The Rudolf Steiner Archive

11. An excerpt from the Jewish Haggadah

[ 1 ] Last time, we became acquainted with the surprising fact that a large number of those in the West who speak of Christ Jesus as a matter of duty do not believe as much about this Christ Jesus, do not hold as much to be true, as every true believer in Islam, every true adherent of the Qur’an, holds to be true about Jesus. And we have seen that our understanding—which we have just gained regarding the figure of Christ Jesus, whom we acknowledge—can indeed help us in our conception of the Jesus of the Qur’an, provided we are able to delve deeply and correctly into what Spiritual Science teaches us: that the Zarathustra soul resided in the body of the Solomonic Jesus boy until the age of twelve. We know that this Zarathustra soul then passes into the body of the Nathanic Jesus boy, and that in the thirtieth year of this Jesus’ life, the Christ Spirit takes possession of what has developed in this way.

[ 2 ] If one takes the concept of Jesus as presented in the Quran—as we saw last time—it naturally corresponds, as it must for certain reasons, in a certain respect to the Nathanic Jesus. Even what I was compelled to say based purely on premises of Spiritual Science—namely, that the Nathanic infant Jesus spoke immediately upon his birth—is stated in the Qur’an. Thus, the concept of Jesus held by some theologians who profess a certain so-called “free-thinking” orientation not only does not entitle them to call themselves Christians in the true sense, but would not even entitle them to call themselves “Turks.” In fact, a doctrine is being preached from many quarters among us that, with regard to the conception of Jesus, does not stand on the same level as the Turks’ conception of Jesus. I wanted to point out this surprising fact last time precisely because it might make it clear to some people just how much it is the task of our Western culture—insofar as it strives toward the spiritual—to delve ever more deeply into the essence of the Mystery of Golgotha, that Mystery of which it can be said that, if we take all our insights from the various worlds and apply them in the most diligent sense, only then can they to some extent point us toward what actually took place for the development of the Earth through the Mystery of Golgotha. We have already seen how little good schematic insights actually serve us, even in the field of Spiritual Science, and how necessary it is to shed light on these matters with ever greater precision from a wide variety of perspectives. From this you will see how beneficial it can be to examine in even greater detail, from certain perspectives, what confronts us when we consider Christ Jesus—first, through his Solomonic lineage, second, through the indwelling of the Zarathustra soul in a body descended from the Solomonic line, and then, in turn, how beneficial it is to explore what can shed light on the figure of the Nathanic Jesus, and so on. Therefore, I would like to begin today by speaking a little about Solomon and about what is connected with the figure of Solomon.

[ 3 ] If one takes what has been preserved of the teachings of ancient Judaism in terms of the concepts and ideas of that Judaism—I mean, what has been preserved in the Talmud or other writings, apart from the Old Testament, which is a different matter—one actually gains only incomplete concepts of the entire content of the Jewish worldview. In particular, one gains incomplete concepts of the mental images associated with a figure such as Solomon. What has been preserved in a more conceptual form from Jewish teaching is called Halakha, whereas Haggadah refers to that which has been preserved in such a way that modern people regard it as fairy tales, images, or legends. In reality, however, such fairy tales, such images, and such legends go back to visions in the spiritual world—to what has been seen in the spiritual world, or what has been learned through having seen in the spiritual world. Such fairy tales, such myths, and such legends are rooted in imaginative insights, just as they are also contained in the Jewish Haggadah.

[ 4 ] Today, I would like to use a short passage from this Haggadah as the starting point for our discussion—the passage that deals with an important moment in the life of King Solomon. So let us take this as the starting point for our discussion. This passage from the Jewish pictorial tradition about Solomon reads:

[ 5 ] Rabbi Yochanan said: “A person’s feet guarantee that they will bring him to the place where he is summoned.” We are told of those two Moors who were part of Solomon’s entourage: Elichoref and Ahijah, the sons of Sheshah, who were Solomon’s scribes. One day, Solomon saw the Angel of Death, who was sad, and he said to him, “Why are you so sad?” The Angel of Death replied, “Because these two Moors are being demanded of me.” Then Solomon handed his two Moors over to the Seirim. — The Seirim are demons that, to the human eye, look like goats and can fly through the air. — So Solomon handed his Moors over to the Seirim and sent them to the city of Lus. When they arrived there—the two Moors, that is—they died. The next day, Solomon saw the Angel of Death again. The angel was laughing. Then Solomon said to the Angel of Death, “Why are you laughing?” And the Angel of Death replied, “You sent them right to the place where they were demanded of me.” Immediately Solomon began to speak and said, “A man’s feet guarantee that they will bring him to the place where he is desired.”

[ 6 ] So Solomon had an encounter with the angel of death, which confirmed to him what Rabbi Yochanan had said as a universal truth: A person’s feet guarantee that he will be delivered to the place for which he is summoned.

[ 7 ] Now you will admit, my dear friends, that in this story, which the Haggadah tells us, there are many things about which one can ask a wide variety of questions. First of all, we hear: A person’s feet guarantee that he will be sent precisely to the place for which he is destined. Why are the feet specifically mentioned? For in such ancient pictorial legends, nothing is in any way incidental; rather, everything has its own specific, profound meaning. So that is the first question one might ask. Then another question must arise: Why was the Angel of Death sad when he appeared before Solomon, stating that he had come to fetch his two scribes? You see, the Angel of Death’s sadness—there actually seems to be no explanation for it in the legend at first; for it would, of course, be a cliché to think that the Angel of Death was somehow sad because he had to take the two men. After all, that is his duty, and one could not possibly understand why he should be sad. “And Solomon said to him, ‘Why are you so sad?’” So what does this question mean? To this, the Angel of Death replied: “Because these two Moors here—that is, King Solomon’s scribes—are being demanded of him, because he is supposed to fetch them.” But Solomon hands them over to the demons, who carry them to the city of Lus. Yes, you see, the city of Lus—that’s a question that’s easier to answer, because the city of Lus was a city with a peculiar custom: namely, that one was not allowed to die within its walls, so those whose death was approaching were carried outside the city. It was the only city that had this custom at that time. Now, of course, one might easily believe that this is merely a matter of stating the facts. But that is merely woven into the narrative. So it is implied: Solomon hears from the Angel of Death that his two scribes must die. He then sends them to the city of Lus, because he believes that if they are in the city of Lus, the Angel of Death cannot take them. But lo and behold, this story from the Haggadah, which I have shared with you, appears in many places within Jewish tradition. In other accounts, we are told that they fell right outside the city gates during their flight, so that they had not yet reached the city; thus, the Angel of Death was still able to take them. But then, the next day, the Angel of Death stands before Solomon, laughing. And now one might quite simply say: Now the Angel of Death is glad that he has succeeded after all in bringing the two to their deaths, and that is why he is laughing. Solomon now acknowledges the truth that Rabbi Yochanan actually wants to convey: that a person’s feet truly ensure that he is brought to the place where he is meant to be.

[ 8 ] As a rule, nothing in such descriptions is superfluous. It is even significant that the two scribes, the two Ethiopians, are sons of Sheshai, who himself was a scribe to David. This suggests, then, that these two scribes of King Solomon were already something special. We must take all of this into account if we are to grasp the full weight of the questions that may arise when we encounter a significant moment of insight in the life of King Solomon.

[ 9 ] Now let us consider that King Solomon is known not merely to have been called wise because he was intelligent—in the way that modern intelligent people are intelligent—but because he possessed genuine insights into the spiritual world, because he could look into the spiritual world, and because the spiritual world was open to him. Solomon was to learn the truth that Rabbi Yochanan later imparted—the truth about the significance of the human feet.

[ 10 ] You see, when we look at human beings and compare them to animals, the most significant distinguishing feature—as I have mentioned many times before—should actually be that humans have an upright spine, perpendicular to the earth, to the earth’s surface, whereas animals have a horizontal spine. I hope no one will object by citing the kangaroo or similar animals, for these are, of course, exceptions; these exceptions could also be explained if we were able to delve into the details of the matter. But that is not the point. The most essential distinguishing feature, at least in terms of external form, is precisely this: that humans have an upright spine, while animals have a horizontal one. If we draw a line through the animal’s spine, then—provided we follow the main direction—this line will not be completely straight but slightly curved. I will disregard the S-shaped curve and assume the curve points slightly downward. Essentially, if we take the average degree of curvature in animals, we will find that we could extend this line running through the spine into a circle that goes all the way around the Earth. A true circle around the Earth! That is to say, if we draw a circle parallel to the Earth, it would pass through the animal’s spine. If we were to draw the same circle for a human being using their spine, it would of course not go all the way around the Earth; but if you could visualize it clearly, you would find that this resulting circle has a center: in the case of the animal, as you have just seen, its center would be the center of the Earth; in the case of the human being, however, the center would be the center of the Moon. Why? Because human beings have already undergone, during the ancient Moon era, the very stage of development that animals are currently undergoing in relation to the Earth, and this has remained with them as a legacy: they are connected to what remains of the Moon in the same way that animals are connected to the Earth.

[ 11 ] So human beings are connected to what remains of the Moon in the same way that animals are connected to the Earth. Human beings have thus torn themselves away from their planet. They are not connected to their planet in the same way that animals are. In terms of their outer physical nature, they have, in a sense, been torn away from their planet. But he has been torn away insofar as one aspect of his being has become detached from this planet. Instead of the circle I spoke of circling around the Earth, it extends into the Earth. Through this, however, human beings have received their footing on the Earth; through this, human beings are connected to the Earth by a force that is expressed in the way their feet stand on the Earth. This is connected to humanity’s entire transition from the lunar stage of development to the earthly stage: the hands have been torn away from the Earth, while the feet are still connected to it. If one understands the human form as it took shape during the transition from lunar development to earthly development, one must say: To the extent that the Earth was able to draw a part of the human being toward itself—in the direction of the feet and in the entire structure of the feet—the human being belongs to the Earth.

[ 12 ] So what guarantees to the earth that man will come to it? The mystery of his stance guarantees it! The word that appears in Hebrew at this point—“The feet guarantee it”—is exactly the same word used, for example, when something serves as collateral for a loan; it is exactly the same word. The word means that the feet are held back from the process of becoming human, so that they serve as a guarantee that, in one aspect of his being, man is connected to the earth. So you see, this does not mean, for example, that the feet carry the human being to the place of his death; rather, the entire mystery of the human form lies in this sentence, as Solomon recognized through his ability to look into the spiritual world. What I have now described in words was thus revealed to Solomon when he had this vision of the Angel of Death. And we see in this example once again how a wisdom existed among human beings—which we once called “primordial wisdom” in our recent reflections—and which has passed away so that human beings might be given the opportunity, during the course of Earth’s evolution, to attain wisdom anew from within themselves in conjunction with freedom.

[ 13 ] Another mystery in this story may be that the Angel of Death is sometimes sad and other times laughs. Laughter and tears—for very few people today, this is a matter of deep reflection; and when it does become one, the answers sometimes seem quite disheartening—in an age in which, as we have heard, there is even a “psychology of the marriage advertisement” considered a serious science. And yet there are, I would say, opportunities close at hand to reflect on the nature of laughter and tears, for the common people already have, I would say, a very wise understanding of laughter to begin with. If you’re out in the countryside, you’ll hear that when someone is walking alone down the street and starts to laugh, the man from the common folk will say: “Something’s not right with him; there’s something wrong with him!” — Isn’t that so? This already points to a deeper foundation of insight; it indicates that a judgment is being made—namely, that as a reasonable, modern person, one does not actually laugh when alone. And indeed, one really only laughs in company. Of course, there are exceptions, but essentially what I have just said holds true. Laughter, then, my dear friends, is something one does, so to speak, only in company. This is not the case to the same extent with crying. One might prefer to cry—especially when one is truly crying—in solitude, for those people who like to cry in company, where they can be seen, are perhaps not the ones whose sincerity in crying one can always quite trust. A farmer doesn’t give it much thought when he sees someone laughing alone, but he passes this judgment: “There’s something wrong with that person; something isn’t quite right.” Well, what is actually underlying this?

[ 14 ] Truly, my dear friends, in order to understand such aspects of human life as laughter and tears, it is necessary to engage with Spiritual Science. For you see, even when it comes to purely material existence, what is generally held in common consciousness is not entirely accurate. I have often pointed this out: When a person stands before us, someone, speaking from the standpoint of general consciousness, if asked, “What belongs to this person?”—will say: “What is inside the skin.” Isn’t that right? What is inside the skin belongs to the person. And if one does not think particularly deeply about it, one tends to believe—even as one goes through life—that what is inside the skin is what constitutes a human being.

[ 15 ] But now create a very vivid mental image of what is inside the skin: There is air there, too! But in the very next moment, it’s outside! The air that is now inside the skin is outside in the very next moment. This means that we are not at all capable of truly separating what is inside the skin from that in which the whole of human existence is embedded. The Earth-air sphere is, in essence, an integral part of the human physical being; it is constantly flowing in and out. And it is really not particularly remarkable when one is then asked to extend this mental image—which one should already have of the physical human being with regard to the air—to the whole human being, when one is told: When a person wakes up in the morning, they take into themselves something that was outside during the night. After all, at every moment they take in—even materially—the air that is outside; it is then within them. Upon waking, they take into themselves what is outside during the night. Upon falling asleep, they, as it were, breathe out their “I” and their astral body once more. The physical relationship between the human being and the surrounding air—we need only create a mental image of it as the relationship between the human being and the spiritual world, as it pertains to the Earth—and then we already grasp the concept. The only difference is that the air we now have within us—and which we will later exhale—immediately disperses into the outer air, whereas when we exhale our “I” and our astral body, so to speak, as we fall asleep in the evening, they retain their form and return to us just as we exhaled them. But just as we are connected to the surrounding air through the air we hold within us—and in fact, air is constantly flowing in and out—so too is there a flowing life between us and the other, spiritual world. For we must not form such a mental image: that our “I” and our astral body simply slip inside us and then remain there. They are connected outwardly with the entire spiritual world, just as the oxygen we hold within us is connected outwardly with the surrounding air, just as the air within us is connected with the environment. We are therefore constantly connected to the spiritual world through our “I” and through our astral body.

[ 16 ] Let’s assume that something makes such an impression on us that we would call it a “strange” impression in everyday life. What, in reality, does that which makes a comical impression on us actually do? It does something very similar to what happens when we—physically speaking—instead of inhaling our normal amount of air, let a little of it out and spread it over our surroundings. We extend our “I” and our astral body, as it were, out from within ourselves. We pour our “I” and our astral body into whatever strikes us as funny. So think of it this way: When you laugh at something, the reality of what is happening is that you are, in a sense, spreading your “I” and your astral body over it. You extend your astral body and your “I” outward and spread them over it. It is a spiritual process that is not, of course, a rejection like when, in another emotion, this astral body drags something from the physical body along with it—where what we have as the astral body also pours out into the surroundings but drags something from the physical body along with it: this is naughty, because what is dragged along is the tongue! That is what naughty children do when they stick out their tongues. When we laugh, we do keep our tongues inside; but it is still a similar state of the astral body, which is drawn out—and even drawn out so strongly that it obscures whatever is making a funny impression on it. Laughter is based on an expansion of the astral body, extending all the way to the etheric body. The invisible human being expands, stretching out as if elastic. This, then, is the process that occurs when we laugh.

[ 17 ] Exactly the opposite process takes place when we cry. In that case, the astral body actually contracts along with the etheric body; by contracting, it presses against the physical body and forces the tears out. That is, of course, much easier to understand. But you see: laughing and crying—and, of course, being sad as well, since being sad is really just the same soul process, only without tears—laughing, that is, being cheerful, and being sad are based on the expansion and contraction of the human being’s invisible essence; they are thus rooted in the unfolding of the forces of the human being’s invisible essence.

[ 18 ] Now you can also create a mental image of what Solomon must have seen. Of course, when he saw the angel of death, he did not see a physical body, but a spiritual being. So he saw how the angel of death expanded on the second day, whereas on the first day it had contracted. Here you have something that can show you how spiritual beings act, how spiritual beings carry out their deeds. For us humans, laughing and crying, being cheerful and being sad, are, so to speak, side effects of life through which we merely express our inner selves, through which we show what our inner state is like. In most cases, we accomplish little for other people through laughing and crying. We do not work through laughter and tears. They are side effects of life. But the moment one encounters certain spiritual beings who, unlike us, are much more deeply engaged with their own selves in their work, expansion and contraction represent the very nature of what they must accomplish. And when the Angel of Death stood there, ready to take the two of them, he had to hold his powers together: he had to condense within himself in order to bring about a straining of his powers through this condensation, for he was about to begin his work. This is expressed by the fact that he is sad. It is merely a hint of how he is contracting. The next day, having completed his work, the matter expanded again through elasticity. Thus, this sadness and cheerfulness in the angel of death simply reveals to us a fact of spiritual life.

[ 19 ] No one who does not wish to think superficially will take offense at the fact that the story does not seek a simplistic explanation for the Angel of Death’s sadness and cheerfulness, but rather one grounded in the deeper realities of the spiritual world. When Rabbi Yochanan spoke, there was certainly still a certain sensitivity to the peculiar nature of the spiritual worlds. And one can see from the seriousness with which this story is told that Rabbi Yochanan used this very story as the basis for his explanations and then built upon it to tell people about the spiritual worlds.

[ 20 ] However, in the late Middle Ages, during the period when the fifth post-Atlantean epoch—which we have already characterized—was already approaching, there emerged among the Jewish commentators on the Haggadah individuals who would be a source of great joy to our “advanced age.” For example, there is a Jewish commentator who was considered very learned in this advanced era—not in the backward era when people still believed in the spirit realm—and who said: Behind the entire narrative, we need not seek the superstitious explanation given by the ancients, but rather we must take the city of Lus as our starting point. It is well known that Solomon, even in his own time, sought out and settled in places with good air and a good climate, suitable for summer stays. — Truly, modern liberal scholars could actually be quite satisfied with this Jewish commentator! — And once one knows that the city of Luz was precisely such a summer retreat, established by King Solomon, then, starting from this point, one can, in essence, very easily get to the bottom of the matter. For then one need only create a mental image of the two scribes—back then, people wouldn’t have said they were “nervous,” but something along those lines, wouldn’t they?—who were no longer in the best of health, and so Solomon, in his wisdom—which, of course, for a modern person is a far greater wisdom than peering into the spiritual world—realized: Well, naturally, the two scribes were sent on a summer retreat! And it just so happened that they died during that retreat, as such things tend to happen. And so the belief arose that this was a kind of punishment. Well, in the Middle Ages, one could at least still believe in such things, couldn’t one? But in any case, these explanations already existed at a relatively early stage, as the fifth post-Atlantean epoch approached.

[ 21 ] But why is the city of Luz mentioned? And why the whole story about Solomon in the first place? Well, first of all, we must always keep in mind that Solomon is a person who is connected to the spiritual world. I said: It is significant that his two scribes were the sons of Sheshai, who had already been a scribe under King David; they are, in a sense, distinguished figures. And the role of a scribe in those days meant something different than it does today. Scribes in Egypt, for example—I have mentioned this before—were people who had to copy the letters with great devotion, in the true spirit of ancient Egyptian script. If someone wrote a letter incorrectly, the penalty was death, because it was something sacred. There was something sacred in the letters. And so King Solomon’s scribes were indeed people who were in contact with the spiritual world; they were connected to it and, in a sense, belonged to the community of those with whom Solomon shared his knowledge of the spiritual world. And the city of Luz is meant to point out to us that there was something in these scribes that, through their connection to the spiritual world, gave them, as it were, a full sense of their immortality even during their lifetime. We are to be made keenly aware that these scribes—no more than King Solomon—did not live their lives without knowing of their spiritual-soul core, which passes through the gate of death. They did not merely know this in theory; rather, they were among those who were, so to speak, initiated into these mysteries to a certain degree. For this reason, the angel of death faced a difficult task and was compelled to make contact with King Solomon in a certain way. That is to say, since the two scribes lived in their immortality—for their own sake and, in particular, for the sake of King Solomon’s consciousness—it was necessary for the Angel of Death to approach the entire process he now had to carry out in such a way that there was also an awareness of death and that they participated in it. The intention is not to suggest that King Solomon wanted to protect his scribes from death and therefore sent them to the city of Luz, but rather to indicate that dying took place here quite consciously—that it was taken into one’s knowledge, that it was anticipated. And the main emphasis lies in the fact that it became conscious to Solomon that his scribes were dying. And when it is said that he sent them to the city of Luz, this is meant only to indicate that he saw how the Ahrimanic power—represented, of course, by the angel of death—was advancing through its agents, the goat-demons.

[ 22 ] So the entire process, as it unfolds consciously, is to be illustrated to us, as it were, through the narrative: Once, a death occurred in the presence of a sage in such a way that it was observed through the sage’s consciousness. That is what Rabbi Yochanan wanted to imply. And the entire process was incorporated into Solomon’s knowledge in such a way that he now knew how human beings are connected to the earth and how they are connected to the spiritual world. The development of knowledge of the supersensible in King Solomon is presented to us through this story. Only if we regard this as a retelling, so to speak, of an event experienced clairvoyantly by King Solomon do we take the story as it is meant to be taken; only if we understand it as meaning, as it were: Rabbi Jochanam said that human beings are bound to the earth through the form of their physical body. Just as the shape of the feet and their position relative to the earth are connected to the earth, so this expresses that the human being is connected to the earth only in one respect—that only the feet serve as a guarantee that the human being belongs to the earth. But a person’s upright posture is the guarantee that his or her innermost being is entrusted to the spiritual world. So that Solomon might believe this, the process of dying was demonstrated to him through the death of a companion dear to him.

[ 23 ] Thus, we can only approach these matters using concepts and ideas drawn from the spiritual world itself. And many an ancient legend—as they are called—can only be understood when approached with the concepts of Spiritual Science. But the fact that this very story is told about King Solomon is quite significant. For it suggests to us that Solomon’s wisdom consisted precisely in looking into the spiritual world, where the mystery of death is first revealed. And when we hear from the ancient mysteries that the first thing a human being must experience is to approach the gate of death, what is essentially being presented to us in this legend is nothing other than this: Solomon was one of those who had reached the gate of death. In the line of generations descended from King Solomon lies, so to speak, the physical preparation for this clairvoyance that comes at the gate of death. Jesus’ body, then, is from the Solomonic line of the House of David, while his soul is that of Zarathustra. And let us be quite clear about what constitutes the essence of the Zarathustra soul, and why the Zarathustra soul is contained within a body that descends from a human being who possessed clairvoyance.

[ 24 ] I have, after all, spoken often about what sprang from the soul of Zarathustra. Today we want to focus—I would say—on what later became predominantly separated from the teachings of Zarathustra, on what was primarily transferred from the teachings of Zarathustra into the teachings of Mani and so on, into the Manichaean doctrine. Among the deepest questions posed by the enigma of humanity is, without a doubt, that concerning the good, sunny aspect of life and its connection to the evil, shadowy aspect of life. Now we know how much of this we can understand if we have insight into the workings of Lucifer and Ahriman. But this teaching of Lucifer and Ahriman does, in a certain sense, trace back to Zarathustra, to his two spiritual forces at work alongside the good, progressive deities. Lucifer and Ahriman already exist in the teachings of Zarathustra as a fact of the spiritual world, as the recognition of a fact of the spiritual world. What, my dear friends, could not have existed in this teaching of Zarathustra precisely because one had a certain insight into the interplay of Lucifer and Ahriman? You see, there was something that could not have existed—something that later generations have never been able to come to terms with. If one no longer understands the interplay of Lucifer and Ahriman in the world in the right way, then one does not see through the world; then the good remains a mystery, and the evil remains a mystery. Let us consider, from this perspective, a later teaching that can be characterized precisely in such a way that, within this teaching, this creed, people were no longer able to reflect upon the ancient teachings of Zarathustra. This is the doctrine of predestination and what is associated with it among the Muslims.

[ 25 ] Consider this: on the one hand, the doctrine of predestination states quite clearly that everything that happens is predetermined; just as everything is described in advance in the oldest scripture that existed in the very earliest times. I cannot take a single step outside my door without it being predetermined. When I die—it is predetermined! Everything is strictly predestined! This means that, in the consciousness of the Muslim, nothing happens to him that is not strictly prescribed in the Book of God. But every time the Muslim speaks of something that is about to happen—and which he would like to see happen—he will say something that would translate into English as: “Well, if God wills it!” — Although he is completely convinced that everything is written down in the Book of God, he says of everything: “Well, if God wills it!” — and he never fails to use this expression for things that seem even remotely significant to him: “If God wills it.” What does the Westerner say to this? What does the Muslim himself say when asked—if, for example, he were told: “Look, you say that everything is written down. Then it can’t make any sense for you to say, ‘God willing.’ Because then it’s no longer a matter of will; it’s already been determined from the very beginning.” — The Muslim says, and the Westerner says: “That is precisely an insoluble contradiction; there’s no getting around it.”

[ 26 ] And that is indeed the case. It is an irresolvable contradiction. Go through all of Western philosophy, take all the names: Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and so on—everywhere you will sense the lingering effect of this contradiction, which seems irresolvable and which stands out particularly starkly in the doctrine of kismet, of predestination, in Islam. So here we have a doctrine that differs from the doctrine of Zarathustra in this respect. The doctrine of Zarathustra would perceive neither one nor the other in such a way that a contradiction arises, because it recognizes Lucifer and Ahriman. And recall the reflection we have made here, where we contemplated the unification of these things! We must recognize from this that there was something in human development that transformed an original teaching—one that did not at all give rise to this contradiction—into another that suffers from this contradiction, one that can overcome this contradiction at best only through thoughtlessness. This contradiction, my dear friends, is merely similar to many other contradictions; it is simply the contradiction that most profoundly intervenes in life. But it is similar to many, many other contradictions that we can find time and again in life. And anyone who refuses to acknowledge that life is full of contradictions is completely unaware of one side of reality. Life is full of contradictions when it is viewed “with the human intellect”! But it should be viewed with the human intellect—that is to say, a time should come when human beings find themselves in contradictions; the age of Zarathustra should be replaced by an age in which human beings learn through contradictions, are spurred on by contradictions to their true inner life. Among the many things that the earth is meant to bring to man as trials is this very life amid contradictions.

[ 27 ] Now consider what kind of midpoint the fourth post-Atlantean epoch was—the midpoint of the fifth Earth epoch. In the fourth, the Atlantean epoch, what the Earth was meant to bring forth had not yet emerged; it was only in the fifth, and specifically in the middle of this fifth epoch, that what this Earth was primarily meant to bring forth emerged—and this included this very contradiction. Contradiction—that is the very essence of the Earth. Why, then, did Zarathustra not yet possess it? Because he still carried legacies from ancient times! In the fourth post-Atlantean period, human beings had already become fully attuned to the earthly realm. If human beings were to receive nothing for their inner life of intellect and reason other than what the Earth can give them, then they would not be able to transcend contradictions; then the entire remainder of Earth’s development would unfold in such a way that human beings would be consumed soulfully by their contradictions, that they would perish soulfully within them. For the spiritual, which can develop only through the Earth, must bring contradictions.

[ 28 ] If humanity is to be led out of these contradictions, what would have to happen? Something that, while belonging to the Earth, had not participated in humanity’s earthly evolution would have to enter into that earthly evolution. Something had to enter that had been left behind in the ancient Lemurian era, when humankind descended. And this is, after all, precisely the essence of the Nathanic Jesus. The Nathanic Jesus is precisely the one who stands close to humanity, because he has, so to speak, remained behind and has not participated in earthly evolution, yet he is, in turn, free from human contradictions precisely because he remained behind and only entered the scene when humanity had brought its development of contradictions to its peak, up to the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. There he appears as a remedy for the contradiction that must develop within human nature as humanity passes through the Earth. Truly, for their spiritual development, people must have that which is still an ancient legacy in the Zarathustra culture; but they must also come to terms with what they now experience on Earth as the nature of contradiction. Therefore, the Nathanic Jesus had to be added to the Zarathustrian Jesus and the Solomonic Jesus. And those who, in the rest of their religious creed, have this terrible contradiction of predestination and “God wills it”—such as the Muslims—have at the same time received the revelation of the Nathanic Jesus. If they possess enough capacity for development to understand this one day, then they will say to themselves: When we recognize the nature of the one revealed to us in the Qur’an, we will discover how predestination and “God wills it” come together.

[ 29 ] In their current stage of development, Muslims have not yet reached that point; but they do possess the seeds of this development within themselves in a certain sense—that is to say, they are there. It is only in its infancy. But Christians should be further along. Christians should understand what they possess in the being who passed through the Mystery of Golgotha, in whom the forces of Earth’s evolution truly came together. They should understand that the ancient heritage of humanity came through the nature of Zarathustra, and that a direct gift of the human came through the Nathanic Jesus.

[ 30 ] Let us take this line of thought this far for now. But from this, too, you can see how everything comes together. You can see how the things that coexist in life do so for good reason. In the Qur’an, predestination stands alongside “God wills it”; but the remedy for this is also there: the Nathanic Jesus. You see, my dear friends, how we are approaching what true human life really is. We are attempting to explore it in its highest forms by employing the concepts of Spiritual Science. For we are certainly living in a time when the old kind of knowledge is already in the process of disappearing. Few people remain who possess anything of the old kind of knowledge—that instinctive knowledge which is a legacy of clairvoyance—and those few are ridiculed. And the other kind of knowledge that has begun—the knowledge of the intellect, the knowledge of reason—well, in the view of those who have taken it so wonderfully far, it is, of course, already in its prime. For those who see through things, it is not in its prime, but truly only in its infancy, and it proves everywhere to be insufficient. The facts are advancing faster than this knowledge. It was different in earlier times, when knowledge was given by the gods; then it was always adapted to the facts. Now people have no idea how the facts are progressing, and knowledge really fits like a coat that is too small on all sides—truly too small. And when facts do arise, these facts are not used sufficiently to instruct people.

[ 31 ] In recent years, a highly learned gentleman has presented a strictly scientific argument—based on all the truly advanced economic concepts of our time—proving that no war today can last longer than three to four months at most. This has been proven “strictly scientifically.” What does this mean for a reasonable person? For a reasonable person, it means nothing other than that, since our war has now lasted nearly two years, we are dealing here with a theory that is simply too narrow to account for the facts. But people are not so easily convinced. People will not go—as they ought to—to investigate: Why is it that someone comes along with the entire critical apparatus of contemporary political economy and proves that a war cannot last longer than three to four months, because then it must end under current conditions; one will not go and investigate why this is so, for then one would come to the conclusion that this science is worthless, that it cannot encompass the facts. An unpleasant prospect! The man has learned his science well in the present. So if one were to be entirely consistent: A fatal prospect! In the lecterns of political economy, that is where one learns what the man has based his science on. Ultimate consequence: Abolish them all! Away with all these chairs of economics! That’s not possible—it really isn’t! — So one must acknowledge that economics must continue to exist in the present just as it is now, mustn’t it! If it continues to exist as it is in the present, it will prove many more such things “strictly scientifically.” Consequence: Fatal! — But if one were to draw further conclusions and examine whether, under certain circumstances, other theories might also be too narrow to account for the series of facts, one can’t even imagine what might come of it. So that’s not possible; therefore, all these things remain correct, of course.

[ 32 ] You see, my dear friends, it takes a certain amount of courage to think things through to their logical conclusion—a courage that is not always present today. And yet, we should possess this courage in a certain way. Then perhaps not everything will change overnight—for think of all the large pensions that would have to be paid if everyone who could no longer continue teaching under these circumstances were forced to retire! But even if the situation cannot be changed overnight—if only for tax reasons—it would still move in a more positive direction if there were at least a core group of people who have the courage to think correctly and to let that correct thinking seep through wherever they possibly can. That really does make a difference. With matters like this, one always begins with oneself and tries, as much as possible, to think in terms of what is right. For life moves forward—not in such a way that everything happens on its own, but rather in such a way that progress is brought about by people. And when some people tell themselves, as a consolation, “Well, everything doesn’t have to be different tomorrow, because nature doesn’t make leaps, the world doesn’t make leaps”—it actually does make nothing but leaps! If the green leaf were to keep telling itself, “I must not make any leaps!”—then a green leaf would simply become a slightly different green leaf, but a rose would never come into being; for a rose comes into being through a leap! Nature makes leaps everywhere! And so it is in human life as well. Things do not come about in the comfortable, gradual way of no leaps, but rather they come about in such a way that new formations actually arise everywhere. Leaps occur everywhere, and we must bear that in mind as well. Even if we simply form a correct judgment about things, without allowing passions to influence our judgment in one direction or the other, much has already been accomplished. For thoughts are indeed living forces.

[ 33 ] But in our time, people do not bring themselves to form healthy, sound, and positive judgments about things. Consequently, they accept things, I would say, without inner involvement, without truly experiencing them from within. Take, for example: What would be the natural thing to do if a person were to speak about literary issues, about the literature of a nation? The natural thing would be for him to understand something about these matters, and not to speak about them if he understands nothing about them. Today, it is not only those who understand these matters who speak! Recently, we were lectured on the significance of German literature—in great detail—by a man who understands nothing at all about it, for he is not even a professor of literary history, but rather the president of a republic and has had absolutely no opportunity to learn what he has presumed to teach an entire country. A political advocate speaks about literature! A poet speaks about politics! We have recently experienced these two things directly—I would say, side by side. One must accept these phenomena for what they truly are and be able to form the right thoughts about them. We are far too—I would say—indifferent in our present age. And Theosophy should not lead us to become even more indifferent, even if this indifference is often called “calm” or, through a complete misapplication of the word, “serenity.” We must, of course, strive for serenity. But serenity should not consist in becoming completely indifferent to everything; rather, the present moment already demands of us that we be able, in a certain way, to have a passion for recognizing what is good and for abhorring that which should not be and must not be, if evolution is truly to proceed in the manner desired by the good spirits of humanity. We will continue discussing this next time.