Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Bible movie of the week: Jesus, the Spirit of God (2007)

Bible movie of the week: Jesus, the Spirit of God (2007)

Last updated on: November 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Bible movie of the week: Jesus, the Spirit of God (2007) 2013-11-21T13:49:38-08:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Christians aren’t the only ones who hold Jesus in high esteem. Muslims do too, though they have radically different beliefs about him — and at least one movie has actually tried to dramatize those beliefs the same way other Bible movies have dramatized their own filmmakers’ beliefs.

But wait… is it right to call Jesus, the Spirit of God, an Iranian film produced in 2007, a “Bible movie”? Is not much of the film based on the Koran and other post-biblical sources, such as the late-medieval document known as the Gospel of Barnabas, rather than on the Bible itself?

Well, yes, the film is based on those other documents, but I’d still say it counts as a “Bible movie” on some level, inasmuch as many of its narrative elements can be traced back through those sources to the Bible itself. If we can accept Ben-Hur, which was based on a novel, or The Passion of the Christ, which was based on the visions of a 19th-century nun, as “Bible movies” because they contain elements that go back to the scriptures, then we can certainly put this film under the same broad umbrella.

I first became aware of Jesus, the Spirit of God several years ago, when it was known as The Messiah, and I wrote several blog posts linking to clips from the film and interviews with director Nader Talebzadeh. But it wasn’t until recently that I finally got around to watching a feature-length version of the film itself.

I say a feature-length version of the film because there are at least two different versions out there, and possibly more. I found two copies of the film on YouTube — you can see one of them to the right — that both came to about 83 minutes. But the stories I linked to in my earlier blog posts indicated that the film should be about 100 minutes, and Wikipedia says the film ought to be over two hours; and that’s before we take into account the fact that the film was cut down from an even longer TV series.

In any case, the 83-minute version is the one I found on YouTube, and there’s quite a bit to talk about just there. So let’s get started. Here’s what struck me on my first viewing of the film.

A Muslim take on Jesus. I don’t know enough about Muslim views of Jesus to say how much of this film reflects core Muslim beliefs, and how much of it reflects uniquely Shi’ite beliefs, and so on, but it’s still possible to spot some pretty obvious ways in which this film’s version of Jesus conforms to Muslim belief rather than Christian belief.

For starters, the Jesus of this film repeatedly and insistently denies that he is divine. So, if the Jesus of this film isn’t claiming to be the Son of God, why do the Jewish leaders want to kill him? (And like it or not, it is definitely the Jewish leaders, more than the Romans, who want to see Jesus dead here.)

If I’m reading this correctly, they want to kill him because he proclaims the Muslim belief that Abraham put Ishmael, rather than Isaac, on the altar at God’s behest, and because he prophesies the coming of another prophet, i.e. Mohammed, who will correct everyone’s misperceptions about him and his teachings.

The film also denies that Jesus was crucified. Instead, Jesus is taken up into heaven by the angel Gabriel, just before the soldiers come to arrest him, and the traitor Judas is physically transformed so that he resembles Jesus and is crucified in his place. (Kudos to the actor, by the way, whose performance as the fake Jesus is noticeably different than his performance as the real Jesus. You really do buy that he is playing two different characters.)

John’s gospel, inverted. Of the four canonical gospels, John’s is the most emphatic about the divinity of Jesus; that is partly why, in Orthodox Christian circles, the author of that gospel is known as St John the Theologian. So it’s striking to see just how much of this divinity-denying film can be traced back to John’s gospel.

Many of the arguments that Jesus has with the other Jews seem to be borrowed from the arguments recounted in John’s gospel. But note also Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, the encounter with the woman accused of adultery, the raising of Lazarus, the way Judas objects to Mary pouring oil on Jesus’ feet, and so on.

Most amazing, to me, is how, when Jesus promises his disciples that God will send them a “Comforter”, he is apparently referring now not to the Holy Spirit, as Jesus did in John’s gospel, but to Mohammed, the one who, as the Jesus of this film puts it, “will remind everyone of what I have taught and will bear testimony to the truth of my teachings when it has gone astray.”

No scandal here. Much of the film seems to be designed to eliminate some of the more potentially scandalous elements in the gospels. Chief among these, of course, are Jesus’ claims to divinity, which are not only kept out of this film, but are flipped around so that Jesus now actively denies being divine.

And then, of course, there is the film’s assertion that God would not have allowed Jesus to be arrested, scourged and “forsaken” on the cross. Where Christian theology has always taught that the resurrection of Jesus conquered death in all its forms precisely because he had first suffered one of the worst deaths imaginable, this film reflects the Muslim view that Jesus would never have been subjected to such a thing in the first place.

But there are other striking changes, too. For example, when Jesus is asked whether it is lawful to stone the woman caught in adultery, the film hints strongly that she has been falsely accused, and that Jesus is not actually forgiving her but saving her from the lies of the mob. The implication is that, if Jesus had forgiven her, then he would have been breaking the laws of Moses — which is something he said he wouldn’t do (cf. Matthew 5) — so apparently we can’t have that.

Later, when the fake Jesus is being tried before the authorities, someone accuses Peter of being one of Jesus’ followers — and Peter’s denial now comes across not as an act of cowardice or lack of faithfulness, but as a sign that Peter knows the person being tried before the authorities is not the real Jesus after all.

Attention to women. It is striking how the miracles Jesus performs are all done for the benefit of women — either directly, in the case of the deaf-mute and the hunchback, or indirectly, in the case of the women whose sons and brothers are raised from the dead. (Before raising Lazarus, Jesus specifically asks God to hear the mourning of the women, which is a detail not found in the prayer he gives in John 11.) There is also a verbal reference to Mary Magdalene being cleansed of evil spirits.

The resurrections, at least, are depicted here more or less as they appear in the Bible, and the bit about Mary’s evil spirits is straight out of the Bible, too. But the biblical deaf-mute was a man, and I know of no biblical precedent for the hunchback — unless there was a translation error in the subtitles.

In addition to the miracles, note also the aforementioned scene in which Jesus comes to the defense of the woman accused of adultery, as well as the scene in which Mary pours oil on Jesus’ feet — and note how, in both cases, there seems to be some merging of identities.

First, the woman accused of adultery says she came from Samaria to look for her husband, which almost sounds like a nod to the Samaritan woman Jesus met in John 4.

And second, the Mary who pours oil on Jesus’ feet is identified in the subtitles as Mary Magdalene, which would seem to suggest that the film is confusing the story about Mary of Bethany in John 12 with the story about the anonymous sinful woman in Luke 7, who is often identified with Mary Magdalene in the Western churches — but again, I wonder if there was a translation error in the subtitles.

Characters from Acts. Within the New Testament, there are quite a few characters who appear only in the gospels or only in the Book of Acts, but the events depicted in the gospels flow quite seamlessly into the events depicted in Acts, so I have often wondered what the characters who appear in one source were up to during the events depicted in the other source — and I am always intrigued whenever a film decides to explore that question.

Jesus, the Spirit of God, which takes place entirely within the timeframe of the gospels, introduces at least three characters whose only canonical appearances are in the Book of Acts: Gamaliel, Barnabas and Paul.

Gamaliel basically says and does here what he says and does in Acts: he advises his fellow Jewish leaders to leave the Jesus movement alone, lest they find themselves opposing God.

Barnabas, meanwhile, is introduced as one of the twelve apostles, and is described by the narrator as “Joseph the Levite, known as Barnabas, whose affection for Jesus brought him from Cyprus to Palestine.” Most of the details given in that sentence do indeed come from Acts 4, but there are no biblical references to Barnabas during the ministry of Jesus itself.

That being said, later Christian tradition does state that Barnabas was one of the seventy (or seventy-two) apostles sent out by Jesus in Luke 10, so as far as Christian tradition is concerned, there is certainly room to depict Barnabas within the ministry of Jesus on some level — but he was definitely not one of “the Twelve”.

I’m guessing that Barnabas is grouped with the Twelve here because of some tradition tied to the pseudepigraphal Gospel of Barnabas, which is one of this film’s main sources. But as I haven’t read that text yet, that’s just a guess on my part.

Finally, there is Paul — or “Sha’ool”, as he is called here, which I take to be a variation of Paul’s Hebrew name Saul. Paul is introduced as a Roman citizen and as “one of the smartest Pharisees’ students” — we are told that he awes people with his “lectures” — and he is hired by the Jewish leaders to kill Lazarus.

This is remarkable on a number of levels. For one thing, it brings together the plot against Lazarus mentioned in John’s gospel (which never tells us whether the plot was successful, incidentally) and Paul’s murderous campaign against the early Christians as described in Acts. But it also brings to mind The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), which also showed Paul killing Lazarus after his resurrection.

Relationship to violence. Violence plays a very different role in Islam than it does in Christianity: whereas Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek and allowed the Romans to kill him, Mohammed led military campaigns against his enemies.

Not coincidentally, the key scriptures in both religions also have profoundly different attitudes towards the relationship between church and state (or mosque and state, as it were): It has sometimes been observed that the New Testament was written with the assumption that Christianity would always be a minority faith — which has led to complications when Christianity became the faith of emperors and presidents and the soldiers who follow them — whereas the Koran specifies how Muslims ought to rule the societies they assimilate.

That alone would make Jesus, the Spirit of God’s approach to these issues kind of fascinating. But when you add the fact that this film was produced with the approval of the Iranian government — a theocracy that can trace its roots to a revolution that took place less than 30 years before this film was made — it becomes even more interesting.

So, right at the beginning, the film establishes that Judea has been colonized by invaders, namely the Roman Empire. What resonance would this have, I wonder, for audience members who can still remember living under the Shah, who was supported by the U.S.? Then the film establishes that Barabbas is one of the Zealots who urge their fellow Jews to throw stones at the Romans like David did against Goliath. How would a line or a scene like this play, I wonder, to Middle Eastern audiences who have seen images on TV of, say, Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis?

Matters are intensified later on when a Roman soldier witnesses one of Jesus’ miracles and declares that Jesus is “the son of God” — echoing, perhaps, the passage in Mark 15 where a Roman centurion says something similar after Jesus’ death — and this declaration prompts Barabbas and the other Zealots to declare that “whoever says Jesus is God or son of God must be killed.” A Muslim audience would presumably agree with Barabbas that Jesus is not divine — but would they agree with his call to arms over this issue?

Matters are complicated even further by another scene in which one of the Jewish leaders tries to persuade Barabbas that Jesus is their common enemy. Given that the film, in later scenes, will go to great lengths to suggest that the Jews, rather than Pilate, are responsible for the death of the fake Jesus (i.e., the film says “the cruel hearts of the Children of Israel” are so determined to kill Jesus that they cannot even tell when they are calling for the death of the wrong guy), you cannot help but wonder if Barabbas is supposed to be viewed through this anti-Semitic lens, too.

(Incidentally, the scene between the Jewish leader and Barabbas could not help but bring Monty Python’s Life of Brian to mind. The leader says they have a common enemy. Barabbas says yes, it is Rome. The leader tells Barabbas to think harder. Barabbas replies, you mean Jesus? I half-expected him to say, “The Judean People’s Front!?”)

Extra miracles. There are at least three miracles in this film that have no direct parallel in the gospels whatsoever, though they do touch on themes that are already present in the gospels in some way.

First, the disciples ask if God will send manna from heaven, and lo, after Jesus kneels and prays, a meal complete with dishes and a tablecloth (if not an actual table) appears on the ground before them. Judas, however, won’t eat any of the food because he believes it’s nothing but a mirage — and it is suggested that it was because of his disbelief that Judas was eventually crucified in Jesus’ place.

There is no equivalent episode in the New Testament, but the question of manna and divine gifts of food does come up in a few places, in ways that sort of fit this episode but also sort of don’t.

For example, during his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus refuses to turn the stones to bread. But then, during his ministry, he feeds entire crowds with just a few loaves of bread: the feeding of the five thousand is the only miracle that appears in all four gospels, and in two of those gospels, the miracle sort of happens twice, since Mark and Matthew also report a separate incident in which Jesus fed four thousand people.

What’s more, in John’s gospel, the feeding of the five thousand is followed by a heated exchange between Jesus and his fellow Jews, in which Jesus compares and contrasts the manna that God gave the Israelites under Moses with the eucharistic bread that will allow people to eat Jesus’ own flesh.

So, the New Testament does allow for miraculous supplies of food — but the miracles it does report are very public, and involve thousands of people, rather than the private miracle which the film shows taking place between Jesus and his disciples only.

Another “extra” miracle in this film comes when Jesus defends the woman who has been accused of adultery.

In the biblical version of the story, it says that Jesus “bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger” when the woman was brought before him. The Bible doesn’t say what, exactly, Jesus wrote, and many of the films that have included this detail haven’t really elaborated on it. But occasionally, films like Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings (1927) have expanded on this detail, by having Jesus write down the names of specific sins that the woman’s accusers may have committed. Films like these suggest that the woman’s accusers refrained from stoning her in the end because Jesus revealed their secret sins.

Jesus, the Spirit of God goes even further, though, by having Jesus create a sort of pool in the sand that acts as a mirror of sorts, so that when one of the accusers looks into the pool, he sees a hideous, ghostly, demonic version of his face instead.

Finally, I am also struck by the scene in which the Jews try to stone Jesus, and Jesus walks through them like he’s invisible. The gospels do include scenes in which crowds try to kill Jesus and he somehow gets away, but his escape is never made as explicitly supernatural as it is here. Nor do the gospels go as far as this movie does, in suggesting that the Jews stoned each other to death in their efforts to kill Jesus.

Odds and ends. Just before the soldiers come to arrest Jesus, the film throws a title card up on the screen that says: “Continuation of the events according to the Christian narrative.” Then, after compressing the traditional Passion narrative to about four minutes, the film throws another title card up on the screen that says: “Continuation of the events according to Islamic sources and the Gospel of Barnabas.” And so the rest of the film depicts the Muslim belief that Judas was crucified in Jesus’ place.

I find it puzzling that the film felt the need to actually show the Christian version of the story before offering its own version of those events. By this point, the film has already deviated from the Christian version of the story in countless other ways, so why suddenly draw our attention to the differences between the two traditions now? Why not just let the film proceed with its own version?

Finally, I cannot help but notice that the almost-final image of Jesus in heaven has him looking a little older, and that he is now wearing blue over red in that shot — just as he does in traditional Christian icons. The irony is, in Christian iconography, the red and blue signify the two natures of Christ — his divinity and his humanity — but presumably this film didn’t mean to suggest anything along those lines.

jesus the spirit of god

judas iscariot

king of kings 1927

last temptation of christ

monty python's life of brian

nader talebzadeh

paul

Previous Post

June 21, 2013

The death, resurrection, and second death of Lazarus

Next Post

June 27, 2013 Six new images from Darren Aronofsky's Noah (updated)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet had a vision of a fiery chariot ascending to heaven?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah Daniel Ezekiel Isaiah