The Rudolf Steiner Archive

3. Christ and the Twentieth Century

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! Anyone who speaks about Christ today encounters a variety of views that are held [in one way or another]. These can be classified mainly under two perspectives, which must be taken into account especially by those who speak about the question of Christ in the sense that we shall do this evening—that is, from the perspective that I have often been permitted to present here in connection with other questions and other problems of life—namely, the spiritual-scientific or theosophical perspective.

[ 2 ] First, we encounter the viewpoint that, in its own way, is firmly grounded in the concept of Christ—namely, the viewpoint for which Christ is a true, real power of life. This is the religious viewpoint, the viewpoint of the various religious denominations. When we consider this viewpoint, we find that, for the most part—no matter how tolerant and liberal it may appear in a certain direction—it fundamentally refuses to accept that one can speak of Christ in any way other than how it itself speaks of him. The religious viewpoint, in all its various shades, simply does not admit that progress is possible in terms of thinking about Christ.

[ 3 ] The other perspective one encounters is the one also held by truly serious seekers of truth today; it is the standpoint that, drawing on perspectives from a certain scholarly tradition, states: If one examines the Christ event—that is, what is said to have taken place in Palestine at the beginning of our era—using the same methods of rigorous historical research as one would apply to other events, then the interpretation of the Christ event, as it is currently held, cannot be sustained. – It is well known that this viewpoint has long been in the making; it is well known that, over the course of the last few centuries, people have increasingly come to compare the Gospels and have believed that the contradictions [between the various Gospels] necessitate the conclusion that these cannot be historical documents.

[ 4 ] And after a long period of trying to distill from the Gospels, as it were, something that might emerge as an image of Christ Jesus, there are already today—not only in Germany but also in other countries —many people who feel, as it were, that they owe it to their scientific conscience to admit that one should not, in fact, speak of a historical Jesus or of a “Christ event” in the historical sense. We are dealing with a process of sifting out the historical dregs of the Gospels—to the point of completely denying the historical figure of Christ Jesus—when we consider the contemporary stance on the question of Christ.

[ 5 ] This is how [the view] came about that Christ can now only be found among religious people who believe that through faith they can elevate themselves to Christ, but that the idea of Christ, the concept of Christ, must disappear in the face of ever-advancing science. And there are many today who already dream that what is known as the power of Christ will certainly play no role whatsoever in the future. Yet they do not believe for a moment that humanity could ever lose religion altogether.

[ 6 ] Nevertheless, in light of certain facts of the present day, this faith does not seem to be sustainable. For we observe the peculiar phenomenon that in our time, it is not only believers—not only those who, out of the depths of their hearts, have received the Gospels as a means of edification and education—who speak of something that corresponds to the idea of Christ, but that serious, educated, [truth-seeking] people point, with their entire spiritual sensibility, to something that can only be designated by the name of Christ. After all, it remains characteristic that a contemporary freethinker—who is merely one representative among many—the American Ferguson, is able to say:

Christ has once again become the pioneer of a new era, one who will unite America with Europe in the future, one who is able to look deepest into the soul of every human being. He is truly the man of the present like no other.

[ 7 ] A man who otherwise promotes freethinking ideas speaks of Christ as if he were walking among people today, as if Christ were walking right here among us. Thus, even freethinkers are beginning to sense the presence of Christ as something that has a direct connection to humanity. Even if it receives even less attention today, such an inclination toward a power—such a search for the power that can only be described by the name of Christ—will break new ground. The man who rendered the greatest service to the introduction of Darwinism in America, John Fiske, made the following statement:

All religions assert two truths. The first truth is that all things are interconnected—all religions proclaim this truth, which is undeniable to any thoughtful person. The second truth is that what we call good or evil is in some way related to a power that exists outside the human mind.

[ 8 ] I expressly cite statements by individuals whose entire way of thinking and feeling is firmly rooted in the present, but who have worked their way from an external perspective to the deeper forces of existence. These forces are not only of a physical and chemical nature, but also of a spiritual nature. Only like a dawn, like a kind of preparation for something entirely different, does the Christ idea—which has just been characterized—present itself to those who stand on the ground of the theosophical worldview. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I speak of the Christ idea as it is likely to take shape in the twentieth century. Spiritual science should be as far removed as possible from all sectarianism, from everything that does not belong to our time. And when the spiritual scientist speaks of what is to come in human evolution, he feels no differently than the natural scientist does when predicting a solar eclipse or a transit of Venus. The spiritual scientist does not claim the status of a prophet. There are simply forces at work in life that can be investigated spiritually, just as the forces of nature can be investigated in the physical world. However, we must cast a brief glance at the fate of the Christ idea in the past. Truly, this idea has undergone a tremendous transformation over the centuries. If we think back to the origins of the Christ idea, we find a remarkable fact in the early centuries. We see, on the one hand, popular Christianity spreading throughout the Roman Empire, and one might say: While ancient Roman culture developed primarily among the upper classes of the population and then fell into a kind of decadence, we see how, precisely among those who are tested by life and must endure suffering, a popular form of Christianity slowly and gradually took root, and how the idealization of Jesus of Nazareth increasingly emerged; until this figure is elevated to a divine height. This popular Christianity contains more sentiments and emotions in its creeds than concepts and ideas. But alongside this popular Christianity, we now see, on the other hand, how the most enlightened minds of the age, who are engaged with Christianity, apply their highest ideas and most significant concepts to answer the question: Who, then, is this Christ?—And from the wealth of answers provided by these enlightened minds, only a few shall be highlighted.

[ 9 ] Thus, in Gnosticism—to which Theosophy has no desire whatsoever to return, but which it studies as a phenomenon of the past—we see, in various shades, the beginnings of the highest kind of thought regarding the idea of Christ. Essentially, one could characterize it as follows: This Gnosticism, this longing to form the idea of Christ from the highest concepts, is a spiritual development of the most wondrous kind. However, for a person who, from the perspective of the present, has formed the idea that everything in human beings has developed solely and exclusively from subordinate creatures—from animals, step by step, from ever-lower animals down to the most imperfect of all—for such a person, the Gnostic teaching is nothing more than a daydream, a fantasy.

[ 10 ] The Gnostic, too, traces evolution back in time, but further back than the modern naturalist. In ancient times, he says, we find such an epoch in which animal forms already existed on Earth in such a way that, if a human had been present at that time, he would have been able to perceive the animal forms—up to the highest ones. The Gnostic thus refers to an epoch of development in which the human kingdom did not yet exist at all. But he does not conclude from this that the human kingdom developed from the animals, but rather that it descended from the spiritual realm. The animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms, too, he maintains, once descended from the spiritual realm and condensed from it, so that we must assume that [for the Gnostic] animals, plants, and minerals also have their origin in the spirit.

[ 11 ] [And the Gnostic goes on to say:] But there was a time when humankind had not yet taken on a physical form, but was waiting in the spiritual world until the time when different conditions of life would arise on Earth. Not that human beings did not exist in those times: human beings did exist, but not as visible beings, rather as spiritual beings. They lived in the spiritual environment of the Earth; they had not yet descended to it, because the conditions of those ancient times were such that they would not yet have made human development possible. Thus, the Gnostic regards as the most important the point in time when human beings—later than the other kingdoms—descended to Earth.

[ 12 ] But now the Gnostic says to himself: If human beings had undergone their physical incarnation in the same way as the other kingdoms of nature, then one thing could not have developed that nevertheless had to develop: namely, human beings’ independent, free thinking—indeed, everything that we call the true, inner self of the human being, which works from within and undergoes a process of development between birth and death. The development of an animal is complete within certain limits. Through education and experience, human beings can progress in a completely different way than animals. — The Gnostic now says: In order for human beings to be able to do this, they entered into a more intimate connection with the material world than they would have had to if they were to remain unfree, dependent on their [innate dispositions] like the other beings that surrounded them. Humans have delved deeper into matter in order to become more independent of their innate dispositions.

[ 13 ] And Gnosticism believed that this becoming more deeply entangled [in matter] had taken place in primeval times, in ancient times, and that this was the moment recorded in the Bible in the image of the Fall. Gnostics believed that this image referred precisely to this entanglement [in matter]. At that time, however, not all the impulses connected to the human being had descended to Earth; rather, something of a superhuman nature had been preserved in the spiritual world. And while humanity went through its history [on Earth], something remained up in the spiritual world that, although it actually belonged to humanity, had been left behind because humanity had descended deeper into the physical realm. Thus, up in the spiritual world, there was still something present of what humanity had once been as a whole in the spiritual world.

[ 14 ] Now, based on these premises, the Gnostic turns his attention to the appearance of Christ, and for him the moment described in the Bible as the baptism by John becomes particularly important. The Gnostic says that up to this moment, [in Jesus] an extraordinary human being had indeed developed, but still only a human being. But when John baptized him, something occurred that is difficult to comprehend today. Consider the following, however: For some people, there is indeed a moment when they must say to themselves: Something has entered my soul, through which I have experienced a transformation of my entire life. — Many a person can say to themselves: [When I look back on my life from birth up to a certain moment, I find that at that very moment] something entered my soul, through which I was spiritually reborn. – If one imagines this—which can happen to every single person—intensified to the highest degree, as something unique, then one arrives at the same conception that the Gnostics held regarding John’s baptism in the Jordan.

[ 15 ] Precisely that which had remained in the spiritual world, that which had been waiting, yet which had belonged to humankind from the very beginning—that flowed down from the spiritual world as a current and descended into this one man, Jesus of Nazareth. And now, for three years, this Jesus of Nazareth is not a transformed human being, but a human being who carries within himself what had remained of all humanity at the very beginning—and what now sank into this Jesus in order to permeate humanity in a life-giving way: For three years, Jesus of Nazareth became the bearer of the superhuman Christ. And now the Gnostic says: What had been in the spiritual world until then was once immersed into the human body, just as we immerse the seed into the earth. And just as the seed perishes, so it was with this spiritual impulse; it had to sink into the earth; it had to perish within it in order to spring up again a hundredfold and a thousandfold as a seed throughout the entire earthly process. This spiritual essence had to pass through death, just as the seed must pass through death. And it did not remain barren, but poured itself into the spiritual currents of the Earth’s development. It is there; it lives on in manifold fruit.

[ 16 ] Thus, from the Gnostic perspective, there is a history of humanity that precedes Christ and a history that follows the event at Golgotha—a history of humanity in which the Christ impulse is actively at work in such a way that Christ enters into the souls. For the Gnostics, the Christ impulse has become the very substance of history, of historical development! While this may sound strange to people today, it must be said that it is precisely the scientific ideas of the present—which, after all, have assumed a materialistic character only at their starting point—that will increasingly urge us to understand such a Gnostic idea and then to grasp it in its reality. To show that it is precisely from the present that we are approaching what Gnosis once offered, let us cite the following:

[ 17 ] However, it must be said that this only appears to be a basic concept, a first step. Isn’t that right? For how long did the natural sciences believe they were standing on solid ground? For how long, on the basis of Darwinism—which can truly be called a great theory—did it believe it had to assert that everything in humans had evolved from animal origins, and that the actual driving force was something like, for example, the struggle for existence? It was said that all manner of beings were, as it were, sent out into life, but that a struggle for existence arose, and that it was therefore no wonder that, after a certain time, the more perfect had overcome the less perfect. Thus, beings had become more and more perfect until, finally, the stage of humanity was reached. “Struggle for existence” became the watchword. Today, however, there is another idea that certain researchers feel compelled to accept out of a pure, honest sense of truth. They say: When we look at human beings today and compare them with the most perfect animals, we cannot possibly assume that humans evolved directly from these animals. Rather, we must assume that humans trace their origins back to a primordial form that no longer exists today. – And now these researchers assume that such a primordial form existed, from which, on the one hand, human beings and, on the other, animals evolved. And these eminent researchers add yet another fact. They ask: How could human beings have evolved in this entirely different way, while animals also evolved? – And, curiously enough, they do not even mention the struggle for existence. They hold the view that humankind, in its form, was situated in a particularly protected place where it could maintain the conditions of the primordial form, while other beings fell into decline. Thus, we already have today the tracing of humankind back to a primordial form that is no longer visible—one that could only develop because it was protected in a place where humankind did not need to enter the struggle for existence. These researchers are constrained by a single fiction: namely, that they seek this protected place within the realm of sensory-real existence. Gnosticism, too, posits a primordial form, but does not place it in the sensory world; rather, it places it where it is actually best protected: in the spiritual world. And if one already holds the idea that humanity entered life at a later stage, then one can also hold the other idea; for one can then also say: When we observe the course of history, we see how the whole of humanity is, so to speak, divided into individual nations and races; we see how there are many religious creeds that take shape according to the various tribes. In the past, humanity could develop only what was implanted in a tribe—what had been implanted in the individual through his or her tribal affiliation. But that spiritual power and essence which makes a human being a human being in the first place—which causes a person to find the human being within another human being, rather than the [tribal] traits that belong to them through heredity—this power had to be bestowed upon humanity once again. Humanity could only receive this impulse once it had matured enough to do so. Thus, in the early Christian centuries, we encounter ideas of development of a special, lofty kind, so that we must say: What we see today in the natural sciences as something in its infancy—which must first shed its pupal shell—had already been anticipated in Gnosticism through magnificent conceptualizations. This could only be because evolution and development are, in fact, present in human history.

[ 18 ] If we go back to the times, to the epochs, when humankind descended into life, we encounter a completely different inner life. If we compare it with today’s inner life, we must say: This one depends on taking in through the senses; [it can only] experience through the senses, and perceive only what is bound to the brain. Wonderful insights have been handed down to us from ancient times in the form of images. Externally, this is also a metaphor for what spiritual science recognizes through its own methods—namely, that the human soul did not always perceive its surroundings as it does today, but that clairvoyance existed. Human beings did not yet feel so firmly rooted in their “I”; they still felt at one with things—dreamlike states of consciousness led them into the depths of things. This dreamlike clairvoyance was the kind of perception through which the mysteries of things were revealed to early human beings. It was an experience—similar to the one we have today when we experience a dream. Thus, primitive man, who had descended from spiritual heights, experienced the mysteries of the spiritual world as clairvoyant dreams. The progress of evolution, however, was such that human beings descended ever deeper into physical existence and thus increasingly lost the old clairvoyance. This need not be regarded as something sad, for if humankind had not lost this ancient clairvoyance, it would never have attained free self-awareness. Only through this was it possible for humankind to become the experiencer of its own life. Slowly and gradually, the loss of this ancient, clairvoyant perception—through which one had penetrated the mysteries of the spiritual world—took place.

[ 19 ] In the times when humanity was, in fact, already fully connected to the outer world, this clairvoyant knowledge was still preserved in places that had their origins in the schools of the ancient mysteries. They had safeguarded this ancient treasure of wisdom, which existed as a tradition. And after the Christ event had entered into Earth’s evolution, the Gnostics continued to preserve that ancient, handed-down wisdom derived from humanity’s clairvoyant insight and formed the Christ idea from these ancient insights. It is thus a reminiscence from ancient times—an insight that was not acquired through free self-awareness. The Gnostics applied what the forefathers had known to the appearance of Christ and interpreted him in light of it. The era in which Gnosticism flourished marked the twilight of ancient clairvoyant knowledge. Thus, in the ages that followed—the Middle Ages—it was no longer possible for people to continue working with the ancient wisdom of Gnosticism and thereby comprehend Christ. Something else then took the place of Gnosticism.

[ 20 ] We now see how, in the centuries that followed—after Gnosis had been lost to humanity—people still sought to comprehend the manifestation of Christ, but did so based on what is essentially [external] human knowledge and understanding, that is, through human science. There we see how the most enlightened minds of the Middle Ages applied the teachings of the ancient philosopher Aristotle in place of Gnosis in order to comprehend Christ. They came to the conclusion that they had to say to themselves: If we take Aristotle’s worldview, we can only reach a certain point; the true spiritual understanding of Christ lies beyond what human beings can comprehend. — In one respect, however, the medieval worldview is based on a central idea of Aristotle’s. It never occurred to Aristotle, after all, to advance as far as the views of modern materialism. If we examine Aristotle’s view of the interaction between the soul and the body, we see that he is far from believing that what a person experiences as their inner life is merely a result of heredity, instilled in the person by their parents, grandparents, and so on. Rather, he arrives at the idea that for every human being who enters existence through birth, a drop is, as it were, drawn off from the universal spiritual substance—from the Divine—and unites with their physical body. Thus, at every birth, a spiritual-soul core emerges from the universal spiritual realm and joins the [physical] human being.

[ 21 ] But Aristotle takes his thinking a step further. He possesses a quality that is actually quite rare today: namely, he draws the true conclusions from his research and reflection. He tells himself: If the soul passes through the gate of death, then it is, after all, a real being that exists in its own right; then it ascends into the spiritual world. Whereas before birth it was not a distinct being, after death it continues to exist in the spiritual world as an individual, independent being. What, then, can it experience after death? It can experience nothing there, for that would require it to be clothed in a body; its sole content is the reflection on its earthly life. The human soul lives eternally; it looks back on its earthly life, on the good or evil it has done, and lives within this image of its own earthly life. —Here, in fact, Aristotle laid the foundation for the doctrine of the eternity of hellish punishment; from this point, it found its way into the Catholic doctrine of the Middle Ages. It should be noted here that Aristotle had no choice but to leave the soul unchanged throughout all eternal futures, contemplating what it had accomplished in its earthly life.

[ 22 ] Modern spiritual science, or theosophy, now recognizes that after death the soul has within itself the capacity to look back on its earthly life—as in a memory-like recollection—but it need not remain in this state; rather, as the most beautiful fruit of this life, the human being takes with them into the spiritual world the ability to develop or transform the good or evil deeds they have performed here. Thus, the human being need not remain in the spiritual world for all eternity; rather, by entering a new life—that is, by coming into existence through birth—he can, through karmic balance, overcome what he previously did or failed to do in earlier lives. The soul thus passes through the gate of death, carrying with it the impulses to reenter existence time and again in order to achieve balance in subsequent lives.

[ 23 ] Aristotle could not accept such an idea because he stated from the outset that the soul is severed from the spiritual substance each time before birth. Spiritual science, on the other hand, must assert: This present life presupposes other lives. Aristotle, as it were, stifled his own insight. – This idea of reincarnation was therefore absent in Aristotle, whom the medieval sages called the “forerunner of the Lord in matters of natural knowledge”—the “praecursor domini in rebus naturalibus.” We see, then, how far Aristotle went in the question of immortality and how he transferred the fruit of life into an eternal contemplation of the soul. This automatically made it impossible to look up into the spiritual world and recognize the nature of Christ. Christ is removed from medieval thought and placed in the realm of faith, where knowledge cannot penetrate. The ancient tradition of Gnosis had simply been lost; Aristotle did not extend to the spiritual recognition of Christ. Therefore, a distinction was drawn between what can be known and what must simply be believed. One consequence of the Aristotelian idea remained: the Church emphasized the eternity of the torments of hell.

[ 24 ] The modern era took a third step. Little by little, people lost their devotion to faith. They increasingly turned to what was merely sensory and tangible. We now see that, for the idea of Christ, the result was that Christ receded further and further into the background, and the conception of Christ became increasingly materialistic. In place of the spiritual principle of the Gnostics, in place of the Christ of the Middle Ages—who could be experienced in the purest sense of faith—the modern era did not place a human being imbued with something cosmic at the starting point of our calendar, but increasingly the “simple man from Nazareth”—a human being just like any other. People no longer understood what the Gnostics had already grasped. They sought to comprehend Christ in material terms, just like any other ordinary historical phenomenon. And by viewing him solely in human terms, they were, of course, compelled to examine his life using the methods of ordinary history. Yet one might have considered: Taking the whole matter historically is, in fact, the easiest thing there is, for what could be easier than to examine the Gospels and prove that there are contradictions within them? The core of this research is the most elementary thing imaginable. One would also have to assume that all those who lived in the past were such fools that they did not even notice the glaringly obvious contradictions. The Gospels were not understood as an education of the soul through which it can rise to a spiritual vision of Christ. No wonder, then, that the Gospels were judged by the standards of history; no wonder that a movement arose in Germany associated with the name of Drews, a movement that has come to a complete denial of Christ. This is happening right now, at the very same time, in the very same present in which spiritual science is emerging! And spiritual science reveals precisely what has already been characterized, namely, that human beings do not merely live in this one life with what they carry within themselves, but that they have brought this with them from other lives that have passed. Once upon a time, human beings lived in a spiritual world. Then he descended from this spiritual world, but he was not in a physical body just once; rather, after having processed the fruits of his individual life in an intermediate spiritual state, he descended again and again into physical existence. This law has already been cited here on this occasion many times. It shows us how human beings live throughout the entire historical development of the world. But life apparently only has meaning if we assume that we have all lived on Earth in order to assimilate what prehistoric times could offer us, so that we might continue to develop in the later, more perfect ages. When one examines this more closely, something quite peculiar emerges—namely, precisely what one might call: the mission of humankind on Earth.

[ 25 ] As I have pointed out many times before, I must emphasize again today that what has emerged as humanity’s present—[ordinary]—consciousness is not the only form of consciousness that can exist. Human beings can indeed develop; through proper spiritual training, they can elevate themselves to clairvoyance—they can do this if they apply the [method of] meditation to their souls. Just as when we look at a brightly shining object and thereby enter a state that excludes all other aspects of life—though this is not meant to be emulated— so we bring ourselves into a—though not quite as restricted—state when, through our own free will, we place only the spiritual-soul aspects we have acquired at the center of our consciousness and set aside everything else. Then forces radiate into our soul through which what might be expressed as follows becomes a reality for us: The human being becomes free from his body. The human being truly experiences what can be expressed as follows: I no longer perceive through the eye, no longer think through the brain, but experience myself as a spiritual being independent of my body; I perceive what lives and weaves in a spiritual world. This elevation to the spiritual can be attained through training, and its strict laws are described in some of my works.

[ 26 ] Those who have experienced something emotionally that can be described something like this will find it easier to ascend into the spiritual world: Those who become easily agitated, who give themselves over to their emotions and feelings, will not be able to ascend easily into the spiritual world; but those who face the outer world with a certain balance of calm and inner serenity possess, as it were, a reserve—a reservoir of feelings and emotions—and it is precisely into this that the light of the spirit, which we kindle within ourselves through meditation, shines. A person who is very self-absorbed cannot easily become a trained clairvoyant. But those who can easily empathize with others, who can develop selfless love, who do not live solely by their feelings—such people possess a greater depth of soul, which they can permeate with the powers they attain through spiritual training. From a feeling that does not indulge in selfishness, a person’s clairvoyant power shines forth.

[ 27 ] Once a person has reached the point where it is possible for them to live in the spiritual world, they can gradually translate what they experience there into ordinary concepts and communicate it in a way that can be understood by common sense. Just as not everyone needs to go into a laboratory to convince themselves of what external science says, not everyone needs to become a clairvoyant. Anyone who has findings from their clairvoyant research to share has no fear of common sense. Anyone who is truly sound-minded [in this sense] will agree with the spiritual researcher; only those who approach spiritual truths with prejudice will disagree with him. This is the case with spiritual science [and its findings], which are obtained through clairvoyant research, and in this way a person can ascend into a world of spiritual experience.

[ 28 ] What the spiritual scientist achieves today in the superconscious will, in the future, be attainable to a certain degree by all people. And this is precisely what lies ahead for the twentieth century: to understand that the soul develops, passes from life to life in the course of its earthly existence, and allows itself to be influenced by what the culture of the time is meant to impart to it.

[ 29 ] If we now take a broad view of humankind across the earth, two characteristics stand out that were not present in humans in ancient times. One need only examine the matter to see that they were not present. These two characteristics are compassion and conscience. These two characteristics will gradually develop more and more as human beings undergo a training of the soul life. Compassion and conscience only emerge in the course of development. However, much of what is said about compassion is mere rhetoric. In truth, compassion is something a person feels when they detach from themselves, when they step into another being, when they perceive that being’s suffering through its own feelings. In compassion, a person forgets their own ego and lives within the other. Just imagine for a moment that nature were arranged in such a way that, at the very moment a person detaches from their own narrow self in a moral sense, they would experience the same thing they experience every day in sleep: When a person can no longer control their limbs, when the brain can no longer remain the soul’s instrument, when a person falls asleep, they lose their consciousness. A person can, in fact, also lose their consciousness through emotion—in which case they become powerless: they are then unable to surrender their “I” to the feelings of another being. That is the height of selfishness; it is a moral defect!

[ 30 ] Compassion is one of the two things through which a person steps outside of themselves without losing consciousness; conscience is the other. It speaks within us. A person submits to a voice that speaks into their ego; in doing so, they submit their self to another that extends beyond their own self. Compassion and conscience are the forces that human beings develop. And consciousness, based on the forms that compassion and conscience have taken, will develop what was otherwise only possible in an abnormal state of consciousness: clairvoyance. This is not a prophecy; it is something that emerges from rigorous scientific inquiry.

[ 31 ] In the twentieth century, through an understanding of what compassion and conscience bring about in the human soul, people will be able to have a direct [spiritual] experience even in their ordinary consciousness. They will be able to grasp something about which they will say to themselves: On the one hand, we see how, when a human being enters existence through birth, they inherit something from their ancestors; as a spiritual being, they must enter into a family and are endowed with inherited characteristics. People knew about this inheritance long before the advent of modern science; they simply gave it a different name, namely ‘original sin.’ Anyone familiar with the [meaning of] original sin in the Old Testament knows that it must be understood in a much broader sense than modern science still does today—namely, that it must also be applied to moral qualities. But the person in whom compassion and conscience have borne fruit will say to themselves: Just as I am bound by my birth to predispositions from which I cannot escape, so there is something within me that does not bind me to matter, that enables me to rise above myself into a spiritual world. — In one realm, there will be direct clairvoyance: in the realm of one’s own soul. A person will say to themselves: Just as something chains me to external matter, so, on the other hand, a luminous helper dawns within my soul who can lift me above myself. This feeling could be compared, for example, to the following: If someone does not believe that the air outside can flow into an empty space, they need only empty the space: The air will then flow in of its own accord, so that they can know it for certain. But through compassion and conscience—both of which separate our “I” from ourselves—an empty space is created within the soul, and into this space now flows the spiritual, that which we call the Christ-presence. Then, through personal experience, a person will know that they can receive the Christ within themselves—who is present in the spiritual atmosphere, just as air is present in the physical atmosphere and flows into all the empty spaces it finds.

[ 32 ] In this higher realm, even ordinary consciousness can become clairvoyant. And the person will then not regard this experience as merely subjective, but will recognize that it must exist as something real. They will recognize that this was not always present, that it was once incorporated into humanity; that is to say, they will know that what they are experiencing once descended to Earth and united with it as the Christ impulse. For people of the twentieth century, the Christ impulse must become something that once entered Earth’s evolution as a real, historical event. Then the time will come when it will make no sense to say that Christ is merely an idea, but when people will say: One might suppose that this experience unfolds only within the soul of the individual—as certain philosophers claim: without an eye, there is no color. But an external color does not exist simply because eyes are present; rather, the eye is created from the world of light. So one would have to say: Without light, there is no eye; therefore, without the historical Christ, there is no inner Christ, no inner Christ-force within human beings! — That is why human beings will recognize the Christ as a spiritual being; they will know that this very being was once historically present on Earth and united himself with it through his sacrifice. Indeed, people will be able to penetrate the spiritual world and will then also discover the Christ.

[ 33 ] Just as Goethe has so often put it perfectly, we might now draw on one of his sayings by taking what he meant to express as a parable for what we wish to express today—a saying that can serve as a guiding principle for us. Goethe said: “The eye was formed by light for the sake of light.”—Light conjured up the eye from organs that were originally indifferent. And now, in other words, Goethe points to the inner impulse to see God within oneself:

If the eye were not sun-like,
It could never behold the sun;
If God’s own power did not dwell within us,
How could the divine delight us?

[ 34 ] Just as the eye is brought into being by the light, so too is the power within human beings to behold God brought into being by the weaving and living God Himself. Whoever is able to experience Christ within his own inner Christ-likeness—arising from the most beautiful sensations, feelings, and insights of his soul—will know that this can only be because Christ once descended to Earth, because the historical Christ once lived. Just as the sun, with its light, has conjured the eye forth from the human body, so has the historical Christ conjured the [inner] Christ-life forth from human souls. If the soul were not “Christ-like,” how could it experience Christ! If Christ had not lived historically, how could the soul have this most beautiful sensation—the sensation of Christ! – This is how people will speak in the twentieth century. At a time when external science has come to deny the historical Christ, spiritual science will come to say—without relying on historical documents—that because human beings can experience Christ, they know that he lived historically as a life-giving force, like the sun in the spiritual realm of human development.