Testament (2025): Fire Burns [s1e04]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

Episode 4 of Testament opens with a warning: "The following episode is about Acts 5:1-10 and contains scenes that some viewers may find difficult to watch". For those who don't know the text well, this might seems like a strange and perhaps intriguing warning at the start of the show. For those who are more familiar with it, it's intriguing for an entirely different reason. The story from Acts 5:1-10 is of Ananias and Sapphira, the couple in Acts who withhold some of their money from the disciples and pay the ultimate price. It's a story that has rarely been covered in biblical films. That's in no small part due the fact that Acts films themselves are none too common, and even more so because what we might mean by an "Acts film" is often a production more specifically about Peter and/or Paul rather than the early church as a whole. 

There are obviously exceptions, from Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli to the more recent A.D.: Kingdom and Empire (aka A.D.: The Bible Continues, 2015). What makes Testament's portrayal so particularly interesting is the way that it tackles what is often referred to as a 'problem text' in such an honest fashion. Typically problem texts in biblical films come with a certain amount of spin. The character who dies, or otherwise suffers, is portrayed as being far worse than they are when you look at the words found in the actual text. This means that when God takes actions that might otherwise seem extreme, the extremity of those things are somewhat mitigated by the behaviour of the character in question. This is something that at least as far back to DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments where the firstborn son of Pharaoh (destined to die at the end of the plagues) kicks Moses on the shin in one of the preceding scenes.

It would be easy for Testament to do something similar with Annas and Sapphira, perhaps making them otherwise objectionable as characters. Admittedly, they're not the kind of character that I would necessarily warm to, but that feels like it comes down to personal preference. Otherwise, the series plays it fairly straight. They don't do much less or much more than what the text tells us. They sell something, they withhold some of the total, yet still perform an act of incredible generosity, 'perform' perhaps being the operative word.

Perhaps Ananias enjoys the appreciation that comes with his donation a little too much, but again, this hardly seems like a personality flaw that merits him being killed. Moreover, it's Sapphira whose death we actually see. And she is made all the more sympathetic as a result.

The route into this story starts very early on with Peter sat doing the accounts. He's allowing Matthew out to do the preaching for a time, while trying to play a more serious role, not just doing the bits he enjoys (which is clearly preaching) and sharing out some of the less enjoyable responsibilities. Again this is an interesting perspective, recognising that some jobs are perhaps in church life more glamorous than others.

Indeed, this episode does really feel like the kind of lower-middle class, urban, evangelical church environment that you find in places in Britain these days, where some churches really do try and live out the principles we find in the early part of Acts. There's probably a soup kitchen that runs on Tuesday nights and occasionally training days and conferences take place in Barnabas's centre. Someone has a guitar. I feel like I've been in some of these rooms dozens of times.

This closeness to modern day expression of Christianity is also reflected a little in their Christology. There are a couple of moments where their view of who Jesus was and how they should respond to that feels perhaps a little further on than would have been the case. For example, in the penultimate scene Peter describes Jesus saying "our saviour is not just a man, he is God". There are faint touches of this in the later Gospels, but it's not clear that the disciples had worked all these things out so soon after his resurrection.

This idea about Jesus being fully equal with God is perhaps a little bit early. Likewise, we're introduced to a child character in this episode, Malachi, who is assigned to Stephen, perhaps as a way of keeping Stephen in the plot, but also away from the glare of the Ananias and Sapphira episode. Malachi was left at the centre by his mother for a week and has been acting up. 

Stephen is brought in as someone who is "good with kids" and tries to see through Malachi's mischievous behaviour to the hurting child behind it all. It also allows Stephen to reflect on his own relationship with his own mother – the two of them are still estranged from episode 1. Malachi's arc feels a little bit trite and clichéd, it's certainly not to the standard that we've come to expect from the show so far, but he's been impressed by what he's seen about this man he doesn't know, Jesus, or as he calls him, "that person everyone's been singing about". Again, the question of whether the followers of Jesus were worshipping him with songs at this stage in the church development is open to some debate. 

But then the show both demonstrates within itself that time is moving on. There's been a bit of a jump between episode three and four. The centre is now fully up and running and has been for a little while and fully in use. There are other indications too that time has passed. Mara's punishment is coming to a close. Saul is still in the records room but it's clear he's been there for some time. In his interview with Peter Chataway, director Paul Syrstad explains that they're trying to give a sense of these events taking place over many years even if the full 30 years isn't going to be an option. Ageing actors by that much is expensive, an the just don't have the budget. 

Speaking of Mara, it's interesting to see her character arc develop significantly in this episode. It turns out I was completely wrong about her, almost comically so. Previously I had wondered whether she was a spy masquerading as a follower of Jesus, or a would be follower of Jesus masquerading as a spy. By the end of the episode here her cards are very much on the table. She is opposed to the Jesus movement and an ally, if not a provocateur, of Saul. They both wish to take a more radical line with this new movement than is perhaps being proposed by the others among the temple authorities. 

Mara's duplicity as a spy is paralleled with that of Ananias and Sapphira. The two storylines are intercut as they are getting their moment in the limelight. Elsewhere Mara, who is known as Naomi when she is amongst the Christians. This is a sort of twisty reference to the Book of Ruth where Naomi changes her name to Mara – meaning bitter – when she finds herself back in Bethlehem mourning her family (Ruth 1:19-21). 

Here, it is Susanna who calls her out for not being genuine and warns her, just as events are playing out with Ananias and Sapphira. Susanna refers to the story of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-3 who God also killed for a minor infraction. And this is offered, perhaps as the show's only attempt to offer some kind of wider context to the awful and seemingly unjustified punishment meted out on Ananias and Sapphira. 

If I was wrong about Mara's feelings towards the Jesus movement being ambivalence, then Gamaliel's arc seems to go full circle at this point. At the start of the episode it looks like he is being uncharacteristically tough on the followers of Jesus, relative to how he is portrayed in the Book of Acts itself (5:33-39). Whereas, there he is a little more que sera sera, here we see him talking to other characters within the hierarchy, talking about using other methods to stop the church's advance.

It may not be upfront, confrontational action to hem them in, but it nevertheless feels like it's coming from a strong dislike of them and their movement. But is it, because later in the episode, Gamaliel follows John to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane (in their modern day London equivalents). He too seems to have some ambivalence about the movement.

John is naturally suspicious. But Mara / Naomi, also witnesses this and then reports it back to Saul. And this perhaps will go some way to explaining the way that their initial closeness, i.e. Paul studying under Gamaliel's (Acts 22:3), ultimately results in their very different approaches to the early Jesus movement – Gamaliel's laissez-faire versus Paul's outright hostility and persecution. 

Saul is also experiencing difficulties with another member of the Jewish hierarchy, one of a similar age, training and at similar points in their careers. I got the feeling that Saul and this character were rivals, but with only very slightly different outlooks. Having completed their training they see each other as rivals for getting the bigger jobs within the temple hierarchy. Nevertheless, there's clearly a similarity but also a kind of petulant rivalry there, perhaps as best indicated by this man firstly mocking Saul for being restricted to the library, and then petulantly flicking the pages of his notepad, as he walks away. 

So even from the little we've seen, it seems like one of those "frenemies" relationships such as Legolas and Gimli. Were Saul and this man to find themselves stuck together trying to save Middle Earth from destruction, they too would probably go through a story arc of initial hostility eventually giving way to the gradual realisation that they are quite similar to each other. 

Now at first I misheard this new character's name and thought it was Annas. Naturally, I suspected this night be a reference to Annas either the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas (implying an older man than is portrayed here), or his son Annas ben Annas who might be a similar age to Saul as this character is. But then I saw from IMDb that the character is called Ananias – another one! Presumably, then, this man will go on to be the disciple in Damascus who prays with Saul when he first starts to follow Jesus. This makes a lot more sense. It also adds a bit of extra depth to what the Bible tells us about this second Ananias (who is presumably brought in at this stage to make it clear two characters have the same name but are different, and to draw a few other parallels) and will add extra flavour when Saul has to rely on Ananias to help him when he stumbling about with temporary sight loss.

Given that Saul is also about to go and go a future change, it's also interesting seeing a little bit more backstory about him and his mother. At the start of the episode we see him having nightmares about her (and about meeting Peter). And I guess there's some pairing here with Stephen, who also is feeling his mother's absence, and his mother is clearly feeling similarly. In fact, we see James go and speaks to her to try and heal that rift by letting her know that Stephen is missing her.

So it's an interesting episode. One line that particularly stood out for me as perhaps summing things up is said by Susannah to Mara, "Come as who you really are". It will be interesting to see how that theme develops through the next few episodes.

Testament (2025): One Accord [s1e03]

This post is part of a series looking at Testament. Spoilers throughout

It's hard to think of another episode of a TV show that introduces quite so many new characters as "One Accord" -- the third episode of Testament. Of course, some of the characters are not so much new as re-imagined. Most people watching the show will know about (Pontius) Pilate and (Herod) Agrippa who appear in the early scenes. Both deviate slightly from the norm, and in a good way. 

Pilate is certainly tougher in many Jesus films (looking at you The Chosen) and there's a sense of everyone around him, including his "high minister" Caiaphas, being slightly in fear of how he will react to any given scenario and a nervousness about his mere return to the capital hangs over the entire episode. He may have seen military action, he may not, but people jump to attention when he orders them to do something.

For his part, Agrippa is physically quite slight, and much less camp, than most of his previous on-screen counterparts. This modern reincarnation has significantly cut down on jewellery and silks. There's still a sense of irresponsibility, privilege and a love of the high life. He's an essentially non-serious character. He has the air of someone who went to a leading British public school and appears on their alumni page even though he's not really done much with his life.

Then there are the characters who have been in the background up to this point in the series, but really come into their own in this episode. Susanna who is starting to get her voice heard among the followers as well as giving support to Mary; Matthew taking over the accounts following Judas' demise; Thomas, who gets to give his side of the story for a change, to Stephen (pictured above) who is a little wary following last episode's conversation with Caleb; and Mara whose motives are seeming decidedly mixed. Mara's there to spy for Saul, but there's a sense in which she is starting to get drawn in. 

Finally there are the characters from around the peripheries of the Gospels who make their first, but no doubt their last appearances in today's episode. The two most obvious ones are Joanna, who in the Bible is married to Chuza, one of Herod's servants. Having provided Jesus with financial support in the Gospels (Luke 8:3), we learnt in episode two that her ability to support the rapidly expanding Jesus movement is faltering. Now we actually meet the women herself as a servant around Herod's table. Whether we will see her with the apostles at any point remains to be seen.

And then there is Barnabas, who makes a memorable appearance in the closing moments of the episode following a brief scene early on. He first crops up in Acts 4:36-7 and goes on to play a fairly key role in Acts and we get the same elements here -- he makes a sizeable financial contribution and is renamed by the apostles (here just Peter) for being an encourager. It was all the more memorable for me because Barnabas bears some physical resemblance to a bouncer / fixer in the previous scene .

I find these scenes, exploring the practicalities behind Jesus' followers pooling their money, fascinating. This is rarely explored much in other productions. For one thing that's a tendency which goes back to Luke himself. He introduces passages such as Acts 2:42-47 and  Acts 4:32-37 which talk about the disciples selling their possessions and sharing the proceeds, but really just uses them as summary section breaks before moving on to the next act in the story.

Here, though, the series really gets into what that might mean in practical terms. We see them selling their belongings from smaller items at the markets and car-boot sales through to the sons of Zebedee selling their entire business. We even see Andrew's failed attempt to raise a few pounds (?) by flogging his rundown fishing boat. And then there's Barnabas using his wealth more strategically to meet their growing needs.

There are a few other moments that really grabbed my attention. In particular a momentary encounter (pictured above) between Saul and Peter (unable to hold off preaching even for a few days). Both men are being held in check by others in their wider communities. Jesus' other disciples (championed by an increasingly cautious and unyielding Simon Z) seem to want to lay low while Pilate is in town, but Peter insists they should continue. "It is literally what Jesus told us to do". Saul is soon to be told by Gamaliel "your recklessness will be your undoing" who pressures him into taking a more clerical role for a short while to allow things to blow over.

While Peter has sort of agreed not to continue preaching, he continues with low level preaching to small crowds in alley ways. And it's there that he and Saul make eye contact for the first time. Saul commands him to stop. Peter sprints off. A chase ensues. It's not how either man is typically portrayed, but again it underlines in a way that so few Acts films have done, the urgency of what's a stake, and the passion and compulsion that is felt on both sides. Saul's other scene which is heavy on the dramatic licence is a scene where he visits Jesus' now empty tomb. He meets one of the "sentinels" who had been assigned to guard it, still processing some kind of shock and apparently seeking to do so with alcohol. I like the way Paul flashes his Imperium citizenship card at this point, not least because he has the sentinels spear mere centimetres from his face when he does so.

And then there's Mary, putting herself at risk in a quite different way from her male counterparts. For Peter and the others, it's the risks of preaching with words. For her it's preaching with actions. There's a suggestion that she has been involved in sex work in the past (which in some ways is a little disappointing), but here for once, that world is portrayed as exploitative, where women are often vulnerable, at risk from violent men and frequently short on options. Mary rescues an addict called Dana, not a name from the New Testament as far as I'm aware, but it will be interesting to see if it's some kind of twist on a biblical character nevertheless.

Testament (2025): The Fishermen [s1e02]

Spoilers throughout. Image source: KOVA Releasing

Episode 2 of Testament is called “The fishermen” and it opens in the immediate aftermath of Caleb getting healed, and with Peter and John’s preaching getting them arrested. The term “The fishermen” is used here quite casually, as if it’s still in formation. It’s used once almost as a term for the twelve, and once as a slightly tighter way of grouping together Peter, James, John and Andrew (who wears an appropriately nautical Aran sweater from the first scene to the last).

As with the opening episode there’s as much focus on the goings on within the temple establishment as with the disciples. The news of the miracle, and the return of their Jesus problem, is causing a good deal of consternation. My friend Peter Chattaway has a great interview with Testament’s director Paul Syrstad where they go into the fact that Caiaphas getting surprised that stories about "that dead imposter" are cropping up again just as he was beginning to think they’d gone away.

Caiaphas' main concern seems to be that Pilate will find out and come down hard. Pilate doesn’t know about this new set of stories about Jesus. “He can’t find out that we have a rumoured resurrected messiah on the loose gathering a following" Caiaphas hisses at one point "He’ll think they’re building an army”. Is this why we see one of his staff among the new followers of Jesus? Or is it a sign that even within the temple some are starting to reject the party line.

Not that the party line as we might suspect given the way the temple hierarchy is often portrayed. For example, it’s good to see Gamaliel among the temple authorities, not only offering a Pharisaic perspective but also bringing a more relaxed approach to the problem. One of the things this show has done well (so far) is portraying varying responses and motives within the temple hierarchy.

It’s also interesting seeing them acknowledging their differing perspectives with the kind of jokey teasing you find in these kind of contexts. “Ah Gamaliel, thinking of joining us?” one of the Sadducees asks. “Maybe in the next life” he retorts. It’s a nice piece of writing, which breathes life into these relationships and makes them feel more real. It gives that sense that they speak together often to get business done, rather than conveying the information in a way that feels more expositional. It shows a confidence among the writers that they don't feel they have to explain every single thing for the viewer.¹

Another example of this might be there comments about the continuing unexplained absence of Joseph of Arimathea. I'm assuming this is a plot point that’s going to re-emerge later in the series, but it's happy to let the audience to wait before it unpacks everything that such a teaser provides.

Meanwhile, slightly on the outside of the temple clique, Saul is stirred by Caleb's healing, his agitation driving him to further bout of furious studying. Eventually he hears about Peter and John's release and charges off in a burst of zealoty fury. 

Having brought Saul in from the start (as a way in to the characters in the temple), there's something of a gap between these early chapters of Acts and when Saul pops up in the text. So it's nice to see the writers filling this gap by developing the world around Saul/Paul that's only hinted about in the New Testament. The most obvious example of this so far is the appearance of Saul’s sister and her son, whom we know about from Acts 23:16.

Perhaps with greater significance to the rest of the show, there's also a visual suggestion that Saul is suffering with some kind of pain or other affliction in his head. It seems like something more than his typically uptight personality. Is this a reference to Paul's "thorn ...in the flesh" that he mentions in 2 Cor 12:7? I can't imagine it's a reference to the idea that Paul's vision of Jesus was down to something like temporal lobe epilepsy, though it would certainly be intriguing if it were.²

Down in the cells, Peter's also seems to be suffering. If the clues for Paul's physical affliction were visual, the indicators regarding Peter's issues are both auditory and visual. We get to hear inside his head (a point of sound shot) the muffled sounds of other people in the room talking, which Peter is unable to decipher. Is he undergoing a panic-attack here? Certainly it seems stress-induced. Moreover, a visual indication of his stress is given by a flashback to the courtyard of the High Priest and his denying he knew Jesus on the eve of his crucifixion. 

This nicely tees up his later speech in front of the council. There can be an assumption that having been restored, on the beach, after the resurrection, in John 21, everything was plain sailing for Peter, particularly after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1. What this scene does is humanise Peter, because even if he no longer carries the guilt of his denial, he still has to overcome the fear that lead him to deny Jesus in the first place, and this time it's in front of the High Priest himself, not just his servants. And perhaps his subsequent burst of confidence and speech in front of the bench is the biggest story of what happens in this episode.

There are a few other points I wanted to make. Firstly, I think Mary Magdalene already establishing herself as my favourite character, with her calm rational head and her ability to persuade her more hot-headed male colleagues to see sense. There are hints of her former life here as well, though I'm a little unclear whether the implication is of some form of drug addiction or something else.

The show also does something interesting with the man who Peter healed, Caleb. We know from other shows how these characters are meant to react with unbridled joy and devotion. Yet we also know from the Bible that despite many people being healed by him on numerous occasions, only 120 were left in the upper room in Jerusalem. Caleb's reticence to get into trouble by joining the fledgling movement (“I’m not prepared to throw my new life away on somebody I don’t know!”) is a realistic reminder that Acts depicts following Jesus as a costly enterprise.

Yet the disciples – even without Peter and John's prompting – decide to take on an additional cost: funding the ongoing work by selling everything. I like that there's a reference to Joanna's previous funding of Jesus' ministry, but I didn't catch a reference to Mary Magdalen doing this. Still this decision to go all in (a principle I've always found challenging and which seems sadly forgotten among most within the church's present incarnation) as well as the news of John and Peter's release lead to jubilation. The episode closes with a bouncing huddle of fishermen, barbers and new followers in the dark singing at the top of their voices.³

You can watch my interview with director Paul Syrstad, and the actors playing Saul (Eben) and Stephen (Charlie Beavan) on YouTube.
==========
1 - For those who are unsure what this means, the Sadducees of Jesus’ day are thought not to have a belief in the afterlife, whereas Pharisees did.
2 - See for example D. Landsborough's "St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy" Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1987 Jun, 50(6):659-64, available online at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1032067/pdf/jnnpsyc00553-0001.pdf.
3 - Despite several attempts I couldn't decipher all the lyrics here. All I got was  “The kings and the rulers are/we’re(?) together once again, against the LORD,,,". Can anyone fill in some of the blanks?

Testament (2025): Something New [s1e01]

Over the years there have been several attempts to adapt the Book of Acts; a number of modernised biblical narratives; and a handful of British biblical films, but never (as far as I'm aware) an attempt to combine all three.

Into that void steps Testament, a new streaming series from Angel Studios, directed by Paul Syrstad, who directed 2022’s The Parables Retold. The series relocates the story of the birth of the early church in what is almost, but not quite, the modern day. The events of this first episode take place in a city called Salem, which on the one hand evokes Jerusalem, but also draws on the atmosphere of the London locations where it was shot, and the accents of its predominantly British cast.

Yet it’s also not quite the modern world as we know it. For one thing, the Roman Empire never fell and has come to be known as the Imperium. For another, Jesus is not a figure from the ancient past, but from just weeks before the story is set. There are other details that are different in this new world as well: the temple never fell, and remains an important seat of power within Salem, ever under the watchful eye of the Imperium; and the digital revolution is yet to take place — there are no smart phones, messaging and internet surveillance.

The resulting atmosphere feels a little like what might have emerged if Mike Leigh had directed His Dark Materials. Its sense of otherness and that gateway alternative possibilities opening up in the midst of inner-city council flats. Syrstad has spoken of how the show’s Brutalist architecture “doubles down on the Imperium regime and the oppression that was being felt”.¹ It’s a world not of tunics and sandals, but of grimy blocks of flats and people living on the edge.

Among those living on the edge is Stephen who becomes homeless after a disagreement with his mother early on in this opening episode. By introducing Stephen earlier in the story than he appears in The Acts of the Apostles, the show uses him as one of the audience’s ‘ways-in’ to the story. We very much see the unfolding events from his perspective, as an outsider being drawn into a nascent movement. He senses something has changed, he experiences it even, and yet he’s still trying to explain it and grasp some sense of what’s happening.

This is quite a bold creative decision, because it leaves the audience (initially at least) on the outside too. We’ve not experienced what Stephen has, so it leaves us in a more curious, more dispassionate place. And it follows on the heels of a number of other significant choices, most notably to leave Jesus himself not only off camera, but entirely absent (physically, at least). Moreover the focus is not so much on his disciples, at least in this initial episode. They are strangers to Stephen, his curiosity combines with a certain wariness on his part, and ours too. For the audience, our distance from the crucial events that underpin the story’s is only increased by the camera cutting away just as Peter’s Pentecost sermon begins. Stephen hears it and is drawn in, but we are going to be made to wait to find out what has happened.

Stephen is not the only character who’s introduced earlier in Testament than in Acts as a way of bringing the audience into the midst of some of the story’s key players. We’re also introduced to Saul and his mentor Gamaliel amid the inner workings of the temple elite. Saul has a passionate heart and a steely look in his eye that seems so innate that it will be fascinating to see how this develops as the series goes on. Gamaliel’s affable, laid-back persona seems critical here too. Each member of the temple authorities has a different approach and Gamaliel’s more conciliatory nature adds some crucial depth to what might otherwise revert to a rather one dimensional portrayal of the apostles’ opponents.

So the scene is set for what looks like it will be an interesting series. Syrstad and his co-writers Faith Syrstad and Kenneth Omole have managed to fashion a world that feels real and create a scenario that has avoided some of the potential pitfalls of their chosen source material. Moreover the show feels like it’s more interested in exploring the text than serving up pat answers. This is not a sequel to The Chosen, but translated into the modern era. It has its own artistic vision and deserves to be treated on its own terms.

Testament is available on the Angel website and app from 8th June (subscription required).

==========

1. "Testament director Paul Syrstad on the problems with filming the book of Acts." - interviewed by me, on my YouTube channel.

The trailer for Acts series Testament

About 15 months ago I met the producer for a series that was about to start filming a modern-day take on the book Acts of the Apostles for Angel studios (who had yet to split from The Chosen). It sounded like an interesting project and while I haven't posted about it here before, I've been keeping tabs on it. As with all these things these days there is A LOT of material produced during production to help raise the costs of making these things.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see the official trailer has finally been released, which you can see below.

Naturally, this expands some of the earlier footage we've seen. Overall the footage looks good, although I do wince a bit at the portrayal of the leaders. I'm not sure whether that's rational or just because recently I've been looking a lot at the portrayal of the authorities in 'historical' Jesus films. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the series itself. 

The production values do look quite high, though it looks like it will have quite a grungy feel. It seems that it will be following the text of Acts fairly closely. I understand it's being released in time for Pentecost, so expect the odd post or two about this one soon.

Incidentally, I've grouped together here a bunch of posts I've made about different adaptations of Acts. There are few series of these for which I've covered every episode including The Living Bible (1957), Rossellini's Atti degli apostoli (1969), Anno Domini (1985) and AD: The Bible Continues (2015) although all of these are set in the past, rather than being a modernised take on the story.

-----

P.S. My friend Peter T. Chattaway has written some more extensive thoughts on the trailer at his Substack.