Isaiah 43:19: Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?
I think of this verse whenever I hear someone say that Jesus was at work in the world before the Christian era. If he was always here, how can he be a new thing? This is important because of the promises Jesus has given Christians. It is also important because there is another entity who has been here at least since the world was created: the prince of this world.
In this article I will expand on Isaiah’s revelation of ‘the new thing’.
The following is the entire passage from Isaiah 43:16-22.
16 Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters;
17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.
18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.
20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.
22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.
(Isaiah 43:16-22 KJV)
Political Theology
When I wrote Justice of the Rupture, I was inspired by an article on the Political Theology Website. The article seemed to agree with my understanding that the birth of Jesus was a new thing in this world.
Was Jesus a New Thing or Has He Always Existed?
As I understand it, the claim that the Christ has always existed has two distinct sources. It can refer to a teaching of Hermeticism or to the decision of the First Council of Nicaea.
The following is the decision of the First council of Nicaea:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [τρεπτὸν in Greek; convertibilem in Latin] — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)
My Paraphrase of the Decision and a Request for Correction if Necessary
I understand this decision to say that Jesus was begotten of the substance of the Father. He has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Therefore, it is not correct to say there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he did not exist. Or that he is made of a different substance or essence from the Father.
I’m not a theologian and normally I would not attempt to analyze theology. However, an understanding of the Council’s decision has bearing on who and how we worship. I could be wrong, but the decision doesn’t seem to be explicit about Jesus’s pre-Christian working in the world, independent from the person of the Father.
The Christ of Hermeticism
One problem I see with Hermeticism’s claim that ‘the Christ’ operated in the world from the beginning, is the effect it has on our view of pre-Christian religions. If the Christ has always existed and he has taken part in the world from its creation, pre-Christian believers in those religions were wrong or evil. On the other hand, if Jesus was truly a new thing the ancient people were not at fault. They couldn’t be expected to conform to our understanding of the Christian religion. It is likely they were pressured to conform to the demands of another deity.
Ancient Egyptians Were Compelled to Obey Their Gods
The burial practices of ancient Egypt suggest that the Egyptians did not love their god or gods the way we love Jesus. Their deities compelled them to perform certain rituals in order to gain eternal life. And they found ways of hedging their bets.
For example, it is interesting that the ancient Egyptians disguised the gender of women in their burial ceremonies. It was apparently the only way women could attain eternal life. If those deities had their way, women would not have been allowed in at all.
In the ancient Egyptian mindset, only male divine beings such as Atum, Osiris, or Re had access to the powers of creation or resurrection (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). Goddesses were believed to be protective vessels.1
The Egyptians clearly knew what their deities demanded and yet they defied them in behalf of their women. I propose that those deities represented the prince of this world. If I’m correct about this identification, the prince of this world does not like women.
I would argue that the Egyptian deities represent a hostile and indifferent cosmos; the same cosmos that was hostile to Jesus.
The Baptism of Jesus
According to the first chapter of Mark, something remarkable happened at the baptism of Jesus.
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)
In the Political Theology article cited above, J. Leavitt Pearl argued that when the heavens were torn open it was an apocalypse. The voice from heaven had to burst through the cosmic order for the Spirit to descend on Jesus like a dove.
Wikipedia’s Struggle Over the Virgin Birth Article
When I wrote about my work on Wikipedia’s Miraculous Births article I concluded that Wikipedia’s editors must have an unspoken agreement that the Virgin Birth article should remain empty of content. Maybe they think such an article would be offensive to believers. (Wikipedia now has a separate article entitled Virgin Birth of Jesus. But the article, Virgin Birth, is still empty.)
In my opinion, it is not necessary for Christians to deny virgin birth stories from other cultures. Those stories might resemble the pattern of the Christian story but their heroes are not comparable to Jesus. They belong to the ideology of earthly empires and have a different character. More importantly, they are not opposed to the prince of this world.
The West’s Dalliance With Empire
In this light, it is ironic that the West is currently being presented with the bellowing of empire-minded officials. It is especially revealing that their ideology comes complete with the denigration of women. Fortunately, their error has been carefully defined by scholars such as Robert Eisler.
It seems our current ideologues have mixed up the metaphors not to mention the religions involved. They apparently don’t have the empathy shown by the ancient Egyptians. They have taken the side of the prince of this world.
Orpheus the Fisher
In his book, Orpheus the Fisher2, Robert Eisler had this to say about the development of Christianity:
…I have certainly been deceived in my expectations of discovering early extensive and important Pagan influences on the initial formation of Christian ritual and cult symbolism. In 1908 I was still under the illusion–which I am afraid is even today cherished by many students of comparative religion–that primitive Christianity was, to a great extent, a syncretistic religion. In particular I had been strongly impressed by the statement of Eichhorn and other scholars, that we must look out for a pagan or, more exactly, an Oriental prototype for the Eucharist, since a sacramental, not to speak of a theophagic rite is unknown to the Jewish cult-system.(Eisler, Preface p. v)
Here Eisler is telling us that due to the scholarly influence of his time he mistakenly connected the sacramental eating of fish and bread by Jesus’s disciples, with a hypothetical ritual of bread and fish-eating in pre-historic Canaan. But when he gave a lecture on this hypothesis he was criticized by a scholar named von Dobschutz-Strassburg. After further study, he came to the conclusion that the criticism was correct.
By the time Orpheus the Fisher was published Eisler no longer believed in a connection between the Canaanite ritual and Christianity. He admits that there were later developments into a mystic theophagy and these had Pagan parallels, but pagan influences were not at work in the initial stage of Christian origin. Instead, the source of the Eucharistic rite is a purely Jewish ritual.
Eisler went on to modify his views on similar problems. For example, he explains that although the deities of the mysteries seem to be similar to the Christian fisherman, those deities are cruel and unforgiving. Therefore, they do not resemble the character of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not cruel. He was Isaiah’s ‘new thing’.
- Kathlyn (Kara) Cooney, Gender Transformation in Death: A Case Study of Coffins from Ramesside Period Egypt ↩︎