Introduction to Tonny Aagaard Olesen’s article “Schelling: a historical introduction to Kierkegaard’s Schelling” (Part I). Translators specify the historical and philosophical situation in 1830s–1840s which induced Schelling’s lectures on Philosophy of Revelation at the University of Berlin. Translators consider reasons why Schelling proceeded “positive philosophy” which implied the assertion of God’s actuality (existence) not in terms of pure thought, but in terms of factuality. By proclaiming actuality as its subject, “positive philosophy” united God’s existence and the historical Christendom including Modernity. However, publication of Schelling’s lectures, both verbal and in press, resulted in pragmatic collision between the original author’s utterance and the addressees’ reaction. It was for the reasons translators then analyze in their paper. They argue that the 1840-s actual agenda was intercepted by the Left Hegelians (and their criticism of religion), the Right Hegelians and the Conservatives (and their pursuit to include Christianity in state-building), and Positivism (pretense of natural and social science to be the only ground of actuality). Translators conclude that together with the crisis of Christendom and the spreading nihilism they provided additional facilities for misunderstanding of Schelling’s representation. Ideological and cultural guidelines of the epoch are recited. There is a lot of focus on those due to which Schelling’s philosophical utterance left uncompleted and thus in fact unanswered. Translators clarify additional circumstances which brought the Hegelian part of the audience, along with S. Kierkegaard, to misunderstand the Late Schelling.