The Prince of Peace

Did our Prince of Peace really say that he came to "send" a sword?:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

-Matthew 10:34

Contrary to this, Matthew later states:

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

-Matthew 26:52

Moreso than any of the other Gospels, Matthew's is one of non-violence:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
-Matthew 5:38-39

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

 -Matthew 5:43-47

Therefore the line about the "Prince of Peace" bringing a sword seems out of place in Matthew.

Uncharacteristically, Dr. Steiner agrees and tells us that this scriptural verse has been completely misquoted; implying the reverse of what was meant:

"I have not come to send peace away from this Earth but to send away the sword" is Dr. Steiner's rendering of the verse. He then continues:

"Christ entered into the spiritual sphere of Earth-existence in order gradually to rescue it from elements that bring about discord and disharmony in mankind. Spiritual Science will establish peace when it is truly Christian, in the sense of bringing about the unity of religions. It can unite not only those in regions immediately around us but can establish peace over the whole Earth, because it understands the nature of the deed wrought by the greatest Bringer of peace."

See: The Gospel of Matthew, Rudolf Steiner, Lecture 12

In Luke the word "sword" is replaced with "division":

"I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

-Luke, 12: 51-53

In George Lamsa’s translation from the Aramaic—the language spoken by Jesus—we find a footnote relating to Matthew 10:34. This footnote states the Aramaic word translated as “sword” is an Aramaic idiom meaning “division.” Read in Jesus’ own language, the verse states: “I have not come to bring peace but division.”

 
• Matthew 10:34 reads “I came not to send peace, but the sword”. However rather than “gladius” which means “sword”, The Book of Kells has “gaudium” meaning “joy”. Rendering the verse: “I came not [only] to send peace, but [also] joy”.^[1]

Celestial Hierarchy

The Elohim in Genesis are a plurality and this is what it literally says- also "We" and "They" are used.
Honorific? - I don't think so - there are no Jehovahim or Adonais. Nowhere in the Bible is a plural used as an honorific. Jesus didn't refer to His "Fathers". Queen Victoria said things like "We are not amused.", but we never refer to the Queen as "Queens". When God speaks from the burning bush He says "I Am that I Am", that is specific. 

Gerard Wagner

All other lesser beings stream from Father God. Rudolf Steiner, along with the other Christian esotericists, sees in the Elohim the working of Christ the Creative Word.

The "gods many, and lords many" "including Thrones, angelic Lords, celestial Powers and Rulers;" that Paul of Tarsus speaks of, are the hierarchical beings. Paul's disciple Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, carried on this secret teaching and his later disciple, who took on his name, wrote of these Celestial Hierarchies. This book became, probably, the most influential in all Christendom. It was presented to Charlemagne as a coronation gift.

So revelation continues on.The Anthroposophical Christology is there for those who are ready for the "strong meat" as the writer of Hebrews tells it:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:13-14

Yama

Rudolf Steiner gives the broader definition of stealing in his summing up of the Indian concept of Yama:

"Yama includes everything which has to be given up by one who wishes to go through a yoga training, and its precepts we find more fully expressed in the commandments: Non-lying, non-killing, non-stealing, non-extravagance, and non-desiring. The commandment 'non-killing' is a very strict one, and holds good for all beings. No living being may be killed, or even injured, and the more strictly this is kept, the further the student is brought. It is beside the question to ask if this can be carried out in our civilization.

'Non-lying' is easier to understand when it is kept in mind that every lie is a murder on the astral plane.

'Non-stealing': That must also be carried out in its strictest sense. A European may say he is not stealing, but in the eyes of the oriental yogi the matter is not so lightly disposed of. In the countries where these precepts were first divulged by the great teachers of humanity, the conditions of life were much simpler, and the principle of theft could easily be fixed. But a yoga teacher would not agree that a European does not steal. If, for example, I appropriate in an unlawful way the working power of another person, if I procure a profit for myself, a profit that is permitted by law but that means the exploitation of another person, the yoga teacher will call that 'stealing.' Our ways of life are complicated. Many transgress this commandment without being in any way aware of having done so.

'Non-extravagance' is just as complicated. A person whose money is invested in distilleries without his knowing it, is just as much guilty as the manufacturer who distils liquors. The fact of not knowing does not change the Karma. But if you are rich your possibility of hurting others is lessened in the proportion in which you strive after frugality.

'Non-desiring' is very difficult. It implies striving to be without any wants whatever; approaching the world without a single desire, and merely doing what is demanded of us by the outer world. Even the feeling of satisfaction in bestowing benefits must be suppressed. In the yoga teachings Yama is enforced with the utmost severity, and cannot, as it is now taught, be transplanted to Europe."

It is interesting that Pantanjali makes the following distinction between wealth and theft:

"When abstinence from theft, in mind and act, is complete in the Yogee, he has the power to obtain all material wealth."

But that interpretation is by the theosophist, William Quan Judge, and it doesn't make a lot of sense since why would the yogi want "all material wealth".

A better version is by Charles Johnston: The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali:


"The obvious meaning is, that he who has wholly ceased from theft, in act, thought and wish, finds buried treasures in his path, treasures of jewels and gold and pearls. The deeper truth is, that he who in every least thing is wholly honest with the spirit of Life, finds Life supporting him in all things, and gains admittance to the treasure house of Life, the spiritual universe.

"37. Where cessation from theft is perfected, all treasures present themselves to him who possesses it."

Luke's Genealogy of Jesus

  The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak.

According to Luke 3:23:

 And when he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,  the son of Matthat, the son of Levi......

Aside from the fact that Mary is not mentioned, there are two possible interpretations: either Joseph was her father or he was her brother. Clearly this is not acceptable. A third would be that Joseph, the son of Eli, was her father and just happened to have the name as the man to whom she was betrothed. But that would seem to be grasping at straws.

The most straightforward interpretation is that Luke had no intention of tracing Mary's genealogy (in which case he would have named her) but that he traces her husband's, from David's son Nathan.

The Matthew descendant list most definitely traces down from David's son, Solomon, to Joseph. Matthew 1:16 reads:

 And to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 There are two apparent problems. The first is, how to reconcile the two paternal genealogies - which diverge with the sons of David, Solomon and Nathan. The second is, why is any genealogy of Joseph relevant at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with it. If Joseph was not Jesus's physical father, Jesus's messianic heritage is not based on truth but only on appearances, whatever Jesus's divine nature was. 

The second problem is easy, in my mind. We assume that Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus in any way. However, a Holy Spirit capable of working a physical conception in Mary is also capable of employing the physical agency of Joseph's seed in this work. 

In our materialistic times we interpret virginity and its loss solely in terms of a physical act, whereas it is really a matter of purity on a much higher level as well. The important thing is that neither Mary nor Joseph was conscious of any union between them (they had not "known" each other). Thus the first gospel's dedication of half its opening chapter to the genealogy of Joseph is quite relevant to Jesus, the Virgin birth notwithstanding. 

There is an answer that creates, to begin with, more problems than it resolves. It is that the two evangelists are relating the births of two entirely different children of two entirely different sets of parents. Except for the names of the parents and the child, and the birthplace in Bethlehem, there is no point in common between the two stories. Matthew and Luke converge in their accounts only thirty years later with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. 

Rudolf Steiner offered his explanation of how these accounts begin with two children and then converge with their accounts of the one Jesus of Nazareth. He did not derive his resolution from biblical study or speculation, or from other external documents. In any case, the details are described in Steiner's "The Spiritual Guidance of the Human Being and of Humanity", "The Gospel of St. Luke", and "The Gospel of St. Matthew". Whether or not Rudolf Steiner's methods and explanation are accepted as valid, at least this interpretation resolves the apparent contradictions of the two genealogies while leaving the text intact. As for the passing of one's Jewishness through the mother, this was never an issue with Jesus. No one ever questioned his or Mary's Jewishness. The issue of the genealogies has to do with his paternal line of descent from David, the king. 

- by Gerry Palo

The Future of Self

The development of Humankind up to this point has been to enhance the separateness of the individuality, and selfishness is part of this. The mission of alcohol played its part too.

In ancient times we experienced our "I" most naturally in all that was around us- the spiritual world as well. The mystic sought to regain some of this consciousness - "I am this world". This was the old tribal consciousness which still persists in some of our Australian Aboriginals.

This sense of individuality has left us with a loneliness, which is very apparent today.

The development of this separate "I" will not end here, but in a voluntary co-operative society in the future- known as the Sixth Race, or Philadelphia in Revelations. (The Sixth Sub Race will be the seed of the Sixth Root Race, or Epoch.)

"For selfless deeds are the real foundations of immortality: this is the reflex of selfless deeds in the outer world."

 
Another paradox- we only get to keep what we give away.

"To do something for the higher self is not selfish because it is not done only for the self. The higher self will be united with all other higher selves, so that is done for all at the same time."

 "A tiny handful of men will save themselves and pass over to the Sixth Epoch. This tiny handful will have developed complete selflessness."

Compassion for self is a caring for oneself, it is not egotism. So many times today we hear of people hating themselves and sometimes led to suicide because of that hate. Compassion for self is right and correct, so is a strong I AM or ego-identity. Conceit is a different matter.

Vanity gives us a false view of ourselves in our relationship to the world.

Our true enduring self is our Higher Self. Our personality will perish at the end of this life.

*All quotes Rudolf Steiner