The Gospel of John. Lecture 1 of 12.
Rudolf Steiner, Hamburg, May 18, 1908:
Our lectures 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every historical document.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
schoolboy 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. Jahn. 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 widespread 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 endeavored 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 widespread, 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 a 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 supersensible 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 a 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 among 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 whole 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-of-the-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.
No comments:
Post a Comment