From Jesus to Christ E-Book

Rudolf Steiner

• Herausgeber: Rudolf Steiner Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 484

Beschreibung

Knowledge of the cosmic significance of Christ and his mission, once experienced intuitively, has faded over the centuries. As theologians and historians of the Church critically scrutinized the Gospel records, their focus shifted from a gnostic vision of Christ to the human figure of 'the simple man', Jesus of Nazareth.In these enlightening lectures, Rudolf Steiner shows how 'the Mystery of Golgotha' (his term for the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ) can be understood as the pivotal event in human history, and the Gospels as 'initiation documents' that can serve to guide us on a path of spiritual development. He contrasts elements of the religious thinking of Jesuitism with Rosicrucianism – particularly in relation to the effect on human will – and discusses the characteristics of the two Jesus children in the contrasting accounts by Luke and Matthew. Steiner demonstrates how the great religious traditions of Zarathustra and Buddha helped prepare the way for the events of Palestine. In the process he clarifies controversial topics in Christian theology, such as the resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ.The emphasis throughout these lectures is on rediscovering the esoteric path to Christ and awakening to a new revelation manifesting in our time: Christ as the 'Lord of Karma'. This edition features a revised translation and is complemented with editorial notes and appendices by Frederick Amrine and an introduction by Robert McDermott.Eleven lectures, Karlsruhe, Oct. 1911, GA 133

Leseprobe

FROM JESUS TO CHRIST

Eleven lectures given in Karlsruhe between 4 and 14 October 1911

TRANSLATED BY CHARLES DAVY ANDEDITED BY FREDERICK AMRINE

INTRODUCTION BY ROBERT MCDERMOTT

RUDOLF STEINER

rudolf steiner press

CW 131

Rudolf Steiner Press

Hillside House, The Square

Forest Row, RH18 5ES

www.rudolfsteinerpress.com

Published by Rudolf Steiner Press 2024

Originally published in German under the title Von Jesus zu Christus (volume 131 in theRudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe or Collected Works) by Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach.Based on shorthand notes that were not reviewed or revised by the speaker. Thisauthorized translation is based on the seventh revised German edition (1988), editedby Hella Wiesberger

Published by permission of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach

© Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Rudolf Steiner Verlag 1988

This translation © Rudolf Steiner Press 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 85584 669 2

eISBN 978 1 85584 656 2

Cover by Morgan Creative

Typeset by Symbiosys Technologies, Visakhapatnam, India

Printed and bound by 4Edge Ltd., Essex

Contents

Publisher’s Note

Introduction, by Christian von Arnim

Lecture 1Karlsruhe, 5 October 1911

Two directions of European intellectual development: the Jesus principle of Jesuitism and the Christ principle of Rosicrucianism. The trinity: conscious spiritual life, subconscious soul life, unrecognized natural life—Spirit, Son (Logos), Father—imagination, will, feeling. The spirit initiation of the Rosicrucians and the will initiation of the Jesuits.

Lecture 2Karlsruhe, 6 October 1911

The Christian-Rosicrucian initiation. Rosicrucianism and spiritual science. The doctrine of reincarnation and karma in the Rosicrucian initiation and with Droßbach, Widenmann and Lessing on the one hand and in Buddhism on the other. The loosening of the etheric body through the Rosicrucian path of knowledge. The path to experiencing the Christ-Event through ongoing revelation. The personal experience of images from the Gospels in Rosicrucian initiation. The encounter with the Guardian of the Threshold and the story of Jesus’ temptation. The fear and the Mount of Olives. The difference to the Jesuit path.

Lecture 3Karlsruhe, 7 October 1911

Three sources of knowledge for the Christian mysteries: the Gospels, the research of clairvoyants, faith as a path to self-knowledge and of Christ. The transfer of the karmic office of judge to Christ. Jesus of Nazareth was a true human being, not an adept like Apollonius of Tyana. The relationship of the Christ individuality to the body of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the relationship of the Apollonius individuality to its body. The Fall and the compensation through Christ. Two witnesses of faith: Pascal and Solovyov.

Lecture 4Karlsruhe, 8 October 1911

The replacement of faith by the vision of Christ. The experience of the Logos in pre-Christian and post-Christian times. Richard Wagner’s intuition of the Mystery of Golgotha as an example of the necessary devotional attitude towards the truths of the spiritual world. The traditional Gospels and the Akashic Record. Jerome and the Gospel of Matthew. The path from the inner emotional experience of Christ to Christian initiation.

Lecture 5Karlsruhe, 9 October 1911

The letters of Paul. The question of the decay of the physical body at death. The connection between the form of the physical body and ego consciousness. Greek culture: The highest love for the physical body. Buddha consciousness: the disdain for the physical body. Ancient Hebrew antiquity: The reproduction of the form of the physical body through the generations. The Book of Job.

Lecture 6Karlsruhe, 10 October 1911

The core question of Christianity: the Resurrection. The initiations in the Mysteries and the Gospels. Paul’s view of history after the experience of Damascus. Christ, the second Adam. The corruptible body of Adam and the incorruptible body of the second Adam. The physical body and the form of the human being, the phantom. The connection between the visibility of the physical body and the luciferic influence.

Lecture 7Karlsruhe, 11 October 1911

The only one-time embodiment of Christ in a physical body. The ego nature of man. The difficult understanding of the Resurrection. The physical body as a mirror for the soul’s experiences. The destruction of the phantom of the physical body: the Fall of man. The resurrected body of Christ as the pure phantom of the physical body. The re-establishment of man’s lost principles. The rescued human phantom.

Lecture 8Karlsruhe, 12 October 1911

The two Jesus boys. The Zarathustra individuality. The influence of the Buddha forces. The ego of the Nathan Jesus boy. The twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple. The thirty-year-old Jesus at the Baptism in the Jordan. Ashes and salt. The spiritual body of Christ: the resurrected phantom. For Paul the scripture in Damascus is fulfilled.

Lecture 9Karlsruhe, 13 October 1911

The relationship of the individual to the Christ-Impulse. Earlier theosophy in Bengel and Oetinger, the objectivity of the luciferic influence (sin, lies, error) and the objectivity of Christ’s redemptive act. The exoteric path to Christ through the Lord’s Supper and the Gospels. Communion in the spirit through the power of meditation and concentration as an esoteric path.

Lecture 10Karlsruhe, 14 October 1911

The relationship of the Christ-Impulse to every single human soul. The esoteric path to Christ through initiation. The seven stages of Christian initiation and their goal. Receiving the phantom of the Resurrected Christ. The karmic judgment of Christ. The doctrine of reincarnation. The clarification of the view backwards through the second Christ-Event. About Jeshu ben Pandira and the Bodhisattva. The bringer of good through the Word. The voluntary sacrifice of Christ’s act of Redemption.

Public LectureKarlsruhe, 4 October 1911

The historical Jesus research of the ninteenth century. Arthur Drews. The Gospels as historical documents? Christianity as a mystical fact. The mysteries of antiquity. Aristides as a student of the mysteries. Two completely different types of mysteries: the Egyptian and Greek mysteries—the Persian mysteries or Mithra mysteries. The primeval man Adam and original sin. Pauline Christianity. The Gospels are not biographies, but descriptions of initiation.

Appendices:

1. Rosicrucianism

2. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

3. The Etheric and Astral Bodies

4. Immanuel Kant

5. Gnosis/Gnosticism

6. Helena Blavatsky

7. Cosmic Evolution

8. The Hierarchies

9. Ahriman and Lucifer

10. The Kant-Laplace Hypothesis

Notes

Rudolf Steiner’s Collected Works

Significant Events in the Life of Rudolf Steiner

Index

Publisher’s Note

In his lecture of 7 May, 1923 in Dornach (‘The Easter Thought, the Ascension Revelation and the Pentecost Mystery’ in GA 224), Rudolf Steiner says about the lecture cycle From Jesus to Christ: ‘… which was held in Karlsruhe, and which, because certain truths, which many people want to remain concealed, were once spoken out of an esoteric sense of duty, was the most hostile. Indeed, one could say that from certain quarters the hostility towards anthroposophy began precisely with this cycle’.

Introduction

Background and Purpose of these Lectures

The ten lectures in this volume assume Steiner’s description of the evolution of consciousness,* and especially the transformation of human consciousness due to the Mystery of Golgotha, so named by Rudolf Steiner to refer to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. Steiner’s purpose is not only historical; he is eager to show the relevance of the Mystery of Golgotha for the time when he was writing and lecturing, especially for Europe of the twentieth century. If he were lecturing now, he would surely emphasize that an understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha is even more urgent than a century ago.

In the months prior to these lectures, Rudolf Steiner was in an intense conflict with Annie Besant, president of the Theosophical Society, who had announced the founding of the Order of the Rising Star (later renamed Order of the Star in the East) which C. W. Leadbeater was establishing with Besant’s support. Leadbeater named Jiddu Krishnamurti, age 16, the World Teacher, or Jesus Christ, reborn. In response, Steiner emphatically stated that Christ could incarnate only once. At age 21, Krishnamurti renounced the title given to him by Leadbeater. Subsequently, Krsishnamurti proved to be an influential spiritual teacher in India and the West.

In June, in direct response to Besant and Leadbeater, Rudolf Steiner delivered three lectures with the title The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity, one of the clearest accounts of Steiner’s teaching on the relationship of Jesus of Nazareth, a human being, and Christ, the divine Logos. These three lectures were one of only two sets of lectures that Steiner revised. He was eager to make them especially relevant for his relations to the Theosophical Society and worthy to endure. In October, continuing with the same intent and at greater length, he delivered the ten lectures in this volume with the revealing title, From Jesus to Christ. In addition to explaining the transformative impact of the Mystery of Golgotha on the evolution of consciousness, Steiner was determined to communicate to his followers, presumably all members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society of which he was head, that his teaching was focused primarily on Christ and secondarily on Krishna and Buddha, the primary focus of the Theosophical Society. By means of clairvoyant ‘reading’ of the Akashic Record, Steiner was able to explain the radical shift in consciousness as a result of the Mystery of Golgotha, continuing to the present and increasingly for thousands of years to come. The many themes in these lectures all serve to establish the transformation of human consciousness as a result of the Mystery of Golgotha.

Throughout his life as an esoteric teacher (1900-1925), Rudolf Steiner taught an understanding of the Incarnation of Christ in contrast to the words enshrined in the Nicaean Creed—‘by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man’. Steiner maintained that Christ did not ‘become man’, but rather, at the baptism of Jesus, Christ, a fully divine being, entered the human being Jesus of Nazareth. By so doing, Christ served as the ‘I’ of Jesus, in place of the Zarathustra ‘I’ who entered Jesus at age twelve—as a result of which Jesus was able to lecture to the rabbis in the Temple. Steiner similarly taught that the Logos in the Prologue to John’s Gospel refers to Christ, the Word, who was ‘in the beginning’. In his lectures The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of Paul (1912), Steiner explains that Paul, on the road to Damascus, in an experience that Steiner describes as an initiation, experienced the Risen Christ. Steiner was eager to convince his audience of theosophists that while it is important to study and revere Krishna and Buddha, it is essential for the evolution of humanity to love and experience the transformative effect of Jesus who was joined by Christ, taught, healed, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to the spiritual world to reign at one with God the Father. Steiner repeated frequently that Christ is a cosmic being devoted eternally to the evolution of humanity. He agrees with the affirmation of the Nicaean Creed: ‘His kingdom will have no end.’*

Steiner’s audience in Karlsruhe, southwest Germany, probably held an ambivalent relationship to Christianity. Steiner wished his audience to understand the relationship between religion (specifically Christianity†) and esotericism (specifically anthroposophy, or spiritual science). He stated:

We shall best come to a more precise understanding of our subject—modern religious life on the one hand and the anthroposophical deepening of spiritual life on the other—if we glance at the origins of both religious life and esoteric spiritual life in recent centuries. For as regards spiritual development in Europe during this period, we can discern two directions of thought that have been cultivated with the utmost intensity: on the one hand an exaggeration of the principle of Jesus, and on the other, a most careful, conscientious preservation of the principle of Christ. (1)‡

Steiner in effect helped his audience understand that the intellectual milieu of the time was working against their attaining a living knowledge of Christ, and especially of Christ’s resurrection. As the universe is understood ‘as a collaboration of atoms… there is no place for the Being of Christ in this cosmogony, indeed no place for anything spiritual.’ (136)

Physical Body and Ego according to Ancient Greeks, Hebrews, and Buddhists

As in all Rudolf Steiner’s writings and lectures, in these lectures he strives to show that the spiritual is primary, both logically and temporally. Students of Steiner are fond of quoting the maxim, ‘matter is never without spirit, spirit is never without matter’, but it seems to me that this quotation is not true to Steiner’s understanding of matter or spirit. Steiner does hold that matter is never without spirit but he also holds that spirit exists prior to matter, in important respects is independent of matter, and in the end of time will presumably prevail without matter. He does not accept either the modern Western materialist idea that matter exists without spirit—or simply, spirit does not exist—nor the Buddhist idea of the co-arising of matter and spirit. The accurate term for Steiner’s position with respect to material creation is panentheism, according to which the divine precedes and permeates creation but unlike pantheism, is not co-extensive with matter. Before and after matter, there is and will be spirit forever.

Steiner often celebrates the Greek love of the ideal physical form. He states that the Greeks felt ‘that the highest tribute someone could offer to the Gods was to clothe them with this human form that they themselves valued so much.’ (76) This positive attitude toward the physical is the opposite of Steiner’s description of the Buddhist view, namely, to overcome suffering due to attachment, the physical needs to be negated. Steiner considers the Hebraic view of matter to be between the Greek and Buddhist:

This old, Judaic mode of thought, standing midway between Greek thought and Buddhism, does not involve, as Greek thought does from the outset, a predisposition to tragedy in face of the phenomenon of death, but a tragic feeling is indirectly present in it. It is truly Greek for the hero to say: ‘Better a beggar in the upper world’—i.e. with the human bodily form—‘than a king in the realm of shades’, but a Hebrew could not have said it without something more. For the Hebrews know that when in death their bodily form falls away, they remain united with God. (77)

Steiner prizes the ancient Greek ideals of the body and ideal form as well as Hebraic consciousness of Providence as necessary (though incomplete) contributions to the development of the historical (or evolutionary) context for the Incarnation of Christ, or more fully, for the Mystery of Golgotha. Although the contributions of the Greek and Hebraic traditions were deep and positive, they did not sufficiently prepare for the Incarnation of Christ. In fact, just the reverse. Steiner stated in these lectures, and in other sets of lectures on the Gospels from 1911 to 1915, that Christ incarnated when the culture of the Roman Empire was at its lowest ebb: ‘Human feelings and perceptions changed altogether at the turning-point of the old and new epochs, a point marked by the events of Palestine.’ (135)

According to Steiner, the consciousness of the ancient Hebrews was characterized by ‘a folk-group-ego’. Consciousness had not yet penetrated as far as to attain a separate individuality in each person. Hebraic consciousness was closer to the Buddhists than to the Greeks. In sum, the Greeks experienced the beginning of ego-consciousness; the Hebrews experienced the ego of the Hebrew People; the Buddhists denied the ego whether of a people or of an individual. Buddhists focused on individuals rather than, as with the Hebrews, a people, but saw the need to deny the value and even the unqualified existence of an ego. According to Buddhist teaching, the apparent ego that claims the attention of each individual human being is maya, illusion—not in its effect on each person but ontologically (what is real).

Steiner then offers this summary of the consciousness of the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, and Buddhists:

The Greeks said: ‘I value my ego so greatly that I look with horror on what will happen to it after death’. The Buddhists said: ‘That which is the cause of the external human form must fall away from humans as soon as possible’. The Hebrews said: ‘I am united with God; that is my fate, and as long as I am united with Him, I bear my fate. I know nothing else than the identification of my ego with the Divine Ego.’ (77)

With the aid of Gotthold Lessing’s influential book Education of the Human Race,* Steiner views each culture in sequence in light of its contribution to the evolution of humanity. This is where, or how, Steiner’s account of the evolution of consciousness exhibits a nineteenth-century European bias: Steiner agrees with Lessing’s view of the Old Testament as God’s first gift to human evolution, the New Testament as the second, and the third, ‘an independent feeling in the human soul for the true, the good, and the beautiful’. (20) As he often does, in these lectures Steiner speaks positively of Buddha but not with respect to the evolution of consciousness. In this view, Buddha contributed to the work of Christ and the enlightenment of individuals but does not advance the essentially Christian ideals of individuality, love, and freedom. For those ideals, the ‘I’ must be affirmed and developed in ways that are not affirmed in core Buddhist teaching. Steiner stated:

For such things as I have quoted from the heart of Buddhism—for example, the conversation between King Milinda and the Buddhist sage Nagasena—testify clearly that the nature of the ego cannot be spoken of in Buddhism as we must speak of it. For a genuine follower of Buddhism, it would indeed be heretical to speak of the nature of the ego as we must represent it. On this very account, we must ourselves be clear regarding the nature of the ego. (100)

Now that a wide and deep dialogue between Buddhism (particularly the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools) and Christianity (not yet Buddhism and anthroposophy*) is advancing, the Christian and European understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism will need greater openness and insight. On the Buddhist side, the writings and lectures of His Holiness the Dalai Lama are the best source of dialogue with anthroposophy. Arthur Zajonc, professor emeritus of physics, Amherst College, and former general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America, was privileged to discuss deep spiritual topics with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Four Parts of the Human Being

As Frederick Amrine explains in Appendix 3, ‘The Etheric and the Astral Bodies,’ ‘The individual etheric body is precipitated out of a vast cosmic ether’; it is grasped by Imagination. The astral body, which is experienced by Inspiration, ‘is Steiner’s early, theosophical term for the subtle body that corresponds generally to “soul” or “psyche”.’ In these lectures, in order to better explain the relationship between Jesus and Christ, particularly in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus and the resurrection of Christ (including Jesus), Steiner also describes the functions of the ego and the physical body. The relationship of these four parts of the human body at death provides the surest way to understand and remember them: the physical body that is burned or buried loses its appearance and function, but because the other bodies were dependent on the physical body for their functions, the physical body has a lasting effect. For three days after the death of the physical body, the etheric body hovers over the physical body and then performs two essential functions: it communicates the essential contents of its life to both the astral (soul) and to the etheric realm that surrounds Earth. The astral body in turn communicates its total content to the ‘I’/ego. This process lasts approximately one-third of the number of years that the deceased (‘so-called dead’) person lived. The ego, the sole surviving part of the deceased person, is guided by spiritual beings toward the ‘cosmic midnight hour’, when it will transition from the end of its previous life to preparation for its next life.

The Phantom and the Resurrection*

While Steiner was delivering these lectures on the relationship of Jesus and Christ, he probably assumed that his audience had in mind his description of the four-part human being—physical, etheric, astral, and ‘I’ or spirit. It would be surprising, however, if his audience would have had in mind a clear understanding of ‘phantom’, a term that Steiner introduces for the form of the physical body. Steiner introduced this concept in these lectures for the first—and it seems for the last—time. The term phantom is discussed most extensively in Sergei O. Prokofieff’s The Mystery of the Resurrection, particularly in its Appendix: ‘The Forces of the Phantom and Stigmatization’.* These pages on the phantom are at least as difficult to understand as the references to phantom in From Jesus to Christ. Fortunately, in 2006, Perspectives, the quarterly journal of the Christian Community in the UK, published a full issue on the Resurrection, including a discussion of the phantom.† Subject to correction, here is my summary of Steiner’s understanding of the phantom and its significance for the Resurrection and the human physical body.

It probably makes most sense to begin not with the evolution of the phantom in relation to Old Saturn or its future in relation to Vulcan, but specifically as part of the experience of Paul on his way to Damascus. Steiner considers Paul, by virtue of his spiritual (karmic) preparation and his experience on the road to Damascus, to be the surest teacher of the mystery of the Resurrection. According to Steiner, Paul ‘wishes to say’ that because the pure phantom of Christ arose out of the grave at death, ‘what had been taken from [human beings] through the luciferic influence can be given back to them through its presence as the Risen Body of Christ’. (109)

[Paul] experienced something that he knew could be experienced only when the Scriptures were fulfilled; when a perfect human phantom, a human body risen from the grave in a supra-sensible form, would appear in the spiritual atmosphere of the Earth. And that is what he saw! (126)

What exactly is this ‘perfect human phantom’ which seems to appear in Steiner’s sentences where we might expect a reference to either the etheric body or resurrected body of Christ? Because the divine Christ was the ego of Jesus, from his baptism until his crucifixion, luciferic forces exercised no influence on Jesus. After his crucifixion and death, his phantom was in the tomb. This explains why Mary Magdalen initially failed to recognize the crucified Christ. It made possible the resurrection as a counter to death—in Paul’s famous phrase, ‘death, where is thy sting?’ Prior to the death of Jesus, all human physical bodies were permeated by luciferic influence, except the Nathan (Luke) Jesus who was joined by the ego of Christ at the baptism by John. The phantom of Jesus, permeated by Christ, rose from the grave. Note that Christ, a divine being, did not and could not die.

As the description of Mary Magdalen at the tomb—and in the process of recognizing Jesus—with the exclamation ‘Master!’ has challenged scholars, preachers, and laypersons throughout the history of Christianity, Steiner’s words, which I take to be a solution of this sublime process—though not a reduction of the mystery—deserves to be quoted in full:

The important thing is not what Christ taught, but what he gave: His Body! For the Body that rose from the grave of Golgotha had never before entered into human evolution. Never before had there been present on Earth, through someone’s death, what came to be present as the Risen Body of Jesus Christ. Previously, after humans had passed through the gate of death and had gone through the period between death and a new birth, they had brought to Earth with them the defective phantom, given over to deterioration. No one had ever caused a perfect phantom to arise. (111)

The disciples who looked into the grave found the linen cloths in which the body had been wrapped, but the phantom, on which the evolution of the ego depends, had risen from the grave. It is not surprising that Mary Magdalen, who had known only the earlier phantom when it was permeated by earthly elements, did not recognize the same form in the phantom, now freed from terrestrial gravity, when she saw it clairvoyantly. It seemed to her different. (125)

Steiner is recommending that the phantom of Jesus Christ, experienced by Mary Magdalen and then by the disciples seven times*between the Resurrection and Ascension, should be thought of as the Resurrected Christ. As a phantom, Christ appeared to be both physical and invisible, such that it could pass through the wall of a closed room and appear to eat food. We surely do not need to remind ourselves that the Resurrection is a mystery. That said, it might be slightly more intelligible if we can grasp the meaning of the phantom—invisible and yet in the shape, and with some of the functions, of a physical body. It has long seemed to me more efficacious and reverent to picture the resurrected Christ as an etheric or resurrected body rather than as a physical body in need of oxygen and occupying space. Although ‘phantom’ with respect to the resurrected Christ is a rather inelegant term, it supplies a missing piece of a profound mystery. Like many of Steiner’s statements about the Mystery of Golgotha, his account of the evolution of the phantom at least appears to be (and probably is) in conflict with orthodox Christian thinking and devotion. It might nevertheless be time to focus on it as a way to imagine Christ’s Resurrection—without which Christianity and anthroposophy are without foundation.

It remains to be seen whether Christians and specifically anthroposophists will earn the privilege of sharing in the experience of Christ’s phantom that graced Mary Magdalen and ten apostles—all but Judas who hung himself after betraying Jesus, and Thomas who, it seems, unlike Mary and the other apostles, had not developed supersensible sight.* It also remains to be seen whether, or the extent to which, Christians will be able to understand and hold the concept of the Son of Man and its role in the Mystery of Golgotha. Along with the phantom, the Son of Man as described by Rudolf Steiner and further explained especially by Christian Community priests,* provides a way of contemplating the relation of Christ to Jesus during the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and thereafter eternally.

Roman Catholic and Anthroposophical Practice

Because Steiner was intensely aware of all the ways that materialist thinking can prevent a true experience of the deed of Christ by ordinary thinking, he shared dozens of exercises by which Christians, and specifically anthroposophists, might overcome these unsuspected epistemological limitations. He was especially aware that scripture scholars of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were missing the deep truths revealed at a level inaccessible to ordinary, even learned, textual analyses. While he respected the dedicated scientific research and creativity that interpreters brought to the study of the Gospels, he lamented that this scholarship ‘succeeded only in losing the Bible’. (87) In response to the reduction of the Bible to the level of ordinary texts, Steiner offered both exoteric and esoteric methods by which biblical scholars and laypersons might access the revelations of the inspired Gospel authors. He particularly tried to lead his audiences to a relationship to the Risen Christ, and thereby to their own resurrection.

Throughout dozens of lectures on the Gospels, and perhaps most pointedly in these lectures, aptly titled From Jesus to Christ, Steiner’s emphasis is primarily on Christ and secondarily on Jesus, as well as primarily on esotericism and secondarily on religion. In general, he sees religious teaching and practices as preparatory to esotericism, especially anthroposophical research and exercises. He rather forcefully contrasts practices, such as Jesuit training (according to his understanding), that focus on the life of Jesus in ways that might detract from a focus on Christ. In the following statement he contrasts ‘Jesuitism’ (based on his view of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola*) with Rosicrucian esotericism:

In Jesuitism, we encounter a dangerous exaggeration of the principle of Jesus. In the other movement, which for centuries has existed in Europe as Rosicrucianism, we have an intimate movement toward Christ that above all seeks carefully for the ways of truth. (2)

Among many spiritual practices that Steiner recommended, he especially emphasized Holy Communion, receipt of the consecrated bread usually referred to as the Eucharist. In his lectures on the Gospel of St John, he explained and recommended practices known as Christian Initiation.† Steiner reminded his audience of theosophists in 1911 that ‘the writer of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St John, at his advanced age, could speak the words “Children, love one another!” out of the essence of Christianity, but the same words from the mouth of another person may be a mere phrase.’ (82) The difference, of course, is the result of the myriad practices prescribed by Christianity and other religious traditions—including especially Roman Catholicism, the Christian denomination with which Steiner had personal contact and which he admired and criticized.‡ Steiner also admitted that exoteric Christian practices can prepare the soul for growth in esoteric (especially anthroposophical) transformation. Steiner states:

One of these exoteric ways is through the Gospels, through the New Testament. The contents of the Gospels, when they are received into our souls and permitted to work upon us, can in fact bring about for each one of us an inner experience, and this inner experience may indeed be called the Christ-Experience. (50)

Steiner’s lectures which include comments on Roman Catholic teachings and practice have contributed to the perception—intensely advanced by Sergei O. Prokofieff—that Steiner and anthroposophy necessarily conflict with Catholic practice. In my view, it would be more helpful if Steiner’s (and Prokofieff’s) comments on Catholic teaching and practice would have the form ‘both-and’, or ‘Catholic on the way to anthroposophical’, rather than the either/or statements in these and some other lectures. A more balanced assessment of Steiner’s relationship to Christianity would include his spiritual guidance of the founding of the Christian Community.* In summary, in addition to many exoteric practices, it was Rudolf Steiner’s primary mission to teach esoteric practices designed to reveal the Mystery of Golgotha to human lives awake to its transformative effect. Anthroposophic practice involves the transformation of thinking, feeling and will, which presupposes a foundation in reverence and humility. The key is effort, constant striving. Steiner closes these lectures with the words of Goethe, ‘the great forerunner’. As Frederick Amrine notes, the words that Steiner quotes—‘He who never gives up striving, he it is whom we can redeem’—‘are spoken by the angels after Faust’s death and resurrection’.

Robert McDermott

October 2024

* For Rudolf Steiner’s account of the evolution of consciousness, see especially An Outline of Esoteric Science, trans., Catherine E. Creeger, introduction, Clopper Almon (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 1977), Ch. 4: ‘Cosmic Evolution and the Human Being’, 117-280, and Stewart C. Easton, Man and World in the Light of Anthroposophy (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 2024—originally published 1975, 20-121).

* See Rudolf Steiner, The Mystery of the Trinity, revised second edition, trans., James H. Hindes (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 2016), especially p. 71, and James H. Hindes, Renewing Christianity (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 1995), especially Chapter 3: ‘God and Christ Jesus’.

† See Rudolf Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact, trans., intro., Andrew Welburn, afterword, Michael Debus (Hudson, NY: Steinerbooks, 1997).

‡ Page numbers for quotations from these lectures are given in parentheses following each quotation.

* Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, The Education of the Human Race. Trans., F.W. Robertson. Fordham University Modern History Sourcebook.

* Such a dialogue would do well to begin with Hermann Beckh, Buddha’s Life and Teaching. Trans. Katrin Binder. Edited, foreword by Neil Franklin (Forest Row, U.K.: Temple Lodge, 2019—originally published 1916). Beckh, a scholar of Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Pali, was an anthroposophist and a correspondent with Rudolf Steiner during the years 1911-15 when Steiner was lecturing on the Gospels, including the relationship between Buddha and Christ.

* I am grateful to Rev. James Hindes for advice concerning this section.

* Sergei O. Prokofieff, The Mystery of the Resurrection in the Light of Anthroposophy, trans. Simon Blaxland-de Lange (Forest Row, U.K.: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2010). In addition to the inherent difficulty of explaining Steiner’s concept of the phantom, this Appendix is complicated by Prokofieff’s determination to separate the stigmata of Judith von Halle ‘from the real tasks that Rudolf Steiner has placed before us’. Judith von Halle (b. 1972), trained as an architect, is an anthroposophist, and a stigmatist.

† Except for Sergei O. Prokofieff, important anthroposophical authors such as Stewart Easton, Rudolf Frieling, and Edward Smith, and others who offer explanations of the Resurrection, do not discuss the phantom.

* Rudolf Frieling, New Testament Studies, ed., Tony Jacobs-Brown (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1994): ‘The Seven Easter Stories in the Gospels’.

* Although the account of the Son of Man in Wilhelm Kelber, Christ and the Son of Man (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1997) is extremely complex, it is nevertheless the clearest description from an anthroposophical perspective that I have found. For a brief history that omits Steiner’s account entirely, see Frederick Houk Borsch, The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man. Studies in Biblical Theology (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970).

* Rudolf Steiner guided a group of Lutheran priests and seminarians in the establishment of the Christian Community. See Rudolf Steiner, First Steps in Christian Religious Renewal: Preparing the Ground for the Christian Community (CW 342), trans., Marsha Post., intro., Christopher Bamford (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 2010).

* Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises (1548). See various Ignatian websites for the wide range of exercises, almost entirely at variance from Steiner’s critique of ‘Jesuitism’.

† See Rudolf Steiner, Lecture 11: ‘Christian Initiation’, The Gospel of St. John (Hudson, NY: SteinerBooks, 2022), trans., Maud Monges, revisions and notes, Frederick Amrine, intro., Robert McDermott.

‡ As Steiner recounted in his autobiography, in his youth he served the priest at the Roman Catholic mass (an excellent way to learn reverence) and as an adult he had important conversations with Roman Catholic monks.

* See footnote to p. xx above. See also a vast library of theological writings by scholarly Christian Community priests, including Frederick Rittlemeyer, Emil Bock, Wilhelm Kelber, Rudolf Frieling, Evelyn Francis Cabel, Friedrich Hiebel, Hans-Werner Schroeder, Michael Debus, Tom Ravetz, and James Hindes. See also books by an Anglican priest: A. P. Shepherd, Rudolf Steiner: Scientist of the Invisible (Rochester, Vermont: Inner traditions, 1990—originally published 1954), and The Battle for the Spirit: The Church and Rudolf Steiner (Anastasi, 2012—originally published 1964).

Lecture 1

KARLSRUHE, 5 OCTOBER 1911

The object of these lectures is to place before you an idea of the Christ-Event in so far as it is connected with the historical appearance of the Christ in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. So many questions of spiritual life are bound up with this subject that the choice of it will enable us to make a wide survey of the realm of anthroposophy and its mission, and to discuss the significance of the anthroposophical movement for the spiritual life of the present time. We shall also have the opportunity of learning what the content of religion is. And since this content must spring from the common heritage of humanity, we shall seek to know it in its relation to the deeper sources of religious life, and to what the sources of esoteric science have to tell us concerning the foundation of all religious and philosophic endeavours. Much that we shall have to discuss will seem to lie very far from the theme itself, but it will all lead us back to our main purpose.

We shall best come to a more precise understanding of our subject—modern religious life on the one hand and the anthroposophical deepening of spiritual life on the other—if we glance at the origins both of religious life and of esoteric spiritual life in recent centuries. For as regards spiritual development in Europe during this period, we can discern two directions of thought that have been cultivated with the utmost intensity: on the one hand an exaggeration of the principle of Jesus, and on the other a most careful, conscientious preservation of the principle of Christ. When we place before our minds these two recent streams of the last centuries, we must see in the exaggeration of the principle of Jesus a great and dangerous error in the spiritual life of those times, and on the other side a movement of deep significance, a movement which seeks above all the true paths and is careful to avoid the paths of error. From the outset, therefore, in our judgement of two entirely different spiritual movements, we have to ascribe serious errors to one of them and the most earnest efforts to reach the truth to the other.

The movement that interests us in connection with our anthroposophical point of view, and which we may call an extraordinarily dangerous error in a certain sense, is the movement known in the external world as Jesuitism.1 In Jesuitism, we encounter a dangerous exaggeration of the principle of Jesus. In the other movement, which for centuries has existed in Europe as Rosicrucianism, we have an intimate movement towards Christ that above all seeks carefully for the ways of truth.

Ever since a Jesuitical current arose in Europe, much has been said and written in exoteric life about Jesuitism. Those who wish to study spiritual life from its deeper sources will thus be concerned to see how far Jesuitism signifies a dangerous exaggeration of the principle of Jesus. If we wish to arrive at a true characterization of Jesuitism, we must get to know how the three chief principles of earthly evolution, which are indicated in the most varied ways in the different worldviews, find practical expression in human life, including exoteric life. Today we will first of all turn entirely away from the deeper significance and characterization of these three fundamental streams, which run through all life and all evolution, and will review them from an external point of view.

First of all, we have the cognitional element in our life of soul. Now, whatever may be said against the abstractions of a one-sided intellectual search for truth, or against the alienation from life of many scientific, philosophical, and theosophical endeavours, people who are clear in their own minds as to what they will and what they can will, know that cognition belongs to the most deeply rooted activities of the soul. For whether we seek knowledge chiefly through thinking, or more through sensation or feeling, cognition always signifies a taking account of the world around us, and also of ourselves. Hence, we must say that whether we are satisfied for the moment with the simplest experiences of the soul, or whether we wish to devote ourselves to the most complicated analysis of the mysteries of existence, cognition is the primary and most significant question. For it is basically through cognition that we form a picture of the content of the world—a picture we live by and from which our entire life of soul is nourished. The very first sensory impression, in fact the whole life of the senses, must be included in the realm of cognition, along with the highest formulations of the intellect.

Under cognition we must include also the impulse to distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly, for although it is true in a certain sense that there is no disputing about taste, yet cognition is involved when someone has adopted a certain judgement in a question of taste and can distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly. Again, our moral impulses—those which prompt us to do good and abstain from evil—must be seen as moral ideas, as cognition, or as impulses to do the one and avoid the other. Even what we call our conscience, however vague the impulses from it may be, comes under the heading of cognition. In short, the world we are consciously aware of, whether it be reality or maya;2 the world we live in consciously, everything we are conscious of—all this can be embraced under the heading: cognitive spiritual life.

Everyone, however, must acknowledge that under the surface of this cognitive life something else can be discerned; that in our everyday existence our life of soul gives evidence of many things that are not part of our conscious life. When we wake up in the morning, our life of soul is always strengthened and refreshed and newly born from sleep. During the unconsciousness of sleep, we have gained something that is outside the realm of conscious cognition, but comes from a region where our soul is active below the level of consciousness.

In waking life, too, we must admit that we are impelled by impulses, instincts, and forces that throw up their waves into our conscious life, while they work and have their being below it. We become aware that they work below consciousness when they rise above the surface that separates the conscious from the subconscious. And indeed, our moral life also makes us aware of a subconscious life of soul of this kind, for we can see how in the moral realm this or that ideal comes to birth. It takes only a little self-knowledge to realize that these ideals do rise up into our life of soul, but that we are far from always knowing how our great moral ideals are connected with the deepest questions of existence, or how they belong to the will of God, in which they must ultimately be grounded. We might indeed compare our life of soul in its totality with a deep ocean. The depths of this oceanic life of soul throw up waves to the surface, and those that break out into the realm of air, which we can compare with normal consciousness, are brought within the range of conscious cognition. All conscious life is rooted in a subconscious life of soul.

Fundamentally, the whole evolution of humanity can be understood only if this kind of subconscious life of soul is acknowledged. For what does the progress of spiritual life signify save that many things that have long dwelt down below take form for the first time when they are brought to surface level? So, it is, for example, when an inventive idea arises in the form of an impulse towards discovery. Subconscious psychic life, as real as our conscious life, must therefore be recognized as a second element in our life of soul.

If we place this subconscious psychic life in a realm that is at first unknown—but not unknowable—we must contrast it with a third element. This element is immediately apparent to external, exoteric observation, for if we turn our attention to the outer world through our senses, or approach it through our intellect or any form of mental activity, we come to know all sorts of things. But a more exact consideration of the whole realm of cognition compels us to admit that behind everything we can know about the world at large something else lies hidden: something that is certainly not unknowable, but in every epoch has to be described as something not yet known. And this not-yet-known, which lies below the surface of the known in the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms, belongs as much to ourselves as it does to external nature. It belongs to us in so far as we absorb and elaborate in our physical organism the materials and forces of the outer world; and inasmuch as we have within us a portion of nature, we have also within us a portion of the unknown in nature. So, in the world wherein we live we must distinguish a triad: our conscious spiritual life; our subconscious life of soul below the threshold of consciousness; and what, as the unknown in nature and at the same time in the human being, lives in us as part of the great, unknown nature.

This triad emerges directly from a rational observation of the world. And if looking away from all dogmatic statements, from all philosophical or theosophical traditions, in so far as these are clothed in conceptual definitions or schemas, we may ask: How has the human mind always expressed the fact that this triad is present not only in the immediate environment, but in the whole world to which humans themselves belong? We must then reply: We give the name of spirit to all that can be known within the horizon of the conscious. We designate as the Son or the Logos3 what works in the subconscious and throws up only its waves from down below. And to what belongs equally to the unknown in nature, and to the part of our own being which is of one kind with nature, the name of the principle of the Father has always been given, because it was felt to express the relation of the third principle to the other two.

Besides what has now been said concerning the spirit, the Son, and the principle of the Father, it can be taken for granted that other differentiations we have formerly made, and also the differentiations made in this or that philosophy, have their justifications. But we can say that the most widely accepted idea of this differentiation corresponds with the account of it given here.

Now let us ask: How can we characterize the transition from that which belongs to the spirit, and so plays directly into the conscious life of the soul, to the subconscious element that belongs to the principle of the Son? We shall best grasp this transition if we realize that into ordinary human consciousness there plays clearly and distinctly the element we designate as will, in contrast to the elements of ideation and feeling. If we rightly interpret the Bible saying, ‘The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ [Matthew 26:41], it indicates that everything grasped by consciousness lies in the realm of the spirit, whereas by ‘the flesh’ is meant everything that lies more in the subconscious. As to the nature of the will, we need only think of what plays up as waves from the depths of the ocean of the life of the soul and enters into our consciousness only when we form concepts of it. Only when we transform into concepts and ideas the dark impelling forces that are rooted in the elemental part of the soul—only then do they enter the realm of the spirit; otherwise they remain in the realm of the principle of the Son. And since the will plays through our feelings into the life of ideas, we see quite clearly the breaking out into the conscious of the waves from the subconscious ocean. In our threefold life of soul, we have two elements, ideation and feeling, which belong to conscious life, but feeling descends directly into the realm of the will, and the nearer we come to the impulses of will, the further we descend into the subconscious, the dark realms into which we sink completely when consciousness is engulfed in deep, dreamless sleep.

The genius of language is often much further along than the conscious human spirit, and thus it signifies things in the right manner that would probably be quite falsely designated if human beings could entirely master language with consciousness. Thus for example certain feelings are expressed in language so that already in the word the relationship of feeling to will is brought to expression, so that we cannot at all mean an impulse of will, but rather only a content of feeling, and yet we use the word ‘will’ in language. This is because the genius of language, in certain feelings that lie more deeply, and about which one no longer gives precise account, uses the word ‘will’. That is for example the case when we speak of things being ‘contrary to our will’ [Widerwillen]. Then one does not at all need to have the impetus to do this or that; it is not at all necessary for the transition to the will to be made. Then relationships of feeling are expressed that lie deeper, about which we no longer give account, in the realm of the will in the unconscious life of soul. Because it is this way, that the element of will descends into the realm of the unconscious life of the soul, we must take note that this realm of will stands in an entirely different relationship to the humans and their individual, personal being from the realm of cognition, the realm of the Spirit. And then when we use our words to distinguish Spirit and the Son then we can say that we can awaken in ourselves the sense that human beings must stand in a different relationship to the Spirit from the Son. How can this be understood?

Even in exoteric life, it is quite easy to understand. Certainly, the realm of cognition has given rise to all kinds of debate, but if people would only come to understand one another concerning the concepts and ideas they formulate for themselves, controversy over questions of cognition would gradually cease. I have often emphasized that we no longer dispute over mathematics, because we have raised mathematics entirely into consciousness. The things we dispute about are those not yet raised into consciousness: we still allow our subconscious impulses, instincts, and passions to play into them. So, we see that in the realm of cognition we have to do with something more universally human than anything to be found in the subconscious realm. When we meet other people and enter into the most varied relationships with them, it is in the realm of conscious spiritual life that understanding should be possible. And a mark of a healthy life of soul is that it will always wish and hope to reach an understanding with the other person concerning things that belong to conscious spiritual life. It will be unhealthy for the soul if that hope is lost.

On the other hand, we must recognize the element of will, and everything in another person’s subconscious, as something which should on no account be intruded upon; it must be regarded as their innermost sanctuary. We need consider only how unpleasant to a healthy life of soul is the feeling that the will of another is being placed under compulsion. It is not only aesthetically, but morally unpleasant to see the conscious psyche of anyone eliminated by hypnotism or any other powerful means; or to see the will power of one person working directly on the will of another. The only healthy way to gain influence over another person’s will is through cognition. Cognition should be the means whereby one soul comes to an understanding with another. A person must first translate his wishes into a conceptual form; then they may influence another person’s cognition, and they should touch his will only by this indirect route. Nothing else can be satisfactory in the highest, most ideal sense to a healthy life of soul. Every kind of forcible working of will upon will must evoke an unpleasant impression.

In other words, human nature strives, in so far as it is healthy, to develop in the realm of the spirit the life it has in common with others, and to cherish and respect the realm of the subconscious, in so far as it comes to expression in the human organism, as an inviolable sanctuary that should rest in the personality, the individuality, of each individual, and should not be approached save through the door of conscious cognition. So at least a modern consciousness, attuned to our epoch, must feel if it is to know itself to be healthy.

In later lectures, we shall see whether this was so in all periods of human evolution. What has been said today will help us to think clearly about what is outside us and what is within us, at least for our own period. This leads to the conclusion that fundamentally the realm of the Son—embracing everything that we designate as the Son or Logos—must be awakened in each individual as a quite personal concern; and that the realm of common life, where individuals may be influenced by one another, is the realm of the Spirit.

We see this expressed in the grandest, most significant way in the New Testament accounts of the attitude of Jesus Christ towards His first disciples and followers. From all that is told concerning the Christ-Event, we can gather that the followers who had hastened to Jesus during his lifetime were bewildered when His life ended with the Crucifixion; with that form of death which, in the land where the Christ-Event took its course, was regarded as the only possible expiation for the greatest crimes. And although this death on the cross did not affect everyone as it did Saul, who later became Paul, and as Saul had concluded that someone who suffered such a death could not be the Messiah, or the Christ—for the Crucifixion had made a milder impression on the disciples, one might say—yet it is obvious that the writers of the Gospels wished to give the impression that Jesus Christ, through His subjection to the shameful death on the Cross, had forfeited some of the effect He had had on the hearts of those around Him.

But something else is connected with this account. The influence that Jesus Christ had acquired—an influence we must characterize more exactly during these lectures—was restored to Him after the Resurrection. Whatever may be our present thoughts about the Resurrection, we shall have to discuss it here in the light of esoteric science; and then, if we simply go by the Gospel narratives, one thing will be clear: for those to whom Christ appeared after the Resurrection, He had become someone who was present in a quite special way, different entirely from His previous presence.

In speaking on the Gospel of St John, I have already pointed out how impossible it would have been for anyone who knew Jesus not to recognize Him after three days, or to confuse Him with someone else, if He had not appeared in an altered form. The Evangelists wish particularly to evoke the impression that the Christ appeared in this altered form. But they also wish to indicate something else. For the Christ to exert influence on human souls, a certain receptivity in those souls was necessary. And this receptivity had to be acted on not merely by an influence from the realm of the Spirit, but by the actual sight of the Being of Christ.

If we ask what this signifies, we must realize that when a person stands before us, his effect upon us goes beyond anything of which we are conscious. Whenever a human being or other being works upon us, unconscious elements affect our life of soul; they are produced by the others indirectly through consciousness, but they can produce them only if they stand before us in their reality. What Christ brought about from person to person after the so-called Resurrection was something that worked up from the unconscious psychic faculties of the disciples into their life of soul: an acquaintance with the Son. Hence the differences in the portrayal of the risen Christ; hence, too, the variations in the accounts, showing how the Christ appeared to one or other person, according to the disposition of the person concerned. Here we see the Being of Christ acting on the subconscious part of the souls of the disciples; hence, the appearances are quite individual, and we should not complain because they are not uniform.

If, however, the significance of the Christ for the world was to be His bringing to all of us something common to all of us, then not only this individual working of the Son had to proceed from the Christ, but the element of Spirit, which can encompass something that belongs to all of us, had to be renewed by Him. This is indicated by the statement that after the Christ had worked upon the human Logos-nature, He sent forth the Spirit in the form of the renewed or ‘Holy Spirit’. Thus was created that element common to all of us that is characterized when we are told that the disciples, after they had received the Spirit, began to speak in the most diverse tongues. Here we are shown how the common element resides in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And something else is indicated: how different this outpouring of the Spirit from the simple imparting of the power of the Son is, for in the Acts of the Apostles we are told that certain persons to whom the Apostles came had already received the baptism according to John, and yet they had now to receive for the first time the Spirit, symbolically indicated by the laying on of hands. In the characterization of the Christ-Event, we are made very precisely aware of the difference between the working we have to designate as that of Christ, which acts upon the subconscious impulses of the soul and so must have a personal, inward character, and the spiritual element, which represents something common to all humanity.

It is this spiritual element that those who have named themselves ‘Rosicrucians’4