Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Foundation Course
Spiritual Discernment, Religious Feeling, Sacramental Action
GA 343

1 October 1921 a.m., Dornach

X. Composition of the Gospels

[ 1 ] My dear friends! At the end of this lecture I would like to explore the arrangement of the material which we want to consider in the time remaining available to us. Today I want to start by continuing what I had begun yesterday. This will make it easier to reach clarity quite quickly regarding the effects of the teaching when the necessary basics are there in the sense I have imagined them and added them to this. For these basics to be more solid, we need a little additional time.

[ 2 ] If we consider how to enter into the Gospels in the sense of working with the Gospel processes, then we first of all discover before our souls how in a most particular way the Gospels can be related to, and it is of course necessary, regarding this point, that everyone approaches them from a personal perspective. You then generally understand the content when such a perspective is asserted. For this reason, you may allow me to say something personal in today's lecture. I'm urged to do this because it is the best way for you to receive the following. [ 3 ] When I approach the Gospels, it often happens that I have quite a distinctive feeling that within the Gospels, as far as they can be understood, what has been thought and said about them—and you could even, I say this explicitly, however often you approach them—always encounter something new. You can never know enough about the Gospels. Learning about the Gospels is linked to something else; it is linked to the fact that the further you occupy yourself with them, the more your admiration grows for the depth of the content, for just that, I could call it the immeasurable, into which you can become immersed, which calls for the actual experience, that there is no end to this immersion into the depths, that this admiration increases greatly with every deepening of the Gospel involvement.

There are however difficulties along this path which come to the fore when some strides are made into the Gospel—I stress the words "into"—that make you stumble over the inherited content. For actual spiritual researchers this creates less of a disturbance, because such a person would place the primordial Gospel into, what one could nearly call, a wordless text, and that makes it easier not to stumble over the inherited content. Admiration as a basis for reading the Gospels, seems to me an indispensable element for individuals, as a foundation for their religious learning processes. I once more need to stress that it is not important to characterise religious life in general, but to supply a foundation for the teaching process, in any case for religious processes as such.

[ 4 ] This admiration you develop for the Gospels actually connects to everything, including details in the Gospels, and follows something else which will probably surprise you, but as I said, I'm speaking from a personal perspective; as a result of this admiration there is the feeling that you are never completely satisfied with just one of the Gospels, but you would only be satisfied with a combined harmony sounding through all the Gospels in a lively way. For instance a great deal of meaning can be found if you let the 13th chapter of Matthew's Gospel work on you and strive to enter into it as I've tried to indicate yesterday and want to continue with today; then again taking the parallel position, but now with Luke's Gospel, into your soul, where approximately the same situation is described, then you will have quite a changed impression of the experience. The impression becomes quite different; one arrives at quite another synopsis to one which one usually experiences, compared with an inner, lively synopsis.

[ 5 ] You see, when you have occupied yourself with such things for a long time, you have had all kinds of experiences in life, and these experiences could seem quite important in as far as having started as a youngster and entering into these teaching processes which you wanted, in the majority.

[ 6 ] I once encountered a man with a New Testament. For this New Testament he had acquired four differently coloured pencils and then he had with one pencil, I think it was the red one, underlined everything carefully which appeared as common content in all four Gospels. That meant, as he showed me, very little. He had taken St John's Gospel. There were four pencils; the other three he had applied to delete what only is contained in the Matthew Gospel, and then, what only was in Mark's Gospel and finally that which only appeared in the Gospel of Luke. In this way he had in his way created a strange analytical synopsis about which he was extraordinarily proud. I objected, saying such attempts were often made; we also know about it within German literature—it was an Englishman who held this achievement in front of me—where these attempts are made with corresponding places indicated next to one another in columns and blank intermediate spaces left where it can only be found in one of the Gospels. He was a priori convinced that his synopsis was the best.

[ 7 ] It is exactly the opposite way to what can be found with the choice of the spiritual route. Here the different Gospels' content doesn't fall apart in contradictions, but they are enclosed into the totality of the deed, together; the coming-into-admiration is an experience which has to be had, an experience which is resisted in the most imminent sense by our present spirit of the time. For the spiritual scientist, however, it turns out that what I cannot even ask you to accept is still there, it turns out that there is no other way, than that the content of truth must appear other than just by the harmony between the four Gospels. It would, even if one would create an external synopsis as in Tatian's sense, which are not contradictory within certain limits, it would not result in what is found in the four Gospels as a concrete harmony.

You need to allow all four to work on you and then wait to see what comes out of this, not by first prescribing what the unopposed abstract truth should be and then only look for all which you can eliminate which contradicts the abstract truth. The truth needs to be experienced, and the Gospels themselves are such written works in which truth can be experienced; however, you need to have patience in order to experience this truth in the Gospels. You can of course object and say, you will never actually be able to experience the truth within the Gospels. I have to agree with your point of view because I still never presume to believe that I have found the truth of the Gospels completely; by continuously making further progress I have the decisive feeling that remaining patient in waiting is the basis, because the certainty of truth does not diminish, but becomes increasingly bigger. You can calmly feel the truth as an ideal placed before you at an immeasurable distance yet with the awareness that you are on your way towards it. These are the things you need to place in the soul with Gospel reading, and shape in your heart, otherwise you would actually never be able to cope with the Gospels in a real way. Of course, you could ask: Should I do this?—It will be shown in the next few days, that yes, one should do this after all.

[ 8 ] Now I must say, it was quite an inner rejoicing for me when I came across something in the Gospels which someone else probably have found as well, but I came across it through spiritual research into the Gospels. I came across an image which really should be grasped with the eyes of the soul; an image of the three Wise Men or the Three Kings—kings were in those days initiates, inspired by wisdom—how the three Wise Men according to their knowledge discovered in the stars, clearly saw the starry script in the heaven leading them to the Star of Christ, and they came to worship Christ. They actually saw that Christ had to come, according to the prophecy in the stars. For those who know out of scientific foundations what is called star wisdom, can actually only honour this image in the right sense, because they would know that star wisdom is in the most imminent sense different from what we call astronomy today.

What we call astronomy today is mathematical and, at most, of a physical nature. If we talk about astronomy today, which is a science of calculations, and we talk of astrophysics, which is a mechanical science, also when we as religious individuals come from a different basis to our feeling towards the cosmos, we speak out of our time spirit and feel and think within it. However, prophetically predictive star wisdom of the Tree Wise Men is something quite different.

Star wisdom was at that time not taken like earth wisdom. Star wisdom was called something which could not be calculated purely by mathematics or physics, it was regarded as something that must be read like a scripture which had to be learned. The starting point was the twelve fixed signs of the zodiac, and then to look what changes the planets experienced in their positions—seven were accepted, as you know—in relation to the fixed signs of the zodiac. These curved movements were taken up by man; just as we read letters, so man saw signs in the curves, signs giving through the planetary positions in the zodiac, and with their own observations of the stars, to each was added a plane. These planes were differentiated according to how man experienced the world-all from the physical point of view: (draws on blackboard) north, south, east, west, with which you could intensively think about the depth of the dimensions, with nothing added, but everything that was found in the dimensional depth, projected on this plane. By looking at these fourfold differentiated planes as the table on which you read what is shown in the starry worlds as revealed, resulted in a feeling as if you read in the cosmos, and there were specific tasks, which one attains through this reading of the cosmos.

One such task was that you said: Shift yourself particularly into seeing, into your inner seeing and understand how you feel yourself within it, and by understanding yourself in this inner positioning, you now follow the moon's course, follow therefore what can be placed here (demonstrates on blackboard), and you will understand as earthy man, the secrets of Saturn.

I initially just want to indicate how such things came about. These were once lively human occupations and through this reading in the heavens a certain amount of knowledge was gathered. Today's astronomy and astrophysics by comparison appear as someone describing the letters, but in the astronomy under consideration here, I'm not even talking about the letters but about reading the text. That's the difference. With this I wanted to characterise how wisdom was created for humanity from which the wise men rose up out of the Orient in search of Christ: this wisdom directed them to the Christ.

Blackboard Drawing

[ 9 ] My dear friends, what has actually arisen in our souls with this? What is placed before our souls is that the highest wisdom which could, at that time, be reached in the world, was leading towards the Mystery of Golgotha, the highest wisdom. To a certain extent in this lies the thought of the proclamation: May you obtain the highest wisdom; the highest wisdom which can be gained from reading the stars, proclaiming the Mystery of Golgotha to you. [ 10 ] This image appears in the Matthew Gospel when you are in the position to fully engage in the Matthew Gospel, in its own time epoch. This experience forms itself in such a way that it really turns into admiration for the depictions of the Matthew Gospel.

[ 11 ] Now you leave this image for a moment. Going on to Luke's Gospel you find the verse of the shepherds in the fields. In contrast to the Three Wise Men from the Orient, who have the highest knowledge, you are taken to the simple-minded shepherds in the fields, who know nothing about knowledge, who can't for a moment sense the knowledge possessed by the three Wise Men from the Orient. The shepherds, through the natural relationship they have with their consciousness, only have an inner experience in which the announcement is given: The Divine is revealed in the Heights, so that peace may come to all mankind—only out of their uncomplicated, simple-minded experience this manifests as an image, not a mere dream image, but a picture of an imagination of a higher reality, a higher actuality. We are led to the hearts of these shepherds, who out of this human simplicity, in the absence of all knowledge, come to the decision to go and worship the Child.

Let's now place these two side by side. We don't look at them as something about who said this or who said that, but we place them side by side as the complimentary experience towards the complete truth. What do we get then? We have the direct, enlivened conviction: The Mystery of Golgotha has appeared in such a way that it is revealed to the highest of knowledge of that time and the most simple-minded hearts, if they are open to it in a selfless way. On the one hand, hardly anything can be seen with greater illumination and on the other hand experienced with greater depth in the soul, than the feelings in the Mystery of Golgotha.

[ 12 ] You have to have the boldest of modern intellectualist minds towards experiences, well founded in present knowledge and not only in an outer content of old wisdom, but in the soul constitution of the old wise ones, if you want to behave like modern science behaves towards these things. Just as deeply as the cosmic reading resides within the starry worlds, so deeply are the simple-minded shepherds in the fields certain of the strong validity of the announcement. Today, mankind no longer knows how the soul constitution has changed in the course of time, humanity doesn't know how, what can be read in the outer knowledge of the stars, can be experienced inwardly in the human soul as it was experienced in olden times, how astral truths were heart-felt experiences, and how we as human beings, in order to gain our freedom, were led out of these stages of consciousness, and after gaining our conscious freedom, we can again return to this earlier stage. My dear friends, we must be able to acquire this selfish feeling. To achieve our freedom, we must go back so far, let's say from 20 December to 6th or 7th January just as abstractly as people with our souls, as we do, for example, when we (abstractly) experience Easter time. Let me express this particularly clearly—as I've said, these things even take root in life's experiences—I once attended a small gathering where the discussion was about a reformed calendar, a reformed calendar to be developed from modern needs. A modern astronomer who was highly regarded in the astronomic scholarly community, was also present. He obviously was an expert witness and pleaded for the uniformity in the Easter festival being determined as always being on the first Sunday of April, that it would be at least purely outwardly, abstractly, fixed. He had no understanding at all that mankind had to look at the alternating relationship between the sun and moon in order to determine the Easter festival. To speak like this in such a gathering would of course have been complete foolishness. We are so far away from our inner religious experience of what current humanity can understand of the cosmos, which, just when it's at the highest point of its particular chapter of scholarship, they see it only as normal for mankind.

Among the reasons given at the time to determine the Easter festival, there was also introduced the disorder which had to be put into the annual accounting records, when the variable time of Easter had to be placed into these books, they no longer preserve anything other from the old religion than inserting the words "With God" on the first page. This was recorded in the accounting records. I ask you to please go and look for yourselves, how much of this expression is observed in the pages that follow.

[ 13 ] You need to understand such things thoroughly, as expressions of the spirit of the time. If you don't grasp the spirit of the time even into the details, how will you then sense the actual impulse for religious renewal? You have to be able to say to yourself with certain seriousness that this "with God" should prove true on the pages of the General Ledger and Cash Book or Journal. Just imagine what power is needed to encounter the forces active in today's social life, to really bring religion into life. This has to be sensed constantly in the background, or otherwise the drive to religious renewal is not serious enough, as it should be today. So, a feeling must develop for change in the soul constitution. You must understand that in olden times the soul constitution was such that when the earth was frozen and the stars appeared in its extraordinary aura in the second half of December, inner mankind was so contracted that they came to visions which allowed them to inwardly experience what in reality was outwardly read in the stars by the exploring astrologers.

From the same source did the poor shepherds on the fields and the astrologers (for that was they were, the Wise Men) come to worship the Christ infant. They came from different sides to the same place. The ones from the periphery of the world-all, the others from the centre of the heart of mankind, and they discovered the same. We must learn while doing one thing or another, to also really find the same, we must, particularly as religious teachers do this, so that our words gather content, content of such a kind as the content in the words the Tree Wise Men brought from the Orient.

In the same way as the shepherds went forth in the fields, we must go, because only then will words become as powerful as they need to be. We need content for our words, and we need power in words. We attain such content for our words when we deepen ourselves in something like the Matthew Gospel; and we attain the power when we deepen ourselves in something like the Luke Gospel. These two Gospels—we will still come back to the others—stand to a great extent as complimentary opposite each other. It is what anyone can give and taken into their being, just as if we break through what is given as religious teaching content coming from of the depth of the human soul.

[ 14 ] So you see, we can only really speak in this way through Anthroposophy. Just try for once if you can find the possibility somewhere, to speak in this way. Where you will find it, Anthroposophy is actually subliminally present; it doesn't always have to be called dogmatic, it is not meant that way.

[ 15 ] Now, as soon as we approach such feeling and experiences as we find in the 13th chapter of the Matthew Gospel, my dear friends, then first of all we will find—by just taking the words, as they are expressed—that their experienced content is not the same as what we so easily have in the awareness of our time—we discover first of all an elevated admiration for the entire composition of the 13th chapter of the Matthew Gospel. The entire composition can only leave one filled with admiration.

First of all, we have the parable of the sower. After this parable we have three parables, from the sowing of the herbs and the weeds which should grow until the harvest, we have the mustard seed parable and the parable of the sourdough. Between these parables we have certain instruction of the disciples who should listen differently compared to how other people listen. Then come the dismissal of the people and more parables which are addressed to the disciples only. During the course of the chapters we are led through parables spoken to the people, and to instructions given to the disciples regarding the parables which had been given to the people. Then follows the disciples being taken into, I'd like to call it, the secrecy of the parables which only the disciples share, followed by the question: Have you understood the parables?—and the answer: Yes, Lord.—

This is a wonderful composition and it becomes even more admirable when we go into details. First of all, we simply have the parable of the sower. After introductory words having been said, we are told what the sower sows; that birds also eat the sown seeds, some seeds fall on stony ground where they can only have weak roots and get too little inner strength, others fall on good earth. This is clearly put to us; and after this has been given, the next parable already starts with the words: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like ..." The parables that follow and that are also spoken to the people, begins with "The Kingdom of Heaven is like ..." The people are therefore thoroughly prepared, by first having the facts established and then they are softly led to what is said as facts, facts aimed at the nature of the kingdoms of heaven. That's all the people will be told, then they will be released.

The following parables are taught to the disciples: the parable of the treasure in the field, the parable of the precious pearl, the parable of the fish caught in the net from which many are thrown out, and the good ones gathered for nourishment. These parables are only spoken about to the disciples, and they are asked whether they have understood. They answer with the word "Yes," which in the context of the Gospel would mean the same if today we could acquire the right feeling for it, and say: Yes, Amen.—In this the wonderful composition lies, which does not have to be looked for because it comes across in a natural way.

[ 16 ] Sceptics may well say: this layout means nothing, as it is put down.—However, my dear friends, if you let yourself live into the Gospels, you will not be able to do anything other than experience these things; and it will have its reasons why we must experience them so, as to live into the wonderful composition, in order to really notice all the details, the Gospels have to reveal. Here you have a wonderful composition.

[ 17 ] Let's try and enter into this wonderful composition. Let's go to the three parables only told to the disciples about heaven. According to the total sense in which the 13th chapter of Matthew's Gospel is expressed, out of the spirit of Matthew's Gospel of Christ Jesus, this is not said to the people. Listen carefully what I emphasize: in the spirit of the Matthew Gospel this would not be told to the people. Try to remember exactly what is said in these parables which are only told to the disciples. Firstly, there's the parable about the treasure in the field, discovered by a man who then sells all he has in order to buy the field with the treasure in it, so he may own it. Actually, it comes down to this, that he sells everything in order to acquire this treasure; that he gives up everything so that he may have the treasure. This relationship of Jesus to his disciples may not be expressed to the people. Why? Because it contains a certain danger; that of becoming egotistic, the danger of reward-ethics. One could not, without damaging the people, without further ado speak about egoism. Egoism is addressed when one urges good deeds with reference to the reward of the Eternal. Reward ethic, which fundamentally is still present to a marked degree in the Old Testament, this reward ethic is rejected by Christ Jesus. That is why he speaks about this parable—for which the unprepared would look for as reward—only to those who had already progressed far enough that there would no longer be a danger for this parable to indicate its egotistic meaning. The disciples who through their communal life with Christ Jesus had gone beyond egoism, to them this could be said as it is in this parable, to them the heavenly realms could be compared with a treasure. In the disciples the urge for selfishness was not agitated. To the people in this sense of the Matthew Gospel it could not be said, just as little as what follows, which is structured accordingly with the parable of the merchant who sells everything in order to acquire the Heavenly realm. Because Christ Jesus knows he may speak to his disciples in this way, he can speak to them about the last, the most dangerous parable. It is the parable which must have a terrible effect on unprepared people, the parable of everything which is in offensive, evil or sinful, will finally be burnt in the furnace of fire, and only the good be gathered for Heaven. This can only be tolerated by minds which have learnt to be un-egoistic; otherwise it would anger their minds regarding such a parable.

What is it actually, that should be avoided with such an instruction, which Christ Jesus gives his disciples? Becoming angry should be avoided, that people should become angry with the way of the world and about being human. The entire 13th chapter of the Matthew Gospel is an instruction to make people patient regarding their destiny; for this reason, it can only be revealed at the very end, as to what will happen at the end of the world. So these final parables are the ones which could only be spoken to the disciples in secrecy because in they were—whatever the Christ Jesus may also say, as the most terrible thing, at this moment, in this immediate present—to be found in unselfishness. For this reason, they could say: Yes, Amen.

[ 18 ] After we have tried to have an experience of these particular parables addressed only to the disciples, we can go back to the others. A person can only be prepared for a selfish notion of something if he approaches something which exists outside of him in nature, without agitation of his judgement. If a person dwells on the contemplation of the four processes of the seeds—if a person doesn't think of anything other than: the seeds which fall on to the ground are eaten by the birds, the seeds that fall on stony ground, fall under the thorns, and some on good ground—by simply spending time with these observations, one can actually not be engaged with oneself: one is drawn into selfless observation. After one has, in this way, presented the outside world to the usually selfishly dominated mind, then only can something happen. What is it that can happen?

[ 19 ] Now you see, here we again come to an important detail of the 13th Matthew Gospel chapter. I can do nothing towards someone finding this examination of details as perhaps pedantic; for me it is not pedantic, it is certainly a reality. From out of the time consciousness of the epoch of the Mystery of Golgotha important differences are made between ears, errors in hearing, and eyes which are slumbering, sleeping and not awake. The explanation is given that the evolution of mankind should be discovered through the inaccurate hearing and that the eyes should be awakened.

[ 20 ] You see, this leads us to, as at that time—which we know about from other anthroposophic foundations—a clear differentiation made between the organisation of hearing and the organisation of seeing. People in the present day clearly know nothing about this. They don't know for example, that the total organisation which stream out from the rhythmic, goes up into the head organisation, and encircles an inner organisational harmony between hearing and speech. Hearing and speech belong together. Hearing and speech is to a certain extent combined in a single organ complex, which today's physiology doesn't list. When I show you my wooden sculpture group you will be able to use this practically demonstrated physiology—but which it doesn't want to be—to see how it appears these days, out of anthroposophic foundations, that they are a unit: breathing, speaking and hearing. These three are also present in seeing. Take this for example (writes on blackboard):

  • Breathing
  • Speaking
  • Hearing

[ 21 ] I could also have written: speaking, breathing hearing—the sequence is unimportant. Take these three as the members of a single deed. The three members are also present in seeing. Also in seeing it is there on the one hand, something driven through breathing into the brain, the breathing process participates in seeing. All this is so quietly indicated in the human organization that we are able to say: This here (note on blackboard: breathing) is completely atrophied in human consciousness; what we are still able to observe, when we speak, and thus look at our breathing, we don't notice in the visual act; it is completely atrophied. (Beside the word Breathing he writes on the blackboard):

—completely atrophied

[ 22 ] With the act of seeing there is also something half atrophied that links to hearing. (Beside the word Hearing he writes on the blackboard):

—half atrophied

[ 23 ] That is partially atrophied, it remains quite in the shadows of the subconscious. The only thing which is expressed in seeing, corresponds to speaking. (Beside the word Speaking he writes on the blackboard):

—developed

[ 24 ] In conjuring up the images around us through our eyes, we speak etherically. However, the other two members which otherwise clearly diverge, which diverge while listening and speaking, are hardly present with seeing, but atrophied; here mere formation of the image overwhelms us. [ 25 ] Because this connection is not perceived, today's tricky physiological foundation lies in epistemology. All epistemological theories, or at least many of them, start from the physiological foundation of observation, which are equally described for all the senses; they actually have no meaning other than an act of seeing. What you can find in the physiological foundation only really fits the act of seeing and is therefore unclear, because people can't see that some things are atrophied. One could say that these physiological views, which dominate there in relation the sensory physiology, are the most dreadful, able to depress the human mind: one is forever being bothered with things said about the senses in general while each sense must be treated concretely, individually. In many cases it is so that a sensory unit theory is taken as a basis.

[ 26 ] Such a science as we have developed in Anthroposophy was of course not available at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha. How we can discover the truths about things today essentially depends on our admiration for the Gospel content. Today there's been talk that one must apply great efforts to reach into spiritual research, and that we must regard seeing differently to listening. With listening one must say: People can actually only hear in error because listening is fully developed as a single act. We also have ears that are open during sleep; we have no wilful influence on our auditory images. Our 'I' doesn't quite flow into them and form what is heard, but only in such a way that it can penetrate them with erroneous judgements. Hearing can become incorrect. Seeing has caused hearing to become half atrophied. Seeing has only developed what corresponds to it in speech. Added to this one must be awake, the eyes must be awakened just as people need to learn to speak.

[ 27 ] Without it being explicit knowledge in the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, it would have been simply correctly spoken and understood out of the inner soul constitution of the people. I'm not saying something like the Christ having learnt Anthroposophy—that sounds very amusing—or to those he had spoken, had learnt about Anthroposophy. He spoke in such a way because he was aware how the other, by listening, would have understood. Yet also there he had to speak in such a way, as one spoke at that time, regarding seeing, and regarding hearing, from out of the most inner soul constitution. Because of me you use the expression "out of the subconscious" which is a term often misused today in an inconvenient way for these things. In order to have this understood in the right way, you can also understand the third which is also contained in the Matthew Gospel: to understand it with a person's whole being; his concentration, understanding through the heart. Understanding with your whole being is quite a different kind of understanding; one must speak to the heart of the person if you want to explain the parables. You can't speak in a different way to the heart if it is not functioning in such a way that the eyes are made to see in the right way, the ears to hear in a right way. This is how you have to distinguish: you must awaken the ability to see and make the ears hear in the right way. The ears don't need to be awakened, they only need to hear correctly.

[ 28 ] In the total style of the 13th Matthew Gospel one's first attention is directed to the full human being; to the focus of the whole human being in his heart, perceiving through his senses, if he is to approach the interpretation of the parables. In the following way Christ Jesus makes it understandable to his disciples: after he has gone through from quite an objective observation given in the parable of the sower, he can no present further active parables and allow these to lead towards the functions of the heavenly realms. First, we have the parable of the plants and the weeds which point out that the good seeds could not flourish, without evil next to it. Then again one could say this is being expressed in a wonderful, quite scientific knowledge, because we know in a certain sense that plants can be damaged if the weeds are taken out in the wrong way. Likewise, we would harm mankind if we were to eradicate sin, for example, by not leading sinful men spiritually to the righteous, but by eradicating them before "the harvest," that is, before the end of the earth. This is approachable to people; what works in plants or in weeds, can be placed before their souls. It can be taken further, placed there objectively, how the world is spread out in the wide-open spaces, and how to carry what comes from the world, to the heavenly kingdom. The kingdom of heaven is the mustard seed, which is small compared with other seeds, then again it becomes a bigger tree compared with other plants.

This too, has to be pointed out to people, how it needs to be seen that the sprout is less visible to the eye than the grown-up plant, the heavenly less obvious than the worldly. Then awareness is drawn to how the kingdom of heaven works like sourdough, but all permeating, also working—at that time this imagination was far more obvious—as something spiritual. At that time this imagination could be uttered without introduction: Look at the sourdough as it is taken by the woman who leavens the bread with it; look at the bread which it spiritualises, behold the kingdom of heaven as it spiritualizes the world. You could not say to the people: Sell everything! The people had to behold what is indicated here, otherwise if you said: Sell everything!—in their selfishness they would really sell the whole world in order to buys something which is in the heavenly realm.

[ 29 ] So we see in the 13th chapter of the Matthew Gospel the construction and composition of the truth because the truth is not simply stated as an abstraction, but the activity of truth consciously works from one person to another, that one needs to feel all the time, how one should speak. This is not the teaching of a hierarchy, this is simply the result of what becomes necessary through reality. It is in fact necessary, my dear friends, to speak to you in a different way because you want to become pastoral workers, than I would have spoken to non-pastoral workers, who are only believers. This content of the truth we find in the 13th chapter of the Matthew Gospel comes to us as a direct life experience which we can have in our time, which calls such a strong feeling within us, that it actually has something of a religious character.

[ 30 ] You see, for those who have the sense that a way must be found to the truth, the truth must turn into such an inner component that it exists among people and that people can experience the truth—they would feel that university education, as it lives in writing books, is actually something hostile. Today something exists in our writing of books; when we write a book, we don't really feel like a human being among other human beings, for it is conceived as an abstraction; while writing the book it is without regarding who would be acquiring the book. This even produces the desire particularly when spiritual supersensible things are spoken about, for things that can stand alone in a book, and that, because it is ignorant, can only give something very deficient to unknown crowds of people, also again jointly experience the truth with the people in the manner and way these people are prepared for truth, while much is given in the preparation of the truth and less to the ignorant formulation of the truth content. This gives one a clear and strong experience of what I yesterday called the vital content of the Gospels. The vital content of the Gospels must also not be understood abstractly, as many do today. People do not believe, when they as religious teachers allow their words to a certain extent to flow together, that words are permeated with feelings; they firmly insist that in what one calls sacramental, they believe they should find something flowing forth out of the abstraction.

[ 31 ] This is not the essential thing; the essential is the sense of feeling oneself a person among people, by experiencing truth with other people. This is after all Christian. For this reason, it is necessary to believe in Christian community building, not only Christian proclamation. It is very necessary to believe that everything must necessarily flow towards real community building: this means not merely thinking about what others are saying, but to communally feel and act together. In community building the foundation must be for the community feeling communally, and act communally. It must be a real soul-spiritual organism built by the community. We will talk about this further.

The following list was given for the material to be discussed:

  1. Preliminary conditions
  2. Foundation of teaching activity
  3. The way to experiencing the truth
  4. The essence of the breviary, the sermon
  5. Building the ritual
  6. The treatment of the Community.

Zehnter Vortrag

[ 1 ] Meine lieben Freunde! Ich werde am Ende der Stunde mir erlauben, auf die Verteilung des Stoffes einzugehen, wie wir ihn behandeln wollen in der Zeit, die uns zur Verfügung steht. Heute möchte ich zunächst einiges weitere von dem anführen, was ich gestern begonnen habe. Es wird dann leicht sein, über das Lehrwirken in einer verhältnismäßig raschen Weise zur Klarheit zu kommen, wenn die nötigen Grundlagen in dem Sinne, wie ich sie mir vorstellen muß, dazu gelegt sind. Wir brauchen, wenn dieses Grundlegende gediegen sein soll, etwas mehr Zeit.

[ 2 ] Wenn es sich darum handelt, in den Sinn des Evangeliums hineinzukommen und im Sinne des Evangeliums zu wirken, so stellt sich uns zunächst vor allen Dingen eines vor die Seele hin, das ist die ganz eigentümliche Art, wie man zu den Evangelien stehen kann, und da ist es natürlich notwendig, daß gerade in bezug auf diesen Punkt jeder gewissermaßen von einer persönlichen Perspektive ausgeht. Man versteht dann schon das Allgemeine, was darinnen liegt, wenn eine solche persönliche Perspektive geltend gemacht wurde. Und deshalb gestatten Sie mir auch, daß ich gerade den heutigen Vortrag etwas persönlich gestalte. Ich bin dazu gedrängt, weil Sie dadurch das folgende am besten entgegennehmen können.

[ 3 ] Wenn ich selbst an die Evangelien herankomme, es mag noch so oft sein, so habe ich immer eine ganz bestimmte Empfindung, nämlich diese, daß in den Evangelien, wieweit man sie auch verstanden haben mag, was man auch aus ihnen heraus und über sie gedacht und gesagt hat - und man mag eben, ich betone das ausdrücklich, noch so oft an sie herantreten —, immer einem etwas Neues entgegentritt. Über die Evangelien lernt man nie aus. Aber dieses Lernen an den Evangelien ist mit etwas anderem verbunden; es ist damit verbunden, daß man, je weiter man sich mit ihnen beschäftigt, um so mehr Bewunderung empfindet für die Tiefe des Gehaltes, gerade für, ich möchte sagen, das Unermeßliche, in das man untertaucht und das eigentlich die Empfindung hervorruft, daß es kein Ende gibt in dieser Möglichkeit des Untertauchens, daß diese Bewunderung mit jedem Mal der Vertiefung in die Evangelien größer wird. Man hat allerdings mit Bezug auf diesen Weg einige Schwierigkeiten, die darin bestehen, daß man, wenn man einige Schritte hinein in die Evangelien gemacht hat - ich sage ausdrücklich «hinein» —, daß man über die Überlieferung stolpert. Für den eigentlichen Geisteswissenschaftler bildet das weniger ein Hindernis, denn ihm stellt sich etwas vor Augen wie die Urevangelien mit ihrem, man möchte fast sagen, wortlosen Text, und das erleichtert dann das NichtStolpern über die Überlieferung. Die Bewunderung, die scheint mir aber ein unerläßliches Element zu sein, wenn das Evangelienlesen für den einzelnen Menschen die Grundlage abgeben soll für ein religiöses Lehrwirken. Denn immer wiederum muß ich betonen, hier kommt es gerade darauf an, nicht nur das religiöse Leben im allgemeinen zu charakterisieren, sondern die Grundlagen zu liefern für das religiöse Lehrwirken, überhaupt für das religiöse Wirken im ganzen.

[ 4 ] Diese Bewunderung, die man bekommt für die Evangelien, schließt sich wirklich an alles, auch an das einzelne in den Evangelien an, und ihr folgt etwas anderes, das Sie wahrscheinlich außerordentlich überraschen wird, aber ich habe gesagt, ich rede von persönlicher Perspektive aus, es folgt dieser Bewunderung das, daß man eigentlich niemals völlig befriedigt ist an einem der Evangelien, sondern daß man erst befriedigt wird an dem Zusammenklang der Evangelien, der sich lebendig ergibt. So wird es zum Beispiel von einer großen Bedeutung sein, wenn man das 13. Kapitel des Matthäus-Evangeliums auf sich wirken läßt und so hineinzukommen sucht, wie wir es gestern versuchten und heute noch weiter tun wollen, dann aber die ganze parallele Stelle des Lukas-Evangeliums vor seine Seele treten läßt, diejenige Stelle, wo ungefähr dieselbe Situation gegeben ist, man hat dann einen ganz anderen Eindruck der Empfindung. Der Eindruck wird ein ganz anderer; aber man bekommt dann eine andere Synopsis heraus als die gewöhnliche ist, eine innerlich lebendige Synopsis.

[ 5 ] Sehen Sie, wenn man sich mit solchen Dingen viel beschäftigt hat, hat man ja im Leben allerlei Erfahrungen gemacht, und für Sie könnten diese Erfahrungen gerade aus dem Grunde wichtig sein, insofern Sie als jüngere Leute darangehen, in die Lehrwirksamkeit hineinzukommen, und das wollen Sie ja eigentlich in Ihrer Majorität.

[ 6 ] Es trat mir einmal ein Mann entgegen mit einem Neuen Testament. Er hatte sich zu diesem Neuen Testament vier Bleistifte von verschiedenen Farben angeschafft und hat nun mit dem einen Bleisuft, ich glaube, mit dem roten, alles das angestrichen, sorgfältig unterstrichen, was in allen vier Evangelien gemeinschaftlicher Inhalt ist. Das macht, wie er mir zeigte, sehr wenig aus. Er nahm das Johannes-Evangelium. Vier Bleistifte waren es; dann hatte er die drei anderen Bleistifte verwendet, um nun das anzustreichen, was nur im Matthäus-Evangelium, dann das, was nur im Markus-Evangelium und dann das, was nur im Lukas-Evangelium ist. Dadurch hatte er in seiner Art eine merkwürdige analytische Synopsis bekommen, auf die er außerordentlich stolz war. Ich wendete ihm ein, solche Versuche würden ja vielfach gemacht; wir kennen auch innerhalb der deutschen Literatur - es war ein Engländer, der mir diese Errungenschaft vorhielt - durchaus solche Versuche, wo man kolonnenweise die entsprechenden Stellen nebeneinandergestellt und weiße Zwischenräume gemacht hat da, wo nur in einem Evangelium eine Stelle ist. Aber er war a priori davon überzeugt, daß seine Synopsis die beste sei.

[ 7 ] Es ist dies genau der entgegengesetzte Weg, der sich ergibt, wenn man den Weg im Geiste geht. Da gliedern sich die verschiedenen Inhalte der Evangelien nicht auseinanderfallend und einander widersprechend, sondern sie schließen sich in der Tat zu einem Ganzen zusammen; und das Zur-Bewunderung-Kommen ist eine Erfahrung, die man machen muß, eine Erfahrung, die aber dem heutigen Zeitgeist im eminentesten Sinne widerstrebt, Für den Geisteswissenschaftler stellt sich dann allerdings noch das heraus, wovon ich gar nicht einmal verlangen kann, daß Sie es annehmen, es stellt sich hinzu heraus, daß es gar nicht anders möglich ist, dasjenige, was als Wahrheitsgehalt der Evangelien auftreten soll, anders als eben gerade durch den Zusammenklang der vier Evangelien zu bekommen. Es würde, auch wenn man im Sinne Tatians eine äußerliche Synopsis herstellen würde, die innerhalb gewisser Grenzen widerspruchslos wäre, sich doch nicht das ergeben, was sich gerade durch den konkreten Zusammenklang der vier Evangelien ergibt. Man muß sie schon alle vier auf sich wirken lassen und dann warten, was sich daraus ergibt, nicht zuerst vorschreiben, was die abstrakte widerspruchslose Wahrheit sein soll und dann erst suchen in den Evangelien, um alles das auszuschalten, was dieser abstrakten Wahrheit widerspricht. Die Wahrheit muß erlebt werden, und gerade die Evangelien sind eben ein Schriftwerk, an dem die Wahrheit erlebt werden kann; man muß aber Geduld haben, um diese Wahrheit an den Evangelien eben nach und nach zu erleben. Sie können da ja wiederum einwenden: Dann habe ich niemals eigentlich die Wahrheit, die in den Evangelien enthalten sein soll. - Ich muß Ihnen da in einer gewissen Beziehung recht geben, denn ich habe mich noch niemals vermessen zu glauben, daß ich die Wahrheit der Evangelien restlos habe; aber beim immer weiteren Fortschreiten habe ich das entschiedenste Gefühl, daß in geduldigem Warten verharrt werden kann, aus dem Grunde, weil die Wahrheitssicherheit nicht kleiner, sondern immer größer wird. Man kann also ruhig die Wahrheit als ein Ideal in unermeßlicher Entfernung vor sich hingestellt fühlen, man weiß, daß man auf dem Wege zu ihr ist. Das sind die Dinge, die sich beim Evangelienlesen auf die Seele legen und in das Herz prägen sollen, sonst wird man eigentlich doch mit den Evangelien nicht in einer ganz realen Weise fertig werden können. Es kann ja natürlich die Frage aufgeworfen werden: Soll man das? — Das wird sich in den nächsten Tagen zeigen, daß man es doch soll.

[ 8 ] Nun muß ich sagen, es war für mich in gewissem Sinne ein innerliches Frohlocken, als mir aus den Evangelien heraus etwas entgegentrat, das ja ganz gewiß anderen auch schon gekommen sein wird, aber mir kam es entgegen gerade auf dem geistesforscherischen Weg in die Evangelien hinein. Da trat mir ein Bild entgegen, das recht genau ins Seelenauge gefaßt werden sollte, das Bild, wie die drei Weisen oder die drei Könige — Könige waren ja in der damaligen Zeit Eingeweihte, inspirierte Weise —, wie die drei Weisen nach der Kunde, die sie aus den Sternen gewonnen haben, worin sie gesehen haben, daß der Stern des Christus deutlich seine Schrift am Himmel gezogen hat, kamen, um den Christus anzubeten. Sie haben also aus der Sternprophetie gesehen, daß der Christus eben angekommen sein muß. Wer da weiß, was aus gewissen alten wissenschaftlichen Untergründen heraus Sternenweisheit genannt worden ist, der kann eigentlich dieses Bild erst im rechten Sinne würdigen, denn der weiß, daß diese Sternenweisheit im eminentesten Sinne verschieden war von dem, was wir heute Astronomie nennen. Das, was wir heute Astronomie nennen, das ist mathematischer und höchstens physikalischer Natur. Wir reden heute nur von der Astronomie, die eine rechnende Wissenschaft ist, und wir reden von der Astrophysik, die eine mechanisierende Wissenschaft ist; auch wenn wir als religiöse Menschen eine andere Empfindungsgrundlage gegenüber dem Kosmos einnehmen, reden wir aus dem Zeitbewußtsein heraus ebenso und denken und fühlen auch so. Aber Sternenweisheit, aus der hervorgegangen ist das prophetische Vorauswissen der drei Weisen, ist eben etwas anderes. Sternenweisheit wurde damals nicht genommen wie Erdenweisheit. Sternenweisheit wurde als etwas genommen, das man nicht bloß mathematisch oder physikalisch verzeichnet, sondern als etwas, das wie eine zu erlernende Schrift gelesen werden muß. Man ging aus von den feststehenden zwölf Zeichen des Tierkreises und beobachtete, welche Veränderungen die Planeten in ihrer Stellung erfahren, deren man sieben annahm, wie Sie wissen, im Verhältnis zu diesen feststehenden Zeichen des Tierkreises. Diese Bewegungskurven nahm man hin; und wie wir die Buchstaben lesen, so nahm man die Kurven hin und die Zeichen, die sich ergaben aus den Stellungen [der Planeten zu dem Tierkreis], und zu diesen an den Sternen selbst gemachten Beobachtungen fügte man hinzu die Ebene, die differenzierte Ebene, welche sich ergibt, wenn man das Weltall empfindet vom irdischen Gesichtspunkt aus: (es wird gezeichnet) Norden, Süden, Osten, Westen, wobei man die Tiefendimension als intensiv dachte, nichts hinzunahm, sondern alles dasjenige, was sich in der Tiefendimension ergab, auf diese Ebene projizierte. Dadurch, daß man gewissermaßen diese vierfach differenzierte Ebene als die Tafel betrachtete, auf der man dasjenige las, was sich aus der Sternenwelt zeigte, offenbarte, dadurch hatte man das Gefühl, man liest im Kosmos, und es waren ganz bestimmte Aufträge, die man gewissermaßen für das Lesen im Kosmos bekommen konnte. So war ein Auftrag der, daß man etwa sagte: Versetze dich genau in das Schauen, in das innere Schauen, verstehe dich darinnen zu empfinden, und indem du dich in dieser Weise innerlich empfindend einzustellen verstehst, verfolge dann den Gang des Mondes, verfolge also dasjenige, was hier so (es wird an der Tafel demonstriert) hingestellt werden kann, und du verstehst als Erdenmensch die Geheimnisse des Saturns. — Ich will zunächst nur andeuten, wie solche Dinge gegeben wurden. Das sind Dinge, die durchaus einmal lebendige Menschenbeschäftigung waren, und aus solch lebendiger Menschenbeschäftigung, aus dem Lesen am Himmel, stellte man sich ein gewisses Wissen zusammen. Heutige Astronomie und Astrophysik nimmt sich demgegenüber so aus, als ob jemand hergehen und unsere Buchstaben beschreiben würde, während diejenige Astronomie, von der hier die Rede ist, gar nicht die Buchstaben beschreibt, wohl aber nun den Text liest. Das ist der Unterschied. Nun, damit habe ich Ihnen nur charakterisiert, wie die Weisheit der Menschen beschaffen war, von der die Weisen aus dem Morgenlande ausgegangen sind, als sie den Christus suchten; diese Weisheit hat sie zum Suchen des Christus gebracht.

Blackboard Drawing

[ 9 ] Meine lieben Freunde, was ist damit eigentlich vor unsere Seele gestellt? Damit ist vor unsere Seele gestellt, daß die höchste Weisheit, die damals in der Welt zu erringen war, zum Mysterium von Golgatha hinleitete, die höchste Weisheit. Gewissermaßen liegt darin der Gedanke des Ausspruches: Ihr möget euch allerhöchste Weisheit erringen; die allerhöchste Weisheit, die ihr euch erringen könnt und die ihr auch aus den Sternen ablesen könnt, verkündet euch das Mysterium von Golgatha.

[ 10 ] Dieses Bild tritt einem aus dem Matthäus-Evangelium, wenn man in der Lage ist, dieses Matthäus-Evangelium in seine Zeitepoche hineinzustellen, voll entgegen. Diese Empfindung formt sich einem so, daß sie wirklich Bewunderung wird gegenüber den Schilderungen des Matthäus-Evangeliums.

[ 11 ] Nun läßt man dieses Bild zunächst stehen. Dann geht man an das Lukas-Evangelium heran und findet in dem Lukas-Evangelium die Sätze von den Hirten auf dem Felde. Im Gegensatz zu den drei Weisen aus dem Morgenlande, die höchstes Wissen haben, werden einem die einfältigen Hirten auf dem Felde entgegengeführt, die gar nichts haben von diesem Wissen, die gar nicht einmal etwas ahnen von dem, was Wissensbesitz der drei Weisen aus dem Morgenlande ist. Die Hirten haben aus einem durch die natürlichen Verhältnisse hergestellten Bewußtseinszustand lediglich ein innerliches Erleben, das ihnen die Verkündigung gibt: Es offenbaret sich das Göttliche in den Höhen, so daß Freude werden kann allen Menschen -, lediglich aus ihrem einfachsten, einfältigsten Empfinden, das sich bis zum Bilde ausgestaltet, nicht bloß zum Traumbilde, sondern bis zum Bild als Imagination einer höheren Realität, einer höheren Wirklichkeit. Wir werden geführt zu den Herzen dieser Hirten, die aus dieser Menscheneinfalt heraus, abgesehen von allem Wissen, nun auch den Beschluß fassen, hinzugehen und [das Kind] anzubeten. Nun stellen wir einmal diese beiden Bilder nebeneinander. Wir betrachten sie nicht als irgend etwas, wovon das eine dieses, das andere jenes sagt, sondern wir stellen sie nebeneinander als sich gegenseitig belebend und zur vollen Wahrheit werdend. Was bekommen wir dann? Wir bekommen dann die unmittelbar erlebte Überzeugung: Das Mysterium von Golgatha ist so aufgetreten, daß es sich offenbaren mußte den höchsten Höhen der Erkenntnis der damaligen Zeit und dem einfältigsten Herzen, wenn dieses sich in selbstloser Art hingab. Es strömten zusammen vor dem erlösenden Kindlein die höchsten Weisen der Erde und die einfältigsten Menschen. Und es kann kaum in einer auf der einen Seite lichtvolleren und auf der anderen Seite empfindungstieferen Art vor unsere Seele sich hinstellen dasjenige, was man nun erfühlen kann als das Mysterium von Golgatha.

[ 12 ] Man muß schon die dreiste Stirn des modernen Intellektualisten haben, wenn man gegenüber den Empfindungen, die wohlbegründet sind in der Erkenntnis jetzt nicht bloß des äußeren Gehaltes alter Weisheit, sondern der Seelenverfassung der alten Weisen, wenn man sich so verhält, wie sich die moderne Wissenschaft zu diesen Dingen verhält. Denn geradeso, wie tiefbegründet ist im Kosmos das Lesen der alten Sternenweisheit, so ist tiefbegründet dasjenige, was sich den einfältigen Hirten auf dem Felde mit ebenso starker Gewißheit ankündigte. Man weiß eben heute nicht, wie sich die menschliche Seelenverfassung im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung verändert, man weiß nicht, wie dasjenige, was da in den Sternen äußerlich durch Erkenntnis abgelesen werden kann, innerlich in der menschlichen Seele sich in älteren Zeiten noch erleben ließ, wie astrale Wahrheit Herzenserlebnis war, und wie wir als Menschen, um unsere Freiheit zu erringen, aus diesem Stadium der Entwickelung herausgeführt worden sind, um nach Erringung des Bewußtseins der Freiheit zu diesem Stadium wiederum zurückkehren zu können. Dieses selbstische Gefühl, meine lieben Freunde, mußten wir uns aneignen können. Um unsere Freiheit zu erringen, mußten wir so weit auf den Menschen zurückverwiesen werden, daß wir heute, sagen wir, die Zeit vom 20.Dezember bis zum 6. oder 7. Januar ebenso abstrakt durchleben als Menschen mit unserer Seele, wie wir etwa die Osterzeit [abstrakt] erleben. Mir drückte sich das insbesondere einmal recht scharf aus — wie gesagt, die Dinge wurzeln eben auch in Erfahrungen des Lebens —, als ich einmal in einer kleinen Versammlung war, wo man beriet über eine Kalenderreform, eine Kalenderreform, die gegeben werden sollte aus den modernen Bedürfnissen heraus. Ein moderner Astronom, der ein großes Ansehen hatte in der astronomischen Gelehrtenschaft, war dabei. Er war selbstverständlich der Sachverständige, er plädierte dafür, daß das Osterfest zur Uniformierung des Jahres durchaus gesetzt wurde auf den ersten Sonntag des April, daß es also mindestens zunächst rein äußerlich, abstrakt fixiert werde. Dafür hatte er kein Verständnis, daß die Menschheit hinaufschauen sollte auf das Wechselverhältnis von Sonne und Mond, um das Osterfest zu fixieren. Und in jener Versammlung von so etwas zu sprechen, wäre natürlich eine völlige Narrheit gewesen. So weit sind wir ja mit unserem innerlichen religiösen Erleben des Kosmos weg von dem, was die heutige Menschheit, gerade wenn sie auf dem höchsten Punkt eines bestimmten Kapitels der Gelehrsamkeit steht, erfassen und nur als normal für den Menschen ansehen kann. Unter den Gründen, die dazumal angeführt wurden für eine solche Fixierung des Osterfestes, wurde auch angeführt die Unordnung, die in die Geschäftsbücher jedes Jahr gebracht wird, wenn man die Osterzeit als einen variablen Zeitpunkt jedes Jahr in einer anderen Weise in diese Bücher hineinstellen muß, die von dem alten Religiösen nichts anderes mehr bewahren, als daß auf der ersten Seite gewöhnlich steht «Mit Gott». Das steht ja in Geschäftsbüchern. Aber ich bitte Sie, sich selber anzuschauen, wieviel dann auf den folgenden Seiten im Sinne dieses Ausspruches verzeichnet steht.

[ 13 ] Sie müssen solche Dinge durchaus als wirklich ausdrucksvoll für den ganzen Geist unserer Zeit auffassen. Denn wenn man nicht bis in die Einzelheiten hinein den Geist unserer Zeit versteht, wie soll man denn den wirklichen Impuls für eine religiöse Erneuerung in sich verspüren? Man muß sich mit einem gewissen Ernste sagen können, auch auf den übrigen Seiten des Hauptbuches und des Kassabuches oder des Journals müßte sich dieses «Mit Gott» bewahrheiten können. Denken Sie, was für eine Kraft dazu gehört, um gegenüber den Kräften, die im heutigen sozialen Leben wirken, heute Religion wirklich ins Leben hineinzutragen. Das muß man ja immer im Hintergrunde fühlen, sonst bleibt der Drang nach religiöser Erneuerung doch nicht der ernsthafte, der er heute sein soll. Also ein Gefühl muß man haben für die Veränderung der menschlichen Seelenverfassung. Man muß sich klar darüber sein, daß in älteren Zeiten diese menschliche Seelenverfassung so war, daß, wenn die Erde oben gefroren war und die Sterne mit jener eigentümlichen Aura erschienen, die sie in der zweiten Dezemberhälfte haben, das menschliche Innere sich dann so zusammenzog, daß es zu Gesichten kam, die [die Menschen] dasjenige in Realität erleben ließen, was äußerlich [in der Sternenschrift] lesend der Astrologe erkundete. Denselben Quell der Eingebung hatten die armen Hirten auf dem Felde wie die Astrologen, denn solche waren sie ja doch, die [drei Weisen, die] da kamen, um das Christus-Kindlein anzubeten. Sie kamen von verschiedenen Seiten her. Die einen von der Peripherie des Weltenalls, die anderen von dem Mittelpunkt des menschlichen Herzens, und sie fanden dasselbe. Wir müssen lernen, indem wir das eine und das andere tun, auch wirklich dasselbe zu finden, wir müssen es insbesondere tun als religiöse Lehrer, damit unser Wort Inhalt bekommt, Inhalt in einer solchen Weise, wie das Wort Inhalt hatte bei den drei Weisen aus dem Morgenlande. Und wir müssen auf solche Art vorgehen können wie die Hirten auf dem Felde, weil dadurch das Wort allein die Kraft bekommt, die es braucht. Wir brauchen zum Worte Inhalt, und wir brauchen zum Worte Kraft. Und wir bekommen den Inhalt des Wortes, wenn wir uns in so etwas vertiefen wie das Matthäus-Evangelium, und wir bekommen die Kraft, wenn wir uns in so etwas vertiefen wie das Lukas-Evangelium. Diese zwei Evangelien — auf die anderen werden wir noch zurückkommen - stehen in einem hohen Maße einander ergänzend gegenüber. Es ist, wenn wir dasjenige, was ein jedes geben kann, in unser Inneres aufnehmen, wie wenn wir dadurch erst durchbrechen würden zu dem, was uns den religiösen Lehrgehalt aus den Tiefen der menschlichen Seele heraus gibt.

[ 14 ] Sehen Sie, so sprechen kann heute eigentlich wiederum nur Anthroposophie. Versuchen Sie es einmal, ob Sie die Möglichkeit, so zu sprechen, irgendwo finden. Wo Sie sie finden, ist eben doch unbewußt Anthroposophie vorhanden; sie braucht ja nicht immer dogmatisch genommen zu werden, sie ist auch so nicht gemeint.

[ 15 ] Nun, wenn wir von solchem Fühlen und Empfinden aus gerade an das 13. Kapitel des Matthäus-Evangeliums herantreten, meine lieben Freunde, dann kommt man vor allen Dingen — nehmen Sie die Worte, wenn sie ausgesprochen werden, jetzt durchaus so, daß sie nach ihrem Empfindungsgehalt nicht das sind, als was sie sich gegenüber dem heutigen Zeitbewußtsein leicht ausnehmen —, man kommt vor allen Dingen in eine hohe Bewunderung hinein gegenüber der ganzen Komposition des 13. Kapitels des Matthäus-Evangeliums. Die ganze Komposition ist etwas, was sich nur bewundern läßt. Wir haben zuerst vor uns das Gleichnis vom Sämann. Nach diesem Gleichnis vom Sämann haben wir drei andere Gleichnisse, das vom Aussäen des Krautes und des Unkrautes, die da wachsen sollen bis zur Ernte, wir haben das Senfkorn-Gleichnis und das Sauerteig-Gleichnis. Zwischen diesen Gleichnissen haben wir eine gewisse Unterweisung der Jünger, die anders zuhören sollen, als das Volk zuhört. Wir haben dann die Entlassung des Volkes, und dann die weiteren Gleichnisse, die nur den Jüngern gesagt werden. Wir werden im Verlaufe des Kapitels geführt zu Gleichnissen, die dem Volke gesagt werden, und zu Unterweisungen, die den Jüngern gegeben werden über diese Gleichnisse, die dem Volke gesagt wurden. Wir haben dann das Hereinnehmen der Jünger, ich möchte sagen, in die Heimlichkeit, Gleichnisse, die nur den Jüngern gesagt werden, und dann die Frage: Habt ihr diese Gleichnisse verstanden? — und die Antwort: Ja, Herr. — Dies ist eine wunderbare Komposition, und sie wird noch wunderbarer, wenn wir auf die Einzelheiten eingehen. Wir haben erst das Gleichnis vom Sämann einfach hingestellt. Nachdem die einleitenden Worte gesprochen sind, wird von dem Sämann erzählt, der da aussät; [es wird erzählt], daß auch die Vögel das Ausgesäte fressen, daß anderes auf steinigen Boden fällt, dort nur schwache Wurzeln fassen und zuwenig innere Kraft bekommen kann, anderes auf gutes Land fällt. Wir haben das einfach hingestellt; und nachdem dieses hingestellt ist, beginnen die folgenden Gleichnisse schon damit, daß gesagt wird: «Das Himmelreich gleichet ...». Die folgenden Gleichnisse werden mit diesem Anfang eingeleitet: «Das Himmelreich gleichet...», auch vor dem Volke. Das Volk wird also so sorgfältig vorbereitet, indem erst bloß Tatsachen hingestellt werden, dann wird es sanft dazu hingeleitet, daß dasjenige, was da als Tatsache gesagt wird, auf das Wirken der Himmelreiche hinzielt. Mehr wird dem Volke nicht gesagt; dann wird es entlassen. Die folgenden Gleichnisse werden den Jüngern beigebracht: das Gleichnis vom Schatz im Acker, das Gleichnis von der kostbaren Perle, und das Gleichnis von den Fischen, die im Netz gefangen werden; viele werden verworfen, und die brauchbaren werden gesammelt als Nahrung. Diese Gleichnisse werden nur den Jüngern selber gesagt, und sie werden gefragt, ob sie sie verstehen. Sie antworten mit einem «Ja», das aber in diesem Evangelium-Zusammenhang dasselbe bedeutet, wie wenn wir heute, wenn wir überhaupt noch dabei das Richtige fühlen, sagen: Ja, Amen. — Darin liegt eine wunderbare Komposition, die aber nicht gesucht ist, denn sie ergibt sich eben auf naturgemäße Art.

[ 16 ] Der Skeptiker kann ja sagen: Ihr legt nicht aus, ihr legt unter. — Aber, meine lieben Freunde, wenn man sich eben hineinlebt in die Evangelien, so kann man nicht anders, als diese Dinge so empfinden; und es wird schon seine Gründe haben, daß man so empfinden muß, daß man in diese wunderbare Komposition sich einleben muß, daß man wirklich nötig hat, auf alle Einzelheiten des Evangeliums zu schauen. Sie sind eine wunderbare Komposition.

[ 17 ] Versuchen wir jetzt einmal, etwas einzudringen in diese wunderbare Komposition. Gehen wir aus von den drei Gleichnissen, welche den Jüngern nur gesagt werden in der Heimlichkeit. Diese würde also nach dem ganzen Sinn des 13. Matthäus-Evangelium-Kapitels, aus dem Geiste des Matthäus-Evangeliums der Christus Jesus dem Volke nicht sagen. Bitte auch das zu hören, daß ich deutlich sage: aus dem Geiste des Matthäus-Evangeliums würde er sie dem Volke nicht sagen. Versuchen Sie aber, sich einmal zu erinnern, was gerade in diesen Gleichnissen gesagt wird, die nur den Jüngern gegeben werden. Im ersten, dem Gleichnis vom Schatz im Acker, entdeckt ein Mann den Schatz im Acker, er verkauft alles, um jenen Acker zu kaufen, in dem der Schatz ist, damit er ihn habe. Darauf kommt es im wesentlichen an, daß er alles verkauft, um diesen Schatz zu bekommen, daß er alles hingibt, um diesen Schatz zu haben. Das dürfte so, wie das Verhältnis des Jesus und das seiner Jünger zum Volke aufgefaßt wird, dem Volke nicht gesagt werden. Warum? Weil eine gewisse Gefahr vorliegt, die Gefahr des Egoistisch-Werdens, die Gefahr der Lohn-Ethik. Man darf nicht, ohne dadurch dem Volke zu schaden, ohne weiteres zum Egoismus sprechen. Man spricht aber zum Egoismus, wenn man denjenigen, den man anhalten will Gutes zu tun, auf den Lohn des Ewigen verweist. Lohn-Ethik, die im Grunde genommen doch in starkem Maße der Sinn des Alten Testamentes ist, Lohn-Ethik wird abgewiesen durch den Christus Jesus. Darum spricht er ein solches Gleichnis, das einem Unvorbereiteten einen Hinblick geben könnte auf die Belohnung, nur zu denjenigen, die schon so weit vorgeschritten sind, daß sie nicht mehr in die Gefahr kommen können, dieses Gleichnis im egoistischen Sinn auszudeuten. Die Jünger, die durch ihr Zusammenleben mit dem Christus Jesus über den Egoismus hinaus sind, ihnen erst darf man so etwas sagen, wie in diesem Gleichnis gesagt ist, ihnen erst darf man das Himmelreich mit einem Schatz vergleichen. In den Jüngern wird nicht der Drang nach dem Egoismus aufgeregt. Zum Volke dürfte man im Sinne des Matthäus-Evangeliums nicht in diesem Gleichnis sprechen, ebensowenig wie in dem folgenden, das ganz nach diesem Schema konstruiert ist, dem Gleichnis vom Kaufmann, der alles verkaufte, um das Himmelreich zu erringen. Und weil der Christus Jesus weiß, daß er so zu seinen Jüngern sprechen kann, darf er ihnen dann auch das letzte, das gefährlichste Gleichnis sagen. Es ist dasjenige Gleichnis, das auf den unvorbereiteten Menschen einfach furchtbar wirken muß, das Gleichnis, [in dem es heißt], daß alles dasjenige, was auf der Erde an Ärgernis, an Bosheit und an Sünde ist, zuletzt im Feuerofen verbrennt, und daß das Gute für den Himmel gesammelt wird. Das verträgt nur das Gemüt, das unegoistisch fühlen gelernt hat; sonst müßte das menschliche Gemüt ärgerlich werden über ein solches Gleichnis. Was ist es denn eigentlich, was vermieden werden soll durch eine solche Unterweisung, wie sie der Christus Jesus in einem solchen Gleichnisse gibt? Vermieden werden soll das Ärgerlichwerden, vermieden werden soll, daß der Mensch ärgerlich wird über den Gang der Welt und über das Menschensein. Das ganze 13. Kapitel des Matthäus-Evangeliums ist eine Anweisung dazu, den Menschen geduldig gegenüber dem Schicksal zu machen; darum kann erst zuallerletzt enthüllt werden, wie es am Ende der Welt zugeht. So sind diese letzten Gleichnisse diejenigen, die erst in der Heimlichkeit zu den Jüngern gesprochen werden können, bei denen gewiß ist, daß sie, was der Christus Jesus auch sagen wird, auch das Furchtbarste, in diesem Augenblick, in dieser unmittelbaren Gegenwart, drinnenstehen in der Selbstlosigkeit. Daher sagen sie: Ja, Amen.

[ 18 ] Nachdem wir versucht haben zu empfinden, was in diesen bloß für die Jünger bestimmten Gleichnissen gesagt ist, gehen wir zurück zu den anderen. Der Mensch kann nur vorbereitet werden für die egoismuslose Auffassung von irgend etwas, wenn er an demjenigen, was ja in gewisser Weise außer ihm steht, ohne Erregung des Urteils, an der Natur sich dazu vorbereitet. Indem man im Anschauen der vier Vorgänge mit den Samenkörnern verweilt - wenn man gar nichts anderes zunächst denkt als diese Vorgänge: die Samenkörner, die da auf den Weg fallen und von den Vögeln gefressen werden, die da auf steinigen Boden fallen, die unter die Dornen fallen, und die auf gutes Land fallen —, indem man einfach in diesem Anschauen verweilt, kann man eigentlich nicht bei sich sein; man wird erzogen, etwas selbstlos anzuschauen. Und nachdem man auf diese Weise das sonst gewissermaßen zur Selbstsucht hindrängende Gemüt auf diese Weise gestählt hat an der Außenwelt, darf erst etwas anderes eintreten. Was darf eintreten?

[ 19 ] Nun, sehen Sie, hier kommen wir wiederum an eine wichtige Einzelheit dieses 13. Matthäus-Evangelium-Kapitels. Ich kann schon nichts dafür, wenn jemand das Eingehen auf solche Einzelheiten vielleicht pedantisch finden mag; für mich ist es nicht pedantisch, für mich ist es durchaus eine Realität. Es wird der aus dem Zeitbewußtsein der Epoche des Mysteriums von Golgatha heraus bedeutsame Unterschied gemacht zwischen Ohren, die irrtümlich hören, und Augen, die schlummern, die schlafen, die nicht erweckt sind. Es wird die Erklärung gegeben, daß herausgefunden werden soll durch die Entwickelung des Menschen aus dem irrtümlichen Hören, und daß aufgeweckt werden sollen die Augen.

[ 20 ] Sehen Sie, das führt uns darauf, wie in der damaligen Zeit — was man durchaus auch aus anderen anthroposophischen Untergründen heraus wissen kann - ein deutlicher Unterschied gemacht worden ist zwischen der Organisation des Hörens und der Organisation des Sehens. Darüber wissen ja die heutigen Menschen gar nichts. Sie wissen zum Beispiel nicht, daß die Gesamtorganisation, die vom rhythmischen Menschen ausgeht und nach der Kopforganisation hinstrahlt, eine innere organische Harmonie zwischen Hören und Sprechen umfaßt. Hören und Sprechen gehören nämlich auch organisch zusammen. Hören und Sprechen ist gewissermaßen an einen einzigen Organkomplex gebunden, den nur die heutige Physiologie nicht aufführt. Wenn ich Ihnen meine Holzgruppe zeigen werde, werden Sie an dieser praktisch vorgeführten Physiologie — die aber keine sein will - sehen, wie da zutage tritt, aus anthroposophischen Untergründen heraus, daß durchaus eine Einheit ist: Atmen, Sprechen, Hören. Aber diese drei sind auch im Sehen darinnen. Nehmen Sie das, was hier vorliegt. (Es wird an die Tafel geschrieben:)

Atmen
Sprechen
Hören.

[ 21 ] Ich könnte auch schreiben: Sprechen, Atmen, Hören — auf die Reihenfolge kommt es hierbei weniger an. Nehmen Sie diese drei, sie sind die Glieder eines gemeinsamen Aktes. Diese drei Glieder sind auch im Sehen vorhanden. Auch im Sehen ist auf der einen Seite das vorhanden, was durch den Atem ins Gehirn getrieben wird, der Atemprozeß ist beteiligt am Sehen. Das alles ist aber so leise nur in der menschlichen Organisation angedeutet, daß wir sagen können: Dieses hier (siehe Tafel 6: Atmen) ist völlig verkümmert im menschlichen Bewußtsein; was wir noch wahrnehmen, indem wir sprechen, wobei wir den Atem berücksichtigen müssen, das nehmen wir nicht wahr beim Sehakt, es ist völlig verkümmert. (Es wird an die Tafel neben das Wort «Atmen» geschrieben:)

— völlig verkümmert

[ 22 ] Dann ist auch beim Sehakt halbverkümmert dasjenige, was dem Hören entspricht. (Es wird an die Tafel neben das Wort «Hören» geschrieben:)

— halbverkümmert

[ 23 ] Das ist halbverkümmert, das bleibt ganz unten im Schatten des Unterbewußten. Dasjenige, was beim Sehen allein ausgebildet herauskommt, das ist dasjenige, was dem Sprechen entspricht. (Es wird an die Tafel neben das Wort «Sprechen» geschrieben):

— ausgebildet

[ 24 ] Und indem wir die Bilder der Umwelt durch das Auge vor uns hinzaubern, sprechen wir ätherisch. Aber die anderen beiden Glieder, die sich sonst deutlich auseinanderlegen, die auseinanderklaffen beim Hören und Sprechen, die sind beim Sehen zwar vorhanden, aber verkümmert; da überwältigt uns das bloße Bilden des Bildes.

[ 25 ] Weil man in diesen Zusammenhang nicht hineinsieht, haben wir die heutige vertrackte physiologische Grundlegung der Erkenntnistheorie. Alle Erkenntnistheorien, oder wenigstens sehr viele, gehen aus von einer physiologischen Grundlegung des Wahrnehmungsaktes, den sie für alle Sinne gleich beschreiben; sie haben aber eigentlich gar nichts im Sinn als den Sehakt. Was Sie da in den physiologischen Grundlegungen finden, das paßt eigentlich nur auf den Sehakt und ist deshalb undeutlich, weil die Leute nicht sehen, daß da etwas Verkümmertes darin ist. Man kann schon sagen, diese physiologischen Anschauungen, die da in bezug auf die Sinnesphysiologie herrschen, sind das Schauderhafteste, was heute das Menschengemüt bedrücken kann; man wird da immer belästigt mit Dingen, die über die Sinne im allgemeinen gesagt werden, während jeder Sinn konkret für sich behandelt werden müßte. Es ist in vielfacher Beziehung so, daß eine Sinneseinheitslehre zugrundegelegt wird.

[ 26 ] Solch eine Wissenschaft, wie wir sie heute in der Anthroposophie ausbilden, hatte man natürlich in der Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha nicht. Daß wir heute auf die Wahrheiten der Sache kommen, das trägt wesentlich bei zur Bewunderung des Inhaltes der Evangelien. Man redete damals so, daß man heute nur mit aller Mühe des Geistesforschens daraufkommt, daß über das Sehen anders gesprochen werden muß als über das Hören. Beim Hören muß man sagen: Man kann eigentlich nur irrtümlich hören, denn es ist vollkommen ausgebildet als Einzelakt. Daher haben wir auch im Schlafe die Ohren offen, wir haben keinen willkürlichen Einfluß auf das Bilden der Gehörvorstellungen. Unser Ich fließt nicht so in sie hinein, daß es sie bildet, sondern nur so, daß es sie mit falschen Urteilen durchdringen kann. Unrichtig kann das Hören werden. Das Sehen hat ja gerade dasjenige, was im Hören funktioniert, halbverkümmert. Das Sehen hat ja nur das ausgebildet, was dem Sprechen entspricht. Dazu muß man wach sein, die Augen müssen aufgeweckt werden, geradeso wie der Mensch zum Sprechen erzogen werden muß.

[ 27 ] Ohne daß das explizite im Wissen zur Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha vorhanden war, wurde einfach aus der inneren Seelenverfassung des Menschen heraus richtig gesprochen und das auch verstanden. Ich sage nicht, daß etwa der Christus Anthroposophie gelehrt hätte — das klingt ja sogar sehr lächerlich -, oder auch diejenigen, zu denen er gesprochen hat, Anthroposophie gelernt hätten. Er hat so gesprochen, weil er eben wußte, daß die anderen im Anhören es verstanden haben. Aber auch da mußte er so sprechen, wie man in der damaligen Zeit sprach über das Sehen und über das Hören aus der innersten Seelenverfassung heraus. Meinetwegen gebrauchen Sie den heute vielfach unfüglich gebrauchten Ausdruck: «Aus dem Unterbewußtsein» heraus kam das richtige Sprechen über diese Dinge. Und indem das in der richtigen Weise verstanden wird, kann man auch das dritte verstehen, das wir auch im Matthäus-Evangelium drinnen haben: das Verstehen mit dem ganzen Menschen und seiner Konzentration, dem Herzens-Verstehen. Denn das Verstehen mit dem ganzen Menschen ist ein ganz anderes Verstehen; zum Herzen muß man sprechen, wenn man die Gleichnisse auslegen will. Aber zum Herzen kann man nicht anders sprechen, als wenn das Herz so funktioniert, daß es die Augen sehend und die Ohren richtig-hörend macht. So muß man unterscheiden: Man muß das Sehvermögen aufwecken und die Ohren richtig-hörend machen. Die Ohren braucht man nicht aufzuwecken, man muß nur richtig hinhören.

[ 28 ] Ganz in diesem Stil wird [im 13. Kapitel des Matthäus-Evangeliums] zunächst darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß der Mensch als ganzer Vollmensch beziehungsweise mit der Konzentration des ganzen Vollmenschen im Herzen durch seine Sinne wahrnehmen muß, wenn er an die Auslegung der Gleichnisse herankommen soll. Deshalb macht der Christus Jesus seinen Jüngern begreiflich: Nachdem sie hindurchgegangen sind durch das ganz objektive Auffassen desjenigen, was mit dem Sämann-Gleichnis gegeben ist, kann er nun weitere objektiv wirkende Gleichnisse hinstellen und diese hinzielen lassen auf die Funktionen des Reiches der Himmel. Da ist vor allen Dingen das Gleichnis vom Kraut und Unkraut, das darauf zielt, daß ja das Gute nicht gedeihen könnte, ohne daß das Böse neben ihm wäre. Wiederum möchte man sagen, es ist das mit einer wunderbaren, geradezu naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis gesagt. Denn heute kann man schon wissen, daß wir sogar in einem gewissen Sinne schaden können, wenn wir in unrichtiger Weise das Unkraut ausjäten. Ebenso würden wir der Menschheit schaden, wenn wir die Sünde etwa dadurch ausrotten würden, daß die sündigen Menschen nicht seelisch zum Gerechten geführt würden, sondern ausgerottet würden vor «der Ernte», das heißt vor dem Erdenende. Also bis dahin kann gegangen werden vor dem Volke, daß vor seine Seele das hingestellt wird, was da wirkt im Kraut und Unkraut. Auch noch soweit kann gegangen werden vor dem Volke, daß an einem Objektiven hingestellt wird, wie die Welt in den Weiten ausgebreitet ist, und wie hingekommen werden muß zu dem, was die Welt trägt, zu dem himmlischen [Reich. Das Reich der Himmel] ist wie ein Senfkorn, das klein ist gegenüber den anderen Samenkörnern, dann aber ein großer Baum wird gegenüber den anderen Kräutern. Also darauf muß hingewiesen werden vor dem Volke, wie gesehen werden muß, daß so, wie der Keim zunächst weniger in die Augen fällt [als die ausgewachsene Pflanze, auch] das Himmlische weniger ins Auge fällt als das Weltliche. Dann wird auch noch darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie [das Reich der Himmel] so wirkt wie der Sauerteig, der klein ist, aber alles durchdringt, also wirkt — und das ist nach den Vorstellungen der damaligen Zeit noch viel deutlicher — als ein Geistiges. Man konnte im Sinne der damaligen Vorstellungen ohne Vorbereitung sagen: Seht den Sauerteig, den das Weib nimmt und damit das Brot durchsäuert, er durchgeistigt das Brot; seht das Himmelreich, es durchgeistigt die Welt. Aber man würde nicht dem Volke sagen dürfen: Verkauft alles! Man muß das Volk bei dem halten, auf das es hingewiesen wird, sonst würde es, gerade wenn man ihm sagte: verkauft alles! —, in seinem Egoismus darauf aus sein, wirklich die ganze Welt zu verkaufen, um damit dasjenige zu erkaufen, was das Himmelreich ist.

[ 29 ] Also wir sehen in dem 13. Kapitel des Matthäus-Evangeliums die Konstruktion und Komposition der Wahrheit, indem dort nicht die Wahrheit einfach hingestellt ist als eine abstrakte, sondern so, daß man in der Wirkung der Wahrheit bewußt als Mensch unter Menschen wirkt, daß man überall empfinden muß, wie man zu sprechen habe. Das ist nicht das Aufrichten einer Hierarchie, das ist einfach das Folgen dem, was durch die Wirklichkeit notwendig ist. Es ist durch die Wirklichkeit notwendig, meine lieben Freunde, daß ich zu Ihnen anders spreche, da Sie Seelsorger werden wollen, als zu jenen gesprochen werden müßte, die nicht Seelsorger, sondern bloß Gläubige sind. Das ist es aber auch, was diesen Wahrheitsgehalt, wie er uns etwa im 13. Matthäus-Kapitel entgegentritt, zum unmittelbaren Leben in uns macht; das ist es, was bis in unsere Zeit hereindringen kann, und was in unserer Zeit ein starkes Gefühl von etwas hervorruft, das doch eigentlich einen religiösen Charakter hat.

[ 30 ] Sehen Sie, derjenige, der empfindet: es muß ein Weg gesucht werden zu der Wahrheit, die Wahrheit muß dann in innerlicher Komposition so sein, daß sie unter den Menschen ist und die Menschen in der Wahrheit leben können, der empfindet eben jene Uniformierung, die heute in unserem Bücherschreiben lebt, eigentlich als etwas Antipathisches. Heute lebt etwas in unserem Bücherschreiben, daß wir uns, wenn wir Bücher schreiben, nicht so recht als Mensch unter Menschen fühlen, sondern dasjenige, was wir abstrakt erfaßt haben, ins Buch hineinschreiben, ohne Rücksicht darauf, wer das Buch bekommt. Das bringt eben das Bedürfnis hervor, gerade wenn von geistig-übersinnlichen Dingen geredet wird, zu dem, was im Buch allein stehen kann, und das, weil es uniformiert ist, der unbekannten Menge der [Menschen] doch nur etwas sehr Mangelhaftes geben kann, auch wiederum gemeinschaftlich mit den Menschen die Wahrheit zu erleben, nach der Art und Weise, wie diese Menschen sind, wie sie vorbereitet sind zur Wahrheit, und viel zu geben auf die Vorbereitung zur Wahrheit und weniger auf die uniformierte Formulierung des Wahrheitsgehaltes. Das gibt einem eine deutliche und starke Empfindung von dem, was ich gestern genannt habe den Lebensgehalt des Evangeliums. Aber der Lebensgehalt des Evangeliums soll auch nicht abstrakt gefaßt werden, wie ihn heute viele fassen. Die Menschen glauben leicht, wenn sie als religiöse Unterweiser ihre Worte gewissermaßen so zusammenfügen, daß sie gefühlsmäßig durchströmt sind, daß sie hart herandringen an dasjenige, was man sakramental nennt, sie glauben dadurch dasjenige zu finden, was aus dem Abstrakten herausführen soll.

[ 31 ] Das ist aber nicht das Wesentliche, sondern das Wesentliche ist das Sichfühlen als Mensch unter Menschen, indem man die Wahrheit mit den Menschen erlebt. Das ist zuletzt doch eben das Christliche. Deshalb ist es nötig, zu glauben an die christliche Gemeindebildung, nicht bloß an die christliche Verkündigung. Deshalb ist es notwendig zu glauben, daß alles dasjenige notwendig ist, was zur wirklichen Gemeindebildung führt, das heißt, nicht bloß zum Denken darüber zu kommen, was der andere äußert, sondern zum gemeinsamen Fühlen und zum gemeinsamen Wollen. In der Gemeindebildung muß gewissermaßen schon [der Grund]* liegen zum gemeinsamen Fühlen und zum gemeinsamen Wollen. Es muß sich ein wirklicher geistig-seelischer Organismus aus der Gemeinde bilden können, Davon wollen wir dann weiter reden.

(Es folgt die Angabe der Verteilung des zu besprechenden Stoffes)

1. Die Vorbedingungen
2. Die Grundlegung des Lehrwirkens
3. Der Weg zum Wahrheit-Erleben
4. Das Wesen des Breviers, der Predigt
5. Das Erbauen des Kultus
6. Die Behandlung der Gemeinde

(Vgl. die Notizbucheintragung NB 127 auf Seite 48 der Dokumentarischen Ergänzungen

Tenth Lecture

[ 1 ] My dear friends! At the end of the lecture course I will explain how the subject matter is distributed and how we intend to cover it in the time available to us. Today, I would first like to present some more of what I began yesterday. It will then be easy to come to clarity about teaching in a relatively rapid way, when the necessary foundations have been laid in the way I need to imagine them. We need a little more time if these fundamentals are to be solid.

[ 2 ] When it comes to entering into the spirit of the Gospels and working in the spirit of the Gospels, then, above all, the soul, that is the very peculiar way in which one can relate to the Gospels, and there it is of course necessary that, with regard to this point, everyone, so to speak, starts from a personal perspective. One then already understands the general meaning that lies within when such a personal perspective has been asserted. And so please allow me to make today's lecture somewhat personal. I am compelled to do so because it will enable you to best absorb what follows.

[ 3 ] Whenever I approach the Gospels, no matter how often, I always have a very definite feeling, namely, that in the Gospels , however much one may have understood them, whatever one has thought and said about them – and, I emphasize, no matter how often one approaches them – one always encounters something new. You never stop learning from the Gospels. But this learning from the Gospels is connected with something else: the more you study them, the more you feel admiration for the depth of their content, for, I would say, the in which one is immersed and which actually gives rise to the feeling that there is no end to this possibility of immersion, that this admiration grows with each time one delves deeper into the Gospels. However, there are some difficulties with regard to this path, which consist in the fact that once one has taken a few steps into the Gospels – I say expressly “into” – one stumbles over the tradition. For the actual spiritual scientist, this is less of an obstacle, because he is confronted with something like the archetypal Gospels with their, one might almost say wordless text, and that then makes it easier not to stumble over the tradition. But admiration seems to me to be an indispensable element if reading the Gospels is to provide the basis for a religious teaching ministry for the individual. For again and again I have to emphasize that here it is especially important not only to characterize religious life in general, but to provide the foundations for religious teaching, for religious work in general.

[ 4 ] This admiration that one feels for the Gospels is connected with everything, even with the individual details in the Gospels, and something else follows that will probably surprise you greatly , but I said that I am speaking from a personal perspective, and what follows from this admiration is that one is actually never completely satisfied with one of the Gospels, but that one is only satisfied with the harmony of the Gospels, which comes alive. For example, it is of great importance to let the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew take effect on you. If you try to enter into it as we did yesterday and want to continue to do today, but then let the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke come before your soul, the passage where roughly the same situation is given, you will then have a completely different impression, a different feeling. The impression is quite different, but you then get a different synopsis than the usual one, a synopsis that is alive inside.

[ 5 ] You see, when you have dealt with such things a lot, you have had all kinds of experiences in life, and for you these experiences could be important precisely because you are younger and are about to enter into the teaching process, which is actually what you want to do in your majority.

[ 6 ] Once, a man approached me with a New Testament. He had bought four different colored pencils for this New Testament and had used one of them, I believe the red one, to highlight and carefully underline everything that is common to all four gospels. As he showed me, this turns out to be very little. He took the Gospel of John. There were four pencils; then he had used the other three pencils to mark what was only in the Gospel of Matthew, then what was only in the Gospel of Mark, and then what was only in the Gospel of Luke. In this way, he had created a remarkable analytical synopsis in his own way, of which he was extremely proud. I objected that such attempts had been made many times; we also know of such attempts within German literature – it was an Englishman who pointed this out to me – where the corresponding passages were placed next to each other column by column, with white spaces in between where a passage is only in one gospel. But he was a priori convinced that his synopsis was the best.

[ 7 ] This is exactly the opposite of what happens when you follow the path in spirit. The various contents of the gospels do not fall apart and contradict each other, but rather they actually come together to form a whole; and the experience of being filled with admiration is something that one must have, an experience that, however, is most eminently contrary to the spirit of the times. For the spiritual scientist, however, it turns out that what I cannot even ask you to accept, it turns out that it is not possible at all to get what is supposed to be the truth of the Gospels in any other way than precisely through the harmony of the four Gospels. Even if one were to produce an external synopsis in the sense of Tatian, which would be unobjectionable within certain limits, it would not yield what is yielded precisely by the concrete harmony of the four Gospels. One must let them all four take effect on one and then wait to see what results from them. One should not first prescribe what the abstract unchallenged truth should be and then search in the Gospels to eliminate everything that contradicts this abstract truth. Truth must be experienced, and the Gospels are precisely a work of writing in which truth can be experienced; but one must have patience to experience this truth in the Gospels little by little. You may object again: Then I will never actually have the truth that is supposed to be contained in the Gospels. I have to agree with you to a certain extent, because I have never presumed to believe that I have the complete truth of the Gospels; but as I continue to progress, I have the most decisive feeling that I can persevere in patient waiting, because the certainty of the truth does not diminish, but rather grows ever greater. So one can calmly accept the truth as an ideal placed before us at an immeasurable distance, knowing that we are on the way to it. These are the things that should weigh on the soul and imprint themselves on the heart when reading the Gospels, otherwise it will not be possible to really come to terms with them in a very real way. Of course, the question can be raised: should one? — The next few days will show that one should.

[ 8 ] Now I must say that in a certain sense it was an inner rejoicing for me when something came out of the Gospels that had certainly already come to others, but it came to me on the spiritual path into the Gospels. There a picture came to me that was to be placed quite precisely in the eye of the soul, the picture of how the three wise men or the three kings – for in those days, kings were initiates, inspired sages – how the three wise men, according to the knowledge they gained from the stars, in which they saw that the star of Christ had clearly drawn its writing in the sky, came to worship Christ. They saw from the star prophecy that the Christ must have just arrived. Anyone who knows what has been called star wisdom from certain old scientific backgrounds can actually only appreciate this image in the right sense, because they know that this star wisdom was different in the most eminent sense from what we call astronomy today. What we call astronomy today is mathematical and at most physical in nature. Today we speak only of astronomy, which is a calculating science, and we speak of astrophysics, which is a mechanizing science; even if, as religious people, we have a different basis of feeling for the cosmos, we speak out of our contemporary consciousness and think and feel in the same way. But star wisdom, from which the prophetic foreknowledge of the three wise men emerged, is something else. At that time, star wisdom was not taken in the same way as earthly wisdom. Star wisdom was taken as something that cannot be recorded mathematically or physically, but as something that must be read like a script to be learned. One started from the fixed twelve signs of the zodiac and observed what changes the planets, of which seven were assumed, as you know, in relation to these fixed signs of the zodiac. These motion curves were accepted; and just as we read the letters, so the curves and the signs that resulted from the positions [of the planets to the zodiac] were accepted, and to these observations made on the stars themselves, the plane, the differentiated plane was added, which results when one perceives the universe from an earthly point of view: (it is drawn) north, south, east, west, with the dimension of depth conceived as intense, nothing was added, but everything that arose in the dimension of depth was projected onto this plane. By regarding this fourfold differentiated level as the tablet on which one read what was revealed from the world of the stars, one had the feeling of reading in the cosmos, and there were very specific instructions that one could receive for reading in the cosmos. So one instruction was, for example, to place yourself exactly in the act of looking, in the inner looking, to understand how to sense yourself in it, and by understanding how to adjust yourself in this way, to then follow the course of the moon, so to follow that which can be depicted here (it is demonstrated on the board), and you understand the secrets of Saturn as an earthly human. I just want to hint at how such things were given. These are things that were once the subject of lively human activity, and from such lively human activity, from reading the sky, a certain knowledge was compiled. By contrast, today's astronomy and astrophysics seem as if someone were to go and describe our letters, while the astronomy we are talking about here does not describe the letters at all, but rather reads the text. That is the difference. Now, I have only characterized the wisdom of the people from the Orient who went out in search of the Christ; this wisdom led them to seek the Christ.

Blackboard Drawing

[ 9 ] My dear friends, what does this actually represent to our soul? It represents to our soul that the highest wisdom that could be attained in the world at that time led to the Mystery of Golgotha, the highest wisdom. In a sense, the idea of the saying lies in this: You may attain the highest wisdom; the highest wisdom that you can attain and that you can also read in the stars, proclaims to you the Mystery of Golgotha.

[ 10 ] This image comes to the fore in the Gospel of Matthew when one is able to place this Gospel of Matthew in its historical epoch. This impression is formed in such a way that it really becomes admiration for the descriptions of the Gospel of Matthew.

[ 11 ] Now you leave this image for the time being. Then one turns to the Gospel of Luke and finds the sentences about the shepherds in the field. In contrast to the three wise men from the East, who have the highest knowledge, the simple shepherds in the field are presented, who have nothing of this knowledge, who do not even suspect what the three wise men from the East know. The shepherds have only an inner experience, arising from a state of consciousness brought about by natural conditions, which is given to them by the proclamation: “The Divine is revealed in the heights, so that there may be joy for all people.” It arises merely from their simplest, most simple-minded feeling, which develops into an image, not just a dream image, but an image as an imagination of a higher reality. We are led to the hearts of these shepherds, who, out of this human simplicity, regardless of all knowledge, now also make the decision to go and worship [the child]. Now let us place these two images side by side. We do not look at them as something where one says this and the other says that, but we place them side by side as mutually invigorating and becoming the full truth. What do we get then? We then receive the immediate conviction: the Mystery of Golgotha has appeared in such a way that it had to reveal itself to the highest heights of knowledge of the time and to the simplest heart, if it gave itself in a selfless way. The highest sages of the earth and the simplest people flocked together before the redeeming child. And there can hardly be a more luminous on the one hand and a more deeply felt on the other way to present to our soul what can now be felt as the Mystery of Golgotha.

[ 12 ] One must have the audacity of the modern intellectual if, when faced with the well-founded perceptions arising from the realization of not only the external content of ancient wisdom but also the state of mind of the ancient sages, one behaves as modern science behaves towards these things. For just as the reading of the ancient wisdom of the stars is deeply rooted in the cosmos, so too is that which was announced with equal certainty to the simple shepherds in the field. Today we do not know how the human soul has changed in the course of human evolution; we do not know how that which can be read in the stars externally through knowledge could still be experienced internally in the human soul in older times, , when astral truth was a heart experience, and how we, as human beings, have been led out of this stage of development in order to gain our freedom, so that after achieving the consciousness of freedom we can return to this stage again. We had to acquire this sense of self, my dear friends. In order to achieve our freedom, we had to be referred back to the human being to such an extent that today we live through the time from December 20 to January 6 or 7 just as abstractly as human beings with our soul, just as we experience the Easter season (abstractly). This was expressed to me very sharply once – as I said, these things are also rooted in experiences of life – when I was once in a small meeting where they were discussing a calendar reform, a calendar reform that was to be implemented for modern needs. A modern astronomer who was highly esteemed in the astronomical community was present. He was, of course, the expert, and he pleaded that Easter be set on the first Sunday in April in order to make the year uniform, that it be fixed, at least initially, in purely external, abstract terms. He had no sympathy for the idea that humanity should look up at the interrelationship of the sun and the moon to fix Easter. And to speak of such a thing in that assembly would, of course, have been utter foolishness. We are so far removed from what today's humanity, especially when it stands at the highest point of a particular chapter of learning, can grasp and regard as normal for human beings, just when they are at the highest point of a particular chapter of learning. Among the reasons given at the time for such a fixed date for Easter was the disruption caused to account books every year when Easter, as a variable date, had to be entered in these books in a different way each year. The only thing that is retained from the old religious custom is the fact that the first page usually says “With God”. That is what business books say. But I ask you to see for yourself how much is then recorded on the following pages in the sense of this saying.

[ 13 ] You must definitely see such things as truly expressive of the whole spirit of our time. For if you do not understand the spirit of our time down to the last detail, how are you to feel the real impulse for religious renewal within you? You have to be able to say to yourself with a certain seriousness that this “with God” should be able to be verified in the other pages of the ledger and the cash book or the journal. Do you realize what strength is needed to bring religion into the life of today in the face of the forces that are at work in today's social life? One must always feel this in the background, otherwise the urge for religious renewal will not remain the serious one that it should be today. So one must have a feeling for the changes in the human soul. One must be clear about the fact that in older times this human soul was such that when the earth was frozen above and the stars appeared with that peculiar aura that they have in the second half of December, the human soul would contract to such an extent that visions would occur that made people experience in reality what the astrologer read in the stars. The poor shepherds in the field and the astrologers had the same source of inspiration, for that is what they were, the three wise men who came to worship the Christ Child. They came from different directions. Some from the periphery of the universe, others from the center of the human heart, and they found the same thing. We must learn, by doing one and the other, to really find the same thing. We must do it especially as religious teachers, so that our word has content, content in the same way that the word had content for the three wise men from the East. And we must be able to proceed in the same way as the shepherds in the field, because only in this way does the word acquire the strength it needs. We need content for the word, and we need strength for the word. And we get the content of the word when we delve into something like the Gospel of Matthew, and we get the strength when we delve into something like the Gospel of Luke. These two gospels – we will come back to the others – are to a large extent complementary. It is as if we were to break through to what gives us the religious teaching content from the depths of the human soul when we absorb into our inner being what each can give.

[ 14 ] You see, only anthroposophy can actually speak like this again today. Try to find the possibility of speaking like this somewhere. Wherever you find it, anthroposophy is present after all; it does not always have to be taken dogmatically, it is not meant to be taken that way either.

[ 15 ] Now, my dear friends, when we approach the 13th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew from such feelings and perceptions, then above all — take the words, when they are spoken today, they are not at all what they appear to be to the modern mind. Above all, one is filled with great admiration for the whole composition of the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The whole composition is something that can only be admired. First we have the parable of the sower. After this parable of the sower, we have three other parables: the parable of the tares and the weeds that are to grow until the harvest, the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven. Between these parables we have a certain instruction of the disciples, who are to listen differently than the people listen. We then have the dismissal of the people, and then the further parables, which are only told to the disciples. In the course of the chapter, we are led to parables that are told to the people, and to teachings that are given to the disciples about these parables that were told to the people. We then have the disciples being taken into, I would say, secrecy, with parables that are only told to the disciples, and then the question: “Have you understood these parables?” — and the answer: “Yes, Lord.” — This is a wonderful composition, and it becomes even more wonderful when we look at the details. We first have the parable of the sower, simply stated. After the introductory words have been spoken, it is told of the sower who sows there; [it is told] that the birds also eat what has been sown, that other things fall on stony ground, where only weak roots can take hold and get too little inner strength, and other things fall on good land. We have simply stated this; and after this has been stated, the following parables already begin with the words, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like...”. The following parables are introduced with this beginning: “The kingdom of heaven is like...” Also before the people. The people are thus carefully prepared, first by stating mere facts, then gently led to the conclusion that what is said as fact points to the working of the kingdom of heaven. The people are not told more; then they are dismissed. The following parables are taught to the disciples: the parable of the treasure in the field, the parable of the precious pearl, and the parable of the fish caught in the net; many are rejected, and the useful ones are gathered as food. These parables are told only to the disciples themselves, and they are asked if they understand them. They answer “Yes”, but in this gospel context it means the same as if we were to say today, if we can still feel the right thing at all, “Yes, Amen”. — There is a wonderful composition in it, but it is not sought after, because it arises naturally.

[ 16 ] The skeptic may say: You are not interpreting, you are subverting. But, my dear friends, if you really immerse yourself in the Gospels, you cannot help but feel these things that way; and there must be good reasons why you have to feel this way, why you have to immerse yourself in this wonderful composition, why you really need to look at all the details of the Gospel. They are a wonderful composition.

[ 17 ] Let us now try to penetrate this wonderful composition. Let us start with the three parables, which are only told to the disciples in secret. According to the whole meaning of the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, from the spirit of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ Jesus would not tell them to the people. Please also hear this, that I say clearly: he would not say them to the people in the spirit of the Gospel of Matthew. But try to remember what is said in these parables, which are given only to the disciples. In the first, the parable of the treasure in the field, a man discovers the treasure in the field, he sells everything to buy that field in which the treasure is, so that he may have it. What is important is that he sells everything to get this treasure, that he gives up everything to have this treasure. This should not be said to the people, as the relationship between Jesus and his disciples is understood by the people. Why? Because there is a certain danger, the danger of becoming selfish, the danger of the ethics of reward. One must not speak of egoism without thereby harming the people. But one speaks of egoism when one refers to the reward of the Eternal for the one whom one wants to encourage to do good. The ethics of reward, which basically is still to a large extent the meaning of the Old Testament, is rejected by the Christ Jesus. That is why he speaks such a parable, which could give an unprepared person a glimpse of the reward, only to those who have already progressed so far that they can no longer run the risk of interpreting this parable in an egoistic sense. The disciples, who have risen above selfishness through their life with Christ Jesus, are the only ones to whom something like this parable can be said, the only ones to whom the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a treasure. The disciples' egoistic instincts are not stirred up. One should not speak to the people in the sense of the Gospel of Matthew in this parable, any more than in the following one, which is constructed entirely according to this scheme, the parable of the merchant who sold everything in order to gain the kingdom of heaven. And because Christ Jesus knows that he can speak to his disciples in this way, he may then also tell them the last, the most dangerous parable. It is the parable that must seem simply terrible to the unprepared person, the parable [in which it says] that everything that is on earth in the way of scandal, wickedness and sin will ultimately burn in the fiery furnace, and that the good will be gathered for heaven. This can only be tolerated by the mind that has learned to feel unselfishly; otherwise, the human mind would have to become angry at such a parable. What, then, is it that should be avoided through such teaching as Christ Jesus gives in such a parable? What should be avoided is becoming angry, what should be avoided is that man should become angry at the way of the world and at being human. The entire thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew is an instruction on how to make people patient in the face of fate; that is why the events at the end of the world can only be revealed at the very end. So these last parables are the ones that can only be spoken to the disciples in secret, where it is certain that they, whatever the Christ Jesus will say, even the most terrible, in this moment, in this immediate presence, are contained in selflessness. Therefore they say: Yes, Amen.

[ 18 ] After trying to sense what is said in these parables, which are intended only for the disciples, we go back to the others. A person can only be prepared for an unselfish understanding of something if he prepares himself by observing what is in a sense outside of him, without arousing judgment, by observing nature. By lingering in the contemplation of the four processes of the seeds – when one thinks of nothing else but these processes: the seeds that fall on the path and are eaten by the birds, that fall on stony ground, fall among thorns, and those that fall on good land —, by simply dwelling on this contemplation, one cannot actually be with oneself; one is trained to look at something selflessly. And after one has thus steeled the mind in this way, which otherwise tends to be selfish, only then may something else occur. What may occur?

[ 19 ] Now, you see, here we come again to an important detail of this thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. I cannot help it if someone might find it pedantic to dwell on such details; for me it is not pedantic, for me it is quite a reality. The important distinction is made, based on the awareness of the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, between ears that hear erroneously and eyes that slumber, that sleep, that are not awakened. The explanation is given that it is to be found out through the development of man from erroneous hearing, and that the eyes are to be awakened.

[ 20 ] You see, this leads us to how, in those days, a clear distinction was made between the organization of hearing and the organization of seeing, which can also be known from other anthroposophical sources. Today's people know nothing about this. They do not know, for example, that the overall organization, which starts from the rhythmic human being and radiates towards the head organization, includes an inner organic harmony between hearing and speaking. Hearing and speaking also belong together organically. Hearing and speaking are, so to speak, tied to a single organ complex, which only today's physiology does not list. When I show you my wood group, you will see from this practical demonstration of physiology — which, however, does not want to be one — how it emerges from anthroposophical foundations that there is a unity: breathing, speaking, hearing. But these three are also present in seeing. Take what is here. (It is written on the blackboard:)

Breathing
Speaking
Listening.

[ 21 ] I could also write: speaking, breathing, hearing – the order is not so important here. Take these three, they are the limbs of a common act. These three limbs are also present in seeing. In seeing, too, there is on the one hand that which is driven into the brain by the breath; the breathing process is involved in seeing. But all this is so very gently suggested in the human organization that we can say: this (see plate 6: breathing) is completely atrophied in the human consciousness; what we still perceive when we speak, where we have to take the breath into account, we do not perceive in the act of seeing, it is completely atrophied. (The word “breathing” is written on the blackboard next to the word “breathing”)

— completely atrophied

[ 22 ] Then, in the act of seeing, what corresponds to hearing is also half atrophied. (The following is written on the blackboard next to the word “hearing”:)

— half atrophied

[ 23 ] That is half-withered, it remains at the very bottom in the shadow of the subconscious. That which comes out fully developed in seeing alone is that which corresponds to speaking. (It is written on the board next to the word “speaking”):

— developed

[ 24 ] And when we conjure up images of our surroundings through the eye, we speak ethereally. But the other two links, which usually diverge clearly when listening and speaking, are present when seeing, but stunted; there the mere forming of the image overwhelms us.

[ 25 ] Because we cannot see into this context, we have the complicated physiological basis of epistemology today. All epistemologies, or at least a great many of them, start from a physiological basis of the act of perception, which they describe in the same way for all the senses; but they actually have nothing in mind but the act of seeing. What you find in the physiological foundations actually only applies to the act of seeing and is therefore unclear because people do not see that something is missing in it. It can be said that these physiological views, which prevail in relation to sensory physiology, are the most dreadful thing that can oppress the human mind today; one is always bothered by things that are said about the senses in general, whereas each sense should be treated specifically for itself. In many respects, it is the case that a sense unit theory is taken as a basis.

[ 26 ] Of course, the science that we are developing today in anthroposophy was not available at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha. The fact that we are coming to an understanding of the truth of the matter today contributes significantly to our admiration for the content of the Gospels. People spoke in such a way at that time that it takes a great deal of spiritual research to realize that seeing must be spoken of differently than hearing. Regarding hearing, one must say: one can only hear erroneously, because it is perfectly developed as a single act. That is why our ears are open even when we are asleep; we have no arbitrary influence on the formation of auditory images. Our I does not flow into them in such a way as to form them, but only in such a way as to permeate them with false judgments. Hearing can become inaccurate. After all, seeing has half-atrophied precisely that which functions in hearing. Vision has only developed that which corresponds to speech. To do this, one must be awake, one's eyes must be awakened, just as one must be educated to speak.

[ 27 ] Although this was not explicitly present in knowledge at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, people simply spoke and understood correctly from their inner state of soul. I am not saying that the Christ taught anthroposophy — that even sounds very ridiculous — or that those to whom he spoke learned anthroposophy. He spoke in this way because he knew that the others understood it when they listened. But even there he had to speak as one spoke at that time about seeing and hearing from the innermost soul condition. In my opinion, you use the term that is often used inappropriately today: “From the subconscious” the correct way of speaking about these things came. And if this is understood in the right way, the third one can also be understood, which we also have in the Gospel of Matthew: understanding with the whole person and his concentration, understanding of the heart. Because understanding with the whole person is a completely different understanding; you have to speak to the heart if you want to interpret the parables. But one cannot speak to the heart in any other way than when the heart functions in such a way that it makes the eyes see and the ears hear correctly. So one must distinguish: one must awaken the eyesight and make the ears hear correctly. One need not awaken the ears, one must only listen properly.

[ 28 ] In the same style, [in the 13th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew] it is first pointed out that a person must perceive through his senses as a whole human being, or rather with the concentration of the whole human being in his heart, if he is to approach the interpretation of the parables. Therefore, Christ Jesus makes it clear to his disciples: After they have gone through the completely objective understanding of the parable of the sower, he can now present further objectively effective parables and let these aim at the functions of the Kingdom of Heaven. First of all, there is the parable of the wheat and the tares, which aims to show that good cannot flourish without evil being present alongside it. Again, one might say that it is said with a wonderful, almost scientific insight. For today we can already know that we can even do harm in a certain sense if we weed out the weeds in the wrong way. Likewise, we would harm humanity if we were to eradicate sin by not leading sinful people to righteousness in a spiritual sense, but by exterminating them before the “harvest,” that is, before the end of the world. So far as this is concerned, one can go before the people, presenting to their souls what is at work in the weeds and the herbs. It is even possible to go so far as to show the people how the world is spread out in its vastness, and how it must come to what sustains the world, to the heavenly [realm. The kingdom of heaven] is like a mustard seed, which is small compared to the other seeds, but then becomes a large tree compared to the other herbs. So this must be pointed out to the people, as it must be seen that just as the seed is less noticeable at first [than the fully grown plant, also] the heavenly is less noticeable than the worldly. Then it is also pointed out how [the Kingdom of Heaven] works like leaven, which is small but permeates everything, and thus works – and this is even more evident according to the conceptions of that time – as a spiritual. In the sense of the ideas of that time, one could say without preparation: See the leaven that the woman takes and leavens the bread with; it spiritualizes the bread; see the Kingdom of Heaven, it spiritualizes the world. But one would not be allowed to say to the people: Sell everything! One must hold the people to what they are pointed to, otherwise they would, especially if one were to say to them: sell everything! —, in their selfishness be out to really sell the whole world in order to buy with it that which is the Kingdom of Heaven.

[ 29 ] Thus, in the 13th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we see the construction and composition of the truth, in that the truth is not simply presented there as an abstract one, but in such a way that one works consciously as a human being among human beings in the effect of the truth, that one must feel everywhere how one has to speak. This is not the establishment of a hierarchy, it is simply following what is necessary through reality. It is necessary through reality, my dear friends, that I speak differently to you, since you want to become pastors, than I would have to speak to those who are not pastors but merely believers. But that is also what makes this truth, as it appears to us in chapter 13 of Matthew, come to life in us; that is what can penetrate into our time and what evokes a strong feeling of something that is actually religious.

[ 30 ] You see, the one who feels: a way must be sought to the truth, the truth must then be in such an inner composition that it is among people and people can live in the truth, and that person feels that uniformity, which lives in our book writing today, as something actually quite repulsive. Today, something lives in our writing of books that, when we write books, we do not feel truly as human beings among human beings, but write into the book what we have grasped in the abstract, without considering who will receive the book. This gives rise to the need, especially when talking about spiritual and transcendental things, for what can be written in the book alone, and that, because it is standardized, can only give the unknown multitude something very inadequate. can, together with people, also experience the truth in a way that is appropriate to the way these people are, how they are prepared for the truth, and to give a great deal of attention to the preparation for the truth and less to the uniform formulation of the truth. This gives one a clear and strong sense of what I called yesterday the life content of the gospel. But the life content of the gospel should also not be understood in the abstract sense in which many understand it today. People believe more easily when their religious teachers put their words together in such a way that they are imbued with feeling, that they come very close to what is called sacramental, and they believe that they will find what should lead them out of the abstract.

[ 31 ] But that is not the essential thing. The essential thing is to feel oneself to be a human being among other human beings, experiencing the truth with other human beings. That is ultimately what is Christian. That is why it is necessary to believe in the formation of Christian communities, not just in the Christian proclamation. That is why it is necessary to believe that everything that leads to the real formation of a community is necessary, that is, not just to think about what the other person is saying, but to feel and will together. To some extent, the foundation for common feeling and common will must already lie in the formation of the community. It must be possible for a real spiritual and psychological organism to develop out of the community. We will talk more about this later.

(The following is an outline of the material to be discussed:)

1. The Prerequisites
2. The Foundations of Teaching
3. The Path to Experiencing Truth
4. The Nature of the Breviary and the Sermon
5. Building the Cultus
6. Treating the Community

(See notebook entry NB 127 on page 48 of the Documentary Additions.