The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] Yes, my dear friends, I would like to add just one more thing to what I said yesterday—something I actually wanted to bring up yesterday, but there wasn’t enough time. It is a matter of taking this very opportunity to point out the relationship we must gradually develop with the Bible. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is, after all, a document which we must learn once again to regard as a kind of supersensory revelation—not in a dogmatic sense, but by coming to the realization that religious documents, when they date from the period up to about the fourth century A.D., are not of purely human origin, but were indeed poured into a human consciousness that could not have possessed the insights in question on its own. I would like to say that you need only take the matter as far as this point: that humanity simply starts from a kind of atavistic, instinctive consciousness into which images of the most varied kinds concerning the highest spiritual things and processes could fall; but what underlies these images is not something that could have been conceived or shaped by human consciousness itself.

[ 2 ] And so it came to pass that, precisely at the time when intellectualism was gaining the upper hand, religious texts were, in many respects, misunderstood. They were approached with an intellectualist mindset, and it was, in essence, quite natural that, despite all good intentions, misunderstandings were bound to arise at first. Consequently, the texts currently available—when written in the national languages in common use today—do not accurately reflect the original documents, because those national languages were developed from a form of intellectualism that is alien to the entire original element contained within the religious documents.

[ 3 ] When we go back to the original language of religious texts, particularly the New Testament, we find that this original language is no longer properly understood in light of today’s state of mind. And so a kind of element of untruth has indeed crept into the interpretation of religious texts, including the New Testament. One cannot hope that continuing translations in the manner in which they have been practiced thus far will lead to anything better; rather, the aim must be to first establish the prerequisites for truly grasping the meaning of the religious texts through a kind of revival of the ancient spirituality. We can do this—indeed, anyone who makes the necessary effort can—by applying the spiritual-scientific facts that can be researched today, let us say, initially to the New Testament.

[ 4 ] I would like to offer just a small sample of this, specifically from one of the most important passages in the New Testament. First, I would just like to emphasize that the accounts in the New Testament refer to a historical fact; that the accounts in the New Testament can only be understood if one is clear that the fact of the Mystery of Golgotha was fully embedded within the rest of humanity’s historical development, yet as a fact that stands apart from the rest of humanity’s laws. The Mystery of Golgotha is a wholly singular event that should not be sought to be understood from historical contexts, but must be grasped in and of itself. Only then, when one relates this—I would say, supra-historical—fact, this cosmic fact, to what can be learned through spiritual science about the development of humanity, does one actually begin to grasp the deep meaning of the words and the phrasing of the New Testament. If one does not do this, a tone that is far too trivial creeps into the New Testament. We need only recall various instances that have arisen from the effort to interpret the Bible in such a way that no preparation is required to understand it at all—and to claim that one is interpreting it in a simple, primitive manner. One need only recall this fact to appreciate how strong the aversion was to recognizing the New Testament in its full depth.

[ 5 ] Consider, my dear friends, that the Mystery of Golgotha—taken in the proper sense—was an act of grace intended for Earth, emanating from higher spiritual worlds, which took place at a specific time when a certain portion of humanity transitioned from a previously developed state of consciousness to a subsequent one. The time of the Mystery of Golgotha coincides entirely with humanity’s ascent, as an evolving being, toward the experience of the inner “I.” The “I” gradually emerges within humanity during the period in which the Mystery of Golgotha takes place. We must not seek a connection between these two facts, whether causal or otherwise. We can only perceive such a connection in the same way that someone might observe an event unfolding and, in response, act entirely of their own free will. The Mystery of Golgotha is added—as a fact of cosmic freedom—to what has arisen within human evolution in such a way that self-consciousness emerges. Now, you are of course familiar with the other important facts connected with this emergence of self-consciousness. But now something special is added. It is necessary to know that this integration of self-consciousness into evolving humanity was preceded by a state in which human beings, on every occasion of their experience, looked up in consciousness to the gods—or, where monotheism prevailed, to that one God who has remained with us in the concept of the Father God. As long as we remain within the concept of the Father God, this concept must be fulfilled by our acknowledging that when a human being on Earth is conscious of himself as an “I”-being, he perceives what lies within his “I” as the Father God’s influence working into his soul. The Father God, so to speak, instills a drop of His own being—which, however, remains connected to the entire ocean of the Father God’s spirituality—into the being of the individual human being, and the individual human being can then say to himself: The Father God lives within me; the full abundance of the Father God lives within me. But all of humanity lives in this permeation by the essence of the Father God. To experience this as a present reality—that is, to say to oneself: “I am!”—means: “The Father God is within me.” — To experience this as a present reality gradually became impossible for humanity. It had to arrive at its own “I,” which is productive in form out of its own consciousness. And this productive aspect of the individual “I” was possible in connection with the entire cosmic-spiritual world only if the individual human being identified with Christ—that is, with the Son of God.

[ 6 ] So what can be said about the relationship between humanity that has been graced by Christ and humanity that has not yet been graced by Christ? When humanity that had not yet been graced by Christ looked back upon consciousness—that is, upon the soul’s own essence—could it then say: “I, as an individual, am endowed with the ‘I’”? — No, the soul could only say to itself: “The Father God lives within me, and the fact that He lives within me enables me to say ‘I’ to myself.” — The individual was not yet fully individualized; the individual was a child of the Father God, but in such a way that the child was, so to speak, still connected to the Father by a kind of umbilical cord. But what the soul could possess when it became aware of this divine content within itself, it could no longer possess afterward. And humanity, graced by Christ, received this in such a way that each person could take this substance into their “I” from within their individual soul being.

[ 7 ] Thus, the Christ brought to the people on earth the very same thing that God the Father had given to humanity on earth, but he brought it in a new way, so that everyone could now connect it with their own “I” that springs forth from within themselves. And so the Christ was able to say to humanity: I bring you what you are accustomed to recognizing from the Logos, but I bring it to you in a new way. I bring it to you in such a way that God the Father has entrusted to me what He previously gave you directly, but for a different state of consciousness. As His messenger, I bring you the Father’s treasure—for each and every one of your consciousnesses, for each and every one of your individualities. I no longer wish merely to make you people who are, so to speak, a link in the entire cosmos; by virtue of the authority that God the Father has given me, I wish to make each and every one of you—if you are willing—a person filled with God. Those whom God the Father entrusts to me as individuals, I fill with the consciousness of God.

[ 8 ] The fact that the way in which the awareness of God is to come to humankind is different from what it was in the past—that is the essence of the Mystery of Golgotha. This is also why the words of the Gospel take on a completely different meaning through the Mystery of Golgotha. For example, it is certainly possible to trace individual parts of the content of the Lord’s Prayer back to earlier stages of human development. But in this case, it is not the content that matters, but rather that the Lord’s Prayer is given—with the same words, with the same phrases—in a different, new way to the soul filled with self-consciousness. This penetration into the spiritual forces of history becomes possible for us again when we ourselves are able to engage in spiritual inquiry. This is what brings us back to the original meaning of the Gospels. This original meaning must come to light today. Humanity must not continue to be fobbed off with misunderstood—that is, with [translations] of the Gospels that are not held in high enough regard. One must really make an effort to grasp the matter in such a way that one asks oneself: If one is truly Christian in one’s soul, can one still perceive a meaning today in the words of John 17, verses 1 through 92? Well, my dear friends, all sorts of things can be said and speculated about this if one wishes to overlook the fact that no clear meaning is actually conveyed by these words. No meaning can be ascribed to this discourse through an artificial [method of commentary]. In fact, meaning can only be ascribed to it through faith. For one does not encounter anything real when one has these sentences [in one of the usual translations] before one. On the other hand, if one attempts to render the text into German quite literally while retaining the spirit of the [original] text, a deeper meaning emerges, and one must not—indeed, one cannot, if one is honest with oneself—say that this would constitute an artificial commentary on the simple meaning of this discourse, which is understandable to any ordinary human mind. One comes to realize, in fact, that this deeper meaning is truly the original one, and one must proceed from this fact.

[ 9 ] People today may prefer not to look for such a meaning in the Gospel. But there is no getting around the fact that this deeper meaning is indeed there, and we must bring it to light. We have no choice. It would be a subjective fantasy to say: “Don’t read anything into the Gospel; let’s stick to its simple content.” — That, in fact, is what interpretation is. If we simply return to the meaning that is present there in a very sober way, I cannot help but convey it in roughly the following manner:

After Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you, just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give eternal life to those you have given him. And this is eternal life: that they may know You as the one true God and Jesus Christ as the One You have sent. I have revealed You on earth to accomplish the work You have given me to do. And now, Father, glorify me with the glory You gave me before the world began. I have made [You] known to the people whom You have given me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to me, and they have remained filled with Your word.

Thus they have come to know that everything You have given me is from You. For I have brought to them the powers of thought that You have given me. They have united with them and discerned that I come from You, and realized that You have given me to them. For them as individual people—not for people in general—I pray to You, only for the people You have given me, because they are through You.

[ 10 ] Now, this entire account contains what I told you earlier, and it is nothing other, my dear friends, than the fact that the spiritual developments of humanity are reflected in the Gospels. One can recognize the accuracy of the Gospels precisely when one has come to understand the spiritual realities contained within them. And this gives rise to the awareness that, I would say, is capable of shedding the right light on the words. Isn’t it true that I certainly do not have a penchant for engaging in vain criticism when I say it is not possible to utter the words: “Father, the hour has come for You to glorify Your Son, so that Your Son may also glorify You.” — If one is honest, one must say: That actually says nothing at all, at least not in a way that one could find a meaning in it that is graspable by the human heart. In contrast, a correct meaning naturally emerges when, following the Greek text, one says: “Father, the hour has come; reveal it to Your Son...” — that is, the request to the Father that He should reveal it to the Son. 80&0 is not a transfiguration; 5080 is a revelation, a disclosure, a bringing to knowledge, and that is what is meant here: “... so that Your Son may reveal it from You.” The transmission of the Father’s essence through the power of the Son is expressed directly in these words in a naive, intuitive way. Previously, human beings possessed the substance of the Father God within themselves in the manner described. Now the Father God has led the Son to convey this essence to humanity. This is truly stated there, and there is no denying that it is written: “... as You have given Him authority over all flesh …”—the term “flesh” is difficult to translate, as it is misunderstood in common language. Strictly speaking, one should say: “... as You have given Him authority over all human bodies, so that He may grant eternal life to those who belong to Him.” — When one considers the fact that, in the past, human bodies were such that they were encompassed by the original consciousness—which was still filled with God—and thus received eternal life, one realizes that, because consciousness is no longer filled with that power, the bodies can no longer reflect back into the soul anything that bestows eternal life. That is why Christ was sent to humanity. “But this is eternal life: that they may know You as the one true God and Jesus Christ as the One You have sent. I have revealed You on earth to bring to completion the work You have entrusted to me. And now, Father, reveal me through the revelation that was given to me by You before the world began. I have made [You] known to the people whom You have given me from the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to me, and they have remained filled with Your word.”

[ 11 ] Christ Jesus ensured that the Word did not die within humanity, that the Father’s essential substance remained within humanity. If the Mystery of Golgotha had not taken place, humanity would have forgotten its essence. The Father would have been forgotten if the Son had not sustained the Father’s presence. “Thus they have come to know that everything You have given me comes from You. For the powers of thought that You have given me, I have brought to them. They have connected with them and realized that I come from You, and have understood that You have given me to them. For them as individual human beings—not for humanity in general—I pray to You, only for the people You have given me, because they are through You. ” — I am substituting “for human beings in general” here instead of “for the world.” — This is no longer understood. It refers precisely to this spiritual connection, which was a common concept at the time: for them as individual human beings, not merely for human beings in general.

[ 12 ] Truly, the New Testament does not become any less beautiful, great, or sublime simply because one grasps its content. Part of properly positioning oneself in the present—in the spiritual life of the present, in a religious movement of the present—is simply returning to the reality found in the Gospel. How often has the call been made to return to original Christianity? This effort failed precisely because people were unable to grasp the Logos in its original meaning, and instead consoled themselves time and again with the human convenience of accepting the Gospels merely for their simple content. But the simple content would not be obscured if one simply focused on what is written there. We must not forget, my dear friends, that the emotional connotations of words change significantly over time. It is not possible to simply adopt a word from an ancient language in a lexicographical sense. Even when we translate something in the present day in a purely lexicographical manner, we end up with entirely different meanings. This is even more the case when translating things from the past. After all, the point is not to directly align the emotional connotation a word has in the present with what lies in the wording of the ancient term, but rather the task is to go back to the emotional content of the ancient wording. Throughout the New Testament, we can observe that the Gospels were spoken at a time when the revelation of what had taken place for humanity out of grace from the spiritual cosmos was transitioning from a not-yet-fully-developed sense of self to a fully developed consciousness of the self. All other facts must be judged in light of this fundamental fact. We must not cling to prejudices and say that the disciples, who were simple people from the lowest social classes, could not have grasped such a meaning. — If the meaning of the Gospels is simple to grasp, then we must, on the other hand, reveal the wondrous fact: How did these simple people come to imbue the Gospels with such profound meaning? — This is far more spiritual than to say that these simple people, who came from the common folk, could not have grasped such a meaning at all. Such a view is based on yet another prejudice.

[ 13 ] I don’t know if you’ve experienced this—perhaps the older ones among you have. If, forty years ago, you went out among the rural folk with a loving heart, you might have had the following experience. You went out as an educated person, feeling incredibly wise, and spoke to the people about what you had learned. They couldn’t follow you. But if you went along with them, you would discover among these simple people an incredibly deep wisdom that outshone what you yourself had brought with you. For the wisdom of simple people is, in fact, deeper than that of the educated. The theory of the simplicity of primitive people is, after all, a theory of the intellectually educated. For example, what Jakob Böhme meant by some of his statements—forty years ago, one could learn that more readily from a herb collector than one can today at a university. That cannot be denied. And as for how faithfully old texts are sometimes rendered, Professor Beckh could tell you a thing or two about Sanskrit and other Eastern texts. It is no exaggeration to say that what is contained in Indian philosophy is unrecognizable in the translations made, for example, by Deußen; for if one wishes to get to the original human essence of the matter, what appears in Deußen’s translations is perceived simply as mere combinations of words, as mere empty phrases into which one can no longer imbue any meaning at all. These matters are immensely serious and are connected to the most profound questions of our time. That is why I really did not want to miss the opportunity to conclude our gathering with this reflection, because I believe it can point you toward something that is necessary at this very moment.

[ 14 ] I hope that what I spoke of yesterday can come to pass—that for the religious movement, the rite of human consecration will be the deepest and most enduring reality; that it will not merely be symbolic, but must become a living reality that evolves as life itself evolves, and that remains capable of becoming ever new and richer. And I hope that we can work together on this living, ongoing development of what we have, after all, begun with such hope.

In his closing remarks, Werner Klein expresses the hope that the willingness to work will remain strong enough that we can gather again next year and seek Dr. Steiner’s advice.

[ 15 ] Rudolf Steiner: Let us hope so and hold that in our hearts.