I'm going to do something that I very rarely ever do this evening, and that is I'm going to depart from our regular exposition of the book of Proverbs and discuss with you a current issue. And that current issue has to do with the movie that Mel Gibson has produced called The Passion of Christ. Now, as you are all aware by now, Mel Gibson has produced a movie on the last 12 hours of the life of Christ. And the title of this movie is The Passion of Christ. Now, there's been a tremendous amount of controversy regarding this film arising from the Jewish community, arising from the secular entertainment industry and arising from the liberal media, all of whom have expressed a tremendous amount of hostility towards this movie. Now, the reason for the hostility towards the movie from the Jewish community and from the secular entertainment industry and from the liberal media, the reason for their hostility towards the movie is very clear. They hate Christ. They hate Christianity. And anything that would influence people to have a favorable attitude towards Christ and toward Christianity will earn their undying enmity. And make no mistake, they believe that this movie is going to be a very powerful influence to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ And that is something that they are extremely hostile towards. Well, the result of all this venomous hostility is that the movie has received. The result of all of that has been a phenomenal amount of notice and interest that has arisen in this movie by the public. There's been far more interest in this movie because of all of this hostility than there ever had been had the critics just kept their mouths shut. On the other hand, we see the evangelical community has almost universally applauded the movie. The evangelical community, by and large, has gone to great lengths to promote this movie. Many of it have called it the greatest opportunity for evangelism that has appeared since the actual crucifixion itself. This movie has been called by evangelicals life changing. It has been called transforming. It has been called brilliant and every other adjective imaginable. in an effort to build up this movie and promote it to the Christian community as the must-see movie of the century. And so we see the violent hatred of its detractors on the one hand. We see the unqualified cheerleading for the movie by its supporters on the other hand. And the question arises, what should we, the people of God, Think of this movie. And I want to also address a larger question this evening, and that is, what should we think of any movie that attempts to depict the life of Christ on film? Tonight, I want to talk to you about this subject, and I want to help you consider some biblical perspectives on the matter. Now, I want to, first of all this evening, express to you some concerns about this movie in particular. And then secondly, I want to express to you some concerns about movies regarding Jesus in general. In the first place, then, let us consider together some concerns about this movie in particular. Now it's well known that the individual who made this movie, Mel Gibson, is a solidly committed Roman Catholic. And I have not seen this movie. I do not intend to see this movie. But I have read a number of reviews by people who have seen the movie, and I have also seen about an hour long promotional DVD of the movie by Evangelicals. I've seen an interview with Mel Gibson himself. I've seen an interview with Jim Cavazio, who played the person of Jesus. And I've seen a four minute trailer of the movie that was on this promotional DVD. And so when I say I have not seen the movie, That does not mean that I'm ignorant of its contents or of the person who produced it or of the message that they are attempting to convey by it. But as I said, it's well known that the man who made this movie is a Roman Catholic. And in this movie, as he presents the last 12 hours of the life of Christ, he has flashbacks to previous things that took place in Christ's life as Christ is going through his crucifixion. And as I watched the interview with Mel Gibson, he mentioned these flashbacks. And one of the things he kept doing, he said, was he would have a scene of Christ being crucified and going through that process. And then there would be a flashback to the Lord's Supper. And then there would be a flash forward to the actual act of the crucifixion. Then a flashback to the Lord's Supper. Mel Gibson said regarding these flashbacks, that the reason why He did that is because He wanted to convey the message that the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of the cross are the same thing. In other words, in Roman Catholic theology, when they celebrate communion, or what we would call the Lord's Supper, which they do in every Mass, at the conclusion of which they serve one of the elements to the people, at least that's the way it was back when I was a Roman Catholic, and I think that still obtains, though I think in some circles they are now sharing the cup as well with the people. But nevertheless, when the Roman Catholics perform their Mass, what they assert is that they are engaging in a new sacrifice of Jesus Christ all over again upon the altar and that the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And so they have a priest, they have an altar, and they have a sacrifice. And the person that is sacrificed upon that altar is none other than Jesus Christ. And in the process of that sacrifice, they produce the literal body and the literal blood of Jesus Christ in the elements. Now that is common. standard Roman Catholic theology, which any Roman Catholic will certainly declare to be the case. And so what Mel Gibson is trying to communicate in the film that what goes on on their altar in the Roman Catholic Church is the same thing that went on on the cross 2000 years ago. And so what they have is a perpetual, repetitive, ongoing sacrifice of Christ over and over and over again upon their altar. Now, turning your Bibles, please, to the book of Hebrews chapter 10. In the book of Hebrews chapter 10, we have a very clear declaration about the nature of Christ's sacrifice. We have a confession of faith. And in Hebrews 10, verses 11-14, it says, speaking of the old covenant priests, Hebrews 10 and verse 11, "...and every priest standeth daily, ministering and offering often times the same sacrifices which can never take away sins." But this man, speaking of Christ, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool, for by one offering hath he perfected forever them that are sanctified." And so it makes it very clear in verse 12, And in verse 14, that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins forever, by one offering hath He perfected forever those who are sanctified. And so, to have a continual offering of Jesus, a literal offering of Jesus, which is what they assert they're doing. They are blasphemously denying the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And for those of you who have seen the film, you recognize that when Jesus was on the cross and the time came for Him to expire, they had Him saying, not, it is finished. They had Him saying, it is accomplished. which are two totally different things. You know, I have accomplished the mowing of my lawn, but I haven't finished it. I have to do it over and over and over again. And so what we have here is a movie which in particular is a effort that is openly declared by Mel Gibson himself to teach the message that what goes on in the Roman Catholic altar every Sunday is the same thing that happened on the cross 2,000 years ago in direct defiance of Hebrews chapter 10 verses 11 through verses 14. Now in our own confession of faith, this issue is addressed in chapter 30, And in paragraph two, when it says in this ordinance, Christ is not speaking of the Lord's Supper. In this ordinance, Christ is not offered up to his father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for the remission of the sin of the living or dead, but only a memorial. of that one offering, up of himself, by himself, on the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same, so that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all of the sins of the elect. So the very thing that the Reformation was fought over, which is, do we have an ongoing sacrifice of Christ in perpetuity or do we have a once for all sacrifice of Christ, is now being abandoned by the evangelical community and they are openly embracing a film which blatantly teaches Roman Catholic theology with reference to the doctrine of the mass and the sacrifice of Christ because they are so theologically ignorant they don't even realize what it is they're buying into. And so this is the first concern I have about this movie in particular is that it expressly teaches Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the mass and the sacrifice therein. The second concern I have about this movie in particular is that this movie depicts the fact of Christ's death, but it does not depict the reason for his death because it is a very truncated presentation. of the ministry of Jesus Christ. It covers the last 12 hours. And what happens there is divorced from the context of all of the teaching that makes that sacrifice make sense. And so it elicits out of the viewers emotion and pity, but no understanding or explanation as to why. Jesus Christ died. And so what is being presented there is, at best, an incomplete message divorcing the death of Christ from the life of Christ, divorcing Christ's passive obedience from the cross, from the active obedience of his life, presenting his death, but not the life that obtained the righteousness that should be imputed to us. It depicts only his physical sufferings, but not his teachings. And certainly not the taking of God's wrath upon himself, nor his being under the wrath of God as a payment for sin. The emphasis is all upon his physical suffering, not on his spiritual sacrifice in satisfying the justice of God. Now, if you've been in Roman Catholic churches like I have hundreds and hundreds of times, what images of Jesus do you see? Well, you see him nailed to a cross suffering, or you see him standing there with a cross and a crown of thorns on it and blood running out of it, or you see him with a spear hole in his side. In other words, the great emphasis in Roman Catholicism is on the sufferings of Christ. And Mel Gibson himself has said, my wounds were healed by his wounds. Now, when we look at the gospel message, that is not the gospel message. For one thing, when you take part of the message and ministry of Christ and present it as the whole, people are going to go away with a piece of the puzzle. And not have the whole picture. When we are saved, we are saved by the death of Christ, to be sure. But we are also saved by the life of Christ, by his active obedience. He perfectly kept God's law, acquired a righteousness, which has been imputed to us. And then in his death, he took our sins and paid for the penalty of those in order to deliver us from God's judgment and wrath. And all that's being presented is the death of Christ. And there's nothing being presented to the life of Christ. His passive obedience is presented, but his active obedience is omitted. And so, therefore, what we have is someone dying for sins, but no one procuring righteousness which can be imputed to the believer. And so my second concern about this movie in particular is that it presents a very small aspect. Of the life of Jesus Christ to the viewer and thus conveys to him an inadequate conception of who Jesus was and what he did. My third concern about this movie in particular is that as you're well aware, it is very violent. It is very graphic and therefore it is very emotionally moving. And the viewers of this movie will be impacted chiefly in the realm of their emotions in reaction to a visual event rather than through personal conviction of sin. repentance of sin, and faith in the message of the Gospel. I imagine a lot of people will go in and see this movie. They'll be incredibly moved by it emotionally. And because of that, they will think that they have become Christians. And the result will be the inability to distinguish between emotionalism and true spirituality. And we already have this problem in charismatism, don't we? that when we go into a charismatic church and we have this emotional experience, we think we've been close to God and we think we've experienced spirituality. And yet, biblical spirituality is not about emotionalism. Biblical spirituality is about living by faith. It is taking the commands and the promises and the teachings and the comforts of the Word of God and making choices in terms of acting upon them by faith so that we actually are doers of the Word and not hearers only. That is spirituality. It is not some warm feeling or some gripping feeling I may get within myself. Now, I am not saying that true Christianity does not have emotion attached to it, but it is not the primary means by which it functions, and it is not that by which we are led. The just live by faith, they are sanctified by the truth, and in exercising faith in relationship to the truth, certainly we're going to have an emotional reaction. But this movie is primarily about emotions. It is not about recognizing that I am a sinner, and that I need to repent, and that I need to put my faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior, and that I need to walk before Him in holiness and obedience all the days of my life. It's about coming out of there feeling like you have been wrung out like a rag. And thinking, because you've been wrung out like a rag through the powerful visual images, somehow you have had an experience with God. Fourthly, this movie contains a great deal of extra biblical material derived from a Catholic devotional work written by an 18th century German nun named Anne Emmerich, which is entitled The Delorious Passion of Christ. Anne Emmerich was a nun, as I said, a Catholic nun. She lived in the 18th century and she wrote a book. And the title of this book is The Delorious Passion of Christ. Mel Gibson read this book and admits that a great deal of the material he put into the film he got out of the book. In terms of his understanding and comprehension of the nature of the suffering and the circumstances that Christ went through in his death. And as a result of his heavy reliance upon this extra biblical book written by this Catholic nun, the movie conveys things as being said and as being done at the crucifixion that are simply not in the biblical record. Furthermore, it adds to the word of God and puts words into the mouth of Christ that he never spoke. And so it removes words that were in fact spoken. For example, in Matthew 27 and verse 25, when the Jews said his blood be upon us and upon our children, he cut that out because he was afraid of what the Jews might say to him or do to him. And so what this movie does is it has Christ saying things that he didn't say it has things not said that were said, and the images and the actions that are presented are in many ways colored and informed by this book, which was written by this German nun entitled The Delorious Passion of Christ. And so Mel Gibson did not rely upon the scriptures alone in order to write the script for the movie. Well, those then are the concerns I have about this movie in particular, which brings me then to my second major point this evening, and that is concerns that we must have about movies regarding Jesus in general. Concerns that we should have about movies regarding Jesus in general. Now it is my opinion, and I believe supported by Scripture, as we shall see, that there ought never to be a pictorial representation of Jesus Christ. And the reason for that is because no man can ever accurately represent the God-man Jesus Christ. To have a mere human, Jim Cavazel, attempt to portray and depict a God-man, Jesus Christ, is at the very least horribly and entirely inadequate in its representation. And at best, it is an extreme lie and misrepresentation of our Savior, not to mention an incredible act of arrogance that any man would ever presume to portray Jesus Christ. It is true that when Jesus was on this earth, He was a man. But He wasn't just a man. He was the God-man. And we may not separate His deity from His humanity and just depict His humanity, apart from his deity. That is the old era of Nestorianism in which there was an attempt to separate the humanity and the deity of Jesus Christ from one another. And so it is impossible that any man could ever accurately represent a God-man, Jesus Christ. The Bible makes it very clear that we are not allowed to depict Jesus only in His humanity. We may not divide the humanity of Jesus from His deity. If He is to be depicted, He is to be depicted as the God-man or as nothing. Because to present Him as just a man, which is all Jim Cavaziel is, is to present half of a Christ. Now, I must confess that I have seen Jesus films, films with Jesus in them in years past, and I have always been bitterly disappointed by what I saw because the figure was so flat and inadequate in comparison with the Jesus that I read about in this book that there is no comparison whatsoever. And indeed, if our vision of Jesus is the vision on the celluloid film of a mere man playing the God man, then we're going to think far less of Jesus than He really was as He's revealed in the Scripture. The point is that the Bible tells us that deity is not to be portrayed with images. The second commandment makes that very clear in the book of Exodus 20. And in verses 4-6, the second commandment says to us, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." And what is being said in the second commandment is that we are not to make anything that is to be used as an aid to the worship of deity. And so therefore, things like crucifixes and statues and pictures of Jesus are not to be made because the use of images in devotion and worship and evangelism is forbidden. In the book of Romans chapter 1 and in verse 23, it says, who when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man." And I want to tell you, James Cavazel, as fine of a man as he is, is a corruptible man. And the image of God is not to be made into an image like under corruptible man. There was only one person who could adequately portray the God-man and that was the God-man himself. And to take some person and present him as an image of deity is a violation of the second commandment. And it is a commission of the sin of Romans 1.23 of taking the image of the invisible God and making Him into an image like unto a corruptible man. Secondly, Christ has made it very clear to us how He wishes to be portrayed and remembered. He has said to us regarding the Lord's Supper, do this in remembrance of me." And when Jesus wanted to give us an understanding of Himself, He didn't leave us with a photograph. He left us with the Lord's Supper. He left us with a ceremony, not a picture. And Christ is to be set forth In the Word, He is to be set forth by the symbols of bread and wine, and those are the only ways in which He has authorized us to represent Him. To represent Him through preaching, by the Word, and to represent Him by ceremony in the Lord's Supper. And you see, when you want to remember somebody, what do you do? You take a photograph, and you look at the photograph, and the photograph reminds you of the person. Jesus left us with a photograph. It's called the Lord's Supper. And he says, when you see the bread and you see the wine, that's how I want you to remember me is through those symbols. In fact, it was expected that we would never see Christ on this side of heaven. Look in your Bibles at 1 Peter 1, verses 7 and 8. 1 Peter 1, verses 7 and 8. It says, speaking of the persecution that the believers were having, and this is the Apostle Peter who did see Jesus writing this. He says in 1 Peter 1 and verse 7, he says that the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. Now notice verse 8, Whom having not seen, you love. in whom though now you see Him not, yet believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." You see, Peter didn't think it was a deficiency that they hadn't seen Christ or that they wouldn't ever see Christ. And you know what? Peter had seen Him. And he could have made a sketch. He knew what he looked like. And he didn't say, whom having not seen, boy, you've really missed out. Here, let me give you a picture. No, he says, whom having not seen, that's just fine. You're still not going to see him. But you know, when you love him and when you have faith in him, you're filled with joy unspeakable. You don't need pictures. And so how is Christ to be set forth? How is He to be pictured before us? He is to be pictured before us in the Lord's Supper. He is to be pictured before us through preaching. Turn in your Bibles, please, to Galatians 3. The book of Galatians 3. In verse 1, Paul is talking to these Galatians Now, you've got to understand, Galatia is clear over in modern day Turkey. Okay? These people had never seen physically Jesus Christ. But notice what is said in Galatians 3. Paul writing here, he says, O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Who has seduced you that you should not obey the truth? Now notice the next phrase, "...before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you." Now you see, this is what Mel Gibson is trying to do. He's trying to take Jesus Christ crucified and set Him before the eyes of the people. And what Paul is saying is the way that Jesus Christ was set before the eyes of you Galatians is through my preaching. Notice verse two. This only what I learn of you receive you the spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith. And it was through hearing the Bible read, and through hearing the Bible preached, and through seeing and participating in the Lord's Supper, that Christ was set before their eyes crucified. And what was a good enough picture for the Galatians, ought to be a good enough picture for us. And that is the picture that is set forth in the preaching of Christ in the Word. In Romans 10 and verse 17, it says, faith comes by hearing. And hearing by the Word of God. Now, when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem, how many people got saved by witnessing the crucifixion? Well, as far as I can tell, one, namely the centurion. who when Jesus died on the cross, he said, surely this man was the Son of God. How many people got saved by the preaching of Christ crucified by Peter on the day of Pentecost? 3,000. And then a couple of days later, 5,000. And then through the centuries, thousands and millions. Through the preaching of the Word. And so you see, faith comes not by seeing, Faith comes by hearing. And hearing by the preaching of the Word of God. And how does Jesus want to be portrayed and pictured before His people? He wants to be portrayed and pictured before His people in the preaching of the Word and in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. And those are the only ways He has authorized Himself to be set forth. And you see, for us to think we need additional visual methods to set him forth beyond that which he is left behind by his instruction and the practice and instruction of his apostles is to deny the sufficiency of scripture. In 2 Timothy 3, verses 16 and 17, it says, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, and reproof, and correction, and instruction, and righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work. And so 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17 tell us that the Word of God thoroughly furnishes us for every good work, including preaching the gospel and portraying Christ, and we don't need anything else. In Luke 16, verse 29, the rich man was in hell, and he didn't want his family to come there. And he says, oh, you know, send Lazarus to warn my brothers. And do you remember what Abraham said? He said, they have Moses in the Scriptures. Let them hear them. They don't need anything beyond the Bible to warn them of the wrath to come and to bring them to faith in Jesus Christ and to repentance of their sin. They don't need a visual Lazarus in front of them. All they need is the Word of God and they've already got that and nothing needs to be added to it. It is sufficient all by itself to bring them to where they need to be. And so, when we think we have to go above and beyond what the Bible authorizes and practices in the presentation of Jesus Christ to the world, it is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is a denial of the God-ordained means of preaching. The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 1 and verse 21, It says, for after that, in the wisdom of God, the world, by wisdom, knew not God. It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe. It was through the foolishness of preaching, not the foolishness of pictures, that God saves those who believe. In 2 Timothy 4 and verse 2, Paul says to Timothy, preach the Word. He didn't say picture the Word. And so consequently, when Paul went about his ministry in the book of Acts, all he did was preach and practice the Lord's Supper, period. Paul did not put on plays and dramas and passion plays in order to set Jesus Christ before the people. Now, you have to understand, folks, that in Paul's days, plays were extremely common. They were constantly used in order to convey stories. And Paul never resorted to plays and dramas that were common in his day to use those as a vehicle in order to convey his truth. And so we must not only use a God-ordained message, we must use God-ordained methods. And the methods that God has given to us to set forth Christ evidently crucified among you is by the hearing of faith, and by the observation of the Lord's Supper, plus nothing. Finally, the image of Christ that should be in our minds and in our thoughts should be the image that is depicted in the scriptures, not that depicted by Mel Gibson. Billy Graham said, having seen the movie every time from now on when I read the Gospels, I will be thinking of what I saw in that movie. Frankly, I would be terrified of that and the reason why. is because I don't want my image of Jesus to be of some man, interpreted by some man. I want my image of Jesus to be shaped only by the Word of God. And so what will happen is that people will see this movie, these very powerful and moving images will be burned into their mind, and their imagination, the imagination of Mel Gibson and James Cavazel about what Jesus said and about what Jesus did and how he looked and how he acted and what he experienced is going to be read into the Bible by everyone who sees the movie. And our own Sunday school teacher, Canette Peck, has told me in years past, She'll be teaching a Bible story. One of the kids will raise her hand and go, that's not the way it was, Mrs. Peck. It went this way. And she says, where did you get that? I saw it in a video. And she says, but the Bible says, oh, no, that's not how it is. I saw it. And you see, this is the reason why we need to throw away our videos and teach our kids the Bible. And so the image of Christ that should be in our mind should be the one depicted by the scriptures, not the one depicted by Mel Gibson. In short, this movie is a movie that I don't believe that any biblically informed Christian ought to go and see. And I am not going to go see it, not because I'm against Christ, but because I don't believe that movie presents Christ. in a biblically authorized fashion, nor with a biblically accurate message. And when that message is told wrongly, it becomes a wrong message and it must be rejected. So in short, this movie does provide us with a tremendous opportunity to expose and to reject once for all The worldly methods of evangelism that are being employed in to return to the God ordained method, and that is the preaching of the word of God and the celebration of the biblical ordinances as sufficient to lead all of God's elect to faith in Jesus Christ. Well, I've had my say. If any of you men have anything that you would like to say, now is your opportunity. And you know, I think that's an important point is I'm certain that God will use this movie as an instrument to ultimately cause some people to come to faith in Christ. But just because it produces that in does not justify the means. Okay. All sorts of wicked things occur. For example, Jesus was crucified, okay? And that was a wicked thing and people could say, oh, but look at all the people that got saved because Jesus was crucified. That didn't justify what they did to him. And so, in the same way, when an unbiblical means happens to be overruled by God and used to the salvation of someone, that doesn't justify the unbiblical means. What we must do is measure the means by the Scriptures, not according to the results they produce. Because if you look at results, the Mormons are beating us all. We ought to go adopt their messaging methods, right? So, we can't just look at results, even good results. When we see what happened to Joseph, okay, The sin of his brothers produced wonderful results. Joseph got to be king of Egypt or second in command, and the whole nation was saved and preserved. But Joseph said, you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. And Mel Gibson means this to promote Roman Catholic theology. And in promoting that, probably God will overrule it and use it to save some people, genuinely save them because of opportunities to witness like you mentioned. But that does not justify the means itself. Another comment. Brent. We have every depiction we need right here, don't we? And he says, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. And so Jesus expected that we wouldn't see, just like Peter said, whom having not seen you love. And though now you see him not yet, you rejoice with joy and speakable and full of glory. And I don't need to see him in order to love him, in order to believe in him, in order to be filled with joy, because I can see him set forth in the word. I haven't seen the movie, and I can't fault anything that you've said. I've heard everything that you've said. I've heard interviews with Malthuson's father, Hutton Gibson, referring to his son and the reasons why he made the movie. Apparently, in a writing magazine, Malthuson has repented of all of the past movies that he's made, like the Mad Max movies and so forth. and his claim that he wants to make uplifting, wholesome movies. From what I heard the other day, he is planning on making more biblical movies. Is there a problem in that respect? And should we not pray for Mel in the respect that he is trying to do something, although from a Well, you know, it reminds me, Tom, of what it says in Romans 10 regarding the Jews. It says they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. And I don't doubt Mel's sincerity one ounce. I applaud him for his strength of conviction to stand up in the face of all the hatred and rejection that he's gotten. I mean, I admire the man, but he's sincere, but he's sincerely misguided. Now, with reference to making depictions of other biblical stories and events, Okay, I don't have a problem with that because you're not trying to depict God. Yeah, yeah, we certainly need to pray for him. And, you know, when I say I don't have a problem with depicting other biblical stories, I don't have a problem in principle. The problem is that I've never seen one yet that's been depicted accurately. Okay, another comment. Joe. was that in the process of people that are not Christians going and viewing the movie, they will have Christ kind of stuck into, this is what he did. Well, if you were going to go up and try and share Christ with, would they not be like, connect students and say, no, no, no, no. He didn't do that. I saw the movie. I saw what he did. Well, then it might be a little bit more difficult to get through and explain to them, no, Christ was far more than what that movie showed. I didn't know that the movie was just on the last 12 hours of his life. But I mean, that was just the very end of it. There's so much more that happened before that that it might be kind of an obstacle to trying to get through that. Right, because when you present the whole truth, I mean, part of the truth is the whole truth, it becomes an untruth. And that's why we have 66 books. And you can't just take one of those books and say, here's the gospel. Right. Precisely. And so it's a truncated message at best. Any other comments or questions or objections? Marvin? Max, I saw the movie on Friday night. I, before I went, saw the article that Kennedy Adapters had, Five Reasons You Should Not See the Movie, which was very similar to the sermon he just preached, and were excellent points. And, seeing the movie, on the positive side, clearly that Jesus obeyed his own teaching, his obedience to the Father, was very clearly shown. On the negative side, everything that you said regarding the Roman Catholic theology was very obvious to me. And I'm not trying to advocate the scene in the movie at all. I am saying that one could hope that something better would follow as a result of all the interest being shown to this movie. From my perspective, having seen it, I don't know what errors that almost everybody around us is going to be having in their mind. There was quite a bit of a place for Mary that was extra-biblical. I joined her to be involved in this almost as an authority figure. She's the one who offered her son. And very tragic. So, I don't disagree with what you said, and I felt as I had made the decision to go, that perhaps I did it too quickly. But I'm still thinking through what I've seen and my thoughts on it. Sure. Well, I'm not saying that everything in the film is wrong. I'm sure it did depict some things accurately, like Jesus being true to his own teachings. But it's, you know, these larger principles that eclipse, you know, what may be accurate in there and render the whole concept of a movie regarding Christ invalid. OK, any other comments? All right, well, if you think of others, feel free to speak them to me privately and be glad to interact with reference to that. This is just my effort to help you think biblically regarding a cultural issue. And, you know, wherever a person may wind up with reference to this issue, The point I want to make is this is that whatever comes along in our culture needs to be biblically evaluated. It shouldn't just be automatically accepted because everybody's accepting it. But you need to think that, you know, if the vast majority of people think this is great, I'd better watch out. Because in history, the vast majority of the people have always been wrong. And so, therefore, we have to discipline our thinking not by some geedy emotional excitement about how we can fill our churches, but what sayeth the scripture regarding this film in particular and the concept of depictions, visual depictions of the God-man in general. Well, I've set Christ before you many, many, many, many times from the scriptures, and I hope that that's the image of Christ that you have. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank you that you have given to us a perfect picture of Jesus in the word of God. Indeed, he is the word and the word sets him forth with clarity, with accuracy, with proportion, with precision, so that there can be no error or imbalance in its presentation. Father, I pray that we might not long after extra biblical presentations of truth, but Lord, we would just simply take the Bible itself as sufficient to provide us with all things that are necessary for life and for godliness. Thank you, Father, that they thoroughly furnish us for everything we need. Let us not long after things beyond that. Lord, I pray that you might overrule the errors of this film. Lord, I I know that Hundreds of thousands are going to see it, if not millions. Lord, I pray that in spite of the error that is there in its presentation and teaching and even in its existence, Lord, that you might be pleased to use even this to bring glory to yourself and your elect to your son. Father, thank you for your goodness in giving us a savior. May we view him aright. as we view Him through the Word. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.