Monday, June 11, 2007

Question About The Da Vinci Code

This might sound like a weird question, but I am curious, so I'll ask.

The DA Vinci Code, first a theory (or fable), then a novel, then a movie, stirred a huge commotion among Christians because of its assertion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and she gave birth to His daughter after He was crucified.

I was watching a documentary about the DA Vinci Code on the History Channel, and it featured a few Evangelical leaders on the program. One of them said, "It is complete and utter blasphemy to even suggest Jesus was married," Another said, "Jesus being married is a lie created to take down the church."

Now, I do not believe for one second that Jesus was married. I don't believe there is any proof or reliable record of such a union. I don't think it served His purpose in coming to Earth, establishing the new covenant, and sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world.

That being said, why would it be blasphemy or take down the church, if it were somehow "proven" that Jesus was married? I can see if the premise was that Jesus was shacking up with Mary Magdalene. The assertion would be: Jesus sinned, thus exposing his divinity as a fraud, and negating his death on the cross. Now that would be blasphemy and threaten the legitimacy of the church.

But suppose for a moment that it could be "proven" that Jesus did marry Mary Magdalene. Would it really shake the foundations of Christianity? Or would it just be one more fact about Jesus' life in which He set an example of what a marriage should be like and another picture of the bride of Christ? If it had always been taught that Jesus was married, I don't think any of us would think it was weird. Again, I do not believe He was married at all. I just want to know if I am missing something. Why would it be so threatening if He was married? How would that negate His divinity? It wouldn't for me.

Any thoughts?

4 comments:

Mandi said...

Hey Tia,
Just the first thought that popped into my head was that if he had a kid, it would not fit into what scripture prophisied (not sure if that is the correct spelling or not - don't worry, I homeschool my kids) about him in Isaiah 53:8 - "By oppression and judgment he was taken away. *And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living;* for the transgression of my people he was stricken." Just a thought.
Mandi Ord

Tia Lynn said...

That's the best I've answer I heard thus far-Thanks Mandi :) I just wasn't getting what would be so horrible about it. If that verse means how it sounds, then that makes total sense.

gordo said...

y'know I was just thinking, that although I do not think Jesus was married either, wouldn't someone claiming to be his descendant through the Merovingian line of kings be a perfect candidate for anti-christ? Just a random thought.

Tia Lynn said...

Either that, or someone claiming to start a "Christian Theocracy," because the Bible says the even some of the elect will be deceived and that the antichrist will perform signs and wonders-does that sound like a secular humanist to you? Just a thought.