“Sometimes He [Jesus, GWS] attracted followers by performing miracles.” That insight should win The Understatement of the Year Award. The narrator for The Real Jesus (one of the six-part series of Bible Secrets Revealed, which aired on December 4, 2013) went on to name three places where Jesus performed a miracle. The Christian viewer can never get too comfortable, however, or think that the producers of the program have finally come around to a Christian perspective. These words were quickly added: “But were the miracles of Jesus, as reported in all four of the gospels, real, or were they concocted by His followers to help prove what they believed to be His Divine origins?”
The purpose of this series was not to answer questions so much as raise doubts and cause controversy. They may have succeeded with low-information Bible readers, but to those who know the Scriptures and believe the message of Christianity, the series only succeeded in showing its ignorance and unbelief. Take the preceding statement. Jesus’ followers are alleged to have made up stories of healings. Now how is that possible? In the first place, if the apostles and others had not seen the miracles of Jesus, why would they themselves have become disciples in the first place? The miracles are what attracted everyone. And there wasn’t just one per city. Consider what Mark wrote:
And when they came out of the boat, immediately the people recognized Him, ran through the whole surrounding region, and began to carry about on beds those who were sick to wherever they heard He was. Wherever He entered, into villages, cities, or the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged Him that they might just touch the border of His garment, and as many touched Him were made well (6:54-56).
Furthermore, the apostle John uses hyperbole in demonstrating the sheer number of miracles done:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book (John 20:30).
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25).
Details are provided for only a few of the miracles; the vast majority were not elaborated upon. With these broad sweeping claims, why would not the people who lived in these places, if they were fraudulent accounts, have arisen to protest these claims? If someone protests that the time of the writing was 30 years removed, such was not the case with the apostles themselves. Luke wrote Acts shortly after writing his gospel of Jesus’ life. Yet no one challenged the miracles recorded in Acts, either.
Why would the apostles have given their lives for a dead man who could not at all save them? If Jesus was dead and buried and never raised from the dead, why did eleven out of twelve of them suffer martyrdom? Most people will not give their lives for something they know is a lie. The miracles of Jesus explain how Jesus both gained and maintained followers. Christianity did not become a world religion based on cleverly devised fables. It began in Galilee as a result of the twelve and spread throughout the world because the power of the Holy Spirit accompanied the apostles, also.
Another unexpected sentence concerning Jesus was, “He doesn’t hold down a job.” Is that even accurate? He had worked as a carpenter, but even if he had no reserves, it was usually the case that the laborer was worthy of his hire; people often gave gifts to itinerant preachers. Furthermore, Jesus trusted in the Father to provide (Matt. 6:11). How sad for the History Channel to offer such shabby criticism.
Arrogance
One cannot help but laugh at how the narrator and the “scholars” on the show take themselves so seriously and act as if everyone else is a dunce. “There are even those who are convinced that Mary [Magalene, GWS] was not only one of Jesus’ most devoted followers; she was also, perhaps, his lover—or even his wife.” The “scholars” overlook the fact that Jesus was called a bridegroom by “John the Dipper”; Jesus’ bride is the church (Rev. 21:9). If He had also been married to a woman on earth, He would be a bigamist. This bizarre notion comes from spurious sources and was championed by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code.
Notice that when one does not have evidence how he frames things: “There are even those who are convinced….”; “perhaps”; etc. The narrator then says: “But whatever the nature of their relationship, many scholars now believe that the one thing Mary Magdalene was not was a prostitute.” How much evidence do they have for either allegation? The New Testament simply does not say that she was or was not.
As the program mentions Caesarea Philippi, where Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of God, one scholar confidently proclaims: “I’m fairly sure that the historical Jesus never openly taught that He was the Messiah.” The translation of the Hebrew word, Messiah, is “Christ.” Peter confessed it, and Jesus told him he was correct, but then He charged the twelve not to tell anyone (Matt. 16:16-20). The woman at the well told the Samaritans, and Jesus did not deny the fact then, either (John 4:29, 42). He acknowledged this truth at His trial (Mark 14:61-62) and was crucified because of it. The Jews surrounded Him on one occasion and said, “If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe” (John 10:24-25).
Another claim made to try to cast doubt on Jesus’ identity was that the phrase, son of man, in Aramaic simply means “person.” Therefore, it is hard to tell whether Jesus was making a Messianic claim by the use of the phrase or if He was just referring to Himself. John 1:51 was cited, which reads: “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Shall we take a vote? Was Jesus describing Himself as a person or someone rather special? Besides, the New Testament was written in Greek—not Aramaic.
Misunderstanding the Kingdom
The “scholars” have spent too much time reading Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye and too little time looking at the Scriptures. They all think the New Testament teaches pre-millennialism (which it does not). They postulate that the Jews believed “in a Messiah who would liberate the Jewish people.” That much is true: Jesus did liberate the Jewish people—from sin. This point, however, was never made.
Instead, they declared that the Messiah of King David would restore the kingdom to the peace and prosperity of earlier times. The Jews would be liberated from Roman occupation, and the kingdom of David would be re-created upon the earth. The program specifies “a physical, on-earth kingdom.” They do not explain why He failed to establish one.
“Did Jesus have a political agenda?” they ask. “He has already set up a provisional government.” “Really?” the viewer wonders. “I don’t remember that.” The “proof” is that Jesus told the twelve they would judge the twelve tribes on twelve thrones. They might have considered the context of the statement. Jesus said this would occur “in the regeneration” when He was sitting on His throne of glory (Matt. 19:28). This is clearly speaking of His second coming because He did not have a throne until He ascended into Heaven (Acts 2:33; Dan. 7:13-14, Ps. 110:1-4).
Although one expert advocated a spiritual kingdom, most opted for the physical. One affirmed that Jesus had “a shadow government,” which is preposterous; most seemed not to notice the utter contradiction between the ministry of Jesus and the establishment of an earthly empire. One of them went so far as to say:
You cannot usher in the kingdom of God without ushering out the kingdom of Caesar. For a Jew living in first-century Palestine, to be called the Messiah is to declare war on the Roman Empire.
How amazing is that! They ramble on, proclaiming that the Messiah would liberate the Jewish people from Roman rule. They ask, “Did Jesus really think He was the Messiah, the actual Son of God?” They continue: “Was Jesus trying to ignite a political revolt or…trigger His arrest and eventual martyrdom?” The script concludes: “How Jesus perceived Himself will likely remain a secret for all time.” No, it won’t. It has never been a secret! If the scholars had just read John 18:36-37, they would have learned a whole lot more than they showed in this speculative gibberish.
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
This passage teaches the following truths.
- Jesus did not come to establish an earthly kingdom. By His own admission He did not come to conquer or fight against Rome with physical weapons. He never intended to liberate the Jews from Roman oppression or restore the Davidic kingdom to its former glory. He never intended to establish “a physical, on-earth kingdom.”
- He never trained His servants to fight. Mixed in with His lofty teachings were not sessions of training in the martial arts or combat. Since Jesus possessed more knowledge of technology than we have yet to develop, He could have shown the disciples how to make and use AK47s. That certainly would have humbled Rome. Furthermore they could have used drones to bomb the capital city. And if by chance one of His apostles was injured or killed, Jesus could have healed him or returned his life to him. But Jesus never came to establish an earthly kingdom, and He never trained His servants to fight. If He had, they would never have allowed Him to be captured or crucified.
- When Jesus admitted to being a king, Pilate did not feel threatened because he realized that He was speaking of a spiritual kingdom that posed no physical threat to him or to Rome. In fact, Pilate went out to the Jews afterward and proclaimed, “I find no fault in Him at all” (John 18:38).
Nevertheless, despite what the Bible teaches concerning this subject, an “expert” concluded this segment by declaring that Jesus “was executed by the state for the crime of sedition.” This is simply not true, no evidence for it exists. The program claims that Pilate was “a ruthless, bloodthirsty governor,” yet John records him as saying: “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him” (19:6). The reason the Jews wanted Him dead was blasphemy—not sedition. They told Pilate: “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made himself the Son of God” (19:7). Only when Pilate saw that a tumult was rising did he wash his hands and declare himself innocent of Jesus’ blood (Matt. 27:24). The series passed over all of these facts.
The “historians” of the History Channel seem not to be bound by facts, like the rest of us. They have a unique ability to look at what the Bible says and then decide what they will accept as true and what they reject. One commented: “I think we can be certain that Jesus was crucified.” No kidding? One almost feels that he should kneel with his hands outstretched to the wise person acknowledging this fact and say, “O thank you, kind sir, for this gracious admission.” Or we could simply cite actual historical sources that reference the crucifixion of Jesus. It has probably occurred to the reader that, if any recorded details of the life and death of Jesus cannot be trusted, then it is all suspect.
The Resurrection
Since the resurrection proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that everything He taught was true, one can only expect this foundational doctrine to be attacked, also. The History Channel does not disappoint; they ask:
Could it be that the reports of Jesus’ resurrection are based on a simple misunderstanding—that the real reason that Jesus’ body was missingfrom the tomb was that His body was later moved to be properly anointed for His final burial? Or might there be yet another reason?
Okay, so the first alternate explanation for what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John plainly declare as factual is that some disciples got confused because His body was moved for final interment. No dead body was left to bury because Jesus rose from the dead before anyone got to the tomb! But the History Channel never gives up; they offer another explanation—the floating rumor theory.
But then some of them claimed they saw Jesus alive again. And stories started floating around that He, in fact, had been raised from the dead.
Imagine that! The writers of the gospel had thirty years to debunk the floating rumors yet recorded them as truth. Right. Did it never occur to these pinheads that people were not as gullible then as today’s college professors are now? Jesus made several appearances after His resurrection, including one to more than 500 followers at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). One scholar, after acknowledging that some disciples thought they saw Him, then commented:
Maybe they saw a shadow on a wall and they decided, “This is Jesus in another form.” Whatever they saw, that was such a shock to their system that they basically completely changed their view of Jesus. Now He was no longer just a crucified prophet. And that’s the beginning of Christianity.
Are these the best explanations that “scholars” can concoct after 2,000 years of trying to explain away the resurrection—the “move the body for the final burial” theory, the “floating rumor” gambit, and the “shadow on the wall” coupled with a vivid imagination proposal? Are these to be taken as serious attempts at “scholarship”? Exactly which shadow on a wall convinced Thomas that Jesus had nail prints in His hands and that a spear had pierced His side (John 20:27-29)?
“It can be said that it was His followers who elevated Him to Divine status.” This is equally erroneous. They believed He was Divine while He was alive (as shown previously)! The resurrection only confirmed the truth that they already knew. The miracles had already established His claim of Deity. Jesus foretold His crucifixion and resurrection; these two events just added the finishing touches to the case, making it forever unassailable. Jesus was not elevated to Divine status; He was Divine when He left Heaven (Phil. 2:5-8; John 1:1, 14).
“Is the ultimate secret about Jesus the fact that He was a holy man, a prophet, but still a mortal—no more, no less?” What kind of a holy man and prophet tells lies about Himself (His Deity and His prophecy of the resurrection, for example)? The physical part of Jesus was subject to death, but death could not hold Him. All of the “scholars” used by the History Channel, however, are mortal and shall be judged by Jesus some day (2 Cor. 5:10). What do you suppose they will say then?