Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20060521.htm

JOHN: TRUSTING JESUS AS MESSIAH AND GOD
Part XXXIX: Enjoying God's Parenting In An Evil, Perilous World
A. Part I - Possessing Confidence Under God, John 13:33-14:31
4. Trusting Christ's Divine Oversight Versus Anti Christian Claims
(John 14:28-31 et al.)

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

Dan Brown's very popular book and now the movie, "The Da Vinci Code" has created a big stir in various circles:

(1) Last Sunday, our guest missionary speaker, Reverend Tim McClelland, warned us as a Church to be aware of the deep errors of that book as he said it dramatically counters our Christian faith!

(2) Brown's work even bothers educated parties in the secular realm: the national newspaper, USA TODAY, in its May 15, 2006 issue, page 13A ran Amy Welborn's article ("Where's the passion over 'Da Vinci Code'?") in which she complained that Brown's book "says wild things about the past that even secular historians scoff at and are bothered to hear readers take so seriously."

Yet, according to her, the secular media is not trying hard to expose the glaring historical inaccuracies of Dan Brown's book or movie like they did Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," for, in Amy's words, "the news media might then be perceived as giving support to narrow-minded conservative Christians."

(3) I recently bought Dr. Darrell L. Bock's book, Breaking The Da Vinci Code that critiques Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and he lists four pages of 12 promotions by religious leaders and academic scholars on the importance of his critique of Brown's book. One promotion was written by Craig L. Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and he claimed: "It is a shame when novels are foisted on the American public as if they were historical. It is even more a shame when large swaths of the American public are tricked into thinking historic Christianity is somehow threatened in the process. But that seems to be precisely what Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has accomplished, and so a responsible reply is needed."

Blomberg's concern is justified: if -- as Brown's book asserts and influential cults like Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses have long held -- that Jesus is NOT fully GOD, what I have been teaching you on Christ's DIVINE Parental Oversight of us in John 13:33-14:27 is false, and we are left trudging dangerously through life to face eternity on our own frail merits!

Well, the John 14:28-31 PASSAGE that we are due to study today in our exposition of John's Gospel is APPLICABLE to this topic, so we will address it now . . .

(We turn to the sermon "Need" section . . . )

Need: "This sermon series on Christ's divine oversight of believers is brazenly countered by some cults and 'The Da Vinci Code' in their DENIAL that Jesus is FULLY GOD, so how may I answer them?!"
  1. Claims by groups that Jesus is not fully God via John 14:28 err:
    1. Jesus' John 14:28 statement that His Father was "greater" than He are said by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons to mean Jesus was a "lesser god" or "a created being" cf. Bible Knowledge Commentary, N. T., p. 324; Salem Kirban, Mormonism (1973), p. 40.
    2. Yet, John 1:1-3 claims Jesus is fully God with the Father, so by His use of "greater" in John 14:28, Jesus meant the Father was greater in office or glory than He was in His "humiliation," Ibid., B. K. C., N. T.
  2. Then, "The Da Vinci Code" CONTESTS the Bible's RECORD ITSELF that Jesus is GOD, and it also errs (as follows):
    1. "The Da Vinci Code" holds Jesus wed Mary Magdalene, had children by her and moved to France. It also asserts Emperor Constantine then stiffled this story, advancing the false New Testament record of Jesus to give Him deity in order to boost Constantine's power. Leonardo Da Vinci is said to have hinted at all of this in his art in code form. (Amy Welborn, "Where's the passion Over 'Da Vinci Code'?", USA Today, 5/15/06, 13A; D. L. Bock, Breaking The Da Vinci Code, p. 13-14).
    2. Yet, the historical bases for this "new 'history'" are notably lacking:
      1. "The Da Vinci Code" claims on Da Vinci's art code are lacking:
        1. It is held that Da Vinci put Mary Magdalene in his mural, "The Last Supper": the "V" space between Jesus and the person to His right is said to be "the symbol of the feminine", and that person has a feminine face, making the party Mary, Ibid., p. 14!
        2. However, Robert Baldwin, Associate Professor of Art History at Connecticut College (Ibid., p. 168-170) claims Da Vinci with several other Italian Renaissance artists feminized men in their art, so there is no basis for saying that person is even a woman!
        3. Besides, the feminized party to Jesus' right is being signaled by another disciple, fitting the John 13:23-24 report of Peter's signaling John who leaned on Jesus' breast to name the betrayer. The fact that John leaned on Jesus' breast as the disciple of love makes him an obvious choice for Da Vinci to want to feminize!
      2. Texts exist outside the Bible that can possibly be used to suggest Mary and Jesus were married, but those that can be BEST used to support such an idea can not verify this as a fact (Bock, p. 19-27):
        1. Hippolytus' 3rd cent. words on The Song of Songs (24-26) say Jesus told the Apostles He was first seen at the tomb by women so they could be sent to them as apostles. It is felt this meant Mary was an "apostle to the apostles", a Church leader, but this idea and that she wed Jesus is not claimed, Ibid., Brock, p. 19ff!
        2. A passage in the heretical Gnostic "Gospel of Mary Magdala" reports Mary received special revelation from Jesus, but this does not mean they were wed to each other, Ibid., p. 24-26, 179.
        3. The heretical Gnostic "Gospel of Philip" at 63:32-64:10 claims Jesus repeatedly kissed Mary Magdalene, but at 58-59, this kiss is contextually identified as a kiss of fellowship among believers that is not of a spousal or a sexual sort, Ibid., p. 21-24!
        4. That same heretical Gnostic work at 63:34 names Mary as a "koinonos" of Jesus, a "companion," "sister" or "wife" though "gyne" is the usual word for "wife." Yet, the context is one of "spiritual imagery" (Ibid., p. 23-24), and as Gnosticism held to a "nonliteral sense of Scripture" that "can be understood only by a select few," it is not credible scholarship to use Gnostic remarks in "spiritual imagery" contexts to determine as factual a literal union of any party! (Ryrie Study Bible, KJV, 1978 ed., p. 1770)
      3. Thus, there is NO factual basis for the Da Vinci Code's core claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were EVER physically married!
    3. Then, opposite "The Da Vinci Code" claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were false Gospels and were thrust above the Gnostic ones (Ibid., Bock, p. 61-62, 99-100), the Gnostic heretics "recognized the centrality of these Gospels", and Gnostic heretic, Tatian even wrote a Diatessaron trying to harmonize the four N. T. Gospels, Ibid., p. 119!
  3. So, with John 14:28-31 and 14:1-3, we claim that Jesus did NOT go to FRANCE with MARY and their CHILDREN as a MERE MAN, but as GOD left EARTH for HEAVEN (14:28a) after RESISTING Satan's lure to SKIP the CROSS (14:30); He then DIED and ROSE to go to HEAVEN (14:28b) one day to RETURN (14:28, 1-3).
Application: The historical evidence supports the BIBLE'S claim that Jesus IS fully GOD, so may we trust in Him for eternal life (John 20:31) and rest in His Divine Parental Oversight of us!

Lesson: Implications by the cults and "The Da Vinci Code" that Jesus is NOT fully GOD are unsubstantiated from the historical record and false according to the Bible, so Jesus IS our DIVINE Parental Overseer!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the sermon lesson . . . )

 One of the most brazen claims in The Da Vinci Code actually exposes its own weakness!

This work claims that "The Priory of Sion is an ancient group charged with protecting the secret of the Holy Grail [which secret is alleged to be that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail in that she carries Jesus' "blood" in bearing His "bloodline" and bringing it into France, Bock, Ibid., p. 13!], and Leonardo da Vinci was a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion." (Ibid., Welborn, brackets ours)

However, Amy Welborn who has a master of arts in church history from Vanderbilt University and is the author of De-Coding Mary Magdalene: Truth, Legends and Lies and De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code , explains this claim is utterly false! She asserts: "The Priory of Sion was established in 1956 by a crackpot Frenchman who was exposed as a fraud in the French media in the 1980s. The documents claiming Leonardo's role were forged and planted in French archives in the 1960s. Since there was no Priory of Sion in the way that The Da Vinci Code describes it, Leonardo couldn't have been a part of it. Simple logic." (Ibid.)

So, "The Da Vinci Code" claim that a Priory of Sion carried the TRUTH about Jesus has BACKFIRED, for such an organization did NOT exist to be able to DO such as thing as suggested. The Priory of Sion was itself a FRAUDULENT movement that was EXPOSED to exist centuries AFTER Leonardo Da Vinci had lived, so the whole PLOT of "The Da Vinci Code" is UTTERLY FALSE!



We conclude that The Da Vinci Code GREATLY errs, and that Jesus is fully God as is taught in our DIVINELY INSPIRED New Testament! May we then be confident in Lord Jesus Christ's divine parental oversight of us as it is taught in John 13:33-14:26!