Add this entry to Your Favorites | [0] Favorites [52] Comments

Please wait...

In a recent correspondence with someone very dear to me, the controversy over the book about the DaVinci Code came up. A simple and sincere question was asked of me. I have tried to respond to this question and the collateral ones that followed with a brief overview of biblical perspectives. Perhaps, this may help others who struggle with how to sort out all the voices that are supporting this and other literary works that are flooding the bookshelves in our country.

Please feel free to write your questions or comments to this article.

Dear Dr. Frazier

I read the DaVinci Code because of all the hype that surrounds it. Besides being a complete work of fiction, it is ultimately a murder mystery. Obviously, it does promote some "out-there" ideas of Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having children. But this book endeavors to take nothing away from Jesus. It never claims that He didn't rise from the dead or ascend to the Father. It only promotes the fictional idea that it might be possible that before He died, He got married and it was something that was hidden by the Roman Catholic Church. People who have never read it assume the worst, in that Dan Brown is debunking Jesus as the Christ. Think about it: what if Jesus did get married? What would it change? Would He no longer be the Christ? In my opinion, it doesn't take anything away from Him at all. It means that He can better relate to married men, if anything.


Dear Friend,

Thank you for your views but I think you're trying to defend the indefensible. What would it change, you asked, if Jesus had married and had children? THE ENTIRE GOSPEL!

He would have created a genetic link to God by natural generation rather than by spiritual rebirth. You would not have to be saved because God would be you BIOLOGICAL progenitor. Since the expression has been coined, "God has no grandchildren" (meaning, just because your parent was a Christian makes you a Christian) would be voided and everyone would, by physical birth, be a child of God. This is currently espoused by the Existentialists who negate the need of salvation by referring to "the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man." They say that when you are born, God is your Father and all humanity forms your core of siblings. Your physical existence supplies the only connection you need to Deity. Therefore, there is nothing you can do or should do to have a relationship with God. It came with your birth certificate!

While the Catholics consider Mary as the "Queen Mother", you would have an entire race that can legitimately claim that Jesus' wife is indeed their biological mother. If Jesus had progeny, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE TO GET SAVED AND THEY COULD NEVER BE LOST. This would establish an "automatically saved" doctrine that neither requires consent and belief, nor personal responsibility. In contradistinction to this fallacy, The Bible declares that ALL must receive Christ "by faith" (Roms.10:10). Are you sure you want to deviate that far from the Gospel?

David said, "I was born in sin". That principle would cease to be true if there was a special genealogical line of Jesus' roaming the earth. Just like the Rephaim that were part human ("the daughters of men") and part angelic ("the sons of God"), you would have a super race of half Jesus/half human ethnicity which would not need a Savior, the Cross or to be born again (lit. "From above").

When you have an admixture of fiction with fact you are leaving it to the discretion of the reader to delineate one from the other. This is a highly dangerous endeavor since many readers may be unable to make the separation because of their lack of knowledge in the particular field of study. Two major literary works that have caused incalculable harm using this masking technique are, "The Book of Mormon" and "The Koran".

When a noted cult leader, for instance, stated his views condoning Polygamy and Celestial Marriages, readers believed him. Since he copied certain Scriptures directly from The Bible, how were they to know when something like these two spurious concepts was "unscriptural"? Jesus said, "A little leaven ("error, heresy") leavens the whole loaf". He declares that the influence of error is not confined to just a little space but spreads throughout and it ALL is contaminated. In other words, something that contains both fact and fiction is FICTION! It needs to be plainly declared as such. Religious books that pretend to be factual, while containing error, only serve to create confusion and deception.

The American society has certainly seen the escalation of Constitutional Revisionists who have altered the purity of the original document by declaring, "FICTIOUSLY", that the framers had in mind the guarantee that anyone can peddle smut, spew filth, remove prayer and God from the schools and public forums, murder babies in their mother's womb, project hard-core pornography depicting beastiality, incest, child molestation, and other vile acts without censure. No one, in their right mind, believes this. Yet, millions have been influenced by Satan wiles and subscribe to and defend this deviant mentality. They have set their course to change the American Constitution to reflect their amoral mindset.

The Bible shows us from the opening pages that one of Satan's tactics is to mix the Truth with error. His statement to Eve in the Garden is a preview of how he will take a statement from God and "add to or take away" from the purity of His Word. Revelation gives a strict warning, with ultimate punishment waiting, for anyone who dilutes the Word of God. God knows that dilution will bring pollution and this will result in their exclusion from His presence.

The Bible warns us of (1) "The Gainsaying of Korah" who challenged the authority and finality of God's Word (Jude v11 and Numbers 16) ; (2) "The Way of Cain" (Jude v11) which was to ignore God's instructions with no regard for human life; (3) "The Way of Balaam" ( 1 Peter 2:15) which was to say or do anything for money; (4) "The Error of Balaam" (Jude v11) which was to rely on his own mentality, instead of God, to exercise his gift of prophecy; and (5) "The Doctrine of Balaam" (Rev.2:14) which taught God's people to corrupt themselves by conjoining themselves with the corrupt world's system with the promise that there would be no penalty from God incurred.


The logic portrayed in the "what difference does it make" mentality is yet another way to circumvent the ABSOLUTE necessity of Calvary. If Jesus had intended to set up His Kingdom here in a natural way at that time, He would be nothing more than a monarch. His progeny would have inherited His Kingdom in a purely physical dimension rather than the spiritual dimension He declared to His disciples. He would now be the "Father of the Kingdom" and replace Jehovah as the ETERNAL Heavenly Father. When people would call out, "Abba, Father" who would answer them? Would Jesus' offspring have to cry "Abba, GRANDfather" when approaching God?

While I have never read the book, I'm sure others did before they wrote their comments on the Da Vinci Code. With the various articles available warning readers of major concerns, I'm wondering how you missed seeing the obvious. If there is ONE statement in the book that will lead someone to reject Christ as "the only way" then the book is misleading and harmful. The problem may not be with the author's INTENT, but with the CONTENT of his work. Satan can take anything and use it to discredit Christ as the ONLY way to God. If people have their eyes blinded by Satan when they hear the Bible so that they will not believe, what will stop him from deceiving people into believing this fictitious tome as Truth?

I hope this helps you in your search.

Dr. Frazier

Reader Comments