The whole scenario of this acceptability of the big bang theory is an analogue to Fagg's de facto recognition of electromagnetism as being sacred. As can be seen from the complete chart of I-22, electricity and magnetism are the polar opposites (i.e., mineral counterparts) of the light ether and the chemical/sound ether (the light and the creative Word of Jn 1,1-3). It might help us to comprehend the monstrosity of the big bang theory to look at this unspeakably materialized (dense) origin in order to compare it with what we know (i.e., what we are told by astronomers with fair plausibility) of the "black holes" that are postulated (i.e., noumenal) in our universe. We are told they are matter so densely compacted that even light cannot escape their gravitational pull. I suppose that the density of the black hole would compare with that of the infinitely infinitesimal speck immediately before the big bang somewhat in the way that an electron (or perhaps even the tauon neutrino that Fagg says "may have a mass of the order of one-ten millionth of that of the electron") would compare with the Earth or even perhaps with the Sun itself-I leave the numerical designation of exponents to the theories of the mathematicians, scientists and astronomers.

Steiner has shown us, most fully in his An Outline of Esoteric Science (OES), that creation occurred over different conditions of being through almost incomprehensible cycles of time and timelessness whereby what was completely spirit at the beginning progressively separated from its offspring, which became increasingly dense and eventually entered into the state of matter. One who contemplates Steiner's vast disclosures and then the observable phenomena (including the biblical record itself) in a Goethean manner, deferring judgment (noumena) as long as possible, will surely see, it seems to me, that they are completely incompatible with the idea of a big bang.

If we go back to the full chart I-22, we note there were not two, but rather three, forces opposed to the spiritual world, namely, the Luciferic, Ahrimanic and Asuric. The last was an evil power and development so far in the future that Steiner said we need not speak of it in our time, but rather concern ourselves with the first two. The Luciferic is, as its name applies, related to light, but it is misplaced or deceptive light. In that capacity it is called diabolos, or "devil." The Ahrimanic goes back to the prehistoric Ahriman of the Ancient Persian Cultural Era (cf. 1 Brit 168, "Ahriman"). This evil force is known as "Satan." See I-32 for a fuller discussion. The balance between Lucifer and Satan is the Christ Spirit, and the three are esoterically depicted in Luke's Gospel by the two thieves and Christ all crucified together (Lk 23,32-43).

Since the big bang theory as we know it today came into existence after Steiner's death, he did not specifically address it. It seems clear to me, however, that one must inevitably infer from his vast works a view of creation diametrically opposed to the big bang. The situation is essentially equivalent to his words on the Darwinism still so widely accepted by scientists today, and again, through lack of insight, also by the theologians, save only the fundamentalists, who adopt their equally fallacious creationism. According to Steiner, Darwin was right in, and to be admired for, his courage in bringing forward the concept of the evolution of the human being, for indeed that is a both a spiritual and a temporal reality. As indicated in the "Evolution" essay, the problem with Darwinism is that its direction is exactly one hundred eighty degrees off course. The human being did not evolve from the animal kingdom or the lower plant and mineral kingdoms, though it has within it all these. Rather, the initial spark of creation had to do with the human being (and the hierarchies themselves), and over the course of evolution the lower three kingdoms, descending prematurely, themselves came into material being as the premature by-products of the descending (evolving) human being. This is, of course, the quintessence of The Burning Bush in its effort to bring forth an exposition of the Bible in the light of Steiner's lofty Intuitions.

The big bang theory is analogous to Darwinism, correct in its idea of an evolving universe, but one hundred eighty degrees off course. John's baptism calling for "repentance" has been misunderstood by Christendom almost from the beginning. As Steiner has told us, it means not so much a remorse for past action as a change in the way of thinking—either interpretation is, of course, as in the case of the Jn 1,5b passage above, literally permissible, but the latter carries the deeper meaning associated with the true nature of human evolution and the uniquely pivotal character of the Christ event that was then upon humanity. There is a need for that repentance in both science and theology today, for both in their materialistic approach have need of repentance in the latter sense.

In fn 41, reference was made to British anthroposophist Nick Thomas' book, Science Between Space and Counterspace (SBSC). Recall also Steiner's statements earlier that the human unites with space and time but not with velocity, so that for us as space and time beings the real thing is not space and time but velocity. Would that it were feasible for us to look at what Thomas says about velocity. If given that opportunity, most readers would agree it is not feasible, for Thomas shows no mercy whatsoever toward us who are not experts in mathematics, physics and the scientific realm in general and their respective argots. I refer the experts to his book.⁶³ What is pertinent for our purposes is, first, his demonstration that though an apparent velocity can be associated with light, light does not travel in the way a particle does (and that its apparent velocity will always be judged regardless of the motion of the observer as explained by Einstein's special relativity); and second, his inference that lighted objects come to our consciousness through the two-way action of both outer and inner light (just as the ancients knew it did).

Theologians should have no trouble with the first part, that light does not travel, for it is everywhere. If the Christ is light, that light is ubiquitous in creation. And John's Gospel affirms that Christ is light (Jn 8,12; 9,5 and 1,1-10). True, we humans must wrestle with how to equate Christ as light, on the one hand, with what lights the physical world for us, on the other. For ever since the "first day" when God created light, separating it from darkness (Gen 1,3-5), the light ether and what eventually became gaseous (darkness) were separated, and things are lighted for our observation now only through the agency of fire, whether it be by a match in a dark room or matter (gas) igniting as it comes in contact with the Elohim at the outer surface of the Sun. The fact that Thomas "agree[s] with the experimental facts [of the] 'velocity' of light" relates to its mineral-physical character as in Fagg's approach. But his suggestion that it does not travel inheres in the ubiquitous nature of the light ether. The mysteries that plague scientists in their search for the nature of light must surely reflect, in some divine way, the hand of the etheric world of light as it tenderly cares for its creature, the world in which we live. That light photons seem to be at widely separated geographical locations at the same minute instant of time without regard to velocity seems in fact to negate velocity in showing ubiquity.

Remember what Steiner said about the importance of making our evaluations on the basis of the whole rather than its individual parts. A cut rose bloom is not a rose. Gravity may not be the mutual attraction of two bodies for each other any more than we could say that our forehead and our hand are mutually attracted to each other when we put our hand on our forehead. The important thing is to consider what is the whole of which our observed phenomenon is but an integral part. Only then can we speak of reality. And in our fractal universe the whole keeps getting bigger, but by it can the real nature of its parts also be more truly seen.

The reader will long ago have recognized that I purport to speak more as a theologian than as a scientist, though I carry no professionally recognized credentials in either discipline. Clearly there are those in both disciplines who demonstrate the greatest humility of knowledge. Frequently, if not usually, this is characteristic of the most knowledgeable. In our time Einstein is legendary for his openness and his candid admissions of inadequacy. He is an eminent paragon for emulation by all in that regard. A childlike openness and eagerness for new insight is needed by us all—a requisite for entry into the kingdom of heaven (Mt 18,3, though a higher, compatible meaning for this verse is also suggested in The Burning Bush, p. 115).

Readers will further recognize that, however much they might also apply to others, my writings are primarily directed to those who are interested in new and deeper insights into the biblical message. These in particular should recognize the passages I will reflect on to close this essay. Light is associated with intelligence, particularly the divine intelligence recognized of old as being Michaelic in character. Its origin is the Christ, the Word (Jn 1,1-10). During the Christ's Incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth, according to John's Gospel he identified himself as the light (Jn 8,12; also 9,5), and he clearly stated that he (for our purposes, the light) "was not of this world" (Jn 8,23; also17,14,16). The concepts are pulled together in The Burning Bush in the essay entitled "I AM." We see there the perfect analogue for Steiner's teaching, and that of ancient civilizations, that our vision of any object comes about by the mutual interaction of the outer light and the inner light. Unless by our own spiritual development we reach out with our lower "I AM" toward the Christ so as infuse our own with Christ's higher "I Am," we cannot evolve upward to dwell in the light. The Christ is everywhere available to the soul (the "I AM") who strives in that upward direction ("I stand at the door and knock," Rev 3,20).⁶⁴

As we stand on the threshold of the third millennium, already well into the first regency of the Archangel of light, Michael, since the time of Christ, each of us, saint and sinner alike, is in a sense still a "man born blind" in need of healing by the Christ. As yet we neither see nor understand the light. At best our vision is like "seeing trees walking" (Mk 8,24; 1 Cor 13,12).

If we are to take the Prodigal Son's first step back to the Father's house, we must first pass through the point of fire. Until then, any real, direct perception and understanding of the nature of light would seem to be only a distant hope (see I-22). What is important for us in our time is to recognize where we are in the greater picture of human evolution.