Here I’m talking about the wildly popular television series called The Chosen.
I’d like to try to set the tone here. This is an attempt at a Biblical evaluation of the subject. Like in Acts 17:11 where it says the Bereans were more noble because they went and searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was correct. I only enter into it because I think it has bearing on people’s souls. I have no need to be right or defensive about it. I am attempting to speak truth in love. Love cannot exist without truth and truth without love is a sounding gong, and all that. That being said, truth isn’t always comfortable. People who disagree on any subject (me included) have to be wary of responding in anger because of not liking the feeling of being challenged or feeling a sense of humiliation at being wrong.
For a second point I want to use an analogy: A person doesn’t need to drink from a cup of dirty water to know its dirty. If there are enough other indications, such as being able to see it or knowing where it came from, no reasonable person is going say you should drink the water to make sure it is dirty.
So now, if I may, I’d like to present my thoughts and concerns about the popular series The Chosen.
Many questions could be asked about the series. Most of the questions may have value, but not all are of utmost importance. The question of utmost importance is: Does the series present the true Christ? This is an important question because the producers claim to be presenting the authentic Jesus Christ.
Other questions are: Is it okay to add (supposed) cultural context? It is okay to add possible daily dialogue. Those kinds of questions are more directly about the content of the show.
There have also been a lot of questions about the people producing the show. These questions, while not directly related to the content of the show are indicators of how the content might need to be evaluated.
To give an example from a completely different subject:
I was recently shown an evaluation of red meat. This evaluation was done by a group of scientists at the highest levels of world government. They said they looked at about 800 research papers and concluded that red meat can be very dangerous for human health, causing everything from heart disease to cancer. But when you hear that 1) nearly all of these scientists have been vegetarians for years and 2) many of them are animal rights activists, it is reasonable to wonder about their conclusions. And it probably wouldn’t surprise you to find out that at the most they looked at about 2% of that number of papers they claimed to have looked at. Plus, there are reports of them silencing others who disagreed with their convenient conclusion.
Admittedly, the fact that they are vegetarians doesn’t make their conclusions wrong, but it should lead others to at least closely examine what is being claimed. So it is reasonable with the show The Chosen to examine the character and motives of those involved with producing it. It doesn’t make the show unscriptural, but it is reasonable to be suspicious.
There are other things being brought up by both those concerned about the message of the show and those who say “it is just a show.” The points on both sides can bring up some Biblical principles, but when taken apart from the most important question can be a bit of a distraction. I think we should start with the most important thing first.
People are asking things like What place does video have in presenting the gospel? What are the religious views and activities of the producers and actors? How should we do business with non-Christians? Will artistically creative films like this inspire people to read the Bible?
The Bible explains in John 1:1 that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Many times in the past when I have contemplated this verse I have thought about the time period that God chose to be incarnate in. In the time period during which he came in the flesh there was an interconnectedness for major parts of the world’s population for travel and communication. There wasn’t, however, the level of technology where people could make anything look like it was happening on visual media. No photoshopping or CGI. People’s visual experiences were firmly based on and limited to the realities of both the physical and the spiritual worlds. This made what happened with Jesus Christ during his life and death more obviously verifiable. It makes the Word as written an objective document.
For some reason, a lot of people think the Bible is dry and non-personal. Maybe this is because they’ve been burned out on how history is presented in institutional schools? Or maybe it is because they read small sections and don’t understand it. The fact is that the Bible both verifies and explains itself. It is also incredibly exciting in many ways. It does not need modern film making to “bring it to life.” God has not been waiting 2000 years for technology to finally be around so people could finally feel connected to the scripture and all it portrays. It is God’s Word. What could be more full of life and power than that?
As such, we can expect the Bible to give us a full and reliable portrayal of Jesus Christ. No other representation should be looked to to more authentically or accurately show us who the person Jesus Christ is.
But is a film representation of Jesus Christ inherently wrong? I have seen some reviews claim it is violating the command not to have graven images, as found in Exodus 20:4. That command is specifically about images to be worshipped. Even the tabernacle and temple had images of cherubim in them as described to Moses by God, so the command cannot be saying don’t make any statues or representations of any sort. It is saying don’t make images to worship.
So the question then becomes: Are the actors portraying Jesus themselves being worshipped or even attempting to be worshipped? A important related question is: Is it the responsibility of the actor or producers if this is happening?
I don’t think this is a real concern in most cases. Whether or not someone twists that in their own mind is not the fault of the actor if he is clear that he is being an actor.
Still, it seems reasonable to ask if the whole idea of representing Jesus Christ in any visual way is evaluated as seriously as it needs to be. If a person understands that Jesus is both God and man, then at the very least it should be done with fear and trembling. I, for one, would never be comfortable trying to act like God, even in a movie.
I also have to strongly question creating and marketing a movie about Jesus Christ in a way that profits individuals or businesses, aside from paying proper wages for work that is hired. I understand the scriptural basis for providing support for those who are using their time and energy to minister in the church or be evangelists, but that is never about making profit. That is presented as basic sustenance. I do think the example of Jesus chasing out the moneychangers is applicable in this sense.
The moneychangers were actually involved in transactions that were for worship in the temple, and Jesus said it was still wrong. I think the example of Simon, previously a sorcerer, in Acts 8 is also applicable here. In verse 13 it says Simon himself also believed. But in verse 18 it says: Now when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands, he offered them money, saying “also give me this power that whomever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money.”
Despite the propaganda, if you look into the financials of all of this, these people are making a huge profit on The Chosen. So this is an indicator that maybe it should be evaluated more.
Now, just to be clear, I don’t think there is anything wrong with profit. In fact, I think that profit is very important in the marketplace. And you can look up things about Austrian economics and look at the website mises.org if you want to see what I understand about real, appropriate profit. But this does not apply to anything having to do with sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and God’s Word.
Aside from the money aspect, creating a film about Jesus Christ is risky and fraught with soul-threatening pitfalls, especially the farther it deviates from the words given to us in the Bible.
Here are some important questions that I have about this film or any that attempts to portray Jesus Christ:
Does the representation portray Jesus Christ as authoritative, speaking what the Father tells him? (John 12:49-50) From the time Jesus was 12 years old, he knew he needed to be about his father’s business (Luke 2:49). From the beginning of his public time of ministry he spoke as one having authority so much that they were amazed (Matthew 7:29).
Does such a representation compromise on Jesus’s absolute righteousness to make him seem (supposedly) more humanly relatable? Don’t mistake this for always being somber or serious. There are teachings that imply humor, such as talking about logs in eyes. But his humor, Jesus Christ’s humor, would have been without any taint of sin or crudeness, and it would never have contradicted his message or character. We do know he wept. He loved. He became weary. He got hungry. He was tempted in all ways as we are (Hebrews 2:18). He was in agony about his pending hardship on the cross. In other words, the Bible makes him very relatable in his experience of putting on flesh.
Would a true representation of Jesus Christ show him as arguing with others as an equal or being corrected by them? I don’t think so. I don’t think it would not having him going to people for advice. In fact, it is clear he did not trust himself to people (John 2:24-25). Along the same lines, he would not be dependent on his mother to help him carry out the plan of redemption (and I’ll talk more about that later). He would not have his disciples help him prepare his teachings. They were there to learn from him. See John 6:68 as an example explaining that.
Would a true representation even hint that Jesus Christ did miracles by slight of hand? Would it change the circumstances of miracles to even suggest that it was not verifiable? Miracles were to point to who he was (John 10:38).
The producers of the show are basically talking out of both sides of their mouth because on one hand they will say that the show is 95% not from the Bible, but they are drawing on culture and what they think people would have been doing at that time, and that it is only 5% Biblical. But then the one scene, in particular, about changing the water to wine that is supposedly exactly from the Bible, they subtly change it in a few ways. 1) They remove the servant witnesses. 2) They make Jesus more humanly hesitant in praying to the Father about the miracle, whereas that is never talked about in the narrative in John. And 3) there is a parallel going on explaining that Jesus is becoming different at this point. They use a lot of Biblical language and even pictures, in a sense, but they don’t use them the way the Bible does.
Would a true representation of Jesus Christ have him dependent on his mother for moral support. Everywhere in the scripture that Jesus and his mother, Mary, have interactions he is supporting, respecting, or even putting their relationship into a more clear perspective. For instance, again, when he turned the water into wine at her request, he indicated that he was the one in charge (John 2:4). When she and his brothers showed up to speak to him, he made it clear that relationship with him was based on much more than earthly familial relationships (Mark 12:46-50). When he was dying he provided for her support (John 19:26-27).
I have watched many clips of The Chosen and seen these kinds of misrepresentations. They are subtle, but they are counter to how the Bible portrays Jesus Christ.
Over the last 2000 years, there have been many attempts to diminish the person Jesus Christ. This has also been done in conversations and in books. I remember reading The Robe, by Lloyd C. Douglas, many years ago. The author tried to explain away the miracles of the New Testament, yet somehow wanted to keep a high sense of spiritual experience. That was probably my first time understanding how the world likes to use the excitement of the account of Jesus Christ, but still deny the need for the resurrection and the gospel message.
Along the same lines, in a clip that I will link to, you will see one of the main contributors to this show claiming that they stay away from theology when they are representing Jesus. It really boggles my mind how they think they can do that and still be portraying an accurate Jesus.
There have also been many Hollywood films loosely based on Biblical narratives. These were standard fare when I was growing up. To this day, when I think of Moses, an image of Charlton Heston comes to mind. And even though I grew up reading the Bible, I found that I later had to unlearn some impressions from that film. Other films of this era were laughable even to me as a child. It was obvious they were majoring on entertainment and barely minoring on the truth of the text.
There have also been books and movies that claim to expand our understanding of Jesus Christ. The message in these does not have an air of denying Jesus Christ, yet it subtly changes him from how the Bible writes about him. They do all of this while contorting scripture. Sounding scriptural while at the same time undermining it is a particular technique used in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.
Such subtle, religious-sounding approaches, Christian-sounding approaches are more insidious. Insidious: developing gradually before becoming apparent, awaiting a chance to entrap (treacherous), and harmful but enticing. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary). These approaches sooth the need for feeling spiritual while at the same time working to destroy the truth. It is more comfortable than the repentance taught in the Bible. These kinds of representations of Jesus Christ often take some characteristics (love, patience, human-nature) and try to create a false dilemma by pitting them against other characteristics of God (justice, truth, God-nature).
Unfortunately, I think The Chosen falls into this category. It has enough in it to sound like what people say they like about the Bible. It appeals to many people who don’t want the truth, but want to feel spiritual.
This does not mean that everyone who watches it falls into this category. It does mean that people are probably not getting from it what they think they are getting.
2 John verses 9 -11 says Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. John expounds on this in 1 John 2:18-23.
If someone is portraying a Jesus who is not the Christ of the Bible, they may be using all the same names and terminology, but they are presenting a different doctrine. Even if it is just an actor portraying this version, if it is not Biblically sound, it is a false doctrine. This is not on the level of not understanding head covering passages or whether or not it is good to drink wine. These are core doctrines about what the gospel is, based on who Jesus Christ really is.
This is not about who you buy groceries from or hire to fix your plumbing. We are certainly to interact with those who don’t believe in the name of Jesus Christ in a myriad of ways – and to tell them the gospel. But when it comes to claims about who Jesus Christ is, a Christian is called to separate him or herself, to not partner with, those pwople as they falsely representing him.
Why? Not because the Christians will lose their salvation, but because they are helping to spread a false doctrine.
When someone is claiming to represent the authentic Jesus, but the film is also stated to be 95% “beyond” what is written in the Bible, it is time to wonder. When the claim is also to show a Jesus Christ people want and can relate to, but 5% is based on scripture, you have to wonder. When many of the scenes distort the Jesus Christ as written about in the scripture, does that 5% do anything other than mislead the audience?
When someone claims that he somehow heard from God that a representation is going to be a definitive portrayal of God’s people, but is 95% from the imagination of the writers and producers, you should wonder.
Since John the Baptist was an important person, filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, who was preparing the way of the Lord, when they distort his character, the message he proclaims in the Bible is undermined.The Bible clearly shows John the Baptist as always completely respectful and in awe of Jesus Christ. He was never flippant about his message of truth.
And how could a show that is claiming to show the authentic Jesus Christ skip his baptism? Well, again, watch the video clip that I’m linking to and you will see that it had too much to do with theology, so they left it out.
As far as the benefits of showing Biblical culture, people should be asking more questions. They should be asking how this idea of the culture was researched. Film makers are notorious for portraying what is expected by audiences or just lazily showing what they think is artistically profound in some way, and thus propagating misrepresentations of culture. One example of this is the Middle Ages. If you learned about the Middle Ages from films, chances are you have no idea of what the real Middle Ages was like.
Even with some research, the filmmakers have to assume a lot of things, because, as was mentioned, God chose a time period that for the most part did not leave visual records. That doesn’t mean there is no value in understanding culture, but the Bible, the Word of God, has a lot of culture in it. And if God thought it was sufficient, thinks it is sufficient, that doesn’t mean just barely passable. That means it fills the need of telling his message. Jesus Christ himself says it is all about him (Luke 24:44). He used the scriptures of the Old Testament to open the disciples understanding about him.
So the crux of the issue is: How is Jesus Christ portrayed? How he is portrayed is the foundation of sound doctrine. But I’d also like to address some other things I’ve read and heard about The Chosen.
First, some Christians have argued that it is adding to scripture, but I don’t think they have defined that very well. There are places in the Bible that clearly say adding to scripture is bad, but the arguments that I’ve read have been saying this in a way that it comes across like no one can even discuss scripture. That would mean that when Christians get together for fellowship they read the Bible and don’t say anything more about it at all. I don’t believe that’s what the admonitions mean.
If people are discussing scripture, they aren’t automatically claiming to be adding to scripture. Unless someone claims that what he says is on the same level as scripture (or higher or fixing it), that is the issue. However, I have seen clips of scenes from The Chosen that indicate this is a legitimate concern about the series, especially when taken together with the claims of the writer and main mouthpiece for the show. Again, he claims to be presenting the authentic Jesus, but then says people should go read their Bibles. He says that like it somehow absolves him from any misrepresentation he is making, which as we have shown, are quite a few.
There also seems to be some misunderstanding about what it means to be unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14). In the passage, Paul is talking about fellowship. And this correlates with what John is saying not associating with those of false doctrine. Fellowship: A close association of friends or equals sharing similar interests.
This wisdom is about not being partnered in a committed way with an unbeliever. Not only is that is because you won’t have the same morals and priorities, but you will confuse people about what the real gospel is. You will unnecessarily create situations where you can’t agree on important things and make decisions accordingly. This would include sharing interests both financially and creatively. This certainly seems to cover a partnership where the nature of God or the authentic Jesus is being represented.
On the other hand, doing business is a broad term that could refer to any monetary transaction. That does not seem to be what is in mind in that verse. It does seem like it fits for considering a business partnership where the success of the venture makes a person obligated to and influenced by the other partner(s). When your money and livelihood are so connected with someone, you need think about this teaching.
But, again, this does not make the content of a show wrong, even if such a partnership is questionable.
Another common response to concerns about the content of the show has been that if it makes people read the Bible, it is good. I don’t see how this is a Biblically sound position when there are so many other basic things wrong. The Bible is full of God working things out in spite of people’s wickedness and lack of understanding of him (by their own negligence). He takes the mess and works out his plan of redemption no matter what people do, but all the time he is still begging them to turn to him and his perfect love.
The Bible also talks about those who lead others astray. If some people see the false gods and it inspires them to turn to the true God, it doesn’t mean the false gods were a good thing. Many people are still lead astray by false teachers.
From everything I have seen the shows producers say, both in video interviews and in written interviews, there is a lot of double-speak. The truth is not their goal. At best they don’t understand the difference between what Jesus Christ claims about himself and what various other pseudo-Christian religions teach. But again, referring back to that video clip, about that one producer saying they are staying away from theology, you get the impression they do know there are differences. And so, at worst, they are taking the Biblical concept of unity and using it to teach a one-world religion. They are subtly distorting the nature and message of Christ.
They are leading the unsuspecting to accept a different, more humanly palatable and ecumenically tolerable Jesus Christ. They use just enough scripture to give it a look of Christianity. The warning of Matthew 24:4-5 seems to apply. The actor may not be claiming to be Jesus Christ, but they are not presenting the true Jesus Christ. Thus, in representing a false one it is in the spirit of anti-Christ.