February 26, 2004

The Passion of the Christ and the Two Extremes in Christian Response

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. T plus one, I guess, is what you call it. February 26th, the day after February 25th. And here we are and we all are still in one piece. I managed to get in and out of the theater without any difficulty.

And probably some of you did too, but others of you haven't yet made that journey. And some of you are choosing not to make that journey. And I was speaking with my fellow elder at church last night. And he mentioned he had seen a local pastor of a large church, a very large Southern Baptist church.

And they had a showing there at the church. And they had even done a satellite hookup interview with Mel Gibson, amazingly enough. I'm not sure how in the world you do things like that. But anyway, I was unaware of this.

But he told me that in the comments, the pastor had said that it would be immoral of a Christian not to go see the Passion. And let's face it, folks, that is an element of what's going on out there. There is two extremes.

There is the one side that has made it very clear that because of various reasons, sometimes in regards to the Second Commandment, for other various reasons, that it is absolutely immoral to see the film.

That there is no middle ground here. You simply could not possibly come up with a basis for seeing the film. If you're a Christian, it would just be absolutely positively wrong for you to do that. That's one side.

But on the other side, and it's a much, much, much larger side, that would extend. Well, let's just put it this way. I mean, if a church shows it in its sanctuary, if a church buys huge blocks of tickets, if a church engages in that type of thing, there is, let's face it, very few of those churches.

Now maybe your church did. If your church did, I'd like to hear from you. Taking your calls, your impressions today, 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341. If your church took the time to inform people of what they're going to be seeing, of the issues, of the incipient and rather prevalent Roman Catholic element within the film, the theology behind the film, if there is a discussion of atonement and the purpose of the atonement and the issue of wrath and sin and all the rest of that stuff, and in fact encouraged you to be praying for Mel Gibson and praying that God would open up avenues instead of people just sitting there and shaking his hand and treating him like a Christian, but as a brother.

I guess that term Christian just has almost no meaning anymore in our society, doesn't it? We need to come up with something else. Now brother doesn't have any meaning either. Fellow, regenerate, individual, holding to the truth of Christ and an heir of eternal life.

How's that? Good grief, we have to get very expansive anymore on these issues, but if your church mentioned all that and said let's pray for him, let's have folks actually sharing the gospel with him and talking to him concerning the finished work of Christ and opening up realms of dialogue there, then I'd like to hear from you, but something tells me that's not what was going on in the majority of situations, huh?

And instead there is this tremendous pressure. Not only don't say anything, get in the herd, moo a few times and get with the program and follow along and stream into the movie theater and watch and make it the biggest opening ever and let's stick our fingers in the eyeballs of the liberal media elite, which that is fine with me, but let's just all do this together and don't criticize anything.

Those are the two extremes. In the middle are the listeners to this program, or many of the listeners to this program. I know we've got a lot of folks who listen anymore who actually are only listening just to try to find something to complain about or write in and grouse about or whatever, but for the vast majority of folks who take the time to not just turn a little radio dial but actually have to fire up a computer program and you have to follow links and got to do all that kind of stuff.

For you folks, you're in the middle and there's a number of you who are going, well, you know, I've heard both sides. And I certainly recognize the concerns some people have. I mean, there are some folks I recognize that are so visually oriented that, to be honest with you, it might be really difficult for you to see the film, not just because of what you see, not just because of the violence and the graphic violence and the blood everywhere and tissue everywhere and so on and so forth.

But it might be very difficult for you because of the fact that you do not want to go through the rest of your life visualizing Christ as Jim Caviezel. I've mentioned on the blog the random thoughts I posted yesterday, and they were just random.

I just threw them out there and I'm looking at them right now myself just to remember some of these things. That would not be an issue for me. I really, as I mentioned, I said, well, I envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel.

This is point number 12 on the blog. No, not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord. That was never, ever once an issue. I was watching an actor, and I never made that connection.

And most of the time, even when I see people in roles that I know who they are, I can get past that. I can see the actual character rather than the actor, but not this time. Not this time. Couldn't do it.

But for some people, that might be a real issue. That might be a real struggle for them to avoid that in the future. And so if you're that type of person, well, then you know that. All of this, you folks in this audience, at least you have both sides to listen to.

Hopefully you have moderate views from both sides, not just the far. Someone gave me a URL to a website last night, an anti-passion website that was almost Gail Riplinger-esque. In fact, I think it had King James Only background to it.

Some of the things was because it railed on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, too, as if that was somehow relevant to this. Don't ask me how. So there's the wackiness on the left. There's the wackiness on the right.

There's the strong believers on both sides. And then there's this groundswell of join the herd, just come on in, and don't even think about the theology, don't think about the issues. And that's what I was concerned about all along.

We've mentioned that before. That was my concern. And I think that it was a well-grounded concern, having now seen the film myself. There were a number of things. I just throw my hands up in the air, and I do not understand.

Not in the sense of I missed what the connection was. I did figure out one of the connections only after the film, thanks to folks in the chat channel who are former Roman Catholics and who had said the rosary 16 billion times in their life.

But that wasn't the issue. There were some things I just, you know, okay, for example, there are only two characters in the film who can seemingly see this Satan figure, and it's Jesus, which you expect, and Mary.

Yes, Mary is able to see this. Now, it's fascinating. I should have kept that up. Where was that thing? Oh, where is my e-mail program? Oh, yes. Where did I put it, though? There is a book. I've ordered it.

And, yeah, here it is. And we fly off into the Internet. You know, back at 1200 Baud Days, this would have been a very slow program. There is a book out there called A Guide to the Passion. 100 questions about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Now, listen, let me read this to you, because this will give you a little context here for what I'm saying. A Guide to the Passion. Well, let me just back up a little bit. The Passion of the Christ offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for you to spread, strengthen, and share the Catholic faith with your family and friends.

Unlike any other, this movie will inspire hearts and change minds, and it will evoke questions. A Guide to the Passion, 100 questions about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, is the definitive Catholic resource book for this momentous film.

It offers an insightful scene-by-scene analysis from a uniquely Catholic perspective. How can you do that if it doesn't contain that material? I don't know. The 100 answers provide a powerful catechesis that will enrich the movie-going experience and lead seekers to deeper faith in Christ.

And so here are some of the questions. And anyone who's seen it, it would be very interesting. You follow these questions. How do we know that Jesus really existed and that the events portrayed in the movie actually took place?

In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus know he was going to die? Who was the fifth figure in the Garden? The devil? Did Jesus have to die? Why couldn't God have simply declared humanity's relationship to him restored?

In the Garden, Jesus crushes a snake under his foot. What is the symbolism here? Then it goes on and talks a little bit about... Oh, here. Why does the director, that's Mel Gibson, choose to have Peter fall at Mary's feet and cry out, I have denied him, Mother?

That's something many people have been asking. The disciples called Mary Mother and confessed to her. That's fascinating. Why is Pilot's wife Claudia portrayed as being so concerned about Jesus' fate?

Well, we actually know that from the Ann Catherine Emmerich book. Let's see here. Yeah. As Jesus carries his cross, the director cross-cuts between the devil and Mary, walking along with him on opposite sides of the crowd.

At one point, their eyes meet in an amazingly powerful silent exchange. What exactly is going on here? So you see, the stuff that I saw, even at the end says, Why does the devil do a crazy dance after Christ dies on the cross?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The stuff that I... The random thoughts actually reflect very clearly what is found on the questions that are asked there, and that book was just made available. So there was just a number of things.

Just really briefly, we've already got one call. We can take more calls at 877 -753 -3341. I just... This shows my background, of course, as far as the deity of Christ and issues concerning that, but I am just...

I was blown away the first time I turned to my friend John, who went with me and went, What was in the garden when the soldiers come and Jesus says, I am? And... What's supposed to happen after that? I mean, the only gospel that records that specific exchange they had was John, John chapter 18, and as soon as Jesus says that, the soldiers fall back upon the ground.

What do they do in the film? They keep surrounding him. It's like it has no... There's the entire meaning of that, which would have really added to the scene. I mean, just from an artistic perspective, would have been really cool.

Gone. Zip, zero, nada. Jesus can say I am to these soldiers all day long, and it has absolutely no effect upon them. Just... The first thing I went, Oh, please, come on. That was... That was... What are you trying to say with that?

I mean, if you're trying to say anything at all. It is accomplished is a wonderfully bad translation of to tell us die. It is finished. But then again, we are talking about a Roman Catholic film here, and finished and accomplished are two different things in that context.

I was completely wiped out by the very end of the film, the 45 second resurrection scene, which only shows Jim Caviezel's face for a few moments, and then he stands up. You see the hole in his hand, and he's also completely naked.

Thank you very much for putting an ending on the film. It just makes you go, Excuse me? Hello? The Gospels didn't record that part. What was that all about? Mary is mother. Mary has supernatural abilities, relics all over the place.

St. Veronica and her veil and the face of Jesus, which, by the way, I looked up last night. The earliest reference is at the 14th century, but it was just thrown in there. The vast majority of people who saw that had no idea, unless they're former Catholics, what in the world that was all about.

But to make it so obvious like that, to make it in the sense of just throwing in there no introduction, assuming the audience is going to follow, says a lot about where the film was coming from and the things regarding that.

I've gotten a lot of response to the number eight point that I put up there. What on earth was that hideous baby thing in the devil woman's arms? And everybody's been telling me, Well, that's why you need to get into eschatology, because obviously it was the Antichrist.

Come on. And I'm like, Excuse me? I don't know. Well, silly me went here, and I still remembered all those emails that have been fired in my direction about how wonderfully accurate and historical, and it was just the Gospels and nothing more.

And so during this horrific beating scene, the whip, the scourging scene, and the special effects and blood and everything else, all of a sudden here comes this creature, and this... I mean, it looked like something out of Star Trek or Star Wars or something along those lines, this hideous creature.

That was another one of the poke jaw on the ribs go, What on earth? And he sort of looked at me and his eyes were big like, I don't know. It was pretty amazing. So I don't know. But it was something else to see that.

So, you know, I am not the best person to even be concerned about as far as the emotional response to the film. In essence, I sort of viewed it as a job to do. I had to be watching everything very carefully, evaluating it, trying to understand backgrounds, issues like that.

It was not an emotional experience for me. That was Jim Caviezel, and I knew that. And yes, as I've reflected upon it, and you think about the tremendous suffering of Christ, yes, you can make that connection.

But the real element of the suffering for Christ, with Christ, was not what was shown. I mean, I was really disappointed when, very early on the program, that Jesus is thrown off this bridge, wrapped in chains, and then he's caught, would have broken half the bones in his body, but he's caught, which, of course, couldn't break bones, because they didn't break any bones.

But anyway, he's caught, and he's hanging there over this bridge, and he just happens to follow right where Judas is, and he looks at Judas, and a demon comes screaming by Judas as he runs away. It was all very, very, very artistic, and completely outside of the Scriptures, but it was all artistic and things like that.

And I was really disappointed in that kind of stuff, and the extra stuff that was thrown in along those lines, because it really, I felt, detracted from the actual suffering that would have been his. But the point is, in that one place where there is the suffering of Christ in the garden, in the sense of the prayers, you haven't quite gotten used to...

I mean, this movie just starts. Just boom. There's the stuff concerning the... There's a citation of Isaiah 53 -4, and then boom. You're right into it. I mean, there's no introduction. It was just the film started, at least where I was.

Maybe you had something different. I don't know, but it just started. It was ten minutes late getting started there, having some problems with it. It was the first showing of the day. Anyhow, you're really not accustomed yet to the fact that you're going to have to be following this film only with subtitles.

In fact, I was very happy. I caught a lot of the Aramaic, actually, because it's so closely related to Hebrew. But still, at that point, you just really haven't tuned in, so you're having to read the subtitles.

And when Jesus is praying, he looks... I don't know what the biblical description of what he was going through would actually look like on screen, so it's not like I can really criticize it. But the impression you get is someone who is extremely...

And in fact, by the dialogue they put in the mouth of Peter and the disciples, extremely afraid, uncertain, certainly not in control of the situation. And what was missing was... The idea that most people would get from that is that he was tremendously frightened of what was coming, in the sense of all the beating and everything they would see.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was he made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place. That we might be made the righteous of God in him. It's the substitutionary atonement. It's that union of the elect with their substitute and his bearing in himself the wrath due to their sin.

But you see, that central element of the theology is so completely mitigated by Roman theology and by Roman false teaching that it can't come through. It's not a part of the experience of the Roman Catholic who's looking at that.

And so it was missing. It just wasn't there. That's why, in my mind, there was such a disconnection between the events being portrayed and the biblical truth of those events. And so it was something to watch.

So anyway, many people today debating the issue. The dividing line, hint hint, has been drawn, truly. You've now probably got more information and more articles and more discussions about this one film than any other film that's ever been produced.

Without a question. I mean, you can go online right now and you can read the most extreme of either side and everything in between. Certainly, no one can walk in there and go, Well, I didn't know. I didn't have any way of knowing.

You may walk in there going, I didn't know, but that's because you didn't take the opportunity of looking. And someone mentioned to me last night that I was being misrepresented in some context, which happens pretty much every day, but that I had...

I forget which one it was. I either told people not to see it or to see it. I don't remember which one it was. I've never told anyone either way. I have never endorsed this film and said, Go see it. And I have never said that God's going to strike you dead if you do.

I have said that as a Christian, you have a responsibility to be something more than a lemming. And you do need to think about these things. You need to recognize that for a lot of folks, there is a danger of imprinting upon their mind Jim Caviezel as Jesus and not getting that very imperfect perspective out of their mind.

And that has to be considered. There also has to be consideration of interacting with all the people that are out there promoting this stuff and the danger of Roman Catholic apologists and then the positive possibility of speaking the truth.

I said from the beginning, it's going to happen and we need to be ready to address the issues and to fill in the blanks and to correct the misapprehensions. And whether you have to actually watch it to do that is another question.

Many of you listening don't have to. You don't have to go see it to be able to correct the misapprehensions. I mean, just simply some of the descriptions I've given already would be enough for you to be able to address the issue.

So, it's really up to you as an individual believer. But my point from the beginning has been don't approach the situation out of simple ignorance and don't approach it out of the herd mentality that says, hey, everybody else is doing it.

The church has bought 10 ,000 tickets and so that must mean the church endorses this film. I've not endorsed it. Neither have I said that God's going to strike you dead for seeing it. I saw it. I had to see it for lots of reasons.

But would I allow other people in my circle of influence to see it? Yes, if they wanted to. But you see, people in my circle of influence are primarily theologically aware, concerned, committed individuals.

And I do think there is a danger for individuals who, in essence, are theologically either tremendously naive or have no theological foundation within themselves at all. And, of course, they're in danger every day.

That's just simply one further aspect of it. So there you've got it. So if you were expecting me to say, yes, go see it, no, don't go see it, that's not my place. It's not my role. And I would never adopt that type of an attitude.

It's not for me to say. 877 -753 -3341. We are going to take your phone calls today. And it doesn't have to just be on that subject. That obviously is the discussion of the day. But there are other things going on.

We are trying to get our debate set up for Salt Lake City. And we had it all set up. And then somebody, and I'm not even certain, I'm not even certain the person who wrote was actually a Mormon. But we made the mistake of mentioning on the calendar concerning the debates coming up in Salt Lake City.

And so immediately, actually I mentioned it on the 19th, off to Atlanta on the blog. Immediately somebody writes up there, oh, that man's a nasty anti-Mormon, and da-da-da-da-da-da. And so we just want debate whether Christians are supposed to build temples.

And they're all upset that I mentioned. In the article where I was going after the street preachers, where I was talking about the abuse of Mormons, I mentioned that, and I didn't go into detail about it, but many, many years ago, I don't know, more than 20 years ago now I think, I was given a pair of LDS temple garments, the undergarments, by a former Mormon, a person who had left the church.

And when I used to, and I haven't done this in many years, when I used to do classes, I would explain the significance, the markings, and the whole issue of the temple ceremonies and all the rest of that stuff.

And I was doing that in the context of saying, but there's a time and a place, and hanging them from your sign outside the Mormon temple is lunacy, it's stupid, and these people should be ashamed of themselves.

Well, since I dared to say that, well, I don't think we can do this debate. How about you do a 45-minute presentation, we'll do a 45-minute presentation and take audience questions. That's not a debate, and I'm not going to do that.

So I don't know what's going to happen there, but it's like, is there anybody up there that has the courage, their convictions? It's amazing, the inability of some folks to even allow for there to be strong differences of opinion and to say, well, actually what I believe is true.

Isn't there somebody up there, a scholar of some rank, who actually believes that Christians are supposed to build temples and that that's a truth that should be defended? Amazing to me that people would...

I mean, it's like Christians... Well, I don't really know if I should debate the issue that the Bible is the word of God, you know, I mean, we don't want to offend anyone, you know, and it's just like, oh, wow, what is going on in our society?

877 -753 -3341. Boy, bad timing as far as this goes. We're probably not quite ready to take a break, but starting right now, we'd only have like 30 seconds or 35 seconds or 40 seconds or whatever to take a phone call anyway.

So is there some way to speed things up in there, or do we just simply make poor Jeff, who's already been sitting on hold for 20 minutes, start and then stop, or what?

Do-do-do-do-do-do-do. 30 seconds. Do-do-do...

See, there's a program, folks, that... Stretch. Yeah, do we have one of those, the new CBS installed? Oh, delete that quickly! Don't let that go out on air. Make things go slowly. The Star Trek time. Hey, there it is.

Hey, Jeff, Sean, we'll be right with you right after the break. The rest of you, 877 -75...

The Same-Sex Controversy, Bible Translation, and Calvinism as Bookstore Topics

It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace Myself and I in some religious place. By weeping hard on your face. Or saying prayers to some dead saints, you know.

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.

In their book, The Same-Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality, including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people.

The Same-Sex Controversy, defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at almen .org.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the word of God, James White, in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style, author James White traces the development of Bible translations, old and new, and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomen .org.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen But Free? A New Cult? Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But The Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potters' Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at www .aomen .org.

I will get it in whether I'm allowed to or not. 877 -753 -3341. That's what I was trying to say before the microphone went dead in the middle of giving the number out. Excuse me. All right. Let's talk with Jeff in South Jersey.

Hi, Jeff. Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing today? I'm doing okay. Good. Good. Uplifting movie. Okay movie. Four stars. Okay. That's good. I'm not assigning any stars. I mean, you'd have to assign stars for production, which, yeah, sadly, which, obviously, as far as production goes, it was what you would expect from Mel Gibson.

Mel Gibson isn't going to put out some stinky movie. It did strike me as a little bit rough at times as far as some of the edits and things like that.

I hear somehow he managed to kill some British person.

No. Actually, the story I saw last night was that a manager of a Clear Channel radio station had a heart attack during the crucifixion scene and didn't make it to the hospital. A woman somewhere in, I thought, the Midwest or Ohio or something like that.

That was a story I read last night on Yahoo. If that happens in the middle of Terminator or Braveheart or something like that, no one would ever give it a second thought because tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people are in movie theaters at any given point in time from noon till midnight for half the day and people have heart attacks.

They may be rushing to get there. They may be throwing cholesterol-laden popcorn into their system. Who knows? I never thought he was anti-Semitic. I always thought he was anti-British. Patriot and Braveheart make a...

Well, you know... I've got to tell this story. You know Sinclair Ferguson is a Scotsman. When Braveheart first came out, some of the students were telling him about the film and how wonderful it was. And he said, Well, I will have to go see it.

And they said, Well, Dr. Ferguson, you need to understand it's extremely violent and very graphic. We're not really sure you can handle that kind of violence or you'd want to see that kind of violence.

And his response to the students was, I want you to understand that any time that someone is killing the British is not an act of violence for a Scotsman. So I guess he went and saw it and probably enjoyed it immensely.

But anyway, on production value, yeah. But that's not ever been the issue. I mean, that was sort of a given from the start. I mean, Gibson's not going to put out a film that's bad in production value.

The question's going to be, What is it going to contain? And I think we've learned a lot more about the discernment level of, quote-unquote, evangelicals than we have almost anything else in this particular film.

It shouldn't shock anybody that Mel Gibson is going to have St. Veronica, a whole scene of St. Veronica just flying in out of nowhere and taking her veil off and wiping Jesus' face. I mean, that shouldn't shock anyone.

Mel Gibson is Mel Gibson. That's consistent with Mel Gibson. What I didn't see really was much effort on his part to not offend the sensibilities of evangelicals because, let's face it, once he started screening this thing, he realized they don't have any.

They don't have any sensibilities. It's like they're completely ignorant of what the entire issue was. All they see in the Veronica scene is a compassionate Jewish lady taking some kind of compassion on a man who's being crucified.

They don't make the connection with the rosary and the Stations of the Cross or anything else, so why should he worry about it? Hello. You still there? Still there.

Okay. You had a question. Yes. Question. Based off of the sermon you posted and also what you just said... Which one? Which sermon?

I think it was Muller. I didn't have... You mean Martin? Martin, maybe. I just simply linked to it. I didn't say that. I agreed. I understand that.

But you said something very similar, which was the focus on the physical instead of the spiritual.

Well, yeah. That's actually not only in... That's in Andy Webb's. That's in A .N. Martin's. My concern, again, goes to specific Roman Catholic theology in reference to the concept of the merit of physical suffering, which is part and parcel of the whole concept of penances and indulgences and purgatory and sadispatio and purgatory.

All that goes back to this concept of the physical suffering having merit before God. Folks don't seem to realize this, but that's why the souls suffer in purgatory because suffering is meritorious in and of itself.

I had a question. My question about that was what would you say would be the biblical view? Because, you know, the Bible simply says stuff like Jesus died for our sins. We can see the spiritual suffering in there, but, you know, with physical suffering, it's kind of hard to kind of figure, understand all the complexities going on.

Obviously, you have the interactions within the Godhead and things that will definitely blow your mind. I was wondering if you could speak to that.

What the next view would be? Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that you can separate the two out. And no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that it is wrong to contemplate the physical aspect of the suffering of Christ, the demonstration of the depravity and hatred of man and the whole nine yards that is a part of that.

But what makes that physical suffering real and relevant and balanced in the biblical perspective is the spiritual reality that is going on in the physical suffering. Obviously, the Romans were not sitting there attempting to seek to help in the retention of the world.

They did not see themselves as helping the wrath of God to come upon Christ or something. They're just looking at beating up on a Jewish person. And they did that all the time. And Jesus was not the only one to be so treated.

So if physical suffering is meritorious, there are other people who had suffered in a similar way. They just weren't perfect in and of themselves. But the connection between the two is what makes all that suffering meaningful.

I mean, outside of that, and I said this in December when I first started addressing this issue, outside of the spiritual reality of the purpose of God and the cross, and I'm not saying that there was not some, you know, it's just fascinating.

Gibson is so conservative that he's old style. And the result of that is that at one point, Mary runs up to Jesus when he's carrying his cross. He's fallen down. She runs up to him and says, I'm here.

Now there's obvious significance to that that a lot of folks don't see. But his response to her is A, unbiblical, but it does reflect, interestingly enough, an element that would not be included in modern Roman Catholic teaching as far as their theologians were concerned.

And that is, he says to her, behold, I am making all things new. And there is in that anyways the purposefulness, the recognition on his part of the meaning and necessity of this that was sort of there in the garden, but wasn't really well portrayed.

And it just wouldn't be a part of what a lot of modern Roman Catholic theologians would say, but is actually closer to what we as conservative evangelicals would believe over against liberal Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants for that matter.

So it was interesting to see that, but the rest of his theology precludes him from seeing in toto what that really means and what the result of that would really be. And so it's a situation where one of the things that just grips at my heart is I really would like to see, I would really love to see someday Mel Gibson on a program somewhere, though if he ever did this, there probably wouldn't be any programs that would want to talk to him, but Mel Gibson on a program someplace saying, you know, when I made that film, it was an act of penance, but I've since come to understand that all my acts of penance are nothing.