The article goes with language, so the following work as noun phrases:
English
the English language
The following doesn't usually work as a noun phrase referring to the English language. It would more likely be interpreted as referring to the English people:
*the English
Take a look at the following example sentences:
1a. I speak English.
1b. ?I speak the English language.
1c. *I speak the English.
2a. English is a beautiful thing.
2b. The English language is a beautiful thing.
2c. *The English is a beautiful thing.
Examples 1c is wrong. Example 2c is wrong in most situations. Example 1b sounds strange; we usually only say "the English language" when speaking about the language in the abstract or as a whole. Saying "English" always works, though it doesn't always sound as nice:
3a. By some estimates, there are over a million words in the English language.
3b. By some estimates, there are over a million words in English.
Both examples are acceptable, but example 3a sounds better.
Of course, there are other situations where you'd use an article with bare English, such as in the phrase the English of Shakespeare, but you can do that with any proper noun (see this answer). And if you're using English language as a modifier, it doesn't need an article because it's not functioning as a noun. In the following example, English language is inserted into the noun phrase a Q&A site as a modifier:
4. Stack Exchange is an English language Q&A site.
The article an belongs to site, not to English, language, or Q&A.
* means I think this utterance is unacceptable.
? means I think this utterance is questionable, but not as bad as those marked with *.
Best Answer
When a person has said many things over the course of their life, those statements may not always be perfectly consonant with one another. Using the definite article the is an acknowledgement of that dissonance or lack of agreement between one statement and another:
It's as if to say there is more than one version of the person, and the speaker is singling out one of them.
P.S. In the specific context of Jesus, he is known only via the biographical traditions that present his life and sayings, and thus there are literally "versions" of Jesus. Sometimes, as Jeff says, the speaker who uses that phrase is promoting the version that they consider the "true" version; at other times it is simply a recognition of there being multiple versions to choose from. I don't think it's possible to say from that brief interview which meaning the bishop has in mind.
P.P.S. In the context of the utterance in the video, the restrictive clause "who said 'Blessed are ...'" is part of the specification and essential to the distinguishing of this Jesus from some other Jesus (or Jesuses) who did not say those words. And that need not be taken literally to mean that multiple historical persons named Jesus are being distinguished from one another; it can be simply a manner of speaking, a figurative use of the definite article, just as grandpa can say to Billy who won't eat his Wheaties:
What you make of the statement from that point on (whether it is a comment critical of people who don't really understand the "real" Jesus, or a reference to the fact of there being multiple views of Jesus in the lives that have survived as gospel or multiple views that have resulted from different interpretations thereof) is a matter of cultural interpretation, not of English grammar.