Killing Jesus

We watched Killing Jesus on Good Friday (last night).  It was ... OK.  It had the feel of a movie about Jesus by someone who didn't actually believe in Jesus.  There were some interesting parts of the movie and I especially liked the depiction of Caiaphas, but there were some whoppers too.

(note that I have not read the book so these may only apply to the movie)

The idea that Jesus didn't know he was God was first proposed to me in high school by one of nuns who taught religion (of course).  It still has the feel of a hippy-Jesus image from the 1970s.  I can't figure out how this theory came about, given the text of the New Testament, nor can I figure out the benefit of such a situation. How does that help explain Jesus' unique role in history?  How does it make Christianity more appealing?  It seems a big gnostic to me (Sophia revealing the truth to those open to it) but I don't think that people holding that theory mean to embrace gnosticism.  It just seems so ... disco and bell-bottoms.

When promoting the book, Bill O'Reilly said that during his research he found that Jesus was a political radical.  That's no surprise: Bill O'Reilly is a political commentator and is surrounded by political wonks so he'd be expected to see Jesus in political terms.  I was braced for that in the movie and was relieved that Jesus-the-radical was not to be found.  It was interesting that his antagonism towards the Jewish authorities was triggered by the arrest of John the Baptist.  I don't know that the New Testament would support that theory, but since the Gospels were written in a non-linear fashion I don't know that I can rule it out either.  It never occurred to me.

 There was nothing sacramental about Jesus: no breaking of bread at the last supper, no blood and water at the crucifixion, no wedding at Cana.  He did promise to build His church on Simon who, when renamed "Peter" was told helpfully by another apostle that "Peter" means "rock" in Greek.  That was a strange, but probably necessary, literary device.  The only "hard teaching" was a scene where Jesus was apparently preaching for the first time and told people in the market place to love their enemies.  They rejected that and walked away.  Later on when He had attracted a following, He was preaching "blessed are the poor" and "blessed are those persecuted for righteousness".  It gives the impression that His first attempt at preaching didn't go so well, so He had to punch up His delivery some and possibly punch up the message as well.

In the movie, Jesus did not appear physically after the resurrection, but answered the prayers of Peter in the boat leading Peter to shout out "He is here!" That's incredibly bizarre.  The tomb was empty just before that so presumably Jesus ascended immediately upon resurrection? Or Jesus was now in a state that transcended time and space and is with us always?  But that's how God is described in the movie, so what was the point of the crucifixion and resurrection?  That also seems a bit gnostic to me and particularly seems taken from the skeptical tradition of Rudolph Bultmann and Raymond Brown.

There have been a few movies about Jesus running in the Easter season: The Passion of the Christ, The Bible (and it's sequels) and now Killing Jesus.  Clearly The Passion of the Christ is the best of them all.  Without a doubt.  I can't decide of Killing Jesus is better than The Bible or not.  Some parts I clearly thought were better, but I thought the Bible dealt with the trial of Jesus in a much more believable way.