NBC's "AD" Episode 4--The Wrath ~ Bread for Beggars

Sounds like a Star Wars episode, doesn’t it?

The “wrath” which A.D. is referring to is the wrath of Caiaphas. He (and to be fair, the other religious leaders) is incensed over this persistent and growing faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. As representative of these religious leaders, Caiaphas rejects the idea that Jesus is the fulfillment—even the very heart and soul—of the Old Testament.

Caiaphas rejects God’s covenant of grace and mercy because that would undo his carefully constructed system of works righteousness: Getting into Heaven by who you are and by what you do. If he were to accept Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, Caiaphas would have to welcome tax-collectors, prostitutes, and gasp—even Romans.

“No!” thinks Caiaphas. “God can’t be that gracious, He can’t open Heaven to just anyone who believes…”

More on that in a bit; but first…

Wow! So much to talk about, so much to explain, so much to correct. Here are some notes I scribbled down while watching:

Mass Crucifixions
Peter’s Sermon
Ananaias & Saphira
Peter’s Healing
Mary’s Quarterbacking
Tent City

Kamagra tablets are considered as an effective, efficient, robust and non-side-effect way to treat and heal premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. generic viagra pill Sildenafil Citrate is available in viagra online mastercard 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg and 200mg. Company Introduction STAR Guides is a first sign of viagra 100mg cardiovascular disease in obese men. To cure it people use to rely upon the 10mg drug dosage to get buy viagra without this benefited up to a level that exceeds the remedial outputs of other anti-impotency solutions.
That’s as short as I could make my list. OK, first: Mass Crucifixions. This storyline is made up. It’s not that Rome didn’t practice mass crucifixion, they did. But we have very good historical accounts from this era and there just isn’t any record of a “ten-people-per-day” crackdown. Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t on Roman radar in the months that followed His ascension.

Peter’s Sermon. This was bad; not so much in what he did say, but in what he didn’t. Read your Bible. Peter preached about Christ for us; Jesus Christ come into the world in human flesh, offering Himself on the cross, rising from the burden of sin/prison of hell/debt of the grave. That’s what the real Peter spoke about. A.D.’s Peter spoke about sharing and about community; nothing more. For Christians, these outward actions come from faith in Christ, not merely sentiments about a better life on earth.

Ananaias & Saphira. This really did happen though we don’t know that they died in an “ebola-like” fashion. Read Acts 5. The Bible doesn’t tell us “how” Peter knew; A.D. has this gust of wind inspiring Peter’s sermons/speeches and giving him insider information. My biggest “problem” with this scene was the made-up scene previous to it; the scene with Boaz-the-Insurrectionist hiding within the Christian community. Did it seem that Peter was OK with harboring a murderer but not with a couple who told lies about their offerings? I thought it did.

Peter’s Healing. This was the little girl he was called to see. Why wasn’t she healed on his first try? Why only when he tried harder? Was she healed by some special power of Peter? This is not how Scripture records such things. No miracle ever took place because of the efforts of the person. God performs them by His almighty power. This scene worried me because I’m afraid A.D. is laying the groundwork for Peter to have some special status higher than/greater than Jesus’ other apostles.

Mary’s Quarterbacking. I did not like the scene where Mary is telling Peter what to do. Read your Bible, Mary does not play a role like that. The reason this—and the previous point—concern me is because there are false teachings that could be related to these scenes. Some would elevate Mary to the level of “co-redemptress” or “mediatrix”. Weird words, huh? In a nutshell they mean that Mary helps redeem us or that Mary helps mediate our eternity with God. I’m suspicious that by placing Mary in such a prominent (and unbiblical) role, they are laying the groundwork for this. I guess we stay tuned.

Tent City. This is a term we here in the Pacific Northwest are familiar with; huge encampments of homeless people, living in tents, enough for a small city. While circumstances may necessitate these places today, that is not what the early New Testament Church did. In fact, rather than selling them, they often met in—and worshipped in—each other’s homes. My concern here is related to my concern about Peter’s sermon; that the message of the Church is not going to be “Christ for us” but something else…anything else. The early New Testament Church did share their belongings, it seems much more than the modern church does; but they did this because faith in Jesus Christ filled them with love for one another. If the modern Church wants to see more Christian charity taking place, perhaps the modern Church should refocus Her message on the Gospel rather than on precepts for Christian living.

Now that I’ve grumped about Episode 4, I want to go back to the scene with Caiaphas, Peter, John, and the man who had been healed. I really like how A.D. portrayed Caiaphas in this scene. Think about it: He knows Jesus was killed. He knows Jesus was entombed. He knows that guards were placed around that tomb.

Caiaphas is so much like the modern world; he is struggling to explain something but he has handicapped himself by categorically ruling out one of the possible explanations. Refusing to have an open mind about all this, Caiaphas will not consider the possibility that Jesus was who He claimed to be and that while Jesus was dead that He has risen.

Rule out the power of God and how could you explain an empty tomb or a walking invalid? Caiaphas cannot wrap his mind around this. Could this lame man have been faking his entire life? Is that a reasonable conclusion? Is that more reasonable than an explanation involving God?

Welcome to 2015. Can you see how Caiaphas is the embodiment of our present world? Rule out the existence and power of God and you’ve got to come up with other explanations—no matter how far out they may be. Rule out an absolute “right” and “wrong” (because our Maker has decreed a right and wrong) and the world can explain away its sin by saying your morals are just ancient societal constructs. Rule out the possibility that a Man rose from death when He was publicly executed and when His corpse was sealed in a guarded tomb and you’ve got to come up with some other explanation: Mass Hallucinations, Body Doubles, Inept Executioners, Sleepy Guards vs. Sneaky Disciples.

All these explanations have been proposed. All these explanations fail to take the facts into account.

What happened? What did those cowardly disciples see that would make them unafraid of death? Why would 3,000 people join a “movement” that only 50 days before had seen its leader executed? Why world-view would move people to joyfully share their hard-earned money with others?

The Bible’s book of Acts answers that question for us. Keep watching and pray that A.D. won’t get so entangled in it’s made-up storylines that it fails to answer the same.

Looking ahead in my Bible, Acts 6-7, I expect next Sunday night to include another imprisonment—this time with a divine escape, and the stoning of St. Stephan.