The Rudolf Steiner Archive

45. Occult Research on the Gospels

[ 1 ] Eight days ago, I took the liberty of presenting an overview of the findings of theological research on the life of Jesus, and we have seen that this research into the life of Jesus, which is based on the examination of historical sources, leads into the unknown; that it takes us to a period that is very distant and later than the presumed lifetime of the founder of Christianity. Thus, it has become clear to us that historical, physical research based on philology is incapable of determining anything about the events that took place at the founding of Christianity.

[ 2 ] Today, as a supplement to this, I would like to present to you the results of occult research, even if only in outline, and I note that for those capable of verifying them, these results are facts; however, they can only be verified with specially developed abilities—abilities that not everyone possesses—and which, as a result, can easily be called into question. What can be said about this has not only been taught today. What I have to say has been taught in the occult schools of all ages since the founding of Christianity, and most vividly in the first centuries of Christianity. The teachers have certainly spoken—if not literally, then faithfully—in the sense in which we wish to consider the testimony of the Gospel of John from an occult standpoint. Even the learned theologian Bunsen has said that Christianity stands or falls with the Gospel of John. And we have seen that literalism was the first to dismiss the Gospel of John and refuses to accept it.

[ 3 ] What I have to say was already taught in the schools of the early Christian centuries from the same perspective, based on the so-called occult or secret methods. We should not be surprised if those who seek to prove the truth of Christianity from the scriptures—or, when they attempt to historically substantiate this truth from what remains—are unable to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion, just as, on the other hand, even today the occultist is unable to set down in writing the most important things he has to say. This is still the case today. Neither the Evangelists nor their successors were able to convey the most important things. But in the occult schools, the methods by which these truths could be discovered had been preserved; they were, in part, continued and passed on. These truths were, in part, “shown” to the students of the occult schools. I say “shown,” not “taught.” Anyone who wishes to speak about such truths must have seen them as facts.

[ 4 ] Even in the schools of the Origins in Asia, three stages of the ascent to occult knowledge were recognized. These were designated by the three words: purification, enlightenment, and initiation. Those who had attained the first stage of discipleship—the stage of purification—were able to understand how historical events unfolded. They possessed what is known as the historical explanation of Christianity. Those who had progressed further—those who had reached the stage of enlightenment—could comprehend what Origen called the “explanations of wisdom,” that is, those explanations based on the dissemination of moral truth. And those who had reached the stage of initiation could attain the so-called “typical foundation” of Christianity.

[ 5 ] Once we have recognized this, we can find all of this in the Scriptures as well. Whoever has ascended to the stage of purification, whoever is no longer able to speak from their own standpoint or personal opinion, whoever completely sets aside their own will and personal views, and merely becomes a mouthpiece for the one who speaks to them in the astral world—such a person is able to perceive the course of history even without external historical monuments. This is what is called “seeing” in the astral world—a form of perception entirely different from seeing with physical eyes. In this astral world, the images of all events are preserved for us as reflections, not in reality. These images of the astral world of the past differ fundamentally from those of the physical world. They have life and act of their own accord; they are dynamic, so that in this way, in the astral world, one sees history unfolding before one’s eyes in active action. Those who have reached the stage of purification see, as it were, only the mirror images of the true inner processes. Only those who have ascended to the second stage—the stage of enlightenment—see further. After seeing them in image form, they perceive the thoughts of the people who were animated by them. And if someone ascends to the stage of initiation, they see an even higher world; they then recognize the intentions and purposes that govern history through the incarnation of the great individualities themselves.

[ 6 ] These are the three stages that the initiate must ascend, and one can also gain a sort of historical reflection of them by reading what Gregory Thaumaturgos says about his teacher Origen. What he says is an account, written with great enthusiasm, of what Origen taught him. What they have written should be understood in the same way as the words of one of those third-century Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria, who says: “I know full well that the written record of my memories pales in comparison to the grace I was privileged to hear; but it will serve as a reminder for those whom the thyrsus has touched.” - Every occultist knows how to interpret the term “Thyrsus.” Every occultist is familiar with the instrument; every occultist knows that the truth was passed down orally from person to person, and that the deepest truths were not recorded in the writings. This may become perfectly clear to you when I state that the ultimate truths were not written down in what they have written; thus, of course, they cannot be found there either.

[ 7 ] I have titled my book Christianity as a Mystical Fact. The title was not chosen without reason. Every word in it is important. The aim is not merely to present the mystical content. Rather, the aim has been to show that while the events in the Gospel of John are indeed mystical events, they are nonetheless also historical events. The aim is not to present Christianity as mystical—as a mystical conception—but rather as a fact that can be explained mystically yet is historically real. The one whom the thyrsus struck can be led to the archetypes of what the books recount. Here, with this word, we tie in with something I said last time regarding historical-critical Gospel research. I said that critical scholarship has accepted the Gospel of Mark, acknowledging that this Gospel of Mark was indeed written much later and that, as critics point out, it was not written by contemporaries. At the same time, I said that the author of the Gospel of Mark speaks in such a way that he does not describe the places where the events took place; the events and locations seem to be of no concern to him whatsoever. I also said that what Mark presents as facts is a kind of poetic composition, meaning that the chronological sequence cannot be considered authoritative either. Therefore, critical scholarship concedes two things: that we can derive nothing from the chronological sequence and nothing from localities and places.

[ 8 ] When Markus says “the mountain,” it is as if there were only a single mountain. This shows us how we must seek the occult within history; it shows us how reality relates to its shadows. One can never test a shadow image against reality, but nor may the shadow image ever contradict reality.

[ 9 ] It is also a requirement of occult research that we never present anything that contradicts historical-critical scholarship. But this assessment ceases to apply when we consider what lies behind the Gospel of Mark. Mark speaks of the “mountain,” and Matthew also speaks similarly in the Sermon on the Mount. Only those who, as Clement of Alexandria says, can go back to the archetypes—those who can penetrate to the typological explanation—only they are capable of finding the archetypes, that is, the timeless and spaceless.

[ 10 ] The Gospels are, in fact, all written in or with a certain secret language. They are written in such a way that, while they are understandable even to the simplest of people, there is no level of understanding—no matter how high—that cannot discover ever deeper and deeper truths within them. Anyone who knows what a seemingly ordinary word actually means in this secret language can unravel the hidden meaning of the Gospels. Anyone who reads only the opening lines of what we call the Sermon on the Mount will find that something quite general is stated there: “He sat down on a mountain, opened His mouth, and spoke to His disciples.” He did not speak to the people; he went away with the disciples and spoke to them. The initiate understands this immediately, because he knows that the words “going up the mountain” have a certain meaning. It means: to enter the inner sanctum of a temple, where one receives secret teachings; thus, these lines mean nothing other than this: Jesus saw that the people needed to be taught something; so he led the disciples into a temple and explained to them what was now to be passed on to the people. - In ancient traditions, every student learned what these words have meant since time immemorial. You can go through the religious texts of all ages, and you will always find the meaning of these words “going up the mountain.” It is essential to have truly understood this language in order to study the occult.

[ 11 ] Today, above all else, I would like to present to you a few points from the perspective of the Esoteric Doctrine—a perspective that can introduce us to an understanding of the Gospel of John and lead us to that understanding. Scholarly researchers have gone to great lengths to understand the Gospel of John. However, there are many points that cannot be understood through textual criticism alone. Just as one cannot understand what “going up the mountain” means, one will not be able to understand certain other expressions either. You can go through entire volumes by scholarly researchers, and you will find that only one—Betke—has come very close to the meaning, but only close. He would have to know the secret language. But the fact that someone has come close to it shows that the secret meaning lies within the words.

[ 12 ] One point I'd like to touch on is the passage describing the wedding at Cana. You may recall the words:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus’ mother was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When they ran out of wine, his mother said to him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with you? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” [John 2:1–5]

[ 13 ] It is worth noting here that the text does not mention the name of Jesus’ mother. And the crux of the matter—the main difficulty—is that Jesus says, “Woman, what concern is that to me?” And the words that follow: “My hour has not yet come.” Consider another passage in John where it discusses who witnessed the crucifixion. Compare this with the other Gospels, and you will find that it is described quite differently there. If you read this only in the Gospel of John, you can hardly make sense of it. The same is true of the passage concerning the distribution of the tunic:

But the soldiers, after they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier, and they also took his tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down. So they said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be,” so that the Scripture might be fulfilled that says, “They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my tunic.” [John 19:24].

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [John 19:25]

[ 14 ] The Gospel does not state that Jesus’ mother’s name was Mary, nor does it do so in the account of the wedding at Cana. It says that Jesus’ mother’s sister was named Mary. If one were to take the text literally here, there would have been two sisters standing at the cross, both named Mary.

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, this is your son.”

[ 15 ] Read about this in John. One disciple is always referred to as “the disciple whom he loved.” [...]

Then he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, this is your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, this is your mother!” And from that hour on, the disciple took her into his home. [John 19:26–27]

[ 16 ] We are thus told that the disciple whom Jesus loved was standing at the cross, that Jesus made him his mother’s son, and that this son took his mother into his home. This can, of course, only be the same mother who is spoken of at Cana in Galilee. This has posed the greatest difficulties for the commentators, and we must ask ourselves: What is actually behind this? What can be said about it? We can only come to a proper understanding of the Gospels if we know what, in the secret language, the mother of a spirit-endowed personality is. We must be clear about whom Jesus is referring to when he speaks of his mother, and we must understand this statement in the sense taught in occult schools.

[ 17 ] The one who comes into this world as an initiate—whether like the Buddha or even higher, like Jesus, the Christ—does not derive his origin from this world. What lives within him comes from another world. He is the messenger of another world. He is born of this world—in a specific place—only in terms of his physical, temporal existence. Whoever traverses the world as an initiate possesses, to the highest degree, what is called tolerance. You will never find even a trace of anything that could be considered intolerance in an initiate. When an initiate goes somewhere to proclaim a teaching, he will practice the principle of tolerance to the utmost degree. He will not cause anyone emotional distress. The initiate knows that the truth has been lived by all peoples. He knows that the truth exists everywhere in a certain form. He knows that the world is progressing; he regards himself as an instrument of the World Spirit, which lies beyond physical reality and is tasked with moving the world forward a step. He does not guide people by spreading a doctrine that hurts them; rather, he associates above all with those who yearn for liberation from old bonds. He does not associate with the scribes and Sadducees, but with those who, in the eyes of these scribes, are sinners, yet who yearn for something that is yet to appear in the future.

[ 18 ] Those to whom he comes are completely intertwined with their people and their time. Jesus came to the Jews, even though he was not born of that people, and had to work among them. He had to create, out of the substance of the people, that which was higher—that which was to flourish in the world. His followers emerged from three groups. The first group consisted of those who were bound to Judaism and its laws—laws that he had come not to abolish, but to fulfill with complete tolerance. This was the people into whom he planted his teaching like a mustard seed, so that it might grow. The second group was to whom he spread his teachings with complete love and tolerance. This was the group that believed in him because of his personal power and influence. These were the ones who were close to him, who knew what they had in him. And there was still a third group. These were the ones who believed because of the deeds he performed, even though they were not particularly close to him, but who were captivated by his presence; and therefore, at the moment when that presence was torn away—after the crucifixion—they could no longer believe until they had proof.

[ 19 ] These were the three groups to whom he had spoken. In the language of the mystery, these must have a very specific designation. The time and the people into which the initiate is born—he calls this his “Mother.” He therefore calls the Jewish people his “Mother.” When Jesus spoke of the “Mother in Galilee,” he was referring to the Jewish people: to them he reveals the water of the Old Testament and the wine of the New. The souls into which a teaching is imparted are represented by female figures. Those who were close to him are represented by Mary, the wife of Cleophas. They were devoted to Jesus because of their personal relationship with him. The third group consisted of people who needed proof. Now we know that Jesus entrusted another with the mission to care for the Jewish-Christian people. Now we know why he says to the Mother—that is, to Jewish Christianity—“This is your son!” This is the one who is to carry the Christian mission forward; this is the disciple whom he loves. And now we know that the disciple took on this task. This refers to the words: “And from that hour on, he took her into his care.” That is to say, he was the one who was to develop Christianity out of Judaism.

[ 20 ] One phrase remains unclear: “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” We must understand who this disciple is. The phrase means that Jesus Himself initiated this person. From this we can see that the Master is this one disciple’s friend—He loves him.

[ 21 ] The miracle of Lazarus is explained in more detail in my book Christianity as a Mystical Fact. Here, I can only offer hints as to what this miracle of Lazarus entails. Anyone who knows how the initiations were performed, who knows how the three-day burial procedure took place, and who knows that the resurrection occurred after three days—such a person reads the story of the resurrection of Lazarus as the story of an initiation; indeed, they read in the very words themselves a precise description of an initiation. Nothing else happened there except that Christ, the Master, initiated Lazarus—that is, he allowed his lower personality to die and, after three days, raised his higher personality. Read also the words: “I am the resurrection and the life.” If you understand how to read these words correctly according to the Spirit that gives life, you will find that Lazarus was one who had been raised in the sense intended by Christ. You will also find, in the account of the miracle of Lazarus, the expression “Jesus loved Lazarus dearly.”

[ 22 ] But why is it that the miracle of Lazarus is found only in the Gospel of John? Why is such great significance attached to this miracle of Lazarus in the Gospel of John? And why—and this is something else you must note—does the disciple whom Jesus loved not appear until after the miracle of Lazarus? Read the Gospel of John from this perspective, and while you may not be able to understand it yourself, you will believe—as one who knows—that this miracle of Lazarus is, for the disciple whom Jesus loved, a personal testimony to something that John himself experienced. At that time, he became the awakened disciple whom Jesus loved. Anyone familiar with the style of such accounts from ancient times—when they were not written down but were proclaimed time and again from the pulpits—will appreciate this personal testimony. You do not often find such personal testimonies stating that this or that person was loved. That is why this miracle is recounted only in the Gospel of John—precisely because it is a personal testimony. That is also why the Gospel of John reveals the deepest truths: namely, the very life of Jesus. That is also why the one who originally lived it—not the writer—knew it best. Let’s read the Gospel of John in its typical way, and decipher the deeper meaning within it.

[ 23 ] It is no wonder that the Christian Church Fathers—the scholars of the first centuries—never tired of interpreting the Gospel of John in particular; it was this very Gospel of John that they sought to understand. When one realizes that the disciple whom Jesus loved took his mother into his home, one also understands the beginning:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [John 1:1]

[ 24 ] But this is clear only to the occult researcher; to him, however, it is perfectly clear. As is well known, the term “Logos” appears in the place where the German translation uses the word “Word.” In the beginning was the Logos. What, then, is the Logos? The concept of the Logos, as it is meant here, is difficult to understand. It has an ancient origin. Now, it is true that the Gospel of John, as it stands before us, bears a strong influence of Greek literary style. But anyone who examines it closely will see, on the other hand, that the author of the Gospel of John likely remained faithful to its original form—namely, a book written by the disciple whom the Master loved, a book intended to show that this disciple had taken Jesus’ mother into his care. Of course, one must be familiar with the deeper Jewish teachings. You will not find these deeper Jewish teachings among the Pharisees and Sadducees. You are more likely to find them among the Sadducees. However, you will find them in a great figure in Alexandria. There you will also find the teaching of the Logos. Yet this word did not originate in Alexandria either. You can trace this word throughout all ages. I would just like to use a few examples to clarify what people in those days associated with the word “Logos.” As the word stands before us, it is merely a Hellenized Hebrew term. Because Plato adopted the Logos in his teachings, it was said that he was a Moses who spoke Attic Greek. We should not be surprised that the doctrine of the Logos has been transmitted to us in a somewhat Hellenized form.

[ 25 ] Turn to the ancient teachings of the Indians; there you will find the primordial law. That is all that belongs to the Vedas. “Veda” means nothing other than “sacred knowledge,” and in all those ancient times, “knowledge” meant something that originated from God Himself. However, the significance of this discussion would take us too far afield. The most important part of the Vedas is the Rig Veda. “Rig” means “word,” and the teachings of the Rig Veda were presented as having been received by the great teachers from God Himself. It is knowledge, and this knowledge was recorded in the Rig Veda. It is the knowledge that was revealed to the rishis. Even among the ancient Indians, the word was already understood to mean not merely the word that is spoken, but that through which the word is made. Just as the word is created through sound, so too was the universe formed through the word.

[ 26 ] When we turn to the Persians, we find there the sacred book of the Persians, the . I cannot go into detail here about the fact that it should actually be called Avesta-Zend. “Zend” is the word. It is exactly the same as in Sanskrit. The Word of Creation became the word through which the Persian magician received the secret of creation.

[ 27 ] And if you go to Babylonia, you will find once again that there is a book there—“book” is roughly the same as “word”; the teachings were passed down orally in those days—Oanes, who revealed to the ancient priests everything they needed for their religious and secular culture. If you go back to all these peoples and their religions, you will find the concept of the Word. You will find that the concept of the Logos is present among them, just as it is present in later, esoterically taught Judaism. But you will also find that among all these ancient peoples who used the concept of the Logos before Judaism, this Word has a much more vital quality, whereas in Judaism it becomes something abstract. The Persians conceived of it in such a way that the Word is proclaimed to the magician by living beings—angels, devas. They are the bearers of the Word. It is the devas who, in Indian thought, carry the Word into the earthly world. The messenger is also included in this conception. It is the living Word, spoken by God and brought down to humanity through divine messengers—through devas or angels. The situation is similar among the Babylonians. Everything that interposes itself between God Himself and humankind is, by virtue of a special mission in world history, fully justified in being eradicated in the Jewish creed.

[ 28 ] The Jewish creed eliminates any reliance on intermediary beings that stand between God and humankind. God becomes the transcendent Jehovah, of whom no one is permitted to form an image, and all that man is permitted to know of Him is the Law that He has given. This is the Logos, which can become nothing more than a concept in the human mind; this is the entirely abstract, now shadowy Logos. This is the reality of the matter. Coming from Judaism, with its understanding of the doctrine of the Logos and the doctrine of the Law, the disciple whom Jesus loved had to proclaim the truth: that this Jesus, who lived among his disciples, was himself the Messenger, the Son of God. In other words: Just as devas, angels, and so on were once bearers of the Word, so it has now come to pass that Jesus, who became the Christ, was the Word made flesh. It was difficult to make this understandable in those days, since in the period that followed, the connection with the mediating beings between humanity and God had been lost: The Logos had become flesh; the Logos was God Himself.

[ 29 ] We see that by the third century, a sect had formed that was a staunch opponent of the Gospel of John. They called themselves the Alogoi; they wanted nothing to do with it. These Alogoi already existed in the second century, and the Gospel of John had many opponents at that time. How did our understanding of the Gospel of John get lost? We can only grasp this if we realize how people in earlier times related to their gods. Brahma and the other gods were nothing other than what lives in the world and with the world; they were precisely what manifests itself in every single thing and, above all, in every single human being. Although human beings are weak creatures, they develop higher and higher, and the God who is in the Word is expressed more and more.

[ 30 ] This is not pantheism, nor a vague concept of God, nor even a denial of God, but a concept as sublime as it can possibly be. It is still preserved in a single title: “Pontifex maximus,” the bridge-builder, the priest. And why is that? Because he had to be a more highly developed human being—one whose inner self was already one level [higher] than that of others, a human being who had attained a higher level of development. Anyone who knows how to research can already prove historically that the ancient gods of the Greeks were originally human beings—people who once lived and who were conceived as having worked their way up to a higher level of divinity. The same was true of the Persians. They, too, had beings such as the devas and angels, who differed in degree but led one step further—upward.

[ 31 ] Human beings, too, could become divine. They could ascend to the level where the Word reveals itself within their own hearts; for those who were able to develop to that point, there was a union of the Logos within their own hearts with the Logos outside. He could ascend with the consciousness of the Logos. He could bring about the Logos itself becoming flesh. This was a concept that the peoples of that time could understand. They could understand that through further development, one could attain the consciousness of the inner Word—the Word through which all things were made, which was with God in the beginning, and which was the life of human beings as well as the life of the entire world—and this Word became the light of humanity. It shone within human beings, and those who received it were called “children of God.”

[ 32 ] As you can see, the Gospel of John suggests that the Logos can become conscious within human beings, and that those who can become aware of this state are called sons of God. That is why he said elsewhere: “You are gods”—and in doing so, he explains why he calls himself a son of God. If we bear this in mind, John had two things to convey: first, that the ancient awareness—that human beings possess a divine consciousness within themselves—can burst forth and become a lived experience; and second, that the one who lived in Palestine was the revelation of the very same Logos who lives within every human being in general and who came among humanity as the Logos. From him, one had to understand that he had become the Logos at this extraordinary place and at this extraordinary time.

[ 33 ] They understood only the Logos, but they no longer knew how to connect with it. And because they no longer knew how to connect with humanity, they found it difficult to understand the Logos who became flesh. Therefore, the Greek perspective—which develops the deification of humankind within its own higher service—had to be conveyed by Alexandrian Christianity. This had to serve as the starting point. These two elements had to be linked. The Logos, which can reveal itself only as law, had to be reconciled with the original concept of the Logos. If you keep this in mind, you will understand that two currents were necessary in early Christianity.

[ 34 ] One was the school of thought that had not yet strayed from the original concept of Logos consciousness, which maintains that human development leads directly toward divinity and that the Logos can be understood. This stood alongside the other current, which viewed the Logos as a distant, elusive concept, which could regard the Logos only as a revelation from without, and which therefore found it difficult to understand that the Logos had become human. For these two currents, different concepts had to be created, so that this one Logos “was Jesus in his human essence, with the Logos as God.” Only in this way could understanding be achieved. These two schools of thought coexisted. One might say that one school understood the Gospel of John, while the other understood it less well. Although they both held fast to it, they interpreted it differently. “To those he gave the power to ‘become children of God’”—this was not understood. But this was what Arius had to defend at the Council of Nicaea. He defended the unity of essence between the Logos and Jesus and the divine seed within humanity. The other school of thought elevated the Word of God made flesh to the status of dogma and made it an integral part of the doctrine of the Trinity, which had come to mean something quite different from its original meaning. This school of thought sought to cast the revelation in such a light that only the Church could represent it, since it transcended all human powers of understanding. At the Council of Nicaea, the Gospel of John was misinterpreted in opposition to the Arian view.

[ 35 ] Since the Middle Ages, scholasticism has taught us to think free from all sensory experience, but also to cling selflessly and devotedly to an established word with fidelity, and not to assert self-serving criticism or the self-serving intellect. This is something that Christian thinkers have accepted for centuries—a form of training that was beneficial, a school of devoted thinking. Those who today—without knowing anything about it—speak disparagingly of Scholasticism and despise it do not understand this. Anyone familiar with Scholasticism knows what has been accomplished here in terms of selfless thinking—where the thinker does not say, “I, I have discovered this; I am called to find a conviction here at all costs!” but rather says, “What am I, who is it, and what is it, when I think this way, when the teaching was given by the Spirit?” There, all selfish intellect was sacrificed for the sake of understanding a doctrine that selflessly devoted itself to the truth. This must lead us to the realization that our human race is ancient, that people have always and forever thought, and that no one has been waiting for us—not even for what we will bring forth.

[ 36 ] If we learn to delve into the writings of the Fathers, we will prepare ourselves to recognize the true form more and more. A humble search for truth is what the Theosophical Society, which seeks to advance the study of the Gospel of John, strives for everywhere. We know that devotion is particularly lacking in our time. Those who speak for this movement know that they themselves have learned—in their search for truth—to be humble and devout. This is an experience that not just one, but many have gone through. They have made science their own. They have sought the truth here and there—in the natural sciences, in philosophy, in the study of history. They are familiar with the methods employed in these various fields. [...]

[ 37 ] But anyone, I would say, who has had the good fortune to delve a little deeper knows that in the sciences of our day—be it philosophy, natural science, medicine, theology, and so on—those who have truly absorbed them no longer believe: “I am called upon to decide.” Once we have become humble, let us read the Gospel of John once more; then we will find that, while some things were transcribed by the scribe differently than they were, they were reexamined from materialistic as well as higher perspectives, and it was found that we cannot find the meaning on our own level. This is not merely a rhetorical flourish on my part, but I speak with full responsibility on behalf of those who have embraced modern science and, having done so, have delved deeply into this book of wisdom, this book of truth. There they discovered something: they found that, as they set out to study this book, the truth flowed toward them in a sublime form, and that all their modern scholarship can only serve to allow the glory of this truth to flow into them. But that is not all. What’s more, for those who have such experiences, something new takes hold: they have become aware that—whenever they return to the Gospel of John—they are strengthened and invigorated each time. When they return from the Gospel of John in this way, they get the feeling that the truth contained within it is infinite, that it is something of infinite depth. And they say to themselves: Here I am a beginner; even the most advanced among us today are beginners here. They have experienced that they are beginners. This gives rise to a concept of revelation—not in the medieval sense, but one that is the gateway to truth, the door to truth—as Jesus said—a source of truth. The Gospel of John is one of the guides. To make this a guiding principle and to bring it to life in the widest possible circles—that is the task of the Gospel of John and the John Society. Anyone who knows what is to be sought here, what is to be learned here, may join this John Society and this study of the Gospel of John with all their heart.