THE TERM “BUSH” may be considered an appendix to the phrase “I AM,” for the seminal usage of both is in Ex 3, where their meaning is clearly synonymous in the light of anthroposophical insight. To that effect, see “I AM” herein. We saw in “I AM” that the higher “I Am” is the Christ Spirit, while the lower is the human Ego.

Let us reflect for a moment upon the nature of this duality. The Parable of the Prodigal Son, in both its higher and lower applications, speaks of two sons. The larger version is that of the whole Bible story, of how the “prodigal” son (humanity) fell away and how the other Son was sacrificed in order to bring the Prodigal back into familial unity. Recall from “The Nativity” the ancient prophetic maxim that the blessing would be “when the two become one.” This verity was enacted, in the sense of the process of Incarnation, as Luke tells us, in the twelve-year old scene in the temple (Lk 2,41-51). There the two Jesus children became one, Jesus of Nazareth. Lk 2,52 tells us of how this “one” “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man” over the period from age twelve to age “Thirty” (Lk 3,23). All four Gospels relate to us then the most divine stage of the Incarnation, when the “dove,” the Christ Spirit entered into Jesus of Nazareth, and he was then more fully Jesus Christ. This is the point at which the Incarnation was essentially completed. The “two-to-become- one” vehicles were incarnated in “The Nativity,” but the point at which the “Son” was adopted (or begotten) on Earth, was at the Baptism (see “Baptism-Dove”; “You are my begotten son, today I have begotten you,” Ps 2,7; see also Mt 3,17; Mk 1,11; Lk 3,22, as well as Is 42,1; and cf. Jn 1,12; Rom 8,23).

The story of the outgoing and return of the Prodigal Son is one first of descent and then reascent, respectively depicted in the fullness of the Bible account under what we will see under “Fission” and “Fusion.” The Old Testament is primarily a story of division or separation (“fission”), while the New Testament gives us that of reunion (“fusion”). We first saw the spiritual principle of “the two becoming one” in “The Nativity.” See the discussion there under fn 30 and the related text from Lect. 6, Gospel of St. Matthew (GSMt). The complex nature of this spiritual principle is shown in the passage from the Alexandrian church no later than the fifth century A.D., in which the Lord, asked when his kingdom would come, replies, “When two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.” See also fn 21 of “The Nativity.”

This divine “oneness” is beautifully expressed in Christ’s final prayer in John’s Gospel (Jn 17) in which he prays “that they may become perfectly one” (Jn 17,23) and “that they . . . may be with me where I am” (Jn 17,24). The growing union is later expressed by Lazarus/John in the magnificent evolutionary panorama of the Apocalypse. The final unity is there expressed in terms of the New Jerusalem, the union of the bride and bridegroom (Rev 21,2; see also “Bride/Bridegroom”), when the “Name” of Christ was also that of the human being (Rev 2,17; 3,12; 19,12; Is 44,5; 45,3-4; 56,5; 62,2; 66,22), the higher and the lower “I Am’s” become the same “name.”

Paul’s entire ministry was directed toward this union of the higher and lower “I Am’s.” We see it all the way from Rom 7-8 through Gal 2,20 (“Not I but Christ in me”) to Eph 1,9-10 when all things are united with Christ and the Father in “oneness.”

While the union of the “I Am’s” is expressed at the end of the Bible, it is equally apparent that the duality of meaning exists when the “I Am” is first introduced in Ex 3. As we saw, it was Christ speaking to Moses. But in truth, we had to show in “I AM” how this was so by reference to other scriptural passages. The metaphor of the “burning bush” which “was not consumed” appears more immediately to reflect the condition of the human soul (Ego). In “Karma and Reincarnation” we saw how the path of the human soul after death led first (after the brief etheric panorama) into the astral world where the “Purifying Fire” was to burn away all earthly desire and passion, in flames likened to “hell”—the sojourn which found a form of expression in the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.1 For “the burning bush” metaphor, the salient point we saw in that journey is how the Ego was not consumed. And it is never to be fully consumed unless and until it has failed, by the time of the ultimate “Fire” (Rev 20; 2 Pet 3,7), to take into itself (i.e., become one with) the higher “I Am.” When we get to “Fire,” in Vol. 2, “What Is Man?”, we shall see more fully the meaning of Christ’s statement, “I came to cast fire upon the earth” (Lk 12,49). We can then see more fully how it is that “the burning bush” on Mount Sinai was the approach of Christ, for the human being enters into oneness with the Christ through the element of “Fire,” the one “element” which is still united in Earth in its duality (both etheric or spiritual, on the one hand, and mineral or earthly, on the other). The reality of this is shown by the fact that some characteristic of fire is usually present in the Bible when a human being perceives a spiritual being. It was thus in the only explicit scriptural appearance of the Seraphim, when Isaiah saw the Lord (Is 6,1-8). See also, for instance, Gen 15,17; Gen 22,1-14; Ex 3,2-3; 13,21; 1 K 18,38; 2 K 1,10-14 and 2,11 and 6,17; Is 10,17; Mt 3,11; Lk 3,16 and 12,49; Acts 2,3; 1 Cor 3,13-15; Heb 1,7; Rev 1,14 et al.; and, in addition to “Fire,” see “Flaming” and “Thunder/ Lightning”; in all of which the fire element is associated with great holiness. It is the point of contact between Heaven and Earth.

Powerful confirmation that “the burning bush” refers not only to the Christ “I Am” but also to the human “I Am” is found in Jesus’ response to the Sadducees’ challenge to interpret the resurrection in the light of the levirate law (Lk 20,27-38). This passage is discussed under Point #5 of “Karma and Reincarnation” above, but the point here is that the lower “I Am,” or human Ego, is addressed under the term “bush” in the statement (emphasis added), “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord [i.e., the higher “I Am”] the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him [ie., the higher “I Am”].” Here it is the lower “I Am” which is “raised from the dead”; but the essential relationship between the higher and the lower “I Am” seems clearly implied.2

One should not overlook the immense significance of the fact that the pronouncement, “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” first appears in Ex 3,6 in specific connection with the “Bush.” Its echo reverberates throughout the Bible. It is found at least six times in the Old and five times in the New Testaments, not counting the passages “(I am the) God of your fathers,” or the “God of Israel.” Its meaning may also be carried over into the trio “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” more fully explored under that phrase later, as well as in the “Three Bodies” passages below. The overriding meaning of all later usages can be taken from this passage of its origination, for it is born in connection with the “burning bush,” and only later is the term “Lord” substituted for the “bush.” It was previously pointed out in “Karma and Reincarnation” (Point #5) that Lk 20,37-38 had this meaning, for there all the concepts (“Bush,” “God of” and the three “fathers”) are linked in illustrating “that the dead are raised” (in distinction from being “resurrected” when “they cannot die any more”). Without this understanding, one misses its critical thread of meaning in Jn 8,31-59 and Rom 9,1-13. We are being told throughout the Bible that the Christ-enabled human “I Am,” the (higher) Ego, is “Lord” meaning that it is “God” over the “Three Bodies.”John 8,52-53 shows that the “Three Bodies” die, but the “I Am” (or “burning bush”) does not. Both the Johannine and Pauline passages show that one is not a true child of Abraham who does not take in the higher “I Am” (Jn 8,39-47 and Rom 9,6-8) which is the “God” over such “fathers” or “Three Bodies.”

Mark’s account of the levirate law question (Mk 12,18-27) also relates Jesus’ answer to “the passage about the bush.” While more cryptic, its meaning is clarified by the fuller Luke version. Matthew is even more terse (Mt 22,23-32), but still compatible in meaning, though it jumps over the “bush” reference.

These represent the most pointed and clear scriptural usages of the “bush” metaphor, but from them we can garner meaning in other passages as well. If we there take “bush” to apply to the Ego, either the higher or the lower or both depending upon context, there is generally a wondrous enhancement of meaning. By the “higher Ego” is meant the Christ, the “I Am” who appeared to Moses, or the human Ego which has become fully perfected (See “Perfect”) through “becoming one with” the Christ. By the “lower Ego” is meant the human Ego which is not yet so perfected—one which has not yet reached the stage of not having to reincarnate (“for they cannot die anymore . . . [having become] sons of God,” Lk 20,36; Jn 1,12; Rev 3,12). Except for those exalted human beings who embody an angelic being or a perfected human soul returning in humility only to sacrificially serve others, one lives on Earth as a human being only because karmic debt remains, further perfection being required.

Gen 21,15: When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes.

This is part of the account of Hagar dispatching Ishmael into the “Wilderness,” an account filled with rich symbolism. We remember from the discussion in “I AM” above that the “Wilderness” is where the “I Am” is found, and here Ishmael is placed under a “bush” in the “wilderness.” For while Ishmael was not chosen to sire the line that would provide the physical body for the Incarnation of the Christ, he was blessed and did father twelve sons, the same number as Isaac, and both Ishmael and Isaac laid Abraham to rest (Gen 25,9). One cannot properly think of Ishmael pejoratively when the Biblical account is read in the light of anthroposophy. While it was through Isaac that Abraham’s descendants were to be named (Gen 21,12; Rom 9,7; Heb 11,18), we can see that in the higher sense this meant that it was through him that the higher “I Am,” the “Name” of Christ the LORD, the Kyrios (see “I AM”), was to come, and that the opportunity of developing the twelvefold zodiacal nature of the Ego promised in Gen 15,5 was not limited to Isaac’s line but extended also to Ishmael. See the Commentary for the meaning of their respective “names.”

Deut 33,13-17: (13) And of Joseph he said, “Blessed by the LORD be his land, with the choicest gifts of heaven above, . . . (14) with the choicest fruits of the sun,. . . (15) with the finest produce of the ancient mountains, . . . (16) with the best gifts of the earth and its fullness, and the favor of him that dwelt in the bush. Let these come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the head of him that is prince among his brothers. . . .”

The sun wisdom, the “choicest fruits of the sun,” is the natural clairvoyance that settles “upon the crown of the head” (see the discussion of the Abel and Solomon wisdom in the Appendix to “Three Bodies” below). Michelangelo depicted it in Moses by the stubs of two horns just above his hairline. We should see in this a certain significance in the “Name” Joseph. See “The Nativity.” The “favor of him that dwelt in the bush” suggests that the gift is bestowed by the descending Christ for the fulfillment of his mission. The “fullness,” pleroma, of the Elohim (Jn 1,16) is hinted.

Job 30,1-8: (1) But now they make sport of me, men who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock. (2) What could I gain from the strength of their hands, men whose vigor is gone? (3) Through want and hard hunger they gnaw the dry and desolate ground; (4) they pick mallow and the leaves of bushes, and to warm themselves the roots of the broom. (5) They are driven out from among men.. . . (6) In the gullies of the torrents they must dwell, in holes of the earth and of the rocks. (7) Among the bushes they bray; under the nettles they huddle together. (8) A senseless, a disreputable brood, they have been whipped out of the land. (Emphasis added)

One can appreciate the great meaning of this passage, as well as that of the book of Job in its entirety (more fully shown in “Three Bodies” herein), only when one sees that it sets out the multifold nature of the human being (see I-9) as presented by anthroposophy.

INTPN fairly states the view the Judeo-Christian faith has developed with respect to this book in opening its Introduction thereto, “The Book of Job has to do with the most painful and unavoidable questions which can arise in human experience,” stemming from the existence of arbitrary suffering and its meaning. Ask the person in the street what the book (Job) stands for. The likely response will be James’ aphorism which probably expresses the extent of real knowledge modern theology has to offer on the subject (i.e., the net result of extensive treatises and the substance of the first sentence of the Introduction to Job in 15 AB xv)—“the patience of Job,” Jam 5,11 (KJV), variously translated “perseverance” (NIV), “steadfastness” (RSV), “endurance” (KJV/NIV— INT) or otherwise. That knowledge, i.e., Job’s “patience,” is certainly valid as far as it goes, but is merely part of the problem or “Mystery,” and does not alone suffice for understanding the deeper message. While I am not aware that Rudolf Steiner found the time to ever explicitly address, in any depth, the fuller meaning of this book, he does give definite pointers, such as in From Jesus to Christ (JTC), Lect. 5, pp. 94-97; Supersensible Knowledge (SKN), Lect. 3 (differently translated as the first lecture in The Origin of Suffering/The Origin of Evil/Illness and Death [(OSOE)]); Turning Points in Spiritual History (TPSH), Lect. 4, pp. 210- 213; and The Karma of Materialism (KM), Lect. 3, p. 44. Other points in his works that are relevant to various portions of Job will be taken up in the Commentary or elsewhere. Notably, however, in Manifestations of Karma (MK), Lect. 3, p. 63, we read,

The spiritual investigator must always in the case of illness consider, on the one hand, the share the physical body may have in this particular case, and, on the other, the share of the etheric body and the astral body; for all three principles may be involved in the disease.

I-37 is taken from MK, Lects. 3, 6 and 10, and more fully elaborates this briefly stated point. Suffice it for now to say that the human being’s Fall (Gen 3) resulted in the imposition of divine remedies for each of the “Three Bodies”, pain (astral body), toil (etheric body) and death (physical body), (Gen 3,16,17,19; see also #5 in “Three Bodies” below).

As one comes to a fuller understanding of anthroposophy and then investigates Job more fully, it can be seen to portray the picture of the “first Adam” (see “First and Second Adam”), before his descent into materiality, at a time when the spiritual powers exposed him to the Luciferic influence (Gen 3). The only condition was that his “life” must be “spared” (Job 2,6; cf. Cain’s lament in Gen 4,13-15 immediately following the expulsion from the Garden). Reincarnation was about to begin with the Fall. Job’s three friends represent, successively, his three bodies, starting from the oldest, the physical, etheric and astral (see #2 in “Three Bodies). His youngest member (Elihu), the Ego, does not make its entrance until Job 32. Immediately prior to that (Job 29-31) he yearns for the days in the Garden before he descended into materiality. What Job experiences through the body of the book is the agony of the “three bodies” and the darkening of the face of God (see “Mysteries” below). In the latter chapters of the poetic portion of the story, we see the Ego progressing toward the perfection of the “three bodies,” and in the prose conclusion, Job 42,7-17, the wrath of God is directed toward the “three friends” who are obliged to offer up a “burnt offering” (i.e., themselves being purified thereby; see also “Fire” in Vol. 2). Whereupon, Job was not only restored to his former position with spiritual beings, but he was transformed by being more blessed than he was before (vs 12).

Steiner makes it clear, as does the book of Job itself, that Job suffered innocently. The human being was infected in the Garden before the Ego had descended into it, and thus was not morally responsible for what existed in its “members” (Rom 7,21-25; see The Concepts of Original Sin and Grace [(OSG)]), thus laying the just and reciprocal basis for the “Grace” that was to be later bestowed upon it freely. But the innocence of Job, as Steiner says, illustrates even more that suffering is not, in the given personality, necessarily due to the sins of that Individuality. Suffering is, in and of itself, a matter of upward transformation, spiritualization, the reascent of the human being. A soul can incarnate for the purpose of suffering to overcome the karma of humanity as a whole, or of other individuals. Job is mentioned in only three books of the Bible, Job, Ezekiel and James. Ezekiel identifies him as one of three paragons of virtue, Noah, Daniel and Job (Ezek 14,12-20; see #46 in “Three Bodies”). This would seem to justify Steiner’s view, not unique to him, that Job’s suffering was innocent, that is, his incarnation had a certain sacrificial character in it of “overcoming evil with good” (Rom 12,21) in curing not his own but the karma of humanity. As in Paul’s case, for him to live was Christ, though, as seen in chapters 29-31, to die was gain (Phil 1,21).

When Paul said “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1,23; 2,2; see “Crucified”), he was giving Christendom a message it has yet to understand. It is implicit in his denouement where he describes Christ as the “first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15,20), for “each in his own order” (vs 23), to become kindred “fruit,” must likewise suffer the crucifixion of the “three bodies” during the course of “perfection.” For a normal human being this cannot be accomplished within the course of a single lifetime. We see this in the long drama of Lazarus/John’s Apocalypse (Rev). See “First Born/Fruits.”

In the light of anthroposophy, every single Biblical use of the term “bush(es)” (Gen 21,15; Ex 3,2-4; Deut 33,16; Job 30,4,7; Mk 12,26; Lk 6,44; 20,37; Acts 7,30,35) can be seen to involve the human Ego, the lower “I Am,” either alone or in conjunction with the higher “I Am” of Christ. In the passage above, Job speaks of “men who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock,” who “make sport of me.” They only gather the “leaves of bushes,” having no grasp (comprehension or vision) of the whole “bush” (Ego). Job is an old soul, such, for instance, as we have seen in Zarathustra (see “The Nativity”). These souls return to Earth sacrificially and, in humble service to humanity, suffer the barbs of others “younger,” i.e., less spiritually mature, than they—in the pattern of the suffering servant, Jesus of Nazareth. We can even see in Job’s reference to “the dogs of my flock” some indication of the future redemption by the Human Kingdom of the lower three Kingdoms (Rom 8,19-23; Eph 1,9-10), animals who only eat the “leaves of bushes,” who, during the course of human evolution, descended prematurely into materiality and were thereby “driven out from among men” to “dwell in holes of the earth and of the rocks,” merely “braying” “among the bushes” or Egos of human beings (vs 8). From another perspective, the Christ-inspired Ego is tormented by its lower “three bodies,” especially by the “Wild Animals” of its astral body which “make sport” of it. It was these of which Mark spoke about Christ’s temptations (Mk 1,13). But in all respects, the “bush” represents the Ego, higher, lower or both.

While the foregoing discussion essentially exhausts the scriptural usages of the term “Bush(es),” we should not stop there, for once it is seen that it is a metaphor for the Ego or “I Am,” we should consider whether extending that meaning to synonyms or parallels of the literal term “bush” is warranted. For instance, “bush” and “shrub” have the same meaning, and both involve a wood element, so small trees (see “Under the Tree”) also come within the scope of our search, and other passages are given enhanced meaning. (Emphasis mine)

Is 6,13: “And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains standing when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.

Jer 17,5-6: (5) Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, whose heart turns away from the LORD. (6) He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.”

Mt 13,31-32: (31) Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; (32) it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

To the same general effect are the synoptic parallels in Mk 4,30-32 and Lk 13,18-19, and the meaning may even be extended to

Mt 17,20: “. . . For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.”

Also to its parallel in Lk 17,6.

To understand the warrant for such extensions, consider the nature of a “bush,” shrub, tree, or in fact of any plant. Here all that can be done is simply to point the reader in the direction for further contemplation. The Goethean conception of the “archetypal plant” furnishes an excellent starting point. In this connection, see “Johann Wolfgang von Goethe” in Cognate Writings, Vol. 3, Companions Along The Way as well as Goethean Science (GS) and Goethe’s World View (GWV). One approaches the idea by simply asking the question, What constitutes a plant? If we look at it at any given instant in time, it will differ, just as does any other creature in the physical world to greater or lesser extent, from its state in any other instant of time. Thus, one cannot define a plant solely by describing it as a physical phenomenon analyzed at any one such instant. The plant is described more truthfully if it can be seen in its entire life cycle. But this includes the composite picture at every stage, from seed to sprout to stem to leaf to fruit and back to seed. Indeed, it is helpful to consider the immense spiritual significance of the term “Seed.”3

The eye cannot physically “see” the “archetypal plant.” To “see” it, one must use other methods of “sight.” We can, of course, mentally picture each state, but what is it that we conceptualize when that has been done? We get close, in such case, to the etheric (life) body of the plant. But what we conceptualize at that point is not the etheric body, but what emanates from it, namely, the physical body. Yet it is not what we see with our sensate eyes as, and call in our common language, the physical body. Rather it is the spiritualized physical body discussed later under “Form/Phantom” (cf. also “Formed”). It is the unmineralized and non-densified “pattern” (see Ex 25,9,40; Num 8,4; Acts 7,44; Heb 8,5) shown us on the “Mountain” (see “Mountain,” “High Mountain” and “As Above, So Below”). While the physical body is the human being’s oldest “member” (see I-14), having represented spiritual heat on Old Saturn, its earthly manifestation to the senses is only through its densification and mineralization.

In the human, as also in the animal and plant, when the etheric (or life) body separates from the physical body, the latter reverts to its pure mineral condition (e.g., Jn 8,52-53), losing its “Form,” as we see it with our sensate eyes, and disintegrating. Thus, the etheric body is what “Forms” our earthly physical bodies and causes them to retain their shape and to develop and/or heal. (Recall the application of this principle in “The Nativity,” in the discussion of the virginity of the two Mary’s, particularly the Solomon Mary in Matthew’s Gospel.) Defective etheric bodies generally require more than one life to be healed, but defective physical conditions can be healed by a healthy etheric body. Something of the depth of this matter can be seen in I-37.

The “Form/Phantom” representing the spiritualized physical body is, therefore, close to what we conceptualize when we think of a plant. There is a close connection between it and the etheric body, but the latter is not a Form, for the etheric world is one of constant motion or fluidity. The fluids in our bodies are the earthly counterpart of the etheric world, but one who “sees” in the etheric world perceives motion. When our future organ of perception (associated with manas, or “Manna”) is sufficiently developed, we will be able to perceive the etheric body in the plant or higher kingdoms. (Much in the Charts & Tabulations is helpful here, as, for instance, I-9 through I-14.) Goethe appears to have been the harbinger of this, but his vision was limited, while that of Steiner, the prophet, went far beyond. It is only that humanity has such limited scope (see Abbott’s Flatland [FLd]) that it has given him thus far the treatment accorded true prophets (Mt 5,12; Lk 6,23; Mt 23,37; Lk 13,34; Mt 23,34).

When one begins to see the nature of the various kingdoms in the light of anthroposophy, then even such terms as “Grass” can be seen to carry deep meaning beyond that otherwise apparent. The Bible can hardly convey its deeper meaning without these understandings. The literal language is simply part of the “hiding” process, the “occult” vehicle, inherent in its elaboration.

We teach children the ancient Greek myths, for instance, the myth of Prometheus. Why do so many in our materialistic time not accept that the Mosaic account from the same historical period, or even earlier, likewise expresses its truths in myth and allegory? When we get to spiritual adulthood, should we not “give up [these mere] childish ways” (1 Cor 13,11; see also “Milk,” “Simple” and “Simple rather than Wise;” consider also Paul’s instruction in Gal 4 and 1 Cor 10,1-4, and the discussion of Philo in “Egypt” below.) In the transition from the Chaldo-Egyptian Cultural Era, which our own Era mirrors (see I-24 and I-25), to the critical and intervening Greco-Roman, something of the same thing was said by the Egyptian priest to Solon: “O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. . . . Those genealogies of yours . . . are no better than the tales of children [for among other things] you remember a single deluge only....” (Timaeus; see “Plato” in Cognate Writings, Vol. 3). Is it not time to come, with anthroposophical (see I-65) light, into an under-standing of the Biblical message, given us in the form of holy myth, for spiritual adulthood in our Age?