PART V
The Nature of God and the Divine Nature of Christ
The Da Vinci Deception pp. 341-342
“Langdon smiled. ‘Sophie, every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith - acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the early Egyptians through modern Sunday School. Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors.’”
Dan Brown’s god is clearly not the transcendent Creator of Scripture. The deity of The Da Vinci Code is nothing more than personal divinity within every individual. Brown articulated this view more clearly in his previous novel, Angels and Demons. Both books share the same hero, Robert Langdon, battling against the evil and destructive falsehoods of Christian orthodoxy. A crucial conversation between Langdon and Vittoria, the heroine of Angels and Demons, offers this explanation of faith and religion:
“‘Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices
with which we were raised. In the end, though, we are all proclaiming
the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for the
power that created us.’ Langdon was intrigued. ‘So you are saying that
whether you are a Christian or a Muslim simply depends on where you
were born? ...So faith is random?’ ‘Hardly, faith is universal. Our
specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to
Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study sub-atomic particles.
In the end, we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than
ourselves...’ ‘And God?’ he asked. ‘Do you believe in God?’ Vittoria
was silent for a long time. ‘Science tells me God must exist. My mind
tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me that I am
not meant to.’ ‘So you believe God is fact but you will never understand
him?’ ‘Her,’ she said with a smile. ‘Your Native Americans had it right.’
Langdon chuckled. ‘Mother Earth.’ ‘Gaea. The planet is an organism.
All of us are cells with different purposes. And yet we are intertwined,
serving each other, serving the whole.’” (AAD, p. 110)
This view - which rejects any standard beyond the opinions and desires of the individual - is as old as the gnostics of the 4th Century and as modern as the New Age paganism of contemporary feminists and environmentalists. In her sympathetic study The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels defines the classic Gnostic view with this incredible quotation from the gnostic Gospel of Phillip: “God created humanity, but now human beings create God. That is the way it is in the world - human being make gods and worship their creation. It would be appropriate for the gods to worship human beings.” (Pagels, p. 122) It is significant to note that The Da Vinci Code specifically cites the same Gospel of Phillip in support of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalen (cf. Notes, p.66f.). Dr. Pagels concludes by observing the similarity between the gnostics’ religion of self-discovery and modern practitioners of every variety New Age humanism and paganism:
“For gnostics, exploring the psyche became explicitly what it is for many people today implicitly - a religious quest. Some who seek their own interior direction, like the radical gnostics, reject religious institutions as a hindrance to their progress. Others, like the Valentinians, willingly participate in them, although they regard the church more as an instrument of their own self-discovery than as the necessary ‘ark of salvation.’” (Pagels, p. 123)
Phillip G. Davis, in his incisive
critique of neo-pagan feminisim,
The Goddess Unmasked, spells
out the contrast between the
Bible’s view of God and that of
much of modern feminism:
“Goddess devotees reject...the transcendent God of the Bible. The monotheistic affirmation of God’s transcendence means that the world is not God - it is no more and no less than the contingent object and outcome of His creative power...The goddess represents the conviction that the world is intrinsically divine, because the goddess herself is immanent in all existing things. From here it is but a short step to eco-feminist contention that Mother Earth is alive, a concept commonly expressed through the name for the ancient Greek earth goddess Gaia...The notion of divine immanence has a fairly specific and direct application to human beings - we ourselves are all divine, inasmuch as the goddess is already present within us.” (Davis, p. 91)
Dan Brown’s dependence upon and
advocacy of these views is clearly
evident throughout his writings.
His characters simply mimic the
language of ancient gnostics and
modern feminists: “Langdon
chuckled. ‘Mother Earth.’ ‘Gaea.
The planet is an organism. All of us
are cells with different purposes.”
(AAD, p. 110) Z. Budapest, a
leading feminist thinker and
founder of the Susan B. Anthony
Witches’ Coven, defines the
pantheism and self-deification of
contemporary goddess worship in
almost exactly the same way:
“There was opposition with the
feminist movement toward the
spiritual movement. Those who
didn’t share the experiences
wondered why intelligent women
would want to ‘worship the
goddess.’ They missed the crucial
meaning: It is self-worship. If the
goddess is seen as being ‘out there’
(or ‘up there’), it is because all
living things are part of her: trees,
stars, moon, honeybees, rocks, and us. Just as she has thousands of different names,
she can be worshiped in thousands of different ways. It will take time for women to
get rid of patriarchal ways of worshiping. If some see her as sitting on a cloud with
her magic wand blessing them, maybe this is a step toward seeing her inside
themselves. In the Susan B. Coven, we teach that women are goddesses every time
they make a choice.” (Kassian, p. 162)
This god (or goddess) of self-actualization also rules out the possibility of any objective truth or morality. It’s all up to every individual and no one has the right to judge or condemn the beliefs of the behavior of anyone else. There can be nothing more than that which is right or true for me - “me,” of course, being the operative word in the sentence. Robert Langdon condescendingly explains to Sophie that the truths of any religion are only valid to the extent that are helpful in the lives of those who choose to believe them:
“The Bible represents a fundamental guidepost for millions of people
on the planet, in much the same way the Koran, Torah, and Pali Canon
offer guidance to people of other religions. If you or I could dig up
documentation that contradicted the holy stories of Islamic belief,
Judaic belief, Buddhist belief, pagan belief, should we do that? Should
we wave a flag and tell the Buddhists that we have proof the Buddha did
not come from a lotus blossom? Or that Jesus was not born of a literal
virgin birth? Those who truly understand the faith understand the
stories are metaphorical.” (DVC, p. 342)
Nothing is objectively true. The beliefs of the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, and the
Buddhist are all equally true although they contradict one another. They are true
nonetheless for the people who believe them. According to this view, the god, or
gods, of every religion exist only
as a projection of the needs and
the desires of those who believe in
them. As James Herrick puts it:
“Deities are the symbolic
personifications of the very
energies that are yourself.”
(Olsen/Miesel, p. 71)
In direct contrast this immanent individualized deity the God of the Bible is transcendent - that is God is not merely a part of the physical universe. His existence is independent of any other reality. He does not have a source. He is the source of everything else that exists. That is precisely the point of the divine name JAHWEH (Hebrew - “I AM”) revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:13-14). As the New Testament writer to Hebrews declares: “For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” (Hebrews 3:4) In contrast to the false gods of the heathen, which are indeed nothing more than the projection of human needs and desires, the true God is the Creator of everything that exists: “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.” (Acts 14:15) Scripture repeatedly links the nature of God to His identity as the Creator of all things. This is the basis for His claim upon us and our relationship with Him:
“You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. Your gave life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship You.” (Nehemiah 9:6)
“The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it; for He founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.” (Psalm 24:1-2)
“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere Him. For He spoke and it came to be; He commanded and it stood firm.” (Psalm 33:6-9)
“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods. In His
hands are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to
Him. The sea is His for He made it, and His hands formed the dry
land. Come, let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the Lord
our Maker; for He is our God and we are the people of His pasture,
the flock under His care.” (Psalm 95:3-6)
If God is by definition the only independent existence, the source of all being, then
it necessarily follows that there can be only one God: “We know that an idol is
nothing in all the world and there is no God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4) This
central conviction is affirmed again and again throughout Holy Writ:
“The Lord will judge His people
and have compassion on His
servants...He will say, ‘Now where
are their gods the rock they took
refuge in?...See now that I Myself
am He. There is no god besides
Me. I put to death and I bring to
life.’” (Deuteronomy 33:37-39)
“How great are You, O sovereign
Lord! There is no one like You,
and there is no God but You, as we
have heard with our own ears.” (2
Samuel 7:22)
“‘You are My witnesses,’ declares
the Lord, ‘and My servant whom I
have chosen, so that you may know
and believe Me and understand
that I am He. Before Me no god
was formed, nor will there be one
after Me. I, even I am the Lord,
and apart from Me there is no
Savior.’” Isaiah 43:10-11)
“This is what the Lord says -
Israel’s King and Redeemer; the
Lord Almighty: I am the first and I
am the last; apart from Me there is
no God. Who then is like Me? Let
him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me what has happened since
I established My ancient people, and what is yet to come - yes, let him foretell what
will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell
it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no
other Rock. I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:6-8)
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
The Bible repudiates the anything
goes - your truth is as good as my
truth - view which predominates
throughout our culture and
permeates the world view
expressed in The Da Vinci Code.
As there is one God and one God
alone, so also there is one truth
and one truth alone. That truth is
objective. That is to say, its
validity is not dependent upon any
one’s acceptance or recognition of
it. The Word of God, written by
His inspired prophets and apostles
is the ultimate and decisive source
of the one truth.
“All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness, so that the man
of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work.”
(2 Timothy 3:16)
“For prophecy never had its
origin in the will of man, but men
spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
(2 Peter 1:21)
Since each and every word of Scripture is God’s Word (“plenary verbal inspiration”) the Bible is necessarily without error or contradiction and carries the full authority of God Himself. The truth of the Bible is final and decisive.
“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?” (Deuteronomy 23:19)
“The Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10: 35)
“Sanctify them by the truth. Your Word is truth.” (John 17:17)
“What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written, ‘So that You may be proved right in Your words and prevail in Your judging.’” (Romans 3:3-4)
“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Christ Jesus for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness - a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.” (Titus 1:1-2)
“Consequently you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.” (Galatians 1:8-9)
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the
Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the
Word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work
in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code view the Bible as nothing more than “a product of man” (DVC, p. 231) which “did not arrive by fax from heaven.” (DVC, p. 231) It should therefore come as no surprise that throughout the novel the Scriptural record is ridiculed and rejected. Historic Christianity stands or falls with the authority of the Bible. If the Bible is not the inspired Word of God then then we are left with nothing more than the “anything goes” religion of The Da Vinci Code.
The Divine Nature of Christ
The Da Vinci Deception - p.233
“‘My dear,’ Teabing declared, ‘until that moment in history, 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 Nicea.’ ‘Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?’ ‘A relatively close vote at that,’ Teabing added, ‘Nonetheless, establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel - the Roman Catholic Church...the early Church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity and using it to expand their own power.’”
The Da Vinci Code’s assault upon the divinity of Christ is an overt attack upon the very heart of the Christian religion. If the novel’s claim is accurate and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ - that Jesus was both true God and true man at the same time - is, in fact, a falsehood invented in the 4th Century and foisted upon the Church for political reasons by Constantine, then historic Christianity is nothing more than a fraud. In this instance, as we have seen so often to be the case, Brown is simply mimicking his own variation of the standard line of his favorite occult theorists. One of his prime sources, The Templar Revelation - Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ concludes that Jesus was a magician and a missionary of the Egyptian goddess Isis: “Jesus was not so much the Son of God as a devoted Son of the Goddess.” (Picknett/Prince, p. 297). Picknett and Prince summarized their amazing argument in this way:
“Jesus was not the Son of God and neither was he of the Jewish religion
- although he may have been ethnically a Jew. The evidence points to
his preaching a foreign message to the land in which he mounted his
campaign and began his mission. Certainly his contemporaries thought
of him as being an adept of Egyptian magic...Mary Magdalene was a
priestess who was Jesus’ partner in a sacred marriage...She was also
‘apostle of the apostles’ and a renowned preacher...although it is
impossible to know exactly what her message was it is certain that it
would have borne little relationship to what is now known as
Christianity...If anyone was Jesus’ successor, it was the
Magdalene...John (the Baptist), Jesus, and Mary were linked together
inextricably by their religion (that of ancient Egypt) which they adapted
for the Jewish culture.” (Picknett/Prince, pp. 352-353)
Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail - The Secret History of Christ, also deny the divinity of Jesus, albeit in a somewhat less extravagant and imaginative way. Their focus is on Mary Magdalen as the Holy Grail, that is, the vessel through whom the children of Jesus formed a royal succession. They argue that Jesus was a priest/king who launched an unsuccessful attempt to regain the throne of Israel and founded a “mystery religion” in support of that attempt. “It seemed clear that Jesus was a priest-king - an aristocrat and a legitimate claimant to the throne - embarking on an attempt to regain his rightful heritage.” (Baigent/Leigh/Lincoln, p. 357) They go on to explain that he and his wife, Mary Magdalen, based their movement in Bethany outside of Jerusalem. In order to escape his political enemies among the Jews, a fake crucifixion and resurrection were staged after which they secretly left the country and traveled to Europe. The basic concern of this theory is not theological but political - that is the preservation of a dynastic bloodline from which the Merovingian kings of France could later be descended. The authors at least have the decency to acknowledge that from the perspective of historic Christianity their views are “heretical, perhaps even blasphemous” (Baigent/Leigh/Lincoln, p. 408) - which they most certainly are.
What all of these bizarre
theories have in common “is
the conviction that historical,
creedal Christianity is a lie, an
elaborate ruse born our of
thirst for power and a violent
desire to suppress the truth
about Jesus; that he was a
mere mortal or a married man
with lofty political goals or the
high priest of an Egyptian
mystery religion. In their own
ways each denies the death and
resurrection of Jesus, His
salvific work, and the
establishment of a unique
people, the Church, bound not
by ethnicity, or sex, or social
status, but by the unique work
of Jesus Christ the God-man.”
(Olsen/Miesel, p. 112) All
share the conviction that
Christianity should not be about
the forgiveness of sin and
eternal salvation. They deny the stern message of the Law and the reality of sin as
negative and repressive. Their theme is not forgiveness but self-realization and
liberation. “I must be free to be me!” is their constant cry: free to pursue my own
pleasure, free to express my own truth, free to establish my own standards - subject to
no external authority. Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world has not place in the grand Universe of Me. Feminist theologian Mary Daly is painfully direct in her
demand for a radical revision of Christian theology:
“To put it rather bluntly, I propose that Christianity itself should be
castrated by cutting away the products of supermale arrogance; the
myths of sin and salvation which are simply two diverse symptoms of the
same disease...So also the idea of a God-man (God-male on the
imaginative level), the dogma of the hypostatic union, is beginning to be
perceived by some women as a kind of cosmic joke.” (Daly, pp. 71-72)
Dan Brown’s denial of the deity of Christ is mo
re specific than those of his comrades.
He not only rejects the doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God but specifically asserts that this teaching was not held by Christ’s original followers nor taught in the early
Church prior to the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century. This assertion contradicts the
repeated testimony of Scripture and the overwhelming evidence of history.
The Gospel of Matthew begins with the declaration that Jesus is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy of Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel (which means God with us.)” (Matthew 1:23) The magnificent Prologue of the Gospel of John opens with the unambiguous assertion: “In the beginning was the Word and the was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; and things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:1-3) The four Gospels specifically refer to Jesus as “the Son of God” more than forty times: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” Matthew 16:16; cf. Also Matthew 11:27; Mark 12:6;13:32; 14:61-62; Luke 10:22; 22:70; John 10:30; 14:9). It was Christ’s claim to divinity which most provoked the Jews: “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John 5:18) When challenged as to His identity and authority, Jesus specifically invoked JHWH, the sacred name of God in reference to Himself: “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The most compelling summary of the Gospel, the famous “Gospel in a Nutshell” affirms the same essential truth: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) That unambiguous testimony to the deity of Jesus continues throughout the New Testament. St. Paul introduces his letter to the Romans by defining the resurrection as the definitive demonstration Christ’s deity: “Who through the Spirit of Holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ, our Lord.” (Romans 1:4; cf. Also Romans 9:5) In his letter to the Philippians, St. Paul describes the two natures in Christ in magnificent detail:
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death - even death on cross! Therefore, God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the Name that is above every name, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and one earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)
As he writes to young Timothy, Paul
marvels: “Beyond all question, the mystery
of godliness is great: He appeared in a
body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen
by angels, was preached among the
nations, was believed on in the world, was
taken up in glory.” (1Timothy 3:16) The
writer to the Hebrews offers the same
compelling testimony to the deity of Jesus in
response to those who merely considered
Him to be one of the mighty angels of
heaven: “But in these last days He has
spoken to us through His Son, whom He
appointed Heir of all things, and through
whom He made the
universe. The Son is
the radiance of the Father’s glory and the
exact representation of His being,
sustaining all things by His powerful word.
After He had provided purification for sins,
He sat down at the right hand of the
majesty in heaven. So He became as much
superior to the angels as the Name He has
inherited is superior to theirs.” (Hebrews
1:2-4) In the triumphant conclusion to the
New Testament, Jesus speaks to St. John in
language that clearly identifies Him as the
Son of God: “Do not be afraid, I am the
First and the Last. I am the Living One: I
was dead and behold I am alive forever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:18; cf. Isaiah 44:6 - “I am
the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God.” also Isaiah 41:4; 48:12)
To reject the doctrine of the two natures in Christ in the face of this overwhelming
Biblical evidence requires a concomitant rejection of the inspiration and authority of
Scripture. That is, of course, precisely the position of Mr. Brown and his cohorts who
scorn the Bible as nothing more than the self-serving work of fallible men who
patched and pieced this documents together long after the fact to validate their own
ideas and reinforce their own power.
The record of Church history is equally consistent in its affirmation of the deity of Jesus from the very beginning. In his standard history Early Christian Doctrines, noted scholar J. N. D. Kelly does not exaggerate when he asserts that long before the decrees of the Council of Nicea “the all but universal Christian conviction in the preceding centuries had been that Jesus Christ was divine as well as human.” (Kelly, p. 138) The testimony of the apostolic fathers of the Church, those who studied at the feet of the apostles, is consistent and compelling. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) unequivocally states the incomprehensible mystery of the two natures in Christ:
“We also have a Physician of the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the
only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards
became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word of God became
flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He
was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being
Life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from
death and corruption, and heal them and might restore them to health,
when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lust.” (ANF,1,
p. 52)
Justin Martyr ( c.100-165) who taught in Ephesus and Rome is equally direct: “Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first begotten and power; and becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race.” (ANF, 1, p. 170) Bishop Ireneas of Lyon (died c. 190) was an eloquent defender of historic Christianity against the heresies of the gnostics. In his best known work “Against Heresies,” Ireneas offers an articulate and detailed defense of the doctrine of the two natures in Christ:
“But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death; having not yet been joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son...Now the Scripture would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father and also experienced the pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him; also that He was a man without comeliness and liable to suffering; and that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people and humbled Himself even unto death; and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men - all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.” (ANF, 1, pp. 448-449)
Clement of Alexandria, a leading theologian of the Church at the end of the 2nd century, offers this testimony: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first, (for He was in God), of and our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man. He alone being both God and man - the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.” (ANF, 2, p. 173) Tertullian ( c. 160-225), the foremost teacher of the church in North Africa, applied the doctrine of the two natures in Christ to the events of our Lord’s passion and resurrection with passionate conviction. He accused those who would deny either the divine or the human nature of attempting to “halve Christ with a lie:”
“But answer me at once, you who murder truth: Was not God really
crucified? And, having been crucified, did He not really die? And
having indeed really died, did He not really rise again?...The Son of
God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be
ashamed of it. And the Son of God died. It is by all means to be
believed because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the
fact is certain, because it is impossible...Thus the nature of the two
substances displayed Him as man and God - in one respect born, in the
other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense
weak, in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying and the other
living. This property of the two states, the divine and the human - is
distinctly asserted as equal truth of both natures alike, with the same
belief both in respect of the spirit and of the flesh.” (ANF, 3, p. 525)
Countless other voices could be added to this unbroken stream of tradition which
followed throughout the early Church. To contend, as does Dan Brown, that the
doctrine of Christ’s deity was a Constantinian innovation foisted upon the Council
of Nicea (A.D. 325), one must either be completely ignorant of the historical record,
or willing to deliberately misrepresent that history.
The Da Vinci Code’s references to the Council of Nicea are equally inaccurate and
misleading. Brown informs us
that the Council concocted the concept of the deity of
Christ and adopted it “by a relatively close vote” (DVC, p. 233) in order to solidify
“the new Vatican power base” (DVC, p. 233) and establish “the Roman Catholic
Church” as the only “established
sacred channel” (DVC, p. 233)
through which men could be saved.
The actual facts bear no resemblance to the novel’s description. Constantine became the undisputed ruler of the Roman Empire in A.D. 324. A year later, in the Spring of 325, he summoned all the bishops of the Christian Church to an ecumenical Council at the city of Nicea in Asia Minor. The main purpose of the gathering was to resolve a bitter dispute which had arisen over the doctrines of a gifted teacher named Arius from the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Arius and his followers, mainly in the Greek speaking eastern part of the empire, had challenged the deity of Jesus Christ. The Arians denied that Jesus had existed before his conception in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary. Their popular slogan was “There was a time when he was not.” Nearly 300 bishops responded to the emperor’s call and gathered for the Council. (The traditional number of participants was 318) It was the largest meeting of church leaders in the history of Christendom. The great majority of the bishops came from the East. Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, did not attend. He was in failing health and jealous of the prominence given to the Eastern Church in the assembly. Instead he sent two priests to represent him as observers. The leaders of the orthodox majority in the Council were Bishop Alexander and his assistant Athanasius from Alexandria. After four weeks of discussion and debate, the bishops adopted this forceful affirmation of the historic Christian faith in both the humanity and the deity of Jesus Christ:
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten from the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God
from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one substance with the Father through whom all things came into
being, things in heaven and things on earth, who for us men and for our
salvation came down and became flesh, becoming man, suffered and rose
again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the
living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say,
‘There was when he was not,’ and ‘Before being born he was not,’ and
that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of
God is of a different reality or substance, or is subject to alteration or
change - these the universal and apostolic church anathematizes.”
(Visalli, p. 221)
Dan Brown’s characterization of this crucial episode in Church history is wrong in
every detail. In the end, only two bishops in the entire assembly, Secundus and
Theonas from the North African province of Libya, voted against the declaration. A
vote of 316 to 2 can hardly be called “relatively close.”
It is anachronistic to cast the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church as villains in
these events for they did not yet exist at this early date. As noted, the Bishop of Rome
did not even attend the Council and the overwhelming majority of those who did came
from the Eastern part of the Church which did not recognize any particular leadership
role for the Roman Bishop. The senior bishop at the Council who played a dominant
role in its deliberations was Bishop
Alexander from the Egyptian city of
Alexandria.
The affirmation of the deity of Jesus
as the Son of God was not a novelty.
It had been the unanimous teaching of
Christianity since the beginning,
affirmed by the 27 books of the New
Testament (which had been in use
throughout the Church for over 200
years by this time)
and endorsed
by the consistent tradition of
Christian teaching. The doctrine of
Arius, which compromised and
questioned the deity of Jesus, was
rejected because it was a novelty.
Arius and his followers were expelled
from the Christian Church. The
Formula of Nicea was edited a
number of times in the years that
followed and ultimately became the
core of one of Christendom’s most
basic statements of faith in the form
of the Nicene Creed.
The Emperor Constantine, also cast as a villain in the novel, does not seem to have had a particular preference as to how the debate was to be settled. Early on in the controversy, he accused the leaders of both sides of being argumentative and quibbling over obscure points. In a letter to the principals, the Emperor asserted: “Having enquired faithfully into the origin and foundation of your differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature and quite unworthy of such fierce contention.” (Norwich, I, p. 53) He just wanted it settled so that the ongoing argument would not divide his newly reunified empire. If he had entertained a personal preference, it would probably have been in favor Arius, since many of his closest advisors and family members - including his influential mother Helena and his sister Constantia - were supporters of the heretic. It would appear that the Emperor did not play an active role in the debates, which were conducted in Greek, a language which he did not speak fluently. Like a typical politician, ever sensitive to the winds of public opinion, Constantine figured out where the majority was and then jumped on their bandwagon. To suggest that these leaders of the Church cravenly yielded to political pressure from the emperor and compromised on this most crucial point of doctrine is a grievous injustice. Official persecution of Christianity - most recently under Emperor Galerius - had only ended fourteen years earlier. Many of the bishops at Nicea were honored as “confessors.” These were men who had taken their place in the arena facing the lions. They had endured physical torment and torture and bore on their bodies the scars that witnessed to their unwillingness to compromise or deny the faith. “From the East came bishops who had suffered persecution. There was Paul, bishop of Mesopotamian Caesaria, with his hands scorched by flames. Paphnutius of Upper Egypt, famous for the austerity of his life, had had his right eye dug out and the sinews of his left leg cut during the Dioceltian persecution. Bishop Potammon of Heraclea had also lost an eye.” (Payne, p. 5) Surely mere political pressure could not succeed in intimidating these brave men where physical torture and the threat of death had failed.
The doctrine of the two natures in
Christ is of crucial importance within
God’s plan of salvation. It is not an
exaggeration to assert that belief in
Jesus Christ as both true man and
true God is the very heart of the
Christian faith. Without the reality
of the God/Man, the incarnation, the
substitutionary death on the cross,
and the triumphant resurrection are all robbed of their power. In his classic
study The Two Natures in Christ, Martin
Chemnitz, the great theologian of the
Lutheran reformation, explains the
importance of this doctrine with these well
chosen words:
“The knowledge of the person of Christ is
described in the Word of God as knowing
that He is true God and equal with God
and that He is made a partaker of flesh
and blood as we are, except for sin. That
is, there are two natures, the divine and
the human, in the incarnate Christ.
Scripture expressly teaches that these two
natures do not subsist by themselves, but
that they have been united into the one
person of the Logos...Thus there are not
two persons, but one Christ, one Lord,
one Mediator. Furthermore, Scripture
teaches that from the hypostatic union a
communication of attributes results
whereby those things which are the
pro
perties of the one nature are attributed
to the person...For although the Deity
does not die, God was made man and
suffered and died in His own flesh.
Scripture also shows that in the works of
Christ as Mediator and Savior, because of
the hypostatic union, each performs in
communion with the other that which is
proper to it...On this basis, Scripture then
leads us to the communication of the
majesty. For although cleansing from sin
and vivification are essentially properties
of the divine nature of Christ, yet
Scripture also predicates vivification, or making alive to the flesh of
Christ...Moreover, this
communication of majesty does not
take place through commingling,
conversion, or equating of the natures
but through the plan of the hypostatic
union, as the ancients used to
say...Scripture carefully treats this
doctrine and repeats it in many
places. Christ indeed proclaims that
this faith and confession, is the rock
on which He will build His Church
(Matthew 16:16). John does not
hesitate to assert that this is the norm
by which the Spirit of truth is
distinguished from the spirit of error,
namely that the only-begotten Son of
God, whom the Father had sent into
the world, has come in the flesh (1
John 4:2). I shall not now add the
fact that successive ecumenical
councils were called at great expense
and carried on with great labor in
order to explain and illuminate this
doctrine. And I shall pass over in
silence the fact that almost all of the
writers of the ancient Church devoted
the greatest part of their efforts to
refining the teaching of this mystery. They felt and judged that it was in no way useless
or unnecessary to explain and understand the doctrine of the person of Christ, for the Athanasian Symbol has been right in proclaiming that for him who wishes to be saved
it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe the incarnation of our
Lord Jesus Christ...God has revealed to us in His Word through His Spirit, as much
concerning this mystery as He judged necessary and useful for us in this life for a true
and saving knowledge of our Savior Christ. Thus the things that are in the revealed
Word regarding this mystery are not to be rejected or suppressed, but rather we must
learn and understand them with grateful minds.” (Chemnitz, pp. 16-17)
click here to continue to Part VI