The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fifth Lecture

[ 1 ] In our reflections on the Gospel of John, we must not lose sight of the fundamental point we discussed yesterday, namely, that the original author of the Gospel of John was the beloved disciple whom Christ Jesus himself initiated. Now, of course, someone might ask: Yes, but setting aside occult knowledge, is there perhaps also some external evidence through which the author of the Gospel of John suggests that he attained a higher kind of knowledge about the Christ through the raising from the dead—through the initiation depicted in the so-called miracle of Lazarus? — If you read the Gospel of John carefully, you will notice something. You will notice that nowhere in the Gospel of John—nor indeed anywhere before the chapter dealing with the raising of Lazarus—is there any mention of the disciple “whom the Lord loved” (13:23); that is to say, the actual author of the Gospel of John is saying: What comes before does not yet stem from the knowledge I have gained through initiation; you must first set that aside for now. Only afterward does he mention the disciple “whom the Lord loved.” Thus, the Gospel of John is divided into two important parts: a first part, in which the disciple whom the Lord loved is not yet mentioned because he had not yet been initiated; and only after the raising of Lazarus is this disciple mentioned. Nowhere in the text itself will you find a contradiction with what has been stated in the recent lectures. Of course, a person who considers the Gospel only superficially will easily overlook this and pay it no mind; and today, when everything is being popularized and all manner of wisdom reaches people, one must witness the peculiar spectacle that there is indeed often something quite dubious among this wisdom.

[ 2 ] Who would not consider it a blessing that such affordable literature as the “Reclam Universal Library” brings all kinds of knowledge to the people? Now, among the latest issues, one has appeared on “The Origins of the Bible.” The author identifies himself on the title page as a Doctor of Theology; he is, therefore, a theologian. He believes that the author of the Gospel of John is actually identified as John throughout all the chapters of the Gospel of John, beginning with verse 35 of the first chapter. When this little book came into my hands, I really could not believe my eyes and said to myself: There must be something quite extraordinary here that contradicts all previous scholarly views—namely, that the beloved disciple is not mentioned before the raising of Lazarus. But a theologian should surely know better! Well, so as not to judge too quickly, pick up the Gospel of John and see what it says: “The next day John was standing there again with two of his disciples” (1:35). John the Baptist is mentioned, and two of his disciples are spoken of. The most favorable interpretation one can offer this theologian is that his mind is steeped in an ancient exoteric tradition which states that one of the two disciples is John. This tradition is based on Matthew 4:21. But one must not interpret the Gospel of John through the lens of the other Gospels. A theologian has thus managed to introduce a book that is directly harmful into popular literature; and when one considers how deeply such ideas, disseminated in this very way through such cheap literature, take root among the people, one can gauge the harm that results from it. This was meant to be merely a digression, so that a certain protective barrier might be erected against all manner of objections that might be raised against what is said here.

[ 3 ] Now let us consider that, while what precedes the raising of Lazarus is indeed an account of truly momentous events, the author has reserved the most profound truths for the chapters following the raising of Lazarus. Nevertheless, he wanted to indicate throughout that the content of his Gospel is something known only to those who have been initiated to a certain degree. Therefore, he hints in various places that the events described in the first chapters involve a kind of initiation up to a certain degree. There are, in fact, initiations of various degrees. For example, in a certain form of Eastern initiation, seven degrees of initiation were distinguished, and these seven degrees were designated by all manner of symbolic names. The first degree was that of the “Raven,” the second that of the “Occult,” the third that of the “Warrior,” and the fourth that of the “Lion.” The fifth degree is now designated, among the various peoples who still felt a kind of kinship through blood as the expression of their group soul, by the name of the people; thus, among the Persians, for example, one who is initiated into the fifth degree is only then called a “Persian” in the occult sense. When we understand what these names mean, the justification for these designations will soon become clear to us.

[ 4 ] A first-degree initiate is one who serves as a mediator between the occult and the outer life, who is sent back and forth. At the first stage, a person must still devote himself fully to outer life, but he must carry what he discovers into the places of initiation. The term “ravens” is thus used wherever words have something to convey from the outside to the inside. Recall the ravens of Elijah or the ravens of Wotan, and even the ravens in the Barbarossa legend, where they are sent to find out whether it is already time to emerge. The initiate of the second degree was already fully immersed in the occult life. One who was in the third degree was permitted to advocate for the occult; the degree of the “Warrior” does not refer to a person who fights, but to one who is permitted to advocate for the occult teachings, for what the occult life has to offer. The one who is a “Lion” is one who realizes the occult life within himself; so that he is permitted to advocate for the occult not merely with words, but also with deeds—that is, with a kind of magical action. The sixth degree is the degree of the “Sun Hero,” and the seventh degree is the degree of the “Father.” For us, the fifth degree is relevant.

[ 5 ] In ancient times, in particular, human beings were part of their community and therefore, even when they were aware of their “I,” felt more like members of a group soul. But anyone who was an initiate of the fifth degree had made a certain sacrifice, having shed his personality to such an extent that he had absorbed the essence of the people into his own personality. Just as other people felt their souls within the soul of the people, so had he absorbed the soul of the people into himself, because everything that constituted personality was of no consequence to him—only the general spirit of the people mattered. That is why such an initiate was designated by the name of the people in question. — Now we know that the Gospel of John tells us that Nathanael is among the first disciples of Christ Jesus. He is brought before Christ. He is not so highly initiated that he is able to see through Christ. Christ is, of course, the Spirit of all-encompassing knowledge, who cannot be fully understood by a Nathanael, an initiate of the fifth degree. But Christ sees right through Nathanael. This is evident from two facts. How does Christ himself describe him?

“This is a true Israelite!” (1:47)

[ 6 ] There you have the designation based on the name of the people. Just as the Persians called someone initiated to the fifth degree a “Persian,” so the Israelites called such a person an “Israelite.” That is why Christ calls Nathanael an “Israelite.” And then he says to him:

“Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you!” (1:48)

[ 7 ] This is a symbolic term for an initiate, just as Buddha’s sitting under the Bodhi tree is. The fig tree is a symbol of the Egyptian-Chaldean initiation. He wants to tell him: Oh, I know full well that you are, in a certain sense, an initiate and can see through certain things, for I saw you. And now Nathanael recognizes him:

“Nathanael answered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God and a king in Israel.’ ” (1:49)

[ 8 ] In this context, the word “King” means: You are superior to me, for otherwise you could not say, “Since you were sitting under the fig tree, I saw you.” And Christ replies:

“You believe me because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree; you will see things even greater than that.” (1:50)

[ 9 ] We will have to discuss the words “truly, truly” later. Then he says:

“I tell you, you will see the angels of heaven ascending and descending upon the Son of Man!” (1:51)

[ 10 ] Those who are able to recognize Christ will see something even greater than what they have already seen. What kind of significant statement is this again?

[ 11 ] To explain this, let us recall what a human being actually is at the outset. We have said that a human being is different by day and by night. By day, the four constituent parts of the human being—the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body, and the I—are in a firm connection with one another. They interact with one another. We may say that when a human being is awake during the day, his physical body and his etheric body are, in a certain sense, permeated and sustained by his astral-spiritual and ego-spiritual aspects. But we have also shown how something else must be at work within the etheric and physical bodies so that the human being can exist at all in his present stage of development. For we have reflected on the fact that every night the human being withdraws that which nourishes even his physical body and his etheric body—namely, the astral body and the I—and thus leaves his physical body and etheric body to their own fate throughout the night. Every night, you all faithlessly abandon your physical body and your etheric body. From this you will recognize that spiritual science points out, with some justification, that divine-spiritual powers and forces flow through this physical body and this etheric body during the night, so that your physical body and etheric body are, so to speak, connected to the divine-spiritual forces and beings. We have also pointed out that precisely when the astral body and the “I” were outside the physical body and the etheric body in ancient times—in the times we called the Yahweh or Jehovah era—Jehovah was at work as an inspiration. But the true light—the fullness of the Godhead or the Elohim, the Pleroma—is what constantly radiates through the physical body and the etheric body as well; it is just that human beings cannot perceive it, because they have not yet received the necessary impulse from the Christ principle prior to the appearance of this principle on Earth. Those principles that are to find expression in the physical body dwell in the higher spiritual realm, in Devachan. The spiritual beings and forces that act upon the physical body are at home in the higher heavenly spheres, in the higher Devachan; and those forces that act upon the etheric body are at home in the lower heavenly spheres. Thus we can say: Beings from the highest regions of Devachan are constantly acting upon this physical body, and beings from the lower regions of Devachan are constantly acting upon the etheric body. Human beings can only recognize this when they take in the impulses of Christ within themselves: If you truly come to know the Son of Man, then you will recognize how the spiritual forces ascend and descend upon human beings from the heavenly spheres. This will be revealed to you through the impulse that Christ gives to the Earth!

[ 12 ] What follows here was already mentioned yesterday. It is the wedding at Cana in Galilee, often referred to as “the first of the miracles,” though it would be more accurate to call it “the first of the signs” performed by Jesus Christ (2:1–11). To understand the profound significance of this event, we must summarize much of what we have heard in the previous lectures.

[ 13 ] First of all, the text here speaks of a wedding. But why a wedding in Galilee? We will understand why it is a wedding in Galilee if we recall the entire mission of Christ. His mission consists in bringing into the human soul the full power of the “I,” that is, inner independence. The individual “I” should feel completely independent and self-contained, fully grounded in itself, and through love—given as a free gift—human beings are to be brought together. Thus, through the Christ principle, a love is to enter into the earthly mission that is increasingly transcending the material and rising ever higher into the spiritual. Love originated in its lowest form, which is bound to sensuality. In the earliest times of humanity, people loved one another based on blood ties, and great importance was attached to love having this material basis of kinship. Christ came to spiritualize this love—on the one hand, to tear love away from the bonds in which it is entangled through blood kinship, and on the other hand, to provide the power and the impulse for spiritual love. Among the believers of the Old Testament, we still see expressed in the fullest sense what we might call belonging to the group soul as the foundation of the individual “I” within the collective “I.” We have seen that the statement, “I and Father Abraham are one,” means something to the believer of the Old Testament; it means feeling secure in the awareness that the blood which had already congealed in the veins of Father Abraham flowed down to him, the believer. There he felt secure within a whole; and only those were regarded as belonging together who had emerged from a form of human procreation that was sustained by this blood kinship. At the very beginning of human development on Earth, marriages took place exclusively within very close circles, among families related by blood. “Close-kin marriage” was the practice adhered to at the dawn of human development. The narrow blood circles expanded more and more. People married outside their tribe, but not yet into another people. The people of the Old Testament held fast to the principle that the blood kinship of the people be maintained. A “Jew” is one who is a Jew by blood.

[ 14 ] Christ Jesus does not address this principle; rather, he addresses those who break with this principle of mere blood kinship, and therefore he does not reveal the important truth he has to reveal first within Judea, but outside in Galilee. Galilee was the region where people from all manner of tribes and nations were intermingled. The term “Galilean” means “mixed-race.” Christ Jesus goes to the Galileans, to those who are the most mixed. And from what underlies the procreation of humanity brought about by such mixing, there shall emerge that which is no longer bound to the material foundation of love. That is why what he has to say is spoken at a wedding. Why specifically at a wedding? Because a wedding can symbolize the procreation of humanity. And what he wishes to demonstrate, he does not demonstrate where people marry only within narrow boundaries—where they marry only within blood ties—but rather where they marry independently of blood ties. That is why this is said at a wedding—specifically, at a wedding in Galilee. And if we want to understand what is being shown here, we must once again take a look at the entire development of humanity.

[ 15 ] It has often been emphasized that, for the occultist, there is no such thing as something external or merely material. For him, everything material is the expression of something soul-spiritual. And just as your face is the expression of something soul-spiritual, so the light of the sun is the expression of a soul-spiritual light. Everything that appears to be merely material is, at the same time, the expression of deeper spiritual processes. Occultism does not deny the material; for it, even the coarsest material is the expression of something soul-spiritual. Thus, spiritual processes of development in the world are always accompanied by parallel material facts.

[ 16 ] When we look back in spirit on the evolution of humanity—when humanity was still on the ancient continent between Europe and America, on ancient Atlantis, and from there carried over into the later post-Atlantean era—and consider how various generations have finally led up to us, then we can grasp the full meaning of this evolution of humanity from the fourth race to the fifth race — when viewed from the racial perspective — in such a way that, so to speak, from the humanity of Atlantis, which was still entirely immersed in the group soul, the individual “I” of the human personality was to gradually develop and slowly mature during the post-Atlantean era. What Christ brought spiritually through his powerful spiritual impulse also had to be slowly prepared through other impulses. What Yahweh did was to place the group-soul “I” within the astral body, thereby preparing it for slow maturation so that it could receive the fully independent “I Am.” But this “I Am” could not be grasped by the human being unless his physical body, too, became a suitable vessel to house this “I Am.” You can easily imagine that the astral body might still be capable of receiving an “I”—but if the physical body is such that it is not a suitable instrument for truly grasping the “I Am” even in waking consciousness, then it is simply not possible to receive an “I Am.” The physical body, too, must always be the suitable instrument for what manifests itself here on Earth. Thus, once the astral body had matured, the physical body had to be prepared to become an instrument for the “I Am.” And this is indeed what happened in human evolution.

[ 17 ] We can trace the processes through which the physical body was prepared to become a vessel for the self-aware human being endowed with the “I am.” Even the Bible hints at this: that the one who becomes the progenitor in a certain sense in the post-Atlantean era—that Noah is the first wine-drinker, the first to experience the effects of alcohol. This brings us to a chapter that may indeed be shocking to some. What emerges as a distinctive cult in the post-Atlantean era is the worship of Dionysus. You all know how the cult of Dionysus is associated with wine. This remarkable substance, however, was not introduced to humanity until the post-Atlantean era, and it has an effect on humanity. You know that every substance affects people in some way, and alcohol has a very specific effect on the human organism. For it had a mission in the course of human development; it had—as strange as it may seem—the task, so to speak, of preparing the human body in such a way that it was cut off from its connection with the Divine, so that the personal “I am” could emerge. Alcohol has the effect of cutting people off from their connection with the spiritual world in which they once lived. Alcohol still has this effect today. It is no coincidence that alcohol has existed among humanity. In a future humanity, one will be able to say in the fullest sense of the word that alcohol had the task of pulling human beings down so far into the material world that they became selfish, and that alcohol led them to claim the “I” for themselves and no longer place it in the service of the entire people. Thus, alcohol performed the opposite service to that rendered by the group soul of humanity. It deprived humanity of the ability to feel at one with a whole in higher worlds. Hence the cult of Dionysus, which fosters communal living in a kind of external intoxication—a merging into a whole without perceiving that whole. Development in the post-Atlantean era has therefore been linked to the cult of Dionysus because this cult was a symbol of the function and mission of alcohol. Now that humanity is once again striving to find its way back to a state where the “I” is so far developed that human beings can reconnect with the divine-spiritual powers, the time has come when—initially even from the unconscious—a certain reaction against alcohol is setting in. This reaction arises because many people today already sense that something which once had special significance is not eternally justified.

[ 18 ] No one should interpret what has just been said about the role of alcohol in a particular era as an endorsement of alcohol; rather, it was intended to make clear that this mission of alcohol has been fulfilled and that different things are appropriate for different times. But even in the very same era in which humanity was dragged down to the depths of selfishness by alcohol, the strongest force emerged—one capable of giving human beings the greatest impulse to find their way back to union with the spiritual whole. On the one hand, humanity had to descend to the lowest level in order to become independent; on the other hand, however, a powerful force had to emerge that could once again provide the impetus to find the way back to the Whole.

[ 19 ] This is what Christ had to imply in the first sign of his mission. He had to imply, first, that the “I” was to become independent, and second, that he was addressing those who had already detached themselves from blood ties. He had to turn to a wedding where the bodies were under the influence of alcohol; for at this wedding, wine is drunk. And Christ Jesus shows how he approaches his mission in relation to the various earthly periods. How often is the meaning of the transformation of water into wine here expressed in a most peculiar way. One can even hear from pulpit to pulpit that this is meant to signify nothing other than that the stale water of the Old Testament is to be replaced by the robust wine of the New Testament. Presumably, it was wine lovers who repeatedly favored this kind of interpretation. For these symbols are not that simple. It must be noted that Christ says: My mission is such that it points to the most distant future; and the connection with the Deity—love for the Deity as a free gift of the independent self—is to be brought to human beings as autonomous individuals. This love is to bind human beings to the Deity in freedom, just as an inner, coercive impulse of the group soul had previously integrated them into that Deity.

[ 20 ] Let us now try to grasp, in terms of a general atmosphere, what humanity experienced at that time. Above all, let us grasp the thoughts people had back then. It was said: Human beings were once connected to the group soul and felt their connection to the Divine. Then they degenerated. This was viewed as becoming entangled with the material world, as a degeneration, as a kind of fall from the Divine, and people asked: Where did what human beings now possess originally come from? From what did they fall away? The further back we go in the Earth’s evolution, the more we find that solid substances increasingly transform into liquids under the influence of warmer conditions. We know, however, that back when the Earth was still a liquid planet, human beings already existed. But at that time, human beings were even less detached from the divine than they were later. To the same extent that the Earth solidified, human beings also became more materialized. When the Earth was liquid, humankind was already contained within the water; but humankind could only move about on an Earth that had already begun to solidify. Therefore, the solidification of humankind was perceived in such a way that it was said: Humankind is born from the Earth, which was still water, but at that stage is still entirely connected to the Divine. Everything that brought him into matter has defiled him. Those who were meant to remember this ancient connection with the Divine were baptized with water. This was meant to be the symbol: Become aware of your ancient connection with the Divine, and that you are defiled, having fallen to your present state! - Thus John the Baptist also baptized, in order to bring people closer to their connection with the Divine in this way. And this is how all baptism was intended in ancient times. It is a radical expression, but one that brings to our consciousness what is meant.

[ 21 ] Christ Jesus was to baptize in a different way. He was not to direct people toward the past, but toward the future through the development of spirituality within them. Through the “Holy,” through the unclouded Spirit, the spiritual nature of human beings was to become one with the Divinity. Water baptism was a baptism of remembrance. But baptism with the “Holy Spirit” is a prophetic baptism that points to the future. That connection—which has been completely lost and which water baptism was meant to remind people of—has also been lost in what was expressed in the symbol of wine, the sacrificial wine. Dionysus is the dismembered god who has entered into individual souls, so that the individual parts are no longer aware of one another. Shattered into many pieces and cast into matter, humanity has been reduced to this state by what has been brought to humankind through alcohol—the symbol of Dionysus. But the Wedding at Cana embodies a great principle: the pedagogical principle of evolution. While absolute truths do exist, they cannot simply be handed down to humanity at any given time. Every age must have its own particular tasks, its own particular truths.

[ 22 ] Why are we allowed to talk about reincarnation and such today? Why are we allowed to sit together in a gathering like this and study spiritual science? We are able to do so because all the souls that are within you today have incarnated on Earth so many times in so many bodies. Quite a few of the souls that are within you today once lived in the Germanic lands, where the Druid priests came among them and brought spiritual wisdom to the soul in the form of myths and legends. And because the soul absorbed it in that form back then, it is now able to absorb it in another form—in the form of anthroposophy. Back then through imagery; today through the form of anthroposophy. But the truth could not have been presented in today’s form back then. You must not believe that the ancient Druid priests could have proclaimed the truth in the form in which it is done today. But anthroposophy is the form that is suitable for people today or for those in the immediate future. In later incarnations, the truth will be proclaimed and worked through in entirely different forms, and what is called anthroposophy today will be recounted as a memory, just as legends and fairy tales are told today. The anthroposophist must not be so foolish as to say: “In ancient times there was nothing but foolishness and childish views, and ‘only we have made such magnificent progress today.’” — This is what those who claim to be monists do, for example. We, however, work in spiritual science to prepare for the next epoch. For if our epoch did not exist, the next one would not come either. But no one should use the present to excuse the future. A great deal of nonsense is also being peddled regarding the doctrine of reincarnation. I have encountered people who have said that they do not yet need to be decent human beings in their present incarnation; they claim they will have time for that later. But if one does not begin today, the consequences will be felt precisely in the next incarnation.

[ 23 ] We must therefore be clear that there is nothing absolute in the forms of truth, but that what is recognized each time corresponds to a particular epoch of humanity. The highest impulse, so to speak, had to descend to the level of the customs of that time. For he had to clothe what is highest truth in the words and actions that were appropriate to the understanding of that particular epoch. Thus, through a kind of Dionysian or wine sacrifice, Christ had to show how humanity should ascend to divinity. One must not ask zealously, “Why does Christ turn water into wine?” One must take the times into account. Through a kind of Dionysian sacrifice, Christ had to prepare the way for what was to come. Christ goes to the Galileans—a motley crew drawn from all manner of nations, not bound by blood ties—and there performs the first sign of his mission; and he adapts himself so thoroughly to their way of life that he turns water into wine for them.

[ 24 ] Let us note what Christ is actually trying to say here: I also wish to lead those people to a spiritual connection who have descended to the level of materiality symbolized by the drinking of wine. And he does not wish to be there only for those who can elevate themselves through the symbol of water baptism. It is very significant that we are explicitly reminded that there are six jars of purification here (2:6). We will return to this number later. “Purification” is what is brought about through baptism. In the times from which the Gospel originates, when referring to the act of baptism, people spoke of “baptizing” as a purification. However, people never actually used the word “baptism”; instead, they said “to baptize”; and what was brought about by baptism was called “purification.” You will never find the corresponding word, AurriSewv, in the Gospel of John in any form other than as a verb. But when it is used as a noun, it always expresses the purification, the effect, so that people may remember their state of purification and their connection to the Divine. Thus, even in the symbolic jars for the purification offering, Christ Jesus performs the ritual through which he—in accordance with the era—points to his mission.

[ 25 ] Thus, the Wedding at Cana in Galilee reveals to us something of Christ’s deepest mission. And there he had to say: My time will come in the future; but it has not yet arrived. What I have to accomplish here is still partly connected to what must be overcome through my mission. He stands in the present and at the same time points toward the future, thereby showing how he works for his time—not in an absolute sense, but in a cultural-pedagogical sense. It is therefore the Mother who urges him, saying, “They have no wine.” But he replies: “What I must accomplish now is still connected to the old times, to ‘you and me’; for my true time—when the wine is transformed back into water—has not yet come.” After all, what sense would it make to say, “Woman, what do I have to do with you?” if he then goes ahead and does what his mother said anyway?! It only makes sense if we are to be reminded that the present condition of humanity has been brought about by blood kinship, and that a sign is given in accordance with ancient customs, which still require the influence of alcohol to point toward the time when the independent self emerges from the bonds of blood—that we must therefore, for the time being, still reckon with the old, symbolized by the wine, but that a later time will come which will be “his time.”

[ 26 ] And chapter by chapter, the Gospel of John now reveals two things to us: first, that what is communicated is intended for those who are, in a certain sense, capable of comprehending occult truths. Today, spiritual science is presented in an exoteric manner; back then, however, spiritual scientific truths could be understood only by those who, in a certain sense, were truly initiated to one degree or another. Who could understand anything of the deeper truths that Christ Jesus had to say? Only those who were able to perceive beyond the physical body—those who could step out of the body and become conscious in the spiritual world—could understand it. If Christ Jesus wished to speak to people who could understand him, they had to be those who were initiated in a certain way, who were already able to see spiritually to some extent. When, for example, he speaks of the rebirth of the soul in the chapter on the conversation with Nicodemus, we are shown that he proclaims this truth to one who sees with spiritual senses. You need only read:

“Now there was a man among the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
he came to Jesus by night...” (3:1–2)

[ 27 ] Let us simply get into the habit of weighing every word carefully! We are given to understand that Nicodemus comes to Jesus “at night”—that is, that outside of his physical body, he receives what Christ Jesus has to communicate to him. “At night”—that is, by making use of his spiritual senses—he comes to Christ Jesus. Just as Nathanael and Christ Jesus communicate as initiates through the story of the fig tree, so too is a capacity for understanding implied here.

[ 28 ] And the other thing that is shown to us is that Christ always seeks to fulfill a mission that goes beyond mere blood ties. This is made very clear to us by the fact that he goes to the Samaritan woman at the well. He gives her the teaching he intends to give to those whose “I” has been lifted out of the blood community.

“He came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Now Jacob’s well was there. Since Jesus was tired from His journey, He sat down by the well; it was about the sixth hour.
A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink.’
For his disciples had gone into the town to buy food.
The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How can you ask me for a drink, since you are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman? (For the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans).’” (4:5–9)

[ 29 ] It is pointed out that it is something special for the Christ to come to a people whose “I”s have been lifted out of and uprooted from the group soul. That is the important point, the crux of the matter.

[ 30 ] The story of the Royal One further reveals: Christ breaks through not only what is united by blood ties in communal marriages, but also what is divided into estates according to blood ties. He comes to those whose “I,” so to speak, has been uprooted: He heals the son of the royal family, who is actually a stranger to him according to the Jews’ view. Everywhere you are reminded that Christ is the missionary of the independent “I” found in every human individuality. That is why he can also say: When I speak of myself, in a higher sense I am not speaking at all of the “I” that resides within me; rather, when I speak of the “I Am,” I am speaking of a being, of something that everyone finds within themselves. My “I” is one with the Father; but the “I” in general, which is in every personality, is one with the Father. — This is also the deeper meaning of the teaching that Christ gave to the Samaritan woman at the well. Above all, I would like to remind you of a passage that can open up a deep understanding for you if you grasp it correctly: verses 31 through 34 of Chapter 3, which, of course, must be read with the awareness that John the Baptist is the one speaking these words:

“The one who comes from above is above all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all and testifies to what he has seen and heard; yet no one accepts his testimony.
But whoever does accept it confirms that God is true. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for God does not give the Spirit by measure.”

[ 31 ] I’d like to meet the person who truly understands these words based on this translation. What kind of contradiction is this: “He who comes from God speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure!” What is the meaning of these sentences?

[ 32 ] Through countless discourses, Christ seeks to convey: When I speak of the “I,” I am speaking of the eternal “I” within human beings, which is one with the spiritual source of the world. When I speak of this “I,” I am speaking of something that dwells in the very depths of the human soul. If anyone listens to me—and yet speaks only of the lower “I,” which feels nothing of the Eternal—that person does not accept my testimony and does not understand me at all. For I cannot speak of something that flows from me to him. Then he would not be independent. Everyone must find the God I proclaim within himself as his eternal foundation. - Just a few verses back, you’ll find the passage:

“John was also baptizing at Enon, near Salim, because there was plenty of water there; and people came there to be baptized.
For John had not yet been put in prison.
Then a dispute arose among John’s disciples and the Jews concerning purification” (3:23–25),

[ 33 ] that is, regarding the form of baptism. Whenever such a question was raised in this circle, the discussion always turned to the connection with the Divine and to the immersion of the human being into matter, and to how, according to the ancient concept of God, one was connected to the Divine through the group soul. Then the others came and said to John, “But Jesus baptizes, too!” And so John first had to make it clear to them that what comes into the world through Jesus is something quite special. And he makes this clear to them by saying: “Jesus does not teach that connection symbolized by the old baptism, but rather he teaches how human beings are guided by the free gift of the ‘I’ that has become independent; and everyone must discover within themselves the ‘I Am,’ God—only through this can they come to find the divine within themselves.” - When these words are read in this way, the listener becomes aware that He Himself—that the “I Am”—is sent by God. One who is sent by God, who is dispatched to kindle the “God” in this way, also proclaims God in the true sense, no longer according to blood kinship.

[ 34 ] And now let’s translate this passage as it truly is. We’ll find the materials for this once we understand what the teachings of the ancients were like. They were artfully recorded in many books. We need only recall the Psalms, where the divine was proclaimed in beautifully crafted passages in the Old Testament. There, one speaks only of the ancient blood ties as the connection to a God. One could learn all of that, but through all of it, one never learned anything more than that one is connected to this ancient deity. But if one wanted to understand Christ, one did not need all those ancient laws or all that ancient artifice. What Christ taught could be grasped to the extent that one grasped the spiritual self within oneself. Then, although one could not yet have full knowledge of the divinity, one could understand what one heard from the lips of Christ Jesus. Then one had the prerequisite for understanding. One no longer needed all the psalms, nor all the artfully crafted teachings; instead, one needed only the simplest things—and those were stammering expressions. One need only babble in one’s words, and one will bear witness to God. This was possible even in the simplest, babbling words—they need only be individual words that have no “rhythm” at all. Whoever merely babbled, whoever felt within their inner self that they were sent by God, could understand what Christ spoke. Whoever knows only the earthly connection with God speaks in the meter of the Psalms, but all his meter leads him to nothing other than the old gods. But the one who feels grounded in the spiritual worlds is above all, and he can bear witness to what he has seen and heard in the spiritual worlds. But those who accept testimony only in the customary way do not accept his testimony. If there are those who do accept it, then they show, precisely through their acceptance, that they feel themselves to be sent by God. They do not merely believe; they understand what the other person is telling them, and through their understanding they themselves confirm his words. “Whoever feels the ‘I’ reveals God’s words even in babbling.” That is what it means. For the spirit referred to here does not need to express itself through any meter or syllabic measure; rather, it can express itself in the simplest, most babbling manner. Such words are easily taken as a license for a right to ignorance. But whoever rejects wisdom because, in his opinion, the highest mysteries must be expressed in the simplest form, does so—though often unconsciously—merely out of a certain inclination toward spiritual complacency. When it is said, “God does not give the Spirit according to measure,” it simply means that measure does not aid the Spirit; but where the Spirit truly is, there measure also arises. Not everyone who possesses measure possesses the Spirit; but whoever possesses the Spirit will certainly attain measure. Of course, one must not reverse certain things: possessing measure is not in itself a sign of possessing the Spirit, although, conversely, possessing measure is not a sign of the Spirit either. Science is certainly no sign of wisdom, but neither is ignorance.

[ 35 ] Thus we are shown that Christ appeals to the “I” that has become independent within every human soul. You should understand “meter” here in a similar way to “syllabic meter”—that is, as artfully constructed language. — And the preceding sentence literally reads: “He who grasps God in the ‘I Am’ bears witness to the divine language—or God’s language—even in babbling, and finds the way to God.”