MYSTIC CHRISTIANITY/PART 2
THE SECOND LESSON.
THE MYSTERY OF THE
VIRGIN BIRTH.
One
of the points of conflict between Established Theology on the one hand and what
is known as Rationalism, the Higher Criticism, and Comparative Mythology, on
the other hand, is what is known as "the Virgin Birth" of Jesus.
Perhaps we may show the points of difference more clearly by simply stating the
opposing views and, afterwards, giving the traditions of the Occult
Brotherhoods and Societies on the subject. We are enabled to state the opposing
views without prejudice, because we rest upon the Occult Teachings with a
feeling of being above and outside of the theological strife raging between the
two schools of Christian theologians. We trust that the reader will reserve his
decision until the consideration of the matter in this lesson is completed. We
think that it will be found that the Occult Teachings give the Key to the
Mystery and furnish the Reconciliation between the opposing theological views
which threaten to divide the churches into two camps, i.e., (1) the adherents
of the established orthodox theology, and (2) the adherents of the views of the
Rationalists and the Higher Critics.
The
school of theology which clings to the old orthodox teachings regarding the
Virgin Birth and which teachings are commonly accepted without question by the
mass of church-goers, hold as follows:
Mary,
a young Jewish maiden, or virgin, was betrothed to Joseph, a carpenter of
Nazareth in Galilee. Before her marriage, she was informed by an angelic vision
that she would miraculously conceive a son, to whom she would give birth, and
who would reign on the Throne of David and be called the Son of the Highest.
This teaching is based solely upon certain statements contained in the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke. Matthew's account is as follows:
"Now,
the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was
espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with the child of
the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to
make her a public example was minded to put her away privily. But while he
thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a
dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring
forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall save his people
from their sins. And now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with a
child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as
the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her
not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name
Jesus." (Matt. 1:18-25.)
Luke's
account is as follows:
"And
in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee,
named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house
of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her and
said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art
thou among women. And when she saw him she was troubled at his saying, and cast
in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto
her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son and shalt call his name
JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign
over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then
said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke
1:26-33.)
And
so, this then is the commonly accepted, orthodox teachings of Christian
theology. It is embodied in the two best-known creeds of the church and is made
an essential article of belief by the majority of the orthodox churches.
In
the Apostle's Creed, which has been traced back to about the year A.D. 500, and
which is claimed to have been based on an older creed, the doctrine is stated
thusly: "… and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived
by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc. In the Nicene Creed,
which dates from A.D. 325, the doctrine is stated thusly: "… and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father … and
was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," etc.
And
so, the doctrine is plainly stated and firmly insisted upon by the orthodox
churches of today, although such was not always the case for the matter was one
which gave rise to much conflict and difference of opinion in the early
centuries of the Church, the present view, however, overcoming those who
opposed it, and finally becoming accepted as beyond doubt or question by the
orthodox, believing Christian.
But
the present time finds many leading minds in the churches, who refuse to accept
the doctrine as usually taught, and the voice of the Higher Criticism is heard
in the land in increasing volume and many doctrines unquestioningly held by the
pews are being abandoned by the pulpits, usually in the way of "discreet
silence" being maintained. But here and there courageous voices are heard
stating plainly that which their reason and conscience impels. We shall now
consider these dissenting opinions.
We
have to say here, at this point, that we have no sympathy for the so-called
"infidel" opinion, which holds that the whole tale of the Virgin Birth
was invented to conceal the illegitimate birth of Jesus. Such a view is based
neither on intelligent investigation or criticism, or upon the occult
teachings. It was merely "invented" itself, by those who were unable
to accept current theology and who, when driven from the churches, built up a
crude system of reconstructed Biblical History of their own. And so we shall
not stop to even consider this view of the matter, but shall pass on to the
scholarly objectors and their views and thence to the Occult Teachings.
In
the first place, the theologians who favor the views of the Higher Criticism
object to the idea of the Virgin Birth upon several general grounds, among
which the following are the principal ones:
(1)
That the story of the Divine Conception, that is the conception by a woman of a
child without a human father, and by means of a miraculous act on the part of
Deity, is one found among the traditions, legends and beliefs of many heathen
and pagan nations. Nearly all of the old Oriental religions, antedating
Christianity by many centuries, contain stories of this kind concerning their
gods, prophets and great leaders. The critics hold that the story of the Virgin
Birth and Divine Conception were borrowed outright from these pagan legends and
incorporated into the Christian Writings after the death of Christ;
(2)
that the idea of the Virgin Birth was not an original Christian Doctrine, but
was injected into the Teachings at a date about one hundred years, or nearly
so, after the beginning of the Christian Era; this view being corroborated by
the fact that the New Testament Writings themselves contain very little mention
of the idea, the only mention of it being in two of the Gospels, those of St.
Matthew and St. Luke—St. Mark and St. John containing no mention of the matter,
which would not likely be the case had it been an accepted belief in the early
days of Christianity—and no mention being made of it in the Epistles, even Paul
being utterly silent on the question. They claim that the Virgin Birth was
unknown to the primitive Christians and was not heard of until its
"borrowing" from pagan beliefs many years after. In support of their
idea, as above stated, they call attention to the fact that the New Testament
writings, known to Biblical students as the oldest and earliest, make no
mention of the idea; and that Paul ignores it completely, as well as the other
writers;
(3)
that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke bear internal evidences of the
introduction of the story at a later date. This matter we shall now consider,
from the point of view of the Higher Criticism within the body of the Church.
In
the first place, let us consider the Gospel of St. Matthew. The majority of
people accept this as having been written by St. Matthew, with his own hand,
during his ministry; and that the Gospel, word for word, is the work of this
great apostle. This idea, however, is not held for a moment by the educated
clergy, as may be seen by a reference to any prominent theological work of late
years, or even in the pages of a good encyclopedia. The investigators have made
diligent researches concerning the probable authorship of the New Testament
books and their reports would surprise many faithful church-goers who are not
acquainted with the facts of the case. There is no warrant, outside of
tradition and custom, for the belief that Matthew wrote the Gospel accredited
to him, at least in its present shape. Without going deeply into the argument
of the investigators (which may be found in any recent work on the History of
the Gospels) we would say that the generally accepted conclusion now held by
the authorities is that the Gospel commonly accredited to St. Matthew is the
work of some unknown hand or hands, which was produced during the latter part
of the first century A.D., written in Greek, and most likely an enlargement or
elaboration of certain Aramaic writings entitled, "Sayings of Jesus,"
which are thought to have been written by Matthew himself. In other words, even
the most conservative of the critics do not claim that the Gospel of St.
Matthew is anything more than an enlargement, elaboration or development of
Matthew's earlier writings, written many years before the elaboration of the
present "Gospel." The more radical critics take an even less respectful
view. This being the fact, it may be readily seen how easy it would have been
for the latter-day "elaborator" to introduce the then current legend
of the Virgin Birth, borrowed from pagan sources.
As a
further internal evidence of such interpolation of outside matter, the critics
point to the fact that while the Gospel of Matthew is made to claim that Joseph
was merely the reputed father of the child of Mary, the same
Gospel, in its very first chapter (Matt. 1) gives the genealogy
of Jesus from David to Joseph the husband of Mary, in order to
prove that Jesus came from the "House of David," in accordance
with the Messianic tradition. The chapter begins with the words, "The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt.
1), and then goes on to name fourteen generations from Abraham to David;
fourteen generations from David to the days of the carrying away into Babylon;
and fourteen generations from the Babylonian days until the birth of Jesus. The
critics call attention to this recital of Jesus's descent, through
Joseph, from the House of David, which is but one of the many indications
that the original Matthew inclined quite strongly to the view that Jesus was
the Hebrew Messiah, come to reign upon the throne of David, rather than a
Divine Avatar or Incarnation.
The
critics point to the fact that if Joseph were not the real father of
Jesus, where would be the sense and purpose of proving his descent from David
through Joseph? It is pertinently asked, "Why the
necessity or purpose of the recital of Joseph's genealogy, as applied to Jesus,
if indeed Jesus were not truly the son of Joseph?" The explanation of
the critics is that the earlier writings of Matthew contained nothing regarding
the Virgin Birth, Matthew having heard nothing of this pagan legend, and that
naturally he gave the genealogy of Jesus from David and Abraham. If one omits
the verses 18-25 from Matthew's Gospel, he will see the logical relation of the
genealogy to the rest of the account—otherwise it is paradoxical, contradictory
and ridiculous, and shows the joints and seams where it has been fitted into
the older account.
"But,"
you may ask, "what of the Messianic Prophecy mentioned by Matthew (1:23)?
Surely this is a direct reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14." Let us
examine this so-called "prophecy," of which so much has been said and
see just what reference it has to the birth of
Jesus.
Turning
back to Isaiah 7, we find these words, just a little before the
"prophecy":
"Moreover
the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God;
ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not
ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David;
is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?"
(Isaiah 6:13.)
Then
comes the "prophecy": "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you
a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name
Immanuel." This is the "prophecy" quoted by the writer of the
Gospel of Matthew, and which has been quoted for centuries in Christian
churches, as a foretelling of the miraculous birth of Jesus. As a matter of
fact, intelligent theologians know that it has no reference to Jesus at all, in
any way, but belongs to another occurrence, as we shall see presently, and was
injected into the Gospel narrative merely to support the views of the writer
thereof.
It
may be well to add here that many of the best authorities hold that the Greek
translation of the Hebrew word "almah" into the equivalent of
"virgin" in the usual sense of the word is incorrect. The Hebrew word
"almah" used in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, does not
mean "virgin" as the term is usually employed, but rather "a
young woman of marriageable age—a maiden," the Hebrews having an entirely
different word for the idea of "virginity," as the term is generally
used. The word "almah" is used in other parts of the Old
Testament to indicate a "young woman—a maiden," notably in Proverbs
30:19, in the reference to "the way of a man with a maid."
But
we need not enter into discussions of this kind, say the Higher Critics, for
the so-called "prophecy" refers to an entirely different matter. It
appears, say they, that Ahaz, a weakling king of Judea, was in sore distress because
Rezin the Syrian king, and Pekah the ruler of Northern Israel, had formed an
offensive alliance against him and were moving their combined forces toward
Jerusalem. In his fear he sought an alliance with Assyria, which alliance was
disapproved of by Isaiah who remonstrated with Ahaz about the proposed move.
The king was too much unnerved by fear to listen to Isaiah's arguments and so
the latter dropped into prophecy. He prophesied, after the manner of the
Oriental seer, that the land would be laid waste and misery entailed upon
Israel, should the suicidal policy be adopted. But he held out a hope for a
brighter future after the clouds of adversity had rolled by. A new and wise
prince would arise who would bring Israel to her former glory. That prince would
be born of a young mother and his name would be Immanuel, which means "God
with us." All this had reference to things of a reasonably near future and
had no reference to the birth of Jesus some seven hundred years after,
who was not a prince sitting upon the throne of Israel, and
who did not bring national glory and renown to Israel, for such was not his
mission. Hebrew scholars and churchmen have often claimed that Isaiah's
prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Hezekiah.
There
is no evidence whatever in the Jewish history of the seven hundred years
between Isaiah and Jesus, that the Hebrews regarded Isaiah's prophecy as
relating to the expected Messiah, but on the contrary it was thought to relate
to a minor event in their history. As a Jewish writer has truly said,
"Throughout the wide extent of Jewish literature there is not a single
passage which can bear the construction that the Messiah should be miraculously
conceived." Other writers along this line have stated the same thing,
showing that the idea of a Virgin Birth was foreign to the Jewish mind, the
Hebrews having always respected and highly honored married life and human
parentage, regarding their children as blessings and gifts from God.
Another
writer in the Church has said, "Such a fable as the birth of the Messiah
from a virgin could have arisen anywhere else easier than
among the Jews; their doctrine of the divine unity placed an impassable gulf
between God and the world; their high regard for the marriage relation,"
etc., would have rendered the idea obnoxious. Other authorities agree with this
idea, and insist that the idea of the Virgin Birth never originated in Hebrew
prophecy, but was injected into the Christian Doctrine from pagan sources,
toward the end of the first century, and received credence owing to the influx
of converts from the "heathen" peoples who found in the idea a
correspondence with their former beliefs. As Rev. R.J. Campbell, minister of
the City Temple, London, says in his "New Theology," "No New
Testament passage whatever is directly or indirectly a prophecy of the virgin
birth of Jesus. To insist upon this may seem to many like beating a man of
straw, but if so, the man of straw still retains a good deal of vitality."
Let
us now turn to the second account of the Virgin Birth, in the Gospels—the only
other place that it is mentioned, outside of the story in Matthew, above
considered. We find this second mention in Luke 1:26-35, the verses having been
quoted in the first part of this lesson.
There
has been much dispute regarding the real authorship of the Gospel commonly
accredited to Luke, but it is generally agreed upon by Biblical scholars that
it was the latest of the first three Gospels (generally known as "the
Synoptic Gospels"). It is also generally agreed upon, by such scholars,
that the author, whoever he may have been, was not an eye witness of the events
in the Life of Christ. Some of the best authorities hold that he was a Gentile
(non-Hebrew), probably a Greek, for his Greek literary style is far above the
average, his vocabulary being very rich and his diction admirable. It is also
generally believed that the same hand wrote the Book of Acts. Tradition holds
that the author was one Luke, a Christian convert after the death of Jesus, who
was one of Paul's missionary band which traveled from Troas to Macedonia, and
who shared Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea; and who shared Paul's shipwreck
experiences on the voyage to Rome. He is thought to have written his Gospel
long after the death of Paul, for the benefit and instruction of one
Theophilus, a man of rank residing in Antioch.
It
is held by writers of the Higher Criticism that the account of the Virgin Birth
was either injected in Luke's narrative, by some later writer, or else that
Luke in his old age adopted this view which was beginning to gain credence
among the converted Christians of pagan origin, Luke himself being of this
class. It is pointed out that as Paul, who was Luke's close friend and teacher,
made no mention of the Virgin Birth, and taught nothing of the kind, Luke must
have acquired the legend later, if, indeed, the narrative was written by him at
all in his Gospel.
It
is likewise noted that Luke also gives a genealogy of Jesus, from Adam, through
Abraham, and David, and Joseph. The words in parenthesis "as was
supposed," in Luke 3:23, are supposed to have been inserted in the text by
a later writer, as there would be no sense or reason in tracing the genealogy
of Jesus through a "supposed" father. The verse in question reads
thusly: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," etc.
Students, of course, notice that the line of descent given by Luke differs very
materially from that given by Matthew, showing a lack of knowledge on the part
of one or the other writer.
On
the whole, scholars consider it most remarkable that this account of the Virgin
Birth should be given by Luke, who was a most ardent Pauline student and
follower, in view of the fact that Paul ignored the whole legend, if, indeed,
he had ever heard of it. Surely a man like Paul would have laid great stress
upon this wonderful event had he believed in it, or had it formed a part of the
Christian Doctrine of his time. That Luke should have written this account is a
great mystery—and many feel that it is much easier to accept the theory of the
later interpolation of the story into Luke's Gospel, particularly in view of
the corroborative indications.
Summing
up the views of the Higher Criticism, we may say that the general position
taken by the opponents and deniers of the Virgin Birth of Jesus is about as
follows:
1.
The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the introductory portion of two
of the four Gospels—Matthew and Luke—and even in these the story bears the
appearance of having been "fitted in" by later writers.
2.
Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after the statements in the
introductory part of their Gospels, which could scarcely occur had the story
been written by and believed in by the writers, such action on their part being
contrary to human custom and probability.
3.
The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the subject; the oldest
of the Gospels—that of Mark—bears no trace of the legend; and the latest
Gospel—that of John—being equally free from its mention.
4.
The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the story or
doctrine. The Book of Acts, generally accepted as having also been
written by Luke, ignores the subject completely. Paul, the teacher of Luke,
and the great writer of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely, the latter being
unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First Apostle, makes no mention of the
story or doctrine in his great Epistles, which fact is inconceivable if he knew
of and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is likewise silent upon
this doctrine which played so important a part in the later history of the
Church. The great writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke, alluded to above.
5.
There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which go to prove, either
that the story was unknown to the writers, or else not accepted by them. The
genealogies of Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David, which
depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph's actual parentage. Jesus is
repeatedly and freely mentioned as the son of Joseph. Paul and the
other Apostles hold firmly to the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of
Jesus; his Rising from the Dead; and his Ascension into Heaven, etc. But they
had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his Virgin Birth, or the
necessity for the acceptance of any such doctrine—they are absolutely silent on
this point, although they were careful men, omitting no important detail of
doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as "of the seed of David." (Rom.
1:3.)
6.
The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions or doctrine of the
Church, but was unknown to it. And it is not referred to in the preaching and
teaching of the Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of
Acts. This book, which relates the Acts and Teachings of the Apostles, could
not have inadvertently omitted such an important doctrine or point of teaching.
It is urged by careful and conscientious Christian scholars that the multitudes
converted to Christianity in the early days must have been ignorant of, or
uninformed on, this miraculous event, which would seem inexcusable on the part
of the Apostles had they known of it and believed in its truth. This condition
of affairs must have lasted until nearly the second century, when the pagan
beliefs began to filter in by reason of the great influx of pagan converts.
7.
There is every reason for believing that the legend arose from other pagan
legends, the religions of other peoples being filled with accounts of
miraculous births of heroes, gods, and prophets, kings and sages.
8.
That acceptance of the legend is not, nor should it be, a proof of belief in
Christ and Christianity. This view is well voiced by Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his
"New Theology," when he says "The credibility and significance
of Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, otherwise
than that the belief tends to put a barrier between Jesus and the race, and to
make him something that cannot properly be called human…. Like many others, I
used to take the position that acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of
the Virgin Birth was immaterial because Christianity was quite independent of
it; but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact it operates as
a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith in Jesus. The simple
and natural conclusion is that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary, and had
an uneventful childhood." The German theologian, Soltau, says,
"Whoever makes the further demand that an evangelical Christian shall
believe in the words 'conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,'
wittingly constitutes himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit and the
true Gospel as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their school in the
Apostolic Age."
And
this then is the summing up of the contention between the conservative school
of Christian theologians on the one side and the liberal and radical schools on
the other side. We have given you a statement of the positions, merely that you
may understand the problem. But, before we pass to the consideration of the
Occult Teachings, let us ask one question: How do the Higher Critics
account for the undoubted doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, as clearly stated
all through the New Testament, in view of the proofs against the Virgin
Birth? Why the frequent and repeated mention of Jesus as "the Son of
God?" What was the Secret Doctrine underlying the Divine Parentage of
Jesus, which the pagan legends corrupted into the story of the Virgin Birth of
theology? We fear that the answer is not to be found in the books and
preachments of the Higher Criticism, nor yet in those of the Conservative
Theologians. Let us now see what light the Occult Teachings can throw on this
dark subject! There is an Inner Doctrine which explains the mystery.
Now,
in the first place, there is no reference in the Occult Teaching to any
miraculous features connected with the physical birth of Jesus. It is not
expressly denied, it is true, but the Teachings contain no reference to the
matter, and all the references to the subject of Jesus' parentage speak of
Joseph as being His father, and Mary His mother. In other words, the family is
treated as being composed of father, mother and child just as is the case with
any family. The Occult Teachings go into great detail concerning the Spiritual
Sonship of Jesus, as we shall see presently, but there is no mention of
any miraculous physical conception and birth.
We
can readily understand why the Virgin Birth legend would not appeal to the
Occultists, if we will but consider the doctrines of the latter. The Occultists
pay but little attention to the physical body, except as a Temple of the
Spirit, and a habitation of the soul. The physical body, to the Occultist, is a
mere material shell, constantly changing its constituent cells, serving to
house the soul of the individual, and which when cast off and discarded is no
more than any other bit of disintegrating material. They know of the existence
of the soul separate from the body, both after the death of the latter and even
during its life, in the case of Astral Travel, etc. And in many other ways it
becomes natural for the Occultist to regard his body, and the bodies of others,
as mere "shells," to be treated well, used properly, and then
willingly discarded or exchanged for another.
In
view of the above facts, you may readily see that any theory or doctrine which
made the Absolute—God—overshadow a human woman's body and cause her to
physically conceive a child, would appear crude, barbarous, unnecessary and in
defiance of the natural laws established by the Cause of Causes. The Occultist
sees in the conception of every child, the work of the Divine Will—every
conception and birth a miracle. But he sees Natural Law underlying each,
and he believes that the Divine Will always operates under Natural Laws—the
seeming miracles and exceptions thereto, resulting from the mastery and
operation of some law not generally known. But the Occultist knows of no law
that will operate to produce conception by other than the physiological
process.
In
short, the Occultist does not regard the physical body of Jesus as
Jesus Himself—he knows that the Real Jesus is something much greater than
His body, and, consequently, he sees no more necessity for a miraculous
conception of His body than he would for a miraculous creation of His robe. The
body of Jesus was only material substance—the Real Jesus was Spirit. The
Occultists do not regard Joseph as the father of the Real Jesus—no human
being can produce or create a soul. And so, the Occultist sees no reason
for accepting the old pagan doctrine of the physical Virgin Birth which has
crept into Christianity from outside sources. To the Occultist, there is a real
Virgin Birth of an entirely different nature, as we shall see presently.
But,
not so with the people who flocked to the ranks of Christianity toward the close
of the first century—coming from pagan people, and bringing with them their
pagan legends and doctrines. These people believed that the Body was
the Real Man, and consequently attached the greatest importance to it.
These people were almost materialists as the result of their pagan views of
life. They began to exert an influence on the small body of original
Christians, and soon the original teachings were smothered by the weight of the
pagan doctrines. For instance, they failed to grasp the beautiful ideas of
Immortality held by the original Christians, which held that the soul survived
the death and disintegration of the body. They could not grasp this
transcendental truth—they did not know what was meant by the term "the
soul," and so they substituted their pagan doctrine of the
resurrection of the physical body. They believed that at some future time there
would come a great Day, in which the Dead would arise from their graves, and
become again alive. The crudeness of this idea, when compared to the beautiful
doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul of the original Christians, and by the
advanced Christians to-day, is quite painful. And yet these pagan converts
actually smothered out the true teachings by their crude doctrine of
resurrection of the body.
These
people could not understand how a man could live without his physical body, and
to them future life meant a resurrection of their dead bodies which would again
become alive. To them the dead bodies would remain dead, until the Great Day,
when they would be made alive again. There is no teaching among these people
regarding the soul which passes out of the body and lives again on higher
planes. No, nothing of this kind was known to these people—they were incapable
of such high ideas and ideals—they were materialists and were wedded to their
beloved animal bodies, and believed that their dead bodies would in some
miraculous way be made alive again at some time in the future, when they would
again live on earth.
In
view of modern knowledge regarding the nature of matter, and the fact that what
is one person's body to-day, may be a part of another's to-morrow—that matter
is constantly being converted and reconverted—that the universal material is
used to form bodies of animals, plants, men, or else dwell in chemical gases,
or combinations in inorganic things—in view of these accepted truths the
"resurrection of the body" seems a pitiful invention of the minds of
a primitive and ignorant people, and not a high spiritual teaching. In fact,
there may be many of you who would doubt that the Christians of that day so
taught, were it not for the undisputed historical records, and the remnant of
the doctrine itself embalmed in the "Apostle's Creed," in the
passage "I believe in the resurrection of the body" which
is read in the Churches daily, but which doctrine is scarcely ever taught in
these days, and is believed in by but few Christians—in fact, is ignored or
even denied by the majority.
Dr.
James Beattie has written, "Though mankind have at all times had a persuasion
of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body was a doctrine
peculiar to early Christianity." S.T. Coleridge has written, "Some of
the most influential of the early Christian writers were materialists, holding
the soul to be material—corporeal. It appears that in those days some few held
the soul to be incorporeal, according to the views of Plato and others, but
that the orthodox Christian divines looked upon this as an impious,
unscriptural opinion. Justin Martyr argued against the Platonic nature of the
soul. And even some latter-day writers have not hesitated to express their
views on the subject, agreeing with the earlier orthodox brethren. For
instance, Dr. R.S. Candlish has said,
"You
live again in the body,—in the very body, as to all essential properties, and
to all practical intents and purposes, in which you live now. I am not
to live as a ghost, a spectre, a spirit, I am to live then as I live now, in
the body."
The
reason that the early Church laid so much stress on this doctrine of the
Resurrection of the Body, was because an inner sect, the Gnostics, held to the
contrary, and the partisan spirit of the majority swung them to the other
extreme, until they utterly denied any other idea, and insisted upon the
resurrection and re-vitalizing of the physical body. But, in spite of the
official fostering of this crude theory, it gradually sank into actual
insignificance, although its shadow still persists in creed and word. Its
spirit has retreated and passed away before the advancing idea of the
Immortality of the Soul which returned again and again to Christianity until it
won the victory. And as Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt has said, in his article on the
subject in a leading encyclopaedia, "… The doctrine of the natural immortality
of the human soul became so important a part of Christian thought that the
resurrection naturally lost its vital significance, and it has practically held
no place in the great systems of philosophy elaborated by the Christian
thinkers in modern times." And, yet, the Church continues to repeat the
now meaningless words, "I believe in the Resurrection of the Body."
And while practically no one now believes it, still the recital of the words,
and the statement of one's belief in them, forms a necessary requisite for
admission into the Christian Church to-day. Such is the persistent hold of dead
forms, and thoughts, upon living people.
And,
so you can readily see from what has been said, why the early Christians, about
the close of the first century A.D., attached so much importance to the
physical conception and birth of Jesus. To them the physical body of
Jesus was Jesus Himself. The rest follows naturally, including the Virgin Birth
and the Physical Resurrection. We trust that you now understand this part of the
subject.
We
have heard devout Christians shocked at the idea that Jesus was born of a human
father and mother, in the natural way of the race. They seemed to think that it
savored of impurity. Such a notion is the result of a perverted idea of the sacredness
of natural functions—a seeing of impurity—where all is pure. What a perversion,
this regarding the sacredness of human Fatherhood, and Motherhood, as impure!
The man of true spirituality sees in the Divine Trinity of Father, Mother and
Child, something most pure and sacred—something that brings man very close
indeed to God. Is the beautiful babe, held close in its mother's fond embrace,
a symbol and type of impurity? Is the watchful care and love of the Father of
the babe, an impure result of an impure cause? Does not one's own heart tell
him the contrary? Look at the well known picture of the Journey to Egypt, with
Mary carrying the babe, and both guarded and protected by the husband and
father—Joseph—is this not a beautiful symbol of the sacredness of Parenthood?
We trust that the majority of those who read these pages have advanced
spiritually beyond the point where The Family is a thing of impure suggestion
and relationship.
And,
now, what are the Occult Teachings—the Secret Doctrine—regarding the Real
Virgin Birth of Jesus? Just this: that the Spirit of Jesus was fresh from the
bosom of the Absolute—Spirit of SPIRIT—a Virgin Birth of Spirit. His Spirit had
not traveled the weary upward path of Reincarnation and repeated Rebirth, but
was Virgin Spirit fresh from the SPIRIT—a very Son of the Father—begotten not
created. This Virgin Spirit was incarnated in His body, and there began the
life of Man, not fully aware of His own nature, but gradually awakening into
knowledge just as does every human soul, until at last the true nature of His
Being burst upon him, and he saw that he indeed was God incarnate. In his short
life of thirty-three years—thirty years of preparation, and three years of
ministry, Jesus typified and symbolized the Life of the Race. Just as he
awakened into a perception of his Divine Nature, so shall the race awaken in
time. Every act in the Life of Jesus typified and symbolized the life of every
individual soul, and of the race. We all have our Garden of Gethsemane—each is
Crucified, and Ascends to Higher Planes. This is the Occult Doctrine of the
Virgin Birth of Christ. Is it not a worthy one—is it not at least a higher
conception of the human mind, than the physical Virgin Birth legend?
As
we proceed with our lessons, we shall bring out the details of the Occult
Teachings concerning the Divine Nature of Christ—the Spirit within the Human
Form. And, in these references and instruction, you will see even more clearly
that nature of the Spiritual Virgin Birth of Jesus.
The
original Christians were instructed in the Truth concerning the Virgin Birth,
that is, those who were sufficiently intelligent to grasp it. But after the
great Teachers passed away, and their successors became overzealous in their
desire to convert the outside peoples, the influx of the latter gradually
overcame the original teachings, and the physical Virgin Birth and the
Resurrection of the Body, became Doctrines and Articles of Faith, held of vital
importance by the new orthodox leaders. It has taken centuries of mental
struggle, and spiritual unfoldment to bring the Light of the Truth to bear upon
this dark corner of the Faith, but the work is now fairly under way, and the
great minds in the Church, as well as those out of the Church, are beginning to
lay the old legend aside as a worn out relic of primitive days when the cloud
of Ignorance overshadowed the Light of Truth.
In
concluding this lesson, let us glance once more at the words of the eminent
divine, Dr. Campbell, in his New Theology, in which he states:
"But
why hesitate about the question? The greatness of Jesus and the value of his
revelation to mankind are in no way either assisted or diminished by the manner
of his entry into the world. Every birth is just as wonderful as a virgin birth
could possibly be, and just as much a direct act of God. A supernatural
conception bears no relation whatever to the moral and spiritual worth of the
person who is supposed to enter the world in this abnormal way…. Those who
insist on the doctrine will find themselves in danger of proving too much, for
pressed to its logical conclusion, it removes Jesus altogether from the
category of humanity in any real sense."
Let
us trust that these Higher Critics may become informed upon the truths of the
Occult Teachings, which supply the Missing Key, and afford the Reconciliation,
and which show how and why Jesus is, in all and very truth, THE SON OF GOD,
begotten and not created, of one substance from the Father—a particle of Purest
Spirit fresh from the Ocean of Spirit, and free from the Karma of past
Incarnations—how He was human and yet more than human.
In
our next lesson we shall take up the narrative of the secret life of Jesus from
the time of his appearance, as a child at the Temple, among the Elders, until
when at the age of thirty years he appeared at the scene of the ministry of
John the Baptist, and began his own brief ministry of three years which was
closed by the Crucifixion and Ascension. This is a phase of the subject of
intense interest, and startling nature, because of the lack of knowledge of the
occult traditions on the part of the general public.
NEXT CHAPTER
Comments
Post a Comment