Christian Reincarnation
The controversy
During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least
intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this controversy
emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises
against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's
greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation.
Origen was a person devoted to scriptural authority, a scourge to the
enemies of the church, and a martyr for the faith. He was the
spiritual teacher of a large and grateful posterity and yet his
teachings were declared heresy in 553. The debates and controversies
that flared up around his teachings are in fact the record of
reincarnation in the church.
The case against Origen grew by fits and starts from about A.D. 300
(fifty years after his death) until 553. There were writers of great
eminence among his critics as well as some rather obscure
ecclesiasts. They included Methodius of Olympus, Eppiphanius of
Salamis, Theophilus, Bishop of Jerusalem, Jerome, and the Emperor
Justinian. The first of these, Methodius of Olympus, was a bishop in
Greece and died a martyr's death in the year 311. He and Peter of
Alexandria, whose works are almost entirely lost, represent the first
wave of anti-Origenism. They were concerned chiefly with the
preexistence of souls and Origen's notions about the resurrection of
the dead. Another more powerful current against Origenism arose
about a century later. The principals were Ephiphanius of Salamis,
Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome.
From about 395 to 403 Origen became the subject of heated debate
throughout Christendom. These three ecclesiats applied much energy
and thought in search of questionable doctrine in Origen. Again the
controversy flared up around 535, and in the wake of this the Emperor
Justinian composed a tract against Origen in 543, proposing nine
anathemas against "On First Principles", Origen's chief theological
work. Origen was finally officially condemned in the Second Council
of Constantinople in 553, when fifteen anathemas were charged against
him.
The critics of Origen attacked him on individual points, and thus did
not create a systematic theology to oppose him. Nonetheless, one can
glean from their writings five major points that Christianity has
raised against reincarnation:
(1) It seems to minimize Christian salvation.
(2) It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.
(3) It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.
(4) It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian scriptures.
(5) There is no recollection of previous lives.
Any discussion of these points will be greatly clarified by a
preliminary look at Origen's system. Although it is of course
impossible to do justice in a few pages to a thinker as subtle and
profound as Origen, some of the distinctive aspects of his thought
can be summarized.
The doctrine itself
Looking at the sequence of creation from its inception to its
conclusion, one could summarize Origen's theological system as
follows: Originally all beings existed as pure mind on an ideational
or thought level. Humans, angels, and heavenly bodies lacked
incarnate existence and had their being only as ideas. This is a
very natural view for anyone like Origen who was trained in both
Christian and Platonic thought. Since there is no account in the
scriptures of what preceded creation, it seemed perfectly natural to
Origen to appeal to Plato for his answers.
God, for the Platonist, is pure intelligence and all things were
reconciled with God before creation - an assumption which scripture
does not appear to contradict. Then as the process of the fall
began, individual beings became weary of their union with God and
chose to defect or grow cold in their divine ardor. As the mind
became cool toward God, it made the first step down in its fall and
became soul. The soul, now already once removed from its original
state, continued with its defection to the point of taking on a
body. This, as we know from Platonism, is indeed a degradation, for
the highest type of manifestation is on the mental level and the
lowest is on the physical.
Such an account of man's fall does not mean that Origen rejected
Genesis. It only means that he was willing to allow for allegorical
interpretation; thus Eden is not necessarily spatially located, but
is a cosmic and metaphysical event wherein pure disincarnate idea
became fettered to physical matter. What was essential for
Christianity, as Origen perceived, is that the fall be voluntary and
result in a degree of estrangement from God.
Where there is a fall, there must follow the drama of
reconciliation. Love is one of God's qualities, as Origen himself
acknowledged, and from this it follows that God will take an interest
in the redemption of his creatures. For Origen, this means that
after the drama of incarnation the soul assumes once again its
identity as mind and recovers its ardor for God.
It was to hasten this evolution that in the fullness of time God sent
the Christ. The Christ of Origen was the Incarnate Word (he was also
the only being that did not grow cold toward God), and he came both
as a mediator and as an incarnate image of God's goodness. By
allowing the wisdom and light of God to shine in one's life through
the inspiration of Christ, the individual soul could swiftly regain
its ardor for God, leave behind the burden of the body, and regain
complete reconciliation with God. In fact, said Origen, much to the
outrage of his critics, the extent and power of God's love is so
great that eventually all things will be restored to him, even Satan
and his legions.
Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many
episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of
reincarnation is implicit. As for the resurrection of the body,
Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the
physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the resurrection
takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy
for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body
either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies
that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the many
physical bodies.
There will come a time when the great defection from God that
initiated physical creation will come to an end. All things, both
heavenly bodies and human souls, will be so pure and ardent in their
love for God that physical existence will no longer be necessary.
The entire cohesion of creation will come apart, for matter will be
superfluous. Then, to cite one of Origen's favorite passages, all
things will be made subject to God and God will be "all in all." ( 1
Cor 15:28 ) This restoration of all things proposed by Origen gave
offense in later centuries. It seemed quite sensible to Origen that
anything that defects from God must eventually be brought back to
him. As he triumphantly affirmed at the end of his "On First
Principles", men are the "blood brothers" of God himself and cannot
stay away forever.
Scriptural support for reincarnation
There are many Bible verses which are suggestive of reincarnation.
One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Christ seems
to point to reincarnation:
"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his
disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his
parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither
has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be
made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)
The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed
the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has
been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative
question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him
blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal
state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes
prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing
to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible
support for a doctrine of human preexistence.
Also very suggestive of reincarnation is the episode where Jesus
identifies John the Baptist as Elijah.
"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if
you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come."
(Matthew 11:13-14)
"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say
that Elijah must come first?' But he answered them and said, 'Elijah
indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that
Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him
whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their
hand.' Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the
Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)
Here again is a clear statement of preexistence. Despite the edict
of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is
firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the
New Testament. Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding,
contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one
of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology.
As for the John the Baptist-Elijah episode, there can be little
question as to its purpose. By identifying the Baptist as Elijah,
Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. Throughout the gospel
narrative there are explicit references to the signs that will
precede the Messiah.
"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)
This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. One
of the signs that the true Messiah has come, according to this
passage from Malachi, is that he be preceded by a forerunner, by
Elijah.
Although the Bible also contains other reincarnational passages,
these Elijah-John passages constitute clear proof of reincarnation:
1. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not
someone "like" him or someone "similar" to him, but Elijah himself)
would return before the advent of the Messiah.
2. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had
returned, stating bluntly "Elijah has come".
Now, based on these passages alone, either (A) or (B) must be true:
(A) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah had
reincarnated. If this is true, then reincarnation must belong in
Christian theology, and the West's entire doctrinal interpretation
of "Life After Death" in general, and the "Last Day Resurrection" in
particular, must be radically revised, or...
(B) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah
himself had not returned. If this is so, then either:
(1) The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the
Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is
fallible), OR
(2) Jesus was not the Messiah.
Basically, it comes down to this simple question: What do you want
to believe? One of the following A, B, or C, must logically be true:
A. Reincarnation is true, or
B. Jesus was not the Messiah, or
C. The prophecies of the Bible are unreliable.
As surely as two and two make four, one of the above must be true. At
any rate, the passage in which Jesus says in no uncertain terms that
John was Elijah is "overt" and direct:
"But I tell you, Elijah has come." (Mark 9:13)
The following verse is used to refute the John the Baptist/Elijah
reincarnation connection. The Bible tells us that John the Baptist
possessed,
"... the spirit and power of Elijah." (Luke 1:17)
Those who refute this reincarnation connection say that John the
Baptist merely came in the spirit and power of Elijah. However,
this is a perfect description of reincarnation: the spirit and
power. This is reincarnation - the reincarnation of the spirit. The
Bible itself states that John the Baptist possessed the spirit that
had previously lived in, and as, the man Elijah - not his physical
being and memory, but his spirit.
John carried Elijah's living spirit, but not his physical memory. And
since John did not possess Elijah's physical memory, he did not
possess the memories of being the man Elijah. Thus, John the Baptist
denied being Elijah when asked:
They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am
not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." Finally they
said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent
us. What do you say about yourself?" John replied in the words of
Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the
desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" Now some Pharisees
who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are
not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" "I baptize with
water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He
is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not
worthy to untie." (John 1:21-27)
But Jesus knew better, and said so in the plainest words possible:
"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the
Baptist.... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who
was to come. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 11:11-15).
It comes down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he
wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?
There is a prophecy in the Book of Revelation concerning the days
before the second coming of Christ. Two prophets are predicted to
appear at this time working the same miracles and performing the same
ministries as those of Elijah and Moses.
"And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy
for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees
and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. If
anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours
their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.
These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain
during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the
waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague
as often as they want." (Revelation 11:3-6)
While the verses in Revelation do not specifically identify the two
prophets to come as Elijah and Moses, it strongly suggests that it is
them. If Elijah and Moses are to "rise" again before the second
coming of Christ, then it is clear they only possible way for them to
do so is through reincarnation. After the death of John the Baptist,
whom Jesus identified as Elijah, Elijah appears again along with
Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration:
"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother
of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he
was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his
clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared
before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to
Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put
up three shelters-- one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a
voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I
am well pleased. Listen to him!" When the disciples heard this, they
fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched
them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." When they looked up, they
saw no one except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain,
Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until
the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." The disciples asked
him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come
first?" Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore
all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did
not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In
the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then
the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the
Baptist." (Matthew 17:1-13)
The scriptures strongly suggest a connection between Elijah and Moses
with the ministries of Jesus. Since Jesus already identified Elijah
as appearing during his first ministry, it is not hard to conclude
that Elijah will appear again at Jesus' second coming. Even the Old
Testament suggests this will be the case:
"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)
This is one of the many messianic promises of the Old Testament. It
was fulfilled during Jesus' first coming and there is reason to
believe it will happen again during Jesus' second coming.
Due to the condemnation of reincarnation by church authorities some
500 years after Jesus left the scene, this doctrine has become an
alien, even enemy concept to the Judeo-Christian West. However, it is
reasonably certain that reincarnation was not an alien concept to the
people Jesus preached to, nor, to Jesus himself. As a natural
geographic crossroads, the land of Israel enjoyed a strong and steady
flow of both foreign travelers and foreign ideas; the doctrine of
rebirth is not only likely to have been a familiar concept in 1st
century Israel, but actually seems to have been widely considered a
distinct possibility. Even though the idea later became a heresy to
the people of the Christian Empire, during the life of Jesus, at
least, reincarnation was an open question in the minds of many.
From time to time in Jewish history, there had been an insistent
belief that their prophets were reborn. The Samaritans believed that
Adam had reincarnated as Seth, then Noah, Abraham, and even Moses.
Christ's countrymen seem to have thought of the doctrine of
reincarnation as an intriguing, if unproven theory; the Israelites
were aware, of course, that their sacred scriptures didn't
specifically endorse this theory, but, since they didn't condemn it
either, the general population apparently felt it best to keep an
open mind about the whole idea. To the chagrin of traditional
Christian doctrine, it was apparently actually rather common for
Christ's contemporaries to innocently wonder aloud if Jesus himself
was the reincarnation of some earlier prophet:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples,
"Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:14)
His disciples replied:
"Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others,
Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Considering such widespread conjecture about the doctrine of
reincarnation in 1st century Israel, the people of his own time
undoubtedly assumed Jesus had been openly promoting this doctrine
when he claimed that the man now known as John the Baptist was the
same man who centuries earlier had been the famous prophet Elijah.
Confronted by these rumors that His countrymen believed in
reincarnation, did Jesus take this opportunity to deny and refute
this doctrine? No. Instead, He made statements that seem to support
reincarnation.
Jesus was sometimes taken to be a reincarnation of one of the
prophets. An example of this is when Jesus asked:
"Whom do people say that I am?" (Mark 8:27)
The consensus of opinion seems to have been that He was a
reincarnation of either John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the Old
Testament prophets. It is hard to see how Jesus could have been a
reincarnation of the prophet by whom He was baptized, but that has
not deterred these believers in reincarnation around Jesus.
Another Bible verse has Paul discussing the process of "resurrection"
(i.e. reincarnation):
"But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of
body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to
life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that
will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But
God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he
gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of
flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There
are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the
splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the
earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the
moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in
splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body
that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in
dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised
in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
(1 Corinthians 15:35-44).
Another verse suggestive of reincarnation can be found when Jesus
declares the following to the believers in the Church of
Philadelphia:
"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it." (Revelation 3:12)
Jesus is stating that people were once inhabitants of the temple of
God. This is strongly suggestive of preexistence and reincarnation.
As soon as the person overcomes (the world) the person becomes a
permanent inhabitant of this temple and never again has to leave it.
The flip-side to this is that those who do not overcome must leave
this temple of God only to return when they overcome the world.
Another verse in the Book of Revelation suggests reincarnation:
"She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations
with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his
throne." (Revelation 12:5)
This verse describes the birth of a child who is taken to heaven
after birth. The interesting aspect is that this child is to rule all
the nations with an iron scepter. Because the child was taken to
heaven after birth, reincarnation is the only way the child can
return to the world in order to grow up and "rule all nations".
Although Revelations is mostly symbolic and is often quite abstract,
this verse implies the ability to incarnate more than once.
There is another reference to reincarnation in the gospels; an
indirect reference, yet an unmistakable one. In all three of the
synoptic gospels, Jesus promised that anyone leaving their homes,
wives, mothers, fathers, children, or farms to follow him would
personally receive hundreds more such homes, families, and so on in
the future. Jesus said:
"No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father
or wife or children or land for me and the gospel will fail to
receive a hundred times as much in this present age - homes,
brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields ... and in the age to
come, eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30)
Outside of the doctrine of reincarnation it's difficult to imagine
how such a promise could be fulfilled. In one lifetime, one can only
have a single set of real parents, and no one seriously proposes that
each of the 70 original disciples, who actually did leave their homes
and families, ever received as compensation a hundred wives, a
hundred fields, and so on. Either this statement of Jesus' occurred
when he was waxing so poetic as to allow a falsehood to pass his
lips, or he was making a promise that only many reincarnations could
fulfill.
The following passage in the Book of Hebrews, especially the
italisized sentence, is a clear statement of the concept of
reincarnation.
"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did
not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them
from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and
strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are
looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the
country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
Instead, they were longing for a better country-- a heavenly one.
Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has
prepared a city for them." (Hebrews 11:13-16)
Indeed the reincarnationist can even find scriptural support for
personal disincarnate preexistence. Origen took the following Bible
verse as proof of preexistence:
"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love."
(Ephesians 1:4)
Jerome, who is just as uncomfortable as Justinian about preexistence,
interprets the passage to mean that we preexisted, not in distinct
disincarnate form, but simply in the mind of God (Against Rufinus
1.22), and from this throng of thoughts God chose the elect before
the creation of the world. The distinction is indeed a fine one, for
Jerome is asking us to distinguish between that which exists as a
soul and that which exists as a thought. What is illuminating for
the reincarnationist is that this passage from Ephesians offers very
explicit scriptural testimony for individual preexistence.
Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but
hate Esau even before they were born. These verses are highly
suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau, a necessary tenet associated
with reincarnation.
The same concept of pre-existence can also be found in the following
Bible verse:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I
am!" (John 8:58)
Other words uttered by Christ are suggestive of reincarnation. In
the gospels, Jesus reveals information about His return and who will
witness it. Several times, He has mentioned that some people alive
during His day will be around when He returns. One example is when
Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse about His second coming. His
disciples ask about His return and inquire as to the signs that would
proceed His return. After Jesus reveals the signs of His coming, He
states,
"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away
until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34).
It can be argued that Jesus is pointing to a time in the future when
those around Him inquiring about this will reincarnate and experience
His second coming. Another example is when Jesus states,
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here
who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom." (Matthew 16:24-28).
The question now is this: what is it to "taste death until He comes"?
The concept of a person having to "taste death until the Lord comes"
is a good description of reincarnation and of what the Bible refers
to as the "First Death". The First Death is spiritual death,
separation from God. When we are born, we are born into spiritual
death and it requires some action on our part to break out of it and
enter into spiritual life. These verses all are suggestive of
reincarnation.
It can be deduced from the scriptures the fact that Christ Himself
had many incarnations in the flesh. It is well known that the apostle
Paul wrote of Adam as:
"... a pattern of the one who was to come (i.e. Jesus)" (Romans
5:14)
Paul drew between Adam and Christ a parallel that was also a
contrast:
"The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam (i.e. Jesus)
became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Christ is thus seen as the last Adam, the "one man" who by his
obedience undoes the results of the disobedience of the first (Romans
5:12-21). Jesus Christ recapitulated the stages of Adam's fall, but
in reverse order and quality.
The belief in many incarnation of Jesus is not a new belief. The
early Judeo-Christian group known as the Ebionites taught that the
Spirit had come as Adam and later reincarnated as Jesus. Other
Jewish Christian groups such as the Elkasaites and Nazarites also
believed this. The Clementine Homilies, an early Christian document,
also taught many incarnations of Jesus.
Another possible incarnation of Christ is the Old Testament figure
known as Melchizedek, the High Priest and King of Salem, who:
"...without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of
days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest
forever." (Hebrews 7:3).
It is clear from the scripture that Melchizedek was no ordinary man,
assuming He even was a man - for what kind of man has no father or
mother, is without genealogy, and without beginning of days or end of
life? Whoever this Melchizedek was, the scriptures declare Jesus to
be a:
".. priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 7:17).
It may be argued that Melchizedek was one of the incarnations of
Jesus. Certainly it has to be acknowledged that Melchizedek was no
ordinary man.
There are Bible verses that are highly suggestive of the "mechanics"
of reincarnation. Before His arrest, Jesus stated:
"All who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
Common sense tells us that not all people who live "by the sword"
will die by the sword. This statement can only be true if meant in
the context of a future life. If in this life you "live by the
sword", you will most certainly die, if not in the same life but a
future life, "by the sword". In fact, this concept is the ancient
doctrine of "karma" as it is known in the East where reincarnation is
the foundation of reality. Here are some other Biblical references
to this concept:
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A person reaps what he
sows." (Galatians 6:7)
"Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus
21:24-25)
"In anger his master turned him over to the jailers until he should
pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each
of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:
34-35)
"If any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain."
(Revelation 13:10)
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to
court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand
you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the
officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you
will not get out until you have paid the last penny." (Matthew 5:25-
26)
The above passages can be seen to at least be suggestive of
reincarnation.
In James 3:6, some translations (such as the American Standard
Version) mention "the wheel of nature" which seems to resemble the
cycle of endless reincarnation stated by the Eastern religions.
However, in this context the reference is made to the control of
speech in order not to sin. The ASV translation states:
"And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is
the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the
wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." (James 3:6)
The tongue out of control is compared with a fire that affects all
aspects of existence, thought and deed, in a vicious cycle. This
means that sinful speech is at the origin of many other sins, which
are consequently generated, and conduct man to hell.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is reincarnation denied. Job asks:
"If a person dies will he live again?" (Job 14:14)
But he receives no answer.
Another Old Testament verse states:
"Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round
it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the
sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from,
there they return again...What has been will be again, what has been
done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
(Ecclesiastes 1:4-9)
The Hebrew kabbalists interpreted this quote to mean that a
generation dies and subsequently returns by the process of
reincarnation.
In the New Testament, one verse in particular is often used to refute
reincarnation. It is Hebrews 9:27.
"... man is destined to die once, and after that to face
judgment...." (Hebrews 9:27)
This is often assumed, reasonably enough, to declare that each human
being lives once as a mortal on earth, dies once, and then faces
judgment. But this verse, on it's surface, not only applies to
reincarnation, but to the modern concept of resurrection. In fact,
if anything, this verse can be most applied to refuting modern
Christianity's definition of resurrection. Reincarnation states
that the spirit leaves the body at death, faces judgment, then can
enter a new and different body at a later time. In this way, Hebrews
9:27 does not refute reincarnation because it is not the same body
that dies again. It implies one man/one death, which agrees with
reincarnation, but totally disagrees with modern Christianity's
definition of resurrection which holds that after a body dies and
faces judgment, his physical body will rise from the grave at a later
day to face possible death again and judgment. So Hebrews 9:27 does
not refute reincarnation after all, but does refute resurrection as
modern Christianity defines it.
From all that has been said here, one can safely draw the conclusion
that reincarnation was not only known by those in Christ's day, by
that Christ Himself and the Bible teaches it and reincarnation should
be a doctrine acceptable by every follower of Christ.
More scriptural support for reincarnation
Ancient writings were discovered in 1945 which revealed more
information about the concept of reincarnation from a sect of
Christians called "Gnostics". This sect was ultimately destroyed by
the Roman orthodox church, their followers burned at the stake and
their writings wiped out. The writings included some long lost
gospels, some of which were written early than the known gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gnostic Christians claimed to
possess the correct definition of "resurrection" - based on Jesus'
secret teachings, handed down to them by the apostles.
The existence of a secret tradition can be found in the New Testament:
"He [Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been
given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in
parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and
ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and
be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)
"No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden
and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1
Corinthians 2:7)
"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those
entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Corinthians 4:1)
A fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Gnostic texts
discovered, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rites.
Before the discovery of Gnostic writings, our only knowledge of it
came from a letter written by Church Father Clement of Alexandria
(150 AD - 211 AD), which quotes this secret gospel and refers to it
as "a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being
perfected." He said, "It even yet is most carefully guarded [by the
church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being
initiated into the great mysteries." Clement insists elsewhere that
Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were "capable of
receiving it and being molded by it." Clement indicates that he
possessed the secret tradition, which was handed down through the
apostles. Such Gnostics were spiritual critics of the orthodox
Church of what they saw as not so much a popularization as a
vulgarization of Christianity. The orthodox church stressed faith,
while the Gnostic church stressed knowledge (gnosis). This secret
knowledge emphasized spiritual resurrection rather than physical
resurrection. Indeed, the Gnostic Christians believed reincarnation
to be the true interpretation of "resurrection" for those who have
not attained a spiritual resurrection through this secret knowledge.
The New Testament talks about this gnosis (knowledge):
"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the
common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of
wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same
Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of
healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another
prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another
speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the
interpretation of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)
"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not
stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge
of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding."
(Colossians 1:9)
The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus states that the
Pharisees, the founders of rabbinic Judaism for whom Paul once
belonged, believed in reincarnation. He writes that the Pharisees
believed that the souls of bad men are punished after death but that
the souls of good men are "removed into other bodies" and they
will "have power to revive and live again." The Sadducees, the other
prominent Jewish sect in Palestine, did not emphasize life after
death and according to the Bible "say there is no resurrection"
(Matthew 22:23). From what we have just discussed, it is clear that
what Matthew really states is that the Sadducees "say there is no
reincarnation".
The following are some the secret teachings of Jesus from the Gnostic
gospels that affirm reincarnation, revealing the secret knowledge:
"Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you
may leave the bitter bondage of this life." (Book of Thomas the
Contender)
"When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your
images that came into being before and that neither die nor become
visible, how much you will bear!" (Gospel of Thomas)
In the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus tells the disciple Thomas
that after death those who were once believers but have remained
attached to things of "transitory beauty" will be consumed "in their
concern about life" and will be "brought back to the visible realm".
In the Secret Book of John, reincarnation is placed at the heart of
its discussion of the salvation of souls. The book was written by
185 AD at the latest. Here is the Secret Book of John's perspective
on reincarnation:
All people have drunk the water of forgetfulness and exist in a state
of ignorance. Some are able to overcome ignorance through the Spirit
of life that descends upon them. These souls "will be saved and will
become perfect," that is, escape the round of rebirth. John asks
Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation. They
are hurled down "into forgetfulness" and thrown into "prison", the
Gnostic code word for new body. The only way for these souls to
escape, says Jesus, is to emerge from forgetfulness and acquire
knowledge. A soul in this situation can do so by finding a teacher
or savior who has the strength to lead her home. "This soul needs to
follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is
saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh
again." (Secret Book of John)
Another Gnostic text, Pistis Sophia, outlines an elaborate system of
reward and punishment that includes reincarnation. The text
explains differences in fate as the effects of past-life actions.
A "man who curses" is given a body that will be continually "troubled
in heart". A "man who slanders" receives a body that will
be "oppressed". A thief receives a "lame, crooked and blind
body". A "proud" and "scornful" man receives "a lame and ugly body"
that "everyone continually despises." Thus earth, as well as hell,
becomes the place of punishment.
According to Pistis Sophia, some souls do experience hell as a
shadowy place of torture where they go after death. But after
passing through this hell, the souls return for further experiences
on earth. Only a few extremely wicked souls are not allowed to
reincarnate. These are cast into "outer darkness" until the time
when they are destined to be "destroyed and dissolved".
Several Gnostic texts combine the ideas of reincarnation and union
with God. The Apocalypse of Paul, a second-century text, describes
the Merkabah-style ascent of the apostle Paul as well as the
reincarnation of a soul who was not ready for such an ascent. It
shows how both reincarnation and ascents fit into Gnostic theology.
Click here to read more.
As Paul passes through the fourth heaven, he sees a soul being
punished for murder. This soul is being whipped by angels who have
brought him "out of the land of the dead" (earth). The soul calls
three witnesses, who charge him with murder. The soul then looks
down "in sorrow" and is "cast down" into a body that has been
prepared for it. The text goes on to describe Paul's further journey
through the heavens, a practice run for divine union.
Pistis Sophia combines the ideas of reincarnation and divine union in
a passage that begins with the question: What happens to "a man who
has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found
the mysteries?" The Pistis Sophia tells us that the soul of the good
man who has not found the mysteries will receive "a cup filled with
thoughts and wisdom." This will allow the soul to remember its
divine origin and so to pursue the "mysteries of the Light" until it
finds them and is able to "inherit the Light forever." To "inherit
the Light forever" is a Gnostic code for union with God.
For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event -
simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who
experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union
with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth.
People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on
earth will reincarnate. Jesus states the following the Gnostic
Gospels:
"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If
they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once
they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)
Paul writes in several places that resurrection involves a spirit
body. Such a definition corresponds with spiritual resurrection and
reincarnation:
"It [the dead body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual
body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (1
Corinthians 15:44)
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." (1
Corinthians 15:50)
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your
sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ." (Colossians 2:13)
The Gnostics claimed their terminology was sprinkled through the
Epistles. For example, the author of Ephesians uses the
words "awake", "sleep" and "dead" in a Gnostic sense:
"But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light
that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O
sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
(Ephesians 5:13-14)
Some of the Greek words in the New Testament translated
as "resurrection" also mean to "rise" or "awake". Therefore, argued
the Gnostics, when Paul says people can be part of the resurrection,
he is really saying that their souls can be awakened to the Spirit of
God.
We know that in some passages Paul writes about the resurrection as a
present rather than a future event:
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him
through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new
life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we
will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we
know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin
might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin -
because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died
with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know
that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again;
death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to
sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the
same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ
Jesus." (Romans 6:3-11)
Colossians also seems to describe the resurrection as a present-day
event:
"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on
things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God."
(Colossians 3:1)
"Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self
with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being
renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Colossians 3:9-10)
In the above passage, taking off the old self and putting on the new
is a code for the resurrection, which, again, is described as a
present-life event.
The Gnostic manuscripts present a clear, simple and strong vision of
the resurrection. First, the Gospel of Thomas disabuses people of
the notion that the resurrection is a future event:
"His followers said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take
place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you
look for has come, but you do not know it.'" (Gospel of Thomas)
In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is saying that the resurrection and
the kingdom are already here. We simply do not realize it - or, in
the Gnostic sense, we simply have not integrated with them.
Jesus explained the concept of resurrection before raising Lazarus
from the dead:
"Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha
answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last
day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and
believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:23-26)
In these verses, Jesus tells Martha her brother Lazarus will "rise
again". Martha mistakenly thinks Jesus means Lazarus will come out of
his grave at Judgment Day. Jesus corrects her by stating that those
who believe in Him will live, even before they die. Jesus is
referring here to spiritual regeneration. Jesus also states that
those who die believing in Him, will never die. This clearly implies
reincarnation. The flip-side to this is that those who die not
believing in Him, will have to die again (i.e. reincarnate). It is
interesting to note that by raising Lazarus from death, Jesus is
forcing Lazarus to live out the rest of his life only to die
physically again. By raising Lazarus from death, Jesus seems to be
demonstrating that one does not wait until Judgment Day to rise.
Jesus flatly tells Nicodemus:
"I tell you a truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is
born again." (John 3:3)
Nicodemus misunderstands what Jesus means by "born again":
"How can a person be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a
second time into his mother's womb to be born!" (John 3:4)
In response, Jesus states:
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he
is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the
Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:5-6)
In context of these verses, Jesus is talking about the process of
resurrection, that is, being born of water and being born of the
Spirit. Jesus describes physical resurrection (to be born of water)
and spiritual resurrection (to be born of the Spirit). They are two
similar yet different processes. From these verses, the case can be
made that Jesus taught the concept of resurrection as being physical
rebirth as well as spiritual rebirth.
In the Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, recognized by the Catholic
Church, is the following verse:
"... I was given a sound body to live in because I was already good."
(Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)
This verse raises the following question: How is it possible to get
a body after you have already been good if reincarnation is a fact?
Flavius Josephus records that the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls
lived "the same kind of life" as the followers of the Greek
philosopher Pythagoras who taught reincarnation. According to
Josephus, the Essenes believed that the soul is both immortal and
preexistent which is necessary for belief in reincarnation.
One scroll entitled "The Last Jubilee" mentions reincarnation. This
scroll is about the "last days" during which time it says,
a "Melchizedek redivivus" (reincarnate) will appear and destroy
Belial (Satan) and lead the children of God to eternal forgiveness.
Parts of this scroll has been unreadable and will be denoted by
this '. . .' symbol. Here is it's message:
"Men will turn away in rebellion, and there will be a re-
establishment of the reign of righteousness, perversity being
confounded by the judgements of God. This is what scripture implies
in the words, "Who says to Zion, your God has not claimed his
Kingdom!" The term Zion there denoting the total congregation of
the "sons of righteousness" that is, those who maintain the covenant
and turn away from the popular trend, and your God signifying the
King of Righteousness, alias Melchizedek Redivivus, who will destroy
Belial. Our text speaks also of sounding a loud trumpet blast
throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month. As
applied to the last days, this refers to the fanfare which will then
be sounded before the Messianic King." (The Last Jubilee)
Melchizedek was the High Priest described in the Bible. It is
interesting to note that some early Christians believed Melchizedek
to be an early incarnation of Jesus. If this is true and the above
passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be believed, then the passage is
very likely referring to Jesus Himself and His second coming.
The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Jewish mystical tradition of
union with God went back to the first, if not the third, century
before Christ. Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek mysticism
which espouced reincarnation. Some of the hymns found with the Dead
Sea Scrolls are similar to the Hekhalot hymns sung by the Jewish
mystics. One text gives us unmistakable evidence of Jewish
mysticism. It is called "Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice". Also,
fragments of 1 Enoch, which is considered the oldest evidence of
Jewish mysticism, were also found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since
Jewish mysticism existed in the third century before Christ, as Enoch
indicates, then it would certainly have been present in first-century
Judaism. As stated earlier, this twin idea of divine union and
reincarnation can be found in early Christianity and one can easily
conclude that it was the key to the heart of Jesus' message.
Reincarnation has been a tenet for thousands of years for certain
Jews and Christians. The Zohar is a work of great weight and
authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are
subject to revolutions." This is metempsychosis or a'leen b'gilgoola;
but it declares that "men do not know the way they have been judged
in all time." That is, in their "revolutions" they lose a complete
memory of the acts that have led to judgment. The Kether Malkuth
says, "If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor.. . but
if she hath been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain
and despair. . . until the days of her purification." If the soul be
pure and if she comes at once from God at birth, how could she be
defiled? And where is she to wander if not on this or some other
world until the days of her purification? The Rabbis always explained
it as meaning she wandered down from Paradise through many
revolutions or births until purity was regained.
Under the name of "Din Gilgol Neshomes" the doctrine of reincarnation
is constantly spoken of in the Talmud. The term means "the judgment
of the revolutions of the souls." And Rabbi Manassa, son of Israel,
one of the most revered, says in his book Nishmath Hayem: "The belief
or the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and
infallible dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with
one accord, so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny
it. . . . Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold
firm to this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental
point of our religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to
accept this dogma with acclamation . . . as the truth of it has been
incontestably demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the
Kabalists."
The mystery of God in humanity
Early in the fourth century, while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was
expounding on the Trinity to his flock, a theological tsunami was
born.
A Libyan priest named Arius stood up and posed the following simple
question: "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a
beginning of existence." In other words, if the Father is the parent
of the Son, then didn't the Son have a beginning?
Apparently, no one had put it this way before. For many bishops,
Arius spoke heresy when he said that the Son had a beginning. A
debate erupted, led by Arius on the one side and by Alexander and his
deacon Athanasius on the other. Athanasius became the Church's lead
fighter in a struggle that lasted his entire life.
In 320, Alexander held a council of Alexandria to condemn the errors
of Arius. But this did not stop the controversy. The Church had
nearly split over the issue when the controversy reached the ears of
the Roman emperor Constantine. He decided to resolve it himself in a
move that permanently changed the course of Christianity.
The orthodox accused the Arians of attempting to lower the Son by
saying he had a beginning. But, in fact, the Arians gave him an
exalted position, honoring him as "first among creatures." Arius
described the Son as one who became "perfect God, only begotten and
unchangeable," but also argued that he had an origin.
The Arian controversy was really about the nature of humanity and how
we are saved. It involved two pictures of Jesus Christ: Either he
was a God who had always been God or he was a human who became God's
Son.
If he was a human who became God's Son, then that implied that other
humans could also become Sons of God. This idea was unacceptable to
the orthodox, hence their insistence that Jesus had always been God
and was entirely different from all created beings. As we shall see,
the Church's theological position was, in part, dictated by its
political needs. The Arian position had the potential to erode the
authority of the Church since it implied that the soul did not need
the Church to achieve salvation.
The outcome of the Arian controversy was crucial to the Church's
position on both reincarnation and the soul's opportunity to become
one with God. Earlier, the Church decided that the human soul is not
now and never has been a part of God. Instead it belongs to the
material world and is separated from God by a great chasm.
Rejecting the idea that the soul is immortal and spiritual, which was
a part of Christian thought at the time of Clement and Origen, the
Fathers developed the concept of "creatio ex nihilo", creation out of
nothing. If the soul were not a part of God, the orthodox
theologians reasoned, it could not have been created out of His
essence.
The doctrine persists to this day. By denying man's divine origin
and potential, the doctrine of creation out of nothing rules out both
preexistence and reincarnation. Once the Church adopted the
doctrine, it was only a matter of time before it rejected both
Origenism and Arianism. In fact, the Arian controversy was only one
salvo in the battle to eradicate the mystical tradition Origen
represented.
Origen and his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, lived in a
Platonist world. For them it was a given that there is an invisible
spiritual world which is permanent and a visible material world that
is changeable. The soul belongs to the spiritual world, while the
body belongs to the material world.
In the Platonists' view, the world and everything in it is not
created but emanates from God, the One. Souls come from the Divine
Mind, and even when they are encased in bodily form, they retain
their link to the Source.
Clement tells us that humanity is "of celestial birth, being a plant
of heavenly origin." Origen taught that man, having been made after
the "image and likeness of God," has "a kind of blood-relationship
with God."
While Clement and Origen were teaching in Alexandria, another group
of Fathers was developing a countertheology. They rejected the
Greek concept of the soul in favor of a new and unheard of idea:
The soul is not a part of the spiritual world at all; but, like the
body, it is part of the mutable material world.
They based their theology on the changeability of the soul. How
could the soul be divine and immortal, they asked, if it is capable
of changing, falling and sinning? Because it is capable of change,
they reasoned, it cannot be like God, who is unchangeable.
Origen took up the problem of the soul's changeability but came up
with a different solution. He suggested that the soul was created
immortal and that even though it fell (for which he suggests various
reasons), it still has the power to restore itself to its original
state.
For him the soul is poised between spirit and matter and can choose
union with either: "The will of this soul is something intermediate
between the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly serving and obeying one
of the two, whichever it has chosen to obey." If the soul chooses to
join with spirit, Origen wrote, "the spirit will become one with it."
This new theology, which linked the soul with the body, led to the
ruling out of preexistence. If the soul is material and not
spiritual, then it cannot have existed before the body. As Gregory
of Nyssa wrote: "Neither does the soul exist before the body, nor the
body apart from the soul, but ... there is only a single origin for
both of them."
When is the soul created then? The Fathers came up with an
improbable answer: at the same time as the body - at
conception. "God is daily making souls," wrote Church Father
Jerome. If souls and bodies are created at the same time, both
preexistence and reincarnation are out of the question since they
imply that souls exist before bodies and can be attached to different
bodies in succession.
The Church still teaches the soul is created at the same time as the
body and therefore the soul and the body are a unit.
This kind of thinking led straight to the Arian controversy. Now
that the Church had denied that the soul preexists the body and that
it belongs to the spiritual world, it also denied that souls, bodies
and the created world emanated from God.
The Arian controversy
When Arius asked whether the Son had a beginning, he was, in effect,
pointing out a fundamental flaw in that doctrine. The doctrine did
not clarify the nature of Christ. So he was asking: If there is an
abyss between Creator and creation, where does Christ belong? Was he
created out of nothing like the rest of the creatures? Or was he
part of God? If so, then how and why did he take on human form?
The Church tells us that the Arian controversy was a struggle against
blasphemers who said Christ was not God. But the crucial issue in
the debate was: How is humanity saved - through emulating Jesus or
through worshiping him?
The Arians claimed that Jesus became God's Son and thereby
demonstrated a universal principle that all created beings can
follow. But the orthodox Church said that he had always been God's
Son, was of the same essence as God (and therefore was God) and could
not be imitated by mere creatures, who lack God's essence. Salvation
could come only by accessing God's grace via the Church.
The Arians believed that human beings could also be adopted as Sons
of God by imitating Christ. For the Arians, the incarnation of
Christ was designed to show us that we can follow Jesus and become,
as Paul said, "joint heirs with Christ."
The orthodox Church, by creating a gulf between Jesus and the rest of
us, denied that we could become Sons in the same way he did. The
reason why the Church had such a hard time seeing Jesus' humanity was
that they could not understand how anyone could be human and divine
at the same time. Either Jesus was human (and therefore changeable)
or he was divine (and therefore unchangeable).
The orthodox vision of Jesus as God is based in part on a
misunderstanding of the Gospel of John. John tells us: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God ... All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made." Later John tells us the "the Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us." The orthodox concluded from these
passages that Jesus Christ is God, the Word, made flesh.
What they didn't understand was that when John called Jesus "the
Word," he was referring to the Greek tradition of the Logos. When
John tells us that the Word created everything, he uses the Greek
term for Word - "Logos". In Greek thought, Logos describes the part
of God that acts in the world. Philo called the Logos "God's
Likeness, by whom the whole cosmos was fashioned." Origen called it
the soul that holds the universe together.
Philo believed that great human beings like Moses could personify the
Logos. Thus, when John writes that Jesus is the Logos, he does not
mean that the man Jesus has always been God the Logos. What John is
telling us is that Jesus the man became the Logos, the Christ.
Some early theologians believed that everyone has that opportunity.
Clement tells us that each human has the "image of the Word [Logos]"
within him and that it is for this reason that Genesis says that
humanity is made "in the image and likeness of God."
The Logos, then, is the spark of divinity, the seed of Christ, that
is within our hearts. Apparently the orthodox either rejected or
ignored this concept.
We should understand that Jesus became the Logos just as he became
the Christ. But that didn't mean he was the only one who could ever
do it. Jesus explained this mystery when he broke the bread at the
Last Supper. He took a single loaf, symbolizing the one Logos, the
one Christ, and broke it and said, "This is my body, which is broken
for you."
He was teaching the disciples that there is one absolute God and one
Universal Christ, or Logos, but that the body of that Universal
Christ can be broken and each piece will still retain all the
qualities of the whole. He was telling them that the seed of Christ
was within them, that he had come to quicken it and that the Christ
was not diminished no matter how many times his body was broken. The
smallest fragment of God, Logos, or Christ, contains the entire
nature of Christ's divinity - which, to this day, he would make our
own.
The orthodox misunderstood Jesus' teaching because they were unable
to accept the reality that each human being has both a human and a
divine nature and the potential to become wholly divine. They didn't
understand the human and the divine in Jesus and therefore they could
not understand the human and the divine within themselves. Having
seen the weakness of human nature, they thought they had to deny the
divine nature that occasionally flashes forth even in the lowliest of
human beings.
The Church did not understand (or could not admit) that Jesus came to
demonstrate the process by which the human nature is transformed into
the divine. But Origen had found it easy to explain.
He believed that the human and divine natures can be woven together
day by day. He tells us that in Jesus "the divine and human nature
began to interpenetrate in such a way that the human nature, by its
communion with the divine, would itself become divine." Origen
tells us that the option for the transformation of humanity into
divinity is available not just for Jesus but for "all who take up in
faith the life which Jesus taught."
Origen did not hesitate to describe the relationship of human beings
to the Son. He believed that we contain the same essence as the
Father and the Son: "We, therefore, having been made according to
the image, have the Son, the original, as the truth of the noble
qualities that are within us. And what we are to the Son, such is
the Son to the Father, who is the truth." Since we have the noble
qualities of the Son within us, we can undergo the process of
divinization.
To the Arians, the divinization process was essential to salvation;
to the orthodox, it was heresy. In 324, the Roman emperor
Constantine, who had embraced Christianity twelve years earlier,
entered the Arian controversy. He wrote a letter to Arius and Bishop
Alexander urging them to reconcile their differences, and he sent
Bishop Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria to deliver it. But his letter
could not calm the storm that raged over the nature of God - and
man. Constantine realized that he would have to do more if he wanted
to resolve the impasse.
The Council of Nicea
In June 325 the council opened and continued for two months, with
Constantine attending. The bishops modified an existing creed to fit
their purposes. The creed, with some changes made at a later fourth
century council, is still given today in many churches. The Nicene
Creed, as it came to be called, takes elaborate care by repeating
several redundancies to identify the Son with the Father rather than
with the creation:
"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,
the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God
of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were
made ... Who ... was incarnate and was made human ..."
Only two bishops, along with Arius, refused to sign the creed.
Constantine banished them from the empire, while the other bishops
went on to celebrate their unity in a great feast at the imperial
palace.
The creed is much more than an affirmation of Jesus' divinity. It is
also an affirmation of our separation from God and Christ. It takes
great pains to describe Jesus as God in order to deny that he is part
of God's creation. He is "begotten, not made," therefore totally
separate from us, the created beings. As scholar George Leonard
Prestige writes, the Nicene Creed's description of Jesus tells
us "that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the ... creatures."
The description of Jesus as the only Son of God is carried forward in
the Apostles' Creed, which is used in many Protestant churches
today. It reads: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty... I
believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord." But even that
language - calling Jesus God's only Son - denies that we can ever
attain the sonship that Jesus did.
Christians may be interested to know that many scholars analyzing the
Bible now believe that Jesus never claimed to be the only Son of
God. This was a later development based on a misinterpretation of
the gospel of John.
There is further evidence to suggest that Jesus believed all people
could achieve the goal of becoming Sons of God. But the churches, by
retaining these creeds, remain in bondage to Constantine and his
three hundred bishops.
Some of the bishops who attended the council were uncomfortable with
the council's definition of the Son and thought they might have gone
too far. But the emperor, in a letter sent to the bishops who were
not in attendance at Nicea, required that they accept "this truly
Divine injunction."
Constantine said that since the council's decision had
been "determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops," the Church
officials must regard it as "indicative of the Divine will."
The Roman god Constantine had spoken. Clearly, he had concluded that
the orthodox position was more conducive to a strong and unified
Church than the Arian position and that it therefore must be upheld.
Constantine also took the opportunity to inaugurate the first
systematic government persecution of dissident Christians. He issued
an edict against "heretics," calling them "haters and enemies of
truth and life, in league with destruction."
Even though he had begun his reign with an edict of religious
toleration, he now forbade the heretics (mostly Arians) to assemble
in any public or private place, including private homes, and ordered
that they be deprived of "every gathering point for [their]
superstitious meetings," including "all the houses of prayer." These
were to be given to the orthodox Church.
There heretical teachers were forced to flee, and many of their
students were coerced back into the orthodox fold. The emperor also
ordered a search for their books, which were to be confiscated and
destroyed. Hiding the works of Arius carried a severe penalty - the
death sentence.
Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the concepts
of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with
God in Christian doctrine. It took another two hundred years for the
ideas to be expunged.
But Constantine had given the Church the tools with which to do it
when he molded Christianity in his own image and made Jesus the only
Son of God. From now on, the Church would become representative of a
capricious and autocratic God - a God who was not unlike Constantine
and other Roman emperors.
Tertullian, a stanch anti-Origenian and a father of the Church, had
this to say about those who believed in reincarnation and not the
resurrection of the dead: "What a panorama of spectacle on that day
[the Resurrection]! What sight should I turn to first to laugh and
applaud? ... Wise philosophers, blushing before their students as
they burn together, the followers to whom they taught that the world
is no concern of God's, whom they assured that either they had no
souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to their
former bodies? .... These are things of greater delight, I believe,
than a circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium." Tertullian
was a great influence in having so-called "heretics" put to death.
The Fifth General Council
After Constantine and Nicea, Origen's writings had continued to be
popular among those seeking clarification about the nature of Christ,
the destiny of the soul and the manner of the resurrection. Some of
the more educated monks had taken Origen's ideas and were using them
in mystical practices with the aim of becoming one with God.
Toward the end of the fourth century, orthodox theologians again
began to attack Origen. Their chief areas of difficulty with
Origen's thought were his teachings on the nature of God and Christ,
the resurrection and the preexistence of the soul.
Their criticisms, which were often based on ignorance and an
inadequate understanding, found an audience in high places and led to
the Church's rejection of Origenism and reincarnation. The Church's
need to appeal to the uneducated masses prevailed over Origen's
coolheaded logic.
The bishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, claimed that Origen denied the
resurrection of the flesh. However, as scholar Jon Dechow has
demonstrated, Epiphanius neither understood nor dealt with Origen's
ideas. Nevertheless, he was able to convince the Church that
Origen's ideas were incompatible with the merging literalist
theology. On the basis of Ephiphanius' writings, Origenism would be
finally condemned a century and a half later.
Jerome believed that resurrection bodies would be flesh and blood,
complete with genitals - which, however, would not be used in the
hereafter. But Origenists believed the resurrection bodies would be
spiritual.
The Origenist controversy spread to monasteries in the Egyptian
desert, especially at Nitria, home to about five thousand monks.
There were two kinds of monks in Egypt - the simple and uneducated,
who composed the majority, and the Origenists, an educated minority.
The controversy solidified around the question of whether God had a
body that could be seen and touched. The simple monks believed that
he did. But the Origenists thought that God was invisible and
transcendent. The simple monks could not fathom Origen's mystical
speculations on the nature of God.
In 399, Bishop Theophilus wrote a letter defending the Origenist
position. At this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting
in the streets and even threatening to kill Theophilus.
The bishop quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that he could
now see that God did indeed have a body: "In seeing you, I behold the
face of God." Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a
series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen and the
burning of the Nitrian monastery.
Under Theodosius, Christians, who had been persecuted for so many
years, now became the persecutors. God made in man's image proved to
be an intolerant one. The orthodox Christians practiced sanctions
and violence against all heretics (including Gnostics and
Origenists), pagans and Jews. In this climate, it became dangerous
to profess the ideas of innate divinity and the pursuit of union with
God.
It may have been during the reign of Theodosius that the Gnostic Nag
Hammadi manuscripts were buried - perhaps by Origenist monks. For
while the Origenist monks were not openly Gnostic, they would have
been sympathetic to the Gnostic viewpoint and may have hidden the
books after they became too hot to handle.
The Origenist monks of the desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus'
condemnations. They continued to practice their beliefs in Palestine
into the sixth century until a series of events drove Origenism
underground for good.
Justinian (ruled 527 - 565) was the most able emperor since
Constantine - and the most active in meddling with Christian
theology. Justinian issued edicts that he expected the Church to
rubber-stamp, appointed bishops and even imprisoned the pope.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the fifth
century, Constantinople remained the capital of the Eastern, or
Byzantine, Empire. The story of how Origenism ultimately came to be
rejected involves the kind of labyrithine power plays that the
imperial court became famous for.
Around 543, Justinian seems to have taken the side of the anti-
Origenists since he issued an edict condemning ten principles of
Origenism, including preexistence. It declared "anathema to
Origen ... and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus." In other
words, Origen and anyone who believes in these propositions would be
eternally damned. A local council at Constantinople ratified the
edict, which all bishops were required to sign.
In 553, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church to
discuss the controversy over the so-called "Three Chapters". These
were writings of three theologians whose views bordered on the
heretical. Justinian wanted the writings to be condemned and he
expected the council to oblige him.
He had been trying to coerce the pope into agreeing with him since
545. He had essentially arrested the pope in Rome and brought him to
Constantinople, where he held him for four years. When the pope
escaped and later refused to attend the council, Justinian went ahead
and convened it without him.
This council produced fourteen new anathemas against the authors of
the Three Chapters and other Christian theologians. The eleventh
anathema included Origen's name in a list of heretics.
The first anathema reads: "If anyone asserts the fabulous
preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration
which follows from it: let him be anathema." ("Restoration" means
the return of the soul to union with God. Origenists believed that
this took place through a path of reincarnation.) It would seem that
the death blow had been struck against Origenism and reincarnation in
Christianity.
After the council, the Origenist monks were expelled from their
Palestinian monastery, some bishops were deposed and once again
Origen's writings were destroyed. The anti-Origenist monks had won.
The emperor had come down firmly on their side.
In theory, it would seem that the missing papal approval of the
anathemas leaves a doctrinal loophole for the belief in reincarnation
among all Christians today. But since the Church accepted the
anathemas in practice, the result of the council was to end belief in
reincarnation in orthodox Christianity.
In any case, the argument is moot. Sooner or later the Church
probably would have forbade the beliefs. When the Church codified
its denial of the divine origin of the soul (at Nicea in 325), it
started a chain reaction that led directly to the curse on Origen.
Church councils notwithstanding, mystics in the Church continued to
practice divinization. They followed Origen's ideas, still seeking
union with God.
But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of
heresy. At the same time as the Church was rejecting reincarnation,
it was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more
difficult for mystics to practice.
Conclusion
With the condemnation of Origen, so much that is implied in
reincarnation was officially stigmatized as heresy that the
possibility of a direct confrontation with this belief was
effectively removed from the church. In dismissing Origen from its
midst, the church only indirectly addressed itself to the issue of
reincarnation. The encounter with Origenism did, however, draw
decisive lines in the matter of preexistence, the resurrection of the
dead, and the relationship between body and soul. What an
examination of Origen and the church does achieve, however, is to
show where the reincarnationist will come into collision with the
posture of orthodoxy. The extent to which he may wish to retreat
from such a collision is of course a matter of personal conscience.
With the Council of 553 one can just about close the book on this
entire controversy within the church. There are merely two footnotes
to be added to the story, emerging from church councils in 1274 and
1439. In the Council of Lyons, in 1274, it was stated that after
death the soul goes promptly either to heaven or to hell. On the Day
of Judgment, all will stand before the tribunal of Christ with their
bodies to render account of what they have done. The Council of
Florence of 1439 uses almost the same wording to describe the swift
passage of the soul either to heaven or to hell. Implicit in both
of these councils is the assumption that the soul does not again
venture into physical bodies.
Christian Reincarnation Index
NOTE: If this page was accessed during a web search you may wish to browse the sites listed below where this topic or related issues are discussed in detail to promote global peace, religious harmony, and spiritual development of humanity:
www.adishakti.org/www.al-qiyamah.org/
www.adi-shakti.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Hinduism)
www.holyspirit-shekinah.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Christianity)
www.ruach-elohim.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Judaism)
www.ruh-allah.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Islam)
www.tao-mother.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Taoism)
www.prajnaaparamita.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Buddhism)
www.aykaa-mayee.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Sikhism)
www.great-spirit-mother.org/ ' Divine Feminine (Native Traditions)
