# Where and How Does One Find the Spirit?

## GA 57 — 14 November 1908, Berlin

### The Bible and Wisdom II

The fact that Spiritual Science is capable of exploring the deeper wisdom and truths of the biblical documents, and thereby has the opportunity to read what is written in these documents in the correct sense, was indicated in a few strokes in yesterday's lecture. And it was intended to show in broad strokes how, in contrast to the Old Testament, such a correct penetration into the deeper meaning of the Bible is possible in a quite unexpected way and can lead many people to a rediscovery of this document for humanity. What could be said in this last lecture about the position of our modern age, its research, its criticism, its worldview in relation to the Old Testament, can be said in exactly the same way in relation to the New Testament. Here, too, we are again in a position to point out how, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a criticism began which frayed, dissected, and, so to speak, cut to pieces the Gospel, another document that has had such enormous significance for countless people throughout the centuries, and attacked its authority at its root. It would take a long story to draw attention to this biblical criticism of the New Testament in detail. How could it be otherwise, since that time, after the invention of printing, when the Bible became available to everyone and materialistic thinking gained the upper hand! How could it be otherwise, when it became increasingly clear to people that there were contradictions in the Gospels?

If one sticks purely to the letter of the matter, one need only compare, for example, the first Gospel, that is, the Gospel of Matthew, with the Gospel of Luke. one need only compare the genealogies given in these two Gospels to indicate the ancestry of Jesus of Nazareth, and one will find that already in the first chapters the first and third Gospels contradict each other. Not only are the ancestors listed differently in Luke than in Matthew, but the names do not match either. And if one compares the individual facts relating to the life of Jesus of Nazareth on this basis, one can find contradictions everywhere. In particular, it becomes apparent to people how blatantly the first three evangelists, the writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the one hand, and the writer of the fourth, the so-called Gospel of John, on the other, contradict each other. As a result, attempts were made to establish at least some degree of consistency between the first three Gospels, and it was believed that these first three evangelists, even though they differ from each other in many details, they nevertheless agree in a certain way in that they present an image of Jesus of Nazareth that appeals to the entire conception and all habits of thought of a more recent era, at least for many personalities of our more recent era.

On the other hand, it had long been clear to many with regard to the fourth evangelist that there could be no question of a historical document. Not only does the writer of the Gospel of John present the facts in a completely different order, especially with regard to the miracles, which he describes in a completely different way; it is also apparent that the writer of the Gospel of John has a different view of the center of world history. This is a belief that has developed more and more. And if we want to return to the meaning of this research—we cannot go into the details—it is roughly this: that the first three Gospels, when viewed as descriptions of the heyday, could give a picture of the personality of the completely outstanding Jesus of Nazareth, the founder and originator of the Gospel. The fourth Gospel is said to be a confession, a kind of hymn to what the writer wanted to portray in relation to his faith in the crucified Jesus, and through which he did not want to give a history, but intended to give a teaching text.

In the nineteenth century in particular, this view became increasingly accepted by numerous personalities through the so-called Tübingen School, which was led by the truly great Bible scholar and brilliant mind Christian Baur. Baur's view is roughly this: the Gospel of John was written late, very late, whereas the other evangelists wrote earlier, still according to certain reports from those who may have seen one thing or another themselves or learned about it from people who had witnessed the events in Palestine. The Gospel of John, however, was not written until the second century. It was not written from prehistory, but was influenced by Greek philosophy and by what had already occurred in the Christian communities, so that John, influenced by this, created an image of Christ Jesus that edified people and uplifted them in such a way that it is, in a sense, lyrical, teaching about the way in which people began to think, feel, and perceive in a Christian way in the second century, but it can no longer teach us about what happened at the beginning of our time.

Certainly, there were also souls who defended the opposite view. If, on the other hand, it must truly be said that Christian Baur and those who were his students or who worked with him to a greater or lesser extent proceeded with tremendous critical acumen, we must not forget a Bible scholar such as the historian and scholar Gfrörer, who claims that the Gospel originated from the Apostle John himself. He diligently shows how this Gospel in particular demonstrates in almost every sentence that it was written by an eyewitness or by someone who received its message from eyewitnesses. Gfrörer goes so far as to say, in his Swabian manner, that anyone who—according to his argument—does not believe that the Gospel originated with John cannot be in his right mind. He also speaks ill of those who say that it is not historical and then attack this Gospel with all manner of arguments.

The question that interests us here is this: Despite all the acumen and scholarship, which is not denied for a moment, has research and history alone really brought about this modern view? — Anyone who can thoroughly investigate not only the external aspects of history, but who can also delve into the spiritual foundations of human development with their thoughts, feelings, and entire worldview, will soon notice something else. It was not merely historical sense, it was not merely so-called objective research, but it was the habits of thought of modern times, the cherished views that had become increasingly widespread since the last century, when they first appeared; they did not allow the faith and ideas that had prevailed for centuries to continue to exist in the souls of the people, that Jesus of Nazareth contained not only a superior but a universal essence, an essence — let us call it for now a spiritual-divine one — that must be related not only to the whole of humanity, but to the whole development of the world in general. The belief and the idea that this essence had worked in the mortal body of Jesus of Nazareth, and that we have a unique event before us, were lost. This contradicts the habits of thought so much that they had to oppose such a belief. It was critical research that unconsciously crept in to justify what the habits of thought initially wanted. More and more, a sense arose that could not bear anything that transcended normal human personality, a sense that said: Yes, there have been great people in the development of the world: Socrates, Plato, and others. Certainly, we want to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest. But we must remain within this human level. — That something may have lived in Jesus that cannot be compared with normal human beings contradicts the materialistic mental images that have become increasingly entrenched, especially. We can see how this idea has unconsciously crept in and become associated with what so-called historical research has established.

Why did the first three evangelists become more and more esteemed, while the writer of the Gospel of John became merely a lyricist and confessor? Because it could be said that the first three evangelists, the synoptics, describe an ideal human figure, but always something that, although lofty, does not transcend. It flatters the modern mind when a modern theologian says: If we remove everything supernatural and spiritual from Jesus of Nazareth, if we take the simple man of Nazareth, then we are closest to Jesus. — This does not work with the Gospel of John. It begins with the words: In the beginning was the Logos, the Word. And the Word that was with God in the beginning was before there was a material world. What was there in all spiritual origins became flesh, which changed at the beginning of our calendar in Palestine. The writer of the Gospel of John applies the highest wisdom to understand this event and bring it to understanding. In view of this, it is not possible to speak of the simple man from Nazareth. Therefore, he could never have had anything to do with a historical document. So it is not only scientific reasons, it is the development of ordinary thoughts, feelings, and sensations that have found expression in what is today known as New Testament biblical criticism, what is known as historical research, which claims to have unconditional or at least relative authority over these matters.

But this raises another question from the perspective of Spiritual Science. Let us place ourselves squarely on the ground that some new researchers have taken. Some wanted to describe an event that took place at the beginning of our calendar. They then added mythical and legendary elements to it. Let us assume that we place ourselves on this ground. We must then ask ourselves: Is it possible, based on these premises, to still speak of Christianity as such? Is it possible to speak of Christianity if we interpret the documents that testify to this Christianity in a purely materialistic sense? Is this possible with regard to the entire Bible? Two things should first be mentioned which will prove that the question cannot be posed in any other way than it has been posed, and that it can be answered suggestively. Let us assume that Christian Baur's view is correct, that something happened in Palestine that can be explained by the external historical facts, and that over time, the writers, influenced by the prejudices of their time, passed on to posterity what was in their minds. Let us assume that we must presuppose such research, above all with the belief that a spiritual entity descended from spiritual spheres, dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth, rose again, and won the victory of life over death—what we call the very essence of the mystery of Golgotha. This teaching, says Baur, must be broken with. This view is considered dogmatic. This view must be discarded. The event in Palestine must be investigated like any other historical event.

Can we then speak in the true sense of the word of Christianity, or even of the Bible as a work that reports what must appear? In contrast, two facts should be pointed out. What is the basis of the first great and comprehensive effect of the Christian worldview, an effect that no one can deny? What is the basis of Paul's preaching? Is it based on what new, sober research reads from the Gospels? Never! Paul's power is not based on proclaiming what can be exhausted by historical means. The whole effectiveness of Paul is based on an event that can only be understood from supernatural, never from sensual causes. Anyone who examines the Pauline writings will see that Paul's entire teaching is based simply on his conviction and experience that Christ rose from the dead and that, in the mystery of Golgotha, the victory of life in the Spirit over death was achieved.

Where does Paul draw his conviction about the true nature of Christ Jesus? Unlike others who were close to Christ Jesus, he does not draw it from direct instruction. As you all know, he draws it from the event in Damascus. He draws it from the fact that he could say: I have seen the one who lived and suffered and died in Palestine; I have seen him in his life. Paul means nothing other than that he has seen Christ in spirit and has gained the truth that Christ lives from his spiritual insight. He proclaims the Christ whom he has come to know in his spiritual vision. And he equates this apparition with the other apparitions, for he tells us clearly: After death, Christ appeared to various personalities, to the twelve disciples and others, and finally also to me, as one born out of time. By this he means that he really saw, in a higher vision, the one who had won the victory over death, and that since that time he has known that for those who rise up into the spiritual world, Christ lives.

Here we are already in the midst of the New Testament, where the new Spiritual Science must separate itself from any merely literal interpretation of the Bible. What do you usually find in the writings of so-called new research about the event at Damascus? You usually find that it was an ecstatic state in which Saul became Paul, a state that cannot be fully understood. It eludes human research. Yes, it eludes external human research. But that is precisely what we have so often emphasized in Spiritual Science, that human beings — as we will learn further in the following lectures — can ascend to the knowledge of a higher world that surrounds them like colors and light surround the blind. Human beings can learn to see this higher world, just as the blind-born person who has undergone surgery can learn to see colors and light. This is what takes place through the methods of Spiritual Science with the soul of the true student of Spiritual Science, enabling him to look into the spiritual worlds in order to see for himself what is there. What happens to this student, and what every student today and at all times can testify to, happened to Paul. He received it: to hear with ears that are not sensory ears, to see with eyes that are not sensory eyes. He was then also able to perceive the One who dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth. So the whole power of Paul extends into the supersensible. If one takes Paul as a whole, as he is, one can say: What he said is imbued with the idea that “Christ lives, he is risen. Therefore, our faith is not in vain.”

And if one considers what Paul's preaching achieved, how he spread the form of Christianity that went throughout the world, then one can never again say that it is not important to refer to any supernatural facts in order to research the facts about Jesus. One must apply the usual scientific methods, it is said. But then one forgets not only the original facts in Palestine, not only what happened in the thirty-three years, but also what happened for the spread of Christianity; one forgets that it is based on a supernatural event and that this supernatural event must first be understood and comprehended.

But in a very similar way, if we look at things seriously and truly, we also find that the Old Testament, at least its most important document, the writings of Moses, is based on something similar. We find that the whole mission of Moses, the whole power of Moses, through which he accomplished tremendous things for his people, is also based on a supersensible event; as we had to say the day before yesterday, that when the spiritual researcher develops himself so that he becomes clairvoyant in the spiritual world and can look into the spiritual background of things, he then sees what are facts of the spiritual world in images, in imaginations. Yes, one can also express the processes that take place within oneself when one ascends in this way into the spiritual realms only in images, but it must be clear that the one who speaks in such images does not want to speak about the images as such, but means that in these images one has the means of expression for one's supersensible experiences.

The supersensible experience through which Moses received his mission is clearly described to us in the appearance of the burning bush. There we see how Moses, the leader and guide of the people, finds himself face to face with his God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who gives Moses the task of doing for his people what we then find happening as Moses' deed. In considering this, we are already faced with a fundamental theme of the entire Bible, namely the question: How are we to approach these two facts, which we have pointed out as supernatural facts that make any purely external investigation impossible, in order to gain a deeper understanding of this document? How are we to relate to this fundamental theme of the Bible in a spiritual-scientific sense? We will be able to penetrate it if we consider the content of Moses' revelation or experience.

Let us mention only the most important features. Moses finds himself face to face with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. At the same time, God gives him the task of leading the people out of Egypt, bringing them to a certain greatness and a certain way of life. When Moses then asks for something with which he can justify himself before the people, so that he can say who he is and who sent him, God reveals his name: “I am who I am.” No one who is not able to understand the whole meaning and essence of ancient naming can understand this word. Ancient names are not the same as today's names. Ancient names were intended to express the essence of the personality, the essence of the one who stands before us. In “I am that I am,” the essence of the God who stood before Moses and who calls himself “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” had to be expressed in a very specific way. Why does he call himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Behind this lies a mystery that needs to be unraveled. We can only unravel it if we approach it with the tools of Spiritual Science. We will have to emphasize again and again in various places that human beings consist of the different members of their being, that what we call the physical body is only one part of the human being, that we have higher members beyond this, which are supersensible, which are the actual foundations, the creative principles. We must add to the physical body the etheric or life body, then the astral body, and as the fourth member, the I-bearer. The physical body is shared by human beings with seemingly lifeless beings, with minerals; the etheric body with plants and all living beings; the astral body with animal beings, with those that can have passions and desires. Through the ego, human beings rise above all the sensory beings that surround them. These are the four real members of the human being, which Spiritual Science has always recognized.

We must point out that what we today call the physical body also has its spiritual origin and is only condensed from the spiritual. Just as ice arises from water, so the physical has arisen from the spiritual. We must go far back in our view of spiritual development if we want to find the first spiritual origins of the physical human body. Of the four members of the human being, this fourth member is by far the oldest. The physical body is the densest today. It is what emanated from the spirit in the distant past. It has become denser and denser, undergone many transformations, and thereby taken on its physical form. This is the oldest part of the human being. A younger member is the etheric or life body. It was added later, which is why it is less densified. Even younger is the astral body. The youngest member is the I, the bearer of human self-consciousness. All these members have arisen from spiritual origins and spiritual beings, from divine-spiritual beings. We can say that Spiritual Science shows us that this I, through which human beings have become the self-conscious beings they are today, has sunk into the body. Before it became an I-being, it was composed of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies.

The Bible also distinguishes between the beings who are the creators, the formers of these three members of the human being. The teachings of Moses speak of the creator, the shaper of the human I, the creator of the bearer of human self-consciousness. Therefore, the Bible also sees in the God who infused the I into human beings the one who came last, so to speak, in relation to the evolution of human beings. The divine beings who are called the Elohim, whom we have strictly distinguished from the God Yahweh or Jehovah, these divine beings are the creators of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies. In the Bible, they are clearly distinguished from the last God to appear in our evolution, from the God Yahweh, from the one who brought the I to human beings. When we ask: Where does man find the entity of this God, this youngest of the creative gods, of whom the Bible begins to speak in the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis? Spiritual Science shows us that where human beings find their ego within themselves, which is so essentially different from all other beings around us, even in its name, they find within themselves a drop of this divine being. This is not a pantheistic teaching, nor is it an explanation that human beings must find their God within themselves. To claim that would be like claiming that a drop of water is the same essence as the sea — and saying: this drop of water is the sea.

When we speak in the sense of Spiritual Science, we speak of an infinite, comprehensive, universal entity that is linked to earthly development and everything else that belongs to this earthly development. In our ego we find a spark of this Yahweh deity, just as the same essence is found in the drop of water as in the sea. But it was a very long path that human development had to take, during which the Yahweh deity began to shape human beings so that they could grasp the ego with their consciousness. The power of the I had to work in man for a long time before man came to the consciousness of the I. Moses became the great forerunner in bringing man's consciousness to the I. But these forces have been working and forming human evolution for a long time before that. They form in such a way that we can recognize their way if we concern ourselves a little with the evolution of human consciousness itself.

Let us look back a little at the development of human consciousness. The word “development” is used very frequently today, but no other science takes the word “development” as seriously and intensively as Spiritual Science. Human consciousness as it is today has developed from other forms of consciousness. If we go far, far back in the origins of humankind, not in the sense of materialistic science, but as I explained the day before yesterday, we find that human consciousness appears to be more and more different the further back we go. This consciousness, which links the various concepts of the intellect and the external sensory perceptions in the familiar way, only came into being in the distant past, but it did come into being. We can find a state of consciousness in that time that was very different from today, because memory in particular was very different. What humans have today as memory is only a degraded remnant of an ancient soul power that existed in a completely different way. In ancient times, when humans did not yet have the combinatory power of their present intellect, when they were not yet able to calculate and count in the present sense, when they had not yet developed their intellectual logic, they had another power of the soul: they had developed a universal memory. This had to diminish, had to recede, so that our present intellect could develop at its expense. This is the course of development in general, that one power recedes into the background so that another can emerge. Memory is a diminishing power, intellect and reason are increasing soul powers.

For those who have been listening to these lectures here for many years, what I am about to say may not be particularly surprising. For others, it will seem grotesque when the nature of memory is discussed in the following way. What is the outward appearance of human memory? It is that it remembers yesterday, the day before yesterday, and so on, back to childhood. But then it breaks off. This memory did not break off in the distant past, not in childhood, not even at birth; but just as people today remember what they themselves have experienced in their personal lives, so people in ancient times remembered what their fathers and grandfathers had experienced through entire generations. Memory was a spiritual force that spread through generations. Over centuries, memories were preserved in the distant past, and this different form of memory was linked to a different way of naming.

We now come to the question: Why do the first chapters of the Bible speak of individuals who, like Adam and Noah, live for centuries? Because it would make no sense for the people referred to here to limit the persons. The memory reaches back through generations to the forefather. This entire generation was given a name. It would have made no sense to give the name Adam to a single personality. So at that time, the name was given to that which, retaining the same memory, was remembered through the centuries from generation to generation—Adam, Noah. And what was that? It was that which passed through father, son, and grandson, but which memory preserved. Thus, the biblical document faithfully preserves these secrets, which can only be understood through Spiritual Science.

When we consider the consciousness of the I, through which we grasp the essence of the Yahweh deity, we see that the I lives within us between birth and death, and that it maintains its nature between birth and death. Thus, the I maintained itself through generations, through centuries. Just as we speak of the I today and know that the I goes back as far as we can remember, so too did the people of ancient times say to themselves: It makes no sense to call myself an I. I remember my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. — His I passed through the generations, and it even had a name. Just as we find an expression of God in our personal self when we delve into this self, so the ancient man said to himself, looking up through the generations: The God who lives in the self lives down through the generations — as a deity whom Moses then recognized in the higher worlds. The God was none other than the one who lived in ancient times as a self from generation to generation. In the language of that time, what propagated itself as an expression of the God Yahweh was referred to as the I, with the Yahweh words “I am the I am.” That was what Moses learned to recognize in his spiritual revelation. This was revealed for the first time in the vision of the burning bush. It was the same God who had lived down from generation to generation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was the power that lived on in living memory and at the same time brought with it everything that established the human order. So we look up to the predecessors of Moses. In the biblical sense, we look up to the patriarchs, to those in whom the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived.

Those times did not need external commandments or external laws. For with living memory, which is very different from memory today, what had to be done lived on. How did people act in those primeval times? You can figure it out if you understand the Bible correctly. People did not act according to commandments. They acted according to what their memory told them, what their father, grandfather, and so on had done. With their blood, they were born with an innate sense of what had to be done. In those ancient generations, it was something like a spiritualized instinct, which can be compared to what we today call “acting on instinct.” The ancient man did not act according to a commandment, no, he acted according to the character of his being, according to his species. How did the beings referred to as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Bible act? They acted as the blood flowing through the generations impressed upon them. It was the God Yahweh whom they had brought down with their ego, whether they waged war or lived in peace. They had no commandments, they had no law. It was the spiritualized instinct of God that lived in them.

At the time when Moses appeared, the human personality was in the first stage of its development. It broke away in its consciousness from this common consciousness of the generation. The memory that reached back through the generations had already ceased completely. People no longer had the spiritualized instinct to act. Something else had to take its place. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who in his spiritual form gave Moses the law and the commandments because people no longer had the spiritual instinct, had to regulate external order and social coexistence through the commandments, through the law.

Thus, the same God who previously acted as a force of nature is now effective as a lawgiver, establishing external order by means of the law. We see, then, that there is a profound meaning in reading the words “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” at this point. The God who describes himself as the God “I am who I am” is the same as the fourth member of the human being, the same who allowed the I to flow into the human being. But human beings were unable to take the spiritual nature of the I into their consciousness. This required a longer period of preparation, which falls within the time described to us in the Bible as the Old Testament, from the time of Moses to the Mystery of Golgotha. Therefore, this time is a time of promise, represented by the New Gospel, the beginning of the “time of fulfillment.” Thus, the God who found expression in the words “I am that I am” announces himself to Moses. He announces himself in such a way that he orders the external order of human beings, their coexistence, through laws, indirectly through Moses' vision, through Moses' seeing. This is how humanity lived in pre-Christian times, when God created, when Yahweh formed, when “I am that I am” lived, but when humanity could not yet live consciously, but according to the external law that came from Yahweh. The time is drawing ever closer when humanity should become aware of the full self. Throughout antiquity, there was only one means for people who could not yet see, who could not yet encounter God in the physical world. There was only one way in which this God could become effective for them. That was the law, the order. This applied to the external world.

In addition, there was a supersensible way of getting to know this God, and that was through the mysteries or initiation. What was initiation? It was everything that was handed down to certain personalities who were found suitable to apply the methods of spiritual scientific research in order to develop the powers and abilities slumbering within human beings, so that they could see into the spiritual world. For the followers of the Old Testament, it would therefore be like seeing God, who lives in the “I Am,” spiritually face to face. When they applied this method, they were enabled to hear and see with spiritual eyes and ears, to see for themselves what Moses saw when the God who is “I Am” gave him his mission. But this was only possible in the mysteries, only through initiation.

But there were also those who recognized the “I am that I am,” but to do so they had to go through all the procedures, the methods, by which man is transformed into an instrument of higher vision, of looking into the spiritual world. Thus, the deity that already lived in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was completely veiled from the physical world. It ordered the world through the law. For the initiate, the mystery of the mysteries becomes visible in thought. Now came the time when the mystery of Golgotha was to be fulfilled. What actually happened there? Let us really form a mental image of what happened to the initiates in ancient times. I can only sketchily describe to you the process of initiation through meditation, concentration, and other exercises. Through these, the soul of the initiate was prepared for a long time. Then came a three-and-a-half-day conclusion to these initiation processes. The person who was to be initiated and who had been prepared to this extent was brought by the initiator into a state in which his physical body was completely asleep. He was not only asleep, but as if dead, so that he could not use his physical senses, his physical eyes and ears. Instead, through the organs of his spiritual limbs, he saw into the spiritual worlds. He could perceive when he was outside his body, when he was not bound, when the physical organs within him were latent. He could then look within himself at what lived invisibly within him as the “I am that I am”; but he could only see it in the depths of the mysteries. Then, as everyone who knows these things knows, he was awakened in his physical body and again made use of his physical senses. But now he had full consciousness: "I am the I Am, I was in the spiritual world. That which spoke to Moses, ‘I am that I am,’ stood before me, and it is that which eternity denies me, that which has entered into my body. I was connected with it. I was connected with the divine archetype of the I am, whose reflection and mirror image is my I am."

Thus the initiate returned to the physical world and became a witness to the fact that there is something spiritual in the I, for he had seen it. He was able to deliver the news and message to his listeners, to whom he was called to give the message. But only in the spiritual world could one see the “I am that I am.” Through the event at Golgotha, the same being who had announced himself to Moses in the burning bush with the words “I am that I am” descended into humanity. This is entirely in keeping with the Gospel of John: the I became flesh in the body of Jesus of Nazareth, dwelt in it, and walked among human beings. This was the primal force that brought human beings to the level at which they stand today. The primal force became human; a divine being became human and walked among human beings. The possibility existed that, within the historical course of humanity, there would one day be a historical event that the initiates could only contemplate in spirit, which took place on Golgotha as a historical event: that the Christ being had won the victory over the death of matter.

This is the historical, outwardly real event that took place so often in the mysteries for the initiates. Such was the course of the initiation that took place in ancient times in the deep darkness of the mysteries for those who left their physical bodies for three and a half days after the preparations for initiation, and who during this time walked in the spiritual world and beheld in the spiritual origins of humanity that a spiritual-divine being descends into the physical world, and that this event would one day take place as a historical fact. That was the course of initiation.

But now came the time when humanity, through the inclination of feelings, sensations, and thoughts, came to the event of Golgotha through faith. Then understanding arose from it. Something new was given. It was given to have outwardly what one could otherwise only have through being transported into the spiritual world. If we accept this, then we understand why Christ Jesus says: I am the I Am—in a completely new form. What he says means: Look back to primeval times, to that which lived as the eternal in human beings, which lived down into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and which then manifested itself in the law of Moses. Now is the time when the I becomes conscious in the individual personality, when human beings are to become fully conscious of themselves in their I, in the divine dwelling within them.

In ancient times, human beings looked up to God and could say to themselves: What lives in me lives through the generations — now it is so that when he looks within himself, he finds the divine in his ego. The divine, from which every ego has emerged, was embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, and the one who understood this wrote: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. — The Word refers to the essence of the innermost human nature and at the same time the original source of this innermost essence. And he puts these words into the mouth of Christ Jesus: That which lives in me, of which there is a spark in every human personality, existed before the Gospel. — The significant sentence in the Gospel of John was: “Before Abraham was, I am.” — Before there was an Abraham, there was the “I am,” the I am that is not bound to time, that was before Abraham, that was already there in the spiritual origins of man. In having to describe himself as the original source of the I am, Christ spoke the significant words: Before Abraham was, the I am was.

Thus we see how the meaning of human development, which permeates these fundamental books of humanity, the Old and New Testaments, is brought to life again through Spiritual Science. And we see how the most important words only become legible to us when we fathom the meaning of these books, independently of the words, through Spiritual Science. To cite something that gives the materialistic mind food for thought, let us recall the raising of Lazarus. You see, a man like Gfrörer says: Anyone who claims that the Gospel of John was not written by John helps himself by saying that the writer wrote down many things as he experienced and understood them, but the miracle of Lazarus must have been told to him. He cannot have been there. One must only understand the miracle of Lazarus correctly. Let us understand it this way: when Christ entered the world, he took on the body of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us understand it this way: what was prepared in the Old Testament found its expression in the New Testament. He had to have a personality there who could understand him completely, who could penetrate in the deepest sense into what he could proclaim, that is, he had to initiate a personality in his own way.

Initiation stories are always told to us in a veiled manner. The miracle of Lazarus is nothing other than the wonderful and powerful representation of how Christ created the first initiate of the New Testament, how the initiate, with his disciple who had been in a death-like state for three and a half days, called the soul back into the body after it had made its journey through the spiritual world, only to be awakened afterwards by Christ himself. All this is easy to understand for those who know something about it, for it is the language in which initiation stories are told. “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” This means: outward appearance as a revelation of the inner being; so that the sentence can truly be translated as: “The sickness is not unto death, but that God may be revealed as an outward appearance, so that he may also be revealed to the senses.” In the personality of Lazarus slumbers the deeper human essence, which has the ability and the power to be developed in him in a mysterious way, to be led up into the spiritual world, so that he could recognize the essence of Christ himself, the Son of God. But this power first had to be developed. He developed it in Lazarus so that the divine that rested in Lazarus could be revealed and reveal what the Son of God is. Thus, Christ Jesus creates in Lazarus the first person who knows from his own inner observation who Christ Jesus actually is. At the same time, this miracle — for it is a genuine miracle for those who only accept the outer physical laws — shows what the disciple in question must go through during the three and a half days, for this is equivalent to genuine death, because the etheric body and the astral body are lifted out of the physical body and only the physical body remains.

So, from the perspective of Spiritual Science, we ourselves have penetrated such a wonderful event — wonderful only for those who cannot explain it — such a wonderful event as the miracle of Lazarus. All this is revealed to you in the miracle of Lazarus, if only you have the light that falls on it through the words: His illness is not unto death, but unto the revelation of the inner self. When these abilities are awakened in human beings, it is like a birth. Just as a child emerges from the womb, so the higher is born from the lower human being. Thus, Lazarus' illness is connected with the birth of new life, the God-human, so that the divine human being is born in the physical human being, in Lazarus.

We could go through the Gospel of John step by step and would find that what happens in spiritual initiation had to be described in a completely different way from what we see in ancient times, where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob works with completely different spiritual powers. And when we look into the Bible in this way, it becomes once again the great universal book that illuminates what we ourselves have now discovered. Since we must admit — we can say this — that only those who have developed higher spiritual powers can arrive at these truths, we must also admit and be able to say, when we encounter them in the Gospel of John, what brought them into these writings. When a new spiritual researcher approached the Gospel and the entire Bible, he learned to see this and can say: People will once again come to appreciate the true value of this document and recognize that only a materialistic prejudice can utter the words: “the simple man from Nazareth.” But as a result of true knowledge, we have recognized in Christ an overwhelming world being who lived in the body of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thus, the first three Gospels appear to us in relation to the Gospel of John as if three people were standing in a group on the slope of a mountain and each were recording what he saw. Each sees a section. The one who looks down from the higher vantage point sees more and describes more from this higher vantage point. We learn not only what the others below describe, but also what all three can explain at the same time. So it is not difficult to say which one stood on the higher vantage point, but for us it is so that the first three writers were also, in a certain sense, initiates. But the more deeply initiated one, the one who could see much deeper, much deeper than the other three and could write about the true spiritual realities that lie behind the sensory, is the writer of the Gospel of John. Thus, the Gospels come together in harmony and show that what took place as the mystery of Golgotha cannot be understood as an ordinary historical event, but can only be explained by a process such as we find in Paul, who says: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

What is shown incidentally by external research is just as important to us in spiritual research. When we look at Christianity, it will be important for us to understand Moses' clairvoyance, which is presented to us in the dream image of the burning bush. That is what needed to be explained. One thing should be emphasized: that this new Spiritual Science will be able to form an image of world events from within itself, to see Christ spiritually, face to face, so to speak, and thus to find him again in a true way in the Gospels. Biblical research that says, “We want to study the Bible like any other history,” is not truly unprejudiced. For it presupposes the dogma that there can only be ordinary, sensual, natural factual connections. Only Spiritual Science is truly unprejudiced, and it leads to a renewed recognition and appreciation of the Bible in all its parts. A time will come when those who today claim that only the simple intellect can comprehend the Bible may be dismayed. Such wisdom must misunderstand the Bible. A time will come when the wisest wisdom will value most highly what is given to us in the Bible, because seers will recognize themselves in the seers of the Bible. Then many words written in the New Testament will appear in a new light. It will become apparent that a document such as the Bible cannot lose anything through unbiased research. It would be sad if any research could rob the Bible of its reputation, of its name. Research that robs the Bible of its name has simply not gone far enough. Research that goes to the end will restore the Bible to its greatness.

Man is free to research. Anyone who believes that research could destroy religion only shows that their religiosity is on shaky ground. The divine essence has placed the urge to research in human nature so that man may be active. It would be a sin against this urge not to live a life of research. I recognize God through research. God recognizes himself in my research. Truth is a good thing in human development, from which truly religious life will never have anything to fear. But this is a fundamental truth that pervades the New Testament.

You should not take into account those who, out of convenience, want to keep people away from the Bible and who say: If you go to philosophers and interpret the Bible, they will say they want nothing to do with it. — But such research is based on convenience. On the other hand, research that says, “We cannot go deep enough to understand what is written in the Bible,” is justified and correct. The right kind of research into the Bible is that which approaches it with an open mind and then understands the Bible in the right sense. These researchers understand the truth of the Bible's words: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”