Most Theosophists and New Agers, if asked this question, would answer with a resounding “Yes!” If asked to provide firm and verifiable evidence to back up the claim, however, they would be likely to flounder. Many Theosophists would simply point to statements in which H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge say it is so, since many unfortunately prefer not to make the effort of reading and investigating ancient source texts for themselves.

On the other hand, the majority of Christians would answer the question with a resounding “No!” They would be able to provide genuine and verifiable quotations from Origen, in which he asserts his opposition to the doctrine of reincarnation.

But the real truth of the matter actually lies somewhere in the middle and is much less simplistic than we might like.

The fact is that Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-253 A.D.), one of the early Church Fathers, did not teach or propose anything resembling the Theosophical or any other known doctrines of reincarnation.

He expressly denied that we can be born more than once in any “world system” or planetary epoch. He affirmed that the soul can go from embodiment as a human in one world system to an angel in the next, back to a human again in the succeeding, or even a demon, etc., depending on what one’s actions have merited. Since he disbelieved in multiple incarnations in any one world, and since he thought the popular notion of human souls being reincarnated as animals for bad behaviour was abhorrent, and as the successive lives he proposed were likely to be hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of years apart, he wrote that he did not endorse the view of metempsychosis, as reincarnation or rebirth was called in Greek. Technically speaking, he did endorse a type of reincarnation but it was not the type of reincarnation that we know of, nor did he himself think of it as reincarnation. He spent quite a lot of time criticising and attempting to refute the idea of reincarnation as we typically understand it.

He affirmed the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, as opposed to the notion that the soul is non-existent until its body starts to develop in the womb, which latter notion is now the position officially held by all branches of the Christian Church. But contrary to popular opinion, pre-existence does not necessarily automatically equate to reincarnation. One can believe in pre-existence without believing in rebirth (and indeed many do) but one cannot believe in rebirth without pre-existence.

Further, he repeatedly made very clear that all we have enumerated above were merely “speculations” on his part and that he was not presenting them as authoritative metaphysical facts or definite doctrines.

It was the later “Origenists,” led by Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 A.D.), who did away with Origen’s great cautiousness and tentativeness of expression, and proclaimed that his speculations were indeed the truth and should be taken as authoritative doctrine. They also developed many of Origen’s ideas, thus creating a richer and more complex metaphysical system. It was primarily in response to these later Origenists that the infamous anathemas condemning Origenism were pronounced in the 6th century.

Neither Origen’s own speculations, nor those of Evagrius and co. had much, if any, impact on the Church at large. Before them, the Church was not teaching anything that we students of Theosophy would class as reincarnation and nor did it do so afterwards, for not only was Origen’s and Evagrius’s audience a very limited one (largely confined to the philosophical intelligentsia among the other Fathers and Bishops) but they themselves did not teach that which Theosophy would consider reincarnation.

Seeing as Origen (and his teacher, Clement of Alexandria) said that Jesus had a secret, esoteric teaching which had been preserved with equal inviolable secrecy among the more spiritually mature and capable members of the Church (see Church Fathers on the Secret Teachings of Jesus), we cannot discount the possibility that (a) Jesus secretly taught reincarnation in a way resembling the Theosophical teachings on the matter (just as Blavatsky said he did), (b) Origen was himself initiated into this knowledge (seeing as he seemed to know a lot about it and was confident in affirming its existence), (c) What he presented to the public as his cautious and very tentatively worded “speculations” were merely the limit to which he felt he could go in partially revealing, in an obscured manner, some portions of the esoteric wisdom of his ever-living Master. Of course, this too is a speculation, but it sounds plausible, at least to Theosophical ears.

The above answers the whole question in brief. But for those who would like to explore it more deeply, let’s now do so.

“There was not a philosopher of any notoriety who did not hold to this doctrine of metempsychosis [i.e. transmigration or reincarnation], as taught by the Brahmans, Buddhists, and later by the Pythagoreans, in its esoteric sense, whether he expressed it more or less intelligibly. Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, Synesius and Chalcidius, all believed in it; and the Gnostics, who are unhesitatingly proclaimed by history as a body of the most refined, learned, and enlightened men, were all believers in metempsychosis. Socrates entertained opinions identical with those of Pythagoras; and both, as the penalty of their divine philosophy, were put to a violent death.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 1, p. 12)

“The lost chord of Christianity is the doctrine of Reincarnation. It was beyond doubt taught in the early days of the cult, for it was well known to the Jews who produced the men who founded Christianity. The greatest of all the Fathers of the Church — Origen — no doubt believed in the doctrine. He taught pre-existence and the wandering of the soul. This could hardly have been believed without also giving currency to reincarnation, as the soul could scarcely wander in any place save the earth.” (William Q. Judge, “Reincarnation in Judaism and The Bible”)

“The doctrine of reincarnation . . . we find . . . later such great Christian fathers as Origen, Synesius, and others believing and teaching the theory.” (WQJ, “The Ocean of Theosophy” p. 63)

We see that William Judge (a close colleague of H. P. Blavatsky and a co-founder with her of the Theosophical Society) states that:

* Reincarnation “was beyond doubt taught in the early days of” Christianity.

But if this is so, why is there no clear evidence at all to back it up, apart from a couple of remarks by Synesius, who only became a bishop very reluctantly and with great protest, and who openly declared himself a Neoplatonist who subscribed to Neoplatonist ideas and discarded those aspects of Christianity which he felt did not harmonise with it? Synesius himself acknowledges that reincarnation – which he understood in a manner roughly similar to that accepted by Theosophy – was not taught in Christianity and that he believed it only because of his Neoplatonism. He lived from the 4th to 5th century and was born almost 200 years after Origen. If Origen had truly taught reincarnation in his writings, Synesius – who knew his work well and appreciated it – would surely have asserted or mentioned that? Origen’s work was not declared heretical until 130 years after Synesius’ death. 

* Reincarnation “was well known to the Jews who produced the men who founded Christianity.”

In reality, no historian, scholar, professor, or expert on this subject believes that reincarnation was either widely accepted or even widely known of among the Jews of Jesus’ time. A knowledge of chronology is something very important and useful, for it reveals a lot and can guard against making false assumptions. For example, one may hear it said that Jewish Kabbalah teaches reincarnation and that there are many Jews today – primarily among the Hasidic or “ultra-orthodox” – who believe it. The Zohar – the main Kabbalistic text – is often cited as propounding reincarnation. All this is true . . . but we are mistaken if we believe any of that was around in Jesus’ time.

While some of the ideas that became embodied in it were certainly around before (since they originate in the text of the Jewish Bible, or the “Old” Testament, esoterically interpreted), Kabbalah as we know it began in a small and gradual way during the century or so after Jesus Christ but this stage of Kabbalistic exposition is known as proto-Kabbalah rather than full-blown Kabbalah as it exists today. The earliest known Kabbalistic book, Sefer Yetzirah, is dated anywhere from the 1st to 9th centuries A.D., though the majority of scholars take the 3rd to 6th centuries as most likely. The Sefer Yetzirah does not teach or mention reincarnation of any sort. Nor do the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the Mishnah, or the Talmud.

Many Theosophists know the Hebrew term Gilgul, meaning reincarnation, but there is no evidence that Jews in Jesus’ time were speaking or thinking of Gilgul, not until over a whole millennium later. Gilgul first appears in the Sefer HaBahir, a 12th century Kabbalistic work. Full-blown Kabbalah really started in the 13th century, with the appearance of the Zohar, which elaborated on it at some length.

Some Kabbalists say that knowledge of reincarnation was kept secret among the initiated until that time, while historians suggest there is evidence of Kabbalists developing the teaching after absorbing it through Islamic and Neoplatonic philosophical discourse. Whichever scenario may be true, reincarnation was therefore not “well known to the Jews who produced the men who founded Christianity.”

The only ancient source who would suggest otherwise is 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote – in a work intended for Graeco-Roman audiences – that the Jewish sects known as the Pharisees and the Essenes both believed in one or another expression of reincarnation. Most scholars believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that he was merely using the Greek term metampsykhosis (or metempsychosis) in order to attempt to explain the much more traditional and all-pervasive Jewish doctrine of the general Resurrection of all the deceased at the Last Day, when all are said to return to their spiritually revivified bodies on this Earth in order to receive final Judgment. This Resurrection doctrine is also held, with slight variations, by the two other Abrahamic religions – Christianity (Jesus himself, the Apostle Paul, and all the Apostles and Church Fathers repeatedly taught it) and Islam – as well as Zoroastrianism. Notably, those four religions which believe in the coming Resurrection are the same religions which most disbelieve or reject or ignore the idea of reincarnation, largely because it appears superfluous and incompatible with the doctrine of Resurrection.

Kabbalists, however, believe both, but in an extremely complex way that many would consider far-fetched. If the Pharisees and Essenes did actually believe in reincarnation and not only Resurrection, we have no direct textual evidence to support it. The doctrines of the Pharisees were written down in the Mishnah and Talmud after the time of Josephus and they do not even hint at reincarnation. Likewise, the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran between 1946-1947 are widely believed to almost certainly contain the library of the Essene community but they do not teach or mention reincarnation.

Since people from all over the world were regularly coming to Judaea 2,000 years ago, we know there would have been many Greeks there, and thus the Platonic and Pythagorean concepts of rebirth would occasionally have found mention in Jewish society, so it is surely the case that some Jews – most likely a small minority – would at least have heard of the idea of reincarnation, but we can only vaguely speculate about that.

* “Origen — no doubt believed in the doctrine. He taught pre-existence and the wandering of the soul. This could hardly have been believed without also giving currency to reincarnation, as the soul could scarcely wander in any place save the earth.”

Here, Judge seems to perhaps be admitting that he has no solid proof that Origen did teach reincarnation but he acknowledges that which no-one has ever questioned or challenged: the fact that Origen taught the pre-existence of the soul. But Judge does not perceive how there could be pre-existence without reincarnation. Yet Origen’s known writings, which it appears Judge had not read before making his remarks, clearly maintain pre-existence without reincarnation. It was his doctrines of pre-existence of the soul and one we have not mentioned yet – universal salvation or universal reconciliation (the idea that hell is not literally eternal, even though it may be extraordinarily long and awful, but that all beings can and will eventually accept the love of God in Jesus Christ and be united – or in Origen’s thought, reunited – with Him; this is commonly spoken of as Christian Universalism) – which were denounced and condemned as heretical at the oft-mentioned Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., 300 years after Origen’s death.

Reincarnation, metempsychosis, or transmigration was not even mentioned at the Council. If Origen had indeed taught reincarnation, surely it would have been specifically mentioned on such a significant occasion as this anathematising? Surely the bishops and officials involved would want to make it perfectly clear? But they did not, for the simple reason that they – who had closely scrutinised his writings – knew that he did not teach reincarnation in them. They knew that he had instead dismissed reincarnation (metempsychosis) as a false theory, which we will show in direct quotations later. It was his proclivities for pre-existence and universalism which drew their ire.

Of course, it is the case that seeing as the soul’s pre-existence prior to this life we are now living on Earth was declared to be a heresy, any notions of reincarnation must of necessity be classed as heretical too. Hence a condemnation of reincarnation is unspoken but implicit in the Council’s ruling, even though it was not on the conveners’ minds, seeing as Origen had made clear he did not believe in it.

His idea of there “possibly” being successive embodiments in successive worlds – one embodiment per world-system, with vast periods between – did not count as reincarnation in the Council’s eyes, just as it did not in his.

There can be no RE-incarnation without PRE-existence. But there can be pre-existence without reincarnation . . . and this was largely the model which Origen had adopted and promulgated, and which had been considered and speculated upon by a few other early Church Fathers, though never to the same degree or extent as Origen. The idea of pre-existence minus reincarnation was more commonly found in Jewish thought around that time – such as in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who was a very great influence on Origen’s ideas, and also, according to Josephus, in the teachings of the Essenes – but was not part of the conventional, mainstream beliefs of Judaism.

How can there be “pre-existence and the wandering of the soul” without reincarnation? Simple: there are a myriad of spiritual realms, and the metaphysical levels of existence are vastly more numerous and diverse than this dense physical plane.

Origen taught, as does Theosophy, that we are in actuality spiritual beings. We were produced from God, he thought, and dwelt harmoniously with God in high heavenly realms, until we began to “fall” and be drawn more and more, through our ignorance and growing weakness, towards the material plane. This process may take more years of Earth time than we can even imagine, though in the non-physical worlds, time is experienced completely differently, if at all. The successive arrival, over the millennia, of souls being born into this world, marks the culmination of the fall of that particular soul from its heavenly home.

The fallen soul is psyche, but psyche is just a cooled or chilled nous, and still has the noetic, spiritual potential latent within it. The aim of the Christian life here on Earth is to restore our relationship with “Our Father in Heaven,” something made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This will be our only life on this Earth; where we go immediately afterwards will be determined by how we lived while here, but even an apparently everlasting hell will not be absolutely eternal (and will be a therapeutic and purgative fire, albeit unavoidably very painful to experience), for all will in time find their way back to “the Father’s House.”

This, in short, is Origen’s teaching.

Elsewhere in “The Ocean of Theosophy” (p. 64, 70) we read:

“For five hundred years after Jesus the doctrine [of reincarnation] was taught in the church until the council of Constantinople. [This is not true.] Then a condemnation was passed upon a phase of the question which has been regarded by many as against reïncarnation, but if that condemnation goes against the words of Jesus it is of no effect. It does go against him [Can this be proven clearly and definitively from the Four Gospels?], . . . Christianity is a Jewish religion, and this doctrine of reïncarnation belongs to it historically by succession from the Jews, [We have shown that this latter point is not true; it also cannot justifiably be said that Christianity today “is a Jewish religion” even though it undoubtedly started off that way.] and also by reason of its having been taught by Jesus and the early fathers of the church [The arguments used by Blavatsky, Judge, and other Theosophists for Jesus teaching reincarnation within the Four Gospels carry little to no weight with those who understand the textual and religio-cultural context and background of the various statements in the Gospels. We have also made clear that reincarnation was not “taught by the early fathers of the church.”] If there be any truthful or logical way for the Christian church to get out of this position — excluding, of course, dogmas of the church — the theosophist would like to be shown it.” [The truthful and logical way is by pointing out the facts as we are attempting to do in this article. Since it never occurs to many Theosophists that despite their greatness and occult status, HPB and WQJ may have unwittingly made misstatements and held misunderstandings about various things, just like all fallible humans do, most never feel inclined to explore and investigate things for themselves.]

“In the West . . . a blind fear of the anathema hurled at reïncarnation in the Constantinople council about 500 A.D. [It was not “hurled at reincarnation,” as explained above, for that is not what the Council was about and not what Origen taught.] would alone debar them from accepting the accursed theory [of reincarnation].”

Anyone who is familiar with the Bible will have noticed that most of Origen’s doctrine, which we summarised a moment ago, cannot be found therein nor readily deduced therefrom. Origen readily assented to this, acknowledging that he was only putting forth a speculative theory which he had himself devised, rather than an authoritative dogma. But since he believed in reading and understanding the Scriptures in primarily an allegorical way, he saw more textual basis for his theories than we might perceive today. Origen’s theology was predominantly a form of speculative philosophy with a quasi-Platonist colouring.

Many Theosophists, who have typically never read either Origen or the Gnostic Gospels for themselves, are inclined to assume that Origen was a Gnostic or at least in sympathy and agreement with many of the Gnostic ideas. But he was not. Origen, like all the Church Fathers known to us, and like Jesus’ own Apostles themselves (as evidenced by the warnings in the epistles of St. Paul and St. John, for example), was strongly opposed to Gnosticism. The Neoplatonists were also against Gnosticism, and Plotinus spent much time and energy attempting to refute their core doctrines and principles.

As for Origen, he actively worked to convert people from Gnosticism to the Christianity of the Church. To him, Gnosticism could not legitimately be considered Christianity, but was a harmful pagan cult whose ideas showed itself to be, in reality, anti-Christ. He described Gnostics as “wallowing in the darkness of ignorance” and engaged in a protracted refutation of the teachings of Valentinian Gnosticism in particular, even though Valentinianism could be described as a more moderate form of Gnosticism and was particularly respected by H. P. Blavatsky.

At the same time, Origen – and particularly his teacher, Clement of Alexandria – did use the terms “Gnostic” and “Gnosis” in a positive sense (as also did the Apostle Paul) for they did recognise the existence and preservation of secret, initiatic teachings of Jesus, but they held that these were maintained in strict secrecy within the orthodox or official Christian Church, and not to be found in the heterodox Gnostic sects or Gnostic Gospels.

A distinction can thus be made linguistically between Christian Gnosis and Gnostic Christianity. Clement, Origen, and others promoted Christian Gnosis, with the supreme emphasis on it being “Christian.” The various groups and schools such as the Valentinians, Basilidians, Sethians, Ophites, Marcionites, Marcosians, and many more besides, promoted Gnostic Christianity, placing the “Gnostic” aspect in primacy over and well above that of “Christianity.”

Referring to the very early proto-Gnostic ideas and schools of thought which were the precursor of those we have just enumerated, St. Paul advises his spiritual son Timothy: “Guard carefully what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the profane chatter and the contradictions of what is falsely called Gnosis. By professing it, some people have strayed far from the faith.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

Those commonly referred to as the Gnostics did, for the most part, believe in and teach reincarnation. They held that they derived this knowledge from the Gnostic Gospels, which they maintained were legitimate records of the words of Christ. It’s thought by most that they instead derived this doctrine from the Greek philosophical traditions of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and Orphism, by which they were clearly influenced.

Although Origen was influenced by Platonism and is sometimes described as a Christian Platonist, he rejected any Platonist teachings which he felt were unsupported by the teachings of Christ and Christianity, and this included Plato’s conception of reincarnation. A Christian Platonist by definition gives pre-eminence to the Christian teachings whenever the Platonic ones appear to conflict with them.

As for the basic idea behind the pre-existence of the soul, one may understandably wonder why the vast majority of Christians both then and now are so strongly opposed to it.

Not only does it seem more reasonable than its alternative – i.e. that our inner, spiritual nature had no existence whatsoever, or anywhere, until our conception, when we began to be formed bodily in the womb – but pre-existence of one kind or another appears much better attested to in the Bible than its alternative. For example:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” (Ephesians 1:4)

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29)

“. . . in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised before time began, . . .” (Titus 1:2)

“When Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” (Romans 9:10-13)

And the most clear and undeniable example, from the Book of Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon, one of numerous books annexed from the Bible by Martin Luther at the birth of Protestantism in the 16th century and classed as “apocrypha” and “uninspired,” yet still an integral part of the Bible as read by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox:

“As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.” (Wisdom 8:19-20)

Aside from the last quote, which is more difficult to explain away, such passages as the others are typically explained by Christians as meaning that God in His omniscience knew us long in advance, and was aware from all eternity that each one of us would one day exist, even though we did not actually exist outside of God’s infinite foreknowledge until we were conceived in our mother’s womb.

The other main verse suggestive of the pre-existence of the soul is one often cited by H. P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge, and many others – both Theosophists, those in the New Age Movement, and otherwise – as expressing belief in reincarnation among Jesus’ disciples:

“And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”” (John 9:2)

A man born blind could only have sinned as a causal factor in his congenital blindness if he had existed somewhere – as a thinking, acting being – prior to his conception and birth. We usually automatically assume that this is pointing to reincarnation. But the consensus of those who are actually familiar with the Jewish thought of that era is that a belief in pre-existence – minus reincarnation – is implied here, for if it was implying reincarnation, it would be very much an anomaly for the context and culture of that time.

Judge argues that because Jesus does not rebuke his disciples or say that such an idea is fallacious, we can confidently conclude that Jesus taught reincarnation. As is hopefully clear by now, this is quite a leap. We will come on to Jesus’ declarations of John the Baptist being “Elijah come again” later. Jesus’ response to the question of his pupils is recorded as:

“It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.” (John 9:3)

Many see this as Jesus saying “The idea that this man himself could have sinned before his birth is a mistaken one.” But the wording is too vague to definitively read that into it. It could equally be read as meaning “Such a thing is a possibility but it is not so in this particular case.”

But why exactly is the idea of pre-existence deemed so fallacious and heretical among Christians? It mostly stems from the wording of Genesis 2:7:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The literal implication is that the “living soul” of man did not exist until his earthly body was brought to life. Then, “man became a living soul.” However, all the modern translations of the Bible say instead that man then “became a living being” . . . which rather undoes or at least brings into question the argument that the soul itself does not exist before the body.

But even if it were to truly mean “soul,” this is still not a compelling argument from the Christian standpoint, for doesn’t the New Testament make clear that we are tripartite beings, who possess a spirit as an aspect of our inner being distinct from and higher in nature than the soul? (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, Luke 1:46-47) It was only during the 4th and 5th centuries that Christianity largely gave up the tripartite view, under the influence of St. Augustine of Hippo, who favoured a simple dichotomy of soul and body, in which the terms “spirit” and “soul” became essentially synonymous. The spiritual understanding of many Westerners still suffers from the far-reaching effects of this.

Soul – nephesh in Hebrew, psyche in Greek – is recognised in Christian theology as the personal consciousness and life-force; the personal identity, intermeshed with the body during life; the seat of thought, will, and feeling, or mind, will, and emotions; and as being the personal, corruptible mind and consciousness. It thus matches extremely closely the Lower Manas principle spoken of in Theosophical literature. Meanwhile, spirit – ruach in Hebrew, pneuma in Greek – is asserted by the ancient theologians to be incorruptible, celestial, and of divine origin, made in the image and likeness of God, and capable of communing with God and receiving the Holy Spirit.

If we accept these definitions, we can well believe that the soul does not have any existence prior to the body. But we cannot apply the same rule to the spirit.

No Christian denies the pre-existence of Christ. This is the one instance in which pre-existence is officially believed. However, it is not the human soul and spirit of Christ which are conventionally said to have been pre-existent, but rather His higher identity as the Divine Logos or Eternal Word; God the Son, the Only-Begotten offspring of God the Father. As the opening verses of the Gospel according to St. John famously say:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God;  all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . . No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (John 1:1-3, 14, 18)

Origen, in his proposals of the now-heretical doctrine of the pre-existence of all souls, saw things somewhat differently. He could not accept that a human soul and human spirit would be created by God the Father from scratch, or “out of nothing,” for the descending Logos to be clothed with in the womb, for if all spiritual beings pre-exist their bodies, so too must the being who became the human Jesus. For Origen then, there were two different entities to consider before the divine Incarnation: there was the Logos (the “Son” or manifested Image, Thought, and Self-Expression of the unmanifested, ever-concealed “Father”) and there was the highest, purest nous or created spiritual being of all; the only one who had never fallen from his original, high heavenly state, and whose contemplation and adoration of the Father had never ceased. This pure being was thus chosen to incarnate in the womb of Mary, to be wholly united with the Logos, and to rescue all the souls who had fallen but who still innately belonged to and with God.

St. Jerome’s “Apology against Rufinus” is sometimes quoted by those seeking to demonstrate that Origen taught reincarnation as it is now commonly understood, showing Jerome (4th to 5th century) lamenting that according to Origen’s teaching “we may have to fear that we who are now men may afterwards be born women, and one who is now a virgin may chance then to be a prostitute. These things I point out as heresies in the book of Origen.” But it’s important to note, however, that Jerome says that Origen teaches that these rebirths will take place not on this, our present Earth, but in the far distant future, when in a new cosmic manifestation a new world is brought into being. He does not claim that Origen thought we will be periodically reincarnated in this world.

Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that Jerome – whether deliberately or otherwise – often greatly distorted and misrepresented Origen’s message.

It is in his “Contra Celsum” or “Against Celsus” that Origen makes some of his numerous denials of the reality of reincarnation. Remember that, as explained earlier, what he is denying is the doctrine of metempsychosis as it was then commonly understood: the belief that we periodically reincarnate in this world as humans but sometimes, in response to evil conduct, are reborn into the animal kingdom. Origen wrote that the soul is never born twice in the same world-system or great epoch. For example:

“[The Incarnation of Jesus Christ] took place not according to the metempsychosis of Plato, but agreeably to another and higher view of things.” (Book 4, Ch. 17)

“The entrance of souls into bodies is not through transmigration from one body into another.” (Book 5, Ch. 29)

“Transmigration is simply a mythical doctrine. . . . And if the Egyptians related fables about such things, pagan philosophers will believe them to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; yet if Moses composed and left behind him histories and solid laws for the practical benefit of an entire nation, these are considered by them as empty fables!” (Book 1, Ch. 20)

For many who wish to find definitive affirmation of reincarnation in the Bible, the prime evidence is Jesus’ repeated testimony in the Gospels that John the Baptist is himself Elijah (the celebrated Old Testament prophet) and that the return of Elijah among men as a forerunner of the Messiah, promised by later Old Testament prophets, was fulfilled in John the Baptist. It may surprise Theosophists, who often use such verses as a proof text, to know that Origen strongly disagreed that Jesus’ words in this regard referred to reincarnation or the re-embodiment of Elijah’s soul. He devotes quite a lot of time to discussing it and to criticising at the same time the idea of reincarnation as we typically understand it:

“There shall be the exaction of a penalty for people’s sins, but not by way of transmigration; for, . . . they will be punished after this by a different form of punishment, . . . the better scenario is that there is just one form of punishment for those who have sinned in the body, namely, that they should suffer outside of the body – that is, outside the constitution of earthly life – whatever they deserve in accordance with their sins.  But to one who has insight into the nature of things, it is clear that each of these ideas is fitted to overturn the doctrine of transmigration.  But if, of necessity, the Greeks who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down ideas in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is heading towards corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked our Scriptures straight in the face, which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them, or invent a series of arguments in favour of their own interpretation of what the Scriptures say; which even if they wish they will not be able to do.”

“For if it is true, for argument’s sake, that in the constitution of things which has existed from the beginning unto the end of the world, the same soul can be twice in a body, why exactly should this happen? Why should that be a necessary rule? If, because of sin, it has to be twice in a body, surely it will need to be thrice, and over again repeatedly, if punishments relating to earthly life and for the sins committed in it can be rendered to it only by the method of transmigration?  But if this be the case, presumably there will never be a time when a soul shall not undergo transmigration:  for because one cannot live without sinning, it will always be dwelling in body after body; and so there will never be an opportunity for the corruption of the world to come about, at which “the heaven and the earth shall pass away.” And if it be granted, on this hypothesis, that one who is absolutely sinless shall no longer be reborn into a body, after what unimaginably vast length of time do you suppose that a soul shall finally be found absolutely pure and needing no further transmigration?”

“It does not appear to me that by John the Baptist being Elijah the soul is spoken of, for that would be to fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and has not been handed down to us by the Apostles, nor is it anywhere set forth in the Scriptures.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 13)

“And [John 1:21] they asked him [i.e. John the Baptist], “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” No-one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John [Matthew 11:14], “If you will receive it, this is Elijah who was to come.” Why, then, does John say to those who ask him, “Are you Elijah?” “I am not.” And how can it be also true that John is Elijah who was to come, according to the words of Malachi [Malachi 4:5-6], “And behold I send unto you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and notable day of the Lord comes, . . .” The words of the angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias [i.e. John’s father] . . . are similar to the prophecy of Malachi . . . “And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.” [Luke 1:17] As for the first point, one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. That will be the explanation chosen by those who find in these passages a support for transmigration, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and implausibly forgot its former lives. . . . However, a Christian, who repudiates the doctrine of transmigration as a false belief, and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah. . . .

“As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a way their property, as “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” [1 Corinthians 14:32] and “The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha” [2 Kings 2:15]. We therefore say that there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called “Elijah who was to come.”

“If the doctrine of reincarnation was widely current in that place and time, surely John would have hesitated in answering the question of whether he was Elijah, or would have confessed that he did not know, in case it may have actually been the case? Here the Christian will appeal to history and will say to his antagonists: Go to the experts on the esoteric doctrines of the Hebrews. Ask them if they really hold to such a belief. For if it should turn out that they do not, the argument based on that supposition is proven to be baseless.” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6)

We quoted earlier from “The Ocean of Theosophy” a blanket statement by William Judge that the early Church Fathers taught reincarnation. We have now demonstrated quite painstakingly that Origen did not teach anything that we Theosophists would readily recognise as the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation. We have seen his efforts to critique and refute the latter. It would be worthwhile now to quote from three other Church Fathers, all much more prominent and respected than Origen was. These men were some of the leading “giants” of patristic thought. Many of us will not agree with their conclusions but it can be profitable to understand their arguments, some of which – particularly those presented by Irenaeus – are quite challenging and thought-provoking.

“We are capable of doing away with the doctrine of reincarnation by this fact: souls remember nothing of the events that took place in their supposed previous lives. If they were sent forth into incarnation with the object that they should learn and grow through experience, they surely must of a necessity remember those things they have previously accomplished, so that they might be able to fill up those in which they are still deficient, and not hover endlessly around the same old pursuits, spending their life wretchedly in vain without even realising it, especially seeing as they are said to have returned to the world for that very purpose. It is implausible that the mere union of an immortal soul with a mortal body could extinguish all memory and reflection on those things which had formerly been experienced. With regard to these objections, Plato, that ancient Athenian, who was the first to introduce this opinion, invented the notion of the soul drinking from a cup of oblivion [of memory] before rebirth, imagining that in this way he could escape the contradictions. He offered no proof but simply replied dogmatically that this is what happens when souls enter into this life, . . . He didn’t realise that by this he fell into an even greater contradiction. For if the cup of oblivion obliterates all memory of the past experiences, how can you know, O Plato, that such a thing is so?” (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 2:33:1-2, c. 189 A.D.)

“If it is possible, as the followers of Pythagoras and others say, for human souls to pass into different bodies, why may they not return to and reanimate the very one which they have left [i.e. if such a thing as reincarnation is possible, why should not the Judaeo-Christian teaching of the general Resurrection of all souls in their one deceased body be equally as likely in its stead]?” (Tertullian, Apology 48, 197 A.D.)

St. Augustine, though deeply appreciative of Platonism and Neoplatonism in general, speaks in his famous work “The City of God” on “the irreligion of those who maintain that souls which partake of supreme and true happiness will return again and again in periodic cycles to the same miseries and toils.” In Book XII, ch. 20, he elaborates:

“What pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spent in so many and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should be called a life at all which is rather a death, . . .) that after evils so disastrous, and miseries of all kinds have at length been expiated and finished by the help of true religion and wisdom, and when we have thus attained to the vision of God, and have entered into bliss by the contemplation of spiritual light and participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to attain — that we must at some time lose all this, and that they who do lose it are cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity to infernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in accursed woes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and happiness sought in iniquitous impurities? And that this will happen endlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals, and in regularly returning periods? And that this everlasting and ceaseless revolution of definite cycles, which remove and restore true misery and deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived in order that God may be able to know His own works, since on the one hand He cannot rest from creating and on the other, cannot know the infinite number of His creatures, if He always makes creatures? Who, I say, can listen to such things? Who can accept or suffer them to be spoken? Were they true, it were not only more prudent to keep silence regarding them, but even (to express myself as best I can) it were the part of wisdom not to know them. For if in the future world we shall not remember these things, and by this oblivion be blessed, why should we now increase our misery, already burdensome enough, by the knowledge of them? If, on the other hand, the knowledge of them will be forced upon us hereafter, now at least let us remain in ignorance, that in the present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future reality is not to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to obtain life everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it to be blessed, but not everlasting.”

The answer to “Did Origen and the early Church really teach reincarnation?” should now be readily apparent. But, like most things in life, it is never entirely simple or straightforward. The Church did not; and whether we can say that Origen did depends on how exactly we are defining reincarnation, as also on whether we will allow Origen to speak for himself.

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. If you liked this article, you may particularly be interested in those listed on that page under the headings “CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, ISLAM” and “DEATH, THE AFTERLIFE, & REINCARNATION.” One article very closely related to this one, and which may broaden our perspective on the subject, is Church Fathers on the Secret Teachings of Jesus.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~