Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Gospel of St. John
GA 103

22 May 1908, Hamburg

IV. The Raising of Lazarus

From the three foregoing lectures, it should have become somewhat clear that in the Gospel of St. John the truths of Spiritual Science can be found again. However, it must be very clear that in order to discover these truths, it will be necessary to weigh every word thoroughly. In fact the important thing in a consideration of this religious document is that the true, exact meaning be perfectly understood, for as we shall see in particular instances everything in it has the deepest possible significance. Moreover, not only the wording of special passages is of importance, but something else must be considered and this is the division, the composition, the structure of the document. As a matter of fact, people no longer have the right feeling for such things. Authors of the past—if I may so designate them—introduced into their works much more of an architectural structure, much more of an inner arrangement than is usually imagined. You need only to recall from among them a relatively modern poet, Dante, to find this confirmed. Here we see that the Divine Comedy is architecturally composed of parts based upon the number three. And it is not without meaning that each division of Dante's Comedia closes with the word “Stars.” This I mention only to suggest how architecturally ancient writers constructed their works, and especially in the great religious documents we should never lose sight of this architectural form, because in certain cases the form signifies a very great deal. To be sure, we must first discover this meaning.

Here at the end of the 10th Chapter of this Gospel of St. John we should recall the following verse, which we should keep clearly in mind. In the first verse we read:—

And many came to him and said:
John performed no miracles, but all that he said of this man is true.

This means that we find in this verse of the 10th Chapter, an indication that the testimony given of Christ Jesus by John is true. He expresses the truth of this testimony in very special language. Then we come to the end of the Gospel and there we find a corresponding verse. Here we read in the 24th verse of the 21st Chapter:—

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true!

Here at the end of the entire Gospel, we have a statement that the testimony of the one who reported these things is a true one. The coincidence that something very special is being said, here and there, by means of some particular word, is never without significance in ancient writings and just behind this coincidence is concealed something very important. We shall proceed with our considerations in the right manner if we direct our attention to the reason for this.

In the middle of the Gospel of St. John a fact is presented which, if not understood, would render this Gospel incomprehensible. Directly following the passage in which these words are introduced as confirmation of the truth of the testimony of John the Baptist stands the chapter concerning the raising of Lazarus. With this chapter the whole Gospel falls into two parts. At the end of the first part it is pointed out that the testimony of John the Baptist should be accepted for everything that is maintained and affirmed concerning Christ Jesus and at the very end of the Gospel it is pointed out that all that follows the chapter on the raising of Lazarus should be accepted on the testimony of the Disciple whom we have often heard designated as “the Disciple whom the Lord loved.” What then is the real meaning of the “raising of Lazarus?”

Let me remind you that following the narration of the raising of Lazarus there stands an apparently enigmatical passage. Let us picture the whole situation:—Christ Jesus performs what is usually called a miracle—in the Gospel itself it is called a “sign”—namely, the raising of Lazarus. And subsequently we find many passages which attest that “this man performs many signs,” and all that follows indicates that the accusers did not wish to have intercourse with Him because of these signs. If you read these words, whatever their translation (this has already been referred to in my book Christianity as Mystical Fact), you would need to ask:—What is really at the bottom of it all? The raising of some one provoked the enemies of Christ Jesus to rise up against Him. Why should just the raising of Lazarus so provoke these opponents? Why does the persecution of Christ Jesus begin just at this stage? One who knows how to read this Gospel will understand that a mystery lies hidden within this chapter. The mystery concealed therein is, in truth, concerned with the actual identity of the man who says all that we find written there. In order to understand this, we must turn our attention to what in the ancient Mysteries is called “initiation.” How did these initiations in the ancient Mysteries take place?

A man who was initiated could himself have experiences and personal knowledge of the spiritual worlds and thus he could bear witness of them. Those who were found sufficiently developed for initiation were led into the Mysteries. Everywhere—in Greece, among the Chaldeans, among the Egyptians and the Indians—these Mysteries existed. There the neophytes were instructed for a long time in approximately the same things which we now learn in Spiritual Science. Then when they were sufficiently instructed, there followed that part of the training which opened up to them the way to a perception of the spiritual world. However, in ancient times this could only be brought about by putting the neophyte into a very extraordinary condition in respect of his four principles—his physical, ether and astral bodies and his ego. The next thing that occurred to the neophyte was that he was put into a death-like sleep by the initiator or hierophant who understood the matter and there he remained for three and a half days. Why this occurred can be seen if we consider that in the present cycle of evolution, when the human being sleeps in the ordinary sense of the word, his physical and ether bodies lie in bed and his astral body and ego are withdrawn. In that condition he cannot observe any of the spiritual events taking place about him, because his astral body has not yet developed the spiritual sense-organs for a perception of the world in which he then finds himself. Only when his astral body and ego have slipped back into his physical and ether bodies, and he once more makes use of his eyes and ears, does he again perceive the physical world, that is, he perceives a world about him. Through what he had learned, the neophyte was capable of developing spiritual organs of perception in his astral body and when he was sufficiently evolved for the astral body to have formed these organs, then all that the astral body had received into itself had to be impressed upon the ether body just as the design on a seal is impressed upon the sealing-wax. This is the important thing. All preparations for initiation depended upon the surrender of the man himself to the inner processes which reorganized his astral body.

The human being at one time did not have eyes and ears in his physical body as he has today, but undeveloped organs instead—just as animals who have never been exposed to the light have no eyes. The light forms the eye, sound fashions the ear. What the neophyte practiced through meditation and concentration and what he experienced inwardly through them, acted like light upon the eye and sound upon the ear. In this way the astral body was transformed and organs of perception for seeing in the astral or higher world were evolved. But these organs are not yet firmly enough fixed in the ether body. They will become so when what has been formed in the astral body will have been stamped upon the ether body. However, as long as the ether body remains bound to the physical, it is not possible for all that has been accomplished by means of spiritual exercises to be really impressed upon it. Before this can happen, the ether body must be drawn out of the physical. Therefore when the ether body was drawn out of the physical body during the three and a half days deathlike sleep, all that had been prepared in the astral body was stamped upon the ether body. The neophyte then experienced the spiritual world. Then when he was called back into the physical body by the Priest-Initiator, he bore witness through his own experience of what takes place in the spiritual worlds. This procedure has now become unnecessary through the appearance of Christ-Jesus. This three and a half day death-like sleep can now be replaced by the force proceeding from the Christ. For we shall soon see that in the Gospel of St. John strong forces are present which render it possible for the present astral body, even though the ether body is still within the physical, to have the power to stamp upon the etheric what had previously been prepared within it. But for this to take place, Christ-Jesus must first be present. Up to this time without the above characterized procedure, humanity was not far enough advanced for the astral body to be able to imprint upon the ether body what had been prepared within it through meditation and concentration. This was a process which often took place within the Mysteries; a neophyte was brought into a death-like sleep by the Priest-Initiator and was guided through the higher worlds. He was then again called back into his physical body by the Priest-Initiator and thus became a witness of the spiritual world through his own experience.

This took place always in the greatest secrecy and the outer world knew nothing of the occurrences within these ancient Mysteries. Through Christ-Jesus a new initiation had to arise to replace the old, an initiation produced by means of forces of which we have yet to speak. The old form of initiation must end, but a transition had to be made from the old to the new age and to make this transition, someone had once more to be initiated in the old way, but initiated into Christian Esotericism. This only Christ-Jesus Himself could perform and the neophyte was the one who is called Lazarus. “This sickness is not unto death,” means here that it is the three and a half day death-like sleep. This is clearly indicated.

You will see that the presentation is of a very veiled character, but for one who is able to decipher a presentation of this kind it represents initiation. The individuality Lazarus had to be initiated in such a way that he could be a witness of the spiritual worlds. An expression is used, a very significant expression in the language of the Mysteries, “that the Lord loved Lazarus.” What does “to love” mean in the language of the Mysteries? It expresses the relationship of the pupil to the teacher. “He whom the Lord loved” is the most intimate, the most deeply initiated pupil. The Lord Himself had initiated Lazarus and as an initiate Lazarus arose from the grave, which means from his place of initiation. This same expression “Whom the Lord loved” is always used later in connection with John, or perhaps we should say in connection with the writer of the Gospel of St. John, for the name “John” is not used. He is the “Beloved Disciple” to whom the Gospel refers. He is the risen Lazarus himself and the writer of the Gospel wished to say:—“What I have to offer, I say by virtue of the initiation which has been conferred upon me by the Lord Himself.” Therefore the writer of the Gospel distinguishes between what occurred before and what occurred after the raising of Lazarus. Before the raising, an initiate of the old order is quoted, one who has attained a knowledge of the Spirit, one whose testimony is repeatedly announced to be true. “However, what is to be said concerning the most profound of matters, concerning the Mystery of Golgotha, I myself say, I the Risen One; but only after I have been raised, can I speak concerning it!” And so we have in the first part of the Gospel, the testimony of the old John—in the second half, the testimony of the new John whom the Lord Himself had initiated, for this is the risen Lazarus. Only thus do we grasp the real meaning of this chapter. These words are written there because John wished to say: I call upon the testimony of my super-sensible organs, my spiritual powers of perception. What I have related I have not seen in the ordinary physical world, but in the spiritual world in which I have dwelt by virtue of the initiation which the Lord has conferred upon me.

Thus we must attribute the characterization of Christ-Jesus, which we find in the first chapters of the Gospel of St. John as far as the end of the loth Chapter, to the knowledge which might be possessed by any one who had not yet, in the deepest sense of the word, been initiated through Christ-Jesus Himself.

Now, you will say: “Yes, but we have already in these lectures listened to profound words about Christ-Jesus as the incarnated Logos, the Light of the World, etc.” It is no longer surprising that these profound words concerning Christ-Jesus were spoken even in the very first Chapters, for in the ancient Mysteries, Christ-Jesus, who was to appear in the world at a future time, in other words, the Christ, was not perhaps an unknown being. And all the Mysteries point to One who was to come. For this reason the ancient initiates were called “prophets” because they prophesied concerning something that was to take place. Thus the purpose of initiation was to let it be clearly understood that in the future of mankind the Christ would be revealed, and in what he had already learned at that time, the Baptist found the truth which made it possible to state that He, who had been spoken of in the Mysteries, stood before him in the person of Christ-Jesus.

How all this is connected and what the relationship was between the so-called Baptist and Christ-Jesus will become clearer to us if we answer two questions. One of these questions is the following:—What was the position of the Baptist in his own age? The other leads back to the explanation of various passages at the beginning of the Gospel.

What was the position of the Baptist in his own age? Who, in fact, was the Baptist? He was one of those who—like others in their initiation—had received indications of the coming Christ, but he was represented as the only one to whom the true mystery concerning Christ-Jesus had been revealed, namely, that He who had appeared was the Christ Himself. Those who were called Pharisees or were designated by other names saw in Christ-Jesus some one who in fact opposed their old principles of initiation, one who in their eyes did things to which they in their conservatism could not accede. Just because of their conservatism they said:—We must adhere to the old principles of initiation. And this inconsistency of constantly speaking about the future Christ, yet never admitting that the moment had arrived when He was really present, was the reason for their conservatism. Therefore when Christ-Jesus initiated Lazarus, they looked upon it as a violation of the ancient Mystery-traditions. “This man performs many signs! We can have no intercourse with him!” According to their understanding, He had betrayed the Mysteries, had made public what should be confined within their secret depths. Now we can see how to them this was like a betrayal and seemed to be a valid reason for rising up against Him. From that time, because of this, a change takes place; the persecution of Christ-Jesus begins.

How did the Baptist represent himself in the first chapters of this Gospel? In the first place, as one who was well acquainted with the Mystery-truths of the Christ Who was to come; as one who knew very well that the writer of the Gospel of St. John himself could repeat all that he, the Baptist, already knew, having become convinced of its truth through what we are now about to learn.

We have heard what the very first words of the Gospel mean. We shall now consider for a moment what is said there about the Baptist himself. Let us present it once more in the best possible translation. Thus far we have only heard the very first words:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through It and save through It was not anything made that was made.
In It was Life and Life was the Light of men.
And the Light shone into the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man; he was sent from God, bearing the name John. The same came as a witness in order to bear witness of the Light that through him all might believe.
He was not the Light but was a witness of the Light.
For the true Light which lighteth every man should come into the world.
It was in the world and the world came into being through It, but the world knew It not.
It entered into individual men (that is, the ego-men); but individual men (the ego-men) received it not.
But they who received it could reveal themselves as Children of God.
They who trusted in His name were not born of the blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man—but of God.
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we have heard His teaching, the teaching of the once born Son of the Father filled with Devotion and Truth.
John bare witness of Him and proclaimed clearly: He it was of whom I said:—He will come after me, who was before me. For He is my forerunner.
For out of His fullness have we all received Grace upon Grace. For the law was given through Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Jesus-Christ.
Hitherto hath no one beheld God with his eyes. The once-born Son, who was in the bosom of the Universal-Father, has become the leader in this beholding.

These are the words which give again approximately the meaning of those first verses of the Gospel of St. John. However, before we come to their interpretation, we must add something else. How did John describe himself? You will remember that people were sent to discover who John the Baptist was. Priests and Levites came to him to ask him who he was. Why he gave the foregoing answer, we have yet to discover. Just at present we shall only consider what he said.

He said, “I am the voice of one calling in solitude.” These are the words which stand there. “I am the voice of one calling in solitude.” “In solitude” stands there quite literally. In Greek, the word eremit signifies the “solitary one.” You can then understand that it is more correct to say, “I am the voice of one calling in solitude,” than “I am the voice of one preaching in the wilderness.” We shall better understand all that is presented in the opening words of the Gospel, if we call to mind John's own characterization of himself. Why does he call himself “the voice of one calling in solitude?”

We have seen that in the course of human evolution, the true Earth-mission is the evolution of love, but that love is only conceivable when it is given as a voluntary offering by self-conscious human beings. We have also seen that the human being little by little gains control of his ego and that slowly and gradually this ego sinks into human nature. We know that the animal, as such, has no individual ego. If the individual lion were able to say “I” to itself, the individual animal would not be meant thereby, but the group-ego in the astral world. All lions would say “I” to this group-ego. Thus whole groups of animals of like form say “I” to the supersensibly perceptible group-ego in the astral world. The great advantage human beings have over the animals is that of possessing an individual ego. The latter, however, only evolved by degrees, for human beings also began with a group-ego, with an ego belonging to a whole group of individuals.

If you were to go back to ancient peoples, to ancient races, you would find that originally human beings were everywhere formed into little groups. With the Germanic peoples you would not need to go very far back. In the writing of Tacitus it is quite evident that the German thought more of his whole tribe than of himself as an individual. The individual felt himself more as a member of the Cheruskian or of the Sigambrian tribe than as a separate personality. Therefore he partook of the fate of the whole tribe and when an individual member or the entire tribe received an affront, it did not matter who was the avenger.

Then in the course of time it happened that individual personalities gave up their tribal membership, and this resulted at last in the breaking up of the tribes so that they no longer held together. Human beings also evolved out of this group-soul characteristic and little by little they developed to a point where they could experience the ego in their own individual personalities. We can only understand certain things, especially religious documents, when we understand this mystery of the group-souls, of the group-egos. For those peoples who had come already to a certain conception of the individual ego, there still always existed a greater ego that spread out not only over groups living contemporaneously in a certain place, but also far beyond these groups. Human memory at the present time is of such a character that the individual remembers only his own youth. But there was a time when a different kind of memory existed, a time when the human being not only remembered his own deeds but also those of his father and of his grandfather as though they were his own. Memory reached out beyond birth and death as far as the blood relationship could be traced. The memory of an ancestor whose blood, as it were, flowed down through generations was preserved for centuries in this same blood, and a descendant or offspring of a tribe said “I” to the deeds and the thoughts of his forebears as though to himself. He did not feel himself limited by birth and death, but he felt himself as a member of a succession of generations, the central point of which was the ancestor. For what held the ego together was the fact that the individual remembered the deeds of the fathers and of the grandfathers. In ancient times this had its outer expression in the giving of names. The son remembered not only his own deeds but also those of his father and of his grandfather. Memory extended far back through generations and all that the memory thus encompassed was called in ancient times, for example, Noah or Adam. The individual human beings were not meant by these names, but the egos which for centuries had preserved the memory. This mystery was also concealed behind the names of the Patriarchs. Why did the Patriarchs live so long? It would never have occurred to the people of ancient times to denominate an individual human being by a special name during his life between birth and death. Adam was looked upon as a common memory, because the limits of time and space in ancient days played no part in the giving of names.

By degrees the human individual ego slowly freed itself from the group-soul, from the group-ego. The human being came gradually to a consciousness of his own individual ego. Formerly he felt his ego in his tribal membership, in the group of human beings to whom he was related through the blood tie, either as to time or space; hence the expression, “I and Father Abraham are one,” which means one ego. The individual felt himself safe within the whole, because a common blood ran through the veins of all of the members of his particular people. Evolution progressed and the time became ripe for individuals right within their race to feel their own separate egos. It was the mission of the Christ to give to human beings what they needed in order that they might feel themselves secure and firm within their separate individual egos. In this way we should also interpret those words which can be so easily misunderstood namely, “He who does not deny wife and child, father and mother, brother and sister, cannot be my disciple!” We must not understand this in the trivial sense of instruction to run away from the family. But it means that every one should feel that he is an individual ego and that this individual ego is in direct union with the Spiritual Father who pervades the world. Formerly a follower of the Old Testament said, “I and Father Abraham are one,” because the Ego felt itself resting within the blood relationship. At that moment this feeling of oneness with the Spiritual Father-Substance had to become independent; no longer should the blood relationship be a guarantee of membership in the whole, but the knowledge of the pure Spiritual Father-Principle in whom all are one.

Thus we are told in the Gospel of St. John that the Christ is the great bestower of the Impulse which gives to men what is needed to make them feel themselves forever within their own separate, individual egos. This is the transition from the Old Testament to the New, for the old had always something of a group-soul character in which one ego felt itself associated with the others, but in reality never felt either itself or the other egos. Instead, it experienced the folk or tribal ego within which they all had a common shelter.

What must be the feeling of an ego that has become so matured that it no longer feels the connection with the other individual personalities of the group-soul? What must have been the feelings of the individualized ego in a period in which it could be said: “The time is now past when union with other persons, union with all egos belonging to a group-soul can be felt as an actual life-reality; first, however, One must come who will give the spiritual Bread of Life to the soul from which the individual ego may receive nourishment.” This separate ego had to feel itself solitary and the forerunner of the Christ was compelled to say: I am an ego that has broken away, that feels itself alone, and just because I have learned to feel solitary, I feel like a prophet to whom the ego gives real spiritual nourishment in solitude. Therefore the herald had to designate himself as one calling in solitude, which means the individual ego isolated from the group-soul calling for what can give it spiritual sustenance. “I am the voice of one calling in solitude.” Thus we hear again the profound truth:—Each human individual ego is one wholly dependent upon itself; I am the voice of the ego that is freed, seeking a foundation upon which it, as an independent ego, can rest.—Now we understand the passage, “I am the voice of one calling in solitude.”

In order that we may accurately understand the words of the Gospel, we shall need to familiarize ourselves a little with the way names and designations were then usually given. The giving of names at that time was not so abstract and devoid of meaning as it is at present, and if the exponents of biblical documents would only consider a little how much is expressed in this way, many trivial interpretations would never come to the light of day. I have already pointed out that when the Christ said, “I am the Light of the World,” He really meant that He was the first to give expression to the “I AM” and was the Impulse for it. Therefore in the first chapters wherever “I AM” is to be found, it must be especially emphasized. All names and designations in ancient times in a certain sense are very real—yet at the same time they are used in a profoundly symbolical manner. This is often the source of tremendous errors made in two directions. From a superficial point of view, many say that according to such an interpretation a great deal is meant symbolically, but with such an explanation in which everything has only a symbolical meaning, they wish to have nothing to do, since historical, biblical events then disappear. On the other hand, those who understand nothing at all of the historical events may say:—“This is only meant symbolically.” Those, however, who say such things, understand nothing of the Gospel. The historical reality is not denied because of a symbolic explanation, but it must be emphasized that the esoteric explanation includes both, the interpretation of the facts as historical and the symbolic meaning which we ascribe to them. Of course, if anyone sees only the prosaic external facts, namely, that a man was born somewhere, at some particular time, he will not understand that this man is something more than just a person with a particular name whose biography can be written. But whoever knows the spiritual relationship will learn to understand that besides being born in some particular place this living human being is also a symbol of his age and that what he signifies for the evolution of humanity is expressed in his name. It is something symbolic and historical at the same time, not simply the one or the other. This is the important thing in a true interpretation of the Gospel. Therefore in almost all of the events and allusions, we shall see that John—or the author of the Gospel bearing his name—really has a super-sensible perception; he sees at one and the same time the outer events and the manifestation of deep spiritual truths. He has in mind the historical figure of the Baptist; he is considering the historical figure. But the true historical figure is for him at the same time a symbol for all men who were in ancient times called upon to receive the imprint of the Christ Impulse upon their egos, a symbol for those into whose individual egos the Light of the World might shine, although they had just started on the path. It was not, however, a symbol for those who in their darkness were not yet able to apprehend the Light of the World. What appeared as Life, Light, and Logos in Christ-Jesus, has always shone in the world, but those who were first to become matured did not recognize it. The Light was always there, for had it not been there, the germ of the ego could not possibly have come into existence.

Only the physical, ether and astral bodies of the present human being existed within the Moon Evolution; there was no ego in them. Only because the Light became transformed into that light which now shines down upon the earth did It have the power to enkindle the individual egos and to bring them gradually to maturity. “The Light shone in the darkness but the darkness could not yet comprehend it.” It entered into the individual human being—right into the human ego—for an ego-humanity could not have come into existence at all, had not the Light been rayed into it by the Logos. However, ego-humanity as a whole did not receive It, but only certain individuals, the initiates. They raised their souls to the spiritual worlds and they always bore the name, “Children of God,” because they possessed knowledge of the Logos, of the Light, and of Life and could always bear witness of These. There were certain ones who already knew of the spiritual worlds through the ancient Mysteries. What was present there in these initiates? It was the eternal human living within them in full consciousness. In the mighty words, “I and the Father are one,” they felt, in fact, I and the great Primal Cause are one! And the most profound thing of which they were conscious, their individual ego, they received not from father and mother but through their initiation into the spiritual world. Not from the blood nor from the flesh did they receive it, nor from the will of father or mother, but “from God,” which means from the spiritual world.

Here we have an explanation of why it was that although the majority of mankind had already received the rudiments of an ego-being they could not as individuals receive the Light which had only descended, in fact, as far as the group-ego. Those, however, who received the Light—and they were few, indeed—could by means of it make themselves “Children of God.” Those who put their trust in the Light were through initiation born of God. This gives us a clear picture. But in order that all men might perceive the living God, with their earthly senses, He, the Christ, had to appear upon earth in a way that made it possible for Him to be seen with physical eyes; in other words, He had to take on a form of flesh, because only such a form can be seen with physical eyes. Prior to this, only the initiates could perceive Him through the Mysteries, but now He took on a physical form for the salvation of every soul. “The Word or the Logos became flesh.” Thus the writer of the Gospel of St. John links the historical appearance of Christ-Jesus together with the whole of evolution. “We have heard His teaching—the teaching of the once-born Son of the Father!” What manner of teaching is this? How were other men born?

In the ancient times in which the Gospels were written, those who were born of the flesh were called “twice-born.” They were called twiceborn—let us say—because of the intermingling of the blood of father and mother. Those who were not born of flesh and did not come into existence through a human act or through the mingling of blood, were “born of God,” that is to say, they were “once-born.” Those who were previously called “Children of God” were always in a certain sense the “once-born” and the teaching about the Son of God is the teaching of the “once-born.” The physical man is “twice-born,” the spiritual man is “once-born.” You must not understand it to mean born into (hineingeboren)—no, “once-born” (eingeboren) is the antithesis of “twice-born” (zweigeboren). These words point to the fact that besides the physical birth, the human being can experience also a spiritual birth, namely, union with the Spirit, a birth through which he is “once-born,” a child or a son of the Godhead.

Such a teaching had first to be heard from Him who represented the Word-made-Flesh. Through Him this teaching became general—“this teaching of the once-born Son of the Father, filled with Devotion and Truth.” Devotion is the better translation here, because we have to do not only with being born out of the Godhead, but also with continued union with It, with the removal of all illusions which only come from being “twice-born” and which surround men with sense-deceptions. On the contrary it is a teaching, the truth of which is substantiated by Christ-Jesus Himself, living and dwelling among men as the incarnated Logos.

John the Baptist called himself—literally interpreted—the forerunner, the precursor, the one who goes before as herald of the ego. He designated himself as one who knew that this ego must become an independent entity in each individual soul, but he also had to bear witness of Him who was to come, in order that this be brought about. He said very clearly, “That which is to come is the ‘I AM,’ which is eternal, which can say of Itself, “Before Abraham was, was the I AM.” John could say, “The I (the ego) which is spoken of here existed before me. Although I am Its forerunner, yet It is at the same time my Forerunner. I bear witness of what was previously present in every human being. After me will come One Who was before me.”

At this point in the Gospel very significant words are spoken:—“For of His Fulness have we all received grace upon grace.” There are men who call themselves Christians, who pass over this word, “Fulness,” thinking that nothing very special is meant by it. “Pleroma” in Greek means “Fulness.” We find this word also in the Gospel of St. John: “For from the Pleroma have we all received grace upon grace.” I have said that if we wish really to understand this Gospel, every word must be weighed in the balance. What is then, Pleroma, Fulness? He alone can understand it who knows that in the ancient Mysteries Pleroma or Fulness was referred to as something very definite. For at that time it was already being taught that when those spiritual beings manifested themselves who during the Moon period evolved to the stage of divinity namely, the Elohim, one of them separated from the others. One remained behind upon the Moon, and thence reflected the power of Love until humanity was sufficiently matured to be able to receive the direct Light of the other six Elohim. Therefore they distinguished between Jahve, the individual God, the reflector, and the Fulness of the Godhead, “Pleroma,” consisting of the other six Elohim. Since the full consciousness of the Sun Logos meant to them the Christ, they called Him the “Fulness of the Gods” when they wished to refer to Him. This profound truth was concealed in the words:—“For out of the Pleroma, we have received grace upon grace.”

Now let us continue by transplanting ourselves back into the age of the group-souls, when each individual felt his own ego as the group-ego. Let us now consider what kind of a social organization existed in the group. As far as they were visible human beings, they lived as individuals. They felt inwardly the group-ego, but outwardly they were individuals. Since they did not yet feel themselves as separate entities, they were also unable yet to experience inner love to its fullest extent. One person loved another because he was related to him through blood. The blood relationship was the basis of all love. First those related by blood loved each other and all love, as far as it was not sex-love, sprang from this blood relationship. Men must free themselves more and more from this group-soul love and proffer love as a free gift of the ego. At the end of the earth evolution, a time will come for mankind when the ego, now become independent, will receive into its inner being, in full surrender, the impulse to do the right and good. Because the ego possesses this impulse, it will do the right and the good. When love becomes spiritualized to such a degree that no one will wish to follow any other impulse. than this, then that will be fulfilled which Christ-Jesus wished to bring into the world. For one of the mysteries of Christianity is that it teaches the seeker to behold the Christ, to fill himself with the power of His image, to seek to become like Him, and to follow after Him. Then will his liberated ego need no other law; it will then, as a being free in its inner depths, do the good and the true. Thus Christ is the bringer of the impulse of freedom from the law, that good may be done, not because of the compulsion of any law, but as an indwelling Impulse of Love within the soul. This Impulse will still need the remainder of the Earth period for its full development. The beginning has been made through Christ-Jesus, and the Christ figure will always be the power which will educate humanity to it. As long as men were not yet ready to receive an independent ego, as long as they existed as members of a group, they had to be socially regulated by an outwardly revealed law. And even today men have not, in all things, risen above the group-egos. In how many things in the present are men not individual human beings, but group-beings? They are already trying to become free, but it is still only an ideal. (At a certain stage of esoteric discipleship, they are called the homeless ones.) The man who voluntarily places himself within the cosmic activities is an individual; he is not ruled by law. In the Christ Principle lies the victory over law. “For the law was given by Moses, but Grace through Christ.” According to the Christian acceptation of the word, the soul's capacity for doing right out of the inner self was called Grace. Grace and an inner recognition of truth came into being through the Christ. You see how profoundly this thought fits into the whole of human evolution.

In earlier ages, those who were initiated developed higher spiritual organs of perception; previously no one ever saw God with physical eyes. The once-born Son who rests in the bosom of the Father is the first who made it possible for us to behold a God in the way we see a human being upon earth with the physical earthly senses. Previously God had remained invisible. He revealed Himself in the super-sensible world through dreams or in other ways in the places of Initiation. Now God has become an historical fact, a form in the flesh. We read this in the words: “Before this no one had beheld God. The once-born Son who dwelt in the bosom of the Universal Father became the guide to this perceiving.” He brought mankind to the point where it could behold God with earthly senses.

Thus we can see how sharply and clearly the Gospel of St. John points to the historical event of Palestine and in what exemplary and concise words which must be accurately weighed in the balance if we wish to use them for an understanding of Esoteric Christianity.

Now we shall see in the following lectures how this theme is further developed and at the same time how it is shown that the Christ is not only the guide of those who are united with the group-soul, but how He enters into each individual human being and endows the individual ego itself with His Impulse. The blood-tie indeed remains, but the spiritual aspect of love is added to it, and to this love which passes over from one individual, independent ego to another, He gives His Impulse.

Day by day, one truth after another was revealed to the neophyte in the course of his initiation. A very important truth is always disclosed, for example, on the third day. Then it is that one learns fully to understand that there is a point in the evolution of the earth when physical love, bound up with the blood, becomes ever more spiritualized. This point of time is the event which demonstrated the transition from a love dependent upon the blood-tie to a spiritualized form of love. In significant words Christ-Jesus makes reference to this when He says: “A time will come which is my time, a time when the most important things will no longer be accomplished by men bound by the tie of blood, but by those who stand alone by themselves. This time however is yet to come.” The Christ Himself who gave the first impulse, says on one important occasion that this ideal will sometime be fulfilled, but that His time is not yet come. He prophetically points to this when His mother stands there and asks Him to do something for mankind, hinting that she has the right to induce Him to an important deed for humanity. He then replies, “What we are able to do today is still connected with the blood bond, with the relationship between thee and me, for My time is not yet come.” That such a time will come when each must stand alone is expressed in the narrative of the Marriage at Cana when the announcement: “They have no wine,” was answered by Jesus with the words: “That is something that has still to do with thee and me, for My time is not yet come.” Here we have the words, “between thee and me” and “My time is not yet come.” What stands there in the text refers to this mystery. Like many others, this passage also is usually very roughly translated. It should not read: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” but: “This has to do with me and thy blood relationship.” The text is very fine and subtle, but comprehensible only to those who have the will to understand it. But when, in our age, these religious documents are repeatedly interpreted by all kinds of people, one would like to ask, have those who call themselves Christians then no feeling for all this, that they make the Christ utter the words, incorrectly translated, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

In much that today calls itself Christianity which rests upon the teaching of the Gospel, we are inclined to ask, Do they really possess the Gospel? The important thing is that they should first possess it. And with such a profound document as the Gospel of St. John every word must be weighed in order that its proper value be recognized.

Vierter Vortrag

[ 1 ] Es dürfte aus den drei bisherigen Vorträgen einigermaßen hervorgegangen sein, daß man im Johannes-Evangelium die geisteswissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten wiederzufinden in der Lage ist. Aber ebenso dürfte klar geworden sein, daß es notwendig ist, um diese Wahrheiten zu finden, jedes Wort dieses Johannes-Evangeliums wirklich auf die Goldwaage zu legen. Es kommt bei dieser religiösen Urkunde in der Tat darauf an, daß der wirkliche, echte Wortlaut absolut verstanden wird. Denn alles ist in dieser Urkunde, wie wir noch an verschiedenen Fällen sehen werden, von der denkbar tiefsten Bedeutung. Aber nicht nur der Wortlaut dieses oder jenes Satzes kommt in Betracht, sondern es kommt auch noch etwas anderes in Betracht. Das ist die Gliederung, die Komposition, die Zusammensetzung der Urkunde. Für solche Dinge hat eigentlich der heutige Mensch nicht mehr ganz die rechte Empfindung. Viel mehr von atchitektonischem Aufbau, von innerer Gliederung haben die alten — wenn wir sie so nennen dürfen - Schriftsteller in ihre Werke hineingelegt, als man gewöhnlich glaubt. Sie brauchen sich nur an einen verhältnismäßig späten Dichter zu erinnern, um das bekräftigt zu finden: an Dante. Wie ist in der « Göttlichen Komödie» alles architektonisch aufgebaut in Gliedern, denen die Dreizahl zugrunde liegt. Und nicht umsonst schließt ein jeder Teil von Dantes Komödie mit den Worten «Sterne». Das nur, um anzuführen, wie architektonisch die alten Schriftsteller ihre Sache aufgebaut haben. Und insbesondere dürfen wir bei den großen religiösen Urkunden diesen architektonischen Aufbau niemals aus den Augen verlieren, denn er bedeutet unter Umständen sehr viel. Man muß diese Bedeutung allerdings erst herausfinden.

[ 2 ] Da ist zu erinnern, daß am Ende des i0.Kapitels des JohannesEvangeliums ein Satz steht, den wir in der Erinnerung behalten wollen. Da heißt es im 41. Vers:

«Und viele kamen zu ihm und sprachen: Johannes tat kein Zeichen, aber alles, was Johannes von diesem gesagt hat, das ist wahr.»

[ 3 ] Das heißt, wir finden in diesem Vers des 10. Kapitels einen Hinweis darauf, daß das Zeugnis, das über den Christus Jesus abgegeben wird durch Johannes, wahr ist; es wird durch ein besonderes Wort das ausgedrückt, daß dies Zeugnis wahr ist. - Und nun kommen wir an den Schluß des Johannes-Evangeliums und finden da einen entsprechenden Vers. Da heißt es im 24. Vers des 21. Kapitels:

«Dies ist der Jünger, der von diesen Dingen zeuget, und hat dies geschrieben; und wir wissen, daß sein Zeugnis wahrhaftig ist.»

[ 4 ] Da haben wir also am Schluß des Ganzen eine Angabe darüber, daß das Zeugnis dessen, der berichtet, ein wahrhaftiges ist. Solche Kongruenzen und Harmonien, daß da oder dort mit einem Wort etwas Besonderes gesagt wird, sind niemals ohne Bedeutung in den alten Schriften; und gerade hinter dieser Kongruenz verbirgt sich etwas Bedeutsames. Und wir werden unsere Betrachtungen in das rechte Licht rücken, wenn wir auf dessen Grund hinweisen.

[ 5 ] Es steht in der Mitte des Johannes-Evangeliums eine Tatsache, ohne deren Verständnis überhaupt das Johannes-Evangelium nicht begriffen werden kann. Unmittelbar hinter der Stelle, wo dieses Wort zur Bekräftigung des Wahrheitszeugnisses angeführt wird, steht das Kapitel über die Auferweckung des Lazarus. Durch dieses Kapitel über die Auferweckung des Lazarus zerfällt das ganze JohannesEvangelium in zwei Teile. Und es ist hingewiesen am Ende des ersten Teiles darauf, daß für alles dasjenige, was behauptet wird, was bekräftigt werden soll über den Christus Jesus, das Zeugnis des Täufers Johannes gelten soll; und es ist ganz am Ende darauf hingewiesen, daß für alles das, was nach dem Kapitel über die Auferweckung des Lazarus steht, das Zeugnis des Jüngers gelten soll, von dem wir öfter hören die Worte: «den der Herr lieb hatte» (13, 23). Was bedeutet denn überhaupt die «Auferweckung des Lazarus»?

[ 6 ] Ich erinnere Sie daran, daß nach der Erzählung über die Auferweckung des Lazarus ein scheinbar rätselhafter Satz im JohannesEvangelium steht. Stellen Sie sich einmal die ganze Situation vor: Der Christus Jesus vollbringt das, was man im gewöhnlichen Sinne ein Wunder, im Evangelium selbst ein «Zeichen» nennt: die Auferweckung des Lazarus. Und nachher stehen mehrere Sätze, die da besagen: «Dieser Mensch tut viele Zeichen » (11, 47), und alles folgende weist darauf hin, daß die Ankläger keine Gemeinschaft mit ihm haben wollen wegen dieser Zeichen. Wenn Sie diese Worte lesen, wie sie auch immer übersetzt sein mögen - es ist auch schon in meinem «Christentum als mystische Tatsache» von mir darauf hingewiesen worden -, so müssen Sie fragen: Was liegt denn da eigentlich zugrunde? Die Auferweckung eines Menschen bestimmt gerade die Gegner, gegen den Christus Jesus aufzutreten. Warum regt die Gegner gerade die Auferweckung des Lazarus so auf? Warum beginnt gerade da die Verfolgung? — Ein jeder, der zu lesen versteht, muß einsehen, daß sich in diesem Kapitel ein Mysterium verbirgt. Dieses Mysterium, das sich dahinter verbirgt, ist nichts anderes als die Mitteilung darüber, wer eigentlich der wirkliche Autor des JohannesEvangeliums ist, wer eigentlich das alles sagt, was im JohannesEvangelium gesagt wird. Um das zu verstehen, müssen wir einmal einen Blick werfen auf das, was wir die «Einweihung» in den alten Mysterien nennen. Wie ging diese Einweihung in den alten Mysterien vor sich?

[ 7 ] Ein Mensch, der eingeweiht worden war, konnte selbst Erlebnisse, Erfahrungen haben in den geistigen Welten, so daß er ein Zeuge werden konnte der geistigen Welten. Diejenigen, die reif befunden wurden, eingeweiht zu werden, wurden in diese Mysterien hineingezogen. Überall - in Griechenland, bei den Chaldäern, bei den Ägyptern, bei den Indern - gab es solche Mysterien. Da wurden die Einzuweihenden lange unterrichtet ungefähr in den Dingen, die wir heute in der Geisteswissenschaft lernen; und wenn sie genügend unterrichtet waren, folgte das, was ihnen den Weg öffnete, um selbst zu schauen. Aber in den alten Zeiten konnte das auf keine andere Weise bewirkt werden als dadurch, daß der Mensch in bezug auf seine vier Glieder: physischen Leib, Ätherleib, Astralleib und Ich, in einen ganz besonderen Zustand versetzt wurde. Was da geschah mit dem Einzuweihenden, war, daß er durch den Initiator, durch den Einweihenden, der die Sache verstand, dreieinhalb Tage in einen totenähnlichen Zustand versetzt wurde. Das geschah aus folgendem Grunde. Wenn der Mensch nämlich im heutigen Entwickelungszyklus im gewöhnlichen Sinne schläft, so liegen sein physischer Leib und Ätherleib im Bette, das Ich mit dem Astralleib ist herausgehoben. Der Mensch kann dann nicht irgendwelche geistigen Ereignisse um sich herum wahrnehmen, weil sein Astralleib noch nicht die geistigen Sinnesorgane hat, um in der Welt, in der der Mensch dann ist, wahrzunehmen. Erst wenn sein astralischer Leib und sein Ich wieder hineinschlüpfen in seinen physischen und Ätherleib, sich wieder der Augen und der Ohren bedienen, nimmt der Mensch wieder die physische Welt, das heißt überhaupt eine Umwelt wahr. Durch das, was die Einzuweihenden gelernt hatten, wurden sie fähig, die geistigen Sinnesorgane ihres astralischen Leibes herauszubilden. Wenn sie nun so weit waren, daß ihr astralischer Leib diese Sinnesorgane ausgebildet hatte, mußte dafür gesorgt werden, daß alles, was der astralische Leib in sich aufgenommen hatte, sich in den Ätherleib eindrückt, wie die Worte eines Petschafts sich in den Siegellack eindrücken. Das ist das, worauf es ankommt. Alle Vorbereitungen für die Einweihung beruhten darauf, daß der Mensch sich solchen inneren Vorgängen hingab, welche seinen astralischen Leib umorganisierten. Der Mensch war auch seinem physischen Leibe nach einmal so, daß er keine Augen und Ohren hatte wie heute, sondern gleichgültige Organe an dieser Stelle; wie Tiere, die nie dem Licht ausgesetzt waren, keine Augen haben. Das Licht formt heraus das Auge, der Ton bildet heraus das Ohr. Was der Mensch durch Meditation, Konzentration übt, und was er dadurch innerlich erlebt, wirkt so wie Licht auf das Auge, Ton auf das Ohr. Dadurch wird der astralische Leib umgeformt, und dadurch werden herausgeholt die Erkenntnisorgane, um zu schauen in der astralischen, der höheren Welt. Jetzt sind sie aber noch nicht fest genug in dem Ätherleibe; sie werden dadurch fest, daß das, was im astralischen Leibe zunächst sich bildet, eingeprägt wird in den Ätherleib. Solange aber der Ätherleib im physischen Leibe steckt, ist es nicht möglich, daß das, was durch die Übungen erreicht wird, sich auch wirklich abdrückt im Ätherleibe. Dazu mußte ehedem der Ätherleib herausgehoben werden aus dem physischen Leibe. Wenn also in den dreieinhalb Tagen des totenähnlichen Schlafes der Ätherleib herausgehoben war aus dem physischen Leibe, drückte sich alles das, was im Astralleibe vorbereitet war, ab. Der Mensch erlebte die geistige Welt. Wurde er dann wieder durch den PriesterInitiator zurückgerufen in den physischen Leib, so war er ein Zeuge dessen, was in den geistigen Welten vorgeht, durch sein eigenes Zeugnis.

[ 8 ] Diese Prozedur ist eben durch die Erscheinung des Christus Jesus unnötig geworden. Dieser dreieinhalb Tage lange todähnliche Schlaf kann nunmehr durch die von Christus ausgehende Kraft ersetzt werden. Denn wir werden gleich sehen, daß im Johannes-Evangelium die starken Kräfte liegen, daß heute der Astralleib, auch wenn der Ätherleib im physischen Leibe drinnen ist, die Stärke hat, trotzdem abzudrücken, was vorher in ihm vorbereitet war. Dazu mußte aber erst der Christus Jesus da sein. Vorher waren die Menschen nicht so weit, daß ohne die charakterisierte Prozedur das, was im astralischen Leibe durch Meditation und Konzentration vorgebildet war, im Ätherleibe hätte abgedrückt werden können. — Das war ein Vorgang, der sich oft in den Mysterien abgespielt hat: Ein einzuweihender Mensch wird durch den Priester-Initiator in einen todähnlichen Schlaf gebracht; darauf wird der Betreflende durch die höheren Welten geführt; dann wird er wieder zurückgerufen durch den Priester-Initiator in seinen physischen Leib, und nunmehr ist er durch sein eigenes Erlebnis ein Zeuge der geistigen Welten.

[ 9 ] Das wurde immer im tiefsten Geheimnis vollbracht, und nichts wußte die äußere Welt von den Vorgängen in den alten Mysterien. Durch den Christus Jesus sollte an die Stelle der alten Einweihung eine neue treten, durch jene Kräfte hervorgebracht, von denen wir noch zu sprechen haben. Es sollte gleichsam der Schlußpunkt gemacht werden mit der alten Form der Einweihung. Aber es sollte ein Übergang gemacht werden von der alten in die neue Zeit! Für den Übergang sollte jemand noch einmal auf die alte Art eingeweiht werden, aber in die christliche Esoterik. Das konnte nur der Christus Jesus selbst tun — und es sollte der Einzuweihende jener sein, der da Lazarus genannt wird. «Diese Krankheit ist nicht zum Tode» (11, 4), heißt es da; sie ist der dreieinhalbtägige todähnliche Schlaf. Darauf wird deutlich hingewiesen. Sie werden sehen, daß es zwar in einer sehr verschleierten Darstellung geschieht, daß sie sich aber für den, welcher eine solche verschleierte Art überhaupt entziffern kann, als Einweihung darstellt.

[ 10 ] Die Individualität des Lazarus sollte so eingeweiht werden, daß dieser Lazarus ein Zeuge von den geistigen Welten werden konnte. Und es wird uns ein Wort gesagt, das in der Mysteriensprache ein sehr bedeutsames ist, es wird uns gesagt, «daß der Herr den Lazarus lieb hatte». Was bedeutet «lieb haben» in der Mysteriensprache? Es drückt aus das Verhältnis des Schülers zum Lehrer. «Den der Herr lieb hatte» ist der intimste, der eingeweihteste Schüler. Den Lazarus hat der Herr selbst eingeweiht, und als ein Eingeweihter erhob sich Lazarus aus dem Grabe, das heißt aus seiner Einweihungsstätte. Und dasselbe Wort «den der Herr lieb hatte» wird uns immer später von Johannes gesagt — oder sagen wir besser — von dem Verfasser des Johannes-Evangeliums; denn der Name «Johannes» wird nicht genannt, es ist eben derjenige, der der Lieblingsjünger ist, und auf den das Johannes-Evangelium zurückzuführen ist. Das ist der auferweckte Lazarus selbst. Und der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums wollte damit sagen: Was ich zu sagen habe, habe ich zu sagen kraft der Einweihung, die mir von dem Herrn selbst zuteil geworden ist. - Daher unterscheidet der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums wohl, was vor der Auferweckung des Lazarus, und das, was nach der Auferweckung des Lazarus geschieht. Vor der Auferweckung des Lazarus wird ein alter Eingeweihter angeführt, ein solcher, der gekommen ist zu der Erkenntnis des Geistes, und es wird betont, daß sein Zeugnis wahr ist. -— Was aber über die tiefsten Dinge zu sagen ist, über das Mysterium von Palästina, darüber spreche ich selbst, ich, der Auferweckte; darüber kann ich aber erst nach der Auferweckung sprechen. — Daher haben wir in dem ersten Teile des Johannes-Evangeliums das Zeugnis des alten Johannes, in dem zweiten Teil das Zeugnis des neuen Johannes, den der Herr selbst eingeweiht hat. Denn derselbe ist der auferweckte Lazarus. So erfassen wir dies Kapitel erst seinem wirklichen Sinne nach. Es steht da, weil Johannes sagen wollte: Ich berufe mich auf mein übersinnliches Sehen, nicht auf mein Wahrnehmen in der physischen Welt; ich erzähle euch, was ich gesehen habe in der geistigen Welt dadurch, daß mir der Herr die Einweihung hat zuteil werden lassen. .

[ 11 ] So müssen wir die Charakteristik des Christus Jesus, wie sie uns entgegentritt in den ersten Kapiteln des Johannes-Evangeliums bis zum Schluß des 10. Kapitels, zurückführen auf die Erkenntnis, die sozusagen auch einer haben konnte, der nicht im tiefsten Sinne schon eingeweiht war durch den Christus Jesus selbst.

[ 12 ] Nun werden Sie sagen: Ja, wir haben doch selbst in diesen Vorträgen die tiefen Worte über den Christus Jesus gehört als den verkörperten Logos, als das Licht der Welt und so weiter. — Das ist nicht weiter verwunderlich, daß diese tiefen Worte über den Christus Jesus schon in den ersten Kapiteln ausgesprochen werden. Denn in den alten Mysterien war der Christus Jesus, das heißt der Christus, der in Zukunft erscheinen sollte in der Welt, nicht etwa eine unbekannte Wesenheit. Und alle Mysterien wiesen hin auf Einen, der da kommen sollte. Daher nennt man die alten Eingeweihten «Propheten», weil sie über ein Künftiges zu prophezeien hatten. Darum hatten gerade die Einweihungen den Zweck, klar erkennen zu lassen, daß sich in der Zukunft der Menschheit der Christus enthüllen werde. So ging aus dem, was er damals schon wissen konnte, für den Täufer die Wahrheit hervor, die ihn prophezeien lassen konnte, daß derjenige, von dem gesprochen worden ist in den Mysterien, vor ihm stehe in dem Christus Jesus.

[ 13 ] Wie nun das Ganze zusammenhängt, wie der sogenannte Täufer selbst zu dem Christus Jesus steht, das wird sich uns am klarsten zeigen, wenn wir uns zweierlei Fragen beantworten.

[ 14 ] Die eine ist die: Wie stellt sich der Täufer selbst in seine Zeit hinein? Und die andere geht zurück auf die Erklärung verschiedener Dinge im Anfang des Johannes-Evangeliums.

[ 15 ] Wie stellt sich der Täufer in seine Zeit hinein? Was ist der Täufer eigentlich? Er ist einer, der — ebenso wie die anderen, die etwas in den Einweihungen gehört haben - den Hinweis erhalten hat auf den kommenden Christus, der aber als der Einzige hingestellt wird, dem gegenüber dem Christus Jesus das rechte Geheimnis aufgeht: daß der Erschienene eben der Christus ist. Nun sahen die, welche mit «Pharisäer» oder mit anderen Namen bezeichnet wurden, in dem Christus Jesus einen solchen, der eigentlich ihrem alten Einweihungsprinzip widerstrebte, der in ihren Augen etwas tat, was sie in ihrem konservativen Sinne nicht zugeben konnten. Sie sagten, weil sie eben konservativ waren: Es muß bei dem alten Einweihungsprinzip bleiben! — Und dieser Widerspruch: immer von dem zukünftigen Christus zu sprechen, aber niemals den Zeitpunkt eintreten zu lassen, wo er wirklich da sei, das ist es eben, was ihrem Konservatismus zu Grunde liegt. Daher mußten sie, als der Christus Jesus den Lazarus einweihte, es als einen Bruch mit der alten Mysterien-Tradition ansehen. «Der Mensch tut viele Zeichen!» Mit dem können wir keine Gemeinschaft haben! - Er hat nach ihrer Auffassung die Mysterien verraten, dasjenige zu einem Öffentlichen gemacht, was in den Tiefen der MysterienGeheimnisse eingeschlossen sein sollte. Und jetzt begreifen wir, daß dies ihnen wie ein Verrat war und als der Grund erschien, daß sie gegen ihn auftreten müßten. Daher beginnt damit der Umschlag, die Verfolgung des Christus Jesus.

[ 16 ] Als was erweist sich nun der Täufer in den ersten Kapiteln des Johannes-Evangeliums?

[ 17 ] Erstens als ein solcher, welcher die Mysterienwahrheit von dem Christus, der da kommen sollte, gar wohl weiß, so gut weiß, daß dies alles der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums selber wiederholen kann, was auch schon der Täufer hat wissen können, wovon er sich überzeugt hat durch das, was wir kennenlernen werden.

[ 18 ] Wir haben gesehen, was die allerersten Worte des Johannes-Evangeliums bedeuten. Wir wollen jetzt auf das ein wenig Rücksicht nehmen, was über den Täufer selbst gesagt wird. Legen wir es uns aber in möglichst richtiger Übersetzung noch einmal vor. Nur die ersten Worte haben wir bis jetzt gehört.

«Im Urbeginne war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und ein Gott war das Wort.
Dieses war im Urbeginne bei Gott.
Alles ist durch dasselbe geworden, und außer durch dieses ist nichts von dem Entstandenen geworden. In diesem war das Leben, und das Leben war das Licht der Menschen.
Und das Licht schien in die Finsternis, aber die Finsternis hat es nicht begriffen.
Es ward ein Mensch; gesandt war er von Gott, mit seinem Namen Johannes.
Dieser kam zum Zeugnis, auf daß er Zeugnis ablege von dem Lichte, und daß durch ihn alle glauben sollten.
Er war nicht das Licht, sondern ein Zeuge des Lichtes.
Denn das wahre Licht, das alle Menschen erleuchtet, sollte in die Welt kommen.
Es war in der Welt, und die Welt ist durch es geworden, aber die Welt hat es nicht erkannt.
In die einzelnen Menschen kam es (bis zu den Ich-Menschen kam es); aber die einzelnen Menschen (die Ich-Menschen) nahmen es nicht auf.
Die es aber aufnahmen, die konnten sich durch es als Gottes Kinder offenbaren.
Die seinem Namen vertrauten, sind nicht aus Blut, nicht aus dem Willen des Fleisches, und nicht aus menschlichem Willen, sondern aus Gott geworden.
Und das Wort ist Fleisch geworden und hat unter uns gewohnt, und wir haben seine Lehre gehöret, die Lehre von dem einzigen Sohn des Vaters, erfüllt von Hingabe und Wahrheit.
Johannes leget Zeugnis für ihn ab und verkündet deutlich: Dieser war es, von dem ich sagte: Nach mir wird derjenige kommen, der vor mir gewesen ist. Denn er ist mein Vorgänger.
Denn aus dessen Fülle haben wir alle genommen Gnade über Gnade.
Denn das Gesetz ist durch Moses gegeben, die Gnade und die Wahrheit aber ist durch Jesus Christus entstanden.
Gott hat niemand bisher mit Augen geschaut. Der eingeborene Sohn, welcher im Innern des Weltenvaters war, er ist der Führer in diesem Schauen geworden.» (1, 1-18)

[ 19 ] Das sind diejenigen Worte, die ungefähr den Sinn dieser ersten Sätze des Johannes-Evangeliums wiedergeben. Dazu müssen wir, ehe wir an ihre Erklärung gehen, noch eines fügen. Als was erklärt sich denn Johannes selber? — Sie erinnern sich, daß geschickt wird, um auszukundschaften, wer Johannes der Täufer sei. Priester und Leviten kommen, die ihn fragen sollen, wer er sei. Warum nun die vorhergehende Antwort gegeben wird, werden wir noch sehen. Jetzt wollen wir nur berücksichtigen, was er selber sagt. Er sprach:

«Ich bin die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit.» (1, 23)

[ 20 ] Das sind die Worte, die da stehen. «Ich bin die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit!» In der Einsamkeit steht da — ganz wörtlich — ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Im Griechischen bedeutet das Wort «Eremit» «der Einsame». Nun werden Sie es begreifen, daß es richtiger ist, zu sagen: «Ich bin die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit» - als: «Ich bin die Stimme eines Predigers in der Wüste.» Und wir werden alles, was in den Anfangsworten des Johannes-Evangeliums angeführt ist, besser verstehen, wenn wir diese Selbstcharakteristik des Johannes uns vor Augen führen. Warum nennt er sich «die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit»?

[ 21 ] In dem Entwickelungsgange der Menschheit haben wir gesehen, daß die eigentliche Erdenmission die Entwickelung der Liebe ist, daß sie aber nur denkbar ist, wenn sie als freiwillige Gabe von selbstbewußten Menschen gegeben wird, und daß sich der Mensch nach und nach sein Ich erobert und daß das Ich langsam und allmählich sich hineinsenkt in die Menschennatur. Wir wissen, daß die Tiere als solche kein einzelnes Ich haben. Wenn der einzelne Löwe «Ich» sagen könnte, wäre damit nicht das einzelne Tier gemeint, sondern das Gruppen-Ich in der astralischen Welt; alle Löwen würden dazu «Ich» sagen. So sagen ganze Gruppen von gleichgeformten Tieren zu dem im Astralischen übersinnlich-wahrnehmbaren Gruppen-Ich «Ich». Das ist der große Vorzug des Menschen vor den Tieren, daß der Mensch ein individuelles Ich hat. Aber das individuelle Ich entwickelt sich erst nach und nach. Der Mensch fing auch an mit einem Gruppen-Ich, mit einem Ich, welches einer ganzen Gruppe von Menschen angehörte.

[ 22 ] Wenn Sie zurückgehen würden zu alten Völkern, zu alten Rassen, überall würden Sie finden, daß die Menschen ursprünglich kleine Gruppen bildeten. Bei den germanischen Völkern brauchten Sie gar nicht einmal weit zurückzugehen. In den Schriften des Tacitus können Sie mit Händen greifen, daß der einzelne Germane mehr hält von seinem ganzen Stamm als von seiner Individualität. Der einzelne fühlt sich mehr als Glied des Cheruskerstammes oder des Sigambrerstammes denn als eine einzelne Persönlichkeit, und daher tritt auch der einzelne ein für das Schicksal des ganzen Stammes; es ist auch gleichgültig, wer aus dem Stamme eine Beleidigung rächt, wenn einem einzelnen Gliede oder dem Stamme eine Beleidigung widerfahren ist. Dann tritt im Laufe der Zeit das ein, daß einzelne Leute heraustreten aus der Stammeszusammengehörigkeit, so daß die Stämme durchbrochen werden und nicht mehr kompakt bleiben. Aus dem Gruppenseelencharakter hat sich auch der Mensch entwickelt und nach und nach sich hinaufgeschwungen dazu, in der Einzelpersönlichkeit das Ich zu empfinden.

[ 23 ] Wir können gewisse Dinge, besonders die religiösen Urkunden, nur verstehen, wenn wir dies Geheimnis von den Gruppenseelen, von den Gruppen-Ichen wissen. Bei den Völkern, bei denen es schon zu einer gewissen Wahrnehmung des eigenen Ich gekommen war, gab es noch immer ein Ich, das sich nicht nur über räumliche, gleichzeitig lebende Gruppen, sondern auch über zeitliche Gruppen ausdehnte. Heute ist das Gedächtnis der Menschen so, daß sich der einzelne nur noch an seine Jugendzeit erinnert. Aber es gab eine Zeit, in der noch ein anderes Gedächtnis vorhanden war, wo sich der Mensch nicht nur an seine Taten erinnerte, sondern wo er sich auch an die Taten seines Vaters, seines Großvaters erinnerte wie an seine eigenen. Das Gedächtnis reichte hinüber, weit in die Blutsverwandtschaft der Ahnen bis zum Stammvater, dessen Blut herunterfloß durch die Generationen. Jahrhundertelang erhielt sich mit dem Blute das Gedächtnis, und ein Enkel oder ein Sproß eines Stammes sagte zu den Taten, zu den Gedanken seiner Vorfahren «Ich» wie zu sich selber. Man empfand sich da nicht eingeschlossen zwischen Geburt und Tod, sondern man empfand sich als Glied der Generationenreihe, deren Mittelpunkt der Ahne war. Denn das ist der Zusammenhalt des Ich, daß man sich eben der Taten des Vaters, des Großvaters und so weiter erinnerte. In alten Zeiten wurde das schon äußerlich durch die Namengebung ausgedrückt. Der Sohn erinnerte sich nicht nur an seine eigenen Taten, sondern auch an die des Vaters, Großvaters und so weiter. Das Gedächtnis ging durch die Generationen weit hinauf. Alles, was so das Gedächtnis umfaßte, hieß in alten Zeiten zum Beispiel «Noah», hieß «Adam». Damit sind nicht die einzelnen Menschen, sondern die Iche gemeint, die jahrhundertelang das Gedächtnis bewahrten. Dies Geheimnis verbirgt sich auch hinter den Patriarchennamen. Warum lebten die Patriarchen so lange? Es wäre einem in alten Zeiten gar nicht eingefallen, den einzelnen Menschen, der zwischen Geburt und Tod steht, mit einem Namen zu benennen. Adam erhielt sich jahrhundertelang im Gedächtnis, weil gerade die räumliche und zeitliche Begrenzung für die alte Namengebung gar nicht in Betracht kam.

[ 24 ] So löste sich nach und nach langsam das menschliche Einzel-Ich aus der Gruppenseele, aus dem Gruppen-Ich heraus; der Mensch kam nach und nach zum Bewußtsein seines Einzel-Ichs. Vorher fühlte er sein Ich in der Stammeszugehörigkeit, in der Gruppe von Menschen, mit denen er blutsverwandt war, entweder im Raume oder in der Zeit; daher der Ausspruch: «Ich und der Vater Abraham sind eins!», das heißt, sind es Ich. Und da fühlte sich der einzelne geborgen in einem Ganzen, weil das gemeinsame Blut durch alle Adern hinunterrollte, durch alle Mitglieder des betreffenden Volkes. Aber die Entwickelung ging vorwärts: Die Zeit wurde reif, wo gerade innerhalb dieser Völker die Menschen ihr Einzel-Ich empfinden sollten.

[ 25 ] Den Menschen das zu geben, was sie brauchten, um sich sicher und fest zu fühlen in diesem einzelnen individuellen Ich, das war die Mission des Christus. So müssen wir auch das Wort auffassen, das so leicht mißverstanden werden kann: «Wer nicht verleugnet Weib und Kind, Vater und Mutter, Bruder und Schwester, der kann nicht mein Jünger sein!» (Mark. 10, 29). Das müssen wir nicht in dem trivialen Sinn auffassen, daß jemand eine Anweisung erhält, der Familie davonzulaufen; sondern es ist gemeint: Ihr sollt fühlen, daß ein jeder von euch ein Einzel-Ich ist und daß dieses Einzel-Ich unmittelbar mit dem geistigen Vater, der durch die Welt flutet, eins ist. Früher sagte der Bekenner des Alten Testaments: «Ich und der Vater Abraham sind eins», weil das Ich sich in der Blutsverwandtschaft ruhen fühlte. Jetzt sollte frei werden das Sich-eins-Fühlen mit dem geistigen Vatergrunde. Nicht mehr sollte die Blutsverwandtschaft die Gewähr bilden, daß der Mensch zu einem Ganzen gehört, sondern das Wissen von dem rein geistigen Vaterprinzip, mit dem alle eins sind.

[ 26 ] So soll uns durch das Johannes-Evangelium gesagt werden, daß der Christus der große Impulsgeber ist für das, was der Mensch braucht, um sich ewig in seinem einzelnen, individuellen Ich zu fühlen. Das ist der Umschwung von dem alten Bunde zu dem neuen Bunde, daß der alte Bund immer etwas von Gruppenseelenhaftigkeit hat, wo das eine Ich sich zugesellt fühlt zu den anderen Ichen und weder sich noch die andern Iche recht fühlt, dafür aber das, worin sie gemeinsam geborgen sind, das Volks-Ich oder Stammes-Ich mitempfindet.

[ 27 ] Wie mußte sich denn nun ein Ich fühlen, das so weit reif geworden war, um nicht mehr den Zusammenhang mit den anderen individuellen Persönlichkeiten der Gruppenseele zu fühlen? Wie mußte das vereinzelte Ich empfinden in einer Zeit, in der man sagen konnte: Nicht mehr ist die Zeit, in der man als eine wirkliche menschliche Lebenswahrheit empfinden kann die Zusammengehörigkeit mit anderen Personen, mit allen Ichen, die zu einer Gruppenseele gehören; aber der muß erst kommen, der der Seele das geistige Lebensbrot gibt, wodurch das einzelne Ich seine Nahrung erhält. Das Einzel-Ich mußte sich einsam fühlen, und der Vorgänger des Christus mußte sagen: Ich bin ein Ich, das sich herausgeschält hat, sich einsam fühlt. Und gerade weil ich gelernt habe, mich einsam zu fühlen, fühle ich mich als ein Prophet, dem das Ich in der Einsamkeit die richtige Geistes-Nahrung gibt. — Deshalb mußte sich der Verkünder als ein Rufer in der Einsamkeit bezeichnen, das heißt als das schon vereinsamte, von der Gruppenseele vereinsamte Ich, das da schreit nach dem, wodurch das Einzel-Ich Nahrung bekommen kann. «Ich bin die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit.» Da hören wir wieder die tiefe Wahrheit: Jedes menschliche individuelle Ich ist ein ganz auf sich gestelltes; ich bin die Stimme des Ich, das losgelöst ist und das seinen Grund sucht, auf dem es als losgelöstes Ich stehen kann. Jetzt verstehen wir die Stelle: «Ich bin die Stimme eines Rufers in der Einsamkeit. »

[ 28 ] Um genau die Worte des Johannes-Evangeliums zu verstehen, müssen wir uns ein wenig hineinfinden in die Art und Weise, wie überhaupt damals Namen und Bezeichnungen gegeben worden sind. So abstrakt und nichtssagend wie heute war die Namengebung damals nicht. Und wenn die Ausleger der biblischen Urkunden nur ein klein wenig bedenken wollten, wieviel damit gesagt wird, dann würde manche triviale Auslegung nicht ans Tageslicht treten. Ich habe schon darauf hingewiesen, daß, wenn der Christus sagt: «Ich bin das Licht der Welt» (8, 12), damit wirklich gemeint ist, daß er der erste war, der für das «Ich-bin» den Ausdruck und Impuls gegeben hat. Daher muß immer da, wo das «Ich-bin» steht in den ersten Kapiteln, dieses «Ich-bin » ganz besonders betont werden. Alle Namen und Bezeichnungen in den alten Zeiten sind in einer gewissen Weise durchaus real und zu gleicher Zeit tief symbolisch gebraucht.

[ 29 ] Nach zwei Richtungen hin werden hier oft gewaltige Irrtümer begangen. Nach oberflächlicher Betrachtung könnte mancher sagen: Ja, nach einer solchen Auffassung ist ja vieles symbolisch gemeint, und auf eine solche Auslegung, wo alles nur symbolisch gemeint sein soll, lassen wir uns nicht ein, da verflüchtigt ihr ja die historischen biblischen Ereignisse! Und diejenigen, die ganz und gar nichts verstehen von den geschichtlichen Ereignissen, mögen sagen: Das ist alles nur symbolisch gemeint. — Aber diejenigen, die so sprechen, verstehen eben nichts von dem Evangelium. Nicht die historische Realität wird durch eine symbolische Erläuterung geleugnet, sondern es muß betont werden, daß die esoterische Erklärung beides umfaßt: die Auffassung der Tatsachen als historische, und indem sie historisch sind, bedeuten sie selbst zugleich das, was wir ihnen beilegen. Freilich, wer nur die brutalen äußeren Tatsachen sieht, nämlich einen Menschen, der irgendwo zu einer Zeit geboren ist, der wird nicht begreifen, daß dieser Mensch noch etwas anderes ist als bloß ein Mensch mit dem betreffenden Namen, dessen Biographie man schreiben kann. Wer aber den geistigen Zusammenhang kennt, der wird verstehen lernen, daß der Mensch, der geboren ist an einem bestimmten Orte, daß dieser lebendige Mensch außerdem noch ein Symbolum für seine Zeit ist, und daß man durch seinen Namen ausdrückt seine ganze Bedeutung für die Entwickelung der Menschheit.

[ 30 ] Symbolisch und historisch zugleich, nicht nur das eine und nicht nur das andere, das ist es, um was es sich handelt bei der wirklichen Evangelien-Erklärung. Und so werden wir bei fast allen Ereignissen und Hinweisungen sehen, daß der Johannes oder der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums, der eigentlich in übersinnlichen Wahrnehmungen sieht, zugleich die Ereignisse und die Offenbarung tiefer geistiger Wahrheiten sieht: Er hat im Auge die historische Gestalt des Täufers, er sieht auf die historische Gestalt hin; zugleich ist ihm aber auch die wirkliche historische Gestalt das Symbolum für alle Menschen, die in den alten Zeiten schon berufen waren, das Ich sich einzuprägen, die aber erst auf dem Wege dazu waren, denen hineinscheinen konnte das Licht der Welt ins einzelne Ich, nicht aber für diejenigen, die noch nicht in der Lage waren, das Licht der Welt in ihrer Finsternis zu begreifen. Das, was als Leben, als Licht und Logos in dem Christus Jesus erschienen ist, es hat schon immer in der Welt geleuchtet; nicht aber haben die es erkannt, die erst im Reifwerden begriffen waren. Immer war das Licht da. Denn wäre das Licht nicht dagewesen, so hätte überhaupt nicht die Anlage zu dem Ich entstehen können. Noch auf dem Monde war von dem heutigen Menschen nur vorhanden physischer Leib, Ätherleib und astralischer Leib; kein Ich war darinnen. Nur weil sich das Licht so umgewandelt hat, wie es auf der Erde scheint, hatte es die Kraft, die einzelnen Iche zu entzünden und langsam zum Heranreifen zu bringen: «Das Licht schien in die Finsternis; aber die Finsternis konnte es noch nicht begreifen» (1, 5). «In die einzelnen Menschen kam es», bis zu den IchMenschen kam es; denn die Ich-Menschen hätten gar nicht entstehen können, wenn es nicht in sie durch den Logos gegossen worden wäre. «Aber die Ich-Menschen nahmen es nicht auf.» Nur einzelne nahmen es auf, die Eingeweihten; die erhoben sich zu den geistigen Welten; die trugen immer den Namen «Kinder Gottes », weil sie eine Erkenntnis hatten von dem Logos, von dem Licht und Leben, und immer davon Zeugnis ablegen konnten. Einzelne waren es, die immer schon durch die alten Mysterien wußten von den geistigen Welten. Was lebte denn in ihnen? Es lebte in ihnen dasjenige, was im Menschen ewig ist. Ganz bewußt lebte das in ihnen. Sie fühlten schon vor das große Wort: «Ich und der Vater sind Eins» (10, 30), nämlich Ich und der große Urgrund sind Eins! Und das Tiefste, was sie im Bewußtsein trugen, ihr eigenes Ich, das hatten sie nicht von Vater und Mutter, sondern sie hatten es durch die Initiation in die geistige Welt. Nicht aus dem Blute und nicht aus dem Fleische und nicht aus eines Vaters oder einer Mutter Willen, sondern «aus Gott», das heißt aus der geistigen Welthatten sie es. - Da haben Sie die Erklärung der Worte, daß die große Anzahl der Menschen, trotzdem sie schon die Anlage zum Ich-Menschen hatten, das Licht nicht aufnahmen, daß es wohl herab kam bis zu dem Gruppen-Ich, daß aber die einzelnen es nicht aufnahmen. Diejenigen, die es aber aufnahmen - das waren nur wenige -, die konnten sich durch es zu Gottes Kindern machen; die ihm aber vertrauten, sind es aus Gott geworden durch die Einweihung. Das gibt uns ein klares Bild. Damit aber alle Menschen mit Erdensinnen den daseienden Gott erkennen konnten, mußte er in der Art auf der Erde erscheinen, daß man ihn mit leiblichen Augen sieht, das heißt er mußte eine fleischliche Gestalt annehmen, weil eine solche Gestalt nur mit den leiblichen Augen gesehen werden kann. Früher konnten ihn nur die Eingeweihten in den Mysterien sehen; jetzt aber hatte er zum Heile aller Fleischgestalt angenommen: «Das Wort oder der Logos war Fleisch geworden» (1, 14). So knüpft der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums die historische Erscheinung des Christus Jesus an die ganze Evolution an. «Wir haben seine Lehre gehört, die Lehre von dem eingeborenen Sohne des Vaters» (1, 14). Was ist das für eine Lehre? Was sind denn die andern Menschen für geborene?

[ 31 ] Man nannte in den alten Zeiten, in denen die Evangelien geschrieben wurden, «zweigeboren» diejenigen, die vom Fleische geboren sind. Sie nannte man zweigeboren, sagen wir durch die Vermischung des Blutes von Vater und Mutter. Was nicht aus dem Fleische geboren ist und nicht durch die Menschenwirkung und nicht durch die Vermischung des Blutes entstanden ist, das ist «aus Gott geboren»; das ist «eingeboren». Diejenigen, die früher «Gotteskinder» genannt wurden, waren immer schon in gewisser Weise die «Eingeborenen»; und die Lehre von dem Gottessohn ist die Lehre von dem «Eingeborenen». Der physische Mensch ist der «Zweigeborene», der Geistesmensch ist der «Eingeborene». Das dürfen Sie nicht so auffassen, als ob es hieße «hineingeboren», nein, eingeboren ist der Gegensatz zu zweigeboren. Und das Wort deutet darauf hin, daß der Mensch außer der physischen Geburt auch eine geistige Geburt durchmachen kann, nämlich die Vereinigung mit dem Geiste, die Geburt, durch die er eingeboren, ein Kind oder Sohn der Gottheit wird. Und eine solche Lehre - gehört werden konnte sie erst durch den, der das Fleisch gewordene Wort darstellte. Durch ihn wurde die Lehre allgemein, «die Lehre von dem eingeborenen Sohne des Vaters, erfüllt von Hingabe und Wahrheit» (1, 14). «Hingabe» muß hier besser übersetzt werden, weil man es zu tun hat zwar mit einem Herausgeborenwerden aus der Gottheit, aber mit einem Zusammenbleiben und zu gleicher Zeit mit der Hinwegnahme aller Illusion. Diese letztere kommt nur aus dem Zweigeboren-sein und umschließt den Menschen mit Sinnestäuschungen, im Gegensatz zu dieser einen Lehre, die die Wahrheit bringt in dem Christus Jesus, wie er stand und wohnte unter den Menschen als der verkörperte Logos. Johannes aber nannte sich — das bedeutet es wörtlich -: der Vorläufer, Vorgänger, der, der vorangeht zur Verkündigung des Ich. Johannes bezeichnet sich selbst als den, der zwar wußte, daß dies Ich in dem einzelnen selbständig werden muß, der aber Zeugnis abzulegen hatte von dem, der da kommen wird, um dies zu bewirken. Er sagte deutlich: Der, der da kommen wird, ist das «Ich-bin», das ewig ist, das wirklich von sich sagen kann: Bevor Abraham war, war «Ich-bin ». Johannes konnte sagen: Das Ich, von dem hier die Rede ist, es ist vor mir gewesen; es ist zu gleicher Zeit, trotzdem ich sein Vorgänger bin, mein Vorgänger; ich lege Zeugnis ab von dem, was vorher in jedem Menschen war; «nach mir wird der kommen, der vor mir gewesen ist» (1, 15).

[ 32 ] Und nun werden bedeutsame Worte gesagt: «Denn aus dessen Fülle haben wir alle entnommen Gnade über Gnade» (1, 16). Viele Menschen gibt es, die sich Christen nennen und die über das Wort «Fülle » hinweglesen, die sich bei diesem Wort nichts besonders Genaues denken. «Pleroma» heißt nach dem Griechischen «die Fülle». Das steht auch im Johannes-Evangelium: «Denn aus dem Pleroma haben wir alle entnommen Gnade über Gnade!» Ich sagte, jedes Wort des Johannes-Evangeliums muß man, wenn man es überhaupt verstehen will, auf die Goldwaage legen. Was ist denn nun Pleroma, die Fülle? Nur der kann es verstehen, der da weiß, daß man in den alten Mysterien von dem Pleroma oder der Fülle als von etwas ganz Bestimmtem gesprochen hat. Denn man hat damals schon die Lehre vertreten, daß, als sich zuerst offenbarten diejenigen geistigen Wesenheiten, die bis zur Göttlichkeit aufgestiegen waren während des alten Mondes, die Elohim, einer sich von ihnen trennte: Einer blieb auf dem Mond und strahlte von dort zurück die Kraft der Liebe, bis die Menschen genügend reif waren für das Licht der übrigen sechs Elohim. So unterschied man Jahve, den Einzelgott, den Rückstrahler und die aus sechs bestehende Fülle der Gottheit, «Pleroma ». Da aber mit dem Gesamtbewußtsein des Sonnenlogos der Christus gemeint ist, mußte man, wenn man auf ihn hindeutete, sprechen von der Fülle der Götter. Diese tiefe Wahrheit verbirgt sich dahinter: «Denn aus dem Pleroma haben wir alle entnommen Gnade über Gnade.»

[ 33 ] Nun gehen wir weiter, indem wir uns zurückversetzen in die Gruppenseelenzeit, wo der einzelne sein Ich fühlte als Gruppen-Ich. Betrachten wir nun, was als soziale Ordnung in der Gruppe lebte. Die Menschen leben ja doch, insofern sie sichtbare Menschen waren, als einzelne. Sie fühlen zwar das Gruppen-Ich, aber für die Sinne waren sie einzelne. Da sie sich noch nicht als einzelne fühlten, konnten sie auch noch nicht die Liebe in vollem Maße innerlich haben. Der eine liebt den anderen, weil er blutsverwandt mit ihm ist. Die Blutsverwandtschaft ist die Grundlage aller Liebe. Die Blutsverwandten liebten sich zuerst, und aus der Blutsverwandtschaft geht auch die Liebe hervor, sofern sie nicht Geschlechtsliebe ist. Von dieser Gruppenseelenliebe sollen sich die Menschen immer mehr und mehr befreien und die Liebe als freie Gabe des Ich darbringen. Am Ende der Erdenentwickelung werden die Menschen es erreichen, daß eine Zeit kommt, in welcher das selbständig gewordene Ich in seinem Innersten aus voller Hingabe den Impuls hat, das Rechte und das Gute zu tun. Weil das Ich diesen Impuls hat, tut es das Rechte, tut es das Gute. Wenn die Liebe so vergeistigt ist, daß niemand anderes wollen wird, als zu tun, was das Richtige ist, dann ist das erfüllt, was der Christus Jesus in die Welt bringen wollte. Denn das ist eines der Geheimnisse des Christentums, daß es lehrt: Schaut hin auf Christus, erfüllt euch mit der Kraft seiner Gestalt, versucht zu werden wie er, ihm nachzufolgen; dann wird euer befreites Ich so, daß es kein Gesetz braucht, daß es als ein in seinem Innersten freies Wesen das Gute, das Rechte tut. So ist Christus der Impulsbringer der Freiheit vom Gesetz, so daß das Gute nicht wegen des Gesetzes, sondern als Impuls der im Innern lebenden Liebe getan wird.

[ 34 ] Dieser Impuls wird aber noch den ganzen Rest der Erdenzeit zu seiner Entwickelung brauchen. Der Anfang dazu ist durch den Christus Jesus gemacht worden, und immer wird die Christusgestalt die Kraft sein, welche die Menschen dazu erziehen wird. Solange die Menschen nicht reif waren, ein selbständiges Ich zu empfangen, solange sie als Glieder einer Gruppe existierten, mußten sie durch ein äußerlich geoffenbartes Gesetz sozial geregelt werden. Und auch heute sind die Menschen noch nicht in allen Dingen über die Gruppen-Iche hinaus. In wie vielen Dingen ist der Mensch heute durchaus nicht individueller Mensch, sondern ein Gruppenwesen! Der Mensch, der heute schon ein freies Wesen wäre — man nennt ihn den «Heimatlosen» auf einer gewissen Stufe der esoterischen Schülerschaft -, der ist doch noch ein Ideal! Wer sich freiwillig hineinstellt in das Weltenwirken, der ist individuell, der wird nicht durch das Gesetz geregelt. Im Christus-Prinzip liegt die Überwindung des Gesetzes: «Denn das Gesetz ist durch Moses gegeben; die Gnade aber durch Christus » (1, 17). Als Gnade bezeichnete man im christlichen Sinne die Fähigkeit der Seele, aus dem Innern heraus das Gute zu tun. Die Gnade und die im Innern erkannte Wahrheit ist durch Christus entstanden. Sie sehen, wie tief eingreifend dieser Gedanke für die ganze Menschheitsevolution ist.

[ 35 ] Früher wurden diejenigen, die eingeweiht wurden, zu höheren geistigen Wahrnehmungsorganen gebracht. Mit äußeren Augen hat vorher niemals einer einen Gott gesehen. Der eingeborene Sohn, der im Innern des Vaters ruht, der ist der erste, der uns dahin geführt hat, auf die Weise einen Gott zu schauen, wie Menschen auf der Erde mit Erdensinnen ihre Umgebung sehen. Vorher war der Gott unsichtbar geblieben. Er offenbarte sich im Übersinnlichen durch den Traum oder durch etwas anderes in den Einweihungsstätten. Jetzt war der Gott historisch-sinnliche Tatsache, eine fleischliche Gestalt geworden. Das liegt in den Worten: «Gott hat bisher noch niemand gesehen. Der eingeborene Sohn, welcher im Innern des Weltenvaters war, er ist der Führer in diesem Schauen geworden » (1, 18). Er hat die Menschen dazu gebracht, mit den Erdensinnen einen Gott zu sehen.

[ 36 ] So sehen wir allerdings, wie scharf und bedeutsam im JohannesEvangelium auf das historische Ereignis in Palästina hingewiesen wird und mit welch paradigmatischen, fest umrissenen Worten, die aber durchaus auf die Goldwaage gelegt werden müssen, wenn wir sie zum Verständnisse des esoterischen Christentums benutzen wollen. Und nun werden wir in den nächsten Vorträgen sehen, wie dieses Thema weiter ausgeführt und zugleich gezeigt wird, daß der Christus nicht nur der Führer derjenigen ist, die mit der Gruppenseele zusammenhängen, sondern wie er in jeden einzelnen Menschen kommt und gerade das individuelle Ich mit seinem Impuls ausstatten will. Die Blutsverwandtschaft bleibt ja bestehen, aber die Geistigkeit der Liebe tritt hinzu. Und dieser Liebe, die vom freien Ich zum freien Ich geht, gibt er den Impuls. Für den in der Einweihung Begriffenen enthüllt sich Tag für Tag eine Wahrheit nach der anderen. Eine wichtige Wahrheit enthüllt sich immer am dritten Tage. Das ist die, wo man völlig verstehen lernt, daß in der Entwickelung der Erde ein Punkt ist, wodurch sich die an das Blut geknüpfte materielle Liebe immer mehr vergeistigt. Das ist das Ereignis, das veranschaulichen soll den Übergang von der reinen Blutsliebe zu der geistigen Liebe. Darauf wird hingewiesen mit bedeutungsvollen Worten von dem Christus Jesus, wenn er sagt: Es wird eine Zeit kommen, die meine Zeit ist, wo die wichtigsten Dinge geschaffen werden durch Menschen, die nicht mehr durch Blutsverwandtschaft zusammenhängen, sondern durch solche, die als einzelne für sich stehen. Diese Zeit muß aber erst kommen. — Der Christus selber, der den ersten Impuls gibt, sagt bei einer wichtigen Gelegenheit, daß sich dieses Ideal einmal erfüllen wird, daß aber seine Zeit noch nicht gekommen ist. Er deutet prophetisch darauf hin, als die Mutter dasteht und ihn auffordert, etwas zu tun für die Menschheit, als sie gleichsam darauf anspielt, sie habe ein Recht, ihn zu veranlassen zu einer wichtigen Tat für die Menschen. Da erwidert er: Ja, was wir heute tun können, das hat noch etwas zu tun mit den Blutsbanden, mit dem Verhältnis von «mir und dir»; «denn meine Zeit ist noch nicht gekommen » (z, 4). Daß eine solche Zeit kommt, wo der Einzelne für sich stehen muß, ist mit der Erzählung der Hochzeit zu Kana ausgedrückt; und die Aufforderung «Sie haben nicht Wein!» (2, 3) wird von Jesus so beantwortet, daß er sagt: «Das ist etwas, was noch mit «mir und dir» zu tun hat; meine Zeit, die ist noch nicht gekommen.» Daher stehen da die Worte «von mir zu dir» und «meine Zeit ist noch nicht gekommen». Was da steht im Text, deutet auf dieses Geheimnis hin. Wie vieles andere ist auch diese Stelle immer recht grob übersetzt worden. Nicht «Weib, was habe ich mit dir zu schaffen?» sollte dastehen, sondern «Was geht da von mir zu dir?». So fein und subtil ist der Text, aber bloß verständlich für die, die ihn verstehen wollen. Wenn aber immer wieder diese religiösen Urkunden heute von allerlei Leuten erklärt werden, möchte man doch fragen: Haben denn die, welche sich Christen nenen, gar keine Empfindung dabei, wenn sie Christus — nach unrichtiger Übersetzung — den Ausspruch tun lassen: «Weib, was habe ich mit dir zu schaffen?»

[ 37 ] Bei vielem, was sich heute Christentum nennt und sich beruft auf das Evangelium, muß man fragen: Haben sie denn das Evangelium? Es handelt sich darum, daß man das Evangelium erst habe. Und bei einer solch tiefen Urkunde, wie es das Johannes-Evangelium ist, handelt es sich wirklich darum, daß man erst jedes Wort auf die Goldwaage legt, um es in seinem rechten Werte zu erkennen.

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] It should be fairly clear from the three lectures so far that the spiritual truths can be rediscovered in the Gospel of John. But it should also have become clear that in order to find these truths, it is necessary to really put every word of this Gospel of John on the gold scale. In this religious document, it is indeed essential that the real, genuine wording be absolutely understood. For everything in this document, as we shall see in various cases, is of the deepest possible significance. But not only the wording of this or that sentence is important, but something else is also important. That is the structure, the composition, the composition of the document. Modern man no longer has the right feeling for such things. The ancient writers, if we may call them that, put much more of an architectural structure, of inner structure, into their works than is usually realized. You only have to think of a relatively late poet to find this confirmed: Dante. How everything in the “Divine Comedy” is architecturally structured in terms that are based on the number three. And it is no coincidence that each part of Dante's Comedy ends with the words “stars”. This is just to illustrate how the ancient writers built their work architecturally. And especially with the great religious documents, we must never lose sight of this architectural structure, because it may mean a great deal. However, one must first find out what that meaning is.

[ 2 ] It should be remembered that at the end of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John there is a sentence that we want to keep in mind. It says in verse 41:

“And many came to him and said, ‘John never performed a miracle, but everything John said about this man was true’.”

[ 3 ] That is, in this verse of chapter 10 we find a reference to the fact that the testimony that is given about Christ Jesus through John is true; it is expressed through a special word that this testimony is true. And now we come to the end of the Gospel of John and find a corresponding verse. It says in verse 24 of chapter 21:

“This disciple is the one who testifies to these things, and who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”

[ 4 ] So at the end of the whole thing, we have an indication that the testimony of the one who reports is a truthful one. Such congruities and harmonies, that here or there a special word is said, are never without significance in the old scriptures; and it is precisely behind this congruity that something significant is hidden. And we will put our considerations in the right light when we point out its reason.

[ 5 ] There is a fact in the middle of the Gospel of John, without whose understanding the Gospel of John cannot be grasped at all. Immediately after the passage where this word is quoted to affirm the testimony of truth, comes the chapter about the resurrection of Lazarus. The entire Gospel of John falls into two parts through this chapter about the resurrection of Lazarus. And it is pointed out at the end of the first part that the testimony of John the Baptist is to apply to everything that is asserted, that is to be confirmed, about Christ Jesus; and it is pointed out at the very end that the testimony of the disciple, whom we often hear refer to as “the one whom the Lord loved” (13:23), is to apply to everything that comes after the chapter about the resurrection of Lazarus. “whom the Lord loved“ (13:23). What, then, does the ‘raising of Lazarus’ mean at all?

[ 6 ] Let me remind you that after the account of the raising of Lazarus, there is a seemingly enigmatic sentence in the Gospel of John. Imagine the whole situation: Jesus the Christ accomplishes what is usually called a miracle, in the Gospel itself a “sign”: the resurrection of Lazarus. And afterwards there are several sentences that say, “This man does many signs” (11:47), and everything that follows indicates that the accusers do not want to have anything to do with him because of these signs. When you read these words, however they may be translated, you must ask: What is the underlying reason for this? The resurrection of a human being is precisely what prompts Christ's opponents to take a stand against Him. Why does the resurrection of Lazarus upset the opponents so much? Why does the persecution begin precisely there? Anyone who knows how to read must realize that a mystery is hidden in this chapter. This mystery that is hidden behind it is nothing other than the message about who is actually the real author of the Gospel of John, who actually says everything that is said in the Gospel of John. To understand this, we must take a look at what we call the “initiation” into the ancient mysteries. How did this initiation into the ancient mysteries take place?

[ 7 ] A person who had been initiated could have experiences in the spiritual worlds himself, so that he could become a witness of the spiritual worlds. Those who were found mature enough to be initiated were drawn into these mysteries. Everywhere - in Greece, among the Chaldeans, among the Egyptians, among the Indians - there were such mysteries. There the initiates were taught for a long time about the things that we learn in spiritual science today; and when they had been sufficiently taught, what opened the way for them to see for themselves followed. But in ancient times this could not be brought about in any other way than by placing the human being, in relation to his four members: physical body, etheric body, astral body and I, in a very special state. What happened to the person being initiated was that, through the initiator, through the person initiating, who understood the matter, he was placed in a dead-like state for three and a half days. This happened for the following reason. When a person sleeps in the usual sense in today's cycle of development, his physical body and ether body lie in bed, while the I, with the astral body, is lifted out. The person cannot perceive any spiritual events around him, because his astral body does not yet have the spiritual sense organs to perceive the world in which the person then is. Only when his astral body and his ego slip back into his physical and etheric bodies, and make use of his eyes and ears again, does the person perceive the physical world, that is, his environment, again. Through what the initiates had learned, they became able to develop the spiritual sense organs of their astral body. When they had developed these sense organs in their astral body, it was necessary to ensure that everything the astral body had taken in was imprinted in the etheric body, just as the words of a seal are imprinted in the sealing wax. That is what matters. All the preparations for the initiation were based on the fact that man devoted himself to such inner processes as reorganized his astral body. Man was once so constituted in his physical body also that he had no eyes and ears as he has today, but indifferent organs at this point; like animals that have never been exposed to light have no eyes. Light forms the eye, sound forms the ear. What the human being practices through meditation and concentration, and what he experiences inwardly as a result, has the same effect as light on the eye and sound on the ear. Through this, the astral body is transformed and the organs of perception are brought forth to see in the astral, the higher world. But at this stage they are not yet sufficiently firmly established in the etheric body; they become fixed through the fact that what is formed first in the astral body is impressed upon the etheric body. But as long as the etheric body is still within the physical body, it is not possible for what is achieved through the exercises to be clearly reflected in the etheric body. For this to happen, the etheric body had to be lifted out of the physical body. So when the etheric body was lifted out of the physical body during the three and a half days of death-like sleep, everything that had been prepared in the astral body was imprinted. The human being experienced the spiritual world. When he was then recalled back into the physical body by the priest-initiator, he was a witness to what takes place in the spiritual worlds, through his own testimony.

[ 8 ] This procedure has become unnecessary with the appearance of Christ Jesus. This death-like sleep lasting three and a half days can now be replaced by the power emanating from Christ. For we will see in a moment that the Gospel of John contains the strong powers that, today, the astral body, even if the etheric body is inside the physical body, has the strength to fire nevertheless what was prepared in it before. But for this, the Christ Jesus had to be there first. Before that, human beings had not reached the point where, without the characterized procedure, what had been formed in the astral body through meditation and concentration could have been released in the ether body. This was a process that often took place in the mysteries: a person to be initiated is brought into a death-like sleep by the priest-initiator; then the person concerned is guided through the higher worlds; then he is called back into his physical body by the priest-initiator, and now, through his own experience, he is a witness to the spiritual worlds.

[ 9 ] This was always done in the deepest secrecy, and the outer world knew nothing of the proceedings in the old mysteries. Through Jesus Christ, a new initiation was to take the place of the old one, brought about by those forces of which we shall speak again. The old form of initiation was to be brought to a close, as it were. But a transition was to be made from the old to the new time! For the transition, someone was to be initiated once more in the old way, but into the Christian esoteric. This could only be done by Christ Jesus Himself – and it was to be the one who is called Lazarus who was to be initiated. “This sickness is not unto death” (11, 4), it says; it is the three and a half day death-like sleep. This is clearly pointed out. You will see that it is done in a very veiled presentation, but that it presents itself as an initiation for those who can decipher such a veiled manner at all.

[ 10 ] The individuality of Lazarus should be initiated in such a way that this Lazarus could become a witness of the spiritual worlds. And we are told a word that is very significant in the mystery language: we are told “that the Lord loved Lazarus”. What does “to love” mean in the language of the mysteries? It expresses the relationship between the disciple and the teacher. “Whom the Lord loved” is the most intimate, the most initiated disciple. The Lord Himself initiated Lazarus, and as an initiate, Lazarus rose from the grave, that is, from his place of initiation. And the same word “whom the Lord loved” is used later by John – or rather, we should say, by the author of the Gospel of John; for the name “John” is not mentioned. It refers to the beloved disciple, to whom the Gospel of John can be traced. This is the resurrected Lazarus himself. And the writer of the Gospel of John wanted to say: What I have to say, I have to say by virtue of the initiation that was given to me by the Lord himself. - Therefore, the writer of the Gospel of John distinguishes between what happened before the resurrection of Lazarus and what happened after the resurrection of Lazarus. Before the resurrection of Lazarus, an old initiate is mentioned, one who has come to the knowledge of the spirit, and it is emphasized that his testimony is true. — But what is to be said about the deepest things, about the mystery of Palestine, I myself, the resurrected one, will speak about it, but I can only speak about it after the resurrection. — Therefore, in the first part of the Gospel of John, we have the testimony of the old John, and in the second part, the testimony of the new John, whom the Lord Himself initiated. For the same is the resurrected Lazarus. Only when we grasp this do we understand the real meaning of this chapter. It is there because John wanted to say: I refer to my supersensible seeing, not to my perception in the physical world; I tell you what I have seen in the spiritual world through the Lord's initiation.

[ 11 ] Thus we must trace back the characteristics of Christ Jesus, as they appear to us in the first chapters of the Gospel of John up to the end of chapter 10, to the knowledge that, so to speak, could also be had by someone who had not yet been initiated in the deepest sense by Christ Jesus Himself.

[ 12 ] Now you will say: Yes, we ourselves have heard in these lectures the profound words about Christ Jesus as the embodied Logos, as the Light of the World, and so on. — It is not surprising that these profound words about Christ Jesus are already spoken in the first chapters. For in the ancient mysteries, the Christ Jesus, that is, the Christ who was to appear in the world in the future, was not an unknown entity. And all mysteries pointed to One who was to come. That is why the ancient initiates are called “prophets” because they had to prophesy about a future event. That is why the purpose of the initiations was to make it clear that the Christ would reveal himself in the future of humanity. Thus, from what he could already know at that time, the truth emerged for the Baptist, which could let him prophesy that the one of whom was spoken of in the mysteries was standing before him in the Christ Jesus.

[ 13 ] How the whole matter is connected, and what the so-called Baptist himself has to say about the Christ Jesus, will be most clearly shown to us if we answer two questions.

[ 14 ] One is: How does the Baptist place himself in his time? And the other goes back to the explanation of various things in the beginning of the Gospel of John.

[ 15 ] How does the Baptist place himself in his time? What is the Baptist actually? He is one who, like the others who have heard something in the initiations, has been given a hint about the coming Christ, but who is presented as the only one in relation to whom the real secret of Christ Jesus dawns: that the One who has appeared is the Christ. Now those who had been called “Pharisees” or had been given other names saw in Christ Jesus someone who actually opposed their old principle of initiation, who in their eyes was doing something that they, in their conservative sense, could not admit. They said, because they were conservative: We must hold fast to the old principle of initiation! And this contradiction: always speaking of the future Christ, but never allowing the point in time to occur when he is really there, that is precisely what underlies their conservatism. Therefore, when Christ Jesus initiated Lazarus, they had to see it as a break with the old mystery tradition. “Man does many signs!” We cannot have fellowship with him! In their view, he has betrayed the mysteries, made public what should be locked away in the depths of the mystery secrets. And now we understand that this was like a betrayal to them and appeared to be the reason why they had to take a stand against him. Thus begins the turning point, the persecution of Christ Jesus.

[ 16 ] What does the Baptist prove to be in the first chapters of the Gospel of John?

[ 17 ] First, as one who knows the mystery truth of the Christ who was to come, knows it so well that the writer of the Gospel of John can repeat it himself, which the Baptist could also have known, and of which he convinced himself through what we are about to learn.

[ 18 ] We have seen what the very first words of the Gospel of John mean. Now let us take a little consideration of what is said about the Baptist himself. But let us present it to us again in the most correct translation possible. We have only heard the first words so far.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being that has come into being.
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shone in the darkness, but the darkness did not comprehend it.
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
He came for a witness, to bear witness about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
He was not the Light, but a witness of the Light.
For the true light that enlightens all men was coming into the world.
It was in the world, and the world was made through it, but the world did not recognize it.
It came to what is individual in people (it came to what is individual in first-person people); but what is individual in people (what is individual in first-person people) did not receive it.
But those who did receive it were able to reveal themselves as children of God through it.
Those who trusted in his name were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of human will, but of God.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we heard his teaching, the teaching of the only Son of the Father, full of devotion and truth.
John bears witness about him and clearly proclaims: This was the one of whom I said, 'After me will come the one who has been before me. For he is my predecessor.' For out of his abundance we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. God has never seen anyone with his eyes. The only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father of the world, has become the guide in this beholding.“ (1:1-18)

[ 19 ] These are the words that roughly convey the meaning of these first sentences of the Gospel of John. Before we proceed to their explanation, we must add one more thing. How then does John explain himself? You will recall that messengers are sent to inquire who John the Baptist is. Priests and Levites come to ask him who he is. We shall see why the answer given is the one that precedes it. For now, let us consider only what he himself says. He said:

“I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” (1:23)

[ 20 ] These are the words that are written. “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness!” In the wilderness, there stands - quite literally - ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. In Greek, the word “hermit” means “the lonely one”. Now you will understand that it is more correct to say, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness” than, “I am the voice of a preacher in the desert.” And we shall better understand everything that is stated in the opening words of the Gospel of John if we bear this self-characterization of John in mind. Why does he call himself “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”?

[ 21 ] In the course of human development, we have seen that the true mission on earth is the development of love, but that this is only conceivable if it is given as a voluntary gift by self-aware human beings, and that man gradually conquers his ego and that the ego slowly and gradually sinks into human nature. We know that animals as such have no individual ego. If the individual lion could say “I”, it would not mean the individual animal, but the group ego in the astral world; all lions would say “I” to it. Thus, whole groups of animals of the same form say “I” to the group ego that can be perceived supernaturally in the astral world. This is the great advantage of man over animals, that man has an individual ego. But the individual ego develops only gradually. Man also began with a group ego, with an ego that belonged to a whole group of people.

[ 22 ] If you go back to ancient peoples, to ancient races, you would find everywhere that people originally formed small groups. With the Germanic peoples, you did not even have to go back very far. In the writings of Tacitus, you can see that the individual Germanic man cares more about his entire tribe than about his individuality. The individual feels himself more as a member of the Cherusci tribe or the Sigambri tribe than as an individual personality, and therefore the individual also advocates the fate of the whole tribe; it is also unimportant who from the tribe avenges an insult when an insult has been done to an individual member or to the tribe. Then, in the course of time, it happens that individual people step out of the tribal community, so that the tribes are broken up and no longer remain compact. From the group soul character, the human being has also developed and gradually swung himself up to feel the I in the individual personality.

[ 23 ] We can only understand certain things, especially religious documents, if we know this secret of group souls and group selves. Among the peoples who had already developed a certain perception of their own ego, there was still an ego that extended not only over spatial, simultaneously living groups, but also over temporal groups. Today, the memory of people is such that the individual only remembers his youth. But there was a time when a different memory was still present, when man not only remembered his deeds, but also remembered the deeds of his father and grandfather as his own. The memory extended far into the blood relationship of the ancestors to the progenitor, whose blood flowed down through the generations. For centuries, memory was preserved with the blood, and a grandson or a scion of a tribe said “I” to the deeds and thoughts of his ancestors as he would to himself. One did not feel trapped between birth and death, but rather as a link in the chain of generations, with the ancestor at its center. For the cohesion of the ego is that one remembered the deeds of the father, the grandfather and so on. In ancient times, this was already expressed externally by the naming. The son not only remembered his own deeds, but also those of the father, grandfather and so on. Memory extended far back through the generations. In ancient times, everything that memory encompassed was given a name, for example, “Noah” or “Adam.” This does not refer to individual people, but to the “I” that preserved memory for centuries. This secret is also hidden behind the patriarchal names. Why did the patriarchs live so long? It would never have occurred to people in ancient times to give a name to the individual human being who stands between birth and death. Adam was preserved in memory for centuries because the spatial and temporal limitations were not considered in the ancient naming practice.

[ 24 ] Thus, little by little, the individual human ego gradually detached itself from the group soul, from the group ego; little by little, man became aware of his individual ego. Before that, he felt his ego in the tribal affiliation, in the group of people with whom he was related by blood, either in space or in time; hence the saying, “I and my father Abraham are one,” that is, we are one ego. And there the individual felt secure in a whole, because the common blood rolled through all the veins of all the members of the respective people. But development went forward: the time came when, within these nations, people were to feel their individual selves.

[ 25 ] To give people what they needed to feel secure and firm in this single individual self, that was the mission of Christ. We must also understand the word, which can so easily be misunderstood: “If anyone does not renounce wife and child, father and mother, brother and sister, he cannot be my disciple!” (Mark. 10, 29). We must not understand this in the trivial sense that someone receives an order to run away from the family; but it is meant: You should feel that each of you is an individual ego and that this individual ego is directly one with the spiritual Father who flows through the world. In the past, the confessor of the Old Testament said, “I and the Father Abraham are one,” because the I felt at rest in the blood relationship. Now the feeling of being one with the spiritual Father-ground should be freed. No longer should blood relationship be the guarantee that man belongs to a whole, but the knowledge of the purely spiritual Father-principle, with which all are one.

[ 26 ] Thus we are told through the Gospel of John that the Christ is the great source of inspiration for what man needs to feel eternal in his individual self. This is the turning point from the old covenant to the new covenant, that the old covenant always has something of group soulfulness, where the one I feels associated with the other I's and feels neither itself nor the other I's right, but instead feels for that in which they are sheltered together, the folk I or tribal I.

[ 27 ] So how must an I feel that has matured to the point of no longer feeling connected to the other individual personalities of the group soul? How must the isolated ego have felt in a time when one could say: The time is no longer when one can feel the togetherness with other persons, with all the I's that belong to a group soul, as a real human truth of life; but that one must first come, which gives the soul the spiritual bread of life, through which the individual ego receives its nourishment. The individual ego had to feel lonely, and the forerunner of Christ had to say: “I am an ego that has peeled itself away and feels lonely. And precisely because I have learned to feel lonely, I feel like a prophet to whom the ego in solitude gives the right spiritual nourishment. That is why the proclaimer had to describe himself as a voice in the wilderness, that is, as the already lonely self, isolated from the group soul, that cries out for the nourishment of the individual self. “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” Here we hear the profound truth again: every human individual ego is completely on its own; I am the voice of the ego that is detached and seeks its foundation on which it can stand as a detached ego. Now we understand the passage: “I am the voice of one crying out in solitude.”

[ 28 ] To understand the exact words of the Gospel of John, we need to familiarize ourselves a little with the way names and designations were given in general at that time. Naming was not as abstract and meaningless then as it is today. And if the interpreters of the Biblical documents would only consider a little how much is said with them, many a trivial interpretation would not see the light of day. I have already pointed out that when the Christ says, “I am the light of the world” (8:12), He really means that He was the first to give expression and impulse to the “I am”. Therefore, wherever the “I am” appears in the first chapters, this “I am” must be particularly emphasized. All names and designations in ancient times were used in a certain way that was both thoroughly real and deeply symbolic.

[ 29 ] Enormous errors are often made here in two directions. On superficial examination, some might say: Yes, according to such an interpretation, much is meant symbolically, and we do not go along with such an interpretation, where everything is meant only symbolically, since you then evaporate the historical biblical events! And those who understand absolutely nothing of the historical events may say: That is all meant only symbolically. But those who speak thus understand nothing of the gospel. Not the historical reality is denied by a symbolic explanation, but it must be emphasized that the esoteric explanation includes both: the view of the facts as historical, and in that they are historical, they themselves at the same time signify what we attach to them. Of course, anyone who sees only the brutal external facts, namely a person born somewhere at a particular time, will not understand that this person is something else besides a mere human being with the name in question, whose biography can be written. But he who knows the spiritual connection will learn to understand that the man who is born in a certain place is, in addition, a symbol for his time, and that one expresses his entire significance for the development of humanity through his name.

[ 30 ] Symbolic and historical at the same time, not only one or the other, that is what is at stake in the real explanation of the Gospels. And so we will see in almost all events and references that John, or the writer of the Gospel of John, who actually sees in supernatural perceptions, at the same time sees the events and the revelation of deeper spiritual truths: He has the historical figure of the Baptist in mind, he sees the historical figure; but at the same time, the actual historical figure is also the symbol for all people who, in ancient times, were already called to imprint the “I” on themselves, but who were only on the way to doing so. The light of the world could shine into the individual “I”, but not for those who were not yet able to comprehend the light of the world in their darkness. That which appeared as life, as light and logos in the Christ Jesus, has always shone in the world; but it was not recognized by those who were only beginning to mature. The light was always there. For if the light had not been there, the potential for the ego could not have arisen at all. While man still lived on the moon, the only parts of him that existed were the physical body, the etheric body and the astral body; there was no I in them. Only because the light had changed to the way it shines on earth did it have the power to ignite the individual I's and slowly bring them to maturity: “The light shone in the darkness; but the darkness could not yet comprehend it” (1:5). “It came into the individual human beings,” it came as far as the I-human beings; for the I-human beings could not have come into being at all if it had not been poured into them through the Logos. ”But the I-human beings did not receive it.” Only a few took it in, the initiates; they rose to the spiritual worlds; they always bore the name “children of God” because they had a knowledge of the Logos, of the Light and Life, and could always bear witness to it. It was individuals who always knew about the spiritual worlds through the ancient mysteries. What was it then that lived in them? That which is eternal in man lived in them. It lived in them quite consciously. They already sensed the great Word: “I and the Father are one” (10:30), namely, I and the great Primordial Ground are one! And the deepest thing they carried in their consciousness, their own ego, they had not received from their father and mother, but through initiation into the spiritual world. Not from the blood and not from the flesh and not from the will of a father or mother, but “from God,” that is, from the spiritual world they received it. There you have the explanation of the words that the great number of people, although they already had the disposition of the I-human being, did not receive the light, that it did come down to the group I, but that the individuals did not receive it. But those who received it - and they were few - could make themselves children of God through it; but those who trusted in Him became children of God through initiation. This gives us a clear picture. But in order that all men with earthly minds might recognize the existing God, He had to appear on earth in such a way that He could be seen with the physical eyes. That is, He had to take on a fleshly form, because such a form can only be seen with the physical eyes. In the past, only the initiates in the mysteries could see him; but now he had taken on flesh for the salvation of all: “The Word or Logos became flesh” (1:14). Thus the writer of the Gospel of John links the historical appearance of Christ Jesus to the entire evolution. “We have heard his teaching, the teaching of the only begotten Son of the Father” (1:14). What kind of teaching is this? What kind of people are other people born?

[ 31 ] In the ancient times when the Gospels were written, those who were born of the flesh were called “born of two”. They were called born of two, let us say, through the mixing of the blood of father and mother. That which is born not of the flesh, and is not begotten by human agency and not by the mingling of blood, is “born of God”; that is “only-begotten.” Those who were formerly called “children of God” were always already in a certain sense the “only-begotten”; and the doctrine of the Son of God is the doctrine of the “only-begotten.” The physical man is the “second-born,” the spiritual man is the “only-begotten.” Do not take this to mean “born into,” no, “only-begotten” is the opposite of “second-born.” And the word indicates that man, in addition to physical birth, can also undergo a spiritual birth, namely, union with the Spirit, the birth by which he becomes an only-begotten child or son of Divinity. And such a teaching could only be heard through Him who was the Word made flesh. Through him, the teaching became general, “the teaching of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of devotion and truth” (1:14). “Devotion” needs to be better translated here, because although it has to do with being born out of the Godhead, it also involves staying together and, at the same time, removing all illusions. This latter comes only from being born of two and encompasses man with illusions, in contrast to the one teaching that brings the truth in the Christ Jesus, as he stood and dwelt among men as the embodied Logos. But John called himself - that is what it literally means -: the forerunner, the forerunner, the one who goes before to proclaim the I. John describes himself as the one who knew that this I must become independent in the individual, but who had to bear witness to the one who will come to bring this about. He said clearly: The one who is to come is the “I am” that is eternal, that can truly say of itself: Before Abraham was, was “I am”. John could say: The I that is spoken of here has been before me; it is at the same time, although I am his predecessor, my predecessor; I bear witness to what was before in every human being; “after me will come the one who has been before me” (1:15).

[ 32 ] And now significant words are said: “For from his abundance we have all received grace upon grace” (1:16). There are many people who call themselves Christians and who read past the word “pleroma”, who do not think of anything particularly precise when they see this word. “Pleroma” means ‘abundance’ in Greek. This is also stated in the Gospel of John: ‘For from the pleroma we have all received grace upon grace!’ I said that every word of the Gospel of John must be weighed up if you want to understand it at all. So what is pleroma, the abundance? Only he can understand it who knows that in the old mysteries the Pleroma or abundance was spoken of as something quite definite. For it was already taught in those days that when the first spiritual beings to reveal themselves were those who had ascended to divinity during the old moon, the Elohim, one of them separated from them: One remained on the moon and radiated the power of love from there until men were sufficiently mature for the light of the remaining six Elohim. Thus one distinguished between Yahweh, the single God, the reflector, and the six-fold abundance of the Godhead, “Pleroma”. But since the Christ is meant by the collective consciousness of the Solar Logos, when pointing to him one had to speak of the fullness of the gods. This profound truth is hidden behind it: “For from the Pleroma we have all taken grace upon grace.”

[33] Now let us go further back in time to the time of the group soul, when the individual felt his I as a group I. Let us now consider what lived in the group as a social order. After all, the people, insofar as they were visible people, lived as individuals. They felt the group I, but for the senses they were individuals. Since they did not yet feel as individuals, they could not yet have love in its full inner extent. One loves the other because he is related to him by blood. Blood relationship is the basis of all love. The blood relatives loved each other first, and love also arises from blood relationship, provided it is not sex love. From this group soul love, people should free themselves more and more and offer love as a free gift of the I. At the end of the development on earth, people will achieve that a time will come when the I, having become independent, will have the impulse in its innermost being to do what is right and good out of complete devotion. Because the I has this impulse, it does what is right, it does what is good. When love is so spiritualized that no one will want to do anything but what is right, then what Christ Jesus wanted to bring into the world will have been fulfilled. For that is one of the secrets of Christianity, that it teaches: Look to Christ, be filled with the power of his example, be tempted as he was, follow him; then your liberated self will be such that it needs no law, that as a being free in its innermost being it will do the good, the right thing. Thus Christ brings the impulse of freedom from the law, so that good is not done because of the law, but as an impulse of the love that lives within.

[ 34 ] This impulse will, however, need the whole of the rest of its time on earth to develop. The beginning of this has been made through Christ Jesus, and the Christ form will always be the power that will educate people to it. As long as human beings were not mature enough to receive an independent ego, as long as they existed as members of a group, they had to be regulated socially by an outwardly revealed law. And even today people have not yet progressed beyond the group ego in all respects. In how many things is the human being today not at all an individual human being, but a group being! The human being who would be a free being today – at a certain level of esoteric discipleship one is called the “homeless” – is still an ideal! He who voluntarily places himself in the world process is individual, he is not regulated by the law. In the Christ principle lies the overcoming of the law: “For the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Christ” (John 1:17). In the Christian sense, grace is the ability of the soul to do good out of its inner being. Grace and the truth recognized in the inner being came into being through Christ. You see how deeply this thought intervenes in the evolution of humanity.

[ 35 ] In the past, those who were initiated were brought to higher spiritual perception. Never before has anyone seen a God with their physical eyes. The only begotten Son, who dwells in the bosom of the Father, is the first to have led us to see a God in the way that people on earth see their surroundings with earthly senses. Before that, God had remained invisible. He revealed Himself in the supersensible through dreams or something else in the places of initiation. Now God had become a historical, sensual fact, a fleshly form. This is expressed in the words: “God has never been seen by anyone. The only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, he has become the guide in this vision” (1:18). He has brought people to see a God with the senses of the earth.

[ 36 ] Thus we see, indeed, how sharply and significantly the Gospel of John points to the historical event in Palestine and with what paradigmatic, well-defined words, but which must be weighed carefully if we want to use them to understand esoteric Christianity. And now, in the next lectures, we will see how this theme is further developed and at the same time shown that the Christ is not only the leader of those who are connected with the group soul, but how he comes into every single human being and wants to endow the individual ego with his impulse. The blood relationship remains, but the spirituality of love is added. And He gives the impulse to this love, which goes from free I to free I. For those who are initiated, one truth after another is revealed day by day. An important truth always reveals itself on the third day. That is when one fully learns to understand that in the evolution of the earth there is a point where material love, tied to blood, becomes more and more spiritualized. This is the event that is to illustrate the transition from pure blood love to spiritual love. This is pointed out with significant words by Christ Jesus when he says: “A time will come, which is my time, when the most important things will be created by people who are no longer connected by blood, but by those who stand alone. But this time has yet to come. The Christ Himself, who gives the first impulse, says on an important occasion that this ideal will one day be fulfilled, but that its time has not yet come. He points this out prophetically when the mother stands there and asks Him to do something for humanity, when she alludes, as it were, to her right to prompt Him to do an important deed for people. And he replies: “Yes, what we can do today still has something to do with blood ties, with the relationship between ‘me and you’; ‘for my time has not yet come’ (v. 4). That such a time will come, when the individual must stand for himself, is expressed in the account of the wedding at Cana; and the request ”They have no wine!” (2:3) is answered by Jesus in such a way that he says: “This is something that still has to do with ‘me and you’; my time has not yet come.” Hence the words “from me to you” and “my time has not yet come”. What is written in the text points to this secret. Like many other things, this passage has always been translated rather roughly. It should not read, “Woman, what do I have to do with you?” but rather, “What is going from me to you?” The text is so fine and subtle that it is only understandable to those who want to understand it. But when these religious documents are repeatedly explained by all sorts of people today, one might well ask: Do those who call themselves Christians have no sense of what it means when they have Christ say – according to an incorrect translation – “Woman, what do I have to do with you?”

[ 37 ] With so much of what calls itself Christianity today and claims to be the gospel, one must ask: Do they even have the gospel? It is a matter of first having the gospel. And with such a profound document as the Gospel of John, it is really a matter of weighing every word on the gold scale in order to recognize its true value.