From Mark 12:35-37 – Think About It / In this portion, Jesus is specifically asking the religious to think carefully about the question of the incarnation. But He does not do so in the abstract. He does so, by asking them how they understand the Scriptures. He‘s not asking for mere feelings, impressions or opinions, but after careful examination, how do they understand a passage like Ps. 110:1. Remember, the Pharisees also held that the Messiah would descend from David’s bloodline. But one can hold some deep truths, and yet still be lost apart from knowing the whole truth. We can read our Bibles, even study them deeply, and never actually wrestle with truths of ultimate importance. Gathering data, but not hearing what is being said by The Spirit. Like these, we too could hold the truth of Jesus’ Davidic descent and yet be ignorant of His deity. And this omission is absolutely paramount. To hold Him as only a good, righteous teacher, is still to remain in darkness. And Jesus is forcing this issue in this place. For apart from this crucial point, one is still without salvation. He is revisiting with these, the very same thing He questioned His disciples on in 8:29. And if we do not know that He is the Christ, God’s sent anointed one to rule and reign – we do not yet know Him.
Nefarious is a supernatural horror/thriller, based on the 2016 book “A Nefarious Plot” – by Steve Deace.
The movie, written by Chuck Konzelman and Cary Solomon, portends to be the back story of how Deace’s book came to be. That book is an attempt to emulate the genre of C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape letters. It loosely does. But with nowhere near the literary or theological sophistication of Lewis. The book however does come with endorsement blurbs by Mark Levin, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ben Shapiro and others. Though I am not quite sure why.
Steve Deace is himself an interesting figure. The brief bio provided in the book says that “Steve Deace is a nationally-syndicated radio host heard each weekday in top markets from coast-to-coast. The national media recognize Deace as an influential voice in his home state of Iowa’s first in the nation presidential caucuses. He’s frequently quoted in the national media on political and cultural issue. Deace has also appeared on all the major cable news networks and writes for the Washington Times, USA Today, and Conservative Review. Deace lives in Iowa with his wife, Amy, and their three children, Anastasia, Zoe, and Noah.”
His chief outlet appears to be “The Steve Deace Show” hosted on Blaze Media. Deace enjoys a robust calendar of speaking engagements on various culturally and politically conservative venues, and presents himself as a Christian – though of what particular stripe I’ve not been able to tell so far.
With that sparse background, let’s get into the movie itself.
The basic plot line as given on IMBD is: “On the day of his scheduled execution, a convicted serial killer gets a psychiatric evaluation during which he claims he is a demon, and further claims that before their time is over, the psychiatrist will commit three murders of his own.” The bulk of the film being a wide ranging dialog between Psychiatrist Dr. James Martin (played by Jordan Belfi) who is called in on the heels of his mentor’s suicide to conduct said evaluation, and convicted multiple murderer Edward Wayne Brady (excellently portrayed by Sean Patrick Flanery). The plot twist is that Brady is supposedly possessed by a demon named Nefarious. And most of the dialogues are between Martin and the Demon, with a few scant and tortured appearances by Brady.
And I really must remark that I found Flanery’s complex portrayal the best part of the movie. I hope to see more of him as an actor in days to come. But I will have to add to that remark, that this really is the only thing in the film I found worth applauding. The rest, sadly, is a troubling litany of mixed messages, with some pretty skewed theological underpinnings.
We aren’t too far into the protracted interview before Nefarious announces to Martin that before they are done with each other, Martin himself will commit 3 murders. And this is where the mixed messages begin.
Nefarious claims that murder one was the death of Martin’s mother by assisted suicide – to which Martin had consented given her terminal cancer. Just how he personally ought to be charged with murder in this case is not explained. I guess simply because he consented to it. But to make him an actual murderer in this case is to reduce the complexities of such things a tad too much without more explication. I am no proponent of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. It is morally reprehensible. And in the history of the Church it is considered self-murder. But I find the flat accusation over the top. Reductionism writ large. In this case, the mother committing suicide seems to not even be under consideration – only Dr. Martin’s consent. This needs to be explored, but is beyond the scope of a review such as this.
Murder two, is the abortion which the Dr.’s girl-friend undergoes at a critical point in the movie. Something the Dr does try to stop at the 11th hour, but fails by acting too late. Is abortion murder? You bet. Was the Dr., to be considered a murderer at this point? Again, this requires a much deeper discussion. But the movie’s reductionism leaves no room for that.
Murder three is the murkiest of the lot. In this case, it is because the Dr signs off on Brady’s execution. He declares Brady mentally competent. Never mind that Brady did in fact commit 11 murders. So is this a referendum on capital punishment? It sure comes off that way. Is lawful execution – the “the sword” of Romans 13 really murder? That is never dealt with. It is just let to stand as murder. The writers are confused.
As stated already, the messages are mixed at best. And when all is said and done, the murderer is basically portrayed as an innocent puppet. He is just made to do bad things against his will. The old “the Devil made me do it” defense of Flip Wilson. And it is here that the all-too common myth of the nature of free will as somehow something so sacrosanct that God cannot even violate it is perpetuated.
Nefarious contends (which appears to be an assumed truth for us all) that even God is powerless to violate human will. The argument is that unless free will includes the ability to choose one of two or more options, it’s not really free. And therefore, we cannot truly love God unless we also have the power to refuse Him. This fallacy gets repeated over and over in Christian circles to the extent that it is almost a universal given. But as theologians in all generations have reminded us – there are three inherent fallacies in the view.
First, there is nothing in all of Scripture that teaches that God cannot violate the will of the human being. Says who? It is simply absent from the Bible. It is a human invention of hubris. There is nothing at all which somehow prevents God from doing as He pleases with His creatures. We might imagine that God either cannot nor will not ever ever violate human will – but there is no reason why this must be so.
Second, if free will requires the ability to choose something other in order for love to be free and authentic, it fails to account for the love between the members of the Godhead, or of our love in the perfected state in Heaven. God is certainly the freest or all beings. But must the Father have the power NOT to love The Son in order for His love toward the Son to be real? Or the Son toward the Father. Or either in regard to the Spirit? Or in Heaven after the resurrection – will we need to retain the ability NOT to love God in order for our love toward Him to be free and authentic? Such thoughts are patently false on their face. All that is needed for free will is that one can will as they please. God always loves holiness – and it is all He desires. He does not need to be free to sin in order to love holiness. Nor do we need to be able to hate God in order to love Him freely. But the authors appear to have no concept here beyond the pop version of love perpetuated by so many. Praise God that in the eternal state, we will no longer have the ability to choose evil. And will we be in a better state then than now? Indeed.
Third, the view implies that mankind stands somehow in a neutral third position between loving and hating God, and therefore have the option to choose one or the other from this imagined middle place. All of which is deny that we are born in sin and are already the enemies of God. This underlying concept informs the rest of the author’s presuppositions whether they know it or not.
This is played out in how events unfold with the Dr., at Brady’s execution. At that point, the Dr., is temporarily possed himself, but is somehow given the option to either succumb to the demon’s influence or not. Thus the movie implies all humanity is in that same place. We are not already God’s enemies by birth as Scripture declares – but merely need to make our choices for good or evil. We do not need the supernatural work of God to change our wills that we might love Him. The human race can derail the grand plans of the demonic world if we just all choose the right. Which (and I cannot go into detail here) in the original book is posited as saving Americanism by simply choosing the moral good in the face of a coming demonic invasion. This so informs the presuppositions of the movie, that in the book for instance – Nefarious can say: “Obviously this self-governing precedent is one we couldn’t allow to stand, for if you remove top-down power structures you essentially remove every successful scheme we’ve ever had.” The skewed presupposition is that self-government actually has the power to successfully thwart all demonic plans. This a a horribly twisted theological position. And why I’ve taken the time to unpack so much of it here. Scripture declares: “2 Corinthians 10:3–6 (ESV): “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy 1arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” Whereas Deace, Konzelman and Solomon would tell us that there is a political weapon which alone can defeat demonic and spiritual attacks.
I need to rein myself in here with a few closing comments.
1 – Nefarious is not a Christian movie per se. It is a supernatural thriller with some Biblical themes. Do NOT take your theology from it. It is a revisitation of the imaginary themes of Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness. It’s demonology is not Biblical, but fanciful.
2 – Nefarious is theistic in that it deals with some Biblical/Moral/Supernatural themes – but it certainly never expounds or conveys the Gospel. Indeed, it only uses the word “Gospel” when the “demon” says he wants James to see that the demon’s “dark gospel” is published. Jesus is never even referred to as anything other than “The Carpenter.”
3 – The message that there are dark demonic beings bent on destroying mankind because we were made in God’s image is true enough. But the way it is cast, it seems as though mankind is basically in a neutral position to be on one side or the other in this cosmic battle between good and evil and we can choose on our own which side that will be. It has no grasp that we are all born as God’s enemies already and need to be transferred out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of His Son.
4 – The introduction of Glenn Beck at the end as the ostensible Christian influence is so skewed in that last I knew, Beck is still a professing Mormon. One who rejects the Biblical Jesus, has no concept of Biblical salvation and too thinks that moralism and politicism can “save America.” In the book the downfall of America is really the main thing the demons are after – not combating the Kingdom of Christ. It is massive misdirection.
5 – The superstitious idea the demon resurfaces in another person has no Biblical backing. This occurs at the end of the movie and promotes superstitious views of spiritual warfare rather than Biblically informed ones.
Conclusion. I cannot recommend the movie. And especially cannot recommend it as a “Christian” movie. It isn’t.
rom Mark 12:28-34 / To Know Him, is to Love Him – The first commandment is to hear and know God as He is. And once we are confronted with Him in this untold glory – we can do nothing but love Him, and let that spill over to others. We would imagine the commandment of highest priority is to worship Him. But we cannot worship aright what we do not know aright. So here is the question – do we hear the Word of God concerning its revelation God? Do we comprehend the revelations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in all of their redemptive wonder? And does it reduce us? Does it dwarf us and bring us to true humility? Not by making less of us, but making much of God, as is proper. Oh that we might truly know Him. For that can only lead to our truly loving Him. As is sung of The King in Song of Songs 5 – He is “altogether lovely” (KJV) If He is not – you do not know Him yet. And I pray you will – soon.
From Mark 12:18-27 / A “Tense” Situation – As for the question put to Jesus in this way, J. C. Ryle rightly notes: “let us remember that an infidel will always try to press us with the difficulties and abstruse things of religion, and especially with those which are connected with the world to come.”1 People often try to skirt the great questions about their souls and their standing before God, by bringing up arcane and foolish issues, rather than taking the plain teaching of Scripture at face value. As with Jesus’ example, there is no need to go very far with such things. But note secondly how Jesus relies on the Scripture to the degree, that even the very tense used in Exodus 3 regarding Abraham – that God says “I am the God of Abraham”, not “I was” can be appealed to as authoritative. How do we know we can trust our Bibles? Because Jesus did. But that means we’ll really have to study it very carefully, not casually or haphazardly. If they could misconstrue a passage so easily – so can we. But the Word itself, is always reliable.
From Mark 12:13-17 / Images – The first thing a passage like this teaches us, is that not everything in life, even in theology is always an either/or dichotomy. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar? Yes or no? As though one cannot honor God AND pay taxes to a pagan king. And as in this case, the only true answer is “both/and”. God has instituted human government, and, there is His divine government. And we have responsibilities to both. But secondly, we see that the word “likeness” or image that Jesus uses her referring to Caesar’s image on the coin, is the very same Greek word used in Gen 1:26 (in the Greek version of the Old Testament most often quoted by New Testament writers). The NET notes comment: “Jesus is making a subtle yet powerful contrast: Caesar’s image is on the denarius, so he can lay claim to money through taxation, but God’s image is on humanity, so he can lay claim to each individual life.” And that, is the point. Each of us were made in God’s image, and He rightly lays claim to each and every one of us.
From Mark 12:1-12 / Reality Check – From Jesus’ point of view in this parable we learn:
1. Everything belongs to God. Neither we nor this world belong to us. We are here to fulfill His purposes.
2. He has given mankind every advantage for all that is His to prosper.
3. He has placed all of this into the hands of others who can enjoy the fruit, but are also charged preserve His just due. To honor Him as Creator and God.
4. In due time He sends servants looking for the honor and obedience which is due Him.
5. In all of these visitations, the tenants want to keep it all and not give the Owner what belongs to Him. They want to be the owners themselves. They want personal autonomy from the God who made them, and made them for His own purposes.
6. At last, He sends the Heir. Jesus, The Christ.
7. But they want His inheritance, thinking they can get away with that.
8. But the Owner will have none of it.
9. He will punish.
10. He will make a new arrangement with a new people. Out of the Believing Jews and Gentiles He will make one new man. And they will inherit with The Son.
Where are you in relation to what Jesus taught here?
From Mark 11:27-33 / Authority – The issue of Jesus’ authority comes up over and over in the Gospels. In Mark 1, the people noted that He taught with authority, not like the scribes. Again in 1, His authority was seen in commanding evil spirits to leave. In 2, He said He had authority to forgive sins. Then in 3 and 6 His authority is again mentioned in reference to demonic powers – and delegated that same authority to the 12. In 10, he warned the disciples against seeking authority over others – and now, there is a disingenuous inquiry as to what gives Him the right or authority to teach or perform the works He does. And in all this, we come face to face with this base reality: Christians are those who recognize Jesus’ right over all they are, have and do. Christians, submit to the authority of Jesus as their true Lord and master, not just their Savior. And those who will not recognize and submit to His authority – His absolute right to rule over them as Lord – align themselves with the unbelieving regardless of their profession. It is a sobering consideration. But what a privilege is ours to have a Lord and Master who exercises His rights over us, so as to love, protect, preserve and perfect us in His own image. And to promise us with all authority to deliver – the fullness of everlasting life in His Kingdom. All Hail King Jesus!
From Mark 11:12-25 / Cursing the Fig Tree – If Bishop Lightfoot is correct, this particular type of fig tree bears its leaves every season, but its fruit takes 3 years to ripen. It is easy to see then that Jesus’ pronouncement has more to do with the wicked generation which stripped this tree bare of its fruit. They could not and would not wait for it to serve its design, and robbed it bare. It is not a pronouncement against the tree, as much as it is against Israel’s leadership who in their greed and lust, took Israel’s glory to themselves, and left nothing for the Messiah. Perhaps it can be seen as a precursor to the Temple cleansing. After His cursing the Temple, within 40 years, no one will partake of its ritual “fruits” again. It has been cursed, and cast into the sea. We can never, no one can ever – even Jews – go back to the old way. It is cursed now. Once it has served its purpose, and the real has come of which the old system was but a type and shadow, going back is actually an abomination. Our friends caught up in Messianic Judaism need to take note. Back to Mark 7:9 – “This is my beloved Son; listen to Him.”
From Mark 11:1-10 / Hosanna – Hosanna is not a word most of us are familiar with outside the Gospels. The expression itself is a cry for God to grant help or save, and to grant success to His people. It grows out of the prayer of Ps. 118:25 “Save us we pray, Oh Lord! O Lord we pray, give us success.” In Judaism, it was used regularly in celebrations of all kinds. And most think it was originally used when a King of David’s line would lead God’s people in thanksgiving at various feasts. Just what the crowds meant by using it here as Jesus enters Jerusalem is not easy to tell. Did they hope He would free them from Roman oppression? Restore the Kingdom of Israel to a completely independent state? Regardless, we see that sometimes, we can speak better than we actually know. And as lacking in true knowledge of what they were saying as they were – nevertheless, their praise is acceptable. We worship in such darkness still. We still know Him oh so slightly. But the longer we walk with Christ, the more we come to realize how glorious and wonderful He truly is. Our worship grows in depth, joy and a holy solemnity. But how gracious is our God that He receives it at our hands, however imperfect it is, and delights in the fruit of our lips. Amazing love!
From Mark 10:46-52 / Never Too… – Several things make this account remarkable: 1 – Jesus was on His way out of town, He was set to leave. 2 – His disciples were with Him, commanding His attention. 3 – Jesus was surrounded by a a great crowd. 4 – Bartimaeus was just sitting by the roadside, he had no capacity to follow as a blind man. 5 – He simply cried out. 6 – He continued to cry out even when rebuked by the crowd. 7 – And Jesus heard and responded. What a great impetus to prayer this is. No matter your situation, or the supposed clamour around our Savior – when we cry, He hears. He is never too busy. Never too distracted. Never put off by our brokenness. Never needing us to be able to get to Him. And never too powerless to meet our deepest need – to have our eyes opened to the wonder and glory of His majesty, and His saving grace. If you know your need today – cry out. No other qualification is necessary. Our God hears.
ResponsiveReiding 