized impact of a narrative?
(2) There is a detail in the biblical account that is often overlooked but important: Jesus is intentional to walk through Samaria from Jerusalem because the Pharisees are after Him, especially after they have already persecuted John the Baptist by arresting him. Jesus’ move through Samaria is strategic, because He knows the Pharisees would dare not enter that region, due to the conflict and hate Jews and Samaritans shared between one another. It shows that Christ, unlike the Pharisees, is gracious even to the Samaritan people and it also proves that He was a wise man.
Points like these are missed when one ignores the biblical chronology, especially uncontested parts.
[4] See Tatian’s Diatessaron, for example.
[5] I say legitimate in the sense that, while there is only one true actual sequence of Christ’s life, in the scholarly discipline of piecing these together, there a variety of views on specific events and details, which any one could potentially be the actual occurrence. It is just a point to say, people have worked hard to give some sort of harmonization.
[6] For the clip in context, click the following link: https://youtu.be/rka6tntYrSQ?t=103.
[7] The full interview can be watched by the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXykbXiLSac&t=135s. My specific quotation can be viewed beginning at the time stamp 1:17.
[8] To see Jenkins’ reply, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2qT8wKKpb8&t=594s.