Messiah Has Come

It has been quite an adventure following the History Channel's presentation of "The Bible" thus far.  The two remaining installments should be even more exciting as we follow the work of Christ and the beginnings of the early church.  Be in prayer for those who are viewing who need to make a decision to follow the one true Savior of the world.  May the Holy Spirit move hearts and lives through the efforts of those who have made this program.


I must say that while this week's presentation was done well, on many levels it was the most disappointing yet from a biblical perspective.  My family and I follow along with the bibles we hold in our laps while we watch.  I know there are many others who do the same.  I also know that some people who watch these shows may for the first time in their lives be encouraged to open their bibles and seek out the stories for themselves.  Anyone wishing to do so this week may have a hard time finding some of the events depicted.

Historically, some of the people surrounding the stories of Daniel were out of sync with the biblical (and historical) record.  Many of the events concerning Herod were taken from what we call extra-biblical material (either non-biblical historical record or the Apocryphal writings.)  While the events depicted did happen, they are not cited in the bible.  The bible did not need to include all the atrocities of Herod for us to know how bad a man he was.  The film didn't either.  So many good characters and historical events were left out that it was difficult to imagine why so much film time was devoted to Herod except that the evil of Herod juxtaposed with the peaceful entry of Messiah was clear and quite dramatic.

I found it interesting that in truncating the bible into a few hours of film, the producers relied on the shortest gospel to tell the story of the early years of Jesus (the Gospel of Mark).  In doing so, some important connections between Jesus and John were left out.  Where was Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth or John's identification of Jesus as "The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" or the fact that Jesus' first disciples were formerly John's? 

Don't get me wrong; I'm still enjoying the series very much.  Kudos to all who are making it happen.  This week had just too much missing, too many historical errors and too much extra-biblical material for my taste.  What did you think?

Pastor Paul