Hi.

I finished reading The Da Vinci Code and there is much that needs to be said.

The main thesis of the book is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. Mary represents the “sacred feminine” and should be worshipped as a god. Leonardo Da Vinci (and many other influential people over the centuries) knew about all this and became part of secret societies to protect this information. Da Vinci hid this information in his art. We see, like in the previous book, Angels & Demons, the debate between religion (the Catholic Church) and those who possess the “real” truth. There are murders, lying, twists and turns. There are secret societies - Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion. In the end we find out that… well, I won’t spoil it.

We do not know what Da Vinci intended with his art, and we certainly do not know what Da Vinci actually believed. We do know that the Apostle John is considered the favorite disciple of Jesus and is usually portrayed as beardless and beautiful in artwork, especially during the 15th and 16th centuries. To speculate that Da Vinci painted Mary instead of John in The Last Supper is simply that – speculation. (I have attached a picture of The Last Supper.) It should be noted that simply because artists were commissioned to paint pictures of Bible characters does not mean they were believers of the Bible. If Da Vinci believed this travesty about Mary and Jesus being married, it does not make it true.

Dan Brown, however, makes many declarations that are simply wrong and I would like to address some of them. Before I respond to his asseverations, I want to quote part of his opening statement: “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” Unfortunately for the thousands of readers and moviegoers who see this and believe it, that statement is a lie.

Following are 16 declarations Dan Brown makes – they are underlined and the chapter is given. They are exact quotes pulled from the book. There are dozens of errors in this book, but I have chosen these as the most relevant to our faith. I realize this is a large amount of information, but I plead with you – if you are going to see the movie, please read this – and please read the verses I have cited.

#1 - Early Jews worshiped God’s female counterpart
“Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah.” (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Believing in two gods (God, and his female counterpart) would be contradictory to what made the Jews different than anyone else – they were monotheistic. The Jews clearly believed in only one God. Shekinah is a word that does not appear in the Bible. It is a noun (of male gender) that expresses the residence or presence of God. This assertion greatly defames the purpose of the inner rooms of the Temple.

#2 - Early Jews used temple prostitutes to experience God
“[Jewish] Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses – or hierodules – with whom they made love and experienced the divine through physical union.” (Chapter 74, p. 309)

According to what I can find in the Bible, the history of prostitution in the Jewish Temple is much different than Brown makes it out to be. Brown is talking about men who had sex with women prostitutes in order to satisfy their multiple (male & female) gods with the hopeful result of good crops. This kind of temple prostitution was common in pagan religions all throughout the Bible and even afterwards in the Greek and Roman civilizations. The Jews, however, do not appear to have engaged in this. The only mention in the OT of cult prostitutes (1 & 2 Kings) deals with male prostitutes, not female, and there is never any mention of them being in the temple, but rather in the temple courtyard. In Hosea, there is mention again of cult prostitutes and God is clearly not happy. It cannot be said that this kind of action was practiced by the Jews and it is extremely clear that God saw any sort of prostitution as a vile act. No God-fearing Jew would ever seek to experience God through temple prostitution.

#3 - YHWH is derived from Jehovah
“The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Jehovah is derived from YHWH, not the other way around. It is the German transliteration of the Hebrew word. It is true that Eve comes from the same family of words (the verb “to be”), but that has more to do with Adam naming her based on the fact that all life would come from her. YHWH literally means “the one who is” or “the absolute and unchangeable one.” We sometimes see it in the Bible as, “I AM.” (It is found in the OT over 6000 times.) The name has an element of timelessness with it – the foundation of all existence. The irony is that the name itself reinforces the idea that there is only one God, not a mix of masculine and feminine. YH or Jah is a shorter name for God and has the same meaning.

#4 - The modern church teaches that sex is evil
“Our ancient heritage and our very physiologies tell us sex is natural – a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment – and yet modern religion decries it as shameful, teaching us to fear our sexual desire as the hand of the devil.” (Chapter 74, p. 310)

In Genesis 1, God says to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” Sex is never portrayed as evil in the Bible within the confines of marriage. Sex is also never portrayed as a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment. It is portrayed as a gift from God. It has two primary purposes – to join a man and a woman together and as the vehicle of childbearing. Within the boundaries God has set for us, sex is beautiful. Outside those boundaries, it most definitely is a tool that Satan can use to destroy lives.

#5 - The Bible is not a product of God
“The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God.” (Chapter 55, p. 231)

We believe that the Bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16). For more information on the authenticity of the Bible, go to the ZacAttack page: < http://www.fuelbellflower.com/za1.html>.

#6 - There were thousands of biographies of Jesus’ life
“Understandably, His [Jesus'] life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land.” (Chapter 55, p.231)

Most people in Jesus’ time were illiterate and there is simply no way there were thousands of people writing biographies of Jesus. Luke 1:1 tells us that “many” have undertaken to compile a narrative. We know of only four biographical accounts that were written in the first century – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

#7 - There were over 80 gospels considered for the New Testament
“More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament…” (Chapter 55, p. 231)

There are other “Gospels” out there – mostly written by Gnostics in the second and third centuries. There were not biographical accounts of Jesus’ life, but rather compilations of fictitious conversations to convey their Gnostic ideas. The historical evidence is that the only Gospels to be seriously considered for the New Testament were the four we currently have in our New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

#8 - Early documents taught that Jesus was mortal, not divine
“…thousands of documents already existed chronicling His [Jesus] life as a mortal man.” (Chapter 55, p. 234)

The early documents (Gnostic Gospels) do not portray Jesus as merely human. In fact, the Gnostic belief of Docetism teaches that Jesus was only divine and simply appeared human – the exact opposite. Christians and heretics agreed that Jesus was divine. It was His humanity that caused dissension in the early church. The even earlier documents (New Testament Gospels and letters) show Jesus as both human and divine, as well.

#9 - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Texts teach that Jesus was only human
“… some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls… and, of course the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi… these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms.” (Chapter 55, p. 234)

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with Jesus. They are made up of ancient Jewish literature that contain some of the Hebrew Old Testament. There is no mention of Jesus. The Nag Hammadi texts were Gnostic writings that depicted Jesus as divine. They actually deny that Jesus was human at all.

#10 - The early Church removed all aspects of Christ’s divinity from the Bible
“…the early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible.” (Chapter 58, p. 244)

Jesus clearly taught that He was divine (John 14). His apostles clearly taught that He was divine (John 1:1; Romans 9:5; 2 Peter 1:1). The “gospels” that were omitted from the Bible only taught about Jesus’ divine nature and left out the human part. And the Gospels that are in the NT clearly describe the earthly aspects of Jesus’ life. In other words, the exact opposite is true: the Gospels in the Bible do talk about Jesus’ humanity (and His divinity) while the ones that were omitted deal with only His divinity.

#11 - Jesus as the Son of God was voted on at the Council of Nicea (325 AD)
“Until that moment in history [325], Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. …Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” (Chapter 55, p. 233)

The Council of Nicea (Nicaea) met in the year 325. The main reason they gathered was not to decide if Jesus was divine. Everyone there believed Jesus was God. The issue was whether Jesus was of the same divine substance as God the Father or a different divine substance. Arius was a prominent man who believed that God was one God and He must have created Jesus who was then subordinate to God. He believed Jesus was divine, but not of the same divine essence of the Father. Due to the difficult nature of the hypostasis arguments, the Council took six months to reach their conclusion. The conclusion of the Council, and what we hold to today, is that there is one God who eternally subsists in three modes (one substance, three persons). Jesus clearly taught that He was the Son of God – He refers to God as His Father dozens of times in the Gospels.

#12 - Jewish men had to be married
“According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son.” (Chapter 58, p. 245)

The fact that Jewish custom was for men to be married does not mean Jesus was married. Jesus made a point of breaking customs. He was never afraid of being socially unacceptable. It can be said that all cultures have a custom of marriage, but the Jews also had reasons for celibacy. The Essenes, a Jewish sect, chose celibacy because of their singular focus on God – they did not want to be distracted by the needs and responsibilities of a family.

#13 - Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
“Unfortunately for the early editors, one particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the gospels. Mary Magdalene… More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ.” (Chapter 58, p. 244)

No Gospel (New Testament, Gnostic, or other) ever claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or had children. The irony is that Brown takes the reliable New Testament Gospels and claims they are unreliable sources. Then he takes the Gnostic Gospels, does a poor job of understanding them (see below), and then uses them as the reliable source of his thesis.

#14 - The Gospel of Philip proves that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
“The Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls… [are] the earliest Christian records… The Gospel of Philip is always a good place to start… ‘And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth…’ As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Chapter 58, p. 245-246)

The Gospel of Philip was written around the year 250 or 300. This is over two hundred years after Jesus died. The books of the New Testament were written in the first century – mere decades after Jesus’ death. The Gospel of Philip can hardly be said to be the earliest Christian records. The text of this book is Coptic, not Aramaic. What Brown thinks it means in Aramaic is irrelevant. The Gnostics made a point of writing in cryptic language so the masses would not be able to understand them. And the thought of Jesus being romantic, being married, having sex or having children would have appalled the Gnostics. Remember - they fully believed in the divinity of Christ and believed that matter was evil. Jesus, as God, would not even have touched human flesh. John uses this as a defense against the Gnostics (1 John 1:1). A common theme in these Gnostic writings is the fighting between Peter (who represented the church) and Mary Magdalene (who represented the Gnostics). We may not know what the author of the Gospel of Philip intended as meaning, but we can be positive about what it does NOT mean. It does NOT mean Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.

#15 - Mary was from the line of Benjamin and Jesus married her to create a powerful royal alliance
“…the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon, King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines, creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.” (Chapter 58, p. 249)

There is no historical evidence anywhere that shows Mary Magdalene was from the lineage of Benjamin. This would not have mattered to Jesus. Jesus makes it clear to Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

#16 - If Jesus had a child, He could not be God
“A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ’s divinity.” (Chapter 60, p. 254)

Jesus having a child would not have undermined his divinity. Jesus was fully human and fully God. His human nature allowed him to eat food, drink water, be tired, sleep, feel pain and all other aspects of humanity. Having sex would not have suddenly made Him not be God. We know that Jesus did not sin, so He would only have enjoyed sex within the confines of marriage. The Gospels make it clear that the focus of Jesus was on doing God’s work for the short time He was in ministry on earth. He did not come to be served but to serve and give His life for many (Mark 10:45). Could Jesus have supported a family the way He lived? Jesus was surrounded by people – His marriage would have been observed. How would it have escaped being in the Gospels? We read about His mother, His brothers and His sisters in the Gospels… why no wife? In Ephesians 5:25, Paul tells men to love their wives like Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. I am comfortable believing, with conviction, that Jesus was not married to a woman, but saw the church (all of us) as His betrothed.

————————

In a nutshell: Dan Brown uses the Gnostic teachings to strengthen his argument, but after very slight investigation, one can see that he has it backwards. If anything, the Gnostics taught that Jesus was only divine and NOT human.

At the end of the day, we all go to sleep believing something. We call this faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. We cannot prove much of what we believe. But we are certainly not afraid of testing things. I challenge you to test every single belief you have. Doubt grows faith. It is my conviction that you will find that the Bible is far more reliable than this heretical book.

I would be more than happy to go deeper into any one (or more) of these topics. Let me know if you have questions.

This movie will be a blockbuster and a great vehicle for us to start conversations with people - a way for us to introduce others to the real Jesus. I encourage you to watch it so that you can respond to it.

If you simply want to watch a movie about the Holy Grail, allow me to recommend Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

-z