A review of "Did Jesus Allow For Reincarnation?"
This is a short pamphlet arguing that Jesus didn't
teach reincarnation. This seems obvious, but those who claim that early
Christians did believe in the concept have tried to find it in the New
Testament nevertheless. The most promising “proof text” is John 9:1-4, where
the disciples wonder why a casual passerby is blind. Is it because his parents
sinned, or because of his own sins? The question seemingly implies
reincarnation, since the man was *born* blind. How can his sins have made him
blind, unless he was sinful in a previous life?
The author, Michael Heiser, is an independent Biblical scholar with a good knowledge of ancient languages. In this case, it unfortunately takes him on a long semantic detour through Greek clauses and what not, which I'm not sure is even necessary for the case at hand. The bottom line is that Jesus rejects both notions proposed by his disciples, thus implicitly ruling out reincarnation (if that is indeed what the confused disciples are referring to).
But this is with outmost probability *not* what the followers of Jesus refers to, as Heiser points out in the final section of the pamphlet. The idea of reincarnation was foreign to 1st century Judaism, the religious context in which Jesus ministered. Neither the Pharisees nor the Essenes believed in reincarnation, the usual “proof texts” either referring to the immortality of the soul, or to the general resurrection on Judgment Day. The idea that Jesus was “John the Baptist returned from the dead” probably refers to spirit-possession (although I suppose it could also refer to physical resurrection, if we assume people didn't know the true identity of Jesus). The idea that Jesus was Elijah or some other prophet refers to the notion that Elijah, being taken up by God in a fiery chariot, never died and hence could return to the earthly plane at any time. It seems similar ideas also existed about some other prophets, notably Jeremiah. Finally, the seemingly bizarre idea that a person can sin before his birth is attested in the Talmud, which states that Esau sinned in the womb, which explains why God rejected him in favor of Jacob!
This study isn't bad, but perhaps it's too short on the comparative religion material to really “pin down” those who claim otherwise. Still, I give it three stars.
The author, Michael Heiser, is an independent Biblical scholar with a good knowledge of ancient languages. In this case, it unfortunately takes him on a long semantic detour through Greek clauses and what not, which I'm not sure is even necessary for the case at hand. The bottom line is that Jesus rejects both notions proposed by his disciples, thus implicitly ruling out reincarnation (if that is indeed what the confused disciples are referring to).
But this is with outmost probability *not* what the followers of Jesus refers to, as Heiser points out in the final section of the pamphlet. The idea of reincarnation was foreign to 1st century Judaism, the religious context in which Jesus ministered. Neither the Pharisees nor the Essenes believed in reincarnation, the usual “proof texts” either referring to the immortality of the soul, or to the general resurrection on Judgment Day. The idea that Jesus was “John the Baptist returned from the dead” probably refers to spirit-possession (although I suppose it could also refer to physical resurrection, if we assume people didn't know the true identity of Jesus). The idea that Jesus was Elijah or some other prophet refers to the notion that Elijah, being taken up by God in a fiery chariot, never died and hence could return to the earthly plane at any time. It seems similar ideas also existed about some other prophets, notably Jeremiah. Finally, the seemingly bizarre idea that a person can sin before his birth is attested in the Talmud, which states that Esau sinned in the womb, which explains why God rejected him in favor of Jacob!
This study isn't bad, but perhaps it's too short on the comparative religion material to really “pin down” those who claim otherwise. Still, I give it three stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment