The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 3 [s5e06-08] (2025)

 

I saw the third and final part of The Chosen: Last Supper last night and I have a very narrow window in which to post some comments so I'm, just going to post some initial thoughts under sub-headers and get through as many as I can in the available time. There's good, bad and some, well, ugly stuff in this episode so this will be a bit of a mix. Spoilers throughout.

Structure

Episode 6 picks up from the dramatic reappearance of Nicodemus at the end of the last episode. We also get to meet the man who has previously been dubbed "The Watcher" and it turns out he's called Matthias. Those familiar with the book of Acts will know that this is the name of the man chosen to replace Judas, so this is inevitably the same character. As before the opening scene starts at the Last Supper, showing the segment from John's Gospel than leads up to the passage that episode 5 began with.

 

Episode 7 then starts with the scene before that in John's Gospel where Jesus arrives and starts washing the disciples feet. Those of us who were disappointed that The Watcher didn't turn out to be Mark have a treat in store because we do get to meet Mark. The main part of the episode joins up the gap between where the last episode ended and where this one begins. It's the join between the intro sections (which have been telling the last part of the story backwards and the main section which has been moving forwards. In between we get to see several of the disciples remembering their lives shortly before Jesus called them.

Episode 8 now abandons this structure. We instead start with a flashback to Jesus calling Thaddeus – his first follower – on a building site near Bethsaida. The main story progresses to the Garden of Gethsemane and Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek having just arrived with a cohort of temple guards and officials.

Flashbacks

The Chosen has often used flashbacks, often back more than 1000 years into the Hebrew Bible, sometimes into scenes from minutes ago. We've also had several scenes showing how disciples came to be disciples, particularly those of Peter, Matthew and Zee (Simon the Zealot). But some of those other disciples we've never really seen how they came to meet Jesus, particularly Little James and Thaddeus. We've learnt a little about Little James, because he has had conversations with Jesus about his disability and how he himself has not been healed, but some of the others have been mysteries.

Here some of these stories are finally revealed and in glorious black and white as well. As I think I've admitted before, I am a sucker for black and white photography. I know it sounds pretentious, but I genuinely have to counterbalance my own love of black and white films when I review them because they appeal to me so much. And these sections were lush. The one of Simon the Zealot heroically trying to save two younger zealots only to discover he has sent them to their deaths is heartbreaking. Those about Big James and then of Andrew and Philip really stood out as well. 

 

Big James' was first such that I was so busy enjoying the filmstock that I don't recall the details. Andrew and Philips comes together as they are on the road with John the Baptist and the line about making the paths straight finally comes out. Little James we see how his dreams of becoming a singer in the temple are dented by his mentor and then he meets Thaddeus and Jesus on the road. 

 

Anyway these sections are beautiful to look at and on that level I enjoyed them, but to be honest after the first few they began to drag a bit and feel a bit like they were being dragged out a bit. The feeling, for me at least, was not unlike those episode you occasionally used to get of Friends or The Simpsons where they'd just assemble a bunch of clips from previous shows together and film and opening scene, a closing scene and a couple of link shots.... and yet this was new material. Personally I think it might have been better if these scenes had eeked out a long the way, a little as happens in season 1 of Lost (which I've just started watching). Perhaps with the flashbacks this season has a few too many structural gimmicks going on already but either at least one of these sequences should either have been cut or brought into an earlier episode, because they are beautiful and moving, but the effect started to wear thing quicker than it should have.

Gethsemane

The scenes in the Garden of Gethsemane take up most of episode 8 so there are a number of points I want to make about it. Firstly, this is one of the few on-screen biblical adaptations to include all three of the cycles of Jesus praying and then finding the disciples that we find in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke or John where they abbreviate down to just one cycle. This is a continuation of how this series has tended to be structured with John's account of Holy Week being covered in the pre-credits sequences, and the Synoptic take on the last days leading up to Jesus' death being covered in the main section of each episode.

Secondly, easily the most striking element of this cycle, and certainly the one that is boldest visually is that of Jesus walking through Ezekiel's valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). This is the third of three visions that Jesus has (one for each cycle of praying & sleeping disciples, I think . The other are of Abraham and Isaac en route to the aborted sacrifice; and of his father Joseph, who hugs him). I have a vague memory of this scene from another production, but I can't quite remember where (2013's The Bible? This is what you get in a quick post like this one!). Anyway, it's a very striking, even if something about it feels a little off. It's interesting too that this non-biblical meeting with a past prophet – Ezekiel – gets included, but the transfiguration wasn't included (which I can understand).

 

Finally, what I really liked in these scenes were the visual references (conscious or otherwise) to previous artistic takes on these moments. This is partly because last weekend I got to go to the National Gallery and witness some of these amazing paintings, but their influence has definitely been passed down and seems to pop up here. Some of these are about the large rock that Jesus clings too. Othes are more to do with the disciples lying prone, deep in sleep. In particular, Andrea Mantegna's "The Agony in the Garden" (1455-6) and Giovanni Bellini's "The Agony in the Garden" (~1458-60), but possibly Ferrarese's "Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" (16th century?) and Jacopo Tintoretto's "Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane" (1543-4) as well. I have a feeling there's at least one more of these, but don't have time to search for it right now.

Mark

I was really pleased to see Mark get an appearance as he only rarely makes it into Jesus films and what an appearance it was! I think most normal people found the Gethsemane scenes the most emotional, but for me the closest I was to tears was during the opening moments of episode 2. There we meet a young man, a mid-teenager, really, meticulously laying out the venue in which so much of the season has taken place: the upper room. 

 

From a conversation he has with his dad we learn that Mark has incredible visions. It was one of them which brought them to Jerusalem and to buy this very house after an earlier vision of that very room and now he has had another one. Or should we say three, because on top of a repeat of his vision of the room all laid out and being used for this meal, he has also had one of him carrying water to the well and one of his father in conversation with two men making arrangements for their master.

I don't know whey I'm so moved by this. It is an interesting plot device as well as further way of arguing for the reliability of the Gospels. According to The Chosen not only are Matthew and John literate scribes who write down everything as it happens (and Matthew has perfect recall due to his ASD), but now we find Mark as another eye witness who may not have been a disciple, but met them and knew them, but who also has special visions, presumably from God. It's an interesting and fun piece of dramatic licence, but it is notable how these moments all tend to point in the same way.

Anyway, this guy Mark is probably going to turn up at the very start of season 6 and I suspect will be losing some clothing shortly thereafter. (I'm not a mystic, it's just a popular interpretation of Mark 14:51-2)

The worst antisemitic stereotype yet

I didn't really want to lead with this, but I have to say that one scene towards the start of episode 6 absolutely appalled me. The first antisemitic racist insult I ever heard was at school. It was about Jews being "tight-fisted", money-grabbing, ridiculously reluctant to spend, or save money. It's an age old, very much Christian, slur about the Jewish people going back to the medieval times when, barred from most professions by the authorities (including the church) some of them managed to survive by doing work Christians at the time were forbidden from doing handling and investing money. Once some Jewish people succeeded at it, they got a name for it, and then envious Christians turned it into an insult and came up with all kinds of slurs to explain away their success.

And now here we are, hundreds of years after these stereotypes emerged and probably 40 years after I first heard the insult at school, in a time that we have otherwise (thankfully) largely left behind recycling racist slurs and what do we get? We get Judas and Caiaphas haggling obsessively over how much money Judas will get for betraying Jesus.. I can't say it's the first Jesus film to show this, but certainly the vast majority have the cultural awareness, the decency maybe, or at the very least the common sense not to recycle old racist stereotypes about Jewish people. 

I'm sure some will probably wish to defend this so allow me to say a little more. Firstly, this is not anywhere in the Bible. Of the four Gospels, John (who does call Judas a thief, 12:6) doesn't even mention an exchange of funds. All three of the Synoptics mention an exchange of money, but only Matthew gives the 30 pieces of silver detail. None mention any form of discussion over the fee.

The two characters in the haggling scene matter too. Judas is significant because he became (in later Christian tradition) especially associated with the Jews. Bizarrely many came to think of the majority of the disciples as not Jewish, but Judas retained that cultural identity. He became seen as typical of them. Then, of course, there is Caiaphas, who was, in many people's minds the leader of the Jews and therefore also, in a sense, a representative of the Jews. 

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me work out how this got past the advisory committee, and frankly, the fact that it did it seems to undermine the advisory board's very existence. Is it doing anything other than providing intellectual cover? Have there been any scenes at all that they have successfully vetoed? Honestly Dallas Jenkins and the other writers and producers need to take a long hard look at themselves, and perhaps the odd history book, because this is not acceptable and frankly I now have serious concerns about how season 6 is going to play out.

Final points

It's a shame to end on such a negative note and there are some more areas I'd like to talk about but I don't have time to discuss, the middle class nature of most of the disciples that emerges from all those flashbacks. Perhaps Is should have caught them earlier? I was also interested by the way that Jesus actually wears some headgear in his flashback scene. I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that this is almost the only occasion we've seen this (was it just to avoid continuity issues with his shorter hair in the first season? Or a sign that he put off something when his ministry began. Also what is with Nicodemus' crime-movie string board?

Anyway, let me know what you made of it all in the comments.

The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 2 [s5e03-05] (2025)

Part 1 of The Chosen: Last Supper proved so popular in the UK that theatres agreed to give parts 2 and 3 a limited cinema run here as well. Each part is 3 episodes rolled into one, so there's quite a lot to get into. I'm going to say that there are spoilers throughout as I didn't say that about my review of part 1, but then someone said they did consider what I wrote to be in that ball-park, so I thought I'd declare it up front and then I can talk about what I want.

As with part 1 (my review), each of the three episodes has a pre-credits sequence which begins with a section of The Last Supper, organised Memento-style, so that it starts with the final section and then – at the beginning of the next episode – leaps back to the section before it. Meanwhile, the normal timeline progresses as it did before, such that here, when we jump back to the 'present day' we're back in the temple courts in the aftermath of Jesus turning over the tables.

The three episodes in Part 2 here map out as follows: The first episode (episode 3) revolves around Jesus in conflict with members of the Sanhedrin and the end of his public ministry. The next section (episode 4) is much more behind the scenes, particularly with Jesus' followers as the group return to Bethany and among the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem who disagree as to Jesus and how he should be treated. The final segment (episode 5) sees the return to Jerusalem, Judas' continuing uncertainty and Caiaphas trying to engineer a solution to his Jesus problem.

Given that we're effectively picking up from Jesus' 'clearing' of the temple, inevitably a confrontation with the Pharisees, the high priest and one or two representatives of other Jewish sects ensues. Here and throughout, Jonathan Roumie delivers a strong performance as Jesus: passionate, wise, compassionate, charismatic and occasionally funny, his performance is the glue that really holds The Chosen together. And here the demands on Roumie are increasing. This is no longer a case of convincingly impressing the crowds, but to balance Jesus's knowledge of his divine calling with his knowledge that doing so entails pain, suffering and rejection.

Scholars often talk about the different portraits of Jesus that come through when comparing the different Gospels. Here, though, there's a sense of a different Jesus compared to previous series (seasons). My criticism of the climax of Part 1 was that the reasons for "why Jesus acts in quite such an extreme way...don’t quite add up...(to) such a violent swing in personality" and interestingly this is not only something that some of the disciples question themselves, but also something that is repeated during this part of the show as well.

Two incidents really stand out in this respect. The first is his one on one discussion with Judas while they are keeping away from the crowds in Phoebe's house (I expect great things from her, eventually). It's preceded by a similar one to one with John, in the same room, but the nature of the conversation could not be more different. With John, Jesus is relaxed, occasionally smiling. The two men sit side by side and laugh, do a slightly awkward retelling of the Jephthah story, reflect on Greek art and literature and occasionally underline their emotional intimacy with physical touch.

In contrast Judas and Jesus sit opposite each other across a table (see above image) as if it's a terse supervisory meeting. They barely, if ever, touch. Judas is questioning Jesus, but rather than the understanding, or even encouragement he has exhibited with the other disciples, Jesus seems closed off and tetchy with his would-be betrayer. I can't remember (after a single viewing) if Jesus raises his voice, but certainly that's the atmosphere in the room.

And this is after two earlier confrontations with the Shmuel and some of his colleagues from the Sanhedrin. Having clashed immediately after the turning of the table, a handful of Jewish leaders decide to try and catch Jesus out with clever questions. When they fail, he eventually turns on them and unloads an abridged version of the seven woes (Matt 23) that's second only in tone to Enrique Irazoqui/Enrico Salerno in Il vangelo secondo Matteo (Pasolini, 1964).

The most extreme example is when Jesus unleashes his ire on a fig tree – also memorably captured by Pasolini for Il vangelo. This really does come off as frustration-induced anger, even though the next day Jesus tries to pass it off – in one of those bits of expository dialogue which The Chosen is littered with – as a symbol of the temple looking ready but not bearing fruit, but I can't say that, on the basis of the show, I buy it. I'm glad they included this often-overlooked passage, particularly as the opted for the version in Mark where the tree doesn't wilt until the next day to die, but Jesus does not seem himself. Even his disciples have noticed. 

For me, something's a tiny bit off here. If Jesus were supposed to be merely human, this would make a lot of sense, his slightly more volatile mood would just be an understandable reaction to the stress and anxiety he feels about the pressure he's under. But he's not. The show has gone to some lengths to portray him as divinely wise, forbearing and person-centered. It would be one thing if that simply faded here (and the fact that the disciples comment on it does mitigate this somewhat). It's that these moments are presented as if nothing is awry. But as a recent case in the UK has demonstrated, deliberately destroying trees goes against basic standards of decent behaviour. To both literalise the story and expect modern audiences to accept this version of Jesus to calculatedly commit vandalism just to make a point, seems to go against his character arc in the show so far (even if it the incident is in the Bible).

What is good here, though, is the way the disciples themselves question Jesus' change in behaviour. They don't just go along with everything as they do in other on-screen portrayals of Jesus (other than Judas for obvious reasons). They wrestle with it, worry about it and wonder if it was all worth it. If Jenkins desire is to show us Jesus through the eyes of his first followers then this is the difficult, but more rewarding approach. These feel like real challenges and if the "message" of these sections is to trust him in real life, then it's a muted and honest restatement of what that might entail, rather than sugar-coated platitudes.

So it's not just Jesus that is meandering across the emotional map. What these episodes do brilliantly is the way they portray how the disciples are coming to terms with the threat and the uncertainty that lies ahead. There's a whole range of responses to this new territory they find themselves in. Some turn into problem-solvers. Others turn to panic. They turn over Jesus' most recent actions in their minds and share their theories with the group. Sometimes their reactions are entirely fictional (but valid). Other times they deliver a line from the Bible towards which their entire character arc has been bent from the very start of the show.

It's fascinating watching the different stages the individual apostles (as they are called here for the first time) are going through. For some this seems like the first time they have actually been out of their comfort zone. Zee (Simon the Zealot) jumps behind the wall like a frightened cat when he sees a cohort of Roman soldiers approaching. Others worry that the three years they've spent following this rabbi might all have been wasted. In contrast, though, Simon Peter – previously all over the map emotionally – has really emerged as a leader, calm and level-headed under-pressure. It's made all the more poignant by the fact that we all know he has a major re-lapse ahead of him, which itself could be heart-breaking.

It's interesting too seeing the different reactions between Jesus' male disciples and his female followers, who also have an inkling of what is coming. Instead of problem solving, or arguing, their reaction is more compassionate and focussed on Jesus. In a memorable scene Jesus also has a last meal with them, where he thanks them for their support for his ministry. In some ways it feels more real because it's not confined with having to correspond with 5 chapters of John's Gospel. It ends with their own re-worked version of the Dayenu, thanking Jesus for the effect om their lives.

This episode is one of the most commented upon moments in the whole of season 5. The Dayenu is a Jewish prayer/song from a Passover seder where those assembled sequentially move through a list of things God has done which they are to be thankful for. Each speaks a couplet in the form "If he had done X, but not done Y, it would have been enough" before the next person develops the story "if he had only done Y but not done Z..." and so on. On the one hand I've seen numerous Chosen memes repeating the line "it would have been enough" on the other I've heard various people relay that the scene moved them to floods of tears. 

Here the women's version of it comes at the end of the middle episode (four) and certainly its emotional climax. It mirrors a scene from the start of the episode, from the Last Supper scene 'before the credits' where the disciples recite the proper version. But it's also intercut with the Passover celebrations taking place in Bethany where Zebedee and Salome and Mother Mary repeat the lines just as Andrew and Philip and Thomas are doing.

While appreciating the well-crafted nature of the scene and the emotional effect it has had on many, I did feel a little uncomfortable with a coupe of aspects. The first is simply that this prayer is a much later Jewish Passover song (9th century AD). This is something The Chosen does quite a bit, extrapolating much later forms of Judaism back into the first century, as if Judaism is unchanging. One only has to consider how radically Christianity changed across that same period to realise how foolish such an assumption is, and some would argue slightly offensive. Secondly it's hard to think of a more pointed example of the show's supersessionism than taking a Jewish song, directed towards the one God and rewording it to place Jesus centre-stage in God's place. Of course, we do find moves of this kind happening in the New Testament. Tom Wright, for example, argues that Paul does this in 1 Cor 8:6 where he "has placed Jesus into the middle" of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). [2]

If this was the sole example of an underlying anti-Judaism in these episodes then it would be enough that would be one thing, but there are a few other elements I disliked. Four stand out in particular: the specific wording aimed at Judas; the portrayal of Caiaphas; the Roman reaction to Jesus' activity; and the way the decision is made to kill Jesus. I've touched on some of these before, but the show is getting to the pivotal scenes, scenes which when mishandled in the past have led to terrible acts of antisemitism.

The bit that really shocked me was Jesus turning to Judas at the Last Supper and saying to him "He has you now" (it is implied, though not explicitly stated, the "he" is Satan). In fairness, John's Gospel both has Jesus call Judas "a devil" (6:70) and stating that "Satan entered him" (13:27). But the real problem is the subsequent reception of these verses. The link between Judas and the devil and with the way Judas quickly became seen as a representative of the Jews as a whole[3] combined over church history to characterise the Jews as people as given over to Satan and therefore worthy of persecution. I'd really hoped that the longer running time given to the series would develop Judas' character a little more sympathetically and to some extent it does, but this line was quite worrying. 

Of course the unusual thing about The Chosen in relation to potentially antisemitic material in other Jesus films is that in many ways the project provides considerably more nuance, background and depth to the story's traditional antagonists. Jesus' opponents are far more rounded, three-dimensional figures than they are in the majority of Jesus films. Yet this extended running times also means that there is more time to fill with a line like this one. The Chosen goes to great lengths to contextualise its stories, to be clear about the Jewish nature of the story and to honour the religious life of these people, so I find it strange when lines like this sneak through. Why did it need to be included given its history?

The portrayal of Caiaphas is also particularly bad. Sometime ago the actor playing Caiaphas (Richard Fancy) appeared on Dave Roos and Helen Bond's excellent podcast "Biblical Time Machine" [4] which rather set me at ease, but here he really does play into a lot of the stereotypes. Perhaps Caiaphas, as the most powerful Jew at that time, makes for an understandable antagonist, and a more appropriate one than Judas given the above. However, again his role is elevated here and the look, costuming, delivery and dialogue here mark him out as possibly the most irredeemable character in the series.

Certainly, as with most Jesus films, there's a huge contrast between Caiaphas and the senior Roman figures in the show. Atticus is smart. Yes, he's concerned, but he's pragmatic, decisive, witty and ultimately likeable. His concern about the problem Jesus poses is portrayed as reasonable. Pilate – historically evidenced as a butcher inside and outside the Bible – is portrayed as an uninterested fop, capable of cruelty (like a child picking wings off a fly), but easily manipulated and generally not overly concerned with the running of Jerusalem. It's shaping up to look like the Jewish leaders are going to be the ones manipulating the Romans into killing Jesus. (Not that there are many Romans in evidence in the first place).

Which brings me onto my fourth point, the way that the decision emerges to kill Jesus lacks a little definition. We had Caiaphas "prophesy" it in season 4, but the likes of Shmuel and Yanni seem to move from being extremely concerned about his blasphemy to deciding he needs to be killed far too suddenly.

It would take this review far too off-focus to unpack these issues here, but I'd respectfully ask that if you're unconvinced by these four too-brief points above, that you do some reading about the roots and effects of Christian antisemitism over the centuries and why I think even small moves in certain directions need to be resisted. It's something that every church should teach and hardly any church does.

There was another episode that the series had available that I was also concerned about going in, but for quite different reasons: the Olivet discourse (Mark 13/Matt 24-5/Luke 21). For me this is one of the key passages in the Gospels. It seems likely that recalling these words of Jesus about the destruction of the temple gave impetus to Mark in writing his story of Jesus' life and perhaps gave Christianity extra credibility in the years following Jesus' prediction coming true (in 70AD). 

Yet many interpret them in different ways, not least Jenkins' father Jerry, as relating to a still future events such as the rapture. So I liked how the various snippets found in these passages were included – as they are often missed out as seeming to weird for audiences – but not in a partisan way. Both the likes of Jerry Jenkins and the likes of me can appreciate what's included without feeling its pushing a particular agenda, which is a delicate balancing act, particularly from one (Dallas Jenkins) who has grown up at the heart of one interpretation's biggest influencer. As a side note this is one of those passages where on-screen Jesus takes John, but not Matthew, but the pericope appears in Matthew's Gospel, but not John's.

Matthew, who I think is my favourite character among the disciples, is actually a fairly minor character in these episodes. He does get one good scene with Jesus, but (understandably) the focus is much more on Judas, particularly in the final section here (episode 5). Jesus' confrontation with Shmuel and his colleagues has deeply troubled Judas and he feels Jesus' opportunity might be slipping away. Having tried, and failed, to get Peter on board, he then tries to convince Jesus himself. Both men effectively pose Judas the same question: given you acknowledge Jesus' power, why don't you accept his vision and understanding?

What is surprising is that Judas does eventually get some validation and from such an unlikely source, Philip. Upon their return to Jerusalem the disciples try to come to some understanding about the situation they find themselves in and how they are meant to respond to it. Initially Judas is at the far end of the spectrum, but then sparking off Matthew and Thomas he thinks he sees a way forward perhaps Jesus wants them to try to crucify him so he reveal his power just when he seems he is at his weakest. 

Perhaps if all the disciples had disagreed with Judas at that point, then he might have been talked out of it, but Philip agrees and so it seems that this proves decisive for Judas. I says "seems" because, oddly, the moments where Judas find his way to the high priest's house in the middle of the night is kind of skipped over. Instead these scenes are intercut with Mary Magdalene being abducted and taken secretly to be reunited with Nicodemus. It does give a pulsating conclusion to part 2, but when you reflect on it, it does so at the expense of the crucial part of Judas' journey. I'm slightly hesitant in saying that, because there were a number of my questions about part 1 that were countered early on in part 2, so maybe this material will also be covered in part 3. I do hope so.

From a technical angle, there is one particularly good use of the camera at the start of episode 5, when the disciples situated in the upper room break into small groups to discuss who the traitor might be. The camera roves between them capturing snippets of conversation before moving to another corner of the room. This highlights the fractured nature of the disciples whilst also connecting them, tying their fates together inextricably. The sets and quality of the costumes continues to impress and certain sections of this episode really did look magnificent on the big screen, justifying the decision to take this to theatres, rather than distribute it solely through streaming.

Overall, then, Last Supper: Part 2 offers an interesting exploration of the time between the clearing of the temple and the run up to its titular meal. The use of bookends and reverse-chronological ordering to enliven the Last Supper material not only works well in its own right, but will prove fascinating when I re-watch these episodes in future. Moreover, Dallas Jenkins and his team continue to demonstrate their ability to craft compelling and emotionally powerful drama from these ancient texts. As the show approaches its climax, the way they draw out the story threads of the many characters and weave them altogether into a single cloth remains hugely impressive.

=========
[1] I'm grateful to The Bible Artist (Kevin Keating) for his "Recap, Review and Analysis" for episodes 3, 4 and 5.
[2] Wright, Tom (1997) What Saint Paul Really Said (Lion Publishing). pp.66-7.
[3] Jerome writing in the 4th century said "Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed"
[4] I also appeared on this podcast – Episode 82 "The Best and Worst Jesus Films"

My interviews with The Chosen's Vanessa Benavente and Shahar Isaac

It's usually a busy few weeks for me in the run up to Easter and this year has been no exception with me trying to keep on top of three biblical dramas coming out and culminating in the same week (The animated film The King of Kings which had a strong opening weekend; Amazon Prime's series The House of David whose season finale dropped the previous week; and three instalments of The Chosen: Last Supper (season 5) which began the week before that).

As part of the build up to those releases I've been able to do some interviews, the first of which I posted on YouTube on Sunday, but I've not had a moment to share it here until just now. I got to speak to Vanessa Benavente (who plays Jesus's Mother Mary in The Chosen) and Shahar Isaac (who plays Simon Peter). Anyway, here's the video.

This is more or less the first time I've had the opportunity to interview actors, so apologies if I'm not yet at the level of Michael Parkinson / Oprah / François Truffaut. The set up threw me a bit and I need to work on how I deliver my questions, but hopefully you'll find what they had to say interesting.

I have another interview with James Arnold Taylor from The King of Kings coming shortly, so if you want more of the same, then subscribe to my channel, or keep an eye on the blog. 

The Chosen: Last Supper - Part 1 [s5e01-02] (2025)

Image Credit: 5&2 Studios. See all my The Chosen posts here.

The arrival of The Chosen: Last Supper in cinemas will mean different things to different people. On the one hand there are the fans of the show, who have followed Jesus, his followers, and indeed his enemies, through four seasons and a couple of Christmas specials. Many have watched those episodes multiple times and the chance to see their favourite show on the big screen is something for which they’ve been waiting for quite some time. It’s almost a celebration of what the show has achieved. Or validation, having started all those years ago as a relatively unknown, crowd-funded venture now pulling up a chair to the table in the high temple of entertainment.

Yet its arrival in cinemas also puts it into a different bracket. To others, it’s just a film. Among its audience of enthusiastic Christians, there will be those who have no idea about The Chosen. They might be there as invited friends. Or as those who’ve heard the hype and are interested to see what is drawing in 250 million viewers. Or they might be fans of historical cinema, curious atheists, or simply people who are bored with nothing better to do. What might The Chosen mean to them?

I’m fascinated by this juxtaposition, because attracting that latter group seems to be, at least in part, the aim of the show's creators. Yes, given the show was being filmed anyway, it will also raise some money; money which Dallas Jenkins – The Chosen’s showrunner – has always been clear, will be ploughed back into making the remaining two seasons (and perhaps, beyond it, other entries in The Chosen universe). But Jenkins has always been equally clear about his evangelical beliefs and his desire to spread the message of Jesus. As I’ve heard him say more than once “I believe that if you can see Jesus through the eyes of those that actually met him you can be changed and impacted in the same way they were”.¹

So I want to look at the film from two angles, how does this cinematic presentation work as part of the show, and how does it work as a stand alone experience for people who are unfamiliar with the show and might only have a passing familiarity with the Gospels? I’m conscious of potential spoilers, but given the source material is nearly 2000 years old I’ll happily discuss things in the New Testament, as well as obvious things from the publicity, but I’ll exclude things from the world of the show that might spoil the experience for fans – particularly in the UK we still have another two weeks to go before it arrives in cinemas.

In this article I’ll start with the question of how The Chosen: Last Supper works as part of the show.I’ll return to that second question in a later post.

At the end of season 4 Jesus and his followers have just arrived outside Jerusalem with the scene set for Palm Sunday, but that’s not quite where the series starts. If you’ve been curious, like I was, as to how “The Last Supper” made sense as a title when the Last Supper was scheduled to be the last event covered by the series then the answer is 'flashforwards'. 

Both episodes that make up “part 1” (effectively s5e01 and s5e02) start at the Last Supper. Jesus and his disciples sit in the upper room. He quotes at some length from the account in John’s Gospel and its lengthy speech by Jesus. The layout of the table at the Last Supper in Jesus movies is much discussed, from those seeking to echo Leonardo’s favourite painting, to those seeking to subvert it, such as Nicholas Ray’s Y-shaped table in King of Kings (1961).

Jenkins himself got the ball rolling on this one, way back in July, proudly posting the show’s composition in the midst of the furore around the Olympics Opening Ceremony. It’s been reignited by the show’s arrival in cinemas, people liking it /disliking it for its similarity / dissimilarity from (and let's remind ourselves) an old painting based, at best, on earlier carvings of this scene. Anyway, I’m keener on this composition than I was at first. It both nods to the tradition / iconographic but also works on a practical level (for a large group eating together, but still wanting to chat) and also a cinematic one allowing Jesus to be the centre and unencumbered by people in the way. Also the lighting here is beautiful and getting lighting this low to work is a significant challenge from a technical point of view. 

The use of the flashes forwards at the start of both episodes (and possibly each episode in the series) is a brilliant way to solve a number of issues the series might have had. The most obvious of which is that Jesus’ speech in John is very long, in places quite dense and obscure, and frankly a bit boring. Presented in linear fashion, it doesn’t make for good cinema, as anyone who has sat through it in 2003’s The Gospel of John can testify. By breaking it up and using each segment as a way into the episode it not only makes the speech digestible, but makes it more relevant. There are probably those who will hate it for precisely those reasons, but there we go.

When this particular flash-forward comes to an end we are back outside the walls of Jerusalem again with Jesus sat astride a donkey heading towards Jerusalem. But before they get too close they are stopped by three Pharisees, one of whom is Yussif still sitting on the fence and nervous about publicly supporting Jesus.² They warn Jesus about entering into Jerusalem in that way and about their concerns about how the Romans will respond to it.

This again ties in with the much underappreciated verse Luke 13:32 where the Pharisees warn Jesus his life is in danger. I do think this is a critical scene, because, aside from Yussif there are now reasonable portrayals of Pharisees who are not frothing at the mouth because of his blasphemy. They disagree with him perhaps, but reasonably, and they certainly don’t want Rome to harm him. I was interested to come across a recent quote from Jenkins that says “Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee”.³ While that’s certainly contestable it’s increasingly one of the frames I approach the gospel stories through. What if this was all inter-family debate? I do wonder if Jenkins has shifted to this position as the series has progressed.

Jesus and the disciples carry on, unperturbed. The triumphal entry is also quite interesting, because the crowds welcoming Jesus are big, but not that big. “Over a million people are here” someone says later on. Josephus, somewhat prone to exaggeration, recalls there being 3 million in Jerusalem for the Passover in 66 AD (Wars, book II, 14:3) so that’s not unreasonable. There’s nothing like that many here, more like the 5000 we saw in series 3. Later someone comments that this is “double the number of pilgrims” there were last year, with the implication being that this increase is due to the news about Jesus.

The scene also seems to tip its hat to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). It’s one of the few moments I recall the show using distorted electric guitars on the soundtrack, and here they have that relatively early distortion effect that was popular in the early 1970s. Moreover, part way through this moment, we also see Jesus’ mood change suddenly from relaxed and smiley to a bit more serious and perhaps concerned, something that also happens during this moment in Superstar.

Once inside, with the sounds of the crowd shouting “Hosanna to the Son of David” ringing in their ears, Jesus and his disciples eventually make their way in front of the clouds and we get one moment (that I shan’t spoil) that I can only really recall happening in one other Jesus film before, and even then it might have been narrated rather than shown more literally and discussed as happens here. The sets inside Jerusalem, particularly the huge one for the outer courts of the temple are really impressive. I can’t attest to their accuracy, but regardless it's an impressive feat.

As ever with The Chosen what is happening with Jesus and his disciples is only part of the story and here we’re treated to a meeting between Pontius Pilate and Joseph ben Caiaphas. There’s a deal of pageantry and ceremony to their meeting. Caiaphas is there to collect his ceremonial robes which he is only allowed access to on special occasions, and Pilate loves to taunt him, but he also knows the rules that the high priest lives by. Whether this school-bully type relationship is a fair equivalent of the power dynamics we can’t really be sure. Certainly Pilate had the power and what influence Caiaphas had (“... to the extent I have any control” he says at one point) derived to a significant extent from the position he had been given by Pilate’s predecessor. 

The other significant event to happen in the first section/episode here is that Jesus heads out during the evening undercover to sample the mood of the crowds. It’s nice to see a mix of ethnicities among the extras here, Acts of the Apostles after all lists a whole range of nationalities who were present in Jerusalem for Pentecost. 

Jesus is enjoying the festival atmosphere, he even gets dragged into dancing at one point. There’s something that rings true in Jesus getting distracted and caught up in someone else’s happiness for a moment and his joyful soul bubbling up. But then his shawl falls off his head and suddenly everyone recognises him and the moment is gone. 

Personally, I find Jesus’ response then a little weird. Returning to their accommodation for the week he asks Zebedee to take his mother back to Lazarus’ house. He doesn’t want her around for the next few days while he goes through what he needs to. But then he takes out the bridle that Joseph gave him in s3e03 – an heirloom that had been passed down since the exodus – and starts to fashion bits of it and fix them onto a whip he seems to have specifically brought with him.

Frankly, I was already finding the publicity’s fascination with this whip a little odd. It’s something only mentioned in John’s account of Jesus turning over tables in the temple, not in the synoptics. Yet it seemed to be one of the most prominent elements in the build up to the show with some seemingly getting quite excited at the prospect.⁴ The screen time devoted to this scene and its prominence (immediately before closing credits at the end of episode 1) just seem a little over-emphasised, as if they relish the idea of Jesus’ violence a little too much.

The turning of the tables scene itself occurs at the end of the second ‘episode’ and, again, it seems over-focused on the whip (not to mention Jesus’ exemplary whipping skills). Aside from his opening speech at the start of the 'episode', Jesus barely appears in this episode. That’s not something uncommon for the show, but again it raises a few questions. What was Jesus up to? Has he been pondering this action all day? Why wasn’t he making the most of his last day with the disciples? And in a clever way, it draws attention to the fact that there is so much the Gospels that we just don’t know, even in the most important week of Jesus’ life there are significant gaps. I’m reminded of that C.S.Lewis quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe “He’s not a tame lion you know”.

However, Jesus’ motives for his attack are made a little clearer by what some of his followers encounter during the day. Some of Jesus’ gentile followers who we have got know over the series now want to make sacrifices and so they try to exchange money and buy animals for a sacrifice. The disciples make it clear there is an extensive markup and that proves to be the case. That said, Tamar meets a fellow African store-holder who lets her have the animals she needs for free.

There are other potential triggers for Jesus’ actions. Zebedee and John try to bring their oil to the inner parts of the temple and in doing so they meet Malchus. Those who know the Gospels will recognise his name as the servant of the high priest who gets his ear cut-off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, he’s one of the characters who rarely gets a back story, and again The Chosen does a great job of crafting him as a three-dimensional person. John can’t accompany his father into the inner section of the temple buildings, due to him not being sufficiently pure (the implication being he’s had a nocturnal emission) and neither can Malchus, so the two men bond while they wait. From this, his sense of humour and the way he’s dressed more similarly to the disciples (and us) than the Pharisees and priests it does seem like he will eventually become a believer. The fact that he’s named in the Gospels perhaps also suggests that, but I wish the costuming didn’t suggest good Jews and bad Jews in this fashion. There are exceptions in The Chosen, Yussif wears a Pharisees headgear, but even then it’s only some of the time and he has the least imposing head gear of any person in religious dress in the show. 

Still, the question for me remains as to why Jesus acts in quite such an extreme way. For me the reasons the show presents us with, particularly these episodes don’t quite add up. The overcharging is bad, but is it that bad that it brings about such a violent swing in personality? Is Jesus even that concerned with the temple system? And are those who are invested in it doing that much more than following what has always been their people’s custom relating back to what’s revealed in the Hebrew Bible?

I’m aware of the theological answers that are often given to those questions, and that many historians consider this was the action of Jesus that got him killed. My question, though, is whether the show does enough to really explain its protagonist's drastic change of mood? The kind, loving patient, gentle (if also determined, focused and steely) persona developed in the previous four seasons is turned over so suddenly. And the whip, passed on from father to son going all the way back to the time of Moses, as if destined to be used for this? Yes, John's text has Jesus say “zeal for your house consumes me” but the show doesn’t really give enough motive, other than, I guess its own supersessionism. Perhaps the producers' also see something of themselves here, a desire to pop up in Hollywood's temple and tip over a few tables themselves.

There are a few other problems with these two episode, many of which are traits of The Chosen as a whole: the occasional burst of expository-laden dialogue; the idea that people really far away can still hear what you’re saying; the disciples having a hugely impressive ability to interpret any minor inflection of something Jesus does that relates to previously obscure bits of the Hebrew Bible, but miss the most obvious elements of what Jesus says.⁵ But it feels like the way show has built up this moment of confrontation, but not really explained it through character and drama is a significant flaw. Perhaps parts two and three may backfill some of these spaces.

For fans of the show, though, even if this bothers them, few will be put off. The show has been consistent enough to merit giving it the benefit of the doubt.⁶ And there is plenty to appreciate in this part of the saga, including the opportunity to see those sets, those crowds on the big screen and consistently good performances. In terms of the series as a whole, things are left at an interesting juncture. There’s quite a lot of Jesus’ words still to get through, including the Olivet discourse; the odd fig-tree to curse; the people’s reaction to Jesus’ actions in the temple; and of course Judas’ betrayal. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the season balances these various elements from here.

===================

1 - “Why THE CHOSEN was Created and How God Made It Possible” Praise on TBN -Matt Crouch YouTube Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecaT5_As1Gs

2 - This seems to be Joseph of Arimathea, which may have been confirmed in season 4, but I’ve not yet seen it.

3 -  Rich Tenorio, “Just in time for Passover, Jesus biopic ‘The Chosen’ premieres Season 5 in US cinemas” Times of Israel 28/03/2025 - https://www.timesofisrael.com/just-in-time-for-passover-jesus-biopic-the-chosen-premieres-season-5-in-us-cinemas/#:~:text=“Jesus was actually probably a Pharisee

4 - See for example this post and the responses to it - https://www.facebook.com/InsideTheChosen/photos/its-a-bit-more-like-chopped-or-hells-kitchen-than-chefs-kiss-but-yes-jesus-is-fe/1199537415072006/ 

5 - To be clear, the latter is a key element of Mark and to a slightly lesser extent the other synoptics, and to a certain extent John too, but it’s the way someone always catches the subtle things that Jesus does, even when they don’t really fit the specifics of the context when you look at them carefully that has eventually become a little jarring.

6 - As mentioned above I’ll cover how those less familiar with The Chosen might react in a separate post. 

The Chosen (2021) s2e07

Reckoning, the penultimate episode of The Chosen's second season opens, unusually on a close up of a wanted poster nailed to a wall. There's no image, just some text, written in a non-Roman, non-Greek alphabet (I think it's Aramaic, but I lack the expertise to rule out Hebrew) accompanied by a subtitled translation: "...Jesus of Nazareth sought for questioning". As if to firmly complete the Western-genre conventions, someone tears the poster off the wall and we cut to the inside of the building. It's Atticus. And we're finally going to find out a bit more about who he is.

Inside Atticus quickly gains an audience with Quintus and reveals he is a "Cohortes Urbanae", the Roman police force, essentially. Quite what he is doing this far from Rome is unclear, but I guess Rome didn't have an FBI and the Cohortes Urbanae is probably the nearest thing.

The last episode took the series' portrayal of the Pharisee to a deeper level revealing some of the different approaches and key discussions that lie behind than the two-dimensional image most Jesus films give us of the Pharisees. In this episode, the focus is going to be more on deepening our understanding of the Romans.

Preparing the Sermon on the Mount

Meanwhile, though Jesus is already planning the Sermon on the Mount and in more ways than one. Not only does he need to work out what he's going to say – and I really like the fact that at the end of the episode he gets Matthew involved in helping him craft his message – but there's a lot of attention to the practical details as well: publicity, location and "a security plan. Jesus knows this is going to be big: "This will define our whole ministry".

In honesty, I'm not sure what to make of this portrayal of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm impressed by its originality and practicality for sure. In Jesus films the Sermon tends to just happen. There are some key exceptions. Nick Ray's King of Kings (1961) has a similar, if lower scale approach as The Chosen, which I'll cover in my look at the opening episode of series three, but here there is a sense that the Sermon has been announced and word is spreading and it's becoming an event that people plan for: The authorities know about it and Lucius turns up on their behalf, as do some Jewish leaders. But in other films, it's either more spontaneous, especially Roberto Rossellini's Il messia (1975) -- where Jesus is walking along encounters and earthmound climbs up and delivers the Beatitudes to a relatively small crowd -- or Scorsese's Sermon on the Plain in Last Temptation of Christ (1988); or, most commonly, we just see the Sermon delivered as a set piece but with no sense of how it came to be. It has just dropped into existence miraculously because this is the Bible.

There's one other notable take, which I've mentioned before (as Tatum and others have before me). It's that of Pier Paolo Pasolini who – acknowledging the scholarly idea that the Sermon is really just a composite of bits of teaching Jesus delivered on various different occasions – shoots the words with a close-up of Jesus but with changing times of day, forms of weather, clothing etc. I'd argue that's not the only way to read the scene. On a practical level it seems to me Jesus only delivered each bit of material once and so Pasolini could also be showing how Jesus spoke the same core message at numerous times and in numerous locations. Anyway, feel free to read more of my thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount in Film where I take a look at how it's shown in the major Jesus movies.

So The Chosen's idea that this was a significant event with significant logistical challenges is an interesting innovation, and it picks up on something I'm increasingly noticing, The Chosen's portrayal of Jesus as a manager. At the end of my piece on s2e05 I mentioned how Jesus seems to slip almost effortlessly into "a delegating leader type role" and we see more of this here. Indeed there's even a scene which has the feel of a daily huddle / team catch up as Jesus gets a quick progress report from some of the disciples and delegates a few more tasks out to the others. 

I also can't help wondering in these scenes if they reflect the way that Dallas Jenkins operates as showrunner. It's often pointed out that when we see films, or parts of films, about artists working in other mediums (painters, writers, theatre directors) that these are really a stand in for cinema and the film is as much about filmmaking or being a director. This feels like The Chosen as got to this. Jesus' big production is one some level reflecting the filmmaking process. No wonder he seeks time with his writer ahead of filming delivering the Sermon.

...while avoiding trouble

If the disciples have a lot to do so ensure the Sermon on the Mount happens, they also have other things on their minds. There are, of course, the usual gripes that come about when adults spend a lot of time in close proximity, something that The Chosen generally does a good job of portraying, especially given the hints in the texts and behind the texts that there tensions. But even with Mary returning to the fold, and everyone having had something to eat some are feeling the pressure.

In particular, Andrew is struggling. He's concerned that the conflict in Wadi Qelt (see previous episode) is indicative of the kind of trouble Jesus and the disciples might run into with other authorities. He's clearly still angry that Mary's unexpected absence caused them to be hungry which then led to them picking and eating grain and being reported by the synagogue's leaders.

But more than being hangry, he seems unnerved by the news that John the Baptist has been arrested. Andrew had previously been one of John's followers and worries that Jesus too might be on the verge of being arrested.

This leads to a fascinating conversation between him and his brother Simon, which might even be one of the best in the whole series (though it's split across two scenes). When Simon suggests "Jesus knows how to handle himself", Andrew counters "You know what they're doing to John. We can't let them do that to Jesus...let's not make a scene everywhere we go". In so doing he unwittingly takes on the role of Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973).

Jesus in chains

Andrew's worst fears are soon realised. Atticus catches up with Gaius and his cohort en route to arrest Jesus and bring him to Quintus for questioning. When they find Jesus the arrest is handled in an oddly gentlemanly fashion. Jesus is allowed to say goodbye to his Eema, even before the Sons of Thunder have surrendered their weapons, and Jesus is able to reassure his followers telling them "Don't be afraid" as he is arrested. There's an almost supernatural calm about him, which seems to prevent any of the more hot-blooded contingent in the scene to be calm too. It's arguably Jesus' best "Jedi" mind trick yet.

Nevertheless, once he's been taken away in chains, with a healthy nod to The Passion of the Christ, the disciples don't stay reassured for long. Andrew particularly seems to blame Mary Magdalene for being "selfish" and telling her to her face "You might be responsible!". Eventually Matthew, breaks out of his usual shy demeanour to defend her. (I'm told real Chosen fans have coined the power couple name Martthew, though some see more potential for Thaddalene)

If Jesus' arrest is rather cordial then his "interrogation" by Quintus verges on being positively jovial. Quintus, who even at the best of times taps into that camp-Roman ruler trope, here threatens to go the full King Herod from Jesus Christ Superstar but settles for an awkward metaphor-dressed-as-a-warning about fish and bones. Their interaction does give Jesus some of his best lines. One notable example comes at the end of their conversation. Quintus asks Jesus to stop "meddling", but Jesus demurs, saying that he can't promise not to. Quintus calmly threatens "Then I cannot promise you won't stop breathing" Jesus holds his ground "Well, it sounds like we're clear on what we can and cannot promise."

I must admit I feel a little bothered about how the Romans are portrayed relative to the Jewish authorities at this point. Quintus is camp, to the extent that he feels slightly out of place here. Gaius is possibly the gentlest Roman to have walked the Earth seemingly neither strong enough, aggressive enough or smart enough to have survived many battles let alone made it to a senior rank. It's hard to believe that men like these have conquered most of the known world, and given it a reputation for being vicious. The disciples might be scared of them, or at least what they represent, but they seem weak, if pleasant enough once you get to know them.

Atticus is the only one of the three who seems credible and while the suggestion is that he would have no compunction about dispatching an enemy to the Elysian Fields, he's also portrayed as being open-minded, wise and insightful. My hunch is that in the end he will become a follower of Jesus

This contrasts quite strongly with Jesus' more hot-blooded Jewish opponents, particularly the Pharisees. They don't seem to be reasonable. They also seem to have a power, and seem to rule over their people by fear. Andrew seems to fear they will get Rome or Herod's men to do their bidding for them if need be. It's true that in this episode the more lower level Roman soldiers do put them in their place a bit. 

Now in series one Shmuel's former rabbi Nicodemus did seem to embody some of these characteristics, but in some senses I'm not sure how much that really counts. Not only has he been out of the picture more or less in this series, but also, we all know that he ultimately becomes some sort of follower of Jesus. But the way things are heading, I get the feeling that we're going to be seeing angry, strong, passionate Jews bullying the weak Romans into executing Jesus. I hope I'm wrong. 

Incidentally, two little side notes at this point. Firstly, it was interesting to see Jesus specifically deny that he's been to the (far?) east, presumably this is to quash the stories of Jesus spending his teen years in India. Secondly amongst the good lines we do get Jesus saying "that's a little reductive" at one point, which is one of those phrases that just feels too modern to be at home here.

A Pharisee warning

While we see a lot of Roman activity in this episode, there is quite a lot going on with Jesus' Jewish opponents as well. This is another episode that doesn't cover much ground biblically speaking, but is building characters and the broader narrative. Shmuel is in town as well and now is determined to find more evidence of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. He calls in at the house of an old friend Yussif who we met in series 1. Yussif's got slightly less forceful head-gear.

 (I know that's a weird thing to say, but I reckon that if you line up the Pharisees in order of the height / elaborateness of their head gear, you'd find it mirrors the strength of their opposition to Jesus. In many Jesus films the visual coding of the costumes is that the more "Jewish" they are in the way they dress, the more likely they are to be responsible for Jesus' death, which seems like a very subtle, probably unconscious, equating of Jewishness with Christ-killing)

Anyway, I was surprised to learn from a recent interview that when Dallas Jenkins originally conceived of Yussif he hadn't thought to make him Joseph of Arimathea, but here we definitely see a more open approach from him and Nicodemus is also his rabbi so that kind of fits too. Shmuel decides to try and find Tamar (from s1e6) who has been witnessing before sizeable crowds with her formerly disabled friend to tell people about Jesus. Shmuel hopes she can confirm he healed a leper on the Sabbath.

But Andrew and Philip get there first and take Tamat and her friend aside to beg them to stop, lest they put Jesus in danger. Shmuel arrives just as the crowd is starting to disperse, but happens to meet the priest and the Pharisee from Wadi Kelt who tell them about Jesus healing on the Sabbath there and calling himself the "Son of Man" (s2e6).

Meanwhile as Andrew and Tamar are talking Yussif arrives and further stoking Andrew's paranoia, warns he and Philip that Jesus is in danger. This is a crucial, but sadly often overlooked verse from Luke 13:31, where the Pharisees warn Jesus he is in danger. This is evidence the popular idea that the Pharisees hated Jesus and were responsible for having him killed. If they wanted that why warn him. Sadly, though, it's absent from almost every Jesus film. Even here it's only one Pharisee, and a proto-Christian at that. Still I'm glad they included this part, though I'd love to see a more fulsome warning later on as well.

The Lord's Prayer

Finally Jesus returns to the disciples and preparation can again begin in earnest for the Sermon on the Mount. And it's here we get another of the classic set pieces of Jesus films, and obviously church practice: The Lord's Prayer. In Matthew's Gospel, however, it sits relatively quietly in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:9-15). I'm kind of intrigued as to how it became such a central part of the traditional church service, as evidenced even in the first century after Jesus' death in the Didache.

Different Jesus films have different ways of handling the formal way in which this prayer appears in much Christian worship. In some films, such as The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), the scene is portrayed formally as well. Jesus speaks each line and the assembled crowds repeat each in turn. Other movies take the opposite approach, if very informal, paraphrased, and spoken out as if it's off the cuff, almost. 

Here we get a question as per the Gospels, but Jesus' answer is more as a model of the kind of things to pray about than a formal set prayer. It's a halfway house perhaps between the others. The structure is important, but the wording less so.

But perhaps what's most interesting about it is that it trails off halfway through. I'm fascinated by this. One the one hand this is more or less the only biblical episode in the whole 43 minute running time. This isn't a curtailment that was required for reasons of time. I guess it's a quirky dismantling of what is typically a set piece in onscreen portrayals of the Gospels. Like the Gospels it's one thing among the countless others that Jesus said.

On another hand though it seems to draw on the assumption that everyone knows this prayer. And perhaps, given that the show is largely watched by Christians, they do. It's just a clever way to evoke something and to leave the Christians to fill in the rest in their heads. Yet the show is meant to be introducing those who aren't believers to discover Jesus, so this maybe leaves them scratching their heads a bit. It's not really my concern, but it's a bit odd in that sense.

So I can't decide how I feel about that. I feel some days I might argue for it's bold creativity and interesting way with dealing with a potential cliché, other I might grumble a little. And maybe I like it for leaving me unsure what I think about it as well.

For anyone who can't wait for my write up of the next episiode, you don't have to! I wrote it a while back when I was prepping a Jesus films course, so you can read it here now.

The Chosen (2021) s2e06

Following Mary's disappearance at the end of the last episode, we're concerned to find out what has happened to her. But those binge watching in the hope of a quick resolution will have to wait: the pre-credits sequence, as is often the case, takes us back into the even-further-past, to recreate an incident whose importance will resonate later in the episode.

Ahimalech

This time it's back to Nob in 1008 BC and the events of 1 Sam 21:1-9. Here David and his men, hungry and on the run from King Saul, beg the priests of nob for food and Ahimelech allows them to have the holy bread. It's an incident that has been adapted for the screen before, most memorably in the Richard Gere film King David (1985), but is often left out. Indeed it might just be an obscure verse in the Hebrew Bible, but for the fact that Jesus quotes (or rather misquotes) the incident in Mark 2:23-27 where he calls the priest Abiathar (the name of Ahimelech's son who later joins David). Both Matthew (12:1-8) and Luke (6:1-5) repeat the story but omit the error.

There are various ways to explain this apparent problem: Perhaps Abiathar was the high priest and Ahimelech just the one who gave David the bread. Or perhaps Abiathar is a scribal error, or an error by Mark. Or that Jesus, as a human, could have a temporary lapse in memory and still be God.  In The Chosen's version of this story the priest is called Ahimelech, but refers to his son who is apparently called Abiathar. And, when (predictably) Jesus references this incident later in the episode, he calls the priest Ahimalech.

There's another interesting wrinkle in this story too: the fact that David appears to lie when he claims he is on a special mission from "the king". In The Chosen's version of this story Ahimalech (as he is called here) calls David out on this point "it's my understanding you and the king are not on friendly terms", but David clarifies his meaning: "I've been sent on a mission from the king" (glancing upwards to imply God). 

This changes the nature of the interaction. In Samuel, Ahimelech doesn't seem to know about the problems between David and Saul. It's a reasonable request, David promises his men "have kept themselves from women" so Ahimelech lets him have the bread and Goliath's sword. There's a sense of shock, then, in the following chapter when Saul finds out and has all the priests of Nob killed, even if Ahimelech's praise of David stokes Saul's fury.

Here though The Chosen expands things. David reminds Ahimalech about the pikuach nefesh, a principle rooted in the Jewish belief about the sanctity of life meaning that most of the laws could be broken if it meant saving a specific life/specified lives. While the principles behind pikuach nefesh can be traced back to Lev. 19:16, it seems unlikely that it was being cited like this by this stage. Discussions about the principles behind it are coming from centuries later, indeed a good dal of time after Jesus. Indeed the fact that Jesus has to refer to the story, rather than just cite the principle is good evidence that the understanding behind the principle was still building at this stage. Nevertheless, for those who don't know the principle by it's Jewish name, David spells it out moments later: "Life is more sacred
than bread".

The second addition here is that Ahimalech is also given some kind of prophetic ability. Ahimalech realises that helping David might get him killed but he tells David doesn't care because "Something is going to come through you. I can feel it. Something bigger and more exciting". The implication is that he is talking about Jesus, David's descendent. 

In some ways these additions play against how the story is used later in the show. If Ahimalech knows that this scenario is a life and death situation involving something even bigger than freeing the Israelites from the Philistines then the stakes regarding the eating bread when Jewish law says you shouldn't are far higher. But then Jesus' point is far weaker: there's a big difference between what Ahimelech is doing and just letting the slightly hungry disciples chew on a few ears of wheat. But then perhaps the filmmakers decided that adding further emphasis to the broader point the series is trying to make about Jesus' divinity is more important than this one aspect.

There's something about Mary

This instalment was only meant to be short, but I'm 750 words in and I still haven't got to the credits! At the end of the last episode a couple of incidents that happened near Mary Magdalene, had seemingly triggered her past memories of her sexual assault (from s1e01) and she had disappeared. The episode ended Empire Strikes Back style with the unlikely pairing of Simon (not-yet Peter) and Matthew (never called Levi) heading off to find her. 

The promise of that pairing, both logical in a way (Simon's brawn and Matthew's brain) while also promising tension – Simon is arguably the least tolerant of Matthew's former life and his mannerisms. Here we find them on her trail waking up and planning their day but it's interesting that Simon is already softening towards Matthew. At least he accepts why he is there and is not too stupid to listen to him when he makes a good point (I must admit I'm very much on the side of my namesake if it comes to picking sides).

Meanwhile we find out, almost, what has happened to Mary. She's back in one of her old haunts, in a basement in Jericho gambling, and seemingly doing very well, like a 1st century Victoria Coren Mitchell (if you don't know who she is, you should really look her up). Strangely, though, the show is a little reticent to go into what Mary else has really been up to on this bender. She has maybe been drinking, but she still seems to be doing really well playing a game that looks like it requires high levels of physical co-ordination, so she can't have had much. And then there's this exchange between Mary and one of several sore losers

Mary: I came in here with a single shekel to my name, and now look at this pile, huh?
Sore Loser:  How did you get the first one, woman, hmm? What'd you have to do for it?
Mary: Wouldn't you like to know. 

The implication seems to be that she earned it with some form of sex work. For what it's worth a shekel is perhaps the equivalent of around £10/$15. While I certainly wouldn't expect the show to go into the details, I do find it a little strange that its squeamishness about going into what Mary did that gave her such a sense of shame ("He already fixed me once. I broke again, I can't face him. I'm a bad person" she tells Mathew & Simon when they finally catch-up with her). 

Of course the point of this whole incident is that Jesus accepts her back. I find this quite a bold and interesting angle for the show and according to this rebuttal video from Dallas Jenkins they've taken some heat for it (though I didn't manage to turn anything up in an, admittedly brief, search). In the video Dallas talks about this being part of his own experience and perhaps the reason Willard and his team decided to leave any specifics out was to make it easier for people to read their own experiences onto it. Many Christians will admit to letting Jesus down: Not many did so in quite the ways that are implied here. Anyway I like the idea that not all of those who followed Jesus became flawless saints straight away. And of course says "I just want your heart" and tells her that he forgives her and gives her a hug.

I must admit, I found two of these scenes really moving. Firstly, when Mary finds Matthew and Simon (a nice reversal on them looking for her) and the alter part of the conversation as Matthew's sensitive side and his growing awareness of his own moral failures convinces Mary that it's OK for her to come back. It's nicely played by Elizabeth Tabish and Paras Patel. And then, obviously, there's Mary's reconciliation with Jesus in his tent, with some nice foreshadowing of Simon Peter's own coming reconciliation post-resurrection.

Hungry disciples

As the opening scene suggests, the longer story of Mary's redemption is paired here with Jesus debating the laws around the Sabbath after some Pharisees call out some of the disciples for plucking "heads of grain" one Saturday. There's quite a build up to this issue. Not only do we go right back to the time of Ahimelech and exaggerate it a little bit, here it's really made clear that the disciples are properly hungry, rather than just a bit peckish. 

Firstly there is a conversation between Ramah and Mary, with Ramah extracting a few home economics tips from Mary who realises that they will all "be hungry for a few days". Next there is a conversation between Thomas who is concerned that "this is literally our last meal...Why can't he make food appear out of thin air?" and Andrew who recalls similar hardship when he used to follow the Baptist. "He doesn't sound like much of a planner" Thomas replies.

Thomas is naturally back in full doubting mode, which I think The Chosen is using to show he was always a bit of a doubter and so that the infamous moment when he doubts the resurrection was not a one off but part of his personality. (I'm reminded of Thomas in Lee and Herring's Sunday Heroes who occasionally interjects with "well I find that very hard to believe). But it's ongoing presence here suggests that it's his questioning personality that is a problem, intensifying the trait already present in John's Gospel of trying to steer people away from asking too many difficult questions.

And then in the final scene the hunger becomes too much for Simon Peter who absent-mindedly starts grazing on some wheat as they walk through a field and we arrive at the story from Mark 2:23-27 that everyone who knows the show and the gospels well has been waiting for. But the show reframes this incident, only having Jesus bring up the story of Ahimelech and the Jewish principle of pikuach nefesh right at the end of the episode.

Synagogues and Sabbaths

Immediately prior to this scene Jesus has already just had a Sabbath-related run-in with some Jewish authority figures. The gang turns up at the nearby synagogue in Wadi Qelt. This is a clever bit of research by the writers because there is a building known as the Wadi Qelt synagogue which some claim is one of the oldest synagogues in the world. The building dates back to the Hasmonean era around 70-50BC, but some dispute whether it was ever really a synagogue. (Incidentally, Wadi Qelt is a valley / stream between Jericho and Jerusalem that is possibly associated with the place where Elijah hid and was fed by ravens in 1 Kings 17:3).

The synagogue is dark and foreboding and looks almost as cold as the chilly reception given to Jesus and his followers. Jesus spots a man with a withered hand and proceeds to heal him despite the protestations of the two men leading the service. 

This story is also recorded in all three synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mark 3:1-6) where it comes immediately after the grain-plucking incident. Luke (6:1-11), specifies it takes place "on another Sabbath", but obviously this is just more than acceptable dramatic licence.

The two men leading the service are interesting in a number of ways. Firstly, one is a Pharisee and the other is described as a priest. The synagogue movement was still in its early days in the time of Jesus and there does not appear to be much uniformity about who led them or executed other roles. The Gospels and Acts suggest it was relatively easy to get to perform the role of teacher (Mark 1:39) or reader (Luke 4:16). Jairus we are told was "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:22) as is someone else in Luke 13:14.

It seems unlikely, though, that a priest would fulfil one of the more senior roles. Priests were for sacrifices at the temple, in Jerusalem. Perhaps they might be prominent members of synagogues in / close to Jerusalem, but we don't know of many synagogues in Jerusalem prior to the fall of the temple because synagogues were a sort-of stand-in for the temple for places too far away from Jerusalem. If you have a temple you don't really need a synagogue. It was only once the temple was destroyed in AD 70 that there began to be a real need for them. 

Wadi Qelt synagogue was about 25km from the temple, so it's not implausible that a priest would have a role there. Perhaps he was only in Jerusalem sometimes, or commuted, or was retired, but it's not likely. There were other members of the community who could fulfil these roles, and the whole set up at this point (pre-70AD) was away from key authority figures and more grassroots led.

It's far more plausible that a Pharisee was involved, however, given that their eventual successors – the rabbis – came to take on leading the synagogues as the movement took over following the fall of the temple. Eventually those different roles were increasingly consolidated into one role, fulfilled by a rabbi. 

We also know that one of Jesus' criticisms of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:2-7 was their "love" for "the best seats in the synagogues", which even if you see that as hyperbole (or a later addition) at least suggest that scribes and Pharisees did sometimes have access to the best seats. Though it should point out that in the earliest version of that quotation was from Mark 12:38-40 doesn't actually mention Pharisees. That's something Matthew and then Luke add in.

Another thing I appreciated here is that the priest and the Pharisee are clearly distinguishable by their costumes (see above). I don't really like the fact that the Pharisees in The Chosen wear their garments all the time – I don't think there's much evidence for that – nor that they are so elaborate, expensive and black (it's interesting that we occasionally talk about black hats and white hats as a metaphor for overly-simplistic distinctions between goodies and baddies in westerns, but there are actually fairly few of those movies, and many many more biblical films where we find black hats indicating the antagonists, namely the Pharisees).

Nevertheless, many Jesus films tend to lump all of Jesus' opponents into one, they wear similar costumes, hang out together and act similarly and given the shorter runtimes it's hard to notice any distinction here between them. Here, however, it's clear that these two men, while united against Jesus' more lax approach to the Sabbath, are not the same. And actually Lamech (the Pharisee) wears a simpler head garment than some of the other Pharisees opposing Jesus. But this is actually an extension of an idea this episode has already explored...*

Jesus, the Pharisees & the other Pharisees

Going back even further in the episode we find two Pharisees trying to cause trouble for Jesus after another of his Sabbath healings in s2e04. The two are Shmuel, who goes right back to s1e01, and Yanni who only started opposing Jesus after the healing at Bethzatha in s2e04. Together, they are now petitioning Dunash, who seems to be the chief of staff for President Shimon, the son of the famous rabbi Hillel and leader of the generally more moderate Hillelite branch of the Pharisees. 

Dunash doesn't really take their complaints seriously: they don't have enough witnesses; Shimon is too busy etc. Dunash even seems to allude distantly to the pikuach nefesh. and areas where the law needs "reform". While they are annoyed that Dunash has rebuffed them, they quickly pivot to the followers of Shammai, "the rigid one" as a slightly reductive piece of clumsy exposition puts it. 

Yanni recites a story about Shammai of such dedicated adherence to the law, you suspect even Yanni thinks he might be going a bit far. They hope Shammai will use it to gain the upper hand over Shimon politically-speaking.

What this does well – far better than any Jesus film I can recall off the top of my head – is delineate the Pharisees and make it clear that not only are all Jews not the same (as the show has done already, for example with the Zealots and a shout out to Simon the Zealot's super camp "training exercises" in this episode), but even among the Pharisees there are a range of views. On the one extreme we have Shimon and his late father Hillel. On the other we have Shammai, and close-ish to the Shammaites, but still markedly different we have Shmuel and Yanni.

There are some things I really hope for here and some things I know won't happen, but hope that they one day might in something else. It would be nice if Dunash and maybe even Shimon get more air time in the rest of the series (remember I've still not seen it all). That we could see this more liberal Pharisaism up close a little more. And that it is shown to be truly liberal. While it seems that Shimon is more relaxed about the rules of the Torah (this episode awkwardly mentions 613 rules here twice!) it also seems that this is as much about moral laxity, or being overly casual than that he's more closely aligned to Jesus. 

This matters because after the fall of Jerusalem a lot of the branches of Judaism disappeared. With the destruction of the temple there was little role for the priests and the more aristocratic Saducees were perhaps more deliberately and systematically disassembled by the Romans. Similar Zealot ideology was a busted flush and the Essenes held out in the desert for a bit before more or less their extinction.

The Pharisees, though (and particularly, but not exclusively, the Hillel school) , eventually sort-of morphed into the rabbis (apologies for the gross simplification) and so when we see them portrayed in Jesus films it's important to remember they are, in some ways, stand-ins for the Jewish people of today. The more questionable their motives, the more The Chosen looks like the uglier forms of supersessionism and antisemitism (if modern day Judaism is descended from an inferior despicable starting point etc.). So I hope the Hillelite Pharisees, at least, are shown to include more devout, genuine and compassionate people, especially if they do not end up becoming Christians).

What I'd love to happen was to see the narrowing of the gap between Jesus and the Pharisees and more of a recognition of the similarities between them. They had similar views on the Torah and belief in an  afterlife. The Pharisees had an interest in purity in every day living and we see Jesus discussing similar ideas around purity, holiness, being perfect and defilement. I think most Christians today like to think that Jesus was more relaxed about the rules of the Torah, and certainly that is the angle the show seems to come from but actually while Jesus was often less strict on certain rules he was more hardcore on others. Much of the Sermon on the Mount involves Jesus challenging his disciples to go beyond accepted standards.

So what would be nice would be to see these heated debates more as passionate in-family disagreements over relatively minor questions, than almost despising each other as much as the Romans. After all, in Luke 13:31-32, the Pharisees ultimately warn Jesus that Herod is trying to kill him: for all the passion of their debates they don't want Herod to kill him (like he killed John). 

For my money it's good that whereas in the Gospels the debate over the healing the man's hand ends with the Pharisees looking to "destroy" Jesus, here they seem concerned, and a bit angry initially, but softening to him even as they try to work out how to respond. The thought that Jesus might be for real seems to cross their minds, they seem at least a little open to the possibility even as they wrestle what the right way to respond is.

So this is an encouraging step and I hope the various flavours of Judaism in general, and Pharisaism in particular continue to get fleshed out in more detail. This has been a longer post than usual, and I do need to stop doing this and get on with catching up with the series before season 5 comes along in a few weeks.

* You can read more about ancient synagogues in Dana Murry's article for the World History Encyclopedia, "The Ancient Synagogue in Israel & the Diaspora". A much older (1896) and probably inaccurate piece by EDW Burton is also interesting.