The reader should be assured that this is not another column about Mel Gibson's wildly successful film, "The Passion of the Christ." But the film does provide the hook for what follows.

One of the criticisms that has been made of the film is that it gives only glancing attention to the Resurrection, portraying it as something that happened primarily for Jesus' own benefit, a sign of his personal victory over his Roman and Jewish persecutors. According to some reports, a few audiences have applauded when the Risen Christ appears.

For many decades prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Catholic biblical scholarship --- and the theology that depended upon it in such large measure --- was not permitted by church authorities to take advantage of the most up-to-date historical and scientific methods of interpreting the sacred texts. Mainline Protestant scholars suffered no such constraints.

It was not until 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, that Pope Pius XII issued his extraordinary encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, on the promotion of biblical studies. What he said in that encyclical is that Catholic biblical scholars were now free to use the best scientific and historical tools available to determine the true meaning of Sacred Scripture.

The encyclical showed a remarkable confidence that science and faith could never be opposed to one another. The church has nothing to fear from the truth.

One of the fruits of this renewal of Catholic biblical scholarship was a newly invigorated Catholic theology, drawing now upon a richer, more accurate understanding of the meaning of the biblical texts.

And one of the most important insights that Catholic theologians had, especially those specializing in Christology in general and the Redemption in particular (known as Soteriology), was that the redemptive work of Jesus was not limited to his Passion and Crucifixion.

In that earlier approach, derived largely from a type of theology prevalent during much of the medieval period, the human community was saved because of Jesus' willingness to endure the most unspeakable humiliation and suffering, leading up to the most ignominious and painful death on a cross. In doing so, Jesus paid off the debt that we all had incurred in God's eyes because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus' prior life and ministry --- his preaching and good works, his acts of mercy and compassion, his courageous challenging of religious hypocrisy --- had nothing to do with the Redemption. They were simply its prelude.

What, then, about the Resurrection? Again, no redemptive significance. The Resurrection was primarily for Jesus' personal benefit: a reward bestowed on him by his Father in heaven for having endured such suffering and such a death.

But the Resurrection was also to have some meaning for us --- apologetical, not redemptive, meaning. Because Jesus rose from the dead, that proved that his claims to be the Son of God were valid. Only someone who was truly divine could have come back to life as Jesus did.

The theological tide turned dramatically against this narrow view of the Redemption as Catholic theology entered a new period of peace and prosperity, so to speak, following the Second World War, and aided now by Pope Pius XII's liberation of Catholic biblical scholarship.

One of the first and most dramatic signs of this change came in the form of a book by a Redemptorist biblical scholar (appropriately so), Francis X. Durrwell. The book was originally published in France in 1950 where it met with great success. An English translation appeared ten years later, "The Resurrection: A Biblical Study" (Sheed & Ward, 1960).

Father Durrwell's book was quickly followed by many other books and articles on the subject by many other authors, and it was soon evident that there had been a veritable sea-change in the church's understanding of the heart and the scope of the mystery of our salvation.

It was as if we had been led to read for the first time, or at least with fresh eyes, the classical lines of St. Paul on the redemptive significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, and specifically the line, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins" (v. 17). Indeed, the Holy Spirit, the first fruits of our salvation, could not have been given to us until Jesus had been raised and glorified (John 7:39; 16:7).

Perhaps Mr. Gibson might now consider plowing back some of his record-setting profits into a second film entitled, "The Resurrection of the Christ," if only to complete the story.

He will need, however, a different set of advisers.

Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.