RETURN TO REINCARNATION PAGE | E-MAIL ME
REINCARNATION in the BIBLE
When
I began studying reincarnationist literature some years ago, I soon become aware
of how both sides are often dishonest in their use of the Bible in support of
their arguments. It was evident that reincarnationists commonly read more into
a particular passage of scripture than was intended while it was equally evident
that opponents of reincarnation were just as guilty of misapplying or misinterpreting
certain verses as well as taking passages out of context to bolster their position.
In effect, both sides have been guilty of making the Bible say or imply what
they wish rather than simply letting the texts speak for themselves.
Such is to be expected, of course, for all of us are occasionally guilty of
using propaganda to defend deeply held positions or, at a minimum, parroting
what we have been told by those whose opinion we have come to trust and respect.
However, if our study of reincarnation is to be either fair or complete, we
must be willing to look at books like the Bible from an objective perspective,
which can only be done by examining it from outside the venue of faith. Such
is not easy to do, of course, but it is the only way to bring some degree of
balance to the debate and keep it from disintegrating into the shouting match
it frequently turns into when a religion's holy texts become involved.
And remaining objective is not the only hurdle one must jump when looking for
reincarnationist passages in the Bible; one must also overcome the limitations
imposed by the scriptures themselves. Translating from the original Greek or
Hebrew into modern tongues is far from a precise science and one that can frequently
result in considerable confusion. Further, the meaning of certain passages can
hinge on the use of a single word that can be absent or rendered differently
from one translation to another, further amplifying the problem. Of course,
such difficulties were a problem which hampered the translators themselves,
as attested to by the many footnotes denoting alternate definitions found in
the margins of most modern Bibles. Additionally, there is the issue of how complete
the scriptures are in terms of their teachings. There's a whole body of writings
that did not make it into the modern Bible so one is immediately hampered by
having only the sanitized, "orthodox" or official version of the Bible
to consider. To include these other books, however, would be to make this a
ponderous discussion, so for the sake of brevity we will consider only those
verses that appear in the pages of the authorized Protestant Bible. Additionally,
I will endeavor to be as fair as possible, for I am fully cognizant of the exalted
status the scriptures play in the hearts and minds of many professing Christians
and have no wish to diminish the status of these inspirational writings. I hope
the reader will find that I have succeeded in this endeavor, even if I fail
to convince them of any particular position.
Destined
to Die Once, and Then the Judgment: Hebrews 9:27
The most commonly quoted passage of scripture used to disprove reincarnation
is contained in one of the lesser known books of the New Testament: the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Originally believed to have been penned by the apostle Paul,
scholars today are nearly unanimous in their opinion that it is actually a fairly
late first century book written some years after Paul's death in 64 CE by an
unknown author. None-the-less, they do agree that it was written by a man who
obviously knew a great deal about Judaism and how it related to the emerging
Jewish sect called Christianity, making it an important and valuable part of
the Bible. While most of Hebrews is a fairly long treatise on how Christ fulfills
the law of ancient Judaism, in the ninth chapter we find the following quotation:
"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people..."
(Hebrews 9:27-28 NIV )
On the surface this seems pretty straight forward, and as such anti-reincarnationists
use it with damning effect on the unwary. Unfortunately, this is one of the
best demonstrations I can find of how a passage can be lifted out of context
and made to address an issue its author never intended. The fact of the matter
is that Hebrews chapter nine has absolutely nothing to do with reincarnation
or life after death in general. Instead, it is an eloquent defense of how Christ's
single sacrifice was sufficient to cleanse mankind of all unrighteousness. The
writer is making the case that Jesus supersedes the old Mosaic laws and explains
how his sacrifice displaced their previous traditions of achieving salvation
through animal sacrifice (or, more precisely, the shedding of blood.)
The problem is with the word translators frequently use for "man"
in this passage. The word is anthropos, which is normally translated
either as men (plural) or, more figuratively, mankind. Many translations, however,
improperly translate this word in the singular as man rather than the
more all encompassing men or mankind demanded by the word athropos.
(The more proper word for a man in the singular, personal sense would be aner,
which is used frequently in this sense throughout the New Testament.) The difference
is small but important, for if we interpret the passage properly, it should
read something to the effect that: "...just as mankind died and so came
under judgment (the fall), so Christ's onetime sacrifice 'fixed' the problem."
The point the author is trying to make, then, is that just as mankind fell (in
the Garden of Eden) once, Christ's sacrificial death needed to be performed
only once to successfully atone for all the sins of mankind; the one time death
eluded to here being not physical, but spiritual in nature. Mankind sinned once
(with Adam) and so came under judgment; Jesus died once (on the cross) undoing
the consequences of that earlier disobedience. As such, the author of Hebrews
is simply using metaphorical prose to note that Christ's death offset the consequences
of the fall. There is nothing about reincarnation in the passage at all—either
in support or in opposition to the idea. To see it in there is simply wishful
thinking.
As a sidebar, however, I have encountered another take on this verse from a
reincarnationist perspective I found interesting. Some reincarnationists do
read the verse in the traditional manner—interpreting it to mean personal
judgment following physical death—but interpret it to mean that once each
incarnation ends, the person is judged and reaps the rewards or suffers the
consequences of that life in the next incarnation. In effect, they are judged
"once" for each incarnation and then sent back into the flesh to do
it all over again—which is, of course, the essence of the Hindu concept
of karma. Once again, however, this interpretation is simple conjecture based
upon the individual's personal preference and bias. Just as the traditional
position is guilty of lifting this verse out of context to make it an anti-reincarnationist
proof text, so too is the reincarnationist guilty of reading more into the verse
than is there. Such, however, is human nature.
In conclusion, then, Hebrews 9:27 is not the ironclad case against reincarnation
it is assumed to be. While it does not support the reincarnationist position
in any way, neither does it deny it. It simply has nothing to say on the subject
and should not be read as though it does.
The
Case of the Man Born Blind
The Christian reincarnationist has his own "proof text" that is often
pointed to as being indicative or, at least suggestive, of reincarnation. In
the ninth chapter of the well-known Gospel of John, Jesus and his disciples
happen upon a man born blind. Immediately, one of his disciples asks him: "Rabbi,
who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" to which
Jesus immediately replies: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned...but
this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."
(John 9:2-3 NIV), whereupon Jesus promptly restores the man's sight.
Reincarnationists rightfully point out that the disciples seem to suggest some
form of preexistence here, for when else could the man have sinned to deserve
being born blind except during some preexistent spiritual state or in a prior
incarnation? (This idea is, in fact, consistent with many traditional beliefs
about the role that karma teaches.) They also point out that had Jesus not believed
in reincarnation (or, at least, the preexistence of souls) he overlooked a golden
opportunity to set his disciples straight on the subject. How do we explain
Jesus' silence? Did he also believe in preexistence, or did he simply ignore
his follower's misconceptions and move on? It's hard to say.
However, there is more to the story than meets the eye. Note that the disciple's
question is a two parter. Not only does it suggest that a man might sin before
he is born, implying some sort of preexistence, but they also wonder if his
condition could have been the result of his parent's sins, a common theme that
runs throughout Old Testament literature. (Remarkably, this Jewish belief that
assumed any deformity in a child to be God's punishment for a sinful act on
the part of the child's parents—the punishing-the-son-for-the-crimes-of-the-father
theory—is uncanny close to some teachings on karma.) However, notice that
Jesus doesn't address that idea either, but instead ignores both choices the
disciples offer. Since Jesus doesn't address that element of the equation either,
however, couldn't the case be made that Jesus also believed in hereditary punishment
(or karma) based purely upon his silence in not addressing it?
This is the argument from silence technique that reincarnationists are famous
for. Since Jesus didn't correct his disciple's error (in believing in preexistence),
it is thought by some that that means he must have believed it himself or, at
very least, was content to let his disciples believe it. If that's the case
however, it can be argued then that he also believed in hereditary retribution—a
close cousin to karma—for he failed to correct that assumption as well.
See the problem with arguments from silence?
Still, this verse does demonstrate one thing. It strongly suggests there was
some belief in preexistence or even reincarnation evident among the Jews of
Jesus' day, which would not be difficult to imagine. Israel's proximity to the
major trading routes of Asia as well as a substantial Hellenized Jewish community
in existence throughout the Roman Empire made it a certainty that other philosophies
and ideas would have made their way into the region and have possibly been integrated
into their own belief systems. It's curious, though, that Jesus seems unconcerned
about it. Perhaps he considered such beliefs too trivial to deal with or maybe
he believed that once the Holy Spirit came upon his followers to lead them into
all truth, they would figure it out for themselves. Or could he have even embraced
some of these ideas himself and didn't bother to correct his followers because
he considered them self-evident truths? In any case, if Jesus seems so nonchalant
about the issue, why do we fret so?
The
Elijah/John the Baptist Link
Perhaps the most powerful reincarnationist passages in scripture are those linking
the Old Testament prophet Elijah with the New Testament prophet John the Baptist.
In Malachi 4:5 the ancient prophet writes: "Behold I will send you Elijah
the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord."Later,
in several gospel passages, we see John the Baptist alluded to as being that
very Elijah. In fact, Jesus himself makes it clear that John was the one prophesied
in Malachi when he says: "For all the prophets and the law have prophesied
until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he [John] is Elijah who was
to come." (Matt. 11:13-14 NIV). Jesus further reiterates this idea
in Matthew chapter 17 (verses 10-13) and again in Mark 9:13.
On the surface, it sounds as if Jesus is indeed implying that the Old Testament
prophet had reincarnated as John the Baptist (despite John's own denial of the
possibility recorded in John 1:21.) Traditional Christianity refutes this idea,
however, by insisting that John was a type of Elijah and worked under
the power and spirit of Elijah—not that he was literally
the Old Testament prophet come back to life (Luke 1:17). In response, reincarnationists
are quick to point out that nowhere does the text make this clear. In this case,
they interpret both Malachi and Matthew quite literally, accusing the traditionalist
of being the ones who are guilty of "spiritualizing" the text rather
than accepting it at face value.
There are two problems with these passages that reincarnationist literature
rarely deals with, however. First, there is the problem that, at least according
to the Old Testament book of 2 Kings (chapter 2, verse 11), Elijah never
died. He was instead "swept up" by a flaming chariot and spirited
away, presumably to Heaven. Even a reincarnationist can't explain how someone
can be reincarnated if they haven't first died. Of course, the reference to
the "flaming chariot" could be a euphemism for death or, perhaps,
he was simply "translated" into spiritual form directly without experiencing
the trauma of death . (This latter possibility might even explain how Elijah
could appear alongside the long-dead Moses in the story of the Transfiguration
recorded in Matthew 17:1-13 and Mark 9:2-8. Such would imply that both figures
were in the same spiritual state, though their means of acquiring their final
spirit form may have been different.) What's important to note is that Elijah
did not appear as John the Baptist, but apparently as his old mortal self. If
he had reincarnated as John the Baptist, in this instance at least, he was appearing
in his earlier earthly incarnation also—a clear case of regressive incarnation
if there ever was one.
Obviously, something is wrong here. Presumably Elijah can't be both John
the Baptist and himself at the same time. For that matter, if Elijah
didn't die, he couldn't be anyone else, either, which remains the best
evidence that John was a "type" of Elijah in that his ministry mirrored
the earlier prophet's insistence that the people prepare for the return of God.
On the other hand, it is possible the Elijah/Moses appearance if, indeed, it
literally took place, was purely a vision and not an actual appearance of the
two long-dead prophets. In other words, could the transfiguration experience
have been less a genuine spiritual visitation than a type of "waking dream"
or shared vision in which John, Peter, James and Jesus not only saw the Old
Testament patriarchs but were able to speak with them? This would not be remarkable
in the Bible, which has several accounts of visions occurring to the Old Testament
prophets in which figures both spoke and seemed to interact with them. Could
this have been the case here also? If so, however, that would render the case
against reincarnation entirely moot, for if Elijah is simply a vision, there
is no problem with the notion of John the Baptist being a later reincarnation
of the man.
Another possibility is that since the spiritual realm exists outside of linear
time, spiritual beings could appear at any time regardless of what incarnation
their soul was currently experiencing in the world of physicality. As such,
Elijah—being outside of linear time—could feasibly appear to the disciples
as himself while also existing as John the Baptist at the same time without
any conflict. It only would appear contradictory from the perspective
of linear time; from the realm of the spirit, however, no such problem would
exist, in which case the reincarnationist has a better argument in maintaining
the John the Baptist/Elijah connection—especially in light of Jesus' later
repeated affirmation of that link (Matthew 17:11-12 and Mark 9:11-12). Unfortunately,
the text can be read to support either interpretation, so it seems to be another
dead end.
Another point about this incident Christian opponents of reincarnation often
point out is that John the Baptist himself denied being Elijah when asked
about the possibility directly (John 1:21)—a point they feel destroys the
entire notion of an Elijah/John soul link. This is not as ironclad as it appears
however, for John may simply not have known he was the reincarnation of Elijah
(though Jesus did) just as most people have no idea who they may have been in
a previous incarnation. A point frequently overlooked by traditionalists is
that John also denied being a prophet (John 1:21) whereas Jesus clearly refers
to him as such in the Gospel of Luke (7:26-28). So who should know better—Jesus
or John?
Finally, there is one last possibility. If John was not merely a "type"
of Elijah or the actual reincarnation of the ancient prophet, the only other
possibility is that Elijah himself returned to earth still in his previous body
just as predicted in scripture. Obviously, since there was no one alive at the
time who would have known what the prophet actually looked like, he could simply
take the name John the Baptist and continued his interrupted ministry. Why he
would do such a thing remains a mystery, of course, and it does play havoc with
accounts of John's birth as recorded in Luke, but it is a possibility, albeit
a remote one.
Other
Passages
The reincarnationist points to John 3:3 as stating that Jesus was implying reincarnation
when he said: "...no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born
of water and the [Holy] Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the [Holy] Spirit
gives birth to [human] spirit." These versus are clearly dealing with
salvation, however, and not reincarnation. Being born "of water" is
usually understood to mean baptism or—more precisely—repentance, while
being born of the spirit means to be infused with eternal life by God's Holy
Spirit. In essence, Jesus was saying that unless one allows themselves to be
washed (symbolically) of their sins so that the Spirit of God may infuse their
life, they cannot see the kingdom of God. To read reincarnation into that is
unnecessary and unwarranted although, admittedly, it does appear to brush upon
some of the symbolism of rebirth.
Another verse reincarnationists frequently use to bolster their argument is
contained in Revelations 3:12 where is states: "Him who overcomes I
will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it."
The problem is with the use of the word "again" in this passage, for
it implies that one may have left the temple of God before (through being reincarnated?)
but in the end will return to the temple and remain there forevermore. This
is, however, a very weak reference to reincarnation at best, especially when
one compares this translation—the New International Version--which reads
a little differently than how it reads in the more familiar King James Version.
In the KJV, Revelations 3:12 is rendered as: "Him that overcometh will
I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out..."
The original Greek manuscripts do not contain the word "again" (palin)
at all, and without that, the verse may simply be interpreted to mean that once
one is made a pillar in the temple, they will stay there forever. Finally, even
if one does accept the idea of leaving the temple numerous times before returning
to it in the end, this does not say what happens once one leaves or imply that
they are reincarnating; it simply says that once they return and overcome, they
will never leave. On the other hand, since reincarnationist beliefs often contain
the idea of returning to the Creator as the ultimate goal of spiritual evolution,
this passage could be read as a reincarnationist text as well. However, I personally
find it a very weak reference to reincarnation at best, though I am quite willing
to allow others their belief.
Reincarnationists also interpret such verses as Mark 10:29-30, Matthew 26:52,
and Exodus 21:24-25 as promises to be realized in the next earthly life as opposed
to some future noncorporeal existence. As such, when Jesus says that one who
lives by the sword shall die by the sword or assures us that no one who gives
up family or land for his sake will fail to be rewarded many times over "in
this present age and in the age to come," the reincarnationist sees
this as being possible only in multiple lifetimes. Metaphor, apparently, is
not the reincarnationist's strong suit—at least in some instances.
The traditionalists are not much better off, however. Besides the disingenuous
use of Hebrews 9:27 (discussed above) to refute reincarnation, they usually
point to the various references concerning resurrection versus reincarnation
and the idea that upon death one goes immediately into God's presence and into
judgment. The Christian reincarnationist, however, does not have a problem with
the resurrection or judgment. To them the term "resurrection" could
be construed as simply denoting the final state of human spiritual development,
with the various birth and rebirth cycles being intermediate steps that ultimately
brings one to that point. And as for being judged, reincarnationists are often
open to the idea of some sort of intermediate stage of punishment between incarnations
where the truly wicked may go to work off some of their "bad karma."
In other words, they don't necessarily see anything permanent about punishment
for wicked deeds, nor do they necessarily see judgment and punishment as being
realized only through an earthly manifestation into the next incarnation. Finally,
the use of Paul's admonishment in 2 Corinthians 5:6-9 that to be absent from
the body is to be present with the Lord likewise fails to impress the reincarnationist.
They have no trouble with the idea that in our disembodied spiritual state we
may, in fact, see Jesus. Some suggest He may even help prepare us for our next
incarnation or point out areas we need work on. I'm sure this is not what Paul
had in mind when he penned his thoughts, of course, but this demonstrates how
reincarnationist concepts can be easily read into the very verses the orthodox
use to deny the idea. Exegesis can be a cruel sport not to be played by the
weak-hearted.
Conclusions
It is apparent from a careful study of scripture that the Bible has next to
nothing to say on the subject of reincarnation. Beyond the suggestion that some
Jews of Jesus' day seemed to hold to reincarnationist or preexistent beliefs
of some kind and some word play around Elijah being John the Baptist, it is
clear scripture simply doesn't deal with the subject. What also seems abundantly
evident is that Jesus did not openly, clearly and unequivocally teach the concept.
It simply isn't there. Jesus seems far more concerned with redemption and resurrection
than in reincarnation, and that is what he teaches. As such, efforts by reincarnationists
to use the Bible in support of their beliefs are tenuous at best and positively
dishonest at worst.
However, it's equally true that Jesus never clearly taught against the
belief in reincarnation, despite having several opportunities to do so. To me,
this remains inexplicable, especially if it is as incompatible and, indeed,
even harmful, to Jesus's own message as so many people insist. Of course, simply
because a subject is not specifically addressed doesn't demonstrate it is invalid.
The concept of the Trinity, for example, is not clearly articulated in the Bible
(the word itself is never used), yet it remains a cornerstone doctrine of orthodox
Christianity. Issues such as abortion, euthanasia, birth control, cloning, stem
cells and a whole host of modern ethical issues also are not directly addressed
in scripture, yet that doesn't mean they don't exist as well.
The reincarnationist often maintains the scriptures are silent on the issue
for two reasons: first, the apostles clearly were anticipating Christ's imminent
return and with it the end of the age, thereby ending the process of multiple
rebirths and so rendering any teaching on the subject superfluous and, secondly,
it was well known that teachings on the subject fell into disfavor with the
early church fathers, in which case any writings in support of the position
may have been intentionally suppressed for the sake of orthodoxy.
While the first point has some potential, it is the second point which is probably
closer to the truth. Clearly, history has aptly demonstrated that the early
church did make a concerted and, apparently, successful effort to suppress reincarnationist
teachings and omit any writings that did touch upon the subject from the final
canon. In fact, the church even went so far as to declare reincarnationist teachings
a heresy punishable by death, thus stilling reincarnationist voices for the
last fifteen hundred years and demonstrating how thorough and successful were
the efforts of Christendom to expunge any thought of multiple rebirths from
its long shadow. Why such an approach to the subject was necessary remains a
point of debate, though most likely it was a result of reincarnationist concepts
being too closely associated with the mystical teachings of the Gnostics. Considered
a heretical branch of Christianity by the early church fathers, its suppression
would have been seen as doing "God's work" and so maintaining the
"purity" of the faith.
However, I suspect its suppression had considerably more to do with the more
immediate concerns of the church fathers, for a person who believes they have
a "second chance" (or, literally, an infinite number of second chances)
is a person who is not as easily controlled, and control was an important element
of the early church. Clearly reincarnation was a threat to the natural order
of things, just as it remains for many people today, which is why it is unlikely
to be even tentatively embraced by the modern church. It is simply too radical
an idea for any but the most liberal branches of Christianity, just as it always
has been and will likely remain.