Karma and Reincarnation, Page 15

The significance of deferring until this first Michaelic regency in the Christian era the revelation of the divine intelligence relating to human rebirth (karma and reincarnation) is also related to the "messenger" who prepares the way for the Christ. This "messenger" (Mk 1,2; Is 40,3; Mal 3,1) is none other than the Archangel Michael. In the Christian Era, Michael acted through John the Baptist, but in the current Era he acts through Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, and we can hardly think otherwise than that it is this Michael whom Christ refers to as "the Spirit of truth" (Jn 16,13; 5 ABD 153, col. 2b [Betz]). We get more deeply into this in "I AM." (See there the latter part, starting in the vicinity of its fns 15 and 16 where we discuss Mk 1,2-3, especially the three bracketed paragraphs following the extract that follows these footnotes.) Steiner's works are laced with references to Michael. The anthology The Archangel Michael (ARCHM) can serve as a helpful introduction.

Returning to Steiner's simile, the "green leaves" were all in place when the twentieth century opened. Now, a century later, it is urgent that the blossom, the knowledge of the reality of Reincarnation and Karma, enter the minds and hearts of humanity "on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt 6,10).

4. Jn 2,1-11:

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

One can hardly come to a fuller understanding of the wedding at Cana without understanding that it signifies that Christianity was not to teach reincarnation for two thousand years. The renowned Brown, in 29 AB 101, says that of John's seven miraculous signs, "Only the Cana miracle has no parallel in the Synoptic tradition." In the light of traditional theology, where Brown is rightly preeminent, this is true. But in the light of anthroposophy, it too is connected with the above esoteric instruction given by Jesus after the Transfiguration and appearance of Elijah. And it is widely recognized that there might be a connection between the wine in this account and that in the Christian "Communion" sacrament, not otherwise mentioned in John's Gospel (for reasons more fully explained in "Peter, James and John"). Indeed, there is. Both relate to the same spiritual necessity. It is ironic that these two events, along with their relatedpassages in regard to Noah and Melchizedek, have been relied upon in recent times to morally justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages, for when they are understood, it will be seen that the segment of humanity that would evolve toward the Second Coming must move away from the consumption of alcohol in doing so. Yet, the express sanction by Christ of the use of wine until that time was given in these two events out of spiritual necessity. And it must surely be more than coincidence that the first serious social movement directed toward prohibiting alcohol (not a correct solution to the problem in Steiner's view) arose almost simultaneously with the confluence of spiritual events discussed in this work that were centered around the beginning of the twentieth century.

Exegesis and exposition in existing commentaries on Jn 2,1-11 seem more ingenious (in the absence of deeper spiritual insight) than meaningfully inspiring. It is to the credit of much modern theology, however, that it is attempting to play down the miraculous element in such passages as this. Steiner never took the position that Christ did not in fact turn water into wine. Quite the contrary. But here as with most other seemingly miraculous incidents, he insisted upon two things. First, when one understands the true character of the Incarnation of Christ—the immense spiritual height embodied in Jesus during the "Three Years"—one can begin to see that he could control elements in ways that indeed appear miraculous to the clouded vision to which humanity had descended. Second, and more important, he lived the real events themselves as symbols. And Evangelist John was more capable than any other of setting this out in his Gospel. The symbols were "Signs," and should be seen exactly as such rather than as miracles. Most available translations properly use the term "signs" rather than "miracles" in Jn 2,11. It is a twist that the RSV is superior on this to the KJV, for the Greek term is clearly "signs." NIV speaks of "miraculous signs," to which its appended footnote says, "John always refers to Jesus' miracles as 'signs,' a word emphasizing the significance of the action rather than the marvel." Again, see CMF.