The Gospel of St. John
GA 103
29 May 1908, Hamburg
IX. The Prophetical Documents and the Origin of Christianity
During the whole course of our lectures, you have seen what our position is in relation to the document called the Gospel of St. John, standing as we do upon the foundation of Spiritual Science. You have seen that it is not a question of gaining out of this document some particular truths about the spiritual world, but of showing that, independent of all human and other documents, it is possible to penetrate into that world, just as anyone wishing to learn mathematics at present does so independent of every original document by means of which, in the course of human evolution, different branches of mathematics have first been communicated. What, for example, do those students know who begin to study elementary geometry, acquiring it by means of their own faculties from geometry itself, what do they know of the geometry of Euclid, of the original document in which this elementary geometry was presented to the world for the first time? If the student has first learned geometry by means of his own faculties, he can judge and appreciate better the nature and meaning of the original documents. This should show us more and more that those truths which deal with this spiritual life can be gained out of the life of the spirit itself. If a person has found these truths for himself and then is directed to the historical documents, he finds in them again what he already knows. In this way he acquires a right and true human valuation of them. We have seen in the course of these lectures, that the Gospel of St. John really loses nothing in value by this method; we have seen that the respect for and appreciation of documents do not become less for anyone standing upon the foundation of Spiritual Science than for those who have stood entirely upon the foundation of such documents. Indeed, we have seen that we find again in the Gospel of St. John the most profound teaching concerning Christianity, a teaching which we can also call the teaching of Universal Wisdom. We have also seen that only when we have grasped this profound meaning of the Christian teaching, can we understand why the Christ had to enter into human evolution just at a definite time at the beginning of our era.
We have seen how humanity developed in the post-Atlantean age. It has been pointed out that the original Indian civilization was the first great post-Atlantean cultural epoch after the Atlantean Flood; that the characteristic of this original Indian civilization was that the souls of men were filled with longing and memory. We have characterized memory and longing by saying that they consisted in the preservation of living traditions from an epoch of human evolution ante-dating the Atlantean Flood. At that time, quite in conformity with their nature and inner being, men existed in a kind of nebulous, clairvoyant state in which they could gaze into the spiritual world, thus becoming acquainted with it through personal experience and knowledge, just as men of the present time are acquainted with the four kingdoms of nature, the mineral, plant, animal and human kingdoms. We have seen that prior to the Atlantean Flood, there existed as yet no such sharp distinction as we have today between the states of consciousness during the day and the night. At that time, when the human being sank into sleep at night, his inner experiences were not so unconscious and dark as they are now, for when the images of day life submerged, those of the spiritual life emerged, and he was then in the midst of the things of the spirit world. In the morning, when he again dipped down into his physical body, the experiences and realities of the divine-spiritual world sank into darkness, and around him arose the images of present reality, images of the present mineral, plant and animal kingdoms. The sharp distinction between the unconsciousness of the night and day waking-consciousness appeared only after the Atlantean Flood, that is to say, in our post-Atlantean age. Then, in a certain sense, as far as direct perception is concerned, men were cut off from spiritual reality and were more and more placed outside in purely physical reality. All that remained was the memory of the existence of another kingdom, a kingdom of spiritual beings, and united with this memory was the soul's longing to rise again by means of some exceptional condition into the regions out of which it had descended. Those exceptional conditions were only granted to a few chosen people—the initiates—whose inner faculties had been awakened in the Mystery Places enabling them to gaze into the spiritual world; to those others who were not able to do this, these initiates were able to give information about that world and testify to its reality. In the original Indian cultural period, Yoga was the process by which men were able to revert to the ancient nebulous, clairvoyant state of consciousness. When certain exceptional natures were initiated, they became, as a result, the leaders of mankind, witnesses of the spiritual world.
Under the effect of this longing and memory within this original Indian, pre-Vedic civilization, that soul-mood was particularly developed which regarded physical reality as Maya or illusion. These primitive Indian people said that actual reality exists alone in the spiritual world into which we can be reinstated only by means of an exceptional condition, through Yoga. This world of spiritual beings and processes is the true one. What is seen with the eyes, is unreal, is illusion, Maya. That was the first religious fundamental experience of the post-Atlantean age, and Yoga was the first form of initiation of this period. In fact there was yet no comprehension of the true mission of the post-Atlantean age. For it was not the mission of humanity to consider the reality, which we call physical existence, as Maya or illusion and then to flee from it and become foreign to it. Post-Atlantean humanity had another mission, that of conquering more and more the physical reality, of becoming master of the world of physical phenomena. But it is also quite comprehensible that men, now for the first time transferred to this physical plane, should in the beginning consider as Maya or illusion what previously had hardly emerged within the spiritual reality, but what was now all that they were able to perceive. This attitude toward reality could never have continued. This understanding of the physical reality as an illusion could not remain the vital nerve of the post-Atlantean period. And we have seen that postAtlantean humanity, in the different cultural epochs, conquered bit by bit the connection with the physical reality.
In that period of civilization which we designate the ancient Persian—the periods which history knows as the Persian and Zarathustrian periods are the last echoes of what is meant here—in that second period, we saw mankind taking the first step toward growing out of the ancient Indian principle and conquering physical reality. Still nowhere was there a fondness for sinking into the physical reality, also there existed nowhere anything like a study of the physical world. There was, however, more of this in the Persian period than in the ancient Indian period. We get a reverberation of the mood that looks upon physical reality as illusion in what has survived in later epochs of ancient Indian civilization. Yet our present civilization could never have arisen out of that Indian culture. All the wisdom of that period turned its gaze away from the physical world and directed it upward toward spiritual worlds which existed as a memory. The study of physical reality and its elaboration seemed to them futile, therefore the actual Indian principle could never have brought forth a science serviceable to our earthly world; it could never have produced that mastery of the laws of nature which forms the foundation of our present civilization. This could never have sprung from ancient India, for why should one seek to learn to know the forces of a world resting only upon illusion! If this was changed in the Indian cultural period also, it was not because of something flowing out of itself, but was due to subsequent foreign influences.
For the ancient Persian civilization, the external, physical reality exists as a sphere of activity. It was looked upon as the expression of a hostile Deity, but the hope arose that with the aid of the God of Light this substantial field of reality might be penetrated, that it might be changed into something permeated by spiritual powers and good divinities. Thus the adherents of the Persian civilization already sensed somewhat the reality of the physical world. It is true they still considered it the realm of the God of Darkness, but for all that, they always hoped that they might be able to incorporate within it the forces of the good gods.
Humanity then passed over into that period of civilization which found its historical expression in the Babylonian-Assyrian-Chaldaic-Egyptian culture and we have seen how it happened that the starry heavens were no longer Maya to these people of the third epoch, but something whose written characters could be read. In all that still seemed a Maya to the Indians in the course and splendour of the stars, the Persian saw an expression of the resolutions and purposes of divine-spiritual beings. They gradually accustomed themselves to the idea that outer reality is not illusion but a revelation, a manifestation of divine-spiritual beings. Then in the Egyptian civilization, men began to apply what they read in the stars to the divisions of the earth. Why was it the Egyptians became the masters of Geometry? It was because they believed that through thought, which subdivides the earth, matter can also be controlled, and that matter, which can be grasped by the human spirit, is easily transformed. Thus gradually a later humanity permeated this material world—looked upon at first as only Maya—with the spirit, and this spirit also gradually emerged within the inner soul life of the human being.
We have seen, in fact, that only in the later Atlantean age, humanity had reached the point where it could experience the ego or the “I AM.” For as long as men beheld spiritual images, they knew that they themselves belonged to the spiritual world, that they were themselves images among other images. Then came a comprehension of the spirit within the depths of the human being. Let us now consider, in connection with what we have partially reviewed today, the evolution of the inner nature of men.
As long as the human being of the Atlantean period looked outward with a kind of dream-like, clairvoyant consciousness he did not really give much attention to his own inner nature. The inner world, which is encompassed by the ego or the “I AM,” was not yet delineated in sharp contours. In proportion as the outer spiritual world disappeared, men became conscious of their own inner world of the spirit. In the ancient Indian civilization there still existed in the individual an extraordinary attitude of soul toward his own spiritual life. People said: If we wish to penetrate into the spiritual world, to raise ourselves above illusion, we must lose ourselves in the spiritual world, we must obliterate as much as possible the “I AM” and become absorbed into the All-Spirit, into Brahman. Thus especially in ancient initiation, it was a matter of a loss of personality. An impersonal absorption into the spiritual world is what distinguished the most ancient form of initiation. This was no longer so, for example, in the third epoch of civilization, for right up to that time the human self-consciousness had by degrees been developing stronger and stronger. The human being became continually more and more conscious within the inner part of his ego being. By developing a fondness for the physical matter about him, by deepening his knowledge of it by means of the laws which the human spirit had thought out, but which had not been acquired in any sort of shadowy dream-state, he became gradually more aware of his ego, until this consciousness of personality reached a certain high point in the ancient Egyptian civilization. In this awareness of the personality, there was present something else that appeared at the same time inferior and as though now bound to the physical world and absorbed into it, something that had no possibility of acquiring a connection with that from which the human being had been born.
If we wish to grasp the whole course of events, we must picture to our souls two fundamental soul-moods in human evolution. We must remember how humanity of the Atlantean and ancient Indian periods longed to strip off personality. The Atlanteans were able to accomplish this, and they took it for granted that they would each night strip off their personality and live in the land of the spirit. The Indians could do this, because their principle of initiation led them, by means of their Yoga, into what was impersonal. To repose in the universal divine substance was their desire. In a later branch of the human family, this reposing within the universal was preserved in the consciousness of being united with preceding generations. It remained in the consciousness of the people that they had been born out of a line of ancestry, and an individual human being felt himself united through the blood with generations as far back as his earliest ancestor. This was the mood which grew out of that ancient soul-mood of feeling oneself spiritually sheltered within the divine-spiritual substance. Thus it happened that those human beings who had passed through a normal evolution began in the third cultural epoch to feel themselves as individuals, yet, at the same time, knowing that they were sheltered within the whole, within the divine-spiritual, that they belonged through the blood relationship to the entire line of forefathers, and that God lived for them in the blood flowing down to them through the generations. We have seen how a certain degree of perfection of this mood had been developed within those people who composed the followers of the Old Testament. “I and Father Abraham are one,” means that the individual felt himself preserved within the whole line of descent back to Abraham. That was, in general, what constituted the fundamental mood of all normally developed races of the third cultural period. However, only to the followers of the Old Testament was it predicted that there existed something spiritually more profound than the Divine Fatherhood that ran through the blood of successive generations. We have already called attention to that great moment in human evolution when this was prophesied. When Moses heard the voice calling unto him saying: “When thou wouldst proclaim My Name, say that ‘I AM’ hath said it unto thee!”, then here for the first time sounds forth the knowledge and manifestation of the Logos, of the Christ. Here for the first time, for those who could comprehend, was prophetically proclaimed that in God there existed something that not only had to do with the blood relationship, but that in Him there existed something purely spiritual. What ran through the Old Testament was like a prophecy. Who was it, in fact, who at that time in a prophecy revealed His name to Moses? We must now dwell a little on this question. Here again we have a passage which the commentators of the Gospel consider very superficially, not recognizing the fact that one must examine these records as thoroughly as possible.
Who was it who announced His name prophetically, to Whom the name “I AM” must be given? Who was it? We find the answer, if with earnestness and dignity we properly grasp a certain passage of the Gospel. It is the passage which we find in the 12th Chapter, beginning with the 37th verse. Here Christ-Jesus points to the fulfilment of the words of the Prophet Isaiah, to the prophecy with its reference to the fact that the Jews would not believe in Christ-Jesus. Jesus Himself refers to Isaiah:
He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their hearts and be converted and I should heal them.
These things said Isaiah when he saw His glory and spake with Him.
Isaiah spake with Him! With Whom did Isaiah speak? Reference is made here to the passage in Isaiah 6: 1 which reads:
In the year that the King of Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up and His train filled the Temple.
Whom did Isaiah see? This is clearly told here in the Gospel of St. John. He saw the Christ! He was always to be seen in the spirit and now you will no longer find it incomprehensible when Spiritual Science points out that He whom Moses saw, who proclaimed the words “I AM” as His name, was the same Being who then appeared upon the earth as the Christ. The actual Spirit of God of antiquity is none other than the Christ. We are now at a point in this religious record which is very difficult to understand, especially for those who do not go at it properly. This passage must be clearly understood, particularly because with the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the most extraordinary confusion has arisen. It is a fact that exoterically these words have always been used in the most manifold ways in order that the real esoteric meaning might not be directly evident. When, according to ancient Judaism, the “father” was mentioned, the physical father whose blood flowed down through the generations was meant. When they spoke of Him who revealed Himself spiritually, as Isaiah spoke of the “Lord,” they were referring to the Logos of which the Gospel of St. John speaks. The writer of this Gospel means nothing more nor less than that the One who could always be perceived in the spirit became flesh and dwelt among us!
When it has become clear to us that in a certain sense the Christ was also spoken of in the Old Testament, we shall understand what place the ancient Hebrew peoples have held in our evolution. The ancient Hebrew-principle grew out of the Egyptian civilization. It stands out in bold relief against the background of the Egyptian principle.
Thus we see how the normal course of human evolution progressed as it was described yesterday. The first cultural period of the postAtlantean age is the ancient Indian, the second the ancient Persian, the third the Babylonian-Assyrian-Chaldaic-Egyptian civilization; then follows the fourth, the Greco-Latin and the fifth which is our own present cultural epoch. Before the fourth epoch began, that people which with its traditions provided the soil for Christianity emerged out of the third epoch like a mysterious branch. When we summarize all that we have been hearing in these lectures, we shall find it much more comprehensible that the appearance of the Christ had to take place in the fourth era.
We have already emphasized the fact that in the fourth epoch the human being had reached the point where he objectified his own spirituality, his own ego and had placed it out in the world. We perceive how gradually he permeated matter with his own spirit, with his ego-spirit. We behold the works of the Greek sculptors, and dramatists and see how they have presented, embodied before the soul, what they call their own soul qualities. Later, in the Roman period, we see how the human being also becomes conscious of what he is, and we see how he established this in the outer world as “Justice” (Jus), although a distorted Jurisprudence disguised it. For the deeper students of Jurisprudence, it is clear that real justice, which considers the human being its subject, first arose in this fourth cultural epoch. At that time the people had become conscious enough of their own personality to feel themselves for the first time as real citizens of the State. Even in the Greek period, the individual felt himself as a member of the whole municipal State. This was more important to an Athenian than to be an individual man. But to say “I am a Roman” or “I am an Athenian” meant two very different things. For to say, “I am a Roman” meant that, as an individual human being, as a citizen of the State, he had an importance, he had a will. Thus it could also be proven that the origin of the concept of a “testament” first became possible in this epoch, for this is a Roman concept. Only at that time did the human being make his will so personal, so individualized, that he wished to be active in it even beyond death. The things which Spiritual Science has to say harmonize even in the details with the actual facts.
The human being gradually reached the point of permeating matter with his spirit and this increased as time went on. The fourth epoch was that in which he thoroughly incorporated into matter what he comprehended with his spirit. In the Egyptian Pyramids you can see how spirit and matter are still wrestling with one another, how what had been grasped by the spirit had not yet fully expressed itself in matter. In the Greek Temple is expressed the complete turning point of the postAtlantean age. For one who understands a little of this, there is no more significant, no more perfect architecture than the Greek which is the purest expression of the inner characteristic of space. The pillars are considered wholly as supports, and what rests upon them is felt as something that must be supported, something that presses down. The supreme, emancipated concept of space is here in the Greek Temple carried to its ultimate conclusions. Few people have subsequently felt the concept of space in this way, yet there have been those who could have felt it, but they felt it pictorially. Let anyone test the space in the Sistine Chapel. Stand at the rear wall which bears the great picture of the Last Judgment, and look up. You will see that the rear wall rises obliquely upward. It inclines thus because the architect felt the concept of space, but did not think it so abstractly as others. Therefore this wall stands there so marvellously at an angle. This means that he no longer experienced the concept of space as did the Greeks. There is an artistic sense which feels the mysterious measure concealed in space. To sense it architecturally does not mean to sense it by means of the eyes, but by means of something else. People easily believe today that right is the same as left, above the same as below, forward the same as backward. If one would only consider the following: There are pictures in which three, four or five angels can be seen floating about. They can be painted in such a way that one would be right in thinking that they are in danger of falling at any moment. They can likewise be painted by someone who has developed the right sense for space, in such a manner that there is no possibility of such a thought arising; they could not fall because they mutually support each other. We then have the dynamic relationships in space pictorially represented before us. The Greeks had it architecturally before them. They experienced the horizontal not alone as line, but as the force of pressure and they experienced the pillar not only as a block of something, but as supporting power. This feeling-with-the-lines-of-space means, “feeling the living Spirit in the act of geometrizing.” That is what Plato meant when he used the tremendous expression, “God geometrizes continually.”
These lines really exist in space and the Greeks built their Temples in accordance with them. What was in reality a Greek Temple? From necessity it was the dwelling-house of their God. It was something quite different from the Church of the present day. The present Church is a place for preaching. The God Himself dwelt within the Greek Temple. The people were only present incidentally when they wished to be with their God. One who understands the forms of the Greek Temple, experiences a mysterious connection with the God dwelling within it. There, in the columns, and in what rests upon them, is to be seen not only what the human being has fashioned in imagination, but something that his God would have thus made, had He wished to create a dwelling place for Himself. This was the climax of the permeation of Matter with Spirit.
Let us now compare a Greek Temple with a Gothic Church. Nothing derogatory of the Gothic is intended, for from another point of view the Gothic Church stands upon a still higher level than the Greek Temple. In a Gothic Church you can see that what is expressed in its form cannot possibly be thought of or felt without the presence of the devotional congregation. In the arched forms of the Gothic there exists something (for one who can experience it) which can only be expressed in the following words: If the devotional congregation were not within, and the hands were not placed together in the form of an arch, the whole would be incomplete. The Gothic Church is not only the dwelling-house of God, but it is at the same time the meeting place for people who are praying to God. Thus, in a certain sense, mankind again over-stepped the zenith of its own evolution. We see how all that degenerated which the Greeks felt in line, column and beam in such a remarkable manner through their sense of space. A column which does not support, but which is there only as a decorative motif, was for the Greek feeling no column at all. Everything in human evolution is in perfect accord. The Greek cultural period was the most beautiful expression of the interpenetration of humanity's consciousness discovered within itself, and of what was felt as the Divine in outer space. The human being had wholly coalesced with the physical sense-world in this epoch.
It is nonsense when modern scholars wish to obscure what was felt in earlier ages. From the Spiritual-Scientific point of view, we look upon the fourth epoch of the post-Atlantean age as an epoch in which the human being harmonized perfectly with his environment. That age—in which he seemed to coalesce with the outer reality—was alone qualified to understand that the Divine is able to appear in an individual man. All earlier epochs would have understood almost anything more easily than this. They would have felt that the Divine was much too exalted and sublime to appear in a physical human form. It was just this physical form against which they desired to guard the Divine. Therefore, “Thou shalt make no image” had to be announced to just that people whose mission it was to grasp the idea of God in His spiritual form. Out of concepts such as these, this people evolved and out of its womb was begotten the idea of the Christ, the idea that spirit was to appear in the flesh. For this mission was the Jewish people chosen and within it, in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, the Christ Event had to occur.
Thus for the Christian consciousness, the whole of human existence falls into a pre-Christian and a post-Christian period. The God-Man could only be comprehended by the human being at a certain time. Thus we see how the Gospel of St. John connects in full consciousness and in its ideas, with what was—to use a trivial expression—precisely in conformity with the times, with what had its origin directly in the consciousness of the age. Consequently it happened wholly of itself, that the thought imagery, through which the writer of the Gospel tried to grasp the greatest event in cosmic history, seemed to him best expressed in the forms of Greek thought, as it were, like something inwardly related. And gradually the whole Christian feeling grew into these thought forms. We shall see how something like the Gothic had to appear during the progress of evolution, because Christianity was, as it were, called upon to lead evolution again beyond the material. Christianity could arise only at a time when men were not yet so deeply immersed in matter that they were likely to overestimate its worth; when they were not yet plunged so deeply into matter as is the case in our age, but were still able to spiritualize it and to penetrate it.
Thus the birth of Christianity appears as something positively necessary in the whole spiritual course of human events. If we desire to understand what form Christianity should gradually assume, understand what form was prophesied for it by such an individuality as the writer of this Gospel, we must take under consideration, in the next lecture, certain essential and important concepts.
It has been shown that everything must be taken literally, but that first the alphabet must be really understood. It is not without significance that the name of John appears nowhere in the Gospel and that John is always spoken of as the “Disciple whom the Lord loved.” We have seen what mystery lies hidden behind this fact, a mystery of profound significance.
Now we shall consider another expression, one that makes it directly possible for us to make a connection with the subsequent evolutionary periods of Christianity. The manner of speaking of the “Mother of Jesus” in the Gospel, is usually overlooked. If the ordinary, average Christian were asked: who was the Mother of Jesus? he would reply: “The Mother of Jesus was Mary?” And many indeed will believe that there is something in the Gospel of St. John to the effect that the Mother of Jesus was called Mary. But nowhere in this Gospel is there anything to indicate that the Mother of Jesus was called Mary. Wherever reference is made to her, she is quite intentionally called just the Mother of Jesus. The meaning of this we shall learn later. In the chapter on the Marriage in Cana, we read: “and the Mother of Jesus was there;” and further on, it says: “His Mother saith unto the servants.” Nowhere do we find the name “Mary.” And when we meet her again in the Gospel of St. John, when we see the Saviour upon the Cross, we read:
“There stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and His Mother's sister Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
It is clearly and definitely stated who stood by the Cross. The Mother was there, then her sister who was the wife of Cleophas and who was called Mary, and Mary Magdalene. Whoever thinks about it at all, must say to himself: It is extraordinary that the two sisters are both called Mary? That is not customary in our day. It was also not customary at that time. And since the writer of the Gospel calls the sister, Mary, it is clear that the Mother of Jesus was not called Mary. In the Greek text, it says clearly and distinctly: “Below stood the Mother of Jesus, and His Mother's sister Mary who was the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” For a proper understanding the question arises: “Who was the Mother of Jesus?” Here we touch upon one of the most important questions in the Gospel of St. John: “Who was the real father of Jesus, and who was His mother?”
Who was the father? Can this question be asked at all? Not only can it be asked according to the Gospel of St. John, but also according to St. Luke. For it would show an extraordinary absence of thought not to see that at the Annunciation it was proclaimed:
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Even in the Gospel of St. Luke it is pointed out that the father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit. This must be taken literally and those theologians who do not recognize it cannot really read the Gospel. Thus we must ask the great question:—How does all this harmonize with what we have heard in the words, “I and the Father are one,” “I and Father Abraham are one,” “Before Abraham was, was the I AM?” How can we bring into harmony with all this, the undeniable fact that the Evangelist sees the Father-Principle in the Holy Spirit? And what must we think about the Mother-Principle, according to the Gospel of St. John?
In order that you may come tomorrow properly prepared in spirit to formulate these questions, your attention should also be called to the fact that a sort of series of generations is presented in the Gospel of St. Luke; that we are told that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist; that He began to teach in His thirtieth year and that He was the son of “Mary and Joseph, who was the son of Eli,” etc., and there follows the whole line of generations. If we trace this succession, we see that it goes back to Adam. Then follows something extraordinary; here we find the words: “who was the son of God.” Just as the generations are traced back from son to father in the Gospel of St. Luke, so is the succession traced back from Adam to God. Such a passage must be taken very seriously! Now we have gathered together the questions which should lead us tomorrow directly into the very center of the Gospel of St. John.
Neunter Vortrag
[ 1 ] Sie haben während der ganzen Zeit unserer Vorträge gesehen, in welcher Weise wir uns zu der Urkunde, die man das Johannes-Evangelium nennt, stellen, wenn wir auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft stehen. Sie haben gesehen, daß es sich nicht darum handelt, irgendwelche Wahrheiten über die geistigen Welten aus jener Urkunde heraus zu gewinnen, sondern zu zeigen, wie, unabhängig von allen menschlichen und anderen Urkunden, die Möglichkeit vorhanden ist, in die geistige Welt einzudringen, genau ebenso, wie wenn man heute Mathematik lernen würde, man es unabhängig von jedem Urkundenbuch täte, durch das uns zuerst im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung dieser oder jener Teil der Mathematik mitgeteilt worden ist. Was wissen diejenigen, die anfangen, zum Beispiel in der Schule die einfache elementare Geometrie zu lernen, die jeder heute aus sich selbst, aus der Geometrie selbst heraus lernt, von der Geometrie des Euklid, von jenem Urkundenbuch, in dem sozusagen zum ersten Male diese elementare Geometrie der Menschheit mitgeteilt worden ist! Haben aber dann die Menschen die Geometrie durch sich selbst gelernt, dann können sie um so besser dieses Urkundenbuch in seinem Wesen und seiner Bedeutung würdigen. Dies soll uns immer mehr zeigen, daß man aus dem Geistesleben selbst heraus jene Wahrheiten gewinnen kann, welche von diesem Geistesleben handeln. Und wenn man sie gefunden hat und dann wiederum hingewiesen wird zu den geschichtlichen Urkunden, dann findet man in ihnen wieder, was man sozusagen schon weiß. Dadurch kommt man zu einer richtigen Würdigung, zu einer wahren menschlichen Würdigung dieser Urkunden.
[ 2 ] Wir haben im Laufe der Vorträge gesehen, daß das Johannes-Evangelium dadurch wahrhaftig nicht an Wert verliert; wir haben gesehen, daß dadurch die Achtung und die Schätzung der Urkunden für den, der auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft steht, durchaus nicht geringer wird als bei denen, die sich von vornherein auf den Boden einer solchen Urkunde stellen. Ja, wir haben gesehen, daß die tiefsten Lehren über das Christentum, die wir ebensogut die allgemeinen Weisheitslehren nennen könnten, uns wiederum entgegentreten im Johannes-Evangelium. Und wir haben gesehen, wenn wir so diesen tiefen Sinn der christlichen Lehre erfassen, daß wir dann erst begreifen können, warum Christus gerade in einer ganz bestimmten Zeit, im Beginne unserer Zeitrechnung, in die Menschheitsentwickelung eintreten mußte. Wir haben gesehen, wie in der nachatlantischen Zeit sich nach und nach diese Menschheit heraufentwickelt hat. Wir haben darauf hingewiesen, wie nach der atlantischen Flut eine erste große nachatlantische Kulturepoche da war in der uralt-indischen Kultur. Wir haben darauf hingewiesen, wie diese uralt-indische Kultur dadurch zu charakterisieren ist, daß die Gemüter der Menschen beherrscht waren von Sehnsucht und Erinnerung. Wir haben charakterisiert, worin die Erinnerung, die Sehnsucht bestand. Die Erinnerung bestand darin, daß lebendige Überlieferungen geblieben waren von einer der atlantischen Flut vorangehenden Zeitepoche der Menschheit, in der der Mensch vermöge seiner Natur und Wesenheit noch eine Art dämmerhaften hellseherischen Zustandes hatte, durch den er hineinblicken konnte in die geistige Welt, so daß ihm die geistige Welt durch das Erlebnis, durch die Erfahrung bekannt war, wie der heutigen Menschheit die vier Reiche der Natur, das Mineralreich, das Pflanzenreich, das Tierreich und das Menschenreich, bekannt sind. Wir haben gesehen, wie in dieser Zeit vor der atlantischen Flut eine so scharfe Trennung noch nicht war zwischen dem Bewußtseinszustand während des Tageslebens und dem Bewußtseinszustand während des Nachtlebens. Wenn der Mensch damals abends in Schlaf versunken war, waren seine inneren Erlebnisse nicht so unbewußt und dunkel wie heute; sondern wenn ihm untertauchten die Bilder des Tageslebens, gingen ihm auf die Bilder des geistigen Lebens, und er war jetzt innerhalb der Dinge der geistigen Welt. Und wenn er des Morgens wiederum untertauchte in seinem physischen Leib, sanken herunter ins Dunkel die Erlebnisse und Wahrheiten der göttlich-geistigen Welt, und um ihn herum stiegen auf die Bilder der heutigen Wirklichkeit, der heutigen Reiche der Mineralien, Pflanzen, Tiere und so weiter. Jene scharfe Grenze zwischen nächtlicher Bewußtlosigkeit und täglichem Wachen entstand erst nach der atlantischen Flut, in unserer nachatlantischen Zeit. Da war der Mensch in einer gewissen Weise — was die unmittelbare Wahrnehmung betraf — abgeschnitten von der geistigen Wirklichkeit und immer mehr herausgesetzt in die rein physische Wirklichkeit. Die Erinnerung allein war geblieben, daß es ein anderes Reich, ein Reich geistiger Wesenheiten und geistiger Vorgänge gibt, und an diese Erinnerung hatte sich geknüpft die Sehnsucht der Gemüter, durch irgendwelche Ausnahmezustände wieder hineinzusteigen in diese Reiche, aus denen der Mensch heruntergestiegen war. Diese Ausnahmezustände wurden nur wenigen Auserwählten zuteil, den Eingeweihten, denen in den Mysterienstätten die inneren Sinne geöffnet wurden, so daß sie hineinblicken konnten in die geistige Welt. Sie konnten Kunde und Zeugnis ablegen vor den anderen, die nicht imstande waren, hinauszuschauen, daß die geistigen Welten Wirklichkeit waren. Yoga war in der uralt-indischen Kultur der Prozeß, durch den der Mensch sich zurückversetzte in den alten dämmerhaften hellseherischen Zustand. Waren dann einzelne Ausnahmenaturen initiiert oder eingeweiht worden, dann wurden sie dadurch die Führer der Menschheit, die Zeugen der geistigen Welt.
[ 3 ] Unter dem Eindruck dieser Sehnsucht und Erinnerung bildete sich eben innerhalb der uralt-indischen, vorvedischen Kultur vorzüglich jene Stimmung aus, welche in der äußeren Wirklichkeit Maja oder Illusion sah. Man sagte sich: Die wahre Wirklichkeit ist doch nur in der geistigen Welt, in die wir uns nur durch einen Ausnahmezustand, durch Yoga, zurückversetzen können. Diese Welt der geistigen Wesen und Vorgänge ist wirklich, was der Mensch mit seinen Augen sieht, ist unwirklich, ist Illusion, ist Maja!
[ 4 ] Das war die erste religiöse Grundempfindung in der nachatlantischen Zeit, und Yoga war die erste Form der Einweihung in der nachatlantischen Zeit. Da war zunächst noch nichts vom Begreifen der eigentlichen Mission der nachatlantischen Zeit. Denn es war nicht die Mission der Menschheit, die Wirklichkeit, die wir die Sinnlichkeit nennen, als Maja, als Illusion, anzusehen, sie zu fliehen und ihr fremd zu werden; sondern eine andere Mission hatte die nachatlantische Menschheit: immer mehr und mehr die physische Wirklichkeit zu erobern, Herr zu werden über die Welt der physischen Erscheinungen. Aber es ist auch durchaus begreiflich, daß die Menschheit, die zuerst hineinversetzt wurde in diesen physischen Plan, im Anfange das, was früher kaum innerhalb der geistigen Wirklichkeit auftauchte und das sie jetzt allein wahrnehmen konnte, für Maja oder Illusion hielt. Niemals aber durfte diese Stimmung gegenüber der Wirklichkeit bleiben. Nicht durfte diese Auffassung der physischen Wirklichkeit als einer Illusion der Lebensnerv der nachatlantischen Zeit bleiben. Und wir sahen, wie Stück für Stück die nachatlantische Menschheit sich in den verschiedenen Kulturepochen erobert hat den Zusammenhang mit der physischen Wirklichkeit.
[ 5 ] In jener Kultur, die wir die urpersische nennen - denn das, was die Geschichte kennt unter der persischen und der Zarathustra-Kultur, sind die letzten Nachklänge dessen, was hier gemeint ist -, in dieser zweiten Kulturepoche sahen wir die Menschen den ersten Schritt tun, um hinauszuwachsen aus dem alten indischen Prinzip und sich die physische Wirklichkeit zu erobern. Noch ist nirgends eine liebevolle Versenkung in die physische Wirklichkeit da, auch nirgends etwas wie ein Studium der physischen Welt. Aber es ist doch schon mehr da als in der alten indischen Kultur. Sogar das, was bis in die spätere Zeit geblieben ist von dieser altindischen Kultur, zeigt uns noch die Nachklänge jener Stimmung, die die physische Wirklichkeit als Illusion ansieht. Daher hätte niemals unsere gegenwärtige Kultur hervorgehen können aus dieser indischen Kultur. Alle Weisheit richtete innerhalb der indischen Kultur den Blick hinweg von der physischen Welt und blickte hinauf in die geistigen Welten, die als Erinnerung vorhanden waren, und unwert erschien ihr das Studium und die Bearbeitung der physischen Wirklichkeit. Daher konnte niemals das eigentliche indische Prinzip eine für unsere irdische Welt brauchbare Wissenschaft hervorbringen; niemals hätte es jene Beherrschung der Naturgesetze hervorbringen können, die heute die Grundlage unserer Kultur bildet. Alles das hätte niemals aus dem alten Indertum hervorgehen können. Denn wozu die Kräfte einer Welt kennenlernen, die doch nur auf Täuschung beruht! Wenn das später anders geworden ist auch in der indischen Kultur, so ist das nicht aus ihr hervorgeflossen, sondern ist späteren fremden Einflüssen entsprungen.
[ 6 ] Der altpersischen Kultur steht die äußere physische Wirklichkeit zunächst als ein Arbeitsfeld gegenüber. Noch wie der Ausdruck einer feindlichen Gottheit wird sie angesehen, aber schon ist die Hoffnung ersprossen, daß man dieses materielle Feld der Wirklichkeit mit Hilfe der Lichtgottheit durchdringen kann, ganz in ein von geistigen Mächten und guten Göttern durchdrungenes verwandeln kann. So spürt der Anhänger der persischen Kultur schon ein wenig die Realität der physischen Welt. Zwar betrachtet er sie noch als Gebiet des Gottes der Finsternis, aber er hat doch die Hoffnung, daß er in sie einverleiben kann die Kräfte der guten Götter.
[ 7 ] Und weiter geht die Menschheit dann hinüber in die Kulturepoche, die ihren geschichtlichen Ausdruck fand in der babylonisch-assyrisch-chaldäisch-ägyptischen Kultur. Und wir haben gesehen, wie es kam, daß der Sternenhimmel dem Menschen nicht mehr Maja war, sondern etwas, in dessen Schriftzügen man lesen konnte. In dem, was für die Inder noch Maja war, in den Bahnen und dem Glanz der Sterne, sieht der Angehörige der dritten Kulturepoche den Ausdruck der Ratschlüsse und Absichten göttlich-geistiger Wesenheiten. Man lebt sich allmählich hinein in die Gesinnung, daß die äußere Wirklichkeit nicht Täuschung ist, sondern eine Offenbarung, eine Manifestation der göttlich-geistigen Wesenheiten. Und in der ägyptischen Kultur fängt man an, das, was man aus der Sternenschrift herausliest, auf die Einteilung der Erde selbst anzuwenden. Warum wurden die Ägypter die Lehrmeister der Geometrie? Weil sie glaubten, daß man durch den Gedanken, der die Erde abteilt, die Materie auch bezwingen kann und daß sich umformen läßt die Materie, die der Geist des Menschen erfassen kann. — So allmählich durchdrang eine spätere Menschheit diese materielle Welt, die zuerst als Maja angesehen war, mit dem Geist, der immer mehr und mehr auch in des Menschen Innerem auftauchte.
[ 8 ] Wir haben gesehen, daß eigentlich erst in der späteren atlantischen Zeit die Menschen in die Lage gekommen sind, das Ich oder «Ich-bin» zu empfinden. Denn solange die Menschen die geistigen Bilder sahen, waren sie sich auch klar, daß sie selbst der geistigen Welt angehörten, selbst ein Bild unter Bildern waren. Jetzt kam die Erfassung des Geistes im Innern. Betrachten wir jetzt zu dem, was wir heute ein wenig wiederholt haben, die Entwickelung des eigenen Inneren des Menschen.
[ 9 ] Solange in der atlantischen Zeit der Mensch hinausgesehen hat in einer Art träumerischen, hellseherischen Bewußtseins, hat er eigentlich nicht recht achtgegeben auf sein Inneres. Da war die Innenwelt, die mit dem Ich oder «Ich-bin» umfaßt wird, für ihn noch nicht etwas in scharfen Konturen Gezeichnetes. In demselben Maße, als die geistige Welt entschwand, wurde der Mensch sich seiner eigenen Geistigkeit bewußt. In der altindischen Kultur war gegenüber der eigenen Geistigkeit noch eine sonderbare Stimmung. Man sagte: Wollen wir in die geistige Welt eindringen, uns über die Illusion erheben, dann müssen wir uns selbst verlieren in der geistigen Welt, müssen möglichst auslöschen das «Ich-bin» und aufgehen in dem All-Geist, in dem Brahman. - So war es insbesondere bei der alten Einweihung ein Verlieren des Persönlichen. Ein unpersönliches Aufgehen in der geistigen Welt ist vor allem das, was die älteste Form der Einweihung auszeichnet.
[ 10 ] Das war zum Beispiel nicht mehr so in der dritten Kulturepoche. Denn bis zur dritten Kulturepoche entwickelte sich das Selbstbewußtsein des Menschen immer stärker. Immer mehr wurde sich der Mensch im Innern seines Ichwesens bewußt. Indem man die Materie ringsherum liebgewann, sich in sie vertiefte mit den Gesetzen, die der menschliche Geist selbst ausdachte, die nicht in irgendeinem dämmerhaften Traumzustand gewonnen waren, wurde man seines Ich immer mehr gewahr, bis dieses Persönlichkeitsbewußtsein im alten Ägyptertum auf einem gewissen Höhepunkte angelangt war. In diesem Persönlichkeitsbewußtsein war aber noch etwas vorhanden, was es zugleich als etwas Niederes erscheinen ließ, als etwas, was nun wiederum gebunden war und aufging in der äußeren Welt, was keine Möglichkeit hatte, den Zusammenhang mit dem zu gewinnen, aus dem man herausgeboren war. Zwei Grundstimmungen der Menschheitsentwickelung müssen wir vor unsere Seele hinmalen, wenn wir den ganzen Hergang der Sache begreifen wollen.
[ 11 ] Wir müssen uns einmal erinnern, wie die Menschen der atlantischen Zeit und der altindischen Zeit danach gelechzt haben, die Persönlichkeit abzustreifen. Die Atlantier konnten das, weil es für sie selbstverständlich war, daß sie eben jede Nacht die Persönlichkeit abstreiften und in einem Geisterlande lebten. Die Inder konnten es, weil ihre Einweihungs-Prinzipien sie hinaufführten durch Yoga ins Unpersönliche. Ruhen in dem allgemein Göttlichen war das, was man wollte. Das Ruhen in einem Allgemeinen war in einem letzten Ausläufer der Menschheit geblieben: in dem Bewußtsein der Zusammengehörigkeit mit den Generationen, in dem Bewußtsein, daß man herausgeboren war aus einer Geschlechtsfolge, daß man als einzelner Mensch zusammenhing mit seinem Blute durch die Generationen bis zum Urahn hinauf. Das war die Stimmung, die sich herausgebildet hatte aus jener alten Stimmung, die sich geistig geborgen fühlte in einem Geistig-Göttlichen. So war es gekommen, daß diejenigen Menschen, die eine normale Entwickelung durchgemacht hatten, in der dritten Kulturepoche anfingen, sich zu empfinden als einzelne Menschen, aber zu gleicher Zeit sich geborgen wußten in einem Ganzen, in einem Göttlich-Geistigen, daß sie sich angliederten durch die Blutsverwandtschaft an die ganze Vorfahren-Linie und daß der Gott für sie lebte in dem durch die Generationen hinfließenden Blute.
[ 12 ] Wir haben dann gesehen, wie innerhalb desjenigen Volkes, das die Bekennerschaft des Alten Testamentes bildet, sich ein gewisser Vollkommenheitsgrad dieser Stimmung ausbildete. «Ich und der Vater Abraham sind eins», das heißt, der einzelne fühlte sich geborgen in dem ganzen Zusammenhange bis hinauf zum Vater Abraham. Das war ungefähr auch, was die Grundstimmung aller damals normal entwickelten Volksstämme ausmachte, aller Volksstämme der dritten Kulturepoche. Aber nur der Bekennerschaft des Alten Testamentes war prophetisch vorherverkündet worden, daß es noch etwas geistig Tieferes gäbe als die göttliche Vaterschaft, die durch das Blut der Generationen rinnt. Und auf den großen Moment in der Evolution der Menschheit, wo das prophetisch vorherverkündet worden ist, haben wir hingewiesen. Als Moses den Ruf hört: «Sage, wenn du meinen Namen verkünden wirst, der <«Ich-bin> habe dir das gesagt!», da ertönt zum erstenmal die Kunde und Offenbarung des Logos, des Christus. Da wurde prophetisch zum ersten Male verkündet für die, die es begreifen konnten, daß in dem Gotte nicht nur das lebt, was im Blutzusammenhange steht, sondern daß in ihm lebt ein rein Geistiges. Wie Prophetie war es, was durch das Alte Testament ging.
[ 13 ] Wer war es denn eigentlich — diese Frage ist es, an die wir uns nunmehr etwas halten wollen -, wer war es denn, der damals dem Moses zum ersten Male seinen Namen durch die Prophetie verkündete? Da haben wir wiederum eine Stelle, wo die Ausleger des Johannes-Evangeliums ganz oberflächlich zu Werke gehen und nicht anerkennen wollen, daß man diese Urkunden so gründlich wie möglich durchgehen muß. — Wer war der, der prophetisch seinen Namen verkündigte, dem man den Namen «Ich-bin» geben muß? Wer war es?
[ 14 ] Wir kommen darauf, wenn wir ordentlich und mit Ernst und Würde eine Stelle des Johannes-Evangeliums erfassen. Es ist die Stelle, die wir finden im i2.Kapitel von Vers 37 an. Da weist der Christus Jesus hin auf die Erfüllung eines Spruches des Propheten Jesaias, auf die Vorhersagung, mit dem Hinweise, daß die Juden nicht glauben wollen an den Christus Jesus. Jesus selber weist dabei hin auf Jesaias:
«Er hat ihre Augen verblendet und ihr Herz verstocket, daß sie mit den Augen nicht sehen, noch mit dem Herzen vernehmen, und sich bekehren, und ich ihnen hülfe.
Solches sagte Jesaias, da er seine Herrlichkeit sah, und redete mit ihm.» (12, 40-41)
[ 15 ] Jesaias «redete mit ihm»! Mit wem redete Jesaias? Es wird hingewiesen auf die Stelle, die da heißt:
«Des Jahres, da der König Usia starb, sahe ich den Herrn sitzen auf einem hohen und erhabenen Stuhl, und sein Saum füllete den Tempel.» (Jesaias 6, 1)
[ 16 ] Wen sah Jesaias? Das wird uns hier im Johannes-Evangelium klar gesagt: Christus sah er! Im Geistigen war er immer zu sehen, und Sie werden es nicht mehr unbegreiflich finden, wenn die Geheimwissenschaft darauf hinweist, daß derjenige, den Moses sah, als er ihm das Wort des «Ich-bin» als seinen Namen ankündigte, dieselbe Wesenheit war, die dann als Christus auf der Erde erschien. Der eigentliche «Geist Gottes» des Altertums ist kein anderer als der Christus, so daß wir hier an einer der Stellen der religiösen Urkunden stehen, wo es dem, der nicht ordentlich zu Werke geht, besonders schwer wird, klar zu sehen. Denn klar muß man hier besonders deshalb sehen, weil mit den Worten «Vater», «Sohn» und «Heiliger Geist» die sonderbarsten Verwechselungen vorgekommen sind. Es ist ja immer so gewesen, daß äußerlich im Exoterischen diese Worte in der mannigfaltigsten Weise gerade deshalb gebraucht worden sind, um den eigentlichen esoterischen Sinn nicht gleich hervorleuchten zu lassen. Hat man im Sinne des alten Judentums von dem «Vater» gesprochen, so sprach man zunächst von jenem Vater, der durch das Blut der Generationen hinunterrann, materiell. Sprach man so, wie hier Jesaias von dem «Herrn» gesprochen hat, von dem, der sich geistig offenbarte, so sprach man ebenso von dem Logos wie im Johannes-Evangelium. Und nichts anderes will der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums sagen als: Der, der immer im Geistigen gesehen werden konnte, der ist Fleisch geworden und hat unter uns gewohnet! -— Wenn wir uns nun klargeworden sind, daß auch im Alten Testamente in einer gewissen Beziehung vom Christus gesprochen wird, so werden wir auch begreifen, in welcher Weise das alte hebräische Volk in unsere Entwickelung hineingestellt wird. Aus dem Ägyptertum wächst das althebräische Prinzip heraus. Da hebt es sich ab von dem Hintergrund des ägyptischen Prinzips.
[ 17 ] So also sehen wir, wie der normale Gang der Menschheitsentwickelung so fortschreitet, wie wir das gestern beschrieben haben. Die erste Kultur in der nachatlantischen Zeit ist die uralt-indische, die zweite die urpersische, die dritte die babylonisch-assyrisch-chaldäisch-ägyptische Kultur, dann folgt die vierte, die griechisch-lateinische Epoche, und die fünfte ist unsere jetzige Kulturepoche. Bevor die vierte Epoche beginnt, geht wie ein geheimnisvoller Zweig aus der dritten Epoche dasjenige Volk mit seinen Traditionen hervor, das den Boden abgibt für das Christentum. Wenn wir das alles zusammenfassen, was wir in unseren Vorträgen gewonnen haben, werden wir es noch begreiflicher finden, daß in die vierte Kulturepoche hineinfallen mußte die Erscheinung des Christus.
[ 18 ] Wir haben schon hervorgehoben, daß in der vierten Epoche der Mensch so weit gekommen war, daß er seine eigene Geistigkeit, sein Ich verobjektiviert hinausgestellt hat in die Welt. Wir sehen, wie der Mensch allmählich die Materie durchdringt mit seinem eigenen Geiste, mit seinem Ich-Geist. Wir sehen die Werke der griechischen Plastiker, der griechischen Dramatiker, wo der Mensch das, was er sein seelisches Eigentum nennt, sich verkörpert vor die Seele hinstellt. Wir sehen weiter in der römischen Welt, wie das, was der Mensch ist, auch in sein Bewußtsein kommt und wie er das fixiert für die äußere Welt im «Jus», wenn auch eine vertrackte Rechtswissenschaft das verhüllt. Für den tieferen Kenner der Jurisprudenz ist es klar, daß das eigentliche Recht, das den Menschen als Rechtssubjekt betrachtet, erst in dieser vierten Kulturepoche entstanden ist. Da war sich der Mensch so weit seiner eigenen Persönlichkeit bewußt, daß er sich erst als ein eigentlicher Staatsbürger fühlte. Noch im Griechentum fühlte sich der einzelne Mensch als ein Glied des ganzen Stadt-Staates. Wichtiger war es, Athener zu sein als ein einzelner Mensch. Aber es ist etwas ganz anderes, wenn man sagt: Ich bin ein Römer - als: Ich bin ein Athener. Wenn man sagt: Ich bin ein Römer — weist man darauf hin, daß man als einzelner Mensch, als Bürger des Staates einen Wert hat, einen Willen hat. Da würde man auch nachweisen können, daß zum Beispiel die Entstehung des Begriffes «Testament» erst in dieser Zeitepoche möglich geworden ist; denn das ist ein römischer Begriff. Erst da hatte der Mensch seinen Willen so persönlich gemacht, so individualisiert, daß er auch noch über den Tod hinaus mit seinem Willen wirken wollte. Die Dinge, die man in der Geisteswissenschaft zu sagen hat, stimmen bis aufs einzelne mit den wirklichen Tatsachen überein.
[ 19 ] So war der Mensch immer mehr zur Durchdringung der Materie mit seinem Geiste gekommen. Aber auch später zeigt sich das immer mehr. Die vierte Zeitepoche ist die, wo der Mensch das, was er in seinem Geiste erfaßt, restlos der Materie einverleibt. In der ägyptischen Pyramide sehen Sie noch, wie Geist und Materie miteinander ringen, wie sich das im Geiste Erfaßte noch nicht voll in der Materie ausdrückt. Im griechischen Tempel drückt sich aus der ganze Wendepunkt in der nachatlantischen Zeit. Für den, der etwas davon versteht, gibt es sogar keine bedeutendere, keine vollendetere Architektur als die griechische, die der reinste Ausdruck ist der inneren Raumgesetzlichkeit. Die Säule ist ganz als Träger gedacht, und was auf der Säule liegt, ist ganz und gar so empfunden worden, daß es getragen werden muß und daß es drückt. Der souveräne, emanzipierte Raumgedanke ist hier beim griechischen Tempel bis in die letzten Konsequenzen durchgeführt. Wenige Menschen haben später noch den Raumgedanken so empfunden wie damals. Es hat allerdings noch Menschen gegeben, die den Raumgedanken haben fühlen können, aber sie haben ihn malerisch gefühlt. Prüfen Sie einmal in der Sixtinischen Kapelle den Raum; stellen Sie sich an die Hinterwand, wo das große Bild des Gerichtes ist, und sehen Sie hinauf: Da werden Sie sehen, wie die Hinterwand schief in die Höhe geht. Sie geht deshalb schief in die Höhe, weil der Ausführer den Raumgedanken gefühlt und nicht so abstrakt gedacht hat wie andere Menschen. Deshalb steht diese Wand so wunderbar im Winkel da. Das heißt, nicht mehr griechisch den Raumgedanken empfinden. Es gibt einen Kunstsinn, der die im Raum verborgenen geheimen Maße empfindet. Architektonisch empfinden heißt nicht, für das Auge, sondern etwas anderes empfinden. Leicht glaubt der Mensch heute: rechts sei ebenso wie links, oben ebenso wie unten und vorn so wie hinten. Wenn der Mensch nur einmal folgendes bedenken wollte: Es gibt Bilder, auf denen sieht man drei, vier oder fünf Engel schweben. Diese können so gemalt sein, daß man im Recht ist zu denken, sie müßten jeden Augenblick herunterfallen. Sie können aber auch so gemalt sein von jemandem, der den wirklichen Raumsinn entwickelt hat, daß er nicht die Möglichkeit gibt, dies zu denken; sie können gar nicht herunterfallen, denn sie tragen sich gegenseitig. Dann hat man die dynamischen Verhältnisse des Raumes dabei malerisch vor sich. Der Grieche hatte sie architektonisch vor sich; er empfand die Horizontale nicht bloß als Linie, sondern er empfand sie als Druckkraft, und er empfand die Säule nicht bloß als Stock, sondern empfand sie als Tragkraft. Dieses Mitfühlen mit den Linien des Raumes, das heißt «den lebendigen Geist geometrisierend fühlen ». Das ist, was Plato gemeint hat, als er den ungeheuren Ausdruck gebrauchte: «Gott geometrisiert fortwährend. » — Diese Linien im Raum sind vorhanden, und danach baute der Grieche seinen Tempel.
[ 20 ] Was ist denn der griechische Tempel? Er ist mit Notwendigkeit ein Wohnhaus des Gottes. Er ist etwas ganz anderes als die heutige Kirche. Die heutige Kirche ist eine Predigtstätte. In dem griechischen Tempel wohnte der Gott selbst darinnen. Die Menschen sind nur zufällig darin, wenn sie bei Gott sein wollen. Wer die Formen des griechischen Tempels versteht, der empfindet einen geheimnisvollen Zusammenhang mit dem im Tempel wohnenden Gott. Da sieht man in den Säulen und dem, was darüber ist, nicht etwas, was der Mensch phantasiert hat, sondern etwas, was der Gott selbst so gemacht hätte, wenn er sich ein Wohnhaus hätte schaffen wollen. Das war das Höchste an Durchdringung von Materie mit Geist.
[ 21 ] Vergleichen Sie einmal den griechischen Tempel mit einer gotischen Kirche. Es soll nichts gegen die Gotik gesagt sein, denn sie steht von einem anderen Gesichtspunkt aus auf einer höheren Stufe. Bei der gotischen Kirche sehen Sie, wie dasjenige, was in ihren Formen zum Ausdruck kommt, eigentlich gar nicht gedacht und gar nicht empfunden werden kann ohne die andächtige Menge. In den Bogenformen der Gotik liegt für den, der das empfinden kann, etwas, was er überhaupt gar nicht anders empfinden kann, als indem er sich sagt: Wenn da nicht die andächtige Menge darinnen ist und die Hände so in Bogenform zusammenschließt, ist das Ganze nicht vollständig. Die gotische Kirche ist nicht bloß das Wohnhaus Gottes, sondern zu gleicher Zeit der Versammlungsort der zum Gotte betenden Menge. So überschreitet die Menschheit wiederum den Höhepunkt ihrer eigenen Entwickelung in einer gewissen Weise. Wir sehen, wie das, was innerhalb des griechischen Raumsinnes wunderbar empfunden ist in den Linien des Raumes, in den Säulen und Balken, später in Dekadenz gekommen ist. Eine Säule, die nicht trägt, die nur als dekoratives Motiv da ist, ist für das griechische Empfinden keine Säule. Es steht alles in der menschlichen Evolution im absoluten Einklang. Die griechische Kulturepoche war die schönste Durchdringung des in sich entdeckten Bewußtseins der Menschheit und dessen, was draußen im Raume als das Göttliche empfunden wurde. Der Mensch war ganz und gar zusammengewachsen mit der physisch-sinnlichen Welt in dieser Kulturepoche.
[ 22 ] Es ist einfach Unsinn, wenn heutige Gelehrte das, was frühere Zeiten empfunden haben, verdunkeln wollen. Im geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne sehen wir die vierte Epoche der nachatlantischen Zeit an als diejenige, in welcher der Mensch ganz und gar im Einklange steht mit der ihn umgebenden Welt. Diese Zeit, wo der Mensch wie zusammengewachsen war mit der äußeren Wirklichkeit, war allein geeignet, zu begreifen, daß das Göttliche in einem einzelnen Menschen erscheinen kann. Jede frühere Zeit hätte alles andere eher begriffen als das; jede frühere Zeit hätte so empfunden, daß das Göttliche viel zu hoch und erhaben sei, als daß es in einer physischen Menschengestalt erscheinen könne. Bewahren wollte man das Göttliche gerade vor der physischen Gestalt. «Du sollst dir kein Bildnis machen!» (2. Mose 20, 4), mußte deshalb gerade dem Volke gesagt werden, das die Idee des Gottes in seiner geistigen Gestalt erfassen sollte. Aus solchen Anschauungen heraus entwickelte sich dieses Volk, und aus seinem Schoße erwuchs die Christus-Idee, die Idee, daß das Geistige im Fleische erscheinen sollte. Dazu wurde dieses Volk ausersehen; und da hinein, in die vierte der nachatlantischen Epochen, mußte das Christus-Ereignis fallen.
[ 23 ] Deshalb zerfällt für das christliche Bewußtsein das ganze Menschenwerden in eine vorchtistliche und in eine nachchristliche Zeit. Der Gott-Mensch konnte nur in einer bestimmten Zeit von dem Menschen begriffen werden. Und so sehen wir, wie das Johannes-Evangelium anknüpft im vollen Bewußtsein und in der Gesinnung an das, was, wenn ich ein triviales Wort gebrauchen darf, unmittelbar zeitgemäß war, unmittelbar aus dem Zeitbewußtsein heraus stammte. Ganz von selbst machte es sich daher — sozusagen wie etwas innerlich Verwandtes —, daß die Gedankenbilder, dutch die der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums das größte Ereignis der Weltgeschichte zu begreifen versuchte, ihm am besten ausgedrückt erschienen in griechischen Gedankenformen. Und nach und nach wuchs das ganze christliche Empfinden in diese Gedankenformen hinein. Wir werden sehen, wie mit dem Fortschreiten dann so etwas wie die Gotik entstehen mußte, weil das Christentum allerdings dazu berufen war, wiederum über die Materie hinauszuführen. Aber entstehen konnte es nur da, wo man so weit hineingeraten war in die Materie, daß man sie noch nicht überschätzte, noch nicht darin untergesunken war wie in unserem Zeitalter, aber sie doch zu durchgeistigen und zu durchdringen vermochte.
[ 24 ] So denke ich, zeigt sich uns aus dem ganzen geistigen Hergang der Menschheit heraus die Entstehung des Christentums als etwas durchaus Notwendiges. Wenn wir nunmehr begreifen wollen, welche Gestalt das Christentum nach und nach annehmen mußte, welche Gestalt ihm prophetisch von einer solchen Individualität wie dem Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums vorhergesagt wird, müssen wir im nächsten Vortrag auf einige wesentliche und wichtige Begriffe Rücksicht nehmen.
[ 25 ] Gezeigt ist worden, daß man alles buchstäblich nehmen, aber erst den Buchstaben wirklich verstehen muß. Es ist nicht einerlei, daß nirgends der Name «Johannes» vorkommt, sondern immer geredet wird von dem Jünger, «den der Herr lieb hatte». Wir haben gesehen, welches Geheimnis sich dahinter verbirgt, und daß dies von tiefer Bedeutung ist. - Nun wollen wir noch einen anderen Ausdruck betrachten, einen Ausdruck, der es uns unmittelbar möglich machen wird, anzuknüpfen an die nachfolgenden Entwickelungsperioden des Christentums.
[ 26 ] Im Johannes-Evangelium wird gewöhnlich übersehen, wie von der «Mutter Jesu» gesprochen wird. Wenn man den gewöhnlichen Durchschnittschristen fragen wird: Wer ist die Mutter Jesu? wird er antworten: Die Mutter Jesu ist Maria! Und mancher wird sogar glauben, daß im Johannes-Evangelium so etwas steht, wie daß die Mutter des Jesus Maria heißt. Nirgends steht im Johannes-Evangelium etwas davon, daß die Mutter Jesu «Maria» heißt. Es steht überall, wo davon die Rede ist, mit einer vollen Absichtlichkeit, deren Bedeutung wir kennenlernen werden, nur die «Mutter Jesu». Im Ka pitel der Hochzeit zu Kana heißt es: «Und die Mutter Jesu war da» (2, 1); und später wird gesagt: «Seine Mutter spricht zu den Dienern » (2, 5). Niemals der Name « Maria ». Und wo sie uns wieder entgegentritt, wo wir den Erlöser am Kreuze sehen, wird gesagt im Johannes-Evangelium:
«Es stand aber bei dem Kreuze Jesu seine Mutter und seiner Mutter Schwester, Maria, des Kleophas Weib, und Maria von Magdala.» (19, 25)
[ 27 ] Klar und deutlich ist da gesagt, wer am Kreuze steht: Die Mutter war da, dann deren Schwester, die des Kleophas Weib war und Maria hieß, und die Maria von Magdala. Wenn jemand etwas nachdenkt, wird er sich sagen: Es ist doch sonderbar, daß die beiden Schwestern Maria heißen! Das ist heute nicht gebräuchlich. -— Und damals war es das auch nicht. Und da der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums die Schwester Maria nennt, so ist es klar, daß die Mutter Jesu nicht Maria hieß. Im griechischen Worttext steht klar und deutlich: Unten stand «seine Mutter und seiner Mutter Schwester, die des Kleophas Weib war, Maria, und die Maria von Magdala.» - Da entsteht für eine würdige Auffassung die Frage: Wer ist die Mutter des Jesus? Und da streifen wir an eine der größten Fragen des Johannes-Evangeliums: Wer ist der eigentliche Vater des Jesus? Wer ist die Mutter?
[ 28 ] Wer ist der Vater? - Kann man denn überhaupt fragen? Nicht nur im Sinne des Johannes-Evangeliums, sondern im Sinne des LukasEvangeliums können Sie fragen. Denn es gehört eine besondere Gedankenlosigkeit dazu, nicht zu sehen, wie bei der Verkündigung gesagt wird:
«Der Heilige Geist wird über dich kommen, und die Kraft des Höchsten wird dich überschatten, und das, was von dir geboren wird, wird Gottes Sohn heißen.» (Lukas 1, 35)
[ 29 ] Selbst im Lukas-Evangelium wird darauf hingewiesen, daß der Vater des Jesus der Heilige Geist ist. Das ist buchstäblich aufzufassen, und diejenigen Theologen, die das nicht anerkennen, können das Evangelium eben nicht lesen. Und so müssen wir die große Frage hinstellen: Wie stehen mit alledem, was wir gehört haben, die Worte «Ich und der Vater sind eins», «Ich und der Vater Abraham sind eins», «Bevor Abraham war, war «Ich-bin>» in Einklang? Wie bringt man mit alledem die unleugbare Tatsache in Harmonie, daß die Evangelien in dem «Heiligen Geist» das Vater-Prinzip sehen? Und wie haben wir im Sinne des Johannes-Evangeliums über das MutterPrinzip zu denken?
[ 30 ] Damit Sie morgen recht vorbereitet kommen im Geiste mit der Formulierung dieser Fragen, soll außerdem noch hingewiesen werden darauf, daß im Lukas-Evangelium eine Art Generationenfolge gegeben wird, daß uns da gesagt wird, daß Jesus getauft wurde von Johannes, daß er anfing zu lehren im dreißigsten Jahre und daß gesagt wird, er sci der Sohn der Maria und «des Josef, der war ein Sohn Eli» und so weiter, und nun folgt die ganze Generationenreihe. Verfolgen Sie sie; Sie werden sehen, daß sie hinaufgeht bis zu Adam. Und dann folgt etwas ganz Eigentümliches, es stehen die Worte da: «der war Gottes.» (Lukas 3, 23-38)
[ 31 ] Genau ebenso wie hinaufgewiesen wird vom Sohn zum Vater, so wird von Adam zu Gott verwiesen im Lukas-Evangelium. Eine solche Stelle müssen wir ganz ernst nehmen! Dann haben wir ungefähr die Fragen zusammen, die uns morgen in das Zentrum des JohannesEvangeliums führen sollen.
Ninth Lecture
[ 1 ] You have seen throughout our lectures the way in which we relate to the document called the Gospel of John when we stand on the ground of spiritual science. You have seen that it is not a question of gaining any truths about the spiritual worlds from that document, but of showing how, independently of all human and other documents, the possibility exists of penetrating into the spiritual world, just as, if one were to learn mathematics today, one would do so independently of every documentary book through which this or that part of mathematics was first communicated to us in the course of human evolution. What do those who begin, for example, to learn simple elementary geometry at school, which everyone today learns from themselves, from geometry itself, know of Euclid's geometry, of that book of documents in which this elementary geometry was, so to speak, first communicated to mankind! But once people have learned geometry through themselves, they will be able to appreciate the essence and significance of this documentary book all the better. This should show us more and more that one can gain from the spiritual life itself those truths which deal with this spiritual life. And when one has found them and is then again referred to the historical documents, then one finds again in them what one already knows, so to speak. In this way one arrives at a correct appreciation, a true human appreciation of these documents.
[ 2 ] We have seen in the course of the lectures that the Gospel of John truly does not lose any of its value as a result; we have seen that the respect and appreciation of the documents for those who stand on the ground of spiritual science is by no means less than for those who place themselves from the outset on the ground of such a document. Indeed, we have seen that the most profound teachings about Christianity, which we could just as well call the general teachings of wisdom, confront us again in the Gospel of John. And we have seen that when we grasp this deep meaning of Christian teaching in this way, we can only then understand why Christ had to enter human development at a very specific time, at the beginning of our era. We have seen how this humanity gradually developed in the post-Atlantean period. We have pointed out how, after the Atlantean flood, there was a first great post-Atlantean cultural epoch in the ancient Indian culture. We have pointed out how this ancient Indian culture can be characterized by the fact that people's minds were dominated by longing and memory. We have characterized what the memory, the longing consisted of. The memory consisted in the fact that living traditions had remained from an epoch of mankind preceding the Atlantean flood, in which man, by virtue of his nature and being, still had a kind of dim clairvoyant state through which he could look into the spiritual world, so that the spiritual world was known to him through experience, through experience, just as the four kingdoms of nature, the mineral kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom, are known to mankind today. We have seen how in this time before the Atlantean flood there was not yet such a sharp separation between the state of consciousness during day life and the state of consciousness during night life. At that time, when man sank into sleep in the evening, his inner experiences were not as unconscious and dark as they are today; but when the images of day-life submerged him, the images of spiritual life opened up to him, and he was now within the things of the spiritual world. And when in the morning he again submerged in his physical body, the experiences and truths of the divine-spiritual world sank down into the darkness, and around him rose the images of today's reality, today's realms of minerals, plants, animals and so on. That sharp boundary between nocturnal unconsciousness and daily waking only came into being after the Atlantean flood, in our post-Atlantean time. There man was in a certain way - as far as immediate perception was concerned - cut off from spiritual reality and more and more placed out into purely physical reality. The memory alone remained that there was another realm, a realm of spiritual beings and spiritual processes, and this memory was linked to the longing of the mind to re-enter these realms from which man had descended through some kind of exceptional state. These exceptional states were only granted to a few chosen ones, the initiates, to whom the inner senses were opened in the Mystery Places so that they could look into the spiritual world. They were able to tell and bear witness to others who were unable to see beyond, that the spiritual worlds were real. In ancient Indian culture, yoga was the process by which man returned to the old twilight clairvoyant state. If individual exceptional natures were then initiated or initiated, they became the guides of humanity, the witnesses of the spiritual world.
[ 3 ] Under the impression of this longing and memory, a mood developed within the ancient Indian, pre-Vedic culture that saw Maya or illusion in external reality. It was said that true reality is only in the spiritual world, to which we can only return through an exceptional state, through yoga. This world of spiritual beings and processes is real, what man sees with his eyes is unreal, is illusion, is maja!
[ 4 ] This was the first basic religious sentiment in the post-Atlantean period, and yoga was the first form of initiation in the post-Atlantean period. At first there was no understanding of the actual mission of the post-Atlantean period. For it was not the mission of humanity to regard reality, which we call sensuality, as maja, as illusion, to flee it and become alien to it; rather, post-Atlantean humanity had a different mission: to conquer more and more physical reality, to become master of the world of physical phenomena. But it is also quite understandable that humanity, which was first placed in this physical plan, at the beginning considered that which previously hardly appeared within the spiritual reality and which it could now perceive alone, as maja or illusion. But this attitude towards reality was never allowed to remain. This view of physical reality as an illusion could never be allowed to remain the lifeblood of the post-Atlantean era. And we saw how, bit by bit, post-Atlantean humanity conquered the connection with physical reality in the various cultural epochs.
[ 5 ] In that culture which we call the primeval Persian culture - for what history knows as the Persian and Zarathustra cultures are the last echoes of what is meant here - in this second cultural epoch we saw men take the first step to grow out of the old Indian principle and to conquer physical reality. Nowhere is there yet a loving immersion in physical reality, nowhere is there anything like a study of the physical world. But there is already more than in the old Indian culture. Even what has remained of this ancient Indian culture until later times still shows us the echoes of that mood which regards physical reality as an illusion. Therefore, our present culture could never have emerged from this Indian culture. All wisdom within Indian culture looked away from the physical world and looked up into the spiritual worlds that were present as memory, and the study and treatment of physical reality seemed unworthy of it. Therefore the true Indian principle could never have produced a science useful for our earthly world; it could never have produced that mastery of the laws of nature which today forms the basis of our culture. All this could never have emerged from ancient Indianism. After all, why learn about the forces of a world that is only based on illusion? If this later became different even in Indian culture, it did not flow from it, but arose from later foreign influences.
[ 6 ] In ancient Persian culture, the external physical reality is initially a field of work. It is still regarded as the expression of a hostile deity, but the hope has already sprouted that this material field of reality can be penetrated with the help of the deity of light and completely transformed into one permeated by spiritual powers and good gods. Thus the follower of Persian culture already senses a little of the reality of the physical world. Although he still regards it as the domain of the god of darkness, he still has the hope that he can incorporate into it the powers of the good gods.
[ 7 ] And then humanity moves on to the cultural epoch that found its historical expression in the Babylonian-Assyrian-Chaldean-Egyptian culture. And we have seen how it came about that the starry heavens were no longer Maya to man, but something in whose writings one could read. In what was still Maya to the Indians, in the orbits and the brilliance of the stars, the member of the third cultural epoch sees the expression of the counsels and intentions of divine-spiritual entities. Gradually, one lives into the attitude that external reality is not a deception, but a revelation, a manifestation of the divine-spiritual entities. And in the Egyptian culture one begins to apply what one reads from the star script to the division of the earth itself. Why did the Egyptians become the masters of geometry? Because they believed that matter could be conquered by the thought that divides the earth and that matter could be transformed by the human mind. - So gradually a later humanity permeated this material world, which was first regarded as maja, with the spirit, which emerged more and more in man's inner being as well.
[ 8 ] We have seen that it was actually only in the later Atlantean period that people came to be able to feel the I or “I-am”. For as long as people saw the spiritual images, they were also aware that they themselves belonged to the spiritual world, that they themselves were an image among images. Now came the perception of the spirit within. Let us now look at what we have repeated a little today, the development of man's own inner being.
[ 9 ] As long as man looked out in a kind of dreamy, clairvoyant consciousness in the Atlantean period, he did not actually pay much attention to his inner being. The inner world, which is encompassed by the “I” or “I-am”, was not yet something sharply outlined for him. To the same extent that the spiritual world disappeared, man became aware of his own spirituality. In ancient Indian culture there was still a strange attitude towards one's own spirituality. It was said that if we wanted to penetrate the spiritual world, to rise above illusion, then we had to lose ourselves in the spiritual world, we had to extinguish the “I-am” as far as possible and merge with the All-Spirit, with Brahman. - In the old initiation in particular, it was a loss of the personal. Impersonal absorption in the spiritual world is above all what characterizes the oldest form of initiation.
[ 10 ] This was no longer the case in the third cultural epoch, for example. For up to the third cultural epoch man's self-consciousness developed ever more strongly. Man became more and more conscious of his inner self. By becoming fond of the matter around him, by immersing himself in it with the laws which the human spirit itself had devised, which were not gained in some dim dream state, he became more and more aware of his ego, until this consciousness of personality reached a certain climax in ancient Egypt. But there was still something present in this personality consciousness which at the same time made it appear as something inferior, as something which was now again bound and absorbed in the outer world, which had no possibility of gaining a connection with that out of which one was born. We must paint two basic moods of the development of mankind before our souls if we want to understand the whole course of events.
[ 11 ] We must remember how the people of the Atlantean and ancient Indian times longed to cast off the personality. The Atlanteans were able to do this because it was natural for them to shed their personality every night and live in a spirit land. The Indians could do it because their initiatory principles led them up through yoga into the impersonal. Resting in the universal divine was what they wanted. Resting in a generality had remained in a last offshoot of humanity: in the consciousness of belonging together with the generations, in the consciousness that one was born out of a succession of generations, that one was connected as an individual human being with his blood through the generations up to the ancestor. This was the mood that had developed from that old mood that felt spiritually secure in a spiritual-divine. Thus it came about that those human beings who had undergone a normal development began in the third cultural epoch to feel themselves as individual human beings, but at the same time knew themselves to be secure in a whole, in a Divine-Spiritual, that they attached themselves through blood relationship to the whole ancestral line and that the God lived for them in the blood flowing down through the generations.
[ 12 ] We have then seen how a certain degree of perfection of this sentiment developed within the people who form the confession of the Old Testament. “I and the Father Abraham are one”, that is, the individual felt secure in the whole context up to the Father Abraham. This was also roughly what characterized the basic mood of all normally developed tribes at that time, all tribes of the third cultural epoch. But only the confessors of the Old Testament had been prophetically foretold that there was still something spiritually deeper than the divine fatherhood running through the blood of the generations. And we have pointed out the great moment in the evolution of mankind when this was prophetically foretold. When Moses hears the call: “Say, when thou shalt proclaim my name, I have told thee this!”, then for the first time the tidings and revelation of the Logos, the Christ, are heard. Then it was proclaimed prophetically for the first time to those who could understand that in the God lives not only that which is related to the blood, but that in him lives a purely spiritual being. It was like prophecy that went through the Old Testament.
[ 13 ] Who was it actually - this is the question we want to address now - who was it who first proclaimed his name to Moses through prophecy? Here again we have a passage where the interpreters of the Gospel of John are quite superficial and do not want to recognize that these documents must be gone through as thoroughly as possible. - Who was the one who prophetically proclaimed his name, to whom one must give the name “I am”? Who was it?
[ 14 ] We will find out if we grasp a passage from the Gospel of John properly and with seriousness and dignity. It is the passage we find in the 2nd chapter from verse 37 onwards. There the Christ Jesus points to the fulfillment of a saying of the prophet Isaiah, to the prediction, with the indication that the Jews do not want to believe in the Christ Jesus. Jesus himself refers to Isaiah:
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they will not see with their eyes or hear with their hearts, and will turn and I will help them.
Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke with him.” (12, 40-41)
[ 15 ] Isaiah “spoke with him”! Who did Isaiah talk to? Reference is made to the passage that says:
"In the year that Uzziah the king died, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and lofty throne, and his throne filled the temple.” (Isaiah 6, 1)
[ 16 ] Who did Isaiah see? This is clearly stated here in the Gospel of John: He saw Christ! He could always be seen in the spiritual, and you will no longer find it incomprehensible when secret science points out that the one whom Moses saw when he announced to him the word of the “I-am” as his name was the same being who then appeared on earth as Christ. The actual “Spirit of God” of antiquity is none other than the Christ, so that we are standing here at one of the points in the religious documents where it is particularly difficult for those who do not work properly to see clearly. It is particularly important to see clearly here because the words “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” have been confused in the strangest ways. It has always been the case that these words have been used outwardly in the exoteric in the most varied ways precisely in order not to allow the actual esoteric meaning to emerge immediately. If one spoke of the “Father” in the sense of ancient Judaism, one spoke first of that Father who ran down through the blood of the generations, materially. If one spoke of the “Lord” as Isaiah did here, of the one who revealed himself spiritually, then one also spoke of the Logos as in the Gospel of John. And the writer of the Gospel of John wants to say nothing other than: He who could always be seen in the spiritual realm became flesh and dwelt among us! -- Once we have realized that the Old Testament also speaks of Christ in a certain sense, we will also understand how the ancient Hebrew people are placed in our development. The ancient Hebrew principle grows out of Egyptianism. There it stands out from the background of the Egyptian principle.
[ 17 ] So we see how the normal course of human development progresses as we described yesterday. The first culture in the post-Atlantean period is the ancient Indian, the second the Urperian, the third the Babylonian-Assyrian-Chaldean-Egyptian culture, followed by the fourth, the Greco-Latin epoch, and the fifth is our present cultural epoch. Before the fourth epoch begins, a mysterious branch of the third epoch gives rise to the people and their traditions that provide the basis for Christianity. If we summarize all that we have gained in our lectures, we will find it even more comprehensible that the appearance of the Christ had to fall into the fourth cultural epoch.
[ 18 ] We have already emphasized that in the fourth epoch man had come so far that he had objectified his own spirituality, his ego, and placed it out into the world. We see how man gradually permeates matter with his own spirit, with his ego-spirit. We see the works of the Greek sculptors, the Greek dramatists, where man places what he calls his spiritual property embodied before the soul. We see further in the Roman world how that which man is also comes into his consciousness and how he fixes it for the outer world in the “Jus”, even if a complicated jurisprudence conceals it. For the deeper connoisseur of jurisprudence, it is clear that the actual law, which regards man as a legal subject, only emerged in this fourth cultural epoch. It was then that man was so far aware of his own personality that he first felt himself to be a true citizen. In Greek times, the individual still felt himself to be a member of the whole city-state. It was more important to be an Athenian than an individual. But it is quite different to say: I am a Roman - than: I am an Athenian. When you say: I am a Roman - you indicate that as an individual, as a citizen of the state, you have a value, you have a will. It would also be possible to prove, for example, that the emergence of the term “will” only became possible in this era, because it is a Roman term. It was only then that man had made his will so personal, so individualized, that he still wanted to work with his will beyond death. The things that one has to say in spiritual science agree in every detail with the real facts.
[ 19 ] In this way man came more and more to permeate matter with his spirit. But this also became more and more evident later. The fourth epoch is that in which man completely incorporates into matter that which he grasps in his spirit. In the Egyptian pyramid you can still see how spirit and matter wrestle with each other, how what is grasped in the spirit is not yet fully expressed in matter. The Greek temple expresses the whole turning point in the post-Atlantean period. For those who understand something of it, there is no more important, no more perfect architecture than the Greek, which is the purest expression of the inner laws of space. The column is conceived entirely as a support, and what lies on the column has been perceived entirely in such a way that it must be supported and that it presses. The sovereign, emancipated idea of space is carried out here in the Greek temple down to its last consequences. Few people later still felt the idea of space as they did then. However, there were still people who were able to feel the idea of space, but they felt it pictorially. Take a look at the room in the Sistine Chapel; stand at the back wall where the large picture of the judgment is and look up: you will see how the back wall rises up at an angle. The reason it rises up at an angle is because the artist felt the idea of space and did not think as abstractly as other people. That is why this wall stands at such a wonderful angle. That means no longer feeling the idea of space in a Greek way. There is a sense of art that perceives the secret dimensions hidden in space. Architectural perception does not mean perception for the eye, but something else. People today easily believe that right is the same as left, top is the same as bottom and front is the same as back. If only people would consider the following: there are pictures in which you can see three, four or five angels hovering. These can be painted in such a way that one is right to think that they must fall down at any moment. But they can also be painted by someone who has developed the real sense of space in such a way that he does not give the possibility of thinking this; they cannot fall down at all, because they carry each other. Then one has the dynamic relations of space pictorially before one. The Greek had them architecturally before him; he felt the horizontal not merely as a line, but he felt it as a compressive force, and he felt the column not merely as a stick, but he felt it as a load-bearing force. This empathy with the lines of space means “feeling the living spirit in a geometric way”. This is what Plato meant when he used the tremendous expression: “God is constantly geometrizing. “ - These lines in space are present, and the Greek built his temple according to them.
[ 20 ] What is the Greek temple? It is necessarily a dwelling place of God. It is something quite different from today's church. Today's church is a place of preaching. In the Greek temple, God himself dwelt in it. People only happen to be there when they want to be with God. Anyone who understands the forms of the Greek temple senses a mysterious connection with the God who dwells in the temple. In the pillars and what is above them, you do not see something that man has fantasized, but something that God himself would have made if he had wanted to create a dwelling place for himself. That was the ultimate in the interpenetration of matter with spirit.
[ 21 ] Compare the Greek temple with a Gothic church. Nothing should be said against the Gothic, for it is on a higher level from another point of view. In the Gothic church you can see how that which is expressed in its forms cannot actually be conceived or felt without the devout crowd. For those who can feel this, there is something in the arched forms of the Gothic that they cannot feel in any other way than by saying to themselves: if there is not the devout crowd inside and clasping their hands together in this arched form, the whole is not complete. The Gothic church is not only the dwelling place of God, but at the same time the meeting place of the crowd praying to God. Thus, in a certain way, humanity again transcends the climax of its own development. We see how that which was wonderfully perceived within the Greek sense of space in the lines of space, in the columns and beams, later came to decadence. A pillar that does not support, that is only there as a decorative motif, is not a pillar for the Greek sensibility. Everything in human evolution is in absolute harmony. The Greek cultural epoch was the most beautiful interpenetration of the consciousness of humanity discovered within itself and that which was perceived outside in space as the divine. Man had grown together completely with the physical-sensual world in this cultural epoch.
[ 22 ] It is simply nonsense when today's scholars want to obscure what earlier times perceived. In the spiritual-scientific sense we regard the fourth epoch of the post-Atlantean period as the one in which man is completely in harmony with the world around him. This time, when man had grown together with external reality, was the only time when it was possible to understand that the divine can appear in an individual human being. Every earlier time would have understood everything else sooner than this; every earlier time would have felt that the divine was far too high and sublime to appear in a physical human form. The divine was to be preserved precisely from the physical form. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image!” (Exodus 20:4) therefore had to be said to the very people who were to grasp the idea of God in his spiritual form. Out of such views this people developed, and from its bosom grew the idea of Christ, the idea that the spiritual should appear in the flesh. This people was chosen for this purpose; and into this, into the fourth of the post-Atlantean epochs, the Christ-event had to fall.
[ 23 ] Therefore, for the Christian consciousness, the whole process of becoming human is divided into a pre-Christian and a post-Christian period. The God-man could only be understood by man in a certain time. And so we see how the Gospel of John ties in with the full consciousness and attitude of what was, if I may use a trivial word, directly contemporary, directly stemming from the consciousness of the time. It was therefore quite natural - like something inwardly related, so to speak - that the mental images through which the writer of the Gospel of John attempted to comprehend the greatest event in world history appeared to him to be best expressed in Greek thought forms. And little by little the whole of Christian feeling grew into these thought forms. We shall see how something like the Gothic had to develop as it progressed, because Christianity was indeed called to lead beyond matter. But it could only arise where one had gotten so far into matter that one did not yet overestimate it, had not yet sunk into it as in our age, but was nevertheless able to spiritualize and penetrate it.
[ 24 ] So I think the emergence of Christianity shows us from the whole spiritual course of humanity as something absolutely necessary. If we now want to understand what form Christianity had to gradually take, what form is prophetically foretold to it by such an individuality as the writer of the Gospel of John, we must in the next lecture take into consideration some essential and important concepts.
[ 25 ] It has been shown that everything must be taken literally, but the letter must first be really understood. It is not the same that the name “John” does not appear anywhere, but that the disciple “whom the Lord loved” is always spoken of. We have seen the mystery behind this, and that it is of profound significance. - Now let us look at another expression, an expression that will immediately enable us to tie in with the subsequent periods of development of Christianity.
[ 26 ] In the Gospel of John, it is usually overlooked how the “mother of Jesus” is spoken of. If you ask the average Christian: Who is the mother of Jesus? he will answer: The mother of Jesus is Mary! And some will even believe that the Gospel of John says that the mother of Jesus is called Mary. Nowhere in the Gospel of John does it say that the mother of Jesus is called Mary. Wherever it is mentioned, with a full intentionality whose meaning we will come to know, it says only “the mother of Jesus”. In the chapter of the wedding at Cana it says: “And the mother of Jesus was there” (2, 1); and later it says: “His mother speaks to the servants” (2, 5). Never the name “Mary”. And where she meets us again, where we see the Savior on the cross, is said in the Gospel of John:
"Now by the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” (19, 25)
[ 27 ] It is clearly stated who is standing at the cross: The mother was there, then her sister, who was the wife of Cleophas and was called Mary, and Mary of Magdala. If anyone thinks about it, he will say to himself: It is strange that the two sisters are called Mary! That is not common today. -- And it wasn't then either. And since the writer of the Gospel of John calls the sister Mary, it is clear that the mother of Jesus was not called Mary. The Greek text clearly states: “His mother and his mother's sister, who was the wife of Cleophas, Mary, and Mary of Magdala.” - This raises the question for a worthy understanding: Who is Jesus' mother? And here we touch on one of the biggest questions in the Gospel of John: Who is the real father of Jesus? Who is the mother?
[ 28 ] Who is the father? - Is it even possible to ask? You can ask not only in the sense of the Gospel of John, but also in the sense of the Gospel of Luke. For it takes a special thoughtlessness not to see what is said at the Annunciation:
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and that which is born of you will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1, 35)
[ 29 ] Even in the Gospel of Luke it is pointed out that the Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit. This is to be understood literally, and those theologians who do not recognize this cannot read the Gospel. And so we have to ask the big question: How do the words “I and the Father are one”, “I and the Father Abraham are one”, “Before Abraham was, there was ‘I-am>’ square with all that we have heard? How do we reconcile with all this the undeniable fact that the Gospels see the Father principle in the “Holy Spirit”? And how should we think about the Mother Principle in terms of the Gospel of John?
[ 30 ] So that you come tomorrow quite prepared in spirit with the formulation of these questions, it should also be pointed out that in the Gospel of Luke a kind of generational sequence is given, that we are told there that Jesus was baptized by John, that he began to teach in the thirtieth year and that it is said that he was the son of Mary and “of Joseph, who was a son of Eli” and so on, and now the whole generational sequence follows. Follow it; you will see that it goes up to Adam. And then follows something quite peculiar, the words: “who was God's.” (Luke 3, 23-38)
[ 31 ] Just as it is pointed upwards from the Son to the Father, so it is pointed from Adam to God in the Gospel of Luke. We must take such a passage very seriously! Then we have roughly the questions together that should lead us to the center of John's gospel tomorrow.