Visit Tyndale’s exciting Web site at www.tyndale.

com
Copyright © 2004 by Erwin Lutzer. All rights reserved.
Author photo copyright © by Jim Whitmer Photography. All rights reserved.
Designed by Luke Daab
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible,
New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International
Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights
reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard
Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman
Foundation. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from the Holy Bible, King James
Version.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

10 09 08 07 06 05 04
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 TABLE OF
CONTENTS
AUTHOR’S NOTE

PREFACE
xiii . . . THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

CHAPTER 1
1 . . . . . . . CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN,
AND A CREED

CHAPTER 2
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THAT OTHER BIBLE

CHAPTER 3
39 . . . . JESUS, MARY MAGDALENE, AND
THE SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL

CHAPTER 4
59 . . . . BANNED FROM THE BIBLE: WHY?

CHAPTER 5
77 . . A SUCCESSFUL SEARCH FOR JESUS

CHAPTER 6
95 . . . . DIVERGENT PATHS: THE CHURCH
AND ITS COMPETITORS
AFTERWORD
113 . . . . . . . FROM MY HEART TO YOURS
The Puzzle of Jesus 119. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENDNOTES
 AUTHOR’S NOTE
THE PUZZLE OF JESUS

Who do you say that I am?”

The disciples knew what others were saying about Jesus.
Some thought that he was John the Baptist or one of the
prophets—but Jesus wanted a personal response: “Who do
you say that I am?”
Jesus pressed for their answer, not about what he was
saying or doing; he did not ask whether the disciples liked
him or not. His question went to the heart of who he was as a
person. Was he just an extraordinary man, or was he some-
thing more?
Even today the question still haunts us.
The controversy that surrounded the release of the movie
The Passion of The Christ proved that this question still cries
xi
ERWIN W. LUTZER

for an answer. Justin Pope, in a recent Chicago Sun Times

article, says that Jesus is a distant symbol with many interpre-
tations. “There’s black Jesus, and white Jesus. Homely and
handsome, capitalist and socialist, stern and hippie. Hard-
working social reformer, mystical comforter.”1
The Da Vinci Code offers a different answer: Jesus the mar-
ried man; Jesus the feminist; Jesus the mortal prophet. It’s
clear that everyone has an opinion about Jesus.
In this book, we’ll investigate the historical roots of early
Christianity. We’ll seek to give credible answers to these
questions: Who is Jesus? Are the documents of the New Tes-
tament reliable accounts of his life and ministry? And what
should this mean to us who live in the twenty-first century?
We’ll take a look at how dissenters of the early centuries of-
fered their own radical interpretation of the life and mission
of Jesus. These dissenters had their own documents, their
own religious convictions, and their own teachers. In this
study, we will evaluate what they had to say and how it still
impacts us today.
Join me on this journey as we explore the origins of the
Christian faith.

Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer

The Da Vinci Code at a Glance

1
Justin Pope, “Books Examine Jesus, as Part of U.S. History, Culture,” The Chicago Sun Times,
13 February 2004, p. 48.

xii
 PREFACE
THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

Welcome to the mysterious world of conspiracy, secret

codes, and historical documents hidden for as many centu-
ries as the church has existed!
If you’ve not read The Da Vinci Code, I’ll introduce you to
the story and to some novel ideas you might not have heard
before, such as:

• Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene!

• They had children who intermarried with the French royal line!
• And all this has been known for centuries, but the truth has been
kept from the public for fear of destroying the power of the
church! In fact, there is a highly secret organization that guards
documents that, if made public, would destroy Christianity as we
know it!

xiii
ERWIN W. LUTZER

“Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centu-

ries,” says best-selling author Dan Brown in The Da Vinci
Code. In fact, these rumors have appeared “in countless lan-
guages, including the languages of art, music, and literature.”
And, we are told, some of the most dramatic evidence
appears in the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci.
The Da Vinci Code has been on the best-seller lists for
months, and with an upcoming movie based on the book, the
story is sure to receive even wider circulation. If you’ve not
read the novel, you probably know someone who has. Many
are thinking that the book just might have some plausibility.
Perhaps the historical evidence is shaky, but, as one reviewer
asked, “Why can’t we believe that it might have happened?”
Before we answer that question, let’s take a look at the
book’s premise. In brief, here’s the story: The Da Vinci Code
opens with the curator of the Louvre lying dead in a pool of
his own blood. Meanwhile, Robert Langdon, a Harvard pro-
fessor and expert in esoteric symbolism, is in Paris on busi-
ness. The French police track Langdon down at his hotel and
ask him to interpret a strange cipher left on the body of the
murder victim. Langdon is joined in his investigation by a
young cryptologist named Sophie Neveu.
When Sophie privately warns Robert that he is the prime
suspect in the murder, they flee. But the murder victim has
intentionally left clues for them to follow. As they decipher
his coded instructions, Robert and Sophie quickly realize that
the crime is linked to the legendary search for the Holy Grail.

xiv
 THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

Quite providentially, the pair is able to link up with a Holy

Grail fanatic, Sir Leigh Teabing, whose extensive knowledge
and research fuel their efforts to find the Grail.
Teabing enthusiastically instructs the pair on matters that
surround the events of the New Testament, including an
alternate understanding of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the
true nature of the Holy Grail. He cites the Gnostic Gospels,
ancient documents that supposedly give a more reliable ac-
count of Christ’s life and teachings than the New Testament
documents we know today.
Still sought by the authorities, Robert, Sophie, and now Sir
Leigh flee to London and later Scotland, hoping to find more
evidence about the murder and its connection to the Holy
Grail. The reader is kept in suspense as these smart and deter-
mined characters pierce the hidden world of mystery and
conspiracy in an attempt to overcome centuries of deceit and
secrecy. Staying one step ahead of the police, they are able to
use hidden codes and manuscripts that the church has tried
to hide from the public.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book—and lying
at the heart of it—is the notion that Jesus was married to
Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter. Legend has it that
after Jesus’ crucifixion, Mary and her daughter, Sarah, went
to Gaul, where they established the Merovingian line of
French royalty. This dynasty, we are told, continues even
today in the mysterious organization known as the Priory of
Sion, a secret organization whose military wing was the

xv
ERWIN W. LUTZER

Knights Templar. Members of this organization supposedly

include Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Victor Hugo.
To this day, says Teabing, the relics of Mary and the records
excavated by the Templars are guarded, shrouded in secrecy
and mystery.
There is more: The Da Vinci Code reinterprets the Holy
Grail as none other than the remains of Jesus’ wife, Mary
Magdalene, who held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb
while bearing his child.
The book claims that Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to
lead the church, but “Peter had a problem with that,” thus
she was declared a prostitute and cut out of the role of leader-
ship. Apparently, the church wanted a celibate male savior
who would perpetuate male rule. So, after her husband was
crucified, Mary disappeared with her child, resurfacing in
Gaul. If this theory were true, descendents of Jesus could still
be alive today.
Robert and Sir Leigh tell Sophie that the real story about
Mary has been preserved in carefully hidden codes and sym-
bols in order to avert the wrath of the Catholic Church. In
these hidden codes, the Priory of Sion has been able to pre-
serve its own version of Jesus and Mary’s life together with-
out telling the whole truth.
Leonardo da Vinci knew all this, we are told, and used his
well-known painting The Last Supper to conceal many levels
of meaning. In the painting John is sitting to the right of
Jesus. But John’s features are feminine; it turns out that the

xvi
 THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

person to the right of Jesus is not John after all, but rather
Mary Magdalene. And, tellingly, Leonardo did not paint a
cup or chalice on the table—another hint that the real Grail is
Mary, sitting to the right of Jesus!
While Robert, Sophie, and Sir Leigh continue their investi-
gation, the powerful Catholic organization Opus Dei is ready
to use whatever means necessary—including assassination—
to keep a lid on the secret. Flush with church money, Opus
Dei is determined to force the top officials of the Priory to re-
veal the map to the Grail’s location. If the secrets of the Priory
were revealed, the church would be exposed as a fraud built
on centuries of deceit.
Dan Brown’s agenda is not so thinly veiled: This book is a
direct attack against Jesus Christ, the church, and those of us
who are his followers and call him Savior and Lord. Chris-
tianity, according to Dan Brown’s novel, was invented to
suppress women and to turn people away from the “divine
feminine.” Understandably, the book appeals to feminists,
who see a return to goddess worship as a necessity to combat
male supremacy.
The upshot of this theory is that Christianity is based on a
big lie, or rather, several big lies. For one thing, Jesus was not
God, but his followers attributed deity to him in order to
consolidate male rule and to suppress those who worshipped
the divine feminine. Indeed, according to Dan Brown, at the
Council of Nicaea Constantine invented the idea of the deity
of Christ so that he could eliminate all opposition, declaring

xvii
ERWIN W. LUTZER

those who disagreed to be heretics. Further, Constantine also

chose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only Gospels
because they fit his agenda of male power. Eighty other viable
Gospels were rejected because they taught that Jesus wanted
Mary Magdalene to be the real leader of the church. “It was all
about power,” we’re told.
Incredibly, we learn that in the Old Testament, Israel wor-
shipped both the male God Jehovah and his feminine counter-
part, the Shekinah. Centuries later, the official church—the
sex-hating, woman-hating church—suppressed this goddess
worship and eliminated the divine feminine.
This concept of the divine feminine, which the church
tried to suppress, is actually the pagan notion that in sex ritu-
als the male and female experience God. “Physical union
with the female remained the sole means through which man
could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve
gnosis—knowledge of the divine.”1 But this use of sex to com-
mune directly with God posed a threat to the Catholic
Church because it undermined its power. “For obvious rea-
sons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a dis-
gusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.”2
“Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is
false,” laments Teabing. The New Testament is simply the re-
sult of a male-dominated leadership that invented Christian-
ity in order to control the Roman Empire and to oppress
women. The real Jesus was the original feminist, but his
wishes were ignored to foster the male agenda.

xviii
 THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

If The DaVinci Code were billed as just a novel, it would be

an interesting read for conspiracy buffs who like a fast-paced
thriller. What makes the book troublesome is that it purports
to be based on facts. In the flyleaf, we read that the Priory of
Sion exists, as does Opus Dei, a deeply devout Catholic sect
that is controversial due to reports of brainwashing, coer-
cion, and “corporal mortification.” Finally, we are told, “All
descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret
rituals in this novel are accurate.”
On his Web site, Dan Brown makes other statements
about the historical reliability of the work. Some reviewers
have praised the book for its “impeccable research.” One
woman, when told that the novel was bunk, replied, “If it
were not true it could not have been published!” One man
said now that he has read the book, he will never be able to
enter a church again.
Readers should know that the basic plot of this book has
existed for centuries and can be found in esoteric and New
Age literature such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael
Baigent (1983), which is referenced in the novel. The differ-
ence is that Brown takes these legends and wraps them in a
quasi-historical story that is being read by millions. Many
who read the book are wondering if all, or at least some, of its
claims might be true.
When ABC did a documentary on The Da Vinci Code, it
gave credence to the novel, and, for the most part, ignored
serious scholarship in favor of sensationalist rumor and ill-

xix
ERWIN W. LUTZER

founded speculation. Although the program ended with the

statement, “We don’t have any proof,” it’s clear that the book
was given some degree of respectability, with the implication
that proof or not, Dan Brown just might be onto something.
Recently I read The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians
of the True Identity of Christ, written by Lynn Pickett and
Clive Prince, which includes similar themes to The Da Vinci
Code supposedly based on historical research. This book at-
tempts to give validity to the idea that Mary Magdalene was
the woman Jesus appointed to begin the church. It also con-
tends that the New Testament is a sanitized account of cultic
themes, including sex rituals.
How plausible is it that a conspiracy has kept the real story
of Mary and Jesus under wraps? If it is true, the entire struc-
ture of Christian theology is a plot to deceive the masses. If it
is true, the apostles were all party to this plot and were willing
to give their lives for what they knew to be a lie. And if it is
true, our faith—the faith of those of us who trust in Christ—
is groundless.

Uncovering the Deception

Since The Da Vinci Code claims to be quasi-historical, it is
important for us to ask: Is this book plausible? Many are
wondering where Brown crosses the line between truth and
fiction, between fact and fantasy. Is it just possible that some-
day, somewhere, we will discover that his version of history
has credibility?

xx
 THE DA VINCI CODE AT A GLANCE

I’ve written this book in an attempt to answer these and

other questions. We’ll look at topics such as the Council of
Nicaea, the Gnostic Gospels, the canon of the New Testament,
and the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci. Was Jesus simply an
inspiring leader who founded a religious movement? Did the
Gnostics represent an early form of Christianity that was hi-
jacked by the male-dominated apostles of the New Testa-
ment? In the process of answering these questions, I trust that
your faith will be both challenged and strengthened.
It is not my intention to list all of the historical errors in
The Da Vinci Code—that would be a lengthy list indeed.
These false statements included: “Jesus was a historical figure
of staggering influence . . . (he) inspired millions” when he
was here on earth and “during three hundred years of witch
hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five mil-
lion women.”3 These and other misstatements aren’t really
central to the basic attack the book makes against the Chris-
tian faith. I plan to focus instead on the scurrilous remarks
made against Jesus and the Bible.
Following are several of the key questions we’ll attempt to
answer:

• Did Constantine invent the deity of Christ? And did the Council
of Nicaea, which he convened, determine which books should be
in the New Testament?
• Are the Gnostic Gospels reliable guides to New Testament
history?

xxi
ERWIN W. LUTZER

• Who determined what books would constitute the New

Testament, and on what basis were the books included?
When were these decisions made?
• Is it plausible that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus?
• Was Opus Dei charged with destroying the Priory of Sion
in order to suppress secrets about the real Jesus?
• Is it true that Gnosticism (to be defined later) is a viable
“alternative Christianity” that might represent the true
Christian faith?
• If we agree on God, do we also have to agree about Jesus?

Come with me on a journey that will lead us into the intrigu-

ing story of the origins of Christianity and those historical
events that defined the Christian church.
Whether or not you have read The Da Vinci Code, I think
you’ll benefit from a Christian response to the attacks being
made against the Jesus of history.

xxii
Christianity, a Politician, and a Creed

ONE
CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

W e have good reason to be skeptical when a politician em-

braces religion—especially if religion helps him achieve his
political ambitions.
Consider the emperor Constantine, who in The Da Vinci
Code is said to have invented the deity of Christ in order to
consolidate his power. And, we’re told, he also eliminated
those books from the New Testament that did not suit his
political agenda.
In The Da Vinci Code, Brown asserts that by declaring the
deity of Christ, Constantine solidified his rule and earned the
right to declare those who disagreed with him as heretics. The
emperor convened the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to ratify this

1
ERWIN W. LUTZER

new doctrine that would give him the clout he craved. Sir Leigh
Teabing, the Holy Grail enthusiast, explains to Sophie that at
the council the delegates agreed on the divinity of Jesus. Then
he adds, “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.”
So Constantine “upgraded Jesus’ status almost three cen-
turies after Jesus’ death” for political reasons.1 In the process,
he secured male dominance and the suppression of women.
By forcing others to accept his views, the emperor demon-
strated his power and was free to kill all who opposed him.
The second allegation in the novel is that Constantine re-
jected other gospels that were favorable to the divine femi-
nine. To quote Teabing again, “More than eighty gospels were
considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few
were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
among them . . . . The Bible, as we know it today, was collated
by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.”2
In other words, Constantine recognized a good deal when
he saw it and therefore called the council to ensure male
power and accept those canonical documents that were
favorable to his political agenda. In the novel, Langdon says,
“The Priory believes that Constantine and his male succes-
sors successfully converted the world from matriarchal pa-
ganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of
propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterat-
ing the goddess from modern religion forever.”3 With this

2
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

accomplishment, the course of church history was solidified

according to Constantine’s liking. “Remember it was all
about power,” we are told.
Let’s begin to investigate these claims. In this chapter we’ll
separate fact from fiction, look into the ancient records, and
discover exactly what Constantine did and didn’t do.
Church historians agree that next to the events in the New
Testament, the most important event in the history of Chris-
tianity is the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Chris-
tianity in AD 312. In brief, here’s the story: Constantine’s
troops were positioned at the Milvian Bridge just outside of
Rome, where they were preparing to overthrow the Roman
emperor Maxentius. A victory would, in effect, make Con-
stantine the sole ruler of the empire. But the night before the
battle, Constantine saw a vision that changed his life and the
history of the church.
In the words of Eusebius of Caesarea, who was both a his-
torian and a confidant of Constantine, the emperor was pray-
ing to a pagan god when “he saw with his own eyes the trophy
of a cross in the light of the heavens, above the sun and an in-
scription, Conquer By This attached to it. . . . Then in his sleep
the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign which he had
seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness
of this sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a
safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.”4
To make a long story short, Constantine crossed over the
bridge and won the battle, fighting under the banner of the

3
ERWIN W. LUTZER

Christian cross. Later he issued the Edict of Milan, decreeing

that Christians were no longer to be persecuted. And now, al-
though a politician, he took leadership in the doctrinal dis-
putes that were disrupting the unity in his empire.
Let’s travel back to Nicaea (modern-day Iznik in Turkey,
about 125 miles from modern-day Istanbul) to find out what
happened there 1,700 years ago.

WELCOME TO THE COUNCIL

Those of us reared in a country where religion is largely pri-
vate and where diversity is gladly tolerated might find it diffi-
cult to believe that in the early fourth century, doctrinal
disputes were tearing Constantine’s empire apart. It is said
that if you bought a loaf of bread in the marketplace of Con-
stantinople, you might be asked whether you believe that
God the Son was begotten or unbegotten and if you asked
about the quality of the bread you might be told that the Fa-
ther is greater and the Son is less.
Adding fuel to these disagreements was a man named
Arius, who was gaining a wide following by teaching that
Christ was not fully God but a created god of sorts. He be-
lieved that Christ was more than a man but less than God.
Arius was a great communicator, and because he put his doc-
trinal ideas into musical jingles, his ideas became widely
accepted. Although many church bishops declared him a
heretic, the disputes nonetheless continued. Constantine
called the first ecumenical council at Nicaea, hoping to sup-

4
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

press dissent and unify Christianity. In fact, the emperor even

paid the expenses of the bishops who gathered.
Constantine did not care about the finer points of theol-
ogy, so practically any creed would have satisfied him—as
long as it would unify his subjects. As one historian has said,
“Christianity became both a way to God and a way to unite
the empire.”5 He gave the opening speech himself, telling the
delegates that doctrinal disunity was worse than war.
This intrusion of a politician into the doctrines and proce-
dures of the church was resented by some of the delegates,
but welcomed by others. For those who had gone through a
period of bitter persecution, this conference, carried on
under the imperial banner, was heaven on earth.

THE GREAT DEBATE

More than three hundred bishops met at Nicaea to settle dis-
putes about Christology—that is, the doctrine of Christ.
When Constantine finished his opening speech, the proceed-
ings began.
Overwhelmingly, the council declared Arius a heretic.
Though Arius was given an opportunity to defend his views,
the delegates recognized that if Christ was not fully God, then
God was not the Redeemer of mankind. To say that Christ was
created was to deny the clear teaching of Scripture: “For by him
all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authori-
ties; all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians

5
ERWIN W. LUTZER

1:16). Clearly, if he created all things, he most assuredly could

not have been created himself! To this passage many others that
teach the deity of Christ were added, both from the Gospels and
the Epistles (John 1:1; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8; etc.).
Affirming the divinity of Jesus, the delegates turned their
attention to the question of how he related to the Father.
Eusebius the historian presented his view, claiming that Jesus
had a nature that was similar to that of God the Father.
Present, but not invited to the actual proceedings, was the
theologian Athanasius, who believed that even to say that
Christ is similar to God the Father is to miss the full biblical
teaching about Christ’s divinity. His argument that Christ
could only be God in the fullest sense if his nature was the same
as that of the Father was expressed by his representative,
Marcellus, a bishop from Asia Minor in the proceedings.
Constantine, seeing that the debate was going in Athanasius’s
favor, accepted the suggestion of a scholarly bishop and advised
the delegates to use the Greek word homoousion, which means
“one and the same.” In other words, Jesus had the very same
nature as the Father.
The council agreed, and today we have the famous Nicene
Creed. As anyone who has ever quoted the creed knows, Jesus
Christ is declared to be “Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made” (italics added). There can be no
question that the delegates affirmed that Christ was deity in
the fullest sense.

6
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

Why should we be interested in this debate? Some critics

have been amused that the Council of Nicaea split over one
“iota.” The difference between the Greek words for similar and
same is but one letter of the alphabet: the letter i. Some argue
that it’s just like theologians to split hairs, arguing over minu-
tiae that have little to do with the real world. How much better
to help the poor or get involved in the politics of the day!
But William E. Hordern tells a story that illustrates how a
single letter or comma can change the meaning of a message.
Back in the days when messages were sent by telegraph there
was a code for each punctuation mark. A woman touring Eu-
rope cabled her husband to ask whether she could buy a
beautiful bracelet for $75,000. The husband sent this message
back: “No, price too high.” The cable operator, in transmit-
ting the message, missed the signal for the comma. The
woman received the message “No price too high.” She
bought the bracelet; the husband sued the company and
won! After that, people using Morse code spelled out all
punctuation. Clearly, a comma or an “iota” can make a big
difference when communicating a message!6
Although the Council of Nicaea was divided over the
Greek words similar and same, the issue was incredibly im-
portant. Even if Christ were the highest and most noble crea-
ture of God’s creation, God would then be only indirectly
involved in the salvation of man. As one historian has said,
Athanasius realized that “only if Christ is God, without quali-
fication, has God entered humanity, and only then have fel-

7
ERWIN W. LUTZER

lowship with God, the forgiveness of sins, the truth of God,

and immortality been certainly brought to men.”7
In The Da Vinci Code, we read that the doctrine of Christ’s
deity passed by a “relatively close vote.” That is fiction, since
only five out of more than three hundred bishops (the num-
ber is actually believed to have been 318) protested the creed.
In fact, in the end, only two refused to sign it. The outcome
was not exactly a cliff-hanger.
That’s not to say that the Council of Nicaea ended all the
disputes. Arianism continued to have its adherents, and sub-
sequent emperors sided with whichever view suited them at
the time. But from this point on, Christian orthodoxy main-
tained that Jesus was “God of very God.”
Whether Constantine was a genuine convert to Christian-
ity is a matter of debate. We do know that he had been a wor-
shipper of the sun god before his “conversion,” and it appears
that he carried on such worship for the rest of his life. He is
even credited with standardizing Christian worship by man-
dating Sunday as the official day of worship. There is no
doubt that he used Christianity to further his own political
ends.
But did he invent the divinity of Jesus? Before the council,
was Christ believed to be just a remarkable man? There is not
a single shred of historical evidence for such a notion. Not
only was Christ’s deity the consensus of the delegates, but as
can easily be shown, this doctrine was held by the church cen-
turies before the council met.

8
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

Contrary to Teabing’s claim in The Da Vinci Code, many

believed that Christ was more than a “mortal prophet” before
the council met in AD 325. We must take a moment to read
the writings of the apostolic fathers, those who knew the
apostles and were taught by them. Then we can investigate
writings of the second- and third-generation leaders, all af-
firming in their own way the divinity of Jesus.

THE CHURCH FATHERS

Let me introduce you to someone who longed to die for Jesus.
That was the attitude of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in
Syria. In AD 110, he wrote a series of letters to several churches
while on his way to martyrdom in Rome. The centerpiece of
his doctrine was his conviction that Christ is God Incarnate.
“There is One God who manifests himself through Jesus
Christ his son.”8 Another source elaborates further: Ignatius
speaks of Jesus as “Son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus
Christ our Lord,” calling Jesus “God Incarnate.” In fact, he re-
fers to him as “Christ God.”9 Remember, he wrote this a full
two hundred years before the Council of Nicaea!
Other examples include the following:

• Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, sent a letter

to the church at Philippi in about AD 112–118. In it, he assumes
that those to whom it is addressed acknowledge the divinity of
Jesus, his exaltation to heaven, and his subsequent glorification.
Polycarp was martyred in about AD 160 and gave testimony of
his faith in the presence of his executioners.10

9
ERWIN W. LUTZER

• Justin Martyr was born in Palestine and was impressed with the
ability of Christians to face death heroically. When he heard the
gospel, he converted to Christianity and became a defender of
the faith he loved. He said Christ was “the son and the apostle of
God the Father and master of all.”11 He was born about AD 100
and martyred in AD 165.
• Irenaeus became the bishop of Lyons in AD 177. He spent much
of his life combating the heresy of Gnosticism that we will
examine in the next chapter. Speaking of passages such as John
1:1, he wrote that “all distinctions between the Father and the
Son vanish, for the one God made all things through His
word.”12

To this list could be added teachers like Tertullian (150–212),

who one hundred years before Constantine advocated a fully
divine and fully human Christ. Dozens of other writings from
the early centuries of Christianity prove that the early church
affirmed the deity of Jesus. Their convictions were rooted in
the New Testament Scriptures that were already accepted as
authoritative by the church. For the two and a half centuries
before Nicaea, the nearly universal opinion of the church was
that Christ was divine, just as the Scriptures taught.

THE WITNESS OF THE MARTYRS

We find more evidence that the divinity of Christ was not
Constantine’s idea when we remind ourselves of the persecu-
tions in Rome. If we had belonged to a small congregation in
Rome in the second or third century, we might have heard an

10
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

announcement like this: “The emperor [Caesar Augustus]

has issued a new order, requiring all Roman subjects to at-
tend the religious/political ceremony designed to unify the
nation and revive lagging patriotism within the empire.” The
Romans believed that if one had a god above Caesar, that per-
son could not be trusted at a time of national emergency—
a war, for instance. All good citizens were commanded to
“worship the spirit of Rome and the genius of the emperor,”
as the edict read. Specifically, this ceremony involved the
burning of incense and saying simply, “Caesar is Lord.”
Sometimes persecution was directly targeted against those
who worshipped Jesus. But for the most part, Caesar did not
care what god a person worshipped. After one made the
yearly obligatory confession that Caesar was Lord, that per-
son was free to worship whatever god he or she wished—in-
cluding Jesus. Christian congregations—and there were
many of them—had to make a tough choice: They either
complied as citizens or faced cruel retribution. Many of the
Christians had watched as their relatives and friends were
thrown to wild beasts or killed by gladiators for refusing to
confess Caesar’s lordship.
If Jesus were seen as one option among many, Christians
could give allegiance to other expressions of the divine.
Why not find common ground with the central unity of all
religions? Not only would this have promoted harmony,
but also the common good of the state. So the choice,
strictly speaking, was not whether the Christians would

11
ERWIN W. LUTZER

worship Christ or Caesar but whether they would worship

Christ and Caesar.
If you ever have the opportunity to visit Rome, don’t miss
the Pantheon, one of the most ancient and beautiful build-
ings still standing today, completed in AD 126. It is a master-
piece of perfection with a grand hemispherical dome. This
was the Roman “temple of the gods,” the place where all the
various gods of ancient Rome were housed. Filled with stat-
ues and artifacts, it is here that Rome’s diverse religious
worship was localized.
Interestingly, the pagans saw no conflict between emperor
worship and the worship of their own gods. Paganism, both
ancient and modern, has always been tolerant of other finite
gods. After all, if your god is not a supreme deity, then indeed
you have little choice but to make room for other gods and
celebrate the splendor of diversity.
But the Christians understood something very clearly: If
Christ was God—and they believed he was—indeed, if he
was “God of very God,” then they could not worship him and
others. Thus, while some bowed to Caesar in order to save
their life and their family, many of them—thousands of
them—were willing to defy the political authorities and pay
dearly for their commitment.
After an intense time of persecution for those who af-
firmed the divinity of Jesus, the unexpected happened. The
emperor decided that the persecution of Christians should
end. To make good on his word, he commissioned that a

12
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

statue of Jesus be put in the Pantheon as an expression of

goodwill and proof that Jesus was now regarded as a legiti-
mate god, along with all the rest. But the Christians said, in
effect, “Thanks, but no thanks.” They understood that the
divinity of Jesus meant that he could not be put on the same
shelf as the pagan gods.
My point is simply that centuries before Constantine,
these early Christians had already proved that they believed
that Jesus was divine. And they paid for their convictions
with reprisals, harassment, and often death. The Da Vinci
Code’s assertion that Constantine “upgraded Jesus’ status”
from man to God is pure fiction.
No wonder the mark of a heretic in New Testament times
was someone who denied the Incarnation. “Every spirit that
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from
God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
from God” (1 John 4:2-3). The conviction that, in Christ,
God became man was the heart of the early Christian faith.

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
The Da Vinci Code claims—as do many occult writings—that
Constantine and his delegates decided to eliminate books
from the New Testament that were unfavorable to their the-
ology of male rule and their commitment to sexual repres-
sion. We’ve already quoted Sir Leigh Teabing as saying that
more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testa-

13
ERWIN W. LUTZER

ment and that the Bible as we know it today was collated by

Constantine.
I read a similar view in The Templar Revelation, a book that
dovetails with The Da Vinci Code, supposedly giving histori-
cal plausibility to these events. The authors allege: “In our
opinion, the Catholic Church never wanted its members to
know about the true relationship between Jesus and Mary,
which is why the Gnostic Gospels were not included in the
New Testament and why most Christians do not even know
they exist. The Council of Nicaea, when it rejected the many
Gnostic Gospels and voted to include only Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John in the New Testament, had no divine mandate
for this major act of censorship. They acted out of self-preser-
vation, for by that time—the fourth century—the power of
the Magdalene and her followers was already too widespread
for the patriarchy to cope with.”13
We’ll look closer at matters regarding the formation of the
canon and the life of Mary Magdalene later in this book. But
for now, consider this: Historical works on Nicaea give no ev-
idence that Constantine and the delegates even discussed the
Gnostic Gospels or anything that pertained to the canon. Try
as I might, I have not found a single line in the documents
about Nicaea that records a discussion about what books
should or should not be in the New Testament. Practically
everything we know about what happened at Nicaea comes
from the historian Eusebius, and neither he nor anyone else
gives a hint that such matters were discussed. Twenty rulings

14
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

were issued at Nicaea, and the contents of all of them are still
in existence; not one of them refers to issues regarding the
canon.
Thankfully, I was able to track down the source of the er-
ror. Baron D’Holbach in Ecce Homo writes, “The question of
authentic and spurious gospels was not discussed at the first
Nicene Council. The anecdote is fictitious.”14 D’Holbach
traces the fiction to Voltaire, but further research reveals an
even earlier source of the rumor.
An anonymous document called Vetus Synodicon, written
in about AD 887, devotes a chapter to each of the ecumenical
councils held until that time. However, the compiler adds de-
tails not found in the writings of historians. As for his ac-
count of Nicaea, he writes that the council dealt with matters
of the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the canon. He writes,
“The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the
following manner: in the house of God the books were placed
down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in
prayer that the inspired works be found on top and—as in
fact happened. . . .”15 That, quite obviously, is the stuff of leg-
end. No primary documents pertaining to Nicaea make ref-
erence to such a procedure.
Even if this story were true, it would still not prove the
claim that the council rejected certain books of the New Tes-
tament because they promoted feminism or the notion that
Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. These matters simply
did not come up for discussion.

15
ERWIN W. LUTZER

Speaking of legends, another claims that after the two

bishops who did not sign the Nicene Creed died, the church
fathers, not willing to alter the miraculous number of 318
(apparently the number of delegates present), placed the
creed sans their signature in their tombs overnight, “where-
upon miraculously their signatures were also added.”16 These
kinds of superstitions flourished through medieval times.
Later, we’ll learn that Constantine did ask that fifty Bibles
be copied for the churches of Constantinople. But The Da
Vinci Code’s assertion that Constantine tampered with the
Scriptures or excluded certain books is bogus. This is a re-
minder that legends are often confused with facts in such a
way that the legends appear to replace the facts. When one
presents history without consulting the sources, anything the
mind can imagine can be written. As fabrications go, The Da
Vinci Code is right up there with Elvis sightings.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

We’ve learned that the official Roman government abhorred
the exclusivism of Christianity, the idea that Christ is the only
way to God. The Romans bristled at the very suggestion that
Christ stood above other gods—indeed, claiming that no
other gods even existed. To them, it was both politically and
religiously intolerable for Christians to insist that there was
only one legitimate Redeemer who was willing to come to the
aid of mankind. They were tolerant of everyone except those
who were intolerant.

16
 CHRISTIANITY, A POLITICIAN, AND A CREED

In the next chapter we will see that another powerful attack

against the Christian faith came not from the political estab-
lishment but from religious zealots who wanted to make Chris-
tianity doctrinally diverse. Although Gnosticism was a religious
and not a political movement, it had the same motivation as the
Roman government—it could not tolerate the exclusive claims
made by Jesus Christ. Gnostics cynically used the Christian
faith as it suited them rather than accepting what they regarded
as the narrow doctrines taught by the early church.
As we investigate Gnosticism, we will see that it bears strik-
ing similarities to the modern-day quest for spirituality.
Gnosticism invites its followers to divide loyalties between
Jesus and lesser competing deities. Gnosticism says our real
need is not for forgiveness but for self-enlightenment. Jesus,
claim the Gnostics, can help us, but he is not necessary to our
quest for salvation.
Gnosticism rejects the conclusion of Nicaea, unless of
course, we are all seen as divine. Like the New Agers of today,
Gnostics believed that each person can encounter God in his
own way. Little wonder Paul wrote, “For the time will come
when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to
suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to
hear” (2 Timothy 4:3).
Join me as we investigate the Gnostic documents.

17
ENDNOTES

ENDNOTES

Preface
1 Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 308.
2 Ibid., 309.
3 Ibid., 125.

Chapter One
1 Ibid., 233.
2 Ibid., 231.
3 Ibid., 124.
4 Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 50.
5 Ibid., 51.
6 William E. Hordern, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology (New York: Macmillan, 1955),
15–16.
7 Reinhold Seeberg, The History of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), 211.
8 E. H. Klotsche, The History of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 18.
9 Geoffrey Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1978), 4.
10 Seeberg, History of Doctrine, 69.
11 Bromiley, Historical Theology, 14.
12 Ibid., 20.
13 Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True
Identity of Christ (New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, 1998), 261.
14 http://www.tertullian.org
15 As above.
16As above.

119