Response to UK Channel 5 Programme 'The Last Days of Jesus' (shown Good Friday 14/04/2017)

Christians are advised to always be prepared to give an answer for what they believe: see 1 Peter 3v15. As one myself I felt stirred to offer a response to some of the ideas put forward in the UK television Channel 5 programme about the last days of Jesus, shown on Good Friday, 14th April 2017. Here follows an outline of six points made and my response.

1) The Gospels were written 40 or more years after Jesus, so are not the work of eyewitnesses as many suppose.

Whilst technically correct, there was no allowance for the Gospels being written when a number of eyewitnesses would still be living and could either have been given opportunity to confirm events in the life of Jesus or would've been able to speak against any perceived false claims. These eyewitnesses may also have passed on accounts about the life of Jesus through oral tradition. Also, the writer of Mark was commonly accepted early on to have close links with the apostle Peter. In addition, the 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus, is an outside source testifying to the historical life of Jesus.

If it is implied (as it seemed to be in the programme) that the Gospels are unreliable due to the time they were written then this in turn assumes the authors were not writing what they knew to be true but what was necessary to persuade others. In other words, it implies lack of integrity. Where is the evidence for this? Consider that the threat of arrest and imprisonment (or worse) constantly hung over the early church in the 1st century Roman Empire for those discovered as followers of Jesus. I don't know about you but this would cause me to pause before making claims I was uncertain of or knew to be false.

2) We need to project a longer period to the time between the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus to account for why those who thought of him as their idol now wanted his death.

There was reference to a possible scenario of political turmoil and Pilate needing time to decide what to do with Jesus, who was therefore imprisoned for longer than the few days suggested by the Gospels. Without getting into a debate about the timeline here, the programme looked at one aspect of the texts and ignored others: Mark 15v11 the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him (Pilate) release for them Barabbas instead. Note the immense influence of the religious leaders over the people. This influence is noted elsewhere and so it does not hold up that it is a convenient insertion here > Note John 12v42 many...believed in him but for fear of the Pharisees...did not confess it, so they would not be put out of the synagogue.

3) Pilate is portrayed as a decent bloke in the Gospels which does not fit with what is known about him - a no nonsense governor who ruthlessly enforced Roman rule and was brought in to keep calm in Judea which had been a centre for revolt.

The programme does not take account of the Gospel emphasis that, in Jesus, Pilate encountered a unique situation. Pilate was vocal about his view that the accusations against Jesus seemed to be a matter of religious law: Pilate said to the religious leaders and their entourage who brought Jesus to him take him yourselves and judge him by your own law (John 18v31). Furthermore, Pilate showed amazement, not decency, that Jesus wouldn't answer the many charges the Jewish Council brought against him - see Mark 15v5.

Pilate went on to dialogue with the Council, Jesus and the crowds with the twin goals of enforcing Rome's law and quelling any unrest. Pilate would not have attained his position without awareness of political manoeuvring and wouldn't be unaware that the religious leaders were trying to use him to get rid of Jesus: Mark 15v10 he (Pilate) perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him (Jesus) up.

So, the issue is not about Pilate being portrayed as decent and fair but about a government representative with all eyes upon him trying to make the best judgement to guard his own position and not offer a platform for any further revolts. In any case, Pilate cannot determine categorically what Jesus is guilty of:

Mark 15v14...what evil has he done; Luke 23v4...I find no guilt in this man; Luke 23v14 I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; Luke 23v22...no guilt deserving death. Note here we are talking about guilt deserving death. Despite this, what does Pilate do? He hands Jesus over for crucifixion to avoid a riot after washing his hands and saying I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves (Matthew 27v24). Is this the behaviour of a decent man. I think not!

4) It makes no sense that Jesus wasn't arrested when he drove the sellers out of the temple.

The programme suggested the possibility that Jesus wasn't arrested due to military forces working to help King Herod Antipas use Jesus against the religious leaders as Herod wanted to be the ruler Jews looked to instead of them. I am not against trying to paint a background to events in the Bible. However, it was implied that the Gospels offer no help here, but closer inspection reveals this is not the case. The intentions of the religious leaders themselves offer some guidance: Luke 19v48 alludes to 'paralysis' among the religious leaders to act against Jesus as he taught daily in the temple, due to his popularity at that point. Any disturbance Jesus himself created could have quickly escalated into a riot if he was publicly arrested with too many of his followers present. Other indicators of this are given throughout the Gospels:

Matthew 21v46 (After Jesus had taught against the religious establishment)...Although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet; 

Mark 14v1-2 (run up to Passover)...the chief priests sought to arrest him by stealth and kill him. For they said. not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people (emphasis added). Notice the mention of secrecy (stealth). They feared an uproar if the arrest of Jesus wasn't handled right. Indeed, they feared this more than they feared Jesus!

It is unsurprising then that the religious leaders failed to move against Jesus in the very public setting of the temple. As for the soldiers, there may have been an agreed/understood protocol within the confines of the temple and if they judged it wrong and brought an unhelpful incident to the doorstep of the governor the consequences could be hazardous for their health (if you catch my meaning). The point is that the Gospels do not leave us bereft of possible explanation as the Channel 5 programme implied. To see the events of the Gospels relayed in proper context, a wider lens is needed to see them as a whole rather than taking single statements in isolation.


5) Jesus believed that he was chosen by God and that he was supposed to rule the world.

In one sense the programme is acknowledging the idea in the Gospels that Jesus had a particular belief about himself and his mission on earth. However, the Gospels do not indicate that Jesus came to rule the world in a way that resembles taking it by force or becoming a military leader. Yes, Jesus did affirm that that he was the Son of God when others made this assertion about him (see Luke 9v20). Yet, when governor Pilate questioned Jesus he stressed that his Kingdom was not of this world and does not result in servants fighting a military campaign (see John 18v33-36). Consider also the atmosphere described following the feeding of the 5000 when the people intended to take Jesus by force to make him king but he withdrew from this situation (ref John 6v15) - becoming a physical king/ruler on earth was not his agenda. It is fairer to the Jesus of the Gospels to say that he came not to rule the world but to influence it:
Mark 10v45 (Jesus) came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.
John 12v47b I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.


6) Jesus expected legions of angels to save him but this didn't happen.

The Gospels are clear Jesus expected to die and not be rescued by angels:
See Mark 8v31-2 after Peter asserted the identity of Jesus; see also Mark 9v31; Mark 10v33-4 on the road to Jerusalem. Jesus was under no illusion about where his mission was heading.
He does reference the option of calling on legions of angels and a greater authority than earthly rulers but implies this is not God's will:
Matthew 26v53-4 At his arrest Jesus tells a follower who tries to violently defend him: put your sword away...do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father (God) and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of Angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?
John 18v11 Jesus tells Peter shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?
These passages illustrate that Jesus is both mindful about what could happen but also clear about what must happen.
When Jesus was alone praying before his arrest he queried the suffering ahead but remained submitted to it: he yields the phrase to God not my will but yours be done (Luke 22v42).
When Pilate sought to remind Jesus of his authority to release him or crucify him, Jesus responded: you wouldn't have this authority over me if you hadn't been given it from above (see John 19v10-11). 
Jesus therefore was not deluded in the hope of a divine rescue mission but fully submitted to a situation he believed God had ordained and where his fate had been given over by God to the judgement of earthly authority.

It is my hope that all of the above encourages Christians that the Gospels can be trusted and withstand scrutiny.




 

 

 



The run of the table

 

When I was growing up we had a snooker table in our family home and it became well used by me and my brother. Sometimes it would feel as though you had what we called the 'run of the table' when most shots you played seemed to go where you wanted and it didn't seem to be a huge effort. This created a feeling of being on cloud nine and made me more confident when going for challenging shots. On other occasions you could try to pot the right ball with all your best efforts and it wouldn't happen. Two things occurred when I wasn't experiencing this run of the table: 

 

1) Frustration set in. I could be sticking to the game plan that seemed to work for me previously and struggled with the realisation that it was wasn't working as before. When this frustration set in it could feel that the table was somehow working against me.

 

2) Giving up seemed preferable. When things didn't go well for me on the snooker table I questioned my performance and would tell myself that I wasn't going to get any better so what was the point.  

 

Sometimes in life we have a sense of forward momentum when for no clear reason it appears that we are making some headway. Whether it's real or imagined our efforts at times don't feel strained, it's as if they become 'naturally effortless' or unforced and we don't feel as though we are struggling against some immovable force. At other times, we can find ourselves in similar situations than we have experienced before but for no apparent reason overcoming seems to have become an uphill struggle. Frustration sets in and we begin to doubt that we can keep going as the 'run of the table' appears to have deserted us.

 

In the life of the church, the Bible illustrates that that there are times of growth and momentum but these will be balanced by times of trial and struggle. The early church experienced both. In Acts chapter 2 it is mentioned that about 3000 converts were added to the church in a single day and believers were joyful and well regarded by others. Fast forward a few chapters and a great persecution ravaged the church and scattered members throughout different regions (Acts 8). The relevance for the church today in one sense is that the 'run of the table' can be with us for a day or a season but this can change dramatically. When the going gets tough we will get frustrated but it is then that we must not look inward as if it is about our performance.

 

The Bible encourages us instead to look Godward. One of my favourite movie scenes is from 'Chariots of Fire' when the actor playing the runner Eric Liddell reads from Psalm 121: I LIFT UP MY EYES TO THE HILLS. FROM WHERE DOES MY HELP COME? MY HELP COMES FROM THE LORD, WHO MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH (v1-2). The church must stay resolute both when momentum is present and when it appears not to be. The church must abide in God as the source of hope when the church is popular and when it is not. The sceptic will not be won over by a church that loses its nerve when the 'run of the table' is against it. The church is to be encouraged to overcome frustration and to not throw in the towel > Galatians 6v9 LET US NOT BECOME WEARY IN DOING GOOD FOR AT THE APPOINTED TIME WE WILL REAP A HARVEST OF BLESSING IF WE NOT LOSE HEART AND GIVE UP.The church must endure (see Romans 5v3-4). It is not about personal performance. There is no performance formula to make the church grow! Sure, the church can improve how it presents itself to the world but the Bible teaches that it is God who makes things grow (see 1 Corinthians 3v6-7)  Jesus echoed this when he said: 1 WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT (Matthew 16v18). So, the next time things are not going to plan  remember that the church is not called to perform its way out of trouble like a business or a company employee but to trust in the One who controls the 'run of the table' in the revelation of where our true help comes from - it comes from the Lord not the circumstances of the moment.