The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. The Bible and Wisdom II

[ 1 ] The fact that spiritual science is capable of exploring the deeper wisdom and truths of the biblical texts—and thereby has the opportunity to read what is written in these texts in their true sense—was briefly touched upon in the lecture the day before yesterday. And in broad strokes, I sought to show how, with regard to the Old Testament, such a true penetration into the deeper meaning of the Bible is possible in a completely unexpected way and can lead many people to a rediscovery of this text for humanity. What was said in that last lecture regarding the stance of our modern era—its scholarship, its criticism, and its worldview—toward the Old Testament can be said in exactly the same way with regard to the New Testament. Here, too, we are once again in a position to point out how, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a form of criticism emerged that unravels, dissects, and, so to speak, tears the Gospel—yet another document that has held such immense significance for countless people over the centuries—to pieces, attacking its authority at its very root. It would take a long story to go into detail about this biblical criticism of the New Testament. How could it have turned out any other way, since, from that time onward—following the invention of the printing press—the Bible became accessible to everyone, and materialistic thinking immediately began to gain the upper hand! How could it have turned out any other way than for people to realize more and more clearly that there are contradictions in the Gospels?

[ 2 ] If one sticks strictly to the outward letter of the matter, one need only, for example, compare the first Gospel—that is, the Gospel of Matthew—with the Gospel of Luke; one need only compare the genealogies given in these two Gospels to trace the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth, and one will find that even in the first chapters, the first and third Gospels contradict each other. Not only are the ancestral lines listed differently in Luke than in Matthew; the names do not match either. And if, starting from there, one compares the individual facts regarding the life of Jesus of Nazareth, one can find contradictions everywhere. In particular, it becomes strikingly clear how starkly the first three evangelists—the authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the one hand—and the author of the fourth, the so-called Gospel of John, on the other hand, contradict one another. As a result, attempts were made to at least establish a certain degree of consistency among the first three Gospels, and it was believed that these first three evangelists, even though they differ from one another in many details, they nevertheless agree in a certain sense in that they present an image of Jesus of Nazareth that appeals to the entire worldview and all the habits of thought of modern times, at least to many individuals of our modern era.

[ 3 ] In contrast, it had long been clear to many, with regard to the fourth evangelist, that there could be no question of a historical document. Not only does the author of the Gospel of John present the facts in a completely different way—especially with regard to the accounts of miracles, which he describes in an entirely different manner—but it is also evident that the author’s entire perspective on the central event of world history is different. This is a belief that has become increasingly established. And if we—we cannot go into the details here—wish to return to the essence of this research, it is roughly this: it is said that the first three Gospels, when viewed as accounts from the heyday, could provide a portrait of the personality of the utterly preeminent Jesus of Nazareth, the founder and originator of the Gospel. The fourth Gospel is said to be a confessional text, a kind of hymn to what the writer wished to portray regarding his faith in relation to the crucified Jesus, and through which he did not intend to present a history, but rather a doctrinal treatise.

[ 4 ] Especially in the nineteenth century, this view became increasingly entrenched in the minds of numerous figures through the so-called Tübingen School, which was led by the truly great biblical scholar and brilliant mind Christian Baur. Baur’s view is roughly as follows: The Gospel of John was written late—very late—whereas the other evangelists wrote earlier, even, according to certain accounts, based on what they may have witnessed firsthand or learned from people who had experienced the events in Palestine. The Gospel of John, however, is said to have been composed only in the second century. It was written not out of primeval history but under the influence of Greek philosophy and of what had already taken place in the Christian communities, so that John, influenced by these factors, crafted an image of Christ Jesus that edifies people and uplift them in such a way that it is, in a certain sense, lyrical; a portrait that instructs us about the way people had begun to think, feel, and perceive as Christians well into the second century, but which can no longer instruct us about what actually happened at the beginning of our era.

[ 5 ] Certainly, there have also been individuals who have advocated the opposite view. On the other hand, while it must be said that Christian Baur and those who were his students or worked with him to a greater or lesser extent proceeded with tremendous critical acumen, we must not forget a Bible scholar such as the historian and scholar Gfrörer, who maintains that the Gospel was written by the Apostle John himself. He diligently demonstrates how this very Gospel shows, in almost every sentence, that it was written by an eyewitness or by someone who received his message from eyewitnesses. Gfrörer goes so far as to say, in his typical Swabian manner, that anyone who—based on the evidence he has presented—does not believe that the Gospel of John is authentic cannot be in their right mind. Nor does he speak well of those who claim it is not historical and then attack this Gospel with every possible argument.

[ 6 ] The question that interests us here is this: Has it really been only research, has it really been only history—despite all the acumen and scholarship, which is never for a moment disputed—that has brought about this modern view? — Anyone who is able not only to thoroughly examine the outward aspects of history, but also to delve into the spiritual depths of human development with their thinking, feeling, and entire worldview will soon notice something else. It was not merely the historical sense, it was not merely so-called objective research, but rather the habits of thought of modern times, the cherished views that, since the last century when they first emerged, have become increasingly widespread; they did not allow the faith and ideas that had prevailed for centuries—that the figure of Christ Jesus embodied not only a transcendent but also a universal being, a being — let us for now describe it as a spiritual-divine one — that must be related not only to all of humanity but to the entire development of the world as a whole. The belief and the idea that this being acted within the mortal body of Jesus of Nazareth, and that we are faced with a unique event, were lost. This contradicts established patterns of thought to such an extent that they were bound to oppose such a belief. It was critical scholarship that unconsciously crept in to validate what those established patterns of thought initially demanded. More and more, a mindset emerged that could not tolerate anything transcending the normal human-personal realm—a mindset that says to itself: Yes, there have been great figures in the development of the world: Socrates, Plato, or others. Certainly, we are willing to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest. But we must remain within this human level. — The idea that there might have been something in Jesus that cannot be compared to the ordinary human being contradicts, in particular, the materialistic notions that have become increasingly entrenched. We can see how this notion has unconsciously crept in and become linked to what so-called historical research has established,

[ 7 ] Why did the first three evangelists come to be increasingly esteemed, while the author of the Gospel of John was regarded merely as a poet and writer of creeds? Because one could say that the first three evangelists—the Synoptics—depict an ideal human figure, but always one that, though lofty, does not transcend the human. It appeals to the modern sensibility when, as a modern theologian has said: If we strip away from the Jesus of Nazareth everything supernatural and spiritual, if we take the simple man from Nazareth, then we are closest to Jesus. — That does not apply to the Gospel of John. It begins right away with the words: “In the beginning was the Logos, the Word.” And the Word, which was with God in the beginning, existed before there was a material world. That which existed in all spiritual origins became flesh; it walked among us at the beginning of our era in Palestine. The writer of the Gospel of John employs the highest wisdom to understand this event and make it comprehensible. In light of this, it is not appropriate to speak of the simple man from Nazareth. Therefore, he could never have been associated with a historical document. It is not, then, merely scientific reasons; it is the development of ordinary thoughts, feelings, and sensibilities that have found expression in what is today known as New Testament biblical criticism—that which, as so-called historical research, claims to have absolute or at least relative authority over these matters.

[ 8 ] But this raises another question from the perspective of spiritual science. Let us adopt the very standpoint that some new researchers have taken. Some sought to describe an event that took place at the beginning of our calendar. They then added mythical and legendary elements to it. Let us assume we adopt this perspective. Then we must ask ourselves: Is it still possible, based on these premises, to speak of Christianity as such? Is it possible to speak of Christianity if we interpret the documents that bear witness to this Christianity in a purely materialistic sense? Is this feasible with regard to the entire Bible? — Two points should first be raised that will demonstrate that the question cannot be posed any differently than it has been, and that it can be answered in a suggestive manner. Let us assume that Christian Baur’s view is correct—that something happened in Palestine which can be explained solely by external historical facts, and that, over time, the writers, influenced by the prejudices of their era, have handed down to posterity whatever they themselves believed. Let us assume that we must take such research as a given, above all with the belief that a spiritual being descended from the spiritual spheres, dwelt within Jesus of Nazareth, rose from the dead, and achieved the victory of life over death—which we designate as the very essence of the Mystery of Golgotha. “This teaching,” says Baur, “must be rejected. This view is considered dogmatic. This view must be discarded. The event in Palestine must be examined just like any other historical event.”

[ 9 ] Can we then, in the true sense of the word, speak of Christianity—or even of the Bible—as a work that recounts what must come to pass? In this regard, two facts should be noted. First of all, on what does the first great and far-reaching impact of the Christian worldview—an impact that no one can deny—rest? On what does Paul’s preaching rest? Does it rest on what a new, objective scholarship derives from the Gospels? By no means does Paul’s power rest on a proclamation of what can be fully accounted for by historical means. The entire effectiveness of Paul rests on an event that can be understood only through supernatural, never through sensory, causes. Anyone who undertakes an examination of the Pauline writings will see that Paul’s entire teaching is based simply on the fact that he was able to gain the conviction and the experience that Christ has risen, and that in the mystery of Golgotha, the victory of life in the Spirit over death has been achieved.

[ 10 ] From what does Paul draw his conviction regarding the true nature of Christ Jesus? He does not draw it, as did others who were around Christ Jesus, from a direct instruction. He draws it, as you all know, from the event on the road to Damascus. He derives it from the fact that he could say: “I have seen the one who lived, suffered, and died in Palestine; I have seen him in his life.” — Paul means nothing other than that he saw the Christ in spirit and, through this spiritual vision, came to the truth that the Christ lives. He proclaims the Christ whom he came to know through his spiritual vision. And he places this appearance on a par with the other appearances, for he tells us clearly: “After his death, Christ appeared to various people—to the twelve disciples and to others—and finally to me as one born out of due time.” — By this he means that he has truly seen—in a higher vision—the One who has triumphed over death, and that since that time he has known that for those who ascend into the spiritual world, Christ lives.

[ 11 ] Here we are already right in the thick of it with regard to the New Testament, where the new spiritual science must part ways with any merely literal interpretation of the Bible. What do you generally find in the writings of so-called modern scholarship regarding the Damascus event? You generally find that it was an ecstatic state in which Saul became Paul—a state that cannot be fully fathomed. It eludes human research. Yes, it eludes external human research. But that is precisely what we have so often emphasized in spiritual science: that human beings—as we will learn further in the following lectures—can ascend to the knowledge of a higher world that surrounds them just as colors and light surround the blind person. Human beings can learn to see this higher world, just as the man born blind who has undergone surgery can learn to see colors and light. This is what takes place through the methods of spiritual science within the soul of the true student of spiritual science, enabling him to look into the spiritual worlds and see for himself what is there. What takes place within this student—and to which every student today and at all times can bear witness—is what took place within Paul. He received the gift of hearing with ears that are not physical ears, and of seeing with eyes that are not physical eyes. He was then also able to perceive the One who dwelt within Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the full power of Paul extends into the supersensible realm. If one takes Paul as a whole, just as he is, one can say: What he said is imbued with the conviction that “Christ lives; he has risen. Therefore, our faith is not in vain.”

[ 12 ] And when one considers what Paul’s preaching actually achieved—how he specifically spread the very form of Christianity that has spread throughout the world—then one can never say that it is not important to draw upon any supernatural facts in order to investigate the facts about Jesus. One must apply the usual scientific methods, it is said. But in doing so, one forgets not only the original facts in Palestine, not only what happened during those thirty-three years, but also what took place in the spread of Christianity; one forgets that it is based on a supernatural event, and that this supernatural event must first be understood and grasped.

[ 13 ] But in much the same way, if we only consider things seriously and truly, we find that the Old Testament—at least its most important document, the writings of Moses—is based on something similar. We find that Moses’ entire mission, the very power through which he accomplished such extraordinary things for his people, is also based on a supernatural event; as we had to say the day before yesterday, that when the spiritual researcher develops to the point where he becomes sighted in the spiritual world and can look into the spiritual foundations of things, he then perceives what are facts of the spiritual world in images, in imaginations. Indeed, one can also express the processes that take place within oneself when one ascends in this way into the spiritual realms only in images; however, it must be clear that the one who speaks in such images does not wish to speak about the images as such, but rather means that these images serve as the means of expression for his supersensible experiences.

[ 14 ] The supernatural experience through which Moses received his mission is clearly described to us in the vision of the burning bush. There we see how Moses, the leader and guide of the people, finds himself face to face with his God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—who commissions Moses to do for his people what we then see as Moses’ deeds. By considering this, we are already confronting a fundamental theme of the entire Bible, namely the question: How are we to approach these two events—which we have identified as supernatural events that render any purely external investigation impossible—in order to gain a deeper understanding of this text? How are we to relate to this fundamental theme of the Bible from a spiritual scientific perspective? We will be able to gain insight if we keep the content of Moses’ revelation or experience before our eyes.

[ 15 ] Let us merely mention the most important features. Moses finds himself face to face with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. At the same time, God commissions him to lead the people out of Egypt and to guide them toward a certain level of greatness and a certain way of conduct. When Moses then asks for something by which he can justify himself before the people—so that he may say who he is and who has sent him—God reveals His name: “I am who I am.” No one can understand this phrase unless they are able to grasp the full meaning and essence of ancient naming conventions. Ancient naming conventions are not the same as those of today. Ancient naming was intended to express the very essence of the personality, the essence of the one who stands before us. In the phrase “I am who I am,” the essence of the God who stood before Moses—and who calls Himself “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”—had to be expressed in a very specific way. Why does He call Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Behind this lies a mystery that demands to be unraveled. We can only unravel it if we approach it with the tools of spiritual science. We will have to emphasize time and again in the various passages that the human being consists of the various members of his being, that in what we call the physical body we have before us only a part of the human being, and that beyond this we have higher members that are supersensible—these are the actual foundations, the creative principles. We must add to the physical body the etheric or life body, then the astral body, and as the fourth component, the bearer of the “I.” Human beings share the physical body with seemingly lifeless beings—with minerals; the etheric body with plants and all living beings; and the astral body with animal beings—with those capable of passions and desires. Through the “I,” the human being rises above all the sensory beings that surround him. These are the four real members of the human being, which spiritual science has always recognized.

[ 16 ] We must point out that what we today call the physical body also has its spiritual origin and is merely a condensation of the spiritual. Just as ice arises from water, so the physical has arisen from the spiritual. We must go far back in our view of spiritual evolution if we are to seek the earliest spiritual origins of the physical human body. Of the four members of the human being, this fourth member is by far the oldest. The physical body is the densest today. It is what emanated from the spirit in the distant past. It has become denser and denser, has undergone many transformations, and has thereby assumed its physical form. This is the oldest aspect of the human being. A younger member is the etheric or life body. It was added later, which is why it also manifests itself at a lower degree of densification. Even younger is the astral body. The youngest member is the “I,” the bearer of human self-consciousness. All these members have arisen from spiritual sources and spiritual beings, from divine-spiritual beings. We can say that spiritual science shows us that this “I,” through which the human being has become the self-conscious entity we know today, has sunk into the body. Before it became the “I”-entity, it was composed of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies.

[ 17 ] The Bible also distinguishes between those entities that are the creators and formers of these three aspects of human nature. The teachings of Moses speak of the Creator, the Formgiver of the human “I,” the Creator of the bearer of human self-consciousness. Therefore, the Bible also regards the God who infused the “I” into human beings as, so to speak, the one who came last in terms of human evolution. The divine beings referred to as the Elohim—whom we have strictly distinguished from the God Yahweh or Jehovah—these divine beings are the creators of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies. In the Bible, they are clearly distinguished from the God who appeared last in our evolution, from the God Yahweh, from the one who brought the “I” to humankind. If we ask: Where does humanity find the essence of this God—this youngest of the creative gods, of whom the Bible begins to speak in the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis? — Spiritual science shows us that where human beings find within themselves their “I”—which, by its very name, differs so fundamentally from all other beings around us—there they find within themselves a drop of this divine essence. This is not a pantheistic doctrine, nor is it an explanation of why human beings must find their God within themselves. To assert this would be like claiming that a drop of water is the same essence as the sea—and saying: this drop of water is the sea.

[ 18 ] When we speak in the context of spiritual science, we speak of an infinite, all-encompassing, universal reality that is linked to earthly evolution and to everything else that is part of this earthly evolution. In our “I,” we find a spark of this Yahweh deity, just as the same essence is present in a drop of water as in the sea. But the path that human evolution had to traverse was a very long one, during which the Yahweh deity began to shape human beings so that they could grasp the “I” through consciousness. The power of the “I” had to work within humanity for a long time before human beings attained consciousness of the “I.” Moses became the great forerunner in bringing human consciousness to the “I.” But these forces have been at work and shaping human evolution for a long time beforehand. They shape it in such a way that we can recognize their method if we concern ourselves even a little with the evolution of human consciousness itself.

[ 19 ] Let us take a brief look back at the evolution of human consciousness. The word “evolution” is used very frequently today, but no other science applies it as thoroughly or as intensely as spiritual science does. Human consciousness, as it exists today, has evolved from other forms of consciousness. If we go far, far back into the origins of humankind—not in the sense of materialistic science, but as I explained the day before yesterday—we find that the further back we go, the more human consciousness appears distinct from other forms of consciousness. This consciousness, which links the various concepts of the intellect and external sensory perceptions in the familiar way, only came into being—albeit in the distant past—but it did come into being. We can find in that time a state of consciousness that was quite different from today’s, because memory, in particular, was quite different. What humans have today as memory is merely a degraded remnant of an ancient soul force that existed in an entirely different way. In ancient times, when human beings did not yet possess the combinatory power of their present-day intellect, when they were not yet capable of calculating and counting in the modern sense, and when they had not yet developed their intellectual logic, they possessed another power of the soul in its place: they had developed a universal memory. This power had to diminish, had to recede, so that our modern intellect could develop at its expense. Such is the general course of development: one power recedes into the background so that another can emerge. Memory is a diminishing power; intellect and reason are increasing powers of the soul.

[ 20 ] For those who have been attending these lectures here for many years, what I am about to say may not seem particularly remarkable. To the others, it will seem grotesque when I speak of the nature of memory in the following way. What is the outward aspect of human memory? It is that it recalls yesterday, the day before yesterday, and so on, all the way back to childhood. But then it comes to an abrupt end. This memory did not end in the distant past, nor in childhood, nor even at birth; rather, just as people today remember what they themselves have experienced in their personal lives, so people of ancient times remembered what their fathers and grandfathers had experienced across entire generations. Throughout the generations, memory was a soul force that spread in a tangible way. Over the centuries, in the distant past, this remembrance was preserved, and this different form of memory was linked to a different way of naming things.

[ 21 ] We now come to the question: Why do the first chapters of the Bible speak of individuals—such as Adam and Noah—who live for centuries? Because it would make no sense to limit the lifespans of the people referred to here. The memory stretches back through generations to the forefather. This entire generation was given a name. It would have made no sense to give the name “Adam” to a single individual. So, in those days, the name was given to that which, holding fast to the same memory, was passed down from generation to generation over the centuries—Adam, Noah. And what was that? It was that which passes through father, son, and grandson, yet was preserved in memory. Thus the biblical record faithfully preserves these mysteries, which can only be understood through spiritual science.

[ 22 ] When we consider the consciousness of the “I,” through which we grasp the essence of the Yahweh deity, we will see that the “I” lives within us between birth and death, and that it maintains this nature of its own between birth and death. Thus, the “I” sustained itself back then through generations and across centuries. Just as we speak of the “I” today and know that the “I” goes back as far as we can remember, so too did the people of ancient times say to themselves: It makes no sense to call myself an “I.” I remember my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. — His “I” passed down through the generations, and it even had a name. Just as we find an expression of God in our personal “I” when we delve deeply into it, so the ancient human being, looking back through the generations, said to himself: “The God who lives in the ‘I’ lives down through the generations”—as a deity whom Moses later recognized in the higher worlds. This God was none other than the one who, in ancient times, lived as an “I” from generation to generation. In the language of that time, what was described as the “I”—which perpetuated itself as an expression of the God Yahweh—was designated by Yahweh’s words, “I am who I am.” This was what Moses came to recognize in his spiritual revelation. This was revealed for the first time in the vision of the burning bush. It was the same God who had previously lived down through the generations—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was the power that thus lived on in living memory and, at the same time, brought with it everything that established the human order. Thus we look up to the legacy of Moses. In the biblical sense, we look up to the patriarchs, to those in whom the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived.

[ 23 ] Those times needed no external commandments, no external laws. For with the living memory—which was of a completely different nature than the memory we have today—what one was supposed to do lived on. How did people act in those primeval times? One comes to understand this when one correctly understands the Bible. People did not act according to commandments. They acted according to what their memory told them—what their father, grandfather, and so on had done. Through their blood, they were born with an innate sense of what they were meant to do. In those ancient generations, there was something like a spiritualized instinct, which can be compared to what we today call “acting on instinct.” The ancient man did not act according to a commandment; no, he acted according to the character of his being, according to his essential nature. How did the beings referred to in the Bible as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob act? They acted as the blood flowing through the generations had imprinted upon them. It was the God of Yahweh whom they had brought down into their own selves, whether they were at war or living in peace. They had no commandments; they had no law. It was the spiritualized instinct of God that lived within them.

[ 24 ] At the time Moses appeared, the human personality was at the first stage of its development. It was then that it broke away, in its consciousness, from the collective consciousness of that generation. By then, the memory that stretched back through the generations had already thoroughly ceased. People no longer possessed the spiritualized instinct for action. Something else had to take its place. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—who, in his spiritual form, gave Moses the Law and the Commandments—had to regulate external order and social coexistence through the Commandments and the Law, because people no longer possessed that spiritualized instinct.

[ 25 ] Thus, the same God who previously acted as a force of nature now acts as a lawgiver to establish external order through the law. We can see, then, that there is a profound meaning in reading the words “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” at this point. The God who designates Himself as “I Am Who I Am” is the same as the fourth member of the human being, the same One who infused the “I” into the human being. But human beings were unable to take the spiritual nature of the “I” into their consciousness. This, in turn, required a longer period of preparation, which falls within the time described to us in the Bible as the Old Testament—the period from Moses to the Mystery of Golgotha. Therefore, this time is a time of promise, representing the new Gospel, the beginning of the “time of fulfillment.” Thus, God reveals Himself to Moses as the One who is expressed as “I Am Who I Am.” He reveals Himself in such a way that He organizes the external order of human life—their coexistence—through laws, indirectly through Moses’ vision, through Moses’ perception. Thus humanity lived in the pre-Christian era, in which God created, in which the God Yahweh shaped, in which the “I Am Who I Am” lived—but in which humanity could not yet live consciously, but rather according to the external law that originated from the God Yahweh. The time is drawing ever closer when humanity is to become fully conscious of the “I.” Throughout all of antiquity, there was only one means for people who could not yet see, who could not yet encounter God in the physical world. There was only one way in which this God could act upon them. That was the law, the order. This applied to the external world.

[ 26 ] There was also a supernatural way to come to know this God, and that was through the mysteries or initiation. What was initiation? It was everything that was handed down to certain individuals who were deemed suitable to apply the methods of spiritual scientific research in order to develop the powers and abilities lying dormant within the human being, so that they could glimpse into the spiritual world. For the adherents of the Old Testament, this would therefore mean seeing God, who lives in the “I Am,” spiritually face to face. When they applied this method, they were enabled to hear and see with spiritual eyes and ears—to see for themselves what Moses saw when the God who is the “I Am” entrusted him with his mission. But this was possible only within the mysteries, only through initiation.

[ 27 ] But there were also those who recognized the “I Am Who I Am”; however, to do so, they had to undergo all the procedures and methods through which a person transforms himself into an instrument of higher vision, of looking into the spiritual world. Thus, the Deity who already lived within Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was completely veiled from the physical world. She ordered the world through the Law. For the initiate, the secret of the mysteries becomes visible in thought. Now the time had come for the Mystery of Golgotha to be fulfilled. What actually happened there? Let us truly picture in our minds what happened to the initiate in ancient times. I can only sketch out for you the process of initiation through meditation, concentration, and the other exercises. Through these, the soul of the initiate was prepared over a long period. Then came a three-and-a-half-day culmination of these initiation rites. There, the person who was to be initiated—and who had been prepared to this extent—was brought by the initiator into a state in which his physical body was completely asleep. He was not merely asleep, but as if dead, so that he could not make use of his physical senses, his physical eyes, or his physical ears. Instead, however, he saw into the spiritual worlds through the organs of his spiritual members. He could perceive there when he was outside his body, when he was unbound, when his physical organs lay latent within him. He could then look within himself at what lived invisibly within him as the “I Am that I Am”; but he could see it only in the depths of the mysteries. Then—as everyone who knows these things is aware—he was roused in his physical body and once again made use of his physical senses. But he now had full consciousness: “I am the I Am; I was in the spiritual world. That which spoke to Moses, ‘I Am Who I Am,’ stood before me, and it is that which bars me from eternity, that which has entered into my body. I was connected to it. I was connected to the divine primordial bearer of the ‘I Am,’ whose reflection and mirror image is my ‘I Am.’”

[ 28 ] Thus the initiate returned to the physical world and bore witness to the existence of a spiritual element within the “I,” for he had beheld it. He was able to convey this knowledge and message to his listeners, to whom he was called to bring the message. Yet one could see the “I Am Who I Am” only in the spiritual world. Through the event at Golgotha, the very same Being who had revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush with the words “I Am Who I Am” descended into humanity. This is entirely in keeping with the Gospel of John: The I became flesh in the body of Jesus of Nazareth, dwelt within it, and walked among humanity. That was the primal force that raised humanity to the height at which it stands today. The primal force became human; a divine being had become human and walked among humanity. The possibility existed that, within the course of human history, what the initiates could only perceive in the spirit—what took place as a historical event on Golgotha—would one day occur as a historical event: that the Christ Being would emerge victorious over the death of matter.

[ 29 ] This is the historical, external, and real event that took place so many times for the initiates in the mysteries. Such was the course of the initiation that took place in ancient times in the deep darkness of the Mysteries among those who, following the preparatory rites, left their physical bodies for three and a half days, and who, during this time, wandered in the spiritual world and beheld in the spiritual depths of humanity that a spiritual-divine being would descend into the physical world, and that this event would one day take place as a historical fact. That was the course of the initiation.

[ 30 ] But now the time had come when humanity, through the turning of its feelings, sensations, and thoughts toward the event at Golgotha, came to it through faith. Then understanding arose from this. Something new had been given. It was possible to have, outwardly, what one could otherwise only have by being transported into the spiritual world. If we accept this, then we understand why Christ Jesus says, “I am the I-Am”—in a completely new form. What he is saying is: Look back to primeval times, to that which lived as the Eternal within humanity, which manifested itself in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and which then revealed itself in the Law of Moses. Now the time has come when the “I” becomes conscious within the individual personality, when human beings are to become fully conscious of their “I,” of the Divine dwelling within them.

[ 31 ] Whereas in ancient times people looked up to God, saw Him, and could say to themselves, “What lives within me lives on through the generations”—now, when they look within themselves, they find the divine in their own “I.” The divine from which every “I” has emerged was embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, and the one who understood this wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” — By “the Word,” the essence of the innermost human nature is meant, and at the same time the primal source of this innermost essence. And he puts these words into the mouth of Christ Jesus: “That which lives within me, of which a spark is present in every human personality, existed before the Gospel was.” — The significant statement in the Gospel of John was: “Before Abraham was, I am.” — Before there was an Abraham, there was the “I Am”—the I Am that is not bound to any time, that existed before Abraham, that was already present in the spiritual depths of humanity. In designating himself as the original source of the I Am, Christ spoke these significant words: “Before Abraham was, the I Am was.”

[ 32 ] Thus we see how the meaning of human development—which permeates these fundamental books of humanity, the Old and New Testaments—is brought back to life through spiritual science. And we see how the most important words only become legible to us when we fathom the meaning of these books, independently of the words themselves, through spiritual science. To cite an example that gives the materialistic mind pause for thought, let us recall the raising of Lazarus. You see, a man like Gfrörer says: Anyone who claims that the Gospel of John was not written by John justifies this by saying that the writer recorded many things as he experienced and understood them, but the miracle of Lazarus must have been told to him. He could not have been there. — One simply has to understand the miracle of Lazarus correctly. Let us understand it this way: when Christ entered the world, he took on the body of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us understand it this way: what was prepared in the Old Testament found its expression in the New. He needed a person there who could fully understand him, who could penetrate in the deepest sense what he was proclaiming—that is, he had to initiate a person in his own way.

[ 33 ] Initiation stories have always been told to us in veiled terms. The miracle of Lazarus is nothing other than the wondrous and powerful depiction of how Christ created the first initiate of the New Testament—how the initiate, in the case of his disciple who lay in a death-like state for three and a half days, called the soul back into the body after it had made its journey through the spiritual world, only to be subsequently awakened by Christ himself. All of this is easy to understand for those who know anything about it, for it is the language in which initiation stories are generally told. “This illness is not unto death, but it serves to glorify God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” This means: outward appearance as a revelation of the inner; so that the sentence must in truth be translated: “The illness is not unto death, but so that God may be revealed as an outward appearance, so that He might also be revealed to the senses.” Within the personality of Lazarus slumbers the deeper human essence, which possesses the capacity and the power to be developed within him in a mysterious way, to be raised up into the spiritual world, so that he might recognize the very essence of Christ Himself, the Son of God. But this power first had to be developed. He developed this power within Lazarus so that the divine, which rested within Lazarus, might become manifest and reveal what the Son of God truly is. Thus, Christ Jesus creates in Lazarus the first person who, through his own inner observation, knows who Christ Jesus actually is. At the same time, this miracle—for it is a genuine miracle to those who accept only the outer physical laws—reveals what the disciple in question must endure during those three and a half days, for this is equivalent to true death, since the etheric body and the astral body are lifted out of the physical body, leaving only the physical body behind.

[ 34 ] Thus, through spiritual science, we ourselves have penetrated such a wondrous event—wondrous only to those who cannot explain it—an event as wondrous as the miracle of Lazarus. All of this is revealed to you in the miracle of Lazarus, if only you have the light that shines upon it through these words: “His illness is not unto death, but for the revelation of the inner being.” — When these abilities are awakened in a person, it is like a birth. Just as a child emerges from the womb, so the Higher is born from the lower human being. Thus, Lazarus’s illness is connected with the birth of the new life, the God-Man, so that the divine human being is born within the physical human being, within Lazarus.

[ 35 ] In this way, we could go through the Gospel of John step by step and would discover that what takes place in spiritual initiation had to be described quite differently from what we see in ancient times, when the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worked through entirely different spiritual forces. And when we look into the Bible in this way, it becomes once again the sublime universal book that illuminates for us what we have now discovered for ourselves. Since we must admit—and we can say this—that only those who have developed higher spiritual powers can arrive at these truths, we must also, when they appear to us in the Gospel of John, acknowledge and be able to explain what brought them into these writings. As a new spiritual researcher approached the Gospel and the entire Bible, he learned to see this and can say: People will once again come to appreciate the true value of this document and recognize that only a materialistic prejudice can utter the words: “the simple man from Nazareth.” We, however, as a result of true insight, have recognized in Christ an overwhelming cosmic being who lived in the body of Jesus of Nazareth.

[ 36 ] Thus, the first three Gospels appear to us in relation to the Gospel of John much as if three people were standing in a group on a mountainside, each recording what he sees. Each sees only a portion of the view. The one who looks down from the higher vantage point sees more and describes more from that higher vantage point. We learn not only what the others below describe, but also what can explain all three accounts at once. Thus, it is not difficult to say which one stood on the higher vantage point; rather, for us, the reality is that the first three writers were, in a certain sense, initiates as well. But the more deeply initiated one—the one who could see much deeper, much deeper into the matter than the other three and who could write about the true spiritual realities that lie behind the sensible world—that is the author of the Gospel of John. Thus the Gospels come together for us in harmony and show that what took place as the Mystery of Golgotha cannot be understood as an ordinary historical event, but can only be explained through a process such as we find in Paul, who says: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.”

[ 37 ] What is revealed incidentally by external research becomes just as important to us in spiritual research. When we look at Christianity, it will be important for us to gain insight into Moses’ clairvoyance, which is depicted to us in the dream image of the burning bush. That is what needed to be explained. One point remains to be emphasized: that this new spiritual science will be capable of forming, from within itself, a picture of world events; of beholding Christ, so to speak, spiritually face to face; and thus of rediscovering him in a true sense in the Gospels. Biblical scholarship that says, “Let us study the Bible as we would any other history,” is not truly unconditional. — For it presupposes the dogma that there can be only ordinary, sensory, natural factual relationships. Only spiritual science is truly free of presuppositions, and it leads to a renewed recognition and high esteem for the Bible in all its parts. A time will come when perhaps those who today claim that only the simple intellect is capable of grasping the Bible will be dismayed. Such wisdom must misunderstand the Bible. The time will come when the wisest of the wise will hold in the highest esteem what is given to us in the Bible, because spiritual insight will recognize the spiritual insight contained in the Bible. Then many a word written in the New Testament will appear in a new light. It will become evident that a document like the Bible has nothing to lose from unbiased research. It would be a sad state of affairs if any research could cause the Bible to lose its reputation or its name. Research that causes the Bible to lose its name has simply not gone far enough. Research that goes all the way to the end will once again reveal the Bible in all its grandeur.

[ 38 ] Man is free to pursue research. Anyone who believes that research could lead to the downfall of religion merely demonstrates that his religiosity is built on shaky ground. The divine Being has instilled the drive for research into human nature so that man may act upon it. It would be a sin against this impulse not to live a life of inquiry. I come to know God through inquiry. God reveals Himself in my inquiry. Truth is an asset in human development, from which a truly religious life will never have anything to fear. And this is a fundamental truth that runs throughout the New Testament.

[ 39 ] You should not pay attention to those who, out of convenience, want to keep people away from the Bible, and who say: “If you go to philosophers and ask them to interpret the Bible, they will say they want nothing to do with it.” — But such inquiry is based on convenience. On the other hand, the kind of inquiry that says, “We cannot delve deeply enough to understand what is written in the Bible,” is justified and correct. — The correct way to study the Bible is to approach it with an open mind and, through such inquiry, come to understand the Bible in its true sense. These scholars grasp the truth of the biblical verse: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”