Did Jesus Believe in Reincarnation?
Recently a professing Christian shared a video on Facebook that accused the Church of removing reincarnation from early Christianity. It said it was not just an Eastern concept, that it once enjoyed widespread support in the West. It promoted the heresy of Gnosticism. It spoke of Plato's and Pythagoras' belief in reincarnation. It claimed support by one of the church fathers, Origen, saying that his "teachings emphasized a mystical and spiritual path to salvation. " And of course, its suppression by the Church "kept the power in the hands of those who offered the only way to avoid an eternity of damnation and suffering."
He then cited Scripture to support the claim that Jesus Himself spoke of reincarnation. In his comments accompanying the video, he said, “In Malachi we see the prophesy about the return of Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the Lord: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.’” (Malachi 4:5)
Next, he cites a verse from Luke: “He will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17)
He then attempts to use Matthew to support his position: “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matthew 11:11-15) Here, he concludes, “In verse 14 Jesus plainly states that John was Elijah.”
Later in Matthew he says that Jesus tells his disciples that Elijah has come already, and then verse 13 says that the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist: “And His disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? Jesus answered and said to them, Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:10-13)
Finally, he uses Mark's corroboration of Matthew: “And they asked Him, saying, ‘Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Then He answered and told them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as it is written of him.’” (Mark 9:11-13)
And so he concludes with this: “So if Jesus seemed totally comfortable with the idea that John the Baptist was Elijah come again, or reincarnated, why do we have such a difficult time with the concept?”
This is so full of such egregious error that I hardly know where to begin. I suppose it's just as well to begin with the video. The church did not remove reincarnation from early Christianity. It's never had a place there. To my knowledge, it was never part of ancient Jewish culture/belief, and it definitely never had a part in orthodox Christianity.
Whether the idea of the soul's passage through various lifetimes appears in various places or not, it is just not true. It can have a place in every culture and belief system in the world and be wrong. The book Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein) was a collection of various criticisms of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Published in 1931, it contains short essays from 28 authors, and published excerpts from 19 more. The balance was a list of 53 people who were also opposed to relativity for various reasons. When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” The point is whether something is right/wrong or true/false is not a matter of the number of people who believe it. Out of 100 people, it is entirely possible that 1 is right and 99 are wrong. Stating that many cultures embraced reincarnation is simply stating that many cultures believed and promoted a lie.
Plato and Pythagorus give no more credibility to such nonsense by lending their names to it. While I freely acknowledge they were great thinkers in many respects, they were also just plain wrong in others.
There is ZERO evidence that it may have been edited out of early Christianity. None. Of course, there are all kinds of conspiracy theories about the early church and the various councils, but not a shred of evidence. No reputable scholar entertains such notions.
And while I have a great deal of respect for the church fathers, they also were not perfect. Augustine wasn't right about everything - nor Aquinas, Jerome, Athanasius or even later thinkers like Luther and Calvin. These were great thinkers who got a lot right, but they were fallen humans like the rest of us and got a lot wrong. Origen even went so far as to accuse God of deceit because he didn’t like Scripture’s clear teaching on hell. He was wrong, and he embraced several heretical beliefs, Gnosticism being one of them.
There is actually no such thing as Christian Gnosticism, because true Christianity and Gnosticism are mutually exclusive systems of belief. The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.
To discredit the idea of any compatibility between Christianity and Gnosticism, we only have to compare their teachings on the main doctrines of the faith. On the matter of salvation, Gnosticism teaches that salvation is gained through the acquisition of divine knowledge which frees one from the illusions of darkness. Although they claim to follow Jesus Christ and His original teachings, Gnostics contradict Him at every turn. Jesus said nothing about salvation through knowledge, but by faith in Him as Savior from sin. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Furthermore, the salvation Christ offers is free and available to everyone (John 3:16), not just a select few who have acquired a special revelation.
Christianity asserts that there is one source of Truth and that is the Bible, the inspired, inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12). It is God’s written revelation to mankind and is never superseded by man’s thoughts, ideas, writings, or visions. The Gnostics, on the other hand, use a variety of early heretical writings known as the Gnostic gospels, a collection of forgeries claiming to be “lost books of the Bible.” Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing these Gnostic scrolls as fraudulent forgeries that espouse false doctrines about Jesus Christ, salvation, God, and every other crucial Christian truth. Origen was one of the very few who bought into this nonsense. It’s heresy, period. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic “gospels” and the Bible. Even when the so-called Christian Gnostics quote from the Bible, they rewrite verses and parts of verses to harmonize with their philosophy, a practice that is strictly forbidden and warned against by Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19).
Christianity and Gnosticism also drastically differ on the Person of Jesus Christ. The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed" to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion. Such views destroy not only the true humanity of Jesus, but also the atonement, for Jesus must not only have been truly God, but also the truly human (and physically real) man who actually suffered and died upon the cross in order to be the acceptable substitutionary sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 2:14-17). The biblical view of Jesus affirms His complete humanity as well as His full deity.
Gnosticism is based on a mystical, intuitive, subjective, inward, emotional approach to truth which is not new at all. It is very old, going back in some form to the Garden of Eden, where Satan questioned God and the words He spoke and convinced Adam and Eve to reject them and accept a lie. He does the same thing today as he “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:8) He still calls God and the Bible into question and catches in his web those who are either naïve and scripturally uninformed or who are seeking some personal revelation to make them feel special, unique, and superior to others. Let us follow the Apostle Paul who said to “test everything. Hold on to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and this we do by comparing everything to the Word of God, the only Truth.
I can’t believe this still raises its head after all this time, and worse yet, there are people who think no better than to buy into such ridiculous and non-Scriptural notions.
Furthermore, all this discussion is unnecessary because Scripture makes it clear: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:27-28) Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant; there is no lie in it.
Besides, just the tiniest bit of common sense should make a thinking person question, “Why the Atonement, then?” If every soul should learn from a previous life, why in the world would God Himself need to hang upon the cross as a propitiation for our sins?
I don’t know if this person buys into the whole notion of karma with reincarnation, but especially in this sense reincarnation is incoherent. If you tell me you are contemplating the number 2 but it’s an odd number, I’d tell you, “You may be thinking of 3 or 5, but not 2, because one thing that is essential to it is being even.” It’s not essential that I am 6’05” or that I have blue eyes, but it is essential to me that I am human. Reincarnation says that I can come back as a dog or an amoeba. If that’s true then what’s the difference between being me and anything else? There’s nothing essential to me. But just like being even is essential to the number 2, being human is essential to me - and reincarnation says that what is essential to me really isn’t essential after all.
But more than anything, we know reincarnation isn't true because there’s an expert on the question, Jesus of Nazareth. He’s the only person in history who died, rose again, and spoke authoritatively on the question, and he says reincarnation is false, that there is one death and after that comes the judgment. Instead, Jesus taught about the reality of hell; in fact, He discussed the subject more than anyone in the Bible.
Reincarnation was never covered up, removed, edited or in any way hidden from the world. It was DENIED because it’s a lie, a heresy. And anyone who espouses it within the Christian faith is a heretic.
Now, as for Malachi 4:5… chapter 4, verses 4-6 are speaking of the restoration through the Lord. This Elijah will be the instrument of God to effect reconciliation among God’s people and thus to deliver them from the awesome destruction of Yahweh the warrior (4:6).
Though it is doubtful that the literal OT prophet Elijah is in mind here, any more than that the returned Elijah is literally John the Baptist, there is no reason to doubt that a literal anti-type of Elijah will one day appear.
Luke 1:17 is merely stating that John the Baptist will be a great prophet on par with Elijah; that’s all “in the spirit and power” means. It is a strain of the passage to get any other meaning.
Matthew 11:14 is roughly the same thing. It relates back to vv. 9-10, stating explicitly what Jesus said there: John the Baptist was the prophesied “Elijah.” This locates his place and function in the history of redemption and affirms again that what Jesus was doing was eschatological - He was bringing in the Day of Yahweh. The identification of John with the prophesied Elijah has messianic implications that “those with ears” would hear. The formula is both a metaphorical description of and a challenge to spiritual sensitivity to the claims of the gospel.
Again, Matthew 17 is merely speaking metaphorically, in terms His disciples would understand, relating the kind of prophet John was to the kind Elijah was.
There’s no need to continue. Simply put, none of the verses referenced have anything to do with reincarnation. To claim Jesus was comfortable with reincarnation is mistaken. It’s not Christian, never has been, and Jesus was explicit in His teaching that we have but one life and then judgment. Reincarnation is senseless and heretical. It’s an incoherent manmade doctrine that has no place in orthodox Christianity.
The summary of his reply was essentially that Scripture would have said "one like Elijah" and not that he was Elijah if Jesus meant that. He ended with the question, “Do you think he would have intentionally been ambiguous in private conversations with his disciples?”
I don't think He WAS being ambiguous. I think the OP is the one missing the point, so I offer the following in an effort to make as thorough a case as possible. Matthew 11:7 - 14 says:
Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.”
Here Jesus quotes from Malachi 3:1, where the messenger appears to be a prophetic figure who is going to appear. According to Malachi 4:5, this messenger is “the prophet Elijah,” whom Jesus identifies as John the Baptist. But does this mean that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated? Not at all.
First, we must always be careful of context. Jesus’ original hearers (and Matthew’s original readers) would never have assumed Jesus’ words to refer to reincarnation. Besides, Elijah did not die; he was taken to heaven in a whirlwind as he rode in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11). Arguing for a reincarnation (or a resurrection) of Elijah misses that point. If anything, the prophecy of the Elijah “to come” would have been viewed as Elijah’s (the original Elijah) physical return to earth from heaven.
Second, the Bible is quite clear that John the Baptist is called “Elijah” because he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), not because he was Elijah in a literal sense. John the Baptist is the New Testament forerunner who points the way to the arrival of the Lord, just as Elijah filled that role in the Old Testament (and might again in the future - see Revelation 11).
Third, Elijah himself appears with Moses at Jesus’ transfiguration after John the Baptist’s death. This would not have happened if Elijah had changed his identity into that of John (Matthew 17:11-12).
Fourth, Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28 show that both the people and Herod distinguished between John the Baptist and Elijah.
Fifth, proof that this John the Baptist was not Elijah reincarnated comes from John himself. In the first chapter of John the Apostle’s gospel, John the Baptist identifies himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3, not as the Elijah of Malachi 3:1. John the Baptist even goes so far as to specifically deny that he was Elijah (John 1:19-23).
John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord, but he was not Elijah reincarnated. Jesus identified John the Baptist as Elijah, while John the Baptist rejected that identification. How do we reconcile these two teachings? There is a key phrase in Jesus’ identification of John the Baptist that must not be overlooked. He says, “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah.” In other words, John the Baptist’s identification as Elijah was not predicated upon his being the actual Elijah, but upon people’s response to his role. To those who were willing to believe in Jesus, John the Baptist functioned as Elijah, for they believed in Jesus as Lord. To the religious leaders who rejected Jesus, John the Baptist did not perform this function.
Sixth, another argument against reincarnation from Jesus Himself is found in the story of Lazarus. In this story, Lazarus is a poor beggar whose pleas for assistance are ignored by a rich man. When they both died, Lazarus went to heaven, but the rich man went to hell. The rich man begged for water from Lazarus, but without avail. Jesus tells the story: "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us'" (Luke 16:25-26).
In this story, we see concrete images of the afterlife. It is a strong argument against reincarnation for the rich man reaps what he sowed immediately after death. There was no chance of redeeming himself through reincarnation. Likewise, the poor beggar, Lazarus gained comfort in the afterlife, a comfort he did not have while living. In addition, Jesus speaks of a gulf that is fixed which does not allow the souls to pass through from one life to the next.
Seventh, yet another argument against reincarnation lies in the story of the witch of Endor. In this Old Testament story, King Saul asks the witch to call up the spirit (or ghost) of Samuel because he desires to know the future since God is no longer speaking to Saul because of his disobedience. The witch, or medium, does as King Saul asks and the ghost of Samuel appears and says to Saul, "The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines" (1 Samuel 28:19).
This story provides not only one but two arguments against reincarnation. First, if reincarnation is a legitimate fact, the ghost or spirit of Samuel could not be "called up" as it would have already been reincarnated into another body. Second, Samuel tells Saul that both he and his sons would join him in the realm beyond death. He does not say that they would die and be given another chance at life. He says simply, "you and your sons will be with me."
Finally the Bible teaches that we are all sinners. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And the penalty for sin is death, not reincarnation. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This verse from Romans 6:23 is the best argument against reincarnation. For Jesus died for our sins that we might have eternal life in heaven, not eternal reincarnation.
It is God's love for us that is the final proof and argument against reincarnation. God loved us so much that He sent His only Son to redeem and save the world. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:16-17). We are not saved through reincarnation, but saved through God's love, mercy, and grace.
In addition to Scripture, we are allowed to use reason and common sense, and by these standards as well I believe reincarnation is incoherent and nonsensical. Of course, as dim reflections of the infinite God, and fallen to boot, we have an incredible ability to reason poorly as well, thus Scripture’s repeated admonitions that we mustn’t stray too far from God’s word. It must be an anchor for all thought.
I bring up the following as food for thought, to perhaps spur one to think about some of the logical implications, to pull the string to the end as it were:
What about the disparity in number of bodies and souls? When bodies are resurrected, what do we do about the shortage?
As I mentioned before, reincarnation destroys essences - if i am just Elijah all over again each time, then am I some sort of blend? Who am I? Why would I have distinct mannerisms and personality traits, distinctive speaking and writing styles that are different than Elijah’s, if my body is essentially no more than a suit that the real me, just Elijah all over again, wears?
When is the determination made this body will have a new or used soul? If the Bible is clear that we have one life and then judgment (and no, Hebrews 9:27 is not just about the death of the physical body - Jews never had a concept of death that didn’t involve the duality of body and soul, the whole person), then are we to believe that someone in heaven, who is in perfect communion with God Himself, is then sent back here to suffer pain, heartache and death again? Does he or she then have the chance to actually reject God and this time go to hell? You see, this ignores the fact we are glorified, we are perfected in the afterlife. Are we now to believe the perfected in God are returned to a fallen status? Each of the attributes of God is infinite, justice being one of them. If God is infinitely just, where is the justice in that?
Do people (souls) in hell get recycled and get another chance by returning to Earth or only those in heaven?
What about the process of sanctification? At the moment of salvation, you are instantly justified; that is, you are found not guilty, covered by the blood of Christ. Upon salvation, the believer begins the lifelong process of sanctification. Simply put, that is the process of growing in Christ (becoming more Christlike). You will never reach Christlike perfection, and you aren't expected to be able to, so don't get wrapped up about that. The Christian still sins, but he turns his back on a life of disregard for sinning. In other words, in his lost state, he used to not care about sin or that he sinned. The believer will feel convicted about his or her sin, will repent, and ask for forgiveness. This can be an almost daily process in the life of the new believer, and generally speaking, becomes less so as one grows in spiritual maturity.
Finally, at death, comes glorification, in which we will be perfected. We will be made complete, lacking nothing, and fully redeemed. We will never again suffer disease, death or heartache. Most importantly, we will be in the presence of God, communing with Him forever and ever in perfect, unbroken relationship. But I suppose in reincarnation that perfect, unbroken relationship with God is broken after all, even though we are promised an eternal reward.
And, as I've said before, I believe the idea that souls get chance after chance to get better is illogical. Define better. Who decides when this alleged better soul has reached a point it no longer needs recycling? Where is the evidence? How do we know when this mysterious perfection is attained? How am I supposed to get better if I don't know that I am on my 67th turn and don't know what I am lacking in first place? There has to be a defined standard for me to work toward for it to make any sense. But Scripture actually does very clearly lay out a defined standard for us, and it does NOT include the concept of reincarnation. It doesn't seem very fair (or perhaps 'just' is a better word here) that I have to keep taking a test that I am unaware of.
I believe the uniform testimony of Scripture is that there is one death and then judgment. Something as big as reincarnation... well, you'd think there'd be a lot more mention of it, and that it'd be made perfectly clear. What is made perfectly clear is that you'd better get it right in this one and only life we have. There's a reason Jesus taught more on the subject of hell than anyone, to stress just how important it is you get it right right now.
Proverbs 14:12 says, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." There have been countless theories through the years regarding conspiracies to keep the "real" truth from us. None of them have any merit. God's infallible, inerrant word has come down to us as intended.
What kind of God would He be if He couldn't even ensure that?