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 inhose of the
Conservative Theol togians. 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.
