![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
readoldthingsI tried to do some work at the Astrology Blog yesterday, but Dreamwidth apparently didn't like it, and so every attempted post came out mangled in some way. So let's return our attention to The Gospel of Matthew, and deal with a passage I've been trying to avoid. Matthew 11:11-15 reads:
The Least In the Kingdom of Heaven
The first, and most obvious question is: Why is John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven?
The answer seems to be provided by the rest of the sentence. "Among those born of women" there is no one greater than John. Among the immortal spirits created by God-- that is to say, the Bodiless Powers or Angels-- all are greater...
...At least for the time being. After he quits his earthly form, John will ascend to quite an exalted place in the Heavens, as demonstrated by his invocation in the Confiteor, or the traditional Confession, of the Tridentine Rite:
I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.
To sojourn upon the material Earth is always to be less than those who have achieved the Higher Life, beyond the body. But by our deeds on Earth we can rise very far indeed. Note that John is named right after St. Michael the Archangel, Prince of the Heavenly Host himself!
This Is Elias
In the fourteenth verse, Jesus explicitly calls John Elias-- that is, Elijah. It's hard to misread this, and yet Christians of every denomination have done their best to do so over the course of two millennia. Most of the commentaries that I've found on it tell us that what Jesus means is that John is "like" Elijah. I prefer to take the Man at his word; John is Elijah, returned.
Reincarnation
That the doctrine of the transmigration of the souls was taught by many in the early church is demonstrated by the fact that so many church fathers and later commenters felt the need to condemn it. Certainly it's taught in many other traditions as well. Plato discusses it explicitly in many of his dialogs, including Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic and Timaeus, and later Platonists discussed it regularly. (For example, Sallust offers the very interesting suggestion that atheism may be a punishment for impiety in a prior lifetime. We all know people who cannot accept the existence of God or spirits, no matter how clearly the evidence is presented to them. Sallust's explanation accounts for that phenomenon nicely, as we're emerging from an era of grave impiety.) It's a central theme in Buddhist and Hindu texts, and discussed in Taoist writings as well. It's also found in certain esoteric and heretical Jewish and Muslim sects, and in tribal religions the world over. In more recent times Professor Ian Stevenson and his successors have compiled quite robust evidence for its reality. I've read that 51% of the world's population believes in reincarnation, including 25% of American Christians.
It's my view that reincarnation completes the Christian religion-- indeed, that it saves it. Where it fits into the traditional afterlife scheme is fairly straightforward.
In Catholic tradition, the possible afterlives are these:
1. Heaven -- Needs no comment
2. Purgatory -- A place in which sinners are purified before entrance into Heaven
3. Limbo -- A middle world, whose inhabitants experience every possible natural joy while being deprived of the supreme and supernatural joy that is only possible in the presence of God
4. Hell -- Also needs no comment
In the Phaedo, Plato gives us the following possibilities:
1. Heaven -- Beyond the physical world; here the gods dwell truly in their temples. The jewels that one finds so rarely upon the earth are ordinary stones in the heavenly realm.
2. The Underworld -- A pleasant place, in which the souls of those who have done well in life are rewarded
3. Tartaros, Possibility 1 -- A place of torment and punishment for the wicked, especially murderers. However, the souls in this part of Tartaros can be freed from punishment once their victims forgive them
4. Tartaros, Possibility 2 -- For those who commit grave impieties or mass murder. This part of Tartaros is the habitation of demonic beings; you get here by becoming like them; there is no return.
Every person in categories 2 and 3 will return to life in the material world in an appropriate form. That isn't always human-- the violent will return in the form of hawks or wolves, the promiscuous as rabbits, and so on.
It's worth noting that Plato gives different accounts of reincarnation in his other dialogs; we should look at the commonalities to extract a common principle, rather than seeing one or the other as a literal description of events in the after-death state.
The traditional Christian account is enriched by the possibility of reincarnation, which allows those who have endured suffering in Hell or purgatory or the liminal state of Limbo to return and try again-- at least sometimes. Jesus tells us later in the Gospel of Matthew that for those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, no forgiveness is possible; this agrees with Plato's account of impiety. It seems that there are degrees of impiety, as there are of murder-- some may be forgiven, as Jesus tells us. What of the others? These are, I think, those who have set their will totally and inexorably against the Divine; their proper place in the universe is the realm of the demons. No, it isn't pleasant to think about.
Evolutionary Reincarnation
As a final note, I want to briefly mention the doctrine, popular in Occult circles, of evolutionary reincarnation. This holds that every being without exception comes into incarnation on the material plane as a stone or material substance. By slow degrees, the stone takes on greater capacities on the etheric plane, becoming a crystal-- a substance capable of manifesting effects at the energetic level, not just the material level. The crystal moves on to become a plant: A being with a fully developed material body and a fully developed energetic body, but no life at the astral level. After long ages, the plant takes on life as a tree, which is a plant that has begun to awaken to life on the Astral Plane. The tree dies, and in time the tree is reborn as an animal: a being with fully developed material, etheric, and astral bodies. Again, long ages pass, and the animal souls proceeds through varying levels of complexity, dwelling for a time (perhaps) as an insect, and then a fish or reptile, before finally ascending to the higher life of a mammal or intelligent bird. At last the day comes when the animal graduates to life as a human being-- an animal which has begun to awaken to the life of the Noetic Plane of being. Again, many lifetimes pass. At last the human develops a fully-functional noetic body, and inarnates as a spirit like an angel.
I have to tell you, I don't personally believe this doctrine, and I don't like it very much.
I'm not willing to outright reject it, because there is certainly some truth here. But I have found that attempting to put it into practice by living it as a truth turns the world very dull. I discovered this a few years ago. I had just been reading something on this subject, and I went into the woods to harvest herbs. I came upon a patch of mugwort, and sat beside it, as I sometimes do, to get to know it. I found that if I tried to see it through this point of view, it stopped being a mugwort, and became just a kind of stunted tree. It was growing (as mugworts do) in the shade of a large sycamore tree. And now the sycamore tree was nothing but a young animal, somehow less than a kitten, or a baby rat. And the very gods themselves were nothing but old men and women, mere human beings. I find that idea, frankly, blasphemous.
Now, I don't deny that something like evolutionary reincarnation actually is true. For whatever it's worth, I feel the same about the theory of biological evolution-- it's clearly untrue, but something like it is probably true. But I don't believe that the angels were once human beings; I think that they were always angels. I do believe that we, as human beings, are working our way back to a heavenly home from which we descended into matter. But how far did we descend? I don't know, but I don't believe that I was ever a plant. Moreover, I don't believe that a plant will ever become a human being, and-- this is critical-- if it did, I don't think that this would be any achievement, much less a reward!
One of our cats died recently. He was a fine old cat, absolutely loyal, kind to the children. Years ago, when I was going through one of the hardest times of my life, he made sure to sleep next to my head on my pillow every night. The night before he died, he made sure to sleep next to me again. He hadn't done it in years, because our female cat had claimed that spot and the two of them never got along. But he came back on his last night. He also made sure to go outside, even though it was cold, and he demanded a cooked fish for his dinner, which I allowed. And then he died. To be reborn as a human being would be, in my view, a very poor reward for such a fine creature! Let him rather become to living cats as saints are to living men.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
The Least In the Kingdom of Heaven
The first, and most obvious question is: Why is John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven?
The answer seems to be provided by the rest of the sentence. "Among those born of women" there is no one greater than John. Among the immortal spirits created by God-- that is to say, the Bodiless Powers or Angels-- all are greater...
...At least for the time being. After he quits his earthly form, John will ascend to quite an exalted place in the Heavens, as demonstrated by his invocation in the Confiteor, or the traditional Confession, of the Tridentine Rite:
I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.
To sojourn upon the material Earth is always to be less than those who have achieved the Higher Life, beyond the body. But by our deeds on Earth we can rise very far indeed. Note that John is named right after St. Michael the Archangel, Prince of the Heavenly Host himself!
This Is Elias
In the fourteenth verse, Jesus explicitly calls John Elias-- that is, Elijah. It's hard to misread this, and yet Christians of every denomination have done their best to do so over the course of two millennia. Most of the commentaries that I've found on it tell us that what Jesus means is that John is "like" Elijah. I prefer to take the Man at his word; John is Elijah, returned.
Reincarnation
That the doctrine of the transmigration of the souls was taught by many in the early church is demonstrated by the fact that so many church fathers and later commenters felt the need to condemn it. Certainly it's taught in many other traditions as well. Plato discusses it explicitly in many of his dialogs, including Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic and Timaeus, and later Platonists discussed it regularly. (For example, Sallust offers the very interesting suggestion that atheism may be a punishment for impiety in a prior lifetime. We all know people who cannot accept the existence of God or spirits, no matter how clearly the evidence is presented to them. Sallust's explanation accounts for that phenomenon nicely, as we're emerging from an era of grave impiety.) It's a central theme in Buddhist and Hindu texts, and discussed in Taoist writings as well. It's also found in certain esoteric and heretical Jewish and Muslim sects, and in tribal religions the world over. In more recent times Professor Ian Stevenson and his successors have compiled quite robust evidence for its reality. I've read that 51% of the world's population believes in reincarnation, including 25% of American Christians.
It's my view that reincarnation completes the Christian religion-- indeed, that it saves it. Where it fits into the traditional afterlife scheme is fairly straightforward.
In Catholic tradition, the possible afterlives are these:
1. Heaven -- Needs no comment
2. Purgatory -- A place in which sinners are purified before entrance into Heaven
3. Limbo -- A middle world, whose inhabitants experience every possible natural joy while being deprived of the supreme and supernatural joy that is only possible in the presence of God
4. Hell -- Also needs no comment
In the Phaedo, Plato gives us the following possibilities:
1. Heaven -- Beyond the physical world; here the gods dwell truly in their temples. The jewels that one finds so rarely upon the earth are ordinary stones in the heavenly realm.
2. The Underworld -- A pleasant place, in which the souls of those who have done well in life are rewarded
3. Tartaros, Possibility 1 -- A place of torment and punishment for the wicked, especially murderers. However, the souls in this part of Tartaros can be freed from punishment once their victims forgive them
4. Tartaros, Possibility 2 -- For those who commit grave impieties or mass murder. This part of Tartaros is the habitation of demonic beings; you get here by becoming like them; there is no return.
Every person in categories 2 and 3 will return to life in the material world in an appropriate form. That isn't always human-- the violent will return in the form of hawks or wolves, the promiscuous as rabbits, and so on.
It's worth noting that Plato gives different accounts of reincarnation in his other dialogs; we should look at the commonalities to extract a common principle, rather than seeing one or the other as a literal description of events in the after-death state.
The traditional Christian account is enriched by the possibility of reincarnation, which allows those who have endured suffering in Hell or purgatory or the liminal state of Limbo to return and try again-- at least sometimes. Jesus tells us later in the Gospel of Matthew that for those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, no forgiveness is possible; this agrees with Plato's account of impiety. It seems that there are degrees of impiety, as there are of murder-- some may be forgiven, as Jesus tells us. What of the others? These are, I think, those who have set their will totally and inexorably against the Divine; their proper place in the universe is the realm of the demons. No, it isn't pleasant to think about.
Evolutionary Reincarnation
As a final note, I want to briefly mention the doctrine, popular in Occult circles, of evolutionary reincarnation. This holds that every being without exception comes into incarnation on the material plane as a stone or material substance. By slow degrees, the stone takes on greater capacities on the etheric plane, becoming a crystal-- a substance capable of manifesting effects at the energetic level, not just the material level. The crystal moves on to become a plant: A being with a fully developed material body and a fully developed energetic body, but no life at the astral level. After long ages, the plant takes on life as a tree, which is a plant that has begun to awaken to life on the Astral Plane. The tree dies, and in time the tree is reborn as an animal: a being with fully developed material, etheric, and astral bodies. Again, long ages pass, and the animal souls proceeds through varying levels of complexity, dwelling for a time (perhaps) as an insect, and then a fish or reptile, before finally ascending to the higher life of a mammal or intelligent bird. At last the day comes when the animal graduates to life as a human being-- an animal which has begun to awaken to the life of the Noetic Plane of being. Again, many lifetimes pass. At last the human develops a fully-functional noetic body, and inarnates as a spirit like an angel.
I have to tell you, I don't personally believe this doctrine, and I don't like it very much.
I'm not willing to outright reject it, because there is certainly some truth here. But I have found that attempting to put it into practice by living it as a truth turns the world very dull. I discovered this a few years ago. I had just been reading something on this subject, and I went into the woods to harvest herbs. I came upon a patch of mugwort, and sat beside it, as I sometimes do, to get to know it. I found that if I tried to see it through this point of view, it stopped being a mugwort, and became just a kind of stunted tree. It was growing (as mugworts do) in the shade of a large sycamore tree. And now the sycamore tree was nothing but a young animal, somehow less than a kitten, or a baby rat. And the very gods themselves were nothing but old men and women, mere human beings. I find that idea, frankly, blasphemous.
Now, I don't deny that something like evolutionary reincarnation actually is true. For whatever it's worth, I feel the same about the theory of biological evolution-- it's clearly untrue, but something like it is probably true. But I don't believe that the angels were once human beings; I think that they were always angels. I do believe that we, as human beings, are working our way back to a heavenly home from which we descended into matter. But how far did we descend? I don't know, but I don't believe that I was ever a plant. Moreover, I don't believe that a plant will ever become a human being, and-- this is critical-- if it did, I don't think that this would be any achievement, much less a reward!
One of our cats died recently. He was a fine old cat, absolutely loyal, kind to the children. Years ago, when I was going through one of the hardest times of my life, he made sure to sleep next to my head on my pillow every night. The night before he died, he made sure to sleep next to me again. He hadn't done it in years, because our female cat had claimed that spot and the two of them never got along. But he came back on his last night. He also made sure to go outside, even though it was cold, and he demanded a cooked fish for his dinner, which I allowed. And then he died. To be reborn as a human being would be, in my view, a very poor reward for such a fine creature! Let him rather become to living cats as saints are to living men.
