The Jesus of The Chosen, Part II

A "More Human" Jesus?

I have long wrestled with Dallas Jenkins' portrayal of Jesus in The Chosen. From what little I have watched in relation to what plenty I have read, I wanted to be sure I had not misread or misinterpreted Jenkins' intentions, so I asked Google this question: Does Dallas Jenkins think that presenting the humanity of Jesus is what makes The Chosen authentic? These are the replies I received from AI: Jenkins believes that "emphasizing Jesus' humanity is crucial to creating an authentic portrayal of Him in The Chosen." AI also explains that Jenkins "aims to show Jesus as a relatable, approachable figure, emphasizing His human experiences and emotions as key to connecting with audiences." Jenkins "emphasizes that, while Jesus' divinity is central, His humanity is what makes His story so powerful and relatable." AI explains further that, "by showing Jesus' interactions with others, His emotions, and His experiences, the show seeks to make Him more accessible to viewers and encourage them to engage with the Gospels." Therefore, Jenkins believes that "by presenting a more human Jesus, the show can help viewers connect with the Gospel message on a deeper level and encourage them to study the Bible further."

A Relatable Jesus?

Does this frighten you? It does me. There is so much to unpack here that we need a lot of space to think. First, we find that Jenkins' show exists because The Gospels do not "emphasize" the humanity of Jesus. Never mind that this "emphasis" on Jesus' humanity is in itself a heresy (the kenosis theory, in which an assumed false dichotomy between Jesus' humanity and His divinity results in a misemphasis on His humanity)--why would we even think we should emphasize something The Gospels do not? Does somebody need to remind Jenkins of the apocryphal "gospels" that were rejected from the canon of Scripture centuries ago? At least eight of these wormed their way into the early days of Christianity, but all eight were rejected, and rightly so.

But Jenkins' standing disclaimer is that The Chosen is "just a show" and does not replace Scripture. Okay, so it doesn't replace Scripture, but it certainly does seem to "balance" it out, according to Jenkins. Why else would he believe the "missing" emphasis on the humanity of Jesus to be "crucial" to "creating an authentic portrayal" of Him in his show? What can this possibly mean except that The Gospels themselves are missing something "crucial"--something so crucial, in fact, that this "deficit" apparently prevents their portrayal of Jesus from being "authentic"--or, at least, authentic enough for Jenkins to follow The Gospel texts with fidelity, without fictionalizing them at will? Jenkins is walking a tightwire over the Tallulah Gorge if he thinks he can keep his logic from falling into the heretical abyss.

The Chosen also aims to show Jesus as a "relatable, approachable figure"--again, because of His humanity. And I suppose we need help believing this, when the multitudes thronged Jesus every day while "He healed them all" (Matthew 15:30)? Jenkins must certainly consider Jesus' Incarnation as portrayed in The Gospels to make Him less "relatable" and less "approachable." But isn't the Incarnation by definition meant to make God approachable? But to Jenkins, Jesus isn't approachable if we believe Him to be divine? Where on earth is Jenkins going with this? He has gone to meddling with God's Word, and, by attempting to "fill" a gap, has subtracted from the authority of God's Word, which indisputably presents Jesus exactly as He is.

So, Jenkins sees the "human experiences and emotions" of Jesus "as key to connecting with audiences." What does this even mean? How does Jenkins not see that the sheer audacity of such a mindset subtracts not only from Jesus' divinity but from every person's humanity? How does Jenkins know even a fraction of the emotions Jesus felt? Even if he thinks he does, he doesn't. Jenkins does not know my emotions. And my emotions are not the same as those felt by my next of kin. Who does not understand that each personality type--let alone, each individual within that "type"--processes emotions differently? But Jenkins presupposes some standardized set of emotions for every human situation? For all his trite comments about cultures needing to see Jesus as more than a "statue" or a "stained glass window," Jenkins himself certainly seems to feed a less-than-three-dimensional perception of Christ.

But the real kicker is that, for Jenkins, it isn't Jesus' divinity that connects with audiences but His humanity. This is "the key." How on earth are we supposed to believe that Jenkins isn't intentionally, insidiously, and irreverently eroding the very concept of the divinity of Jesus? He acts as if people take this for granted. No, sir, they do not. Quite the opposite. Muslims believe Jesus was a good teacher but not God. Mormons believe Jesus was not equal with God. Satan questioned, not the humanity of Jesus, but His divinity. And on and on every manufactured view goes, and yet Jenkins has been known to say that Mormons and Christians "love the same Jesus." He even said he would go down swinging to support this claim.

But this next statement is the most heinous of all so far: "Jenkins emphasizes that, while Jesus' divinity is central, His humanity is what makes His story so powerful and relatable." Notice how the fact of Jesus' divinity is grammatically subordinated to the main clause--"His humanity"--and that this "humanity" is what makes His story "so powerful and relatable." This misemphasis leans towards the kenosis heresy as plain as daylight. If this is not detracting from the divinity of Christ, I do not know what is. How can it even be said that the humanity of Jesus is what makes His story so powerful? Excuse me? His humanity has more power than His divinity? This makes me angry. Jesus' humanity was sinless, which is not even possible without His divinity.

And then, of course, there is this: "The show seeks to make Him more accessible to viewers and encourage them to engage with the Gospels." So, Jesus is not accessible right now? No, of course not, if one does not read the Bible. But who is going to read the Bible when they have The Chosen to see a "more accessible" view of Jesus than The Gospels offer? And who has the unparalleled hypocrisy to tell people they must then go to that which is "less relatable" and "less accessible"--The Gospels--after binge-watching The Chosen? Whatever happened to the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting to us the Word of God? We have Dallas Jenkins now. So, we have The Chosen to come between us and The Gospels and their "inaccessible, unrelatable" portrayal of the "divinity" of Jesus. No, thank you, Dallas Jenkins.

A Sinning Jesus?

And then notice this: "Jenkins believes that by presenting a more human Jesus, the show can help viewers connect with the Gospel message on a deeper level and encourage them to study the Bible further." There it is: a "more human Jesus." More human than The Gospels, obviously. "The show" can help viewers connect--even though the show isn't even true. "On a deeper level"--do the math--a "more human" Jesus brings "a deeper level." And yet, like the cults, the Mormons, the Muslims, and every false religion known to man, Jenkins' fabrications, whether cut out of whole cloth or stealing a pattern from the truth, have been successful enough to make people believe him. There is enough truth in his "presentation" to be utterly dangerous. And here we arrive back to where we started in Part I. There is but one step between Jenkins' Jesus and a sinning human being. We sin most in our emotions. How does Jenkins know beyond a shadow of a doubt that when he is manufacturing what Jesus' emotions "must have been," he is not tainting his "Jesus" with sin?

The Lord Who always commanded His disciples to "Fear not!" would not feel fear, and yet this is the way Jenkins portrays Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jenkins believes that this fear will make Jesus "more relatable" in an "emotionally resonant experience for viewers." Is he out of his mind? No one could relate to what Jesus felt in the Garden, not even His own disciples. They all forsook Him and fled. And even if they had stayed, they could not in any way have comprehended, much less "related" to, the unique suffering of the Son of God in bearing the sin of the world. And it wasn't fear Jesus felt. God's Word clearly records Jesus as saying that His soul was exceedingly "sorrowful" even unto death (Matthew 26:38). No one could understand Jesus' sorrow. Even His Heavenly Father had to turn away.

A Merchandized Jesus?

  Anyone tampering with the Divine Son of God in rewriting His emotions before the Cross must be expelled from the Temple as surely as the moneychangers who merchandized the gospel. I do not see that The Chosen is any different. Why? First of all, the intention to "make something relatable" almost always stems from a profit motive. Quite obviously, things that are "relatable" sell. Dallas Jenkins is proof positive of this. Google reports that Jenkins' salary "has increased significantly as the show gained popularity, reaching $1.1 million in 2022, though this is considered relatively modest by Hollywood standards for someone in his position." Do we need to point out that God's Word never compares the profits of Christians with the profits of the world?

But the larger point is not merely Jenkins' profits but the reason for his profits. He sells a "relatable" Jesus. This "relatable" Jesus--who was not "relatable" at the Crucifixion--has made Jenkins rich. Without a doubt, the more "different" than the Bible our Jesus becomes, the more like the world we become, especially in our desire and ability to earn mammon. But the profit trap is just one of the problems with the "relatability" motive. The irony is that he who aims to be "relatable" will soon wind up becoming irrelevant. It seems obvious that "relatability" is by its very nature transient. Like the riches it brings, it takes wings and flies away. Only truth endures. And to truth alone must we relate. If we expect truth to relate to us, we will wait in vain. Jesus did not come to "be relatable" but to convict the world of sin (John 16:8). He came knowing He would be despised and rejected of men. Contrary to Jenkins' silly slogan for The Chosen--"Get used to different"--the writer to the Hebrews aptly reminds us that Jesus Christ is the "same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

For this reason, the word "relatable" dies on its own sword. If Jesus had indeed been "relatable" in His own time, He would not have been crucified. How does Jenkins miss this? Is society any different today? Not unless it is even worse. Far from "relating" to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the Cross, we are the mob whose raging hostility and depravity crucified Him! There is no generation or group of people who would not have crucified Jesus! Rembrandt captures this timeless truth in his famous Baroque painting, The Raising of the Cross, as he paints himself among the crowd who raised the Cross of Christ. In this enduring masterpiece, Rembrandt points to the reality that no one can "come by the way of the Cross, "as The Ruppe Sisters so beautifully sing, until he sees himself as part of the crowd that mocked Christ on the Cross. What an agonizing thought this is, but we must each receive this deathblow to our ego if we would ever hope to be saved. Yet is such a truth relatable? I hardly think so.

Conclusions:

Even if we could remotely "relate" to Jesus' emotions in the events leading up to His Crucifixion, we would still be missing the point. The Cross is not about the "human emotions" of Jesus but about the power of Christ's obedient will to exert the ultimate self-denial. That is why it is called "The Cross." Jesus sets the supreme example of self-denial when He prays, "Father, not My will, but Thine be done." Self-denial is not relatable. Of all things it is quite possibly the most offensive. And yet Jenkins, in seeking to "relate" to our culture's obsession with emotions, has fooled himself into believing that an emotional depiction of Jesus will make Him "authentic." To the degree that Jenkins' depiction has succeeded, to that same degree is his depiction false. We may flatter ourselves that we can "relate," but we are relating to a misconception, if not to an outright deception. Only the Holy Spirit can interpret the Cross of Christ to us because it is of all things most offensive--for the reasons Rembrandt depicted. Unlike The Chosen, which will quite likely recede into oblivion once it has aired all its episodes, Rembrandt's masterpiece will speak until the earth crumbles because it depicts the raw power of truth.