The Jesus of The Chosen, Part III

Jenkins' "Chosen"

Jesus said no one can serve both God and mammon. Neither can anyone serve both truth and relatability. By "relatability," I mean, not that desire to connect with people as good fishers of men, but the desire to blend truth with error in order to make one's message popular. Jenkins' depiction of the disciples is notoriously adulterated with egregious sins--sins found nowhere in The Gospel record--but sins he stubbornly insists make his disciples "relatable" by the standards of our decadent culture. To Jenkins, one sin seems as good as another, so if The Gospels depict the disciples as arguing over who should be the greatest, he hyperbolizes this rivalry by turning it into frequent fistfights. Beyond this, Peter's naturally ambitious and boastful nature somehow turns into compulsive gambling. Peter even goes fishing on the Sabbath because he "needs" the money. Even though a serious Bible student will find Jenkins' disciples unrecognizable, Jenkins' unchurched audience eats up all this chaos and drama.

However, it takes only a modicum of Biblical discernment, not a seminary degree, to realize that men who engage in such behaviors are not even saved, according to the New Testament Epistles. And yet, Jenkins' disciples perform miracles that would require their being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. It's too bad all the miracles are for other people and none for their own sinful lives. But people don't want a high standard, and Jenkins has read his audience well. He is so steeped in worldly habits himself (which we will examine in another post, The Influences behind The Chosen) that he "gets" what makes people tick. And this is precisely why his series is wildly popular. People want to see their sinful selves mirrored in so-called "spiritual" contexts so that they feel they are not so bad, after all.

Jenkins' Jesus

But what kind of Jesus would choose disciples who, despite "following" Him, remain virtually unchanged? Jenkins' Jesus would. In fact, Jenkins' "humanized" Jesus not only overindulges His disciples' overstated "humanity," He needs a little help Himself. Just watch Jenkins' portrayal of the process preceding Jesus' preaching of the greatest sermon the world has ever known, the Sermon on the Mount. In a shocking flight from Scripture, Jenkins runs his depiction of the "humanized" Jesus to the end zone and even doubles down when he receives criticism from his viewers. He says this himself in his Facebook post about this scene, which he also identifies as "the heartbeat of this whole episode and in many ways, the heartbeat of the entire season." If we had any doubt as to Jenkins' intentionality in making Jesus experience what any mere human would experience in writing a sermon, his Facebook post will banish that doubt. (See https://www.facebook.com/DallasJenkinsOfficial/videos/dallas-regrets-this-one-thing-season-finale-reaction/512739177222661/?locale=ms_MY, timestamp 11:11).

So what happens in this more-than-controversial scene? Not only does Jenkins portray Jesus as needing to premeditate His words, he shows Jesus struggling with His organization and word choice, to the point of seeking a second opinion--Matthew's. In His uncertainty and misgiving, Jesus incorporates Matthew's suggestions into His sermon. That would make Matthew co-author of Jesus' sermon. Lest this claim seem overstated, Jenkins' himself refers to this scene as "Jesus and Matthew on this mountain, preparing the Sermon on the Mount." https://www.facebook.com/DallasJenkinsOfficial/videos/dallas-regrets-this-one-thing-season-finale-reaction/512739177222661/?locale=ms_MY, see timestamp 11:17). Only in Jenkins' mind could such a scene arise out of the sacred text of Scripture. It doesn't seem to be enough for Jenkins to invent scenes from Jesus' everyday life that show Him in "human" situations; Jenkins even has to tamper with Jesus' words themselves as delivered directly in The Gospels.

Clearly, there is no "gap" to be filled here (see The Idea behind The Chosen), just an unsanctified desire to show Jesus as "human," in a scene that succeeds only in suggesting a less-than-authoritative tone to Jesus' most famous sermon. Well might we ask what is in this sermon that Jenkins might wish to tone down? In the scene following Matthew's "help," where Jenkins shows Jesus launching His painstakingly crafted sermon, Jenkins' omissions are telling in themselves. Is it any coincidence that Jenkins, a professed long-term addict to pornography (which he claims present disentanglement from, despite relapses), omits any and all of Jesus' denunciation of lust as equivalent to adultery? This omission sheds its own light on Jenkins' choices behind the authorship of this sermon. Clearly, Jenkins has an agenda. And just as clearly, no one but Jenkins himself meddled in writing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount--not Matthew, not an angel from heaven, no one.

On the contrary, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount rises like the New Testament's equivalent to the Ten Commandments delivered on Mount Sinai. And God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger. Not even Moses as the "chosen" friend of God (Exodus 33:11) was found worthy of this sacred task. But confront Jenkins with the heretical ramifications of this egregious aberration, and he will take flight into a monologue on the process behind the inspiration of Scripture, eschewing the dictation theory of composition as the sole alternative if we believe that the transcribers of Scripture played no role in actually authoring God's Word. Never mind that Jesus Himself is The Word, Jenkins in effect makes Him The Suggestion. And the result is clear: Jenkins' Jesus is fundamentally different from the Christ of Scripture. And yet Jenkins, failing to realize this, insists instead that episodes like this one anchor Jesus' authenticity because they portray His human "emotions" (See The Jesus of The Chosen, Part I, https://cjoywarner.wixsite.com/corner/post/the-jesus-of-the-chosen-part-i).

Jesus' emotion of misgiving and uncertainty in writing His sermon translates into nervousness while giving it. Jenkins' depiction of Jesus' delivery begins with an interaction between Jesus and Mary, in which Mary tells Jesus that she wishes His father could see Him now. To this strange comment, (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDJTRC6LIOk, timestamp 6:07), Jesus asks, "Which one?" as if He has more than one father. Anyone who has read even one of The Gospels even one time would know that Jesus would never say such a thing. But Jenkins' Jesus would. Jenkins' Jesus is not only here implying that he did have two "fathers," he is also insinuating that neither one can "see Him now." Why ask the question, otherwise? This "joking" remark not only creates a subtle equivalence between Jesus' earthly foster "father" and His Heavenly biological Father, it subtracts from the omnipresence of Jesus' Heavenly Father who certainly does "see him now." Jenkins undermines Jesus' own prohibition against calling anyone on earth our spiritual "father" (Matthew 23:9) by juxtaposing Joseph with God.

These seemingly "harmless" little nuances are not lost on those who minimize Jesus' divinity. But, when Jenkins' professed agenda is to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, that's what he ends up with--a humanized Jesus. Let Jenkins have his "Jesus." His Jesus is no more the Jesus of Scripture than I am Peter Pan. If not one iota of the law of Moses can be subtracted until all be fulfilled, as Jesus Himself says--quite ironically--in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:18), neither can one iota be added without that person becoming a false prophet (Revelation 22:18-19). The same Lord who said that he who is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much also said that he who is unjust in that which is least is unjust also in much. Is Jenkins doing injustice to the Word of God? Millions would say otherwise, but one "little" error after another adds up to an entirely different Jesus who cannot deliver His disciples from their sin and who cannot even preach against sin without their sinful help.

Conclusions

Remarks such as those which Jenkins puts in the mouth of his Jesus take on the intentionality of sinister deception. If we understand deception, we know that the "size" of an error does not equate to the damage it causes. The most insidious aberrations are actually the most pernicious, not only because people usually don't bother to correct them for fear of appearing nitpicky but because such errors are absorbed in the moment, entering the subconscious mind where their real damage is done. Jenkins' entertaining Jesus is cast in Jenkins' cultural image. We are left to conclude, therefore, that this "Jesus" is an idol of Jenkins' own making. The Apostle Paul says that he who preaches "another Jesus" will be accursed (Galatians 1: 8-9).

It cannot be denied that an entertaining Jesus will do everything except what Christ came to do: to show us the Father, to convict the world of sin, and to save our souls from hell. Dallas Jenkins does not understand this, for his Jesus wants us to understand Him--His emotions, His struggles, His humanity, His first time addressing a huge crowd, His achievements of which to be proud. Do we need to waste the space to point out how utterly ludicrous this is? In this alone, Jenkins' Jesus is the antithesis of the authentic Jesus. The Lord Jesus of The Gospels came to show us the Father (John 14:9). He never glorified Himself. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). The Jesus of The Chosen is not the Jesus of The Gospels, and Jenkins is actually screaming this fact to us loud and clear, if only we had ears to listen.