I
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS
Our lectures
[Note 1]
upon the Gospel of St. John will have a double purpose. One will
be the deepening of the concepts of Spiritual Science themselves
and their expansion in many directions, and the other will be
to make this great document itself comprehensible by means of
the thoughts that will arise in our souls in consequence of
these deepened and expanded concepts. I beg you to hold
clearly in mind that it is the intention of these lectures to
proceed in these two directions. It should not be simply a
question of explanations of this Gospel, but rather
that by means of the latter we shall penetrate into the deep
mysteries of existence and we should hold very clearly in
mind how the perceptive method of Spiritual Science must be
developed when we are dealing with any of the great
historical records handed down to us by the different
religions of the world. In fact we might imagine that if the
exponent of Spiritual Science speaks about the Gospel of St.
John, he will do so just as others have often done, that is,
he will take some such document as this Gospel as a basis in
order that he may draw from it the truths that are under
discussion and present them on the authority of this
religious document. But this can never be the concern of a
spiritually scientific, cosmic point of view. It must be a
quite different one. If Spiritual Science is to fulfill its
true mission in respect of the modern human spirit, then it
should point out that if men will only learn to use their
inner forces and capacities — their forces and
capacities of spiritual perception — they will be able,
by applying them, to penetrate into the mysteries of life,
into what is concealed within the spiritual worlds behind the
world of the senses. The fact that men can penetrate to the
mysteries of life through the use of inner capacities, that
they are able to reach the creative forces and beings of the
universe through their own cognition must be brought more and
more into the consciousness of present day humanity. Thus it
becomes evident that a knowledge of the mystery of this
Gospel can be gained by men, independent of every tradition,
independent of every historical document.
In order
to make this absolutely clear, we shall
have to express ourselves in quite radical terms. Let us
suppose that through some circumstance all religious records
had been lost, and that men possessed only those capacities
which they have today; they should, nevertheless, be able to
penetrate into life's mysteries, if they only retain those
capacities. They should be able to reach the divine-spiritual
creating forces and beings which lie concealed behind the
physical world. And Spiritual Science must depend entirely
upon these independent sources of knowledge, irrespective of
all records. However, after having investigated the
divine-spiritual mysteries of the world independently, we can
then take up the actual religious documents themselves. Only
then can we recognize their true worth, for we are, in a
certain sense, free and independent of them. What has
previously been independently discovered is now recognized
within the documents themselves. And you may be sure that for
anyone who has pursued this path, these writings will suffer
no diminution in value, no lessening of the respect and
veneration due them.
Let us
make this point quite clear by means of a
comparison with something very different. It is true that
Euclid, the old geometrician, first gave us that geometry
which every school boy today studies at a certain stage of
his school life. But is the acquisition of a knowledge of
geometry absolutely dependent upon this book of Euclid? I ask
you, how many pupils today study elementary geometry without
knowing the least thing about this first book in which Euclid
presented the most rudimentary geometrical facts? They study
these geometrical facts quite apart from this Euclidian book,
because geometry originates in a capacity of the human
spirit. If the pupil has first studied geometry by means of
his own spiritual faculty, and afterwards takes up the great
work by Euclid, he then understands how to appreciate it
adequately. For the first time then he finds in it what he
has already made into a capacity of his own mind, and he
learns to value the form in which the corresponding knowledge
was presented for the first time. Thus it is possible today
to discover the great cosmic facts presented in the Gospel of
St. John by means of the forces slumbering within the human
soul without knowing anything about the Gospel itself, just
as the pupil acquires a knowledge of geometry without knowing
anything about the first book of Euclid.
If previously
equipped with knowledge about the
higher worlds, we take up this Gospel and inquire into what
is disclosed therein concerning the spiritual history of
mankind, we find that the deepest mysteries of the spiritual
world are concealed within a book, are given to mankind in a
book, and because we already know the truths concerning the
divine spiritual world, we can now recognize the
divine-spiritual nature of this document, this Gospel of St.
John. For this is altogether the right way to approach those
documents which deal with spiritual things. What is the
position of the exponent of Spiritual Science in relation to
those researchers of records dealing with spiritual matters
who understand very well, from the standpoint of language,
everything presented in documents like the Gospel of St.
John; in other words what is his position in relation to
those who are pure philologists? (Even the theological
researchers of a certain type are today only philologists in
respect of the content of such books). Let us take once more
the parallel of the geometry of Euclid. Will the best
expounder of geometry be the one who in his own way can make
a good literal translation without the vaguest conception of
geometrical knowledge? Something very extraordinary would
result were such a person to attempt to translate Euclid,
understanding previously nothing at all about geometry. On
the other hand, even if the translator himself were a poor
philologist, but understood geometry, he would still be able
to give the proper value to this book. The exponent of
Spiritual Science is in a similar position in relation to
many other researchers of the Gospel of St. John. Today this
Gospel is often interpreted in much the same way as the
philologist would explain the geometry of Euclid. But from
Spiritual Science itself we can gain knowledge about the
spiritual worlds recorded in this Gospel. So the spiritual
scientist stands in the same relation to this spiritual
document as the geometrician to Euclid. He has brought with
him something which he now is able to discover in the Gospel
itself.
We do
not need to dwell upon the objection, that in
this way much is “read into” the documents. We
shall soon see that whoever understands the content of the
Gospel of St. John need not put into it something that is not
there and if he understands the nature of the Spiritual
Science interpretation, he will not need to concern himself
much with this reproach. Just as other documents do not
depreciate in value or lose in veneration when their true
content is known, so too is such the case with this Gospel.
To anyone who has penetrated into the mysteries of the world,
it becomes one of the most significant documents in the
spiritual life of mankind.
If we
consider its exact content, we may then ask:
Why should the Gospel of St. John, which for the spiritual
researcher is such an important document, be pushed more and
more into the background in relation to the other Gospels by
the very theologians who should be called upon to explain it?
We shall touch upon this as a preliminary question before
entering upon a consideration of the Gospel itself.
You all
know that in respect of this Gospel,
extraordinary points of view and opinions have possessed
certain minds. In olden times it was revered as one of the
deepest and most significant documents in the custody of
mankind concerning the being of Christ Jesus and His
activities upon earth; and in the earlier periods of
Christianity, it would never have entered the mind of any one
to consider it other than a powerful, historical testimony of
the events in Palestine. But in recent times this has all
changed and just those who think they stand most securely
upon the foundation of historical research are the ones who
have, for the most part, undermined the foundation upon which
such a concept rests. For some time, and this can now be
reckoned in centuries, men have begun to notice the
contradictions present in the Gospels, and after much
vacillation, the following has become the accepted view
especially among theologians: We find many contradictions in
the Gospels and it is impossible to see how it happens that
in the four Gospels, from four sides, the events in Palestine
are so differently related. When we take the descriptions
given according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we have so
many different accounts of this or that event that it becomes
impossible to believe they are all in agreement with the
historical facts. Little by little this became the opinion of
those who wished to investigate these things.
In more
recent times, the point of view has
developed that it is possible to establish a certain harmony
between the descriptions of the events in Palestine in the
first three Gospels, but that the Gospel of St. John,
however, differs greatly in its narrations from the other
three. Therefore, in respect of the historical facts, it is
preferable that the first three Gospels should be believed,
the Gospel of St. John possessing less historical
authenticity. Thus gradually the time came when it was stated
as a fact that the Gospel of St. John was not written with
the same purpose as the first three. The authors of these
other Gospels, it was said, wished only to relate what
occurred, whereas the writer of the Gospel of St. John did
not have this purpose, but quite a different one. And, for
various reasons, these critics have yielded to the
supposition that the St. John document was written at a
comparatively late period, — but we shall speak of
these things again. Most of the researchers believe it was
not written until the third or fourth decade of the second
century A. D. — although perhaps even in the second
decade. Therefore they say it was written at a time when
Christianity had already become wide-spread in a very
definite form and when, perhaps, it already had its enemies.
For hostility against Christianity arose from various sources
and those who held this opinion said that in the author we
have a man before us who endeavoured to present a book of
instruction, a kind of apotheosis, or something like a
vindication of Christianity in the face of those streams of
opposition which had risen up against it. But this writer,
they said, never had the intention of picturing accurately
the historical facts, his idea being rather to present his
own position in relation to his Christ. Thus many see nothing
more in this Gospel than a kind of poem imbued with religion,
which the author wrote out of a religiously poetical feeling
for his Christ, for the purpose of inspiring others also and
bringing them into a similar mood. Perhaps this opinion is
not expressed everywhere in such extreme terms, but if you
study literature, you will find this opinion to be
wide-spread, that it has a response in the souls of many of
our contemporaries; — indeed, such a belief harmonizes
exactly with the sentiments of our contemporaries.
A certain
disinclination toward any such idea of an
historical beginning as we find depicted in the very first
words of the Gospel of St. John has been developing for
several centuries among men who have come more and more to a
materialistic way of thinking. I should like you just to
remember that the very first words permit of no other
interpretation than that in Jesus of Nazareth, who lived at
the beginning of our Christian era, a being of a very high
spiritual order was incarnated. When the author in his wholly
characteristic manner spoke of Jesus, he could not do
otherwise than begin with what he calls the
“Word” or the “Logos” and say:
“the Word was in the beginning and all things came into
being through It.” If we consider the Word in its full
significance, we should say that the author of this Gospel
felt impelled to speak of the Logos as the origin of the
world, the highest to which the human being can lift his
spirit, and to say that through the Logos, the First Cause,
all things have come into being. Then the writer continues:
“The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.” This
simply means: “You have seen Him who dwelt among us,
but you will only be able to understand Him if you recognize
the same Principle dwelling within Him through which
everything that is about you in the plant, animal and human
kingdoms has come into being.” If we do not interpret
with too much artificiality, then we must say that according
to this document a Principle of the highest order at one time
incarnated in human flesh. Let us compare the appeal which
such thoughts make to the human heart with the words of many
modern theologians. You can read the following in present day
theological works and hear it presented in various ways in
lectures: We no longer call upon some Supersensible
Principle. We prefer the Jesus described in the first three
Gospels, for that is the simple Man of Nazareth who is
like other men.
In a
certain sense this has become an ideal for
many theologians and an effort is being made to place
everything that has become a part of history as much as
possible upon the same level as ordinary human events. It
disturbs people that any such exalted being as the Christ of
the Gospel of St. John should tower above all others.
Therefore they speak of the Christ as the Apotheosis of
Jesus, “the simple Man of Nazareth” and He
appeals to them in this character, because then they can say:
“Yes, we have also a Socrates and other great
men.” To be sure they make him different from these
others but still they are using a certain standard for an
ordinary humanity when they speak of “the simple Man of
Nazareth.” This expression “the simple Man of
Nazareth,” which you can find today in innumerable
theological works, also in theological-academic writings in
what is called “Liberal Theology,” has a very
close connection with the materialistic tendency of mankind
which has been in process of development now for centuries.
According to this “Liberal Theology” there is
only a physical sense-world; at least it alone has
significance.
But in
those periods of human evolution in which
humanity could still lift its perceptions to the unseen
world, it was possible to say: Of course this or that
historical personality outwardly, in external appearance, may
be compared with the “simple Man of Nazareth,”
but in what is spiritual and invisible in His personality,
Jesus of Nazareth stands before us as a unique figure.
However, when men had lost their insight into the
super-sensible and invisible world, then the standard for a
humanity above the average was also lost and this is
especially noticeable in the religious conceptions of life.
Let us have no illusions! Materialism first forced its way
into the religious life. Materialism in its relation to the
facts of outer natural science is very, very much less
dangerous for the spiritual development of mankind than it is
in its relation to the interpretation of religious
mysteries.
As an
illustration, let us consider the true
spiritual interpretation of the Last Supper, the changing of
Bread and Wine into Flesh and Blood and we shall see that the
Last Supper loses nothing in value and importance through
this spiritual interpretation. It will be a spiritual
interpretation about which we are to hear. This was also the
early Christian conception when there was still far more
spiritual understanding among men than there is today, and it
was still current in the first half of the Middle Ages when
many could comprehend the words, “This is my Body, this
is my Blood,” as we shall here learn to understand
them. However, in the course of centuries, this spiritual
interpretation was necessarily lost. We shall learn the
reason why.
In the
Middle Ages there existed a very
extraordinary current which streamed more deeply through the
souls of men than is possible to believe, for we learn very
little from present-day history about the way human souls
were gradually evolved and what they have experienced. About
the second half of the Middle Ages we find a deep current of
thought flowing through the Christian minds of Europe, for it
was then that the earlier spiritual interpretation of the
doctrine of the Last Supper was authoritatively changed into
a materialistic one. In these words, “This is my Body,
this is my Blood,” men could only imagine a material
process, a physical transubstantiation of bread and wine into
flesh and blood. What was formerly conceived in a spiritual
sense began to assume a grossly materialistic meaning. Here
materialism crept into the religious life long before it
seized upon natural science.
Another
illustration is no less significant. We
must not imagine that in any of the authoritative
explanations of the Middle Ages concerning the Story of
Creation, the six days of Creation were interpreted to mean
days of twenty-four hours, such as we have today. This
interpretation would never have entered the minds of any of
the leading theological teachers, because they understood
what was presented in these documents. They still knew how to
attach a meaning to the words of the Bible. Has it any
meaning whatsoever in discussing these documents about the
creation, to speak in our present manner of days of creation
twenty-four hours long? What is the meaning of a day? A day
is what results from the mutual relationship between the
rotating earth and the sun. We can only speak of days in our
sense when we think of the relationship between the sun and
the earth with its movement as it is at the present time. But
we find in the Book of Genesis the first narration of any
such mutual relationship between sun and earth in connection
with the fourth period, the fourth “day” of
creation. Therefore “days” in our sense could not
possibly have had their beginning prior to the fourth day of
the history of creation. Before that time it would have been
foolish to imagine days as we have them now. Since only on
the fourth “day” conditions arose which made day
and night possible, one cannot speak of days in the present
sense before that. Then came a time when men no longer
recognized the spiritual significance of the words day and
night, when they were of the opinion that the only kind of
time possible was what they knew in connection with physical
days. So to the materialistically minded man and even to the
theologian, a day of creation also meant a day like our
present day, because they knew of no other.
The older
theologians spoke differently about these
things. Such an one would have said, first and foremost, that
nothing non-essential was to be found in important passages
in the old religious documents. To illustrate this, let us
consider one special passage. Let us take the twenty-first
verse of the second chapter of the First Book of Moses. There
we read: “Then the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon the human creature, and he slept.” The earlier
commentators laid very special importance upon this passage.
Those who have understood a little of the evolution of the
spiritual forces and capacities of mankind know that there
are different states of consciousness, that what we call
sleep in the average man is only a transitory state which in
the future will develop into one in which the human being,
independent of the body, will perceive the spiritual world.
(This is today already the case with the initiates.)
Therefore the commentators said: God permitted Adam to fall
into a deep sleep and then he could perceive what he could
not otherwise perceive with the physical sense-organs. This
means a clairvoyant sleep — and what is related here is
the experience of a higher state of consciousness. So Adam
fell into a deep sleep. This was an old interpretation and it
was said that a religious document would not have spoken of
God's permitting a deep sleep to fall upon the human being
if, at an earlier time, he had already gone through such an
experience. We are thereby shown that this is the first sleep
and that before this time the human being was in states of
consciousness in which he was still able constantly to
perceive spiritual things. This is what was related to the
people.
Today it
is our purpose to show that there were, at
one time, wholly spiritual interpretations of Biblical
documents and that when the materialistic tendency arose, it
read into the Bible what is now objected to by liberal-minded
people. The materialistically inclined mind first created
what it then itself later opposed. So you see how in fact the
materialistic tendency in mankind arose and how, because of
it, the real, true understanding of religious documents has
been lost. If Spiritual Science performs its task and points
out what mysteries lie hidden behind physical life, then it
will be seen that these very mysteries have been described in
the religious documents themselves. The outer trivial
materialism which is today considered so dangerous, is only
the last phase of the materialism I have described to you.
The Bible was first materialistically interpreted. Had this
never been done, a Haeckel would never have interpreted
nature materialistically in an outer physical science. What
was sown as a seed in the realm of religion in the 14th and
15th centuries came to fruition in the 19th in natural
science. This brought with it the impossibility of reaching
any understanding of the Gospel of St. John except by
penetrating into its spiritual foundations. If it is not
understood, it will certainly be underrated. Because those
who no longer understood it were sickened by a materialistic
mode of thought, it appeared to them in the light described
above.
A very
simple comparison will explain how this
Gospel differs from the other three. Let us imagine a
mountain and on the mountain and mountain slopes at certain
levels, four men are standing and these men — let us say
three of them — sketch what they see below. Each of
them will make a different sketch according to the position
at which he stands, but of course each one of the three
pictures is true from its own standpoint. The fourth man, who
stands above on the very summit and sketches what is below,
will perceive and draw yet another view. Thus it is with the
point of view of the three evangelists, the synoptists
— Matthew, Mark and Luke — in contrast to that of
the evangelist John, who merely describes the facts from
another standpoint. And to what lengths have learned
interpreters not gone in order to make the Gospel of St. John
comprehensible! Often one must really marvel at exact
researchers' explanations of what would so easily be seen
through were our age not one of the greatest possible belief
in authority. Belief in an infallible science has today
reached its highest point.
Thus the
very prologue to this Gospel becomes
something very difficult for the theologians imbued with
materialism. The teaching about the Logos, or the Word, has
caused great difficulties, for they say: We should have liked
so much to have everything plain and simple and naive, then
along comes the Gospel of St. John speaking of such lofty
philosophical things, of the Logos, of Life, of Light!
Philologists are always accustomed to ask about the origin of
a thing. With the writings of recent times it is the same.
Read what is written about Goethe's Faust. Everywhere you
find pointed out the origin of this or that motive. Thus
books hundreds of years old have been ferreted out in order
to discover, for example, the origin of the word
“Worm,” employed by Goethe. In the same way the
question is also asked, where did the Evangelist John get the
idea of the “Logos?” The other Evangelists who
spoke to the simple, plain human understanding did not
express themselves in such a personal way. It was said
further that the author of this Gospel was a man of Greek
education, and then it was pointed out that in Philo of
Alexandria, the Greeks have a writer who also speaks of the
“Logos.” So it was thought that in cultured
Grecian circles one spoke of the Logos when wishing to speak
of something exalted, and that it was from this source that
St. John derived this word. This again was considered as a
proof that the writer of the Gospel of St. John did not rely
upon the same traditions as the writers of the other Gospels,
but that influenced by Greek culture, he re-coined the facts
in accordance with it. Thus, it is alleged, the very first
words of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God and the Word was a God” show
that the Logos-idea of Philo had entered into the spirit of
the writer of this Gospel and had influenced his form of
presentation.
The attention
of such people should be called to
the very first words of the Gospel of St. Luke: —
“Forasmuch as many have undertaken to speak of those
events which have thus happened amongst us, even as they have
been transmitted unto us by those who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word (Logos), it
seemed well to me also, having examined with diligence all
things as they were from the beginning, to relate them unto
thee, most excellent Theophilus.”
Here at
the very beginning we read that what he is
about to relate is what had been transmitted by those who
have been eye-witnesses and ministers of the
“Word.” It is extraordinary that St. John should
have received this from his Greek culture and that St. Luke,
who according to this view belonged to the simple folk, also
speaks of the “Logos” without this culture. Such
things should call the attention of even believers in
authority to the fact that arguments which lead to such
conclusions are really not exact ones, but only prejudices;
(it is the materialistic spectacles that have brought out
this idea of the Gospel of St. John). They should call
attention also to the fact that the St. John document should
be placed alongside the other Gospels in the manner just
characterized, because in the Gospel of St. Luke the Logos is
also spoken of. What was said by those who were eye-witnesses
and ministers of the Logos shows that in olden times the
Logos was spoken of as something which the people knew about
and with which they were familiar. And this we must
particularly hold in mind in order that we may penetrate more
deeply into the first paradigmatic verses of the Gospel of
St. John. What was a writer speaking about, if at that time
he used the word “Logos” or “Word” in
our sense? What could he have meant?
You will
not come to this ancient conception of the
“Logos” through theoretical interpretations and
abstract intellectual discussions, but you must enter in
spirit into the entire feeling-life of all those who have
spoken in this way about the “Logos.” These
people also observed the things about them; but it is not
sufficient that we simply observe what is in our environment,
the important thing is that the feelings of our hearts and
souls should also participate in what we observe. We should
consider a thing of greater or less importance according to
what we are able to discern in it. We all observe the
kingdoms of nature about us, the minerals, plants, animals
and man. We call the human kingdom the most perfect creation,
the mineral the most imperfect. Within the respective
kingdoms of nature we differentiate again beings of higher
and lower grades. Men have experienced this quite differently
in different ages. Those who spoke from the standpoint of the
Gospel of St. John found one thing above all else to be of
very great importance. They looked down upon the lower animal
kingdom and let their glance sweep up as far as man and in
this evolutionary sweep they traced something very definite.
They said: There is one quality which shows most profoundly
the superiority of the higher beings over the lower. This is
the capacity to utter aloud in words what exists within the
soul, to communicate thoughts to the surrounding world by
means of words. Behold the lower animals! They are mute, they
do not express their pain and pleasure. They squeak or make
other sounds, but it is the outer scraping and rubbing of the
physical organs which produce these sounds, as in the case of
the lobster. The higher we go in evolution, the more do we
see the capacity developed for expressing the inner feelings
in sound and communicating in tones the experiences of the
soul. Therefore, they said, the human being stands thus high
above other creatures, because not only can he express his
pleasure and pain in words, but because he is able to put
into words what rises above the personal, that is to say, the
spiritual, the impersonal, and to express this by means of
thoughts.
And there
were among the followers of the
Logos-doctrine those who said that there existed a period
prior to the time when man had developed his present form, a
form in which it is now possible for him to express in words
the most intimate experiences of his soul. It has taken a
long time for our earth to evolve to its present form. (We
shall hear later how this earth came into existence.) But if
we examine the earlier states of the earth, we do not yet
find mankind in its present shape, nor do we find any
creature which could utter aloud what it was experiencing
inwardly. Our world began with mute creatures and only by
degrees did beings appear upon this dwelling place of ours
who could express aloud their innermost experiences through
having acquired a command of language.
The followers
of St. John said further: What
appears last in the human being existed in the world in the
very earliest times. We fancy that the human being in his
present form did not exist in the earlier conditions of the
earth. But in an imperfect, mute form he was there and little
by little he evolved into a being endowed with the Logos or
the Word. This became possible through the fact that what
appears within him later as the creative principle was there
from the very beginning, in a higher reality. What struggled
forth out of the soul was in the beginning the divine
creative principle. The Word, which sounds forth from the
soul, the Logos, was there in the beginning and so guided
evolution that at last a being came into existence, in whom
it also could manifest. What finally appears in time and
space was already there in spirit from the beginning.
In order
that this may be quite clear, let us make
the following analogy. I have here a flower before me. This
corolla, these petals, what were they a short time ago? A
little seed. And in the seed, this white flower existed in
potentiality. Were it not there potentially, this flower
could not have come into existence. And whence comes the
seed? It springs again from just such a flower. The blossom
precedes the seed or fruit and again in like manner, the
seed, from which this blossom has sprung, has been evolved
out of a similar plant.
Thus these
followers of the Logos-doctrine observed
the human being and said: If we go back in evolution, we find
him in earlier conditions still mute, still incapable of
speech. But just as the seed came from the blossom, so
likewise the mute human-seed in the beginning had its origin
in a God endowed with the power of uttering the
“Word.” The lily-ofthe-valley produces the seed
and the seed again the lily-of-the-valley; in like manner the
divine creative Word created the mute human seed — and
when this primeval creative Word had glided into the human
seed, in order to spring up again within it, it sounded forth
in words. When we go back in human evolution we meet an
imperfect human being and the significance of evolution is,
that finally the Logos or Word which discloses the depths of
the human soul may appear as its flower. In the beginning
this mute human being appears as seed of the Logos-endowed
human being, but, on the other hand, has sprung from the
Logos-endowed God. The human being has sprung from a mute
human creature, not gifted with speech, but: In the
beginning was the Logos, the Word.
Thus those
who understand the Logos-doctrine in its
earlier significance press forward to the divine creative
Word which is the beginning of existence and to which the
writer of the Gospel of St. John refers. Let us hear what he
says in the very first words: — “In the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a
God.”
They will
ask where is the “Word”
today? The Word is also here today and the Word is with men
and the Word has become man! Thus the writer of the Gospel of
St. John forges a link between man and God and indeed we find
sounding forth in the beginning of this Gospel a doctrine
easy for every human heart to understand.
In this
introductory lecture today, I wished to
picture to you in simple words — but more from the
standpoint of feeling and of inward sensing — how
originally a believer in the doctrine of the Logos
interpreted these words of the Gospel of St. John. And after
having entered into the soul-mood which existed when these
words were first heard, we shall be that much better able to
penetrate into the deep meaning which lies at the foundation
of this Gospel.
Further,
we shall see that what we call Spiritual
Science is in fact a restitution of the Gospel of St. John
and that it puts us in the position of being able thoroughly
to understand it.
Notes:
Note 1.
The reader will please remember that he is reading a lecture,
something given by the spoken word, hence very different
from the written word. The lecturer was speaking to
students and had often to repeat. He was moreover never
able to correct the stenogram. Ed.
|