Глава пятая. Дело Христово

1. The Prophetic Ministry of Christ Christ speaks of the work for which He was sent to earth: “I glorified You on earth, I completed the work that You entrusted Me with fulfilling” (John 17:4), and this work is not any separate act or fact of His life, but embraces His entire earthly ministry. Consequently, it is a divine-human work primarily, that is, one that, nourished from divine sources, was also a human work, and was accomplished through His human nature, in inseparable and unmerged unity with the divine. This matter as a whole constitutes the focus of all human life on earth; in it it has a general beginning and leadership. In its unity, it is unsearchable and inexhaustible, for it constitutes the very basis of the life of humanity in eternity, while our thinking and knowledge always fragments its subject, abstracts individual aspects from it, and thereby inevitably accepts pars pro toto. In this sense, the theological teaching about the three ministries of Christ is the fruit of such an inevitable abstraction or splitting of a single whole. However, this distinction of three different sides still has sufficient biblical and theological foundations for it to be used for the purpose of practical distinction. The prophetic ministry of Christ places Him, first of all, in the ranks of the Jewish prophets or teachers of Israel, as Moses prophesied about Christ: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me; listen to Him” (Deut. 18:15). We have confirmation of this as applied to Christ in Acts 3:22–23, in the speech of St. Peter to the people. Throughout all the Gospels, Jesus is called and revered by the people as a prophet - and He never objects to this title, as He objected to Matt. 19, 16-17 to the young man who called Him good: Matt. 21, 11, Mark. 6, 15, Lk. 7, 16–17; 24, 19, John. 4, 19; 6, 14; 7, 40. And the Lord himself speaks of Himself as a prophet, although in the third person: “There is no prophet without honor, except in his own country and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57, cf. Luke 4:24). “I must walk today, tomorrow and the next day, because it does not happen that a prophet perishes outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). The Lord did not reject the title Teacher (Rabbi), usual for the prophets: Matt. 8, 19, 9, 11, 12, 38; 17, 24; 22, 16; Mk. 5, 35; 10, 17 (it is characteristic that in the address “Good Teacher” Christ objects only to the latter, but not to the first), Mark. 10, 51, Lk. 7, 40; 8, 40; 19, 39; In. 1, 38; 3, 2; 11, 28; 20:16), and even calls Himself this way: “you call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say correctly, for I am (such)... I, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet” (John 13:13-14). “But do not be called teachers, for you have one Teacher, Christ... and do not be called mentors, for you have one Teacher, Christ” (Matthew 23:8-10, cf. Matthew 26:18). Christ says about Himself: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth” (John 18:37), and this proclamation of the truth, no matter what it relates to: the present, the past and the future, - to an individual human destiny or the destinies of an entire people, all humanity - to the human soul or to the natural world - is a matter of prophetic ministry, true prophecy in contrast to false (“your prophets they preached to you empty and false things... and they spoke to you false revelations" Jer. 2:14). The prophets proclaimed their word as the word of God: “and the word of the Lord came to me,” “thus says the Lord,” “and the hand of the Lord was upon me,” “and the Spirit of the Lord came upon me and spoke to me.” Prophecy in the Word of God is considered primarily as the action of the spirit of God in the Old Testament, which in the New Testament is revealed as the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who has to guide into all truth (John 16:13). However, the Word of God in the mouths of the prophets became the word of men, which was intelligible to the sons of men. The prophet was a living mediator between God and man (“and I heard the voice of the Lord saying: whom shall I send? And who will go for Us? And I said: here I am, send me” Isa. 6:8), but not an oracle, which would have been only a mechanical instrument for prophesying incomprehensible broadcasts to himself. Of course, prophecies, and especially visions, were not always, and not immediately, and not fully understood by the prophets themselves, but in any case they fit into their human consciousness and were proclaimed by them in human language. Before the announcement to the people, they became the personal property of the prophet and to that extent his individuality was imprinted on them. It is known that both prophets and prophecies are imprinted with a highly individual character; they express not only the personality of the prophet with its properties, but also his personal creativity in his greatest tension, which is required in order to listen to and proclaim the word of God. The Prophet experienced the highest personal inspiration, which was also divine inspiration; the spirit to which the prophet listened was not only his own spirit, revealing in its mysterious and in the normal state unknown depths to the prophet himself, but this spirit became permeable by the Spirit of God, in this act was deified by Him. The Prophet comprehended at that moment something that surpassed himself and his own humanity. He clothed this comprehension of his in the appropriate word according to his strength and according to his individual style. The boundary between personal inspiration, which is not always good (hence the “false prophets” - not only in the sense of deliberate lies, but also subjectively sincere deception), and divine inspiration is not external, but internal, and the special guidance of the Spirit of God living in the Church is needed to distinguish between them. What can human creativity consist of in hearing and accepting prophecy? Sometimes this process is revealed clearly. We see with our own eyes the human struggle and human sorrow of the prophet Jeremiah and other prophets, questioning their thoughts about what is happening before them. Prophets are people of intense thought and fiery heart, sacrificial love and ardent faith. Prophet Daniel says about himself that after his visions, “I was exhausted and sick for several days... I was amazed at this vision and did not understand it” (Dan. 8:27), his thought beat like a bird in a cage until he “figured out the number of years from the books,” and then he turned to the Lord “with Prayer and supplications, in fasting, sackcloth and ashes” (9:2-3). In response to this sacrifice, “Gabriel quickly flew in and admonished him” (9:21–22). Also, his next vision (chapter 10) was preceded by the fact that the prophet was in lamentation and fasting for three weeks of days (2-3), after which he again received revelation. As can be said in the language of modern psychology, revelation is preceded by intense work of the spirit, which proceeds largely in the area of ​​the unconscious, until this or that thought, word, vision shines in consciousness. The general conclusion from this is that in the prophetic ministry, as in prophecy itself, the humanity of the prophet is in no way abolished; on the contrary, it is even confirmed to the highest degree in its intensity, and this latter precisely represents the subjective human condition of divine inspiration - the putting of divine coal into open and parched lips. 370 Now the question arises: In what sense can we talk about the prophetic ministry of Christ? In what ways is it similar to the general prophetic ministry and in what ways does it differ from it? If we dwell first on the external, then we should first of all say that the word of divine truth, proclaimed by the Truth itself, was at the same time a human word, although inexhaustible in all its depth, but addressed to man and accessible to him. In this it does not differ from the prophetic word. And even to the extent that it no longer contains a promise and only the shadow of the future, but announces the fulfillment itself, the word of Christ is more accessible than any other prophetic word. The Lord puts Himself in the ranks of the prophets: “You have heard what was said by the ancients (i.e., the prophets), but I speak to you” (Matthew 5: 21–22, 27–28, 33–34). He changes and completes, and at the same time surpasses the law, but without abolishing it, and the Sermon on the Mount is preceded (Matt. 5, 17), with the assurance that He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it, and for His part gives yet another confirmation of the inviolability of the law, “until heaven and earth pass away” (5, 18–19). And then He completes and deepens the law, like the ancient prophets, and especially the greatest of them, for example Isaiah in his teaching about sacrifices (chapter 1), or Jeremiah about the new covenant with God (chapter 31) and about sacrifice (7, 21-23), similar in Ezekiel (11, 19-20, 36, 26-27) and so on. Regarding the internal nature of the prophetic ministry of Christ, the main Christological question arises: was it accomplished by the direct and immediate power of the Logos, being the word of the Word and about the Word, the truth about the Truth? Or did Jesus the prophet, like other prophets, prophesy by the Holy Spirit, “who spoke the prophets,” and in this sense he himself needed a special overshadowing by the Holy Spirit? After all, the word of the Old Testament prophets was also the word of the Word, but nevertheless they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, which implanted in them, awakening in the depths of their own spirit, the prophetic word, carving it out of human nature like fire from stone, and without this overshadowing there would not have been the prophetic word itself. Did such an overshadowing take place regarding the prophet Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, it did, according to the direct and indisputable testimony of St. The Gospel, which first speaks briefly about the grace of God that rested on the Infant Jesus, and then solemnly announces the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at baptism. And only after this is His “public ministry” revealed, Jesus “becomes Christ, the Anointed One, Jesus is first led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1), and after that he returns “in the power of the Spirit” (Luke 4:14) to Galilee, and “from that time Jesus began to preach” (5:17). And His first sermon in his native Nazareth was on the words of Isaiah (61:1-2): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me” and further, and this word was directly attributed by Him to Himself: “today this scripture has been fulfilled” (Luke 4:12). And the evangelist himself refers to Him another prophecy of Isaiah (42:1-4), which says: “I will put My Spirit on Him and will proclaim judgment to the nations” (Matthew 12:8). But how should we understand this prophetic influence of the Holy Spirit on Jesus? It can also be understood only in the light of the Lord’s kenotic self-deprecation. His Divinity exhausts itself, plunging into the depths of human nature, in which it shines only to the extent that the latter accommodates its self-revelation, and is accordingly adored by it. The Holy Spirit reveals in Jesus His own divine depth; He, as the Spirit of “sonhood,” actually accomplishes in Him what the Father testifies to: “This is My beloved Son.” Just as in a man-prophet the Holy Spirit opens the depths of his own human spirit and speaks in them, so in the God-man Jesus the Holy Spirit, sanctifying and adoring His humanity for its fullest interpenetration with the divine nature of the Logos, reveals in Jesus His own divinity, realizing in Him His divine-human unity. We can say that the action of St. The Spirit in the God-Man is expressed in the essential, “God-man” union and interpenetration of both natures (a kind of communicatio idiomatum), He is this very connection. We must not forget that the very incarnation of God, the conception and birth of Jesus, took place “from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” The influx of the Holy Spirit onto the Mother of God was the bridge over which the incarnate Logos descended from heaven into the world, and His entire life in the incarnation, in the union of His divine nature with the human in His kenosis in general, was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. And, in particular, in His prophetic ministry, insofar as God-manhood was manifested in it, the active and perfecting principle was the Holy Spirit. A distinctive feature of the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus is that in Him, by the Holy Spirit, He himself, the divine Logos, “the way, the truth and the life,” is revealed, and the Truth itself proclaims itself through the God-man for people in human language. For there is no other truth that could constitute the content of a prophetic sermon, except that which is Truth itself, i.e. Logos. And the Holy Spirit himself. proclaims to people only this one Truth: “He will glorify Me, because He will take of Mine and proclaim it to you” (John 16:14), He “will remind you of everything that I have told you” (14:26). Moved by the Holy Spirit, the God-Man in His prophetic ministry reveals not the new, revealed things that the Holy Spirit imparts, as He does with regard to all other prophets, but Himself, His word. Just as in the “immanent” Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit reveals (perfects) the Son for the Father and the Father for the Son, so in the God-Man he does the same, revealing to the Father the beloved Son, and to the Son the Father, why the Son in His self-revelation in the God-Man is, as it were, identified with the Father, and the power of this identification is the Holy Spirit: “he who has seen Me has seen the Father,” “I and the Father - one,” And this living unity, this “one” is the Holy Spirit, why the preaching of the Son about Himself is thereby a sermon about the Father, but also covertly about the Holy Spirit, trace. and about the Holy Trinity. So, Jesus in His prophetic ministry acts as Christ, anointed by the Holy Spirit, “who spoke the prophets.” The content of the Lord's prophetic preaching cannot be comprehensively conveyed or fully characterized. Every transmission is incomplete and insufficient, and every characteristic is inadequate, for it is not given to man to measure the words of the God-man, although it is given to him to continually measure them. The subject of Christ’s preaching is Himself; from this center all its individual themes radiate out in radii. Anyone who does not want to see this “Christocentrism” of hers, like moralizing rationalists, turning it into simply an anonymous “teaching”, cannot understand the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” The message of the approach of the Kingdom of God opens the sermon of Christ, as well as the Forerunner who prepares it. The Kingdom of God is the Holy Spirit, uniting the Divine and the human in the God-Man; it is the incarnation of God and its power in the personal life of man, in the world, in history, in the next century, “always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.” The Gospel teaching is centered around this fact. It contains, in the development of this basis of thought, μ religious morality as a guide to spiritual life, or human life in God and for God. God approached and revealed himself to people in Christ, so that it became possible to set the highest commandment as the path, limit and goal: “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” This approach of the Kingdom of God through the Incarnation justifies another, no less general commandment: “seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, and other things will be added to you.” An event requires an event for itself, the given becomes a given, the sermon about C.B. is also a commandment about it. The Sermon on the Mount, like all gospel morality, has as its subject the relationship of the soul to God, to heaven, to eternity, in which all earthly, relative, transitory values ​​are extinguished and abolished. They are not destroyed, but retreat in their relativity, just as a person looking at the Sky does not notice the horizon surrounding him and rushes not horizontally, but vertically. And the necessary diagonal of earthly and heavenly, temporary and eternal, is found by each person only in his own creativity. If you see in the Gospel word only “teaching” and do not notice the Teacher himself, it turns into an abstract and lifeless morality, full of unrealistic demands, focused on utopian maximalism and devoid of religious anchorage. True, evangelical morality seems to have such a center for itself in the commandment of love for God and neighbor, in which “the law and the prophets hang.” However, it is no longer an Old Testament commandment, but a new commandment, which receives true meaning in connection with the revelation of God-Love, in the Holy. The Trinity of what exists and is revealed in Christ. Nevertheless, in this part, which can be conditionally and inaccurately called evangelical morality, the preaching of Christ still approaches the prophetic, surpassing it. But it differs significantly from it in that the preaching of Christ is a teaching about Himself, as the Son of the Father, showing the Father, as the way, the truth and the life. Meanwhile, the prophets testified only about the Future and, of course, were completely far from the idea of ​​including teaching about themselves in their preaching. The greatest of the prophets, the prophet and forerunner John, 371 asked about himself, answered: “I am the friend of the Bridegroom... He will increase, but I will decrease (John 3:29-30). The most important essence and content of the prophetic ministry of Christ are not words and speeches, but He himself. His living image, captured in the Gospels, is our conscience, into which every believing soul looks, heeding His words. Christ's prophetic preaching about Himself can be viewed from three angles: as a theological teaching about God the Word, as eschatology and apocalypse. Theological teaching is contained mainly in the speeches of the Lord in the Gospel of John, although its main thoughts can also be found in the weather forecasters. To what extent can one distinguish here the prophetic preaching of Christ from the direct self-testimony of the hypostasis of the Logos about Himself? We could accept it precisely in this latter sense if the Logos in the God-Man were not in kenotic self-exhaustion, due to an inseparable and unfused union with human nature. But precisely this connection has the consequence that the depth of the Logos’s own self-awareness is revealed in the God-Man under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and to that extent this very revelation is prophetic illumination. In this - but, of course, only in this - sense, Christ’s preaching about Himself should be classified as a prophetic ministry. But at the same time, of course, its unique content and, above all, the Face of the Prophet infinitely rises above all the prophets with their preaching. The sermon of the God-man about Himself as the Logos, the Son of the Father, is close to the prophetic and in that it is addressed to people, to human consciousness, it is spoken in human language. In a word, here we have an application to the prophetic ministry of the Chalcedonian dogma, according to which the self-revelation of the incarnate Logos, who in His humiliation assumed for Himself the measure of humanity, must be realized inseparably and unmerged, therefore, not only in divine but also in human nature. The preaching of Christ not only has the most sublime religious, moral and theological content, but it includes both apocalypse and eschatology, that is, a revelation about the destinies of Christ’s humanity in history, within this century and beyond. Christ reveals to His disciples Himself directly, and then through the Holy Spirit, what is to come. He prophesies both about what “must be soon” (Rev. 1:1), that is, in history, and also about what will happen after the “end of the age.” In the Gospel this is what is called. the small Apocalypse (Matthew 24–5), as well as numerous texts scattered in its different places and containing the prophetic utterances of the Lord. The Apocalypse, St. John, as “the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him” (Rev. 1:1), and which He reveals in words and visions to “His servants” through His beloved disciple. A general question arises: how to understand the nature of these prophecies: should they be attributed to the “prophetic ministry” of the God-man, or should we see here directly the words of God, uttering divine definitions and will? The prophets prophesied the future by the Spirit of God, and this constituted such an essential part of their ministry that in the generally accepted usage of words, prophets are often identified with soothsayers and prophets. This view is one-sided, because there were prophets, moreover, the greatest, who either did not prophesy the future at all, like Elijah, as well as Elisha, or did this only to a small extent, in comparison with their overall ministry, like Moses or the greatest Of those born of a woman, the prophet and forerunner of the Lord, John. Nevertheless, as a rule, the prophets actually “prophesied,” that is, they prophesied the future. The main subject of prophecy was, of course, the Coming Messiah, whose image, before His coming, was drawn by the prophets in the so-called. “Messianic” prophecies, according to the testimony of the Lord himself (“and beginning from Moses, of all the prophets he explained to them what was said about Him in all the Scriptures” Luke 24:27). But besides this, the prophets prophesied about the destinies of nations and kingdoms, giving an apocalyptic scheme of history (Daniel) and eschatological images of the end. The question is, how can we generally understand this knowledge of the future? First of all, such an understanding of it, according to which this prophecy would be instrumental-mechanical or purely mediumistic Pythianism, is completely excluded, for the human individuality of the prophet is creatively manifested in his ministry. It remains to look for the basis for the possibilities of prophecy in humanity itself. A person can become prophetic in his mind and heart to the extent of their tension, in relation to what it is directed towards. Man is connected with the entire human race by invisible and usually imperceptible threads; the past is entwined in him, which also contains the future, to the extent that it is determined not only by freedom, but also by law. Various cases of insight into the future are known, concerning, of course, limited and private events and, of course, with varying degrees of clarity and accuracy. In prophets, as exceptionally chosen and spiritually gifted individuals, this intuitive peering into the foggy distances and feeling into what is happening naturally reaches its greatest intensity and inspiration. This human inspiration, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, undermines the character of divine inspiration, that is, truth. Human search and questioning finds the answer no longer from the own depths of the human spirit, the “subconscious,” but also from above, from the Spirit of God. However, one cannot help but see to what extent the stamp of their human, individual origin lies on these prophecies, depending on the person and on the subject: Isaiah differs from other prophets as the “Old Testament evangelist”, Daniel as an apocalyptic, Ezekiel as a seer of God, Jeremiah as a national seer, etc. And, what is especially important here, these images of the future and eschatological visions of the prophets, as a rule, are far from clear to themselves. These prophecies remain abstract and dim, expressed through images common to the writing of the era (apocalyptic and eschatological), due to this they are dark and ambiguous, requiring interpretation. And this is not accidental, but essentially: the images of the future do not need to be specific, and this is unnecessary for a person. They indicate only ontology, but not a specific history. It is necessary not to forget about this humanity, and therefore the relativity of prophetic insights, in order to have a correct point of view on them, 372 free from exaggeration. This human side of prophecy is also present in the prophetic ministry of Christ. It is wrong to understand these prophecies as divine determinations about the future, the omnipotent will of God, directly announced from the Divinity of the Logos through human nature. Such an idea would also contradict the Chalcedonian dogma of the inseparability and non-fusion of both natures with the unity of hypostasis, for in it both natures are separated, and their alternation or interstitiality is established, which we have in the patristic idea of ​​miracles: the Divinity works miracles, humanity is weak. It’s similar here: God preaches, man listens. At the same time, the unity of the divine-human life in Christ, corresponding to the unity of the hypostasis, is violated, and the kenosis of the Divinity is abolished, which freely reduces itself to the measure of humanity and manifests itself only in union with it, according to its measure of containment. Moreover, human nature, in separation from the divine (let it not be!), would be unable to accommodate the word of the Divinity transcendent to it. Therefore, we must admit that prophetic knowledge and prophecy of the future in Christ, although not identical, is similar to what we have with the prophets. It is born in the depths of His sinless and universal human nature, under the action of the Holy Spirit, and in this human knowledge, although the omniscience of the Logos was revealed and realized, the measure of this knowledge in the days of the earthly human ministry of Christ did not coincide with omniscience and thereby actually limited it in the God-man. His word about the future was a prophetic word, clothed with the infallibility of truth, but not the word of Divine omniscience, for man, as such, and inaccessible. This is where the providentially established boundary of the prophetic knowledge of Jesus comes from, which obviously distinguishes it from the omniscience of the Logos: these are His words about the ignorance of the last day by the Son (Mark 13:32), constituting a crux interpretum and usually interpreted in the spirit of docetism with the actual denial of God-manhood. But not only in this case of fundamental significance, but also in the everyday life of Christ, He did not demonstrate that omniscience that would have turned His theanthropic life from reality into appearance and, in its own way, would also have abolished humanity in Him. The Lord prophesied in special, selected cases of prayerful tension and inspiration, but He did not use His Divine power in order to remove Himself from the empiric world with its boundaries. He asked: who touched Me? where did you put it? recognizing for Himself the full force of empirical limitation, without which human nature could not exist in its concrete reality, and therefore the measure of His knowledge was determined here by the measure of His human nature. Of course, for us specifically this remains incomprehensible, like the mystery of the life of the God-man, but these facets are quite clearly indicated in the Gospel. Humanity with its historical concreteness (and therefore empirical limitations) is manifested in the prophecies of Jesus in the fact that in them He reflects the worldview of His time, speaks a certain language characteristic of the era, uses images used in prophetic and apocalyptic writing. Sometimes they cannot be understood otherwise than in connection with literary and historical tradition (in particular, these are the most important texts of the small Apocalypse). Therefore, the eschatological speeches of the Savior cannot be understood literally; they do not even lend themselves to such an interpretation. They can be understood only by their general meaning, which is precisely what is sought in this case, just as in many prophecies. This is the true word of Truth, however, clothed in historical clothing - in the images of Palestinian-Jewish thinking of the first century AD. And connected with this form is what is relative in them, at least insofar as it needs interpretation. Of course, we must at the same time postulate that the symbolism of Christ’s prophetic speeches conceals an inexhaustible and absolute meaning, which will be revealed in the fullness of time, and also carries within itself the adequacy of the images to their content. But in its immediate concreteness it is addressed to contemporaries and bears the imprint of history. Is the prophetic ministry of Christ exhausted by His preaching? Or does it also include works characteristic of prophetic inspiration, that is, miracles or signs? Usually miracles are related in theology to the “royal ministry” of Christ and are considered as manifestations of divine power over the world, one-sidedly understood only in relation to Divine omnipotence. However, if we understand them in relation to God-manhood, then we must first of all eliminate their interpretation from the omnipotence of God over the world, for the descent from heaven, the exhaustion of the Divine in taking on the form of a slave, and in general the incarnation of man, is completely incompatible with the manifestation of God's omnipotence over the world in the days of Christ's earthly ministry, as some kind of Divine violence over him or a new creative act. 373 Miracles are performed by the God-man in the inseparable and unmerged unity of His divine and human nature, by the power of faith, prayer and the influx of the Holy Spirit, as Christ himself testifies to this (“I cast out demons by the Spirit of God.” Matthew 12:28). In this case, the divine nature reveals itself only in harmony with the human and in the measure of humanity. Miracles were performed by prophets, starting from Moses and Elijah, although miracles did not constitute a necessary part of their ministry (John the Baptist, the greatest among the prophets, according to the testimony of the Gospel, did not perform miracles). The nature and content of prophetic miracles is generally the same, although to a weaker extent, as the miracles of Christ. Of course, the prophets performed these miracles with the power of prayer and the Spirit of God resting on them. This was their preaching, carried out not in word, but in deed, evidence of the power of God in them (it is also said about Moses that he was “mighty in words and deeds”, Acts 7:22, and the same expression is applied to Christ: Luke 24:19). Of course, there is no reason or possibility to understand these miracles of the prophets differently, but there is also no reason in Christ to relate the miracles to the “royal” ministry, understood (also erroneously - see below) in the sense of the omnipotence of God, and not to the prophetic. In the miracles of Christ during the days of His earthly ministry, it is not the “royal” power over the world that He put off when He descended into the world, and receives it only after His resurrection and glorification (“all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me”), but prophetic power. It is, of course, incomparable with the power of the prophets, in accordance with the Divine Personality of the Wonderworker and his miracle-working power. Nevertheless, the miracles of Christ are not the works of God over the world, but the action of the God-man in the world by the power of God, therefore typologically they relate to prophetic ministry. If He spoke about Himself: “I by the Spirit of God (= “by the finger of God” Luke 11:20) cast out demons.” Matt. 12:18, then we read in the prophets: “I am filled with the power of the Spirit of the Lord” (Mic. 3:8); and “My Spirit dwells among you” (Ag. 2, 5, Ezek. 36, 27; 37, 13; 32, 29, Joel 2, 28–29, etc.). God in the God-man reduced Himself to the prophetic ministry. And in response to this humility and self-exhaustion, the power of God descended on Him and it emanated from Him. 374 2. The High Priestly Ministry of Christ A). Christ the High Priest The so-called “high priestly ministry” in theology is a general concept to express the meaning of the work of Christ, which consists in the redemption of the human race from sin, through Christ’s offering of Himself, His life, His Body and Blood as an atoning sacrifice to God. The high priestly service is usually considered, therefore, exclusively from the point of view of redemption, that is, the reconciliation of people with God through their liberation from sin, and the incarnation itself is associated with sin. In reality, the high priestly ministry is not limited to one redemption from sin, but extends its meaning even further. It is by him that the universal deification of the created human being is established and the basis for true God-manhood is established. However, the relationship between redemption and deification, or sanctification of human nature, between these two sides of the high priestly ministry of Christ, is such that the first precedes and conditions the second. It is the path to it, so it is natural to begin in the doctrine of the high priestly ministry with atonement, as is usually done in theology. In order to speak confidently and definitely about the high priestly ministry of the Lord, one must, of course, first of all, be established on solid biblical foundations. Do we find this evidence in the Gospels? Yes, of course, we find it, although perhaps in a less direct form than evidence of prophetic ministry. However, these indirect confirmations are clear and convincing enough to see in them firm and undoubted evidence of Christ as undergoing priestly service, namely the sacrificer, and, therefore, as the high priest. The first and main evidence, common to all three synoptics (and, of course, 1 Cor. 11., 23-32), is the story of the Last Supper, in which the establishment of the Eucharist is depicted with features characteristic only of sacrifice. Christ Himself is here both the victim and the priest, “offering and being offered, receiving and being distributed” (the secret Eucharistic prayer of the priest). And He pronounces the words about the Sacrifice: “Take, eat, this is My Body, broken for you,” and “drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Testament, shed for many for the remission of sins.” And this is paralleled in John’s entire 6th chapter with its main thought: “the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (51 ff. 53–6). This establishment of the Divine Eucharist by Christ gives a sacrificial and sacrificial character to the Incarnation itself, as well as to the entire work of Christ on earth. 375 The “high priestly” prayer has the same meaning (John 17), which, however, has its main focus not towards redemption, but towards deification: the sanctification and glorification of humanity. Thus, the Gospels show us the high priestly service in action, although they do not contain direct teaching about it, at least from the mouth of the Lord. Numerous texts of the apostolic epistles, which speak of redemption from sins by the blood of Jesus, also testify to this. We find direct teaching about the high priestly service in the Epistle to the Hebrews with its main theme: understanding the Old Testament from the New. Here the high priesthood of Christ is placed in parallel with the high priesthood of Aaron: “Keep in mind the Apostle and High Priest of our confession Jesus, who is faithful to Him who made His τῷ ποιήσαντι, just as Moses was in all his house” (3: 1-2). This great high priest “has passed through heaven” (4:14), but also “can sympathize with us in our sins,” for, like us, “he has been tempted in all things, yet without sin” (4:15). “In the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears, He offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard for His reverence. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience through suffering and, having been perfected, He was named High Priest” (5:7-10). It is impossible to more expressively connect the two sides of the high priestly service: kenotic humiliation as the foundation and path, and the passage of heaven as the accomplishment. The priesthood of Christ is not subordinate to the law, Aaronic, but “according to the order of Melchizedek,” a direct divine establishment, by the power of the humiliation of God in His incarnation. “Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:4), is repeated many times in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ sacrificed Himself once (Heb. 7:27), “and not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered once into the sanctuary and acquired eternal redemption” (9:13), and this “Blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself blameless to God, will cleanse our conscience from dead works” (14). He entered “into heaven itself to appear now for us before the face of God” (24) “to destroy sin by His sacrifice” (26). “Once He will offer Himself as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many, He will appear a second time (not for the cleansing of sin), but for salvation for those who wait for Him” (28). He, “having made one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever at the right hand of God” (10, 12). We have “boldness to enter into the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus Christ, a new and living way, which He revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh” (20). According to the general meaning of the teaching of the Epistle to Hebrews, as the High Priest, Christ brings Himself to God the Father by the Holy Spirit, therefore with the participation of all the Holy Spirit. Trinity, according to the nature of the individual hypostases. This sacrifice is expressed in obedience, through the testing of weaknesses and temptations and, finally, through the outpouring of the Blood of Christ in His death on the cross, and He is not only a victim, the Lamb slain, but also a Priest in the sense that sacrifice is His free feat. He sacrifices Himself to the Father. However, He performs this sacrifice not of His own will, but according to the will of the Father, with which He bends to the end His own, Son, Theanthropic will, He makes the will of the Father His own will. Thus, the High Priest is characterized not only by the fate of becoming a victim, but also by the will to this fate. We have here not only the presence of a victim, but also sacrifice, not only the fact of sacrifice, but sacrifice. And insofar as the very power of love is expressed in sacrifice in general, then in the high priestly service the love of God for the world is revealed: “The love of God for us was revealed in this, that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that we might receive life through him” (1 John 4:9; cf. John 3:16). The Son, going into the world, speaks of Himself: “Behold, I come to do Your will, O God” (Heb. 10:7-9, Ps. 39:9). The Incarnation itself, as an atoning sacrifice of reconciliation of the world with God, is already the Son’s sacrifice of Himself, that is, the acceptance of high priestly service, which is therefore spoken of in the words of Isa. 36, 7–9. Christ, “entering the world, says: “You did not desire sacrifices and offerings, but you prepared a body for Me” (Heb. 10:5): the acceptance of the body, the incarnation of God, is already a sacrifice of the love of the Lamb, slain before the foundation of the world, just as the very entry into the world is already the beginning of the high priestly service. And, indeed, the entire earthly life of Christ, the One Sinless One, in this world poisoned by sin, is sacrificial suffering, from the very beginning, from the winter cave with a wretched manger, to the very end, the Golgotha ​​crucifixion. He breathed the plague-ridden air of our fallen world. He lived with us, that is, in the midst of human sin and malice, constantly vulnerable and insulted by them. He was not of this world, but lived in this world. This life itself, whatever its individual events, - from the bright days of Nazareth obscurity to the dark days of Jerusalem - was an incessant suffering, never subsiding, but constantly intensifying, until an open break with the world and the Old Testament church becomes inevitable. Nevertheless, in the earthly life of the Savior there are generally times and periods, as this stems from the insignificance of His incarnation, in particular in His works, and, consequently, in various ministries. Thus, we distinguish, first of all, from the time the Lord remained in obscurity and His appearance in public service. The limit here is the baptism of the Lord with the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him, anointing Him for ministry. This ministry is first revealed primarily as prophetic: the Lord “went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every disease among the people... and a great multitude followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan” (Matthew 4:24-25). Calling Himself sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” He sends the twelve apostles to them for preaching and healing (10). He acts first within the Old Testament Church, turning to it and trying to awaken faith in Himself. Although He encounters here initially mute, and then more obvious and conscious resistance, nevertheless, a decisive break does not immediately occur, and, therefore, the opportunity remains to do everything possible for the conversion of Israel, and at the same time teach and educate the elect: the twelve, and then the 70 apostles, along with others close to Christ. The Gospel outlines the main facets in the life and ministry of Christ. And there is a turning point in it, quite obvious, which separates the initial time of prophetic service with its still inexhaustible possibilities, from the later, when these opportunities seem to be already lost, and an inevitable break with the synagogue is outlined, entailing all the fatal consequences. At the same time, the first fruits of the prophetic ministry of Christ, in particular, His communication with the apostles, are already ripening. The ongoing hardening of some is accompanied by the achievement of greater spiritual maturity by others. The facet that marks this turning point is the event of the Transfiguration of the Lord, preceded by a conversation on the way to Caesarea Philippi, in which Peter confessed on behalf of all the apostles: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). And after this confession, which the Lord commanded His disciples to keep hidden for the time being, forbidding them “so that they should not tell anyone that He is the Christ” (20), “from that time Jesus began to reveal to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and high priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day rise again” (21), and he spoke about this openly” (Mark 8:32). This was followed by Peter’s contradiction, for which he was called “Satan” (22-23), after which all the disciples were called to follow Him - each with his own cross (24-7). From then on, Christ began, as it were, to educate his disciples in this thought about His future suffering and death, accustoming them to it, although, of course, it was difficult for them to perceive. 376 Until now, the Lord had not said anything about His future suffering, condemnation to death and resurrection, but now He begins to prepare His disciples for this. Of course, this was necessary primarily for them, but it became timely for Himself, because the consciousness of the inevitability of this path had matured in Him, along with the decision to break with the synagogue and accept the cross. Of course, Christ came into the world as the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the world and taking away its sins, in order to “be lifted up (on the cross) to be the Son of Man” (John 3:14), and this eternal slaughter is the basis of the Calvary cross for the salvation of the world. However, what is established pre-eternally is revealed in time, as an event of theanthropic life, in which the human nature of Christ, unspectacular and genuine, lived through its times and periods, with their accomplishments. In particular, this consciousness of the inevitability of a rupture and determination to deal with Him with all the consequences arising from it, up to and including the acceptance of death on the cross, did not appear in the earthly life of Christ, according to the testimony of the Gospel, immediately and not initially. It arose in Him as a consequence of His entire life experience, together with a spiritual act of determination, as an internal sacrifice, the will to the cross. This internal act remains hidden for us in its occurrence; it appears to us as already accomplished. But in its anticipation, the Lord reveals Himself as a sacrifice and priest at the Last Supper, and from here begins His high priestly service, which is initially inherent in the incarnation, as the self-exhaustion of the Divine, sacrificial kenosis. Christ’s setting out on the path of public, prophetic service corresponded to the determination that led Him to John, in order to first “fulfill all righteousness” in baptism. Now, readiness for sacrificial service brings Him to Mount Tabor. Here, being in communication with the prophets Moses and Elijah, who expressed, each in their own way, the power of the Old Testament, He talks with them “about His exodus, which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem” (Luke 9:30). The event of the Transfiguration of the Lord is in external and internal connection with what happened on the way to Caesarea Philippi: externally - because one follows the other in time (“after the lapse of six days” Matthew 17:1), and is connected with it in the general sequence of the Gospel story (for all weather forecasters); internally because both of these events are in a certain causal connection with one another. The link here is the difficult to interpret and ambiguous text, which immediately follows the exhortation to bear the cross. It is supported by the eschatological promise of reward at the coming of the Son of Man in His glory: “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Matt. 16, 28 = 9, 1; “The Kingdom of God has come with power,” Lk. 9, 28: “The Kingdom of God”), and then the story of the Transfiguration of the Lord immediately follows. Even if we recognize the possibility of different understandings of this phenomenon of the Kingdom of God (namely, along with the eschatological and internally immanent or ecclesiological), it is absolutely impossible to eliminate from here the relation of these words to the event of Transfiguration. And if it exists, then what meaning does it receive in this case? First of all, to the extent that the Transfiguration, as the appearance of the Lord in glory, is already a precursor to His eternal glorification - eschatological (“coming in His Kingdom,” and in this sense “coming in power”), in it already for “some,” that is, for the three apostles on earth, the Glory of God shines forth, and not only in Christ himself, transformed in the image of His coming Glory, but and in this world, with Him transformed in some of its parts: the clothing of Christ and, of course, the surrounding air, mountain and earth. What does this very anticipation of the Glory of Christ mean when it was not yet characteristic of Him (for He Himself prayed to the Father John 17:4 that He would give Him this Glory)? Is this a one-sided action of God’s omnipotence, similar to the manifestation of the Glory of God to Moses or Ezekiel, for educational purposes for disciples preparing for the Passion (“so that when they see You crucified, they understand free suffering,” kontakion of the Transfiguration)? If this is the case, then obviously this alone is not enough to give full weight to the enormity of the event. But there are stories in the Gospel about such divine-human accomplishments that are revealed not only in the sequence of time, where there is a beginning, middle and end, but also above time. Such is the Last Supper, at which Christ communes the disciples with His body, “broken for us,” before it was pierced with nails and spears, and with His blood, “poured out for us,” before it is poured out for the remission of sins. The Calvary sacrifice of Christ has not yet been accomplished in time, but it has already been accomplished in His decision, as well as in the Divine Council, and it turns out to be effective as already accomplished. The same can be said about Christ’s farewell conversation, which begins (“now is the Son of Man glorified” John 13:31) and ends (“let them see the Glory that You have given Me” 17:24) with a testimony of glory and glorification, but immediately on the eve of the saving passion, for the determination of the God-man already contains the accomplishment itself, the beginning here merges with the end. And in the same way, the Transfiguration of the Lord, as a manifestation of Glory, shows as already accomplished what in time remains imperfect and hidden in the Lord’s decision about the “exodus to Jerusalem” to meet the saving passion. Therefore, here too we have in a single act a beginning and an end, a line of time twisting into a point. The Transfiguration therefore receives an eschatological meaning, as a precursor to the glorification of Christ “coming in His Kingdom” - “the Kingdom of God coming with power.” There is, however, one feature that significantly marks the Transfiguration not only as evidence of glory, but also as its very existence, for here Christ already shines with glory. And this is what gives the event of the Transfiguration a special meaning in the ministry of Christ, which it has for His high priestly service, and, consequently, for the saving passion, exactly the same meaning as Baptism for His prophetic ministry, and in general the beginning of His entire earthly ministry. Baptism was the descent of the Holy Spirit, who anointed Christ for His prophetic and generally for all earthly ministry, His personal Pentecost, in which the Holy Spirit, eternally inseparable from His Divinity, rested hypostatically on the humanity of Christ. And after He received this Spirit of adoption, the voice of the Father testified from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.” The story of the Transfiguration does not directly speak of the descent of the Holy Spirit, however, it is indirectly evidenced, namely in the appearance of a cloud descending on Him. The cloud is an image of the Glory of God, a symbol of the Holy Spirit (cf. Ex. 19:9; 34:5; Lev. 16:2; Deut. 33:26; 1 Kings. 8, 10, 2Par. 5, 13). “Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice from the cloud saying: This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 17:5). Here we have the testimony of the Father, identical to that which was at Baptism and, however, deliberately repeated here “from the cloud, that is, with the new grace of the Son, moreover, with the deliberate purpose of glorifying Him. Glorification is a matter of free suffering of manifest obedience, and here, at this turning point in the Lord’s earthly path, in “His exodus to Jerusalem,” when the Calvary sacrifice begins, Glory is sent to Him in the new influx of the Holy Spirit, for He “by the Holy Spirit offered Himself blameless to God” (Heb. 9:14), as well as the Resurrection and Ascension, therefore, all glorification in general it is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. So, if the Epiphany at Baptism is addressed to the entire earthly service (in particular, of course, to the Transfiguration, as the accomplished action of the Holy Spirit), then the Transfiguration is addressed to the Calvary sacrifice and is its mysterious anticipation. In this sense, if in Baptism, the general anointing of Jesus by Christ, He is directly anointed by the Holy Spirit as a prophet, then the Transfiguration is the anointing of Jesus for the high priestly service, that is, for the Calvary sacrifice, in which He is both victim and priest. One can, therefore, say in a certain sense that in the Transfiguration Christ is elevated to “High Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” The property of this Melchizedek priesthood, firstly, is that it arises directly from God and not as temporary, but eternal 377 (“being like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” Heb. 7: 3); secondly, this high priesthood has power both on earth and in heaven, where the high priest Christ enters through the veil, that is, His flesh, with His blood and remains there forever. “In the likeness of Melchizedek another priest is raised, who is such not according to the law of carnal life, but according to the power of unceasing life” (Heb. 7:16). In the Transfiguration, heaven is united with earth, and what happens in it happens for both heaven (“cloud”) and earth. Moses and Elijah talk about the exodus to Jerusalem and the earthly priesthood of Golgotha, and at the same time a voice from heaven testifies to the eternal sonship of the Beloved Son: “For He received from God the Father honor and glory through a magnificent voice that came to Him: This is My Beloved Son, in whom I have been well pleased” (2 Peter 16–17). And from here the high priestly service begins - the exodus to Jerusalem with all its consequences. This includes, first of all, the final break with the synagogue. The prophetic ministry here is included in the high priestly ministry in the sense that it is it that directly leads Christ to Calvary. And Christ himself already abandons the idea of ​​preaching to convert and save the Jews, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” On the contrary, the prophetic word of Christ becomes accusatory, angry, irreconcilable. Images of rejection and judgment over stiff-necked Israel are increasingly repeated - parables about the vineyard, about the husbandmen, about the wedding feast in speeches to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23), in answers to their tempting co-questioning, and all this receives a generalized expression in the farewell, tearing cry: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who beats the prophets and stones the messengers to you! how many times have I wanted to gather my children together, like a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to. Behold, your house is left to you empty” (Matthew 23:37-38). Prophetic ministry ends in complete rupture. From now on it passes into the high priesthood and completely merges with it. The foundation of the New Testament is laid, and the High Priest says: “This cup (is) the new covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). The Prophet now gives way to the High Priest, and the Transfiguration opens the path to glorification, but this path leads through Jerusalem to Golgotha. The High Priest sacrifices Himself to God, demonstrating obedience “even to death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8), in His righteous life and in His death on the cross. This sacrifice is defined in the Word of God as “redemption” by blood, “propitiation,” “justification,” “reconciliation” (Rom. 3:21–29; 4:25; 5:7–10; 12:18; 1 Cor. 6:20; 2 Cor. 5:1.5, 21; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14); 1 Tim. 2, 6; Heb. 9, 12, 14, 26, 28, 10, 10, 12). “You were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:2; 7:23), “Christ died for all” (2 Cor. 5:15), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), in Him “we have redemption through His blood” (Eph. 1:7), “being enemies (“by nature children wrath" Eph. 2:3), we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10). He “appeared to put away sin by His sacrifice” (Heb. 11; 2 (1, 28). Many texts of this and similar content express the general idea that Christ offered an atoning sacrifice in His blood and took upon Himself the sins of the world. This is a fact immutably attested to by the Word of God and equally immutably clear to our immediate religious consciousness. In Christ we are reconciled with God, He is our mediator, and by faith in Him we recognize ourselves as justified before God. From this fact comes the theological teaching about atonement, which asks, first of all, about this atoning sacrifice: to whom it was offered, how, why, what is its power. All these questions are answered by various theological theories of the atonement, which usually dwell on one or another separate feature of this fact and stylize it accordingly, and usually the correct thought itself becomes one-sided. At first, in the patristic era, they were most interested in the idea of ​​ransom, and they asked themselves, to whom is it being offered: to the devil (Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, in a certain sense, even St. John of Damascus) or to God (St. Gregory the Theologian, etc.)? From this particular question a transition was made to the teaching of the power of redemption, which is seen in the victory over death in resurrection (St. Athanasius the Great), in the “medicine of immortality.” The harsh ascetic and legal thought of the West, represented by Anselm of Canterbury, raised the question of atonement as an act of justice and, in particular, the equivalence of sin and sacrifice, and developed the classical theory of satisfaction, according to which only the death of the God-man, as God, and together with Man, could satisfy the truth of God and reconcile fallen man with God (and it was this theory that received the greatest influence in both Western and Eastern theology). Further, in the post-Reformation era, the question arose with particular urgency about the very possibility of a “substitutionary” sacrifice, with the sacrifice of one for all (Socinus) to satisfy the truth of God, as well as about the nature and power of this sacrifice, as an example, or an image of compassionate love and through this sonship of God (Abelard, representatives of liberal German theology, we have Metropolitan Anthony), or, finally, as in the true sense of an atoning sacrifice. It is necessary to put the question of atonement in connection with the basic Christological principles established here. Logos is the demiurgic hypostasis, addressed to the world in its creation, and Logos is the incarnate hypostasis, God coming into the world for its salvation. God, creating the world, with man at the head, out of nothing, calling into life created being with its mutability, not only creates the world with His omnipotence and Wisdom, but also takes care of its Fates in its created mutability, by the power of which it may turn out to be inherent in it - in its created freedom - both evil and falling away from God. In other words, the eternal advice of God about the creation of the world necessarily includes the advice about its salvation, that is, reunification with God or deification, for which creation is intended. For humanity is called to become God-humanity, which is the true foundation of creation. Not only the fall that has taken place, but the very transmutability of the world and - in the final analysis - its createdness separates it from God by an insurmountable distance, which can only be overcome by God himself, and not by man. This constitutes the general basis of the incarnation, as the revelation of God’s love for the world. If the creation of the world is already a matter of the sacrificial love of God, by the power of which the Absolute posits relative existence next to it, then the incarnation is the sacrificial love of God, in the diminishment of the Divine, condescending to a hypostatic union with man. But this sacrificial love of God for the world eternally constitutes the basis of the incarnation, which is thereby the second and final act of the creation of the world. In this sense, the Logos is the Lamb of God, slain before the creation of the world. God, creating the world, takes responsibility for its salvation and decides with Himself to fill what is missing in creation, to deify the created, to give eternity to the becoming. Therefore, the idea of ​​redemption is inseparably linked with the idea of ​​creation, and in a certain sense is ontologically identical to it. And to allow here any occasionalism that connects the incarnation exclusively with the fall of Adam in relation to the eternity of God is, to say the least, inappropriate. According to this assumption, an incongruous conclusion is obtained that God, having created the world, first, as it were, made an experiment - leaving it to himself, and after the Fall of Adam made a new decision, namely about the incarnation. Not to mention the crude anthropomorphism of such a concept, this leads to the conclusion that the reason for the incarnation lies not even in the “felix Adae culpa”, not in the fall of Adam, but simply in the devil, who managed to achieve his goal and deceive the first parents. However, we must not forget that already in the eternal Adam God foresaw the image of the New Adam, and in Eve the image of the New Eve. Therefore, the question of whether the Incarnation would have taken place if Adam had not fallen is idle, because this very category of possibility or uncertainty does not apply to God’s own ways, for which there cannot be either/or. The Incarnation is immanent in the very creation of the world, which has its head and center in man, as the living image of God. Therefore, redemption, which is included in the incarnation of God, is thereby, as a possibility, also immanent in the creation of the world. Man is a creation of God, in which, by virtue of his creatureliness, there is already relativity or adaptability, and in it lies the possibility of sin, which is always a threatening and never surpassed by the forces of the creature itself reality, and its overcoming - not only sin, but also the creature itself - is accepted by the Creator himself. In this, He completes His creation and thereby justifies the act of creation, which, without this divine entry into it, is inevitably imperfect due to its origin from nothing, and therefore due to the limitations and transformability of its created freedom. God could not leave the world, although perfect in the image of his creation (“good is great”), but having in itself the inevitable ontological imperfection of creation and the resulting incompleteness, to his own destinies (as deists teach). A further task arises in the creation of the world - to overcome its very creatureliness, to make the creation no longer a non-creation or a super-creation, to deify it. This is the true theodicy, which is the incarnation of God. Such is the price of creation for God himself, such is the sacrifice of God’s love in the creation of the world, “so God loved the world, as He gave His only begotten Son.” The Cross of Christ is inscribed in creation already at its very origin, and already in its initial act the world is called to receive the Divinity into its bosom. The Incarnation is the salvation of the world not only from its created relativity or convertibility, but also from sin, that is, reconciliation and redemption. In fact, it aims primarily at the abolition of the evil consequences of the bad use of created freedom, or the Fall, and the restoration of the fallen Adam. This task becomes the first because without its resolution man himself cannot restore his communion with God, whose final achievement is his deification. And in this sense it is true that Christ came into the world to save sinners from sin and is the Lamb of God, taking upon Himself the sins of the world, as the God-speaking Isaiah testifies with divine power, and with him and after him the Forerunner of Christ. The Incarnation of God, which ontologically includes the overcoming of the creatureliness of the creature in God-manhood, takes on the image of redemption, and Christ becomes the atoning sacrifice. The God-man endures not only general relativity, but also the sinfulness of creation, if not in Himself, then in the world and in humanity. Christ, entering the world, enters the realm of sin-poisoned existence. And His redemptive suffering begins from his very incarnation. Alien to human sin, the God-Man endures the sin that surrounds Him as grave suffering. He, who came to save the world, turns out to be alien to it, and the hostility of this world towards Christ gradually intensifies to such an extent that the outcome - in the form of death on the cross - becomes obvious and inevitable, which is why from a certain time Christ begins to tell His disciples about the upcoming suffering and death. But how does this suffering and death turn from fate into a cross and acquire the atoning meaning of the sacrifice on the cross for sin? This is due to the internal acceptance of one’s destiny by the God-man, as the will of the Father, and the God-man’s survival of it. This is precisely the high priestly ministry of Christ, sacrificing Himself, His obedience to death on the cross. In the Incarnation, the Lord, having assumed human nature, shared his fate, except for sin. He bore this fallen nature with its infirmities and, sinless, He suffered not only from this acceptance of a weak nature, which in itself was already a cross, but also from hostile sin (it is not for nothing that it is said: “The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners” Matt. 26:45) and the very prince of this world, acting through his obedient instruments. Christ endured sin as incessant suffering - from demons and from people: “an unfaithful and perverse generation, as long as I am with you, as long as I endure you” (Matthew 17:17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41). Sometimes, although only in exceptional cases, an angry word came from His lips - not only compassionate, but also an accusatory word: “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13 with parallel), or about Herod: “tell this fox” (Luke 13:32), or, finally, a thunderous word to the scribes and Pharisees: “serpents, spawn of vipers! how will you escape from condemnation to Gehenna?... may all the blood of the righteous shed on earth come upon you” (Matthew 23:33,35). But this is also a cry of suffering and sorrow about human stiffness. The Holy One, sinless, bore the sin of the world, first of all, as His own suffering from a collision with it, for Christ also had a human personality, having its own special destinies, was a human individual (this is not changed by the fact that He was the God-man). Christ takes upon Himself the sin of the world and He Himself overcomes it in His own way. This cannot be understood empirically, because here is the meta-empirical, metaphysical reality of the whole, namely the human race. Although empirically it exists in its parts, it is also prior to these parts (not in the sense of a temporal, but an ontological prius). This whole of the human race, which was expressed from the beginning in the universality of Adam’s original sin: “by one man sin entered into the world” (Rom. 5:12), contains the integral of all human sins, not only natural, but also personal. And in the depths of incarnation, which, through the assimilation of human nature, is the identification of the Son with the entire human race, lies the assimilation of sin and sins, through accepting them as one’s own. Humanity is bound not only by the mutual guarantee of good, but also of sin - everyone is not only for themselves, but also for everyone, and in everything, and with everyone is to blame, although our knowledge does not fit (in this century) this consciousness in its concreteness, as it could fit into the consciousness of the New Adam. The incarnation of the Logos is tantamount to the acceptance of all-human sin through this identification with the human race, through this generic, and not merely individual, acceptance of human nature. The latter therefore turns out to be the acceptance of sin: “Lamb of God” takes away the sins of the world.” “He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our illnesses (Isa. 53:4), and “The Lord laid on Him the sins of us all” (6). This self-identification of Christ with the human race, which underlies the dogma of redemption, makes us understand literally, and not allegorically, the words of Christ at the Last Judgment: just as you did it to one of My brothers, you did it to Me” (Matthew 25:40), and the same in a negative form (25:45). This identification, by the power of which the human nature of Christ is connected with the nature of all people, therefore expands Christ’s human life throughout human history, and a further question inevitably arises: how to understand this connection, as external, empirical, or internal, meta-empirical? The first is obviously excluded by the fact that Christ lived an individual human life, defined and at the same time limited by space and time. Consequently, this is an internal connection, and it is established by the general fact that Christ’s incarnation, in all its temporal moments or events, also has a supra-temporal, abiding significance. The connection of Christ with the world and humanity is not abolished through His removal from the world in the Ascension, but is preserved, extending to the past and future, in general to all time - super-temporally. This idea has general confirmation in the church year, in which the earthly life of Christ with its events is actually reminiscently reproduced. Christ lives in His humanity and suffers with it its sufferings and its sins,” at the same time remaining in glory at the right hand of the Father. 378 Here is the ultimate antinomy for the mind (which, however, is not the only one of its kind - cf., for example, the Eucharistic dogma). It points to the limitations of the knowledge of this age, in which we see as a mirror in fortune-telling. This thought, about the self-identification of Christ with all humanity in His human nature, cannot be understood in the sense that Christ’s humanity replaces or displaces man’s own nature. Such pan-Christism or metaphysical Khlystyism would contradict the originality of human nature in its freedom. Christ’s humanity does not replace our natural one, but co-lives, co-suffers, co-presents with Him by the power of identification, which, however, for its existence presupposes the presence of both poles, both principles: On the one hand, the Old Adam is natural, original humanity, and, on the other, the New Adam is the humanity of Christ. This is a dynamic identification of two principles, and not a static unity in which there is no movement, and therefore no identification. The identification of two: Christ's humanity and Adam's may have different degrees and different images for itself, in accordance with our accomplishment of our salvation, but this identification is never replaced or absorbed by simple unity. Created nature retains its originality at any degree of deification, just as fire embraces, but does not burn, the burning bush. And our humanity, although it is the humanity of Christ, always retains its originality in Adam. After the Incarnation of God, two centers arose in humanity, the divine and the created, which can coincide and become vitally identified, but not abolished. 379 This provides an indirect answer to the following question, which inevitably arises in the dogmatics of atonement: through Christ’s redemptive acceptance of universal sin, is not one’s own human freedom, and, consequently, responsibility, abolished, but has Christ accomplished His redemptive work in place of all people and for all their deeds? Therefore, isn’t freedom in general just a subjective human illusion that does not correspond to reality? Without dwelling on the doctrine of predestination, which is based on a misunderstanding through the introduction of time into the Divinity - the temporal before into the eternity of God, 380 we will point out that the nature of the old Adam with its originality and with its created freedom is not abolished by the Incarnation, through which only a new, second center is introduced into it. Therefore, human freedom is not abolished through the taking on of the deeds of this freedom, i.e., sins, by the New Adam, which is what redemption consists of. Of course, real sin does not exist before its implementation through freedom, and therefore cannot be accepted. However, we must remember that created freedom is not absolute, inherent in the omnipotence of God. It exists only as a modality in relation to the reality given to it, and it is exhausted by this specific way of realizing this reality. In fact, she is limited by real possibilities, which she cannot surpass (otherwise than in an illusion or a Luciferian pose). Therefore, human sins, as possibilities, can be known to God even before they are committed, and through this knowledge of God they are redemptively accepted and overcome by the Lamb of God, who takes upon Himself the sins of the world, that is, the deeds of rebellious and weak created freedom. Such knowledge of God about these possibilities makes it possible to prophesy about future events, which does not abolish freedom, does not turn figures into puppets, but knows the paths of this freedom and the possibilities contained in it. Both this inevitable and natural thing can be done freely in the sense of personal activity (the predictions of social science are fundamentally based on this, in particular, the statistical study of “aggregates”, with their laws that do not at all abolish freedom). This knowledge of the power and depth of human sin in general, with all its possibilities, is the basis of the redemptive self-identification of the Lamb of God with the fallen human race, with all its sins, in its past, present and future. Redemption therefore does not abolish created freedom within its actual limits, not only because it is not “predestination” at all, but also presupposes human freedom in its assimilation or non-assimilation: here the duality of the centers of a single humanity, the old and the New Adam, appears with all the force of reality. Redemption for the entire human race, accomplished in the New Adam, must be realized in freedom for each of the children of the Old Adam, and its assimilation is everyone’s own business. To that extent, redemption becomes a matter of human freedom and personal will. Therefore, in the Word of God, the testimony of the completed redemption puts its implementation in connection with this will: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us (a sacrifice for sin), so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). “Christ died for all, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again” (5:15). (Cf. John 3:16). Thus, redemption is not given as a violent or automatic act, but on the condition that it is accepted by faith and assimilated in freedom. So, redemption consists in the self-identification of the sinless New Adam with the sinful Old Adam and in His experiencing the life of this latter with its sinfulness. This identification realizes the true unity of both centers of human nature, and Christ, by a free feat and for His sinless humanity, accepted sinful humanity, centered in Adam. By the power of this assimilation or identification, He appeared before God as bearing the sin of all the old Adam, as a sinful and even all-sinful man. This sin - not only ideally, but also actually perceived by Him, although lived out sinlessly by Him - became a burden on Him, and He Himself was already responsible before God for human sin. On Him, the beloved Son, in whom the Father was pleased, burdened all the wrath of God for the sin that He bore on Himself. “It pleased the Lord to strike Him, and He gave Him over to torture” (Is. 53:10). “To bear sin” does not mean only to ideally attribute it to oneself, remaining alien to it, but also to actually experience its burden, suffer, and outlive it. God is not deceived and knows no partiality. Therefore, redemption before the court of God’s Truth cannot remain only an appearance. Sin is the same reality as the world and man, since it is their state. True, sin was not created by God, it is a product of created freedom, however, this latter in all its self-definitions is real with the entire reality of this world and man, and therefore the sin that embodies it is real, with the only difference that the world and man, as created by God, are indestructible, while sin, being a product of created freedom, is destroyed and must be destroyed, overcome and overcome, which is what redemption consists of. The Son of God, who came down from heaven and was sent into the world by the Father, under the weight of the sin of the world Himself becomes distant from the Father, Who inexorably commands Him to drink the cup of His wrath against sin, and finally leaves Him under all this burden. This is evidence of the authenticity of the self-identification of the New Adam with the Old, which became objectively possible only through the power of the Incarnation. “The Word became flesh,” but this flesh is already sinful flesh, which, although free from sin personally in Him due to His sinlessness, remains entirely in its sin, and through His humanity this sinful flesh already becomes His flesh. And the Righteous One, who accepts the sin of the world, is himself equal with sinners in the eyes of God. He moves away from holiness into sin and plunges into this night of sin, the night of Gethsemane, into mortal sorrow... The heart is amazed at this sacrifice of saving love, and the mind faints before the mystery of the acceptance of sin by those who suffer for the sins of the world, as for their own, by the God-man. And how does thought need this suffering, the acceptance of sins by the Logos? Can the God-man, “the One Sinless One,” suffer from human sin, can He, God, be abandoned by God, can He die? And, however, this is precisely the direct purpose of the coming to earth of the Logos, His incarnation. “My soul is now troubled, and what shall I say? Father! deliver Me from this hour! But for this hour I have come” (John 12:28). If the incarnation in itself is already the kenosis of the Divine, then the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the acceptance of human sin and the experience of all its power, as the wrath of God and removal from God, in which an inexorable and violent death overtakes Him, as if the death penalty for the sins of the world, is the deepest limit of this general kenosis: “for this hour I have come.” Divinity is incompatible with sin, it burns it with His fire, and the taking upon Himself of the sin of the world by the God-Man becomes possible only by the power of the fact that the Divinity in Him is humbled, exhausted (“he was obedient to death”) and, as it were, hidden. Retaining all the power of natural existence, which can neither be abolished nor diminished, the Divinity nevertheless potentializes itself, becomes, as it were, inactive in the God-man to such an extent that it allows the approach of sin, as if agreeing to its assimilation by the God-man: the human will and here “follows” the divine. The divine hypostasis in the God-man, which hypostasizes both His natures, realizes in itself during redemption, as it were, only the human hypostasis, which becomes the subject of sin, received from all human nature, and is aggravated by it. As the divine hypostasis, the hypostasis of the divine nature, the Logos has it naked from the “kingdom, power and glory”, in humiliation, as if stripped of its deity, and here, on the cross, this stripping reaches its utmost depth. The Divine Self of the Logos, which has become the God-human Self of Christ, in Christ Himself reveals itself as the human Self of the New Adam, and, in His self-identification with the Old Adam, takes upon Himself the sins of the world, remaining, at the same time, of course, unchanged in His Divinity. T. Oh, the feat of redemption, as a sacrifice of love, has two sides in the God-man: the sacrificial love of God, exhausted in His Divinity and, as it were, hiding for Himself, “in the form of a servant,” and the sacrificial love of Man, who takes away - with unconditional personal sinlessness - the sin of the whole world: acceptance by love of the burden of sin not committed by Him, alien to Him - the love of the God-Man for fallen co-man. In the redemptive feat, His humanity becomes what it itself is not, sinless-sinful: the love of the cross, symbolized in the intersection of two perpendicular lines. The Son, in His obedience, does in everything the will of the Father, who sent Him into the world (John 17, 21, 23), and this will of the Father determines Him to the redemptive acceptance of the sin of the world. The Father gives the cup to the Son, condemning Him to death on the cross. The Father commands Him to overcome His human nature, which trembles before the weight of world sin. This struggle is revealed, like His whole life, in prayer to the Father: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; however, not as I will, but You” (Matthew 26:39). “If this cup cannot pass from Me without Me not drinking it, Thy will be done” (42)1 (Even more expressively in Mark 14:35-36: “And he went a little way, fell to the ground and prayed that, if possible, this hour would pass from Him; and said: Abba Father, all things are possible for You, take this cup past Me; but not what I want, but what You want,” cf. Luke. 22, 42). And for the first and only time, it was as if this prayer of the Son was not heard, on behalf of His trembling human nature, which was supposed to accept the cross by human freedom, and not by divine power. The will of the Father demanded obedience, demonstrated in all the intensity of the struggle. The New Adam had to, contrary to the voice of human nature, bend him to the will of God, show obedience to the end, and with this obedience abolish Adam’s disobedience. This side of the atoning sacrifice is open to us - the kenosis of the Divine and the struggle of Humanity in the God-man in accepting the cup. The Father Himself gives it to the Beloved Son. He himself does not incarnate, but it is He who sends the Son into the world, and this message is the sacrificial kenosis of the Father, although, of course, completely different from the kenosis of the Son. The Father, who gives birth to the Son and has His good pleasure in Him, in this act of sending Him into the world, which ends by sending Him to the cross, and itself, as it were, is deprived of the Son, remains without a Son. The Son becomes orphaned, and the Father becomes orphaned. The Parent and the Begotten exist in unchanging eternity as the mutual existence of the Father and the Son. There is a Father who gives birth, and there is a Son who is begotten. But in His kenosis, the Son no longer lives in unity with the Father, like the Father with the Son, for the Father sent the Son to earth, and the Son was sent by the Father to the Cross, “the love of the Father crucifying and the love of the Son being crucified” (according to the bold words of Metropolitan Philaret), and in this sense this is Their common co-crucifixion. But in the human crucifixion of the Son and the divine co-crucifixion of the Father, love itself is co-crucified, the hypostatic Love of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit, the joy of love, uniting Him with the Father (as it is said: “By the Holy Spirit Christ offered Himself blameless to God” Heb. 9:14). This joy is extinguished in the night of the Garden of Gethsemane and in the thickening darkness of the ninth hour. The Holy Spirit, who always rests on the Son, also, as it were, leaves Him. The hypostatic love of the Father and the Son is co-sacrificed for the sin of the world, and thereby participates in the exhaustion of the cross, 381 it becomes, as it were, inactive in the night of the world. It is night (John 13:30), in which the Son of God crucifies and dies, in order to become “triumphant in the power of the cross” (M. Philaret) in the resurrection. Thus, in redemption we see the fullness of the revelation of God-Love, in the Holy Trinity of existence: the Lamb of God, slain for the sin of the world, the Father, who accepts this sacrifice, and the Holy Spirit, who performs it, and the Son himself, incarnate and made man, is the High Priest, entering with His sacrificial blood into the Holy of Holies of the Trinity Divinity. The sacrifice of the Son presupposes the sacrificial love of the entire Holy Trinity: so God loved the world, and love has no power without sacrifice. How was this acceptance of the sin of the world accomplished by the Redeemer? It has a passive side, the force of fact (a kind of oboedientia passiva) and an active side, the force of the act (ob. activa). The Lord endures the sorrow of the world and the sins of the world, to which He himself remains alien; He suffers from sinners and endures their enmity as His personal fate. But at the appointed time, which, of course, cannot be determined with all accuracy, but from some time becomes quite obvious, He takes up the cross, that is, He no longer suffers only from the sins of the world warring against Him from the outside, but also internalizes them from within with “compassionate love” (Metropolitan Anthony), and, making them as if His own, identifies His sinless human nature with the sinful the nature of the Old Adam. He, the Light of the world, plunges into the darkness of sin, the Gethsemane night of sorrow for him. This identification is a free act of the God-man, by the power of which He becomes the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world. How it is accomplished, this taking, is the mystery of the God-man, the One Sinless One, making Himself guilty and responsible for the sins of the world. But we note successive degrees of this accomplishment in the Gospel story. It begins to open slightly after the Transfiguration, is evidenced at the Last Supper in communion “for the remission of sins,” and becomes apparent in Gethsemane, when the Lord “began to grieve and yearn” (Matthew 26:38) “even to the point of death and to pray until he sweats blood. What was this prayer about? “Abba Father, everything is possible for you, pass this cup past Me, but not what I want, but what You want” (Mark 14:36). What does this prayer testify to? In addition to the general meaning that it expresses the struggle of human nature, as evidence of the authenticity and not the docetic imaginary of only manifested suffering, it also expresses human thought about different possibilities (“everything is possible for You,” “if possible”). This testifies, first of all, to the depth of kenosis, which in this case is accompanied by Christ’s ignorance of the ways of God regarding Himself (similar to the case of His ignorance of the day and hour of the end of the world). The omniscience of the Logos in Jesus by the power of kenosis is exhausted to mere obedience to the will of the Father: “but not what I want, but what You want” (Mark 14:36). At the same time, this testifies to such a deep kenotic distance from the Father that it may seem not characteristic of the One who himself said about Himself: “I and the Father are one”? or: “Son cannot do anything of Himself unless he sees the Father doing it” (John 5:19 and other texts). Here we seem to have a split and opposition between the wills of the Father and the Son. The sin of the world, weighed down on Him, entering into His human nature, created this distance, and this bifurcation, and this trembling human prayer: “if possible,” about what is impossible in God’s thoughts, about the rejection of what is inevitable in God’s ways, for “at this hour” the Son came into the world. In the Gethsemane prayer, we observe the God-consciousness in Jesus, as it were, withdrawn within itself and, on the contrary, in accordance with this, as it were, the fading of the light and the silence of the voice of the divine nature, the voice of the exhausted human nature rises: “in the days of His flesh (what can these “days of the flesh” mean, if not this time of God-forsakenness with the coming “consequence of this destiny - human weakness, 382 in a word: in the days of exhaustion, which culminates in the night of Gethsemane and the suffering of Calvary), with a strong cry and with tears he offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death” (Heb. 5:7). But what does the prayer mean “for the cup to pass, so that I may not drink it” (Matthew 26:42), for “to carry this cup past Me” (Mark 14:30, Luke 22:42), brought by Him “to him who is able to save Him from death” Heb. 5, 7), and “He was heard because of His reverence”? It testifies to the free acceptance of human sin already taking place in the God-Man and the elimination of it in all its might. This very acceptance lay in the path of the Council of God about the world even before its creation - “at this hour the Son came into the world” - but now it is being accomplished. And so dark was the black cloud of sin that thickened on the One Sinless One, so it covered the sky and separated Him from the Father, so deadly was its breath that human nature shuddered convulsively in its survival, straining to free itself from it, “let it pass.” It was not the will against accepting sin, but the inevitable opposition of sinlessness to sin. And exhausted human nature, feeling the approach of spiritual death, which this sin that removes Him from God carries, with “a strong cry and with tears” calls out to “He who is able to save Him from death” (i.e. e, the death of sin, spiritual death), and He “was heard for reverence” (Heb. 5:7), and an angel was sent to strengthen Him (Luke 22:23), when He “was in agony and prayed even more diligently.” Help came from heaven, and the struggle ended in victory. This is evidenced by the further events of that night and the next day, when the tempter again makes the last and powerless satanic attempt to once again arouse the struggle - through the lips of the Jews: “if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Matthew 27:40). But she remains without any consequences. Did the Gethsemane struggle have as its subject not only spiritual, but also inevitable physical death? There is no reason to deny that her free acceptance was also part of the Gethsemane struggle. However, there is no reason to assert that it is its only or even its main content, for the Lord’s prayer speaks generally about the cup (or, earlier, about “baptism”), and not only about death, and this prayer, although it may include the latter, is broader in scope than it. The cup and “baptism” (according to the correct intuition of Metropolitan Anthony in this case), who in this case has for himself a predecessor and Metropolitan. Philaret, 383 was perceived by compassionate love, by the power of self-identification, the pan-human sin that burdened Jesus and declared Him with its deadly breath. The Beloved Only Begotten Son, having taken upon Himself sin, with it and in it took upon Himself the wrath of God against sin, the enmity of God, and in it, as it were, was separated from the Father. And the torment of the One Sinless One comes from sin, which became, as it were, His own, infecting the Creator Himself through His creation. And his burden was so great that his God-forsaken human nature fainted under it. But only with such exhaustion could his strength be overcome, at such a price was the disobedience of the Old Adam now redeemed by the New Adam. It would be completely one-sided and incorrect not to include in the atoning sacrifice the night of Gethsemane itself, in which the free acceptance of the torment of the cross took place, limiting the power of this sacrifice only to Calvary’s exhaustion and the passion of Christ. It is wrong to actually abolish or to the extreme belittle the saving power of these latter (which is what Westerners are approaching - Abelard and Socinus, and in our country Metropolitan Anthony). But we should with all our might (as M. Anthony does) affirm the saving significance of the Gethsemane night, which with Calvary Day forms a single and inseparable whole. What is hidden in the darkness of the Gethsemane night? The love and only the love of the Trinity God for the fallen creation - the love of the Son, exhausted under the weight of sin and the wrath of the Father burdened on Him through this sin, the love of the Father, who gives this mortal cup to the beloved Son, the love of the Holy Spirit, who makes this sacrifice of love of the God-man for fellow humanity, who freely grafts everything into His sinless, immaculate human nature the poisons of all sins committed by humanity, in order to weaken them with His suffering and dull the sting of sin, Christ on the night of Gethsemane suffered and outlived all the sins of all humanity and each person, committed in the present, past and future - such is this sweet and terrible axiom of our faith. In the nature of the New Adam, the sins of the nature of the Old Adam were defeated and weakened, the wrath of God was burdened on them and faded away, satisfaction was given to the truth of God, a “ransom” was brought, reconciliation took place - first in the Gethsemane foreshadowing, and then the “handwriting” of our sins was completely torn apart on the cross. How is it possible to overcome universal human sin in an individual human life, in a limited and even short time? Here it is not enough to refer to the fact that the Redeemer was not only Man, but also God, and, consequently, not only His humanity with its sufferings, but also His Divinity falls with immeasurable weight on the scales of justice. Rather, on the contrary, the Divinity in Christ is so diminished that it allows humanity to accept Him and, in a state of God-forsakenness, to experience all the power, darkness, and torment of the world’s sin: “Lamb of God, take away the sin of the world.” How can one understand this “taking”? Obviously, it cannot be understood as an empirical experience of all sins already committed and not yet committed throughout our entire eon, from the fall of Adam to the Last Judgment. Obviously, we are talking about an experience that is not extensive or empirical, but about some intensive value, which is and can be its real equivalent. In this survival and in this suffering the power of all sin and all sins as a whole, in their integral, is included and concentrated. Obviously, we are talking here about a special image of prophetic knowledge and prophetic survival of all-human sinfulness on the part of the New Adam; in it, everyone can find himself and his sin, and the power that redeems Him, if he, with his freedom through his nature of the Old Adam, wants to be included in it, “to believe and be saved.” The Creator alone knows and measures all the depths and all the possibilities of sin, which can commit creation in its created freedom, and takes them upon Himself. And the God-man, in prophetic knowledge and empathy, made the sin of the whole Adam His own, having suffered through it. Is this possible? Is this conceivable? This is possible only for Him, who himself was not involved in sin, was strengthened not just by grace-filled help, but by unity - inseparable and unmerged - with the divine nature itself and had the hypostasis of the Divine Logos. This strengthening was not external violence against human nature (Deus ex machina), for the acceptance of sin took place in the depths of His human nature with the complete preservation of created freedom, subordinating itself to the will of God. Only the power of this humanity was immeasurably increased through its deification, which took place even before the final glorification of Christ. Only the deified humanity of the God-Man was able to accommodate the real elimination of all human sin, and for this there was complete agreement in Him of the divine nature and divine will. Thus, the acceptance of pan-human sin was available only to the God-man (and completely inaccessible to any person, no matter what the degree of his holiness). However, this was accomplished by the forces of His human nature, in everything consistent with the Divine: the New Adam in Christ, having His own hypostasis in the eternal Logos, accepted and outlived the struggle of the Gethsemane night, and, in agreement with this acceptance, His Divinity was silent, but the exhausted Humanity suffered. The taking upon oneself of all human sin was not realized in empirical diversity, but in intensity and completeness it was equivalent to it. This equivalence does not detract from the concreteness and power of the experience. It contained within itself the unique, divine-human intensity of time, thanks to which in a short few hours all centuries could be experienced and overcome in their sins. By virtue of this concrete equivalence, there is no personal or historical sin that was not included and suffered by the God-man as His own. This ability of concentrated, intense living reveals the depth of the pristine human nature of the God-Man, unimpaired by sin. It must be understood as an extremely high, although still naturally human, ability, which is immeasurably sharpened and strengthened by the inspiration of the Divinity living in it. We cannot even try, in thought or imagination, to comprehend this Gethsemane sorrow “even unto death,” this bitterness of the poisoned cup of sin which the Son of Man drank. But everyone who approaches Him with faith, love and repentance, in this sorrow recognizes and acquires his own sin, overcome in the suffering of the God-Man. Here a new, even more dizzying question arises before us: does this intensive, so to speak qualitative, acceptance of quantity, the assimilation of all sins of the present and future, correspond to the separate, private experience of empirical sins that have already been committed in the past or are still about to be committed in the future? The same question can also be expressed this way: does redemption continue in time, having once been accomplished super-temporally and all-time on the cross? This question cannot simply be dismissed, because the basis for a positive answer is given in the Gospel image of the Last Judgment, where Christ himself brings His self-identification with all humanity to the limit. But in this case, how can we understand this empirical and, as it were, new burden of our sins on Christ? There is nothing new, ontologically, here, because the same sins, accepted and redeemed supertemporally, are, in general, equivalent, empirically committed in time, and in which the content of the supertemporal is thus revealed: unity in plurality and vice versa. We can dogmatically understand this, first of all, by the analogy of the church year, in which various events of the life of Christ are “remembered,” i.e., in reality, they occur, once accomplished in time and in it as if drowned, but in fact having a super-temporal significance. 384 In the same way, the atoning sacrifice, once accomplished for eternity, is accomplished, so to speak, empirically in repeated liturgies. Therefore, a person who commits a sin actually torments and again rends the bloody wounds of Christ, perforated once on Calvary, and receives forgiveness of sins from Him if he turns to Him for it (in baptism and repentance). The same applies to the pre-Christian past, only no longer empirically, due to the irreversibility of time, but due to the unity and connection of all-human life, as a result of which the past lives in the present and future. However, the human eye cannot discern beyond these general outlines in the mysterious darkness of the Gethsemane night. The sin of the world, accepted by the God-man as His own, was suffered by Him on the night of Gethsemane, first of all, as something alien, terrible and disgusting, which by its very approach tormented the holy soul of the One Sinless One with inexpressible torment. For God’s love for man, it is not enough just to be incarnate, accepting human nature, but this nature made it possible with him and through him to take upon himself human sin, and through him all the evil of the world: the tempter, who once already approached Him through His human nature in the desert, but was put to shame, left Him only “for a time.” Now he approaches Christ fully armed, thanks to the sin He freely accepted, as having power over Him, although here too he made a mistake again and was once again put to shame. “The prince of this world comes and has nothing in Me” (John 14:10): nothing to accuse or defeat the God-Man, however, not to torment Him through his obedient tools, which he did not yet have then in the desert. The very acceptance of sin by a sinless person was suffering for Him; this very identification of His Humanity with the Old Adam was worth the most severe torment for compassionate, self-denying, merciful love. However, in addition to the acceptance of sin, there was also this sin itself, which bears the wrath of God and which, therefore, carries with it, as an inevitable consequence, punishment. and this anger burdened the God-man, along with accepted sin: Isa. 53, 4–6, 7, 8, 10. 385 Christ suffered the penalty for our sin. This punishment, as well as the very acceptance of sin, was equivalent to what would be characteristic of humanity, that is, the torment of hell. Others (mostly Reformed) go so far as to claim that Christ suffered genuine torments of hell in man's place. This statement is, of course, incorrect. Hellish torment includes not only the elimination of sin through punishment for it as an inevitable consequence, but also the state of the soul of the sinner himself, corrupted by sin, with its sinful addictions that cannot find satisfaction, and with its powerlessness for good, which in itself is already a source of suffering. This is the scorching love of God and the unrequited, burning, but powerless love for God, a fire in which the sinner burns and his sin is burned away until he is completely melted in the cleansing fire. This fire is not immeasurable, but has its own measure, just as the immeasurable suffering of the Son of God had its own human measure. The God-man, although he suffered the sins of the world, did not himself suffer from this suffering of sinners, being the One Sinless One, and in this sense one cannot speak of hellish torment in relation to Him. True, He personally, unlike sinners, had, in addition to suffering from sin, also suffering from accepting sin, but this is something completely different, even the opposite of the torment of sinners themselves. Christ suffered here from the approach of an unusual sin to Him, while sinners are capable of suffering from the free assimilation of sin and perversion from it, as well as from the loss of the opportunity to sin outside of earthly life. The acceptance of sin would be docetic if it were not accompanied by all its consequences, that is, the aggravation of anger and the rejection of God. God has mercy on the sinner, but hates sin; He forgives the former, but is irreconcilable towards the latter. The truth of God is as unconditional as the love of God is limitless. Sin can and must be overcome, weakened and destroyed, for, as an undue product of created freedom, it does not have the power of existence in itself, for God did not create sin, like death. But during this eradication, sin is incinerated by the wrath of God, which means suffering or punishment for the subject of sin, its bearer. Divine truth does not know any difference in attitude towards sin depending on who it is, for God has no partiality. If sin must be suffered, then it is also suffered by the God-man who accepted sin. In this sense, one can indeed say that the God-man suffers the equivalent of punishment for universal human sin, that is, the torment of hell, although in a different way than hell. Here there can be no talk of commensurability in time, because in general “eternal” torment is not measured by time, eternity is quality, not quantity. But even the short hours of the Savior’s torment contained the entire “eternity” of Torment in its intensity. and she was such that she was able to abolish and weaken the sin of the world. This is redemption and reconciliation with God. Sin, overcome and redeemed, is no longer a barrier between God and the sinner, as if it does not exist. The truth of God has received the opportunity to forgive the sinner by the gift of grace, gratia gratis data, and the wrath of God does not weigh on him, if only he himself wants to accept this gift, for redemption is given to everyone, but its assimilation is left to the share of human freedom and will. Confusion was also expressed regarding the very possibility of atonement (Socinus): how can the sin of one be forgiven on the basis of the suffering suffered by another? where is the truth and justice in such a substitution? However, the very formulation of the question is guilty of individualism and juridicalism, for it knows only individual isolated individuals, to whom the principle of formal justice is applied. However, such a distinction between “mine” and “yours” is overcome by love, which knows not only the difference, but also the identity of I and you. What is absurd for abstract justice becomes natural for love. And, first of all, Christ is not at all “other” for every person, For in His nature it is natural, and in His love it is compassionate, the New Adam includes every human individual, is an all-man. And the sin that He takes away with the power of love is no longer a sin alien to Him, but His own, although not committed by Him, but only accepted - such is the Power of identification revealed in redemption. Personal in His hypostatic existence, the God-man is united with us in His Humanity. Therefore, He can, in His saving love, without violating Divine justice, intercede for the sin of the whole world, for He made it His own. Here we have not a legal, but an ontological relationship, which is based on the real unity of human nature with its real plurality in the plurality of hypostatic centers. Christ accepted all human nature, therefore He can accept in it and through it all human sin of all individuals, although He personally did not commit it. Therefore, in His holy humanity, as well as in the all-human personality of the New Adam, every Adamite can find and realize his justification and reconciliation with God. By the power of His love, the Savior is identified with every sinner who comes to Him, so that it can be said about him: “I live not for anyone, but Christ lives in me.” Christ the High Priest forgives the sins of sinners who flow to Him with faith, love and repentance, by the power of His atoning sacrifice. Universal forgiveness of sins has been acquired for everyone through atonement and one only needs to accept it by faith (John 3:16-18). The objective accomplishment of salvation must be realized for everyone through his subjective acceptance (or non-acceptance) on the basis of personal, free self-determination (Mark 16:16). But the subjective rejection of the atonement does not destroy its objective power. Through redemption from sin by Christ, each person gains his eternal, indestructible face in God, even if this face remains unmanifested in his own human form, “likeness.” This face of man, existing in the New Adam, is communicated to him in the sacrament of baptism, as a new birth, and he also receives a new revelation through other sacraments of the Church. The connection between this objective principle of human life and its subjectivity is accomplished by freedom. Grace is a gift and is given freely, but it does not force (as insuperabilis et indeclinabilis), does not turn a person into a thing, into an object of creation, but convinces, conquers, regenerates. There is salvation for every person, it was acquired by Christ in His high priestly ministry, and the path of personal assimilation of salvation can be complex, broken and contradictory. But God’s love ultimately overcomes created sin, and in the fullness of time “God will be all in all.” So, redemption on the part of the Divine is a sacrifice of Love by Itself for the sake of saving the world: the face of love is covered in Her by the face of justice, by virtue of which sin must be suffered to the end for the reconciliation of its bearer with God, even if this bearer is the One Sinless One, the Son of God. The truth of God, inexorable and impartial, cannot stop at anything, even if its judgment falls on God himself, who in the God-man accepted sin along with human nature. For if only the sinner can be forgiven, but not the sin, then in order to find the opportunity to forgive the sinner, God takes upon Himself the satisfaction of God’s righteousness for human sin. God in the Holy Trinity, as it were, again speaks in the Divine Council about man: having created man, in his creation manifold and now fallen, we will recreate him, taking upon ourselves the satisfaction of the Truth. And this Truth is that the Creator of human existence Himself takes upon Himself the consequences of His act of creation - the possibility of sin, which has become a reality, God says to the creation: you were created by My hands, you are My work, without My will you would not exist, and I take upon Myself your guilt, as your Creator. I forgive you, I return your glory to you, for I take your sin upon Myself, and I atone for it with My suffering. O the depth and richness of God's love! God himself takes upon himself the sin of the world that has risen from pre-creation non-existence, redeeming it with the corresponding suffering of the God-man. And with the Son of God, by His inseparability, the entire Holy Trinity suffers from this sin: the Father as a Righteous Judge, judging His Son, and in Him Himself, as the Creator of the world; The Son, as the One who is judged and enduring condemnation, and the Holy Spirit, as the sacrificing and suffering Love of God, the sacrifice of Love for the sake of love - God’s love for the world. And all this is the Cup of Gethsemane. It is received on the night of Gethsemane, but it continues to be drunk on Calvary, when the Truth of God weighing on the Son reaches its utmost strength in His God-forsakenness and loneliness on the Cross in the face of death: “thou hast forsaken Me!” The very inseparability of the Holy Trinity seems to be interrupted, the Son remains alone, and through this amazing sacrifice of God the salvation of the world is “accomplished.” This is divine death, for “My soul is sorrowful even to death,” to spiritual death, which is abandonment by God.” The cup is drained to the end, and the Son betrays His Spirit to the Father: the Divine Trinity again closes into an indivisible unity. But redemption could not be limited to the acceptance of sin or spiritual death, but had to include bodily death in order to extend to the entire human being, spiritual and physical: “he was obedient even to death, the death of the cross.” The Redeemer tasted the fullness of death, not only spiritual death, the death of sin, and not only physical death through crucifixion, but both sides of death, both spiritual and physical. And without this completeness, without the acceptance of spiritual-physical death, the saving “fulfillment” could not occur. And, above all, this follows from the completeness of “obedience,” that is, sacrifice. When and how could this sacrifice be completed, exhausted? could it stop as if halfway, or, having begun, not end? Could the Son have completed obedience to the end, without giving away everything that He had to give, that is, life itself, after which there would have been nothing left that was not given, not sacrificed? The fullness of the sacrifice and its end is only death”, the end of life and the One who Gives it. And the spiritual death, accepted by the son for the sin of the world, was supposed to extend in evil infinity, like the Gethsemane night without dawn, and the cup given to Him by the Father was to be drunk endlessly, never exhausted? Or could it, remaining unfinished, be returned to the Father again? But torment, as an equivalent ransom (λύτρον) for the sins of the world, is inappropriate to think of as infinite and, as it were, absolute, - for after all, the sin of the creature is limited and finite, and not absolute, as in everything, created being itself is relative and finite. However, it cannot be finite and limited, for the sin was committed against God, an absolute and infinite being (Anselm). Consequently, this torment is certainly infinite, that is, without an internal end, being “eternal torment” by its ontological nature, it exhausts itself in death, which is thereby the integral of bad infinity: the end of torment comes as a result of the end of the subject of torment himself in his death. Death, as a break in life, was immanently necessary, being inherent in the very nature of spiritual death, which, being “eternal,” thereby could no longer be temporarily endless (contrary to the usual idea, according to which “eternal torment” is understood precisely as endless in time). 386 However, apart from all these considerations, the acceptance of bodily death is necessary for the completeness of the atonement, without which it would remain incomplete. Man, by his very essence, is a spiritual-mental-physical being, and the destructive, deadly power of sin could not be limited to only the spiritual-mental area, but inevitably spread to the mental-physical area. A person who has become subject to spiritual death or sin has also become subject to physical death, which was expressed in God’s judgment over the fallen Adam: the disorganization of the life of the whole world (the curse of the earth) and the inevitable death of man. This death is not just an external, violent fact that invades life, it is the final act of mortal life, the fruit of mortality, which extends to the entire course of life. A person dies already from birth, the body of death carries within itself a deadly disease, which sooner or later completes its work, but even before the end shows its power in bodily suffering and illness. The body was created by God not as an instrument of suffering, but for the “glory”, joy and fullness of man, and it became such only as a result of sin. Being intended for life with the whole world and rejoicing in it, it became the possibility of all suffering and illness, until the disease of illness, death, in its integral puts an end to suffering and illness through the destruction of their very subject, man. Suffering from sin, mental and physical, can be neither separated nor opposed due to the unity of the human being, mental and physical. Therefore, the one who is involved in sin spiritually becomes guilty of it physically, that is, becomes mortal. And therefore, the consequences of the acceptance of human sin by the Savior could not be limited only to the area of ​​spiritual experiences (the assumption of which is the one-sidedness and, to that extent, erroneousness of Metropolitan Anthony’s views), but had to necessarily extend to bodily life. Sin had to become a source of bodily suffering and death, for this deadly force is inherent in it. The Savior, along with sin, had to accept bodily suffering and taste death, and, moreover, differently than every person who knows only his own suffering and tastes only his own death. For the New Adam, the redeemer of the entire human race, it was necessary to physically experience the suffering of all human suffering and taste the death of all deaths, to accept Death in order to defeat it, to trample down death by death - universal, integral death. Obviously, and this should be thought of not in a quantitative, but in a qualitative, intense, integral equivalent, so that in the torment experienced by Christ physically and in His bodily death, all possible bodily suffering and death of every human being can find themselves in their depth and strength. 387 This depth and power of the passions and death of Christ is also confirmed by their voluntariness: “I lay down my life in order to take it up again: no one takes it from Me, but I give it: I have the power to lay it down and the power to take it up again” (John 10:17-18). The Lord freely accepts not only death, but also mortality, and not only bodily torment, but also torment itself. The New Adam bows down to the weak existence of the Old Adam in His passion on the cross and death on the cross. 388 As born without sin, from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the Lord was free from original sin and from the morbidity and mortality of the body. By nature, He did not experience illness or bodily suffering, being not subject to death. By His Divine spirit He also had complete control over His body, which was therefore obedient to His commands. True, He allowed natural weakness in the life of His body, which resulted from the general damage of creation through original sin, for He lived on earth, which was under a curse for the sin of man, and for Him the paradise fruits of the tree of life did not grow, which would replace earthly food. On the contrary, by the sweat of his brow a person obtained “his bread” and therefore it was always available in limited quantities, stipulating the possibility of hunger, thirst and any temporary fatigue of the body. Therefore, He shared with man this difficulty and insecurity of his bodily life. He could experience hunger and thirst, fatigue and the need for sleep, although in some cases he overcame them at the command of His spirit (as this is quite clearly evident in the story of the temptation from the devil with bread, about the meeting with the Samaritan woman, in the repeated mentions of the nights spent in prayer after a difficult day). He had special power to pass unharmed among the people when they wanted to stone Him, throw Him off a cliff and under. There is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus was aware of human diseases. In a word, freely bearing the weakness of the natural world and human nature, Jesus was not subject to illness and the threat of death, remaining alien to mortality in His humanity. This mortality could only be freely accepted or admitted into the human nature of the Savior, in whom the approaching prince of this world himself “had nothing” (John 40:30), and the acceptance of mortality is also a condition for the acceptance of death. Along with the spiritual acceptance of the sin of the world - Gethsemane - Christ also accepted its consequences physically, at Calvary; Along with the spiritual torment of sin, Christ suffered its bodily consequences. This acceptance of mortality constitutes the invisible, although essential, condition of His passion on the cross, torment and death. “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” these words are spoken not only about spiritual death, but also about the mortality of the body: the sorrow for the sins of the world, which burdened Him, made His body susceptible to death. Satan, who tried in vain to kill Him first with the hands of Herod, and then with the leaders of Israel inspired by him, inflamed with anger at Jesus, now finds for himself obedient tools that can already carry out this work: “every day I was in the church, and you did not raise your hands against Me, but now is your time and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Christ, who previously “passed” among the enemies who thirsted for His death, now becomes available to them. The sin of the world, accepted by Christ, fell with its weight not only on His “soul”, but also on His bodily being. “He gave up His soul to death” (Is. 53:12). The path from Gethsemane necessarily leads to Golgotha, and any attempt to separate or separate them (Metropolitan Anthony) testifies to an insufficient understanding of the connection between sin and death and makes all the terrible realism of accepting sin illusory and inauthentic. Therefore, in Christ’s speeches about the exodus to Jerusalem, impending suffering and death are invariably spoken of. However, these sufferings and death of Christ, being not natural, but freely accepted, could only be violent: these were not illnesses with natural death as their consequence, but torture, torture and murder (“mocking, beating and crucifixion” Matthew 20:18), like the slaughter of a sacrificial lamb. Bodily suffering and death, accepted by the Savior for “obedience” to the Father, being unnatural violence against nature itself, acquire exceptional significance, both in the strength and intensity of bodily and spiritual suffering in themselves - abandonment and hostility, along with abuse and mockery, beatings, strangulations and terrible torment - and as a result of the natural properties of the Sufferer. The immaculate and disease-free body suffered and was torn, death was tasted by nature by the Immortal, blood and water poured out along with life from the Most Holy Source of Life. And the bearing of the sin of the world was spiritually combined with its bodily bearing in the torment of the cross and death. The blind children of this world cannot bear the acceptance of death by the Son of God - the Son of Man, God and Man, who is spiritually exhausted in the Holy Trinity and physically exhausted in death on the cross. But this death is the crown of the entire redemptive feat, its end and the beginning of a new life. The cup of Gethsemane is also the cup of death, into funeral baptism into new life: “we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3ff: 4-10). Therefore, the Word of God usually speaks of the death of Christ and, in particular, of His blood, as a certain substance of the atoning sacrifice, the very “ransom” or “price” of our salvation, and Christ Himself at the Last Vespers speaks of the breaking of His body and the shedding of the blood of the New Testament “for the remission of sins.” This is the Calvary sacrifice, in which the entire fullness of Divine exhaustion, the saving kenosis of the Son of God, is concentrated. This eliminates that limited understanding of it, according to which only bodily torment and death on the cross are valid here, or in general the acceptance of death as an idea. In this understanding, the death of Christ on the cross is equated, or at least likened to the heroic death, accepted by various human figures as their idea and courageously faced by them. The death and passion of Christ are unlike any human death, for it is a free, unnatural death, accepted along with spiritual death for the sin of the world. It is not just an external event or an evil accident that might not have happened, or simply the failure of an individual person - no, it is the very essence, content, power of the sacrificial life of the God-man, the sacrifice of Love. And only the one who does not know God in Calvary. The righteous man is able to blindly liken the event from which the earth shook, and the sun darkened, and the whole universe trembled, to the death of an individual for his idea. And this uniqueness of Calvary’s death is evidenced by the entire image of the Sufferer, “like a sheep for the slaughter,” led, humble and unyielding, praying for his enemies and responding to outrage with meekness. With the image of His suffering and death He completes His sermon, the “prophetic ministry,” which is essentially identical and inseparable with the high priestly ministry. The image on the cross of God crucified and dying for people, His suffering and death, is the answer of the God of Love to all the suffering of the world He created - to the questioning groans of Job, as well as to any questioning. In the creation of the world, God invested not only omnipotence, but the death of the Son on the cross, and at this price He himself paid for created freedom - the sins, distortions and destructions it brought into the universe, and with freedom the Son restored man through His obedience even to death. The death of God is the price of human freedom, the image of God in creation. So God love the world... Here it is appropriate to once again touch upon the Question already touched upon above. The Son is incarnated, suffers, crucified and dies, but why is it said that the Father who sent Him, who “gave” His Son, speaks of love for the world? Is the Father's participation in redemption expressed by this sending of the Son merely as an act of command? Or is the sending of the Son also for the Father an act of sacrificial love, a spiritual co-crucifixion? But this is so even in human fatherhood, which exists in the image of heaven: Abraham, in his sacrificial readiness to sacrifice Isaac, is already the Old Testament image of the Father. And how should we think about the Prototype, about the Father, who, out of love for the world, sends His beloved Son? Shouldn't we simply and directly recognize the spiritual, that is, without the incarnation, participation of the Father in the Gethsemane sacrifice and in this, although only in this sense, His spiritual co-crucifixion? Of course, the suffering of the impassive God the Father is different, but no less than the suffering of the incarnate Son; in its own way it is also equivalent to it, although it is beyond human standards to measure this equivalence. But can we think the opposite, admitting that the Father sent the Son to suffer, while he himself remained indifferent, not suffering with Him? And the same thing, although in a different way, can be said about the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic Love of the Father and Son, by the power of which the very incarnation was accomplished. This Love of the Father always rested on the Son, sharing His suffering with Him (like the Spirit-Bearing Mother standing at the cross), until His abandonment by God came, and He was naked of the Holy Spirit. “My God, forsaken me of all things” can equally apply to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, or, rather, to both, for the love of the Father rested on the Son in the Holy Spirit. The abandonment of the Son of the Father for the sake of saving the world is an image of the spiritual co-crucifixion of Love-the Holy Spirit with the Son, co-suffering and the Third Hypostasis, which, being different from the suffering of the Son, like the Father, cannot be unequal to it in strength. In general, one cannot think that in the Holy Trinity the Son alone suffers for the sin of the world with indifference or only the external, non-compassionate participation of other hypostases. This would contradict the basic trinitarian dogma of God as trinitarian love, the Trinity, Consubstantial and inseparable, having one life in the trinity of hypostases. Separation of one, only the Second, hypostasis from the single life of the Holy Trinity and interhypostatic love would contradict this unity; it would dissect the Holy Trinity in its inseparability. True, different hypostases, according to Their personal properties, realize Their life in the Holy Trinity in different ways - both in eternity and in relation to the world, creative and providential. Both creation and industry of the world are accomplished by the entire Holy Trinity, however, with different actions of individual hypostases. But in a similar way, the salvation of the world, its redemption, must be understood as the total act of the entire Holy Trinity, and, however, the effective redemption itself belongs to the incarnate Son, while the accomplishment, as its beginning and end, belongs to the Father and the Holy Spirit. The entire Holy Trinity is spiritually crucified with the Son, and the cross of Christ,” the life-giving tree, mysteriously contains the “Holy Trinity image,” as Divine Trinitarian love. Suffering for the world is in this sense not only the kenosis of the Son, but also, although in a different, special sense, the kenosis of other hypostases, the entire Holy Trinity. However, is it possible to talk about the co-suffering or co-crucifixion of God with the God-Man for the salvation of the world? Doesn't this mean anthropomorphizing God, and disturbing the peace of eternity with the intrusion of time and its accomplishments? This question has already been answered in the general teaching about God and the world. Antinomically, the eternal and unchanging, absolute and self-contained, self-sufficient existence of God as the Absolute is combined with the co-relative existence of God for the world and with the world, which makes the life of God connected with the world, both in creation and industry, and in redemption. And this revelation of the Absolute, as the Creator and God, includes the path to Golgotha, the suffering of God for the world and with the world, and it cannot be isolated or isolated, concentrated on the Son alone, leaving the undisturbed peace of absoluteness for other hypostases. No, the crucifixion of the Son takes place on earth, but it is also shared in heaven, the entire Holy Trinity is crucified with the Son” - this is how God loved the world. The dogma of atonement must be understood trinitarianly, like everything in Christianity. 389 Christ speaks about Himself in all the power of these words: “he who has seen Me has seen the Father,” and about the Holy Spirit: I will send you another Comforter from the Father.” This is self-identification of Himself and His work with the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Here there is no need to be afraid of the “theopaschitism” condemned by the church in its anti-trinitarian aspect. It was precisely the idea that it was not the Son who was crucified on the cross that was condemned, but the Father in His unity with the Son, the “Son-Father.” Such theopaschytism does not represent a distinction or identification of hypostases (modalism) and thereby a denial of the Holy Trinity. The Church confesses that only the Son, the God-man Jesus, suffered in the flesh, was crucified on the cross and tasted death by the power of His taking on human nature, and in this sense, neither the Father’s hypostasis nor the Spirit’s hypostasis suffers with Him. However, the indifference of these hypostases in the matter of redemption directly contradicts the church dogma of the incarnation, and the denial of this indifference is by no means theopaschitism in the bad sense condemned and prohibited by the Church. And when we talk about the spiritual “co-crucifixion” with the Son of the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are expressing only the church teaching about Their participation in the work of redemption. God in His eternity, as the “immanent Trinity,” is above the world, but the same Holy Trinity, as the Creator, “economically,” is in relationship with the world. In redemption we have a complex image of such a relationship in which the hypostasis of the Son itself is directly united with the world and suffers in it, while other hypostases, remaining alien to this direct connection, suffer spiritually with the Son, due to the unity of love. . IN). The Death of Christ and the Descent into Hell The death of Christ was as true as His humanity: Heb. 2, 14–15 (“just as children share in flesh and blood, so He also took part in it, so that by death He might deprive him of the power of death, that is, the devil”). The echo of human death could not, of course, touch the Divine nature of the Chief of life himself, for God cannot die. However, He can “humble Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:8). The death of the God-man must therefore be understood from the Divine side as the ultimate act of kenosis of the Divine, accepted together with the incarnation. God could exhaust Himself, as if depotentialize in the incarnation; He could humble Himself until He assimilated the scale of human life in its limitations, subject to the laws of the weak life of the body. But kenosis at its limit, in order to exhaust everything human, must also include that act of life, which consists in its mortal break, end, or, more precisely, fainting, “dormition” (there is no death as a positive beginning of being, for God did not create it). God, who has diminished to created human life, empties Himself even to death, through which He enters the Sabbath rest (Heb. 4:3-4, 9-11). 390 Divine death is free, as an act of “obedience” and kenosis, as dying in self-exhaustion or self-restraint. It is an act of divine-human life, which also includes created death. It belongs to the incarnation, since human life is mortal. But the death of the Lord cannot be considered as the end of His earthly ministry or His disincarnation and, as it were, dehumanization. On the contrary, this is the deepest point of His incarnation. “For He does not receive angels, but He receives the seed of Abraham. Therefore He had to become like the brethren in everything” (Heb. 2:16-17). Christ, who in everything except sin remained one with humanity, united with it in death in order to defeat it: “trampling down death by death.” The death of Christ was a duel between death and Life, which defeated it, taking its sting into itself. But for this, Life had to experience all the powerlessness of created life, having tasted death. In this death “completed” (John 19:30) all the works of the earthly high priestly service, just as in the creation of the world (Gen. 2:1) God completed His Creation in six days. And just as God rested from creation in order to protect the created world through providence, so the Son of Man also rested, like a grain of wheat, in the heart of the earth in order to save the world by victory over death. 391 God freely subjugated to Himself natural necessity, not wanting to exceed with His omnipotence the boundaries of created nature, and therefore, having become human, He did not remove human death from Himself. This death was not insurmountable and inevitable for Him as for every person - He had the power to give His life himself as a free feat of love and obedience, and therefore it is sacrificial, redemptive, for He himself “gave up His soul to death” (Is. 53:12). According to Divinity, the death of the God-Man was free by virtue of the decision not to defend against it by Divine power, but to allow it and endure it. According to His humanity, it was a violent death, and that’s the only way it could be. As free from original sin, Jesus was free from death according to the judgment of God, as well as from that break in life that was caused by sin and leads to death with inner necessity. In other words, His life was not mortal in itself, and therefore was not subject to natural death. However, living one life with mortal humanity, in the mortal world, Jesus was not protected from violent death, unless He himself wanted to be divinely protected from it - at least by “twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:58), which, however, also was not, and could not be. But Christ’s humanity did not yet have the positive power of immortality, just like Adam’s before the Fall. In this situation, the death of Jesus became inevitable due to enmity towards Him, inspired by the prince of this world. But this violent and in this sense unnatural death, occurring in spite of the fullness of life in Him, thereby became more painful than any natural death, the Death of all deaths. In it, Christ tasted not only His own death, but mortality itself. He died with all mankind; in His death all human death was included, and it was equivalent to all deaths in mankind. The death of Christ was universal and all-human, just as His suffering, mental and physical, dynamically combined all-human suffering. And this is the saving and resurrection power of Christ’s death, as victory over death, “death for all” (Heb. 2:9). The death of Christ in its completion was similar to the death of every person. The latter consists in the separation of the complex human composition: the spirit, together with the soul, which loses the power to possess the body, is separated from it, and the body again becomes dust and returns to the “earth” (Gen. 3:19, Eccl. 12:7). The line of separation in death runs where the human soul is united with the body, and through it with the world, but not where the soul is united with the spirit emanating from God. The spirit does not die, although it loses the opportunity to live the fullness of human life in the body. He finds himself in an unnatural state of disembodied spirits, for which, on the contrary, life in the body is unusual. The human spirit is not deprived of the opportunity to continue its life, accepting revelations only from the spiritual world, and not from the natural. But at the same time, the spirit is not separated from the soul, which remains in it as the potency of created bodily life. The soul borrows the power of life from the spirit, but the beginning of death is also rooted in it, as a consequence of sin. The soul in itself, as the animal principle, does not have immortality, it receives it only by the power of its connection with the spirit, which determines human individuality: in a rational creation there is in general neither a spirit free from connection with a created soul (the same neither in the angelic nor in the human world, for only God is pure spirit), nor a rational soul separated from the spirit, for such is characteristic only of animals. The soul, although united with the spirit, after death becomes a mere potency of itself, for it is separated from natural life, its own element. She seems to freeze in the form that she has adopted in life, and remains in this state of potentiality until the resurrection. However, it binds and determines the spirit in the image of its being, burdening it with itself or, on the contrary, freeing it to its own spiritual existence. Thus, death conceals within itself a special experience of life, albeit in a state of unnatural disembodiment, which is necessary and essential in the life of a sinful person, and at the same time saving. Death is entry into the spiritual world. It is not only a punishment, but also a blessing from God for fallen humanity. For the afterlife of the soul is both initiation and catharsis, a mysterious night of life in which it matures for the immortal day. But the threshold to it is death itself, as dying, which Christ tasted. The death of Christ took place when He “gave up the spirit” (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; John 19:30 – “gave up the spirit”), “exclaiming with a loud voice: Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46 – Ps. 30:6). This is evidence of the separation of spirit and body, which is then buried in the earth, as having lost life and become earth, “departing into the earth.” However, this does not exhaust the testimony of Christ’s death. He Himself speaks to the disciples at the Last Supper about His death as a breaking of the body and an outpouring of blood - and in general, His death is repeatedly described in the Word of God as an outpouring of blood (deliberately in the Epistle to Heb.). “The soul of animals is in the blood,” the beginning of bodily life, and the outpouring of blood is death, as the soul leaves the body. And this special significance of the outpouring of blood in the death of Christ is noted in the narrative of St. John 19, 34. In this feature one can see an indication of the separation of the spirit and soul from the body in the death of Christ. A second indication of the same significance is found in Acts. 2:31: “His soul was not left in hell.” Even in the death of Christ, the divine nature was not separated from the human, which is expressed in the uninterrupted unity of the Divine spirit with the human soul. After His death, the Lord entered into the afterlife, and it had for itself the mysterious period of “three days”, as the fullness of death, which Christ tasted. According to the testimony of the Word of God, the soul of Christ in the state of death, being, of course, in inseparable unity with the Divine Spirit, descended into hell (1 Peter 3:18-19 - “into prison” - desendit ad inferna in the apostolic symbol). “Hell” is the “place” of the afterlife of the souls of all humanity before Christ, both Old Testament and pagan. The so-called “sermon in hell,” which constitutes the belief of the Church, is the appearance of Christ to those who in earthly life could not see and know Christ. 392 There is no reason to limit this phenomenon to the “halo” of the patriarchs - limbus patrum, that is, to the Old Testament saints alone, as Catholic theology does. Rather, the power of this sermon should be expanded to all times for those who did not and could not know Christ in earthly life, but meet Him beyond the grave, for all the events of Christ’s life that took place in time have an all-time, abiding significance. “Sermon in hell” is a symbolic designation of that mysterious presence of Christ beyond our visible world (in the “afterlife”), which constitutes the side of the saving work of Christ and His service to humanity unknown to us in this life. Although experimentally inaccessible to us, it is communicated to us by revelation only in the symbolically mythological images of the “descent into hell.” In this context it is to be understood as the afterlife of Christ at the time of His death, which represents His continued high priestly (not kingly, as is usually understood) ministry. His atoning sacrifice is revealed in its power not only in life, but also in His Death, in the afterlife. 393 The Son of God here does not cease to be the Son of Man, the God-Man; death does not separate natures. His service still continues beyond death, in the afterlife, during a certain period of time - three days (is it not in accordance with the three years of earthly ministry?). And in the afterlife, Christ retains the indivisible and unmerged union of two natures in a single divine hypostasis, according to the testimony of the Church: “In the tomb carnally, in hell with the soul like God, in heaven with the thief, and on the throne you were, Christ, with the Father and the Spirit.” This hymn does not separate humanity and the divinity of Christ. The stay of Christ in “hell”, i.e. in the afterlife, is fraught with different possibilities for the souls of the departed - both hell and heaven, according to the spiritual state of those who receive it, which is why the thief who descends into hell (Sheol) with Christ remains there as in “paradise”, absolved from his sins on the cross. What was the presence of Christ in the tomb? Christ tasted true death, and His dead body was buried in a tomb, like every dead person. However, this body is testified to in both the Old and New Testaments that it did not know decay, in clear contrast to any human death, which is accompanied by decay. Does this feature diminish the reality of death, is it not only likened to mortal fainting, lethargy, or a cataleptic state? Was the death of Christ death? Yes, it was, and in its entirety. This follows from the fact of the separation of the soul from the body and its descent into hell. With fainting and lethargy, this is precisely what does not happen. Despite the temporary fading of consciousness, the soul with all its subconscious depth remains on this side of existence connected with the body, which therefore does not decompose, although the soul is in a state of passivity, as if in sleep. For the reality of Christ’s death, the incorruption of His body has no significance, although it testifies to its exceptional features. This exclusivity is expressed, first of all, in the fact that the death of Christ, with all its authenticity and completeness, was not and could not be accompanied by the final break of the Divine Spirit with the Body of Christ (besides the mediation of the soul). The spirit in man communicates with the body and not directly, but through the medium of the soul, which is turned to both the body and the spirit, it is the active principle of the body and the seat of the spirit. She transfers the energy of the spirit to the body, and the Spirit takes possession of the body through her, to the extent that she herself is obedient to the dictates of the spirit. The spirit forever, through the soul, imprints its connection with the body, at least with some grain of it, the original atom in the natural world (no matter how we define it more closely). But this connection can have different strengths, which are revealed only in resurrection, which is why death itself, in relation to the separation of spirit and body, has different, so to speak, intensity and completeness. A person with a developed spiritual life, even in death, maintains a connection with his individual body, which remains a special place of his Presence, despite his stay in the afterlife, that is, in a state of disembodiment. This is the actual memory of the spirit about the body, as well as vice versa. If this connection is manifest and tangible - one way or another - then we are talking about St. relics 394 (“relics” is generally called every dead body in the Trebnik). However, St. relics are not characterized by physical incorruption, at least as a general rule, and in any case, even incorruptible relics, although slowly and partially, are given over to decay in fulfillment of the Law of human nature. The body of the Savior, completely sanctified and deified by the Divine Spirit, retained a direct connection with him, even after separation from the soul in death, and in this sense it is absolute Powers - and the foundation of all saints. the relics are the Lord in the tomb. Unlike everyone else - relatively “incorruptible” - St. relics, the dead body of the Savior did not “see decay”, it remained truly incorruptible, death had no power to touch the destruction of the most pure Body. However, this again brings us back to the question: was the death of Christ genuine, like any human death, if it has such a significant difference from it in the incorruptibility of the body? This difference has its own special basis, which does not abolish the authenticity of death. The death of Christ was not for Him an internal necessity inherent in mortal life, for His own life was not mortal at all, just as the life of Adam before the Fall was not mortal, although it was not yet actually immortal, just like the human nature of the Savior before the resurrection. Death, expressed in decay and return to the earth (the reverse path of human creation), corresponds precisely to human mortality, which arose under the influence of the deadly principle of sin. But the path of man’s return to the earth could not be completely completed by the body of Christ, despite the authenticity of its separation from the spirit in His death, for the natural humanity of Christ was not mortal, and His death was free and in a certain sense unnatural - murder through crucifixion. Therefore, she appeared limited in her action, could not complete her work to the end, and the body of Christ remained incorruptible in the tomb and in unity with the spirit. It did not become earth to be returned to earth, but remained the incorruptible Body of Christ. 395 Thus, the death of the One Sinless One, being a true death, is nevertheless unique in its kind, just as His holiness is unique. Here a reverse movement is already emerging, the beginning of victory over death. Nevertheless, the three-day stay of Christ in the tomb is still a continuing sacrifice, which He, as the High Priest, offers for the sin of the world. G). Glorification of Christ 1). Resurrection of Christ. The Resurrection of Christ must also be understood in relation to the high priestly ministry. Before His suffering, Christ speaks of His glorification: “Now is the Son of Man glorified,” but He also prays to the Father in the high priestly prayer to glorify Him with the glory that He had before the creation of the world, that is, for the end of kenosis, as having already brought forth its saving fruits. A connection is established here between suffering and glorification as a cause or condition with a consequence: the glorification of the God-man with divine glory becomes possible through the power of His humiliation that has taken place. The same connection is unshakably established in Phil. 2:9-11, which speaks first of the humiliation of the Lord in His incarnation and obedience to death on the cross and, as a consequence of this, about glorification: therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name,” so that “every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It should also be remembered that this glory is not taken by the Son, but is given by the Father; glorification is the work of the Father over the Son through the Holy Spirit. The Lamb of God, destined for the slaughter before the foundation of the world, appeared into the world “in the last times,” and God “raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory” (1 Peter 1:20–1). This glorification includes a number of accomplishments: the resurrection, the ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father and, finally, the sending of the Holy Spirit. After this, Christ abides in heaven as God, together with His Humanity (so says the first martyr Stephen, who “being filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up into heaven, saw the Glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said: behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” Acts 7:55-6). The Glory of God is the Divinity itself, the Divine life in Sophia, the Wisdom of God. The glorification of Christ is, firstly, the cessation of kenosis and the return to the Logos of the fullness of Divine life or Glory, which He revealed in His “descent from heaven” and saving kenosis. But this is not a simple abandonment or cessation of kenosis, but its accomplishment, which consists in the deification and divine glorification of the human nature of Christ, “sitting at the right hand of the Father,” that is, identification in glory: “I have completed the work that You gave me to do, and now glorify Me, Father, with Yourself with the glory that I had with You before the foundation of the world” (John. 17, 4–5), that is, even before the hypostatic acceptance of kenosis, which is essentially connected precisely with creation. The state of kenosis corresponds to the fact that the Son, having natural Divinity, His power or Glory, left by Him when He descended from heaven, receives it again not by His own power, although He “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6), but from the Father, of course, by the Holy Spirit. And just as the humiliation of the Son was consistent with His humanity, so the degrees of His glorification are also consistent with the degree of glorification of His humanity. The Son does not glorify Himself in humanity by the power of His omnipotence, but receives glorification from the Father. Adam's path to the glory of God was interrupted by his fall, in which “all sinned and fell short of the Glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). But with the New Adam he undergoes a new obedience, and through him God calls us “to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 5:10). In the humanity of Jesus, sin is completely overcome. He was not only defeated in His earthly life, but also nailed to the cross in His death. In Him, “the barrier that stood in the middle” (Eph. 2:14) between God and man was removed, and the path was opened to a new life in glory, which from now on can not only be given, but also accepted as a worthy gift. The sinless humanity of Christ, which retained within itself the pristine purity of God’s image (“natural grace”), was sanctified by union with His Divinity, in the free coordination of both wills, Divine and human, in the unity of the hypostatic life of both natures, inseparable and unmerged. This agreement of both wills in fulfillment of the will of the Father in the God-Man, carried out to the end, until death on the cross, had as its natural consequence the glorification of the God-Man in both natures, with the perfect deification of the humanity of Christ. The Chalcedonian dogma of two natures, indivisible and unfused, retains its force in the glorification of Christ. The latter does not mean the absorption or dissolution of His humanity in the Divinity; on the contrary, human nature is preserved even in sitting at the right hand of the Father. But it is deified to such an extreme degree that it is able to enter undividedly into the divine life of the God-Man, and in Him the Holy Trinity. The Son of God is also the Son of Man in heaven. This glorification, as well as kenosis and redemption, is the work of the entire Holy Spirit. The Trinity, whose beginning is based on the will of the Father, glorifying the Son-God-Man with the Holy Spirit. The resting of the Spirit on the Son, like the love of the Father, is pre-eternal in the “immanent” Trinity, and perfect in the “economic” Trinity; it is actually glorification, Divine life and glory. All individual acts of glorification of the God-Man are not performed by Him on Himself, starting from the Resurrection, not self-hypostatically, they are not Trinitarian acts, the action of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. Glorification is the completion and at the same time the consequence of the high priestly ministry. The Father accepted, as acceptable, the sacrifice of the Son, offered by Him on behalf of humanity, and by the power of this sacrifice, as a High Priest, with sacrificial blood He ascends into the Holy of Holies, into the inner heavens. Therefore, glorification belongs specifically to the high priestly service; it does not reveal the “royal service” (as is usually accepted). Glorification is the action of God over the God-man, and not His self-glorification. Therefore, in one way it still relates to kenosis, indeed, it belongs to the high priestly “service,” no matter how paradoxical such a combination of concepts may seem: kenotic glorification, Glory in humiliation. On the path of glorification, first of all, stands resurrection, victory over death. “God raised Him up, breaking the bonds of death, because it was impossible for it to hold Him” (Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10). However, it is said that Christ himself rose from the dead, as He repeatedly predicted about Himself. There is no contradiction here; on the contrary, resurrection and resurrection can and should be combined. In the first sense, it denotes, first of all, the very fact of resurrection, regardless of how it is accomplished; At the same time, it is indicated that the resurrection is the work of Christ himself, which He accomplishes through His feat. “Jesus began to reveal to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and high priests, and be killed, and rise on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:2 with parallels). The God-man in His way of the cross, in the “high priestly service,” accomplished everything that is possible and necessary on the part of human nature in order to become worthy and capable of resurrection, and “it would become impossible for death to hold Him.” However, the Son of God in a state of humiliation does not resurrect Himself, for He kenotically stripped off His divine power; He is resurrected by the Father by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 4:24). God, through the action of His omnipotence, that is, a new creative act in which the Son participates in the will of the Father by obedience, and the Holy Spirit by life-giving, gives the soul of Christ the power to unite with the body, to awaken it from the sleep of death, and this, in fact, is the resurrection. The Resurrection of Christ must be understood therefore and as a resurrection, precisely by introducing into the context of His kenotic, in this case, high priestly, ministry, which does not end there, although it contains new possibilities. But the Resurrection of Christ could not take place only as a resurrection. It is precisely the created nature of man - and not only in the form in which it became in the state of sin, but also in which it was created by God - in itself would not yet be able to accommodate the power of resurrection, which would simply destroy this nature, in fact being for him a new creation, abolishing the previous one and replacing it with itself. Before the resurrection to immortal life, human nature must still be elevated, and not only in a negative sense, through liberation from sin, but also in a positive sense, through its internal deification. The primordial Adam was placed on the path to this internal deification, accomplished by Divine influence, through human freedom, through the test of his freedom in the commandment of God, but turned out to be untenable. Then redemption from sin and the participation of human freedom in deification was realized through the union of human nature with the Divine in the unity of the hypostasis of Christ. “It was impossible for Death to restrain Him” not only because it delighted the nature of the sinless Righteous One, which did not belong to it, but also because His humanity, having been sanctified in Him throughout its entire life and in its entire being, was deified and acquired the potential for actual immortality. This was given to him by the power of Divine resurrection. The Resurrection of Christ was the creative action of the Father through the Holy Spirit on the God-Man, but it also appeared as the Son’s own work and was in this sense a divine-human act. The Father glorifies, 396 and the Son receives glorification. Before the Fall, Adam had potential immortality posse non mori and potential glory, which he and everything in him lost through the Fall (Rom. 3:23). Adam, although at creation he received the image of God and the glory of God from the gift of the Holy Spirit, however, this was for him only a preliminary state, which he had to confirm and reveal with his freedom. He did the opposite of this with original sin, as a result of which he was stripped of his glory and lost his immortality. Therefore, all the resurrections of the sons of Adam were not a resurrection for them, as a victory over death; also Enoch and Elijah, who did not taste death, do not have immortality. 397 And immortality, like glory, could not be an act on a person, without being at the same time an act in the person himself, spiritually mastering his spiritual-physical being with his freedom. Christ accomplished this mastery in His humanity. To the end, both in life and in His death, He conquered the created weakness of His human nature and sacrificed it as a sacrifice of obedience to the will of the Father. Thus, by His high priestly service, the sacrifice of His life, Christ acquired and deserved immortality. And yet it still had to be given to Him. Immortality, granted to a person not in a mortal, but in an immortal, spiritual body, can only be an act of interaction, synergy between God and man. God gives a person immortal life when a person becomes capable and worthy to accept it, but he is such only in the God-man. “Christ rose from the dead, the firstborn of those who died. For as death is through man, so through man is the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will live” (1 Cor. 15:21–22, cf. Rom. 6:4–9). Resurrection is a new creation of man, in which man himself takes part; this is the second and final act of creation. Considered from the Divine side, the resurrection of Christ is a resurrection in which the Father gives the Son through the Holy Spirit “to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), for the Son himself, as a divine-human hypostasis, in humiliation was stripped of his own Divine power in the resurrection and receives it only by the will of the Father. Considered from the human, or more precisely, from the God-human side, it is resurrection, for through His sacrificial-high-priestly service Christ acquires power over His human nature and gives it life. Death, together with the afterlife state of descent into hell, enters into this service and completes this sacrifice. She is the last act of His earthly life, the last sacrifice and the last victory over death: “trampling down death by death.” In Christ there is no reason left for death, its power is exhausted, and Christ rises from the dead. So, resurrection, as such, is not yet a “document of the true God” (Vl. Solovyov), resurrecting himself by the power of Divine omnipotence, but it is a necessary event in the life of the God-man, its worthy and essential completion. Just as in Christ the divine and human natures were united, unmerged and inseparable, so in the resurrection we have synergism, the agreement of both natures, inseparable and unmerged, Chalcedonian, their union, or, more generally, the harmonious participation of the Creator and creation, God and man in a single act of resurrection-resurrection. By changing the well-known formula of bl. Augustine that God could create man without man, but cannot save him apart from him; we can say that God could create man for undying life, but He cannot resurrect him who has fallen to immortal life without him, precisely without his inner victory over death, as the basis of immortality. The Resurrection of Christ is precisely the victory over death, but not just an awakening from it (Rom. 6:9): not the restoration of mortal life, but the rising to a new immortal life in a spiritual and glorified body. The latter is identical to this earthly body, which was no longer in the tomb, but it is not identical, it is different from it. The relationship between the earthly body and the resurrected one in the Gospel stories about the resurrection is indicated only from the negative side; it is here that it is evidenced, directly or indirectly, that the tomb was empty and there was no body. 398 This establishes a certain identity in the continuity of the earthly and resurrected body of the Lord, but it cannot be extended to the identity of state. Quite the opposite, as can be concluded from the general teaching of St. Paul about the resurrection, “a natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised, there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. So it is written: the first Adam became a living soul (Gen. 2:7), and the last Adam is a life-giving spirit. But not the spiritual first, but the natural, then the spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:44-46). The resurrected body of Christ was, therefore, no longer earthly, but above-ground: a body that could appear on earth at will, being, however, not bound by its laws. It therefore ceased to be a physical body, although it did not lose its earthly nature, with which it retained a certain meta-empirical connection. By the power of this connection, the Lord remained on earth for 40 days after His Resurrection, but His body was glorified. The resurrected body of Christ outside of the “appearances” remains inaccessible to the disciples and beyond human perception. The Lord himself made it tangible for this perception, as if returning it to this sensory world, making it accessible to the senses: sight and even touch: “a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). These words of the Lord testify that the connection of His physicality with this world in the 40 days from the Resurrection to the Ascension was still preserved, and this was expressed in the possibility of appearing in the flesh, albeit glorified, which was already excluded about the Ascension. This raises the question of the spatiality of the resurrected body. In its phenomena, it inevitably submits to the design of earthly spatiality, although it already differs in some properties from earthly bodies (passing through locked doors, appearing and hiding from the eyes of disciples, and in this sense, the well-known immateriality of the resurrected body). The possibility of the appearance of the Risen One and, in general, of His presence within the confines of this World before the Ascension, forces us to accept that the resurrected body of the Lord was characterized by a certain spatiality, although it was already different from that of the earthly material world (just as the spatiality of disembodied spirits, which nevertheless are not free from the limitations of spatiality, is also different in its own way). This new spatiality of the resurrected body, unknown to us, was nevertheless capable of intersecting with ours at certain points, thereby giving place to the appearances of the risen Lord to the disciples. We should not think of the body of the Risen One, while it still belonged to this world, as completely extra-spatial, because this would mean its extra-worldliness, which comes only with the Ascension. Christ still remained in the world, although in a new way, so that the “descent from heaven” into the world did not cease even after the Resurrection. Likewise, the glorification of Christ, even in the Resurrection, was not final, just as His earthly ministry was not yet exhausted and completed. Both continue even after the Resurrection in that mysterious forty days during which the Lord remains on earth. Sorokovitsa symbolically denotes the completeness of the preparatory work: 40 years of Israel in the desert before entering the Promised Land, 40 days of Moses on Mount Sinai before seeing the glory of God and accepting the law, 40 days of Christ in the desert before entering public service. And 40 days on earth after the Resurrection, when Christ himself had not yet “ascended,” but only ascended “to My Father and your Father, My God and your God” (John 20:17). For Him, these 40 days mean some kind of mysterious ascent, obviously unknown to us in this century, not only to His Father, but also to God, that is, a divine-human act. This testifies that His divine-human path even after the resurrection had not yet been completed, and accordingly, glorification was not completed. The latter, therefore, is not an instantaneous act, but a long-term, ongoing one. As long as it remains unfinished, the earthly ministry of Christ is not completed. If His forty-day stay on earth for Himself is an ascension to the Father, then on the other hand it also means a new establishment of His connection with the earth, with this world. This refers, on the one hand, to the completion of His prophetic ministry, since He opened His disciples’ “mind to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), “speaking of the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). At the same time, He showed Himself as a disciple in His resurrected body, testifying in action to the preservation of His connection with the world, right down to sensual tactility through touch and before eating food 399 (although the former physical accessibility of His body through touch, as in the case of Mary Magdalene, became impossible). This stay of the Risen One on earth to complete His work is a continuing sacrificial-high-priestly, and together with it inseparable prophetic ministry. Christ does not yet accept power in heaven and on earth, although it is included in His glorification, just as glorification itself was given to Him along with His passion on the cross (“now the Son of Man is glorified”). It was given, but not yet received, not taken, not accepted, for to this acceptance there still lay its own special path, although not the service of the cross. The risen Christ again had to endure both the lack of faith and the inertia of the hearts of His disciples (Matthew 28:17, Mark 16:13, Luke 24:11, 25), overcoming it with word and signs. The preaching of the risen Lord is an indispensable part of His entire ministry. This also essentially includes all His Manifestations to the disciples, which were possible only while the Lord was on earth - before the Ascension. He no longer lived on earth in any specific place, as during His earthly life, although he was not yet in heaven. Or rather, He was above the earth, but still remained in the world. Between the world and Him lay the line between his death and resurrection. The state of his spiritual body, although it metaphysically belonged to this world, was such that this body could not be contained by the world and become perceptible to man except by the special will of the Risen One. Only then did it acquire the ability to affect a person’s external feelings. The appearances of Christ were not only manifestations of the spirit, which were, for example, all angelophanies; on the contrary, He himself assures His disciples otherwise (Luke 24:39). These were physical phenomena (“appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” 1 Cor. 15:6). His body retained its individual features: pierced arms, legs and ribs. The presence of the risen Christ in the world before His Ascension establishes a bridge between the present state of the world with the spiritual body of man on the one hand, and between the glorified state of the world after the general change and transfiguration of creation with the spiritual body of man. The sojourn of Christ was the appearance of a spiritual body on earth, which could wear it without knowing it. If Christ had left this world immediately after the resurrection, then even the empty tomb could not have established the fact that it was the resurrection of the body that took place, and not the simple removal of Christ from this world with the abolition of the body (albeit in an unusual way), as happens with any death. Or it would be possible to think that the disappearance of the body (not to mention the Jewish fiction that the body was stolen) means its “taking up to heaven,” as was the belief in the image of Elijah and Enoch regarding the body of Moses. But in the saving work of Christ, this stay of the Risen One on earth and His appearance to unresurrected humanity in an unresurrected world was essential, because this very deed showed the ontological identity of this world and the natural unity of man with His resurrected and glorified corporeality, with His spiritual body. This meaning of the 40-day stay of Christ on earth, as testifying to the completed union of earth and heaven, of the humiliated and glorified creation, is indirectly revealed in the peculiar, one might say, antinomian, narrative of the Gospels about the last appearance of the Lord. The fact is that the Gospel narrative about Christ’s earthly sojourn is presented differently by different evangelists, to the point of being completely opposite. Exactly, whereas Mr. and Luke. (both in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles) it ends with the Ascension of Christ into heaven with the final separation of the disciples, in Matt. we have, instead, the appearance of Christ to the disciples with the promise: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” and the story of John, with the last mysterious words of the Lord about the presence of John, “until I will come,” takes us into the heavenly heights and falls silent there. In any case, it does not contain a narrative about the ascension (although it is mentioned in the farewell conversation). This Gospel antinomy, both members of which are, however, equivalent, cannot be explained solely by differences in literary terms and other features of the different Gospels. It testifies that there remains an identity between Christ’s presence in the world and his state in the Resurrection and Ascension. This identity is expressed in the simultaneous affirmation of both his presence in the world and His Ascension to heaven: Christ is both there and here, outside the world and in the world. Humanity does not lose Christ in His Ascension, just as the ascended Christ does not cease communication with it: “I will not leave you, orphans, I will come to you, a little while longer, and the world will not see Me, but you will see Me” (John 14:18-19). This unity of Christ, who dwells on earth and sits at the right hand of the Father, is fully evident in the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, which reveals this living and constantly traversed mysterious bridge between earth and heaven, the connection between Christ incarnate, descended from heaven and ascended to heaven. 400 One does not eliminate or remove the other, but wonderfully and salutarily completes. Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven, remains in the flesh and on earth on countless altars. What does the Ascension of Christ mean? It is told briefly and symbolically in the Gospels: “The Lord ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of God” (Mk. 16:19. Wed. Lk. 24:50: “he began to move away from them and ascend into heaven”; in more detail in Acts 1:9–1 I, where a new feature is introduced: “a cloud took Him out of their sight,” followed by the appearance of angels). First of all, a preliminary question arises, similar to what we asked about the Resurrection: did Jesus himself ascend to heaven, as the texts above say? This is how it is usually understood by those who see here a manifestation of “royal service.” Was there self-ascension here, or was He lifted up - by the Father, of course, through the Holy Spirit? We have a direct and unambiguous answer about this in the Word of God, in the speech of St. Peter after Pentecost: Jesus “was exalted by the right hand of God” (Acts 2:23), that is, by the Father through the Holy Spirit. Consequently, here we have exactly the same relationship as in the Resurrection: Christ ascended, but He was also ascended. And His ascension refers to His glorification from the Father, and “being taken up by a cloud” expresses the overshadowing with glory, according to the symbolism of both the Old Testament and the New (for example, in the Transfiguration). That is why the Church sings: “thou art exalted in glory, O Christ our God” (troparion). The Ascension, as the return of the Son to heaven, was the work of the Father, who sent Him into the world, and to that extent it also belongs to the ongoing, although already exhaustive, kenosis: it was accomplished over the God-man, His human nature received the power of ascension from God, a certain act of ongoing glorification. “Father of Glory... how immeasurable is the greatness of His power in us who believe, according to the working of His sovereign power, which He worked in Christ, raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavens” (Eph. 1:19,20). The Ascension was accomplished not by the own Divine nature of the Logos, not by the omnipotent power of His Divinity, which still remains, albeit in the now completing kenotic self-deprecation, but by the “right hand of the Father.” 401 It is not the Divinity of Christ, for which it does not exist, that is subject to the Ascension, for He naturally dwells eternally in heaven in the unity of the Holy Trinity, but it is His humanity, which is in the utmost unity with the Divinity in the God-Man. Humanity, as a creature, itself is not capable of “ascending” into heaven, that is, into the Divine, but can only be ascended. It is the sacrifice that Christ offers to the Father as High Priest. This sacrifice is accepted by the Father, and with it “Having offered the sacrifice for sin, He sat down forever at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:13), and entered “into heaven itself, to now appear for us in the presence of God” (9:24). And if Christ enters (ascends) into heaven as a High Priest, according to the direct evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews, then His Ascension should also be attributed to the high priestly, and not to the royal service. Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father is a single and solemn act of glorification, which is why what is said about the first, and fortiori, also applies to the second: 402 The Son, just as he was sent from heaven by the Father in kenotic-filial obedience, so was returned to heaven or ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father by Him - still in the same order of Christological “subordinationism”. From the tomb to the Resurrection and from the Resurrection to the Ascension, the same path passes - to the glorification of the Son by the Father. But just as the resurrection of Christ was at the same time His own resurrection, and it could not have been otherwise, so His Ascension, accomplished by the power of the Father, was also His own Ascension. For the Ascension could not have been accomplished by a one-sided creative act of divine omnipotence: it was an act of interaction (synergy) between God the Father and the God-Man, who had already achieved in humanity His ability for Ascension, and therefore its necessity. The Ascension is spoken of in the Word of God not only as a fact, but also as an act: “I am going to prepare a place for you” (John 14:23, 16, 17). “I descended from the Father and came into the world; and again I leave the world and go to the Father” (16, 28), and “it is better for you that I go” (16, 17). “Now I come to You” (17:13). Just as Death could not hold Him, so the world can no longer hold Him, He rises above the world, for “I am no longer in the world” (17, 11). There was a time when “I was with them (the disciples) in peace” (17:12), but now “the hour has come” (17:1) of glorification. This period is not only external, but also internal. Christ “has completed the work that You gave Me to do” (17:4), “and now glorify Me, Father” (5). This is a prayer for the cessation of kenosis and a return to the bosom of the Father, to the Glory of God; this is the Ascension already taking place in the God-man himself. It goes uncontrollably through death to Resurrection and through Resurrection to Ascension. The accomplishment of the work of the Father on earth makes the Ascension already the own work of the God-man, who came to earth not for an indefinite stay on it, but for a specific accomplishment, after which His abandonment of the world becomes internally necessary and irresistible. Christ returns to the Father by will, and in this the Divine nature and will are united with the human, and in this case only the Divine will can be the actively leading will, in contrast to suffering, when only the human will could be actively leading with the silent agreement of the Divine will with it. It is not natural for human nature in itself to want to ascend to heaven, but this, on the contrary, is quite natural for divine nature. But human nature also reaches such fullness of deification in Christ that it itself is capable of wanting what the divine nature wants. Created nature, existing in the world, wants for itself a super-creative and premium, divine existence. The abyss that lies between the created and supercreated, Divine and human existence, the Prototype and the Image, is overcome in the God-Man, who therefore shows the will to Ascension, i.e., we not only ascend, but also ascend himself. The Son of Man “is ascending to where he was before” (John 6:62). The God-man becomes God. What does this Ascension of Christ into heaven and, identical with it, sitting at the right hand of the Father mean? Outwardly, it is indicated by the fact that the Lord made a solemn ascent to the Torah of Olives together with the disciples, blessed them, commanding them to await the promised descent of the Holy Spirit, and ascended to heaven. The Lord disappeared from the eyes of the apostles. However, even earlier, for 40 days, whenever He appeared, He again hid from them. But the Ascension puts a limit here in the sense that after it Christ no longer appears to him (except for the appearance of the Apostle Paul on the way to Damascus). The completed Ascension into heaven was especially announced to the apostles in the appearance of angels, along with the promise of a new return of Christ to the world (“he will come in the same way, in the same way you see Him ascending into heaven”: Acts 1:11). The ascension to heaven is not, of course, the removal of Christ into the astronomical space of the star worlds, and in general it is not a removal to some other place, for “heaven” is not a place, and in any case is not one of the places, the other in relation to which is the earth. Ascension does not mean a physical, but a metaphysical removal from the world, analogous to the metaphysical descent of Christ from heaven to earth, which thereby became a physical presence on it. Heaven is a divine, premium and super-created being, it is the Holy Trinity itself in Its Glory, it is the Divine Sophia. To her, to His Glory, the Son of God who descended to earth returns. And this same return to the bosom of the Holy Trinity also means sitting at the right hand of the Father, which eternally belongs to the Son and returns to Him in the Ascension. How does the Ascension of Christ relate to His Incarnation? Being His removal from this world into transcendence, is it not both disembodiment and dehumanization, the opposite of what we had in the “descent from heaven”? But such an understanding would completely destroy the saving “Word made flesh” and would be a blasphemous heresy. The dogma of the Ascension contains precisely the idea that the glorified human nature of Christ, ascended to heaven, entered the very depths of the Holy Trinity. The God-man sat down at the right hand of the Father in all the power of not only His Divine nature, which did not leave the bosom of the Father, but also of human nature, consisting of soul and body, animate and spiritualized physicality. But in this case, the question arises: in what sense can human soul-physical nature be present in heaven, at the right hand of the Father, and what does this “right hand” mean, dextera Patris? It goes without saying that “when we say that Christ is bodily seated at the right hand of God the Father, we do not mean the right side of the Father in the sense of space. For how can the Unlimited One have a spatially right side?... By the right side of the Father we mean glory and honor in which the Son of God, as God and consubstantial with the Father, abides before the ages and in which, having become incarnate in the last days, sits in a bodily form after the glorification of his flesh.” 403 This is the judgment of St. Father, expressing the general understanding of the Church, however, does not contain an answer to the question that interests us, or rather, passes by it without noticing it (just as Catholic scholasticism, medieval and modern, did not notice it). The corporeality of Christ on earth, even after the Resurrection, has its own “flesh”, and, consequently, spatiality: “touch Me and see, the spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me” (Luke 24:39). It differs from His earthly physicality before the Resurrection in its condition, namely; special sophistication. However, despite this difference, the Lord appears to the disciples in a tactile and spatial form. We can talk about a different spatiality as applied to the resurrected body, and about a different physicality than our earthly one. However, the resurrected, glorified body is still an animated body, although, according to the use of words by St. Paul, the spiritual body, in contrast to the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44), as obedient to the spirit, is transparent to it. This spiritual body remains a body, that is, it belongs to this world of ours with its spatiality. But how can this, albeit spiritual, body reside in the Holy Trinity, “at the right hand of the Father,” if God is a Spirit, and therefore no spatial definitions can take place in relation to Him? We find ourselves here faced with an antinomy: on the one hand, disembodiment cannot be conceived, but on the other, the body of flesh, although glorified, has no place in the kingdom of the pure absolute Spirit, which is the Divinity. The body can only be spatial, but no spatiality is incompatible with spiritual being. If we try to evade this aporia by referring to the spirituality of the glorified body, then we must remember that this spirituality of the body still does not mean the abolition or complete abolition of corporeality and, therefore, spatiality, but only a special image of its existence, which we have in the body of the Risen Lord. We come to a contradictio in adiecto, a contradictory definition: a spiritual body understood as a non-corporeal body, or simply not a body. To escape from antinomy in this way [with] the help of logical contradiction is, of course, the worst way to overcome it. 404 Is there a way out of here? In the Ascension into heaven, the Lord truly withdrew from the world, but at the same time retained all His connection with it. It is precisely because of this connection that Ascension is not disembodiment. On the contrary, it is only a temporary removal of the Lord from the world, after which He will again “come in the same way as you saw Him ascending into heaven” (Acts 1:11), that is, He will again take on a bodily human form, of course, at the same time remaining at the right hand of the Father. 405 But at the same time, the Ascension, as a removal from the world, is still a new change in the corporeality of Christ, in comparison with the Resurrection. It is tantamount to leaving the earthly body, the flesh, which has no place in the Divine kingdom of the Spirit. This is least of all a separation from the body, which took place in death, forever conquered by the Lord. At the same time, this is not such a new state of the glorified body, by virtue of which this latter could enter the bowels of the Holy One. Trinity, for no spirituality of the body still makes it a spirit, and to allow such substitutions as in Luther, according to which the ascended body simply becomes a spirit, means in any case to fall into an ontological misunderstanding. The earthly glorified body of the Lord belongs to the world, although it is in a state in which it is inaccessible to man. If in the Resurrection the body of Christ was in a supermundane state, but retaining the ability to appear to the disciples, then in the Ascension it is already in a supermundane state, although not supermundane. Transmundaneity is not yet heaven, it is turned to the world, it is its limit and peak. Here is affirmed, so to speak, a ladder between earth and heaven, which has passed down and up and has forever connected heaven and earth. This super-peacefully existing physicality in the world invariably belongs to the Lord, and He will reveal it through His return to earth. She is in the world, being in connection with His Divine Spirit, as His body obedient and completely transparent to the Spirit. When comprehending the Ascension, our thought runs into an antinomy: at the same time we must accept that the body of the Ascension belongs to the world and to that extent abides in it, but at the same time it also belongs to the Ascended One, Christ seated at the right hand of the Father. This same antinomy, in essence, is hidden in the Gospel story, as has already been pointed out above: on the one hand, it ends (Mark and Luke) with the Ascension, and on the other (Matthew and to a certain extent John), with the promise of Christ to always be with us on earth (this, of course, also includes the Eucharistic presence, praesentia realis). Ascending with His body into the supermundane sky, on the brink of the world, the Lord lifts beyond its borders, into the supermundane “sky,” his ideal image, or a truly spiritual body, expressing all the power of the accomplished incarnation in all its indelibility. This “spiritual” ascended body is no longer a body in the sense of earthly incarnation, it is the ideal form or image of the body, its energy, which formed the body during incarnation and which lives and acts in the world through this body of incarnation. Ascension, like passing the very edge of the world, unites both the world and the sky, simultaneously belonging to both. This heavenly spiritual “body” is truly spirit (as Luther correctly felt, although he did not give his thought a consistent and correct disclosure). This is the very power of incarnation - a connection with the created world, as a special quality of the Divine Spirit of the Logos. What does this quality consist of? This can only be explained with the help of the initial concepts of sophiology. God has the Divine Sophia as the Divine, uncreated world, the Divine All in unity, the All-Unity, and the Holy Trinity is directly addressed to her by the Second Hypostasis - in a word, everything was by Him. This unity, in a certain sense, can also be called the Spiritual Body of the Divine, as His Glory. The created world, or created Sophia, at its core and at its limit, in its entelechy, is the same Sophia, however, posited by the act of creation in the extra-divine self-existence of the world. In Christ, in His God-Humanity, the complete sophization of creation is achieved and, in this sense, the identification of created and uncreated Sophia. Therefore, the ascended Christ has Sophia as His Spiritual Body, or Glory, in two ways: not only as the Logos in eternal pre-created and extra-created existence, but also as the God-man in relation to creation, and the heavenly image of Sophia in Him through the incarnation is identified with the created. Thus, the “spiritual body” in which Christ dwells at the right hand of the Father is nothing more than this connection of identification of the premium and created Sophia. Therefore, the spiritual body is a created Image of the eternal Prototype in their identification, and this spiritual image can be realized in the flesh of the world, its spiritual reality can become a reality for the world. By the power of this spirituality of the ascended body of Christ, his perfect energy, his mysterious presence in the world is possible. It is the Church, and it is also the Eucharistic Body of the Lord. The Lord is spiritually present on earth in His Church, and this is His true “omnipresence,” and He returns to earth in the Divine Eucharist, puts on His glorified Body and mysteriously includes in it the Eucharistic elements, the Holy Gifts, for spiritual and bodily communion. This is the meaning of the Ascension. In it, not the flesh of Christ, as belonging to this world, is introduced into the bowels of the Holy Trinity, but all the energy of the incarnation, his spiritual image, a truly spiritual body. We can say that this is the Body of the body, as the ideal image of the Divine Sophia in unity with the created, their connection and identity. The ascension does not end and does not exhaust the work of the incarnation. 406 The God-Man, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father in glory, returns again to the world, and Heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, descends from heaven to earth. The Lord controls creation not only from above, as God, Creator and Provider, but also from within, as the God-man, by the power of His inseparability from the earth, and this internal connection is His life in the Church, and the “royal ministry” that continues in the world (see below). Therefore, the Ascension in the sense of Christ’s removal from the world is not final, and after His return to the world, we “will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). This, of course, does not abolish the power of the Ascension, as “sitting at the right hand of the Father,” the glorification of the God-Man, and in Him, His Humanity. Being in heaven becomes completely compatible with the Lord’s being in the human world forever: “behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and will dwell with them always... and God himself will be with them” (Rev. 21:3), “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it... and they will see His face” (22:3-4). But the Ascension is not the final removal of Christ from the world, even for the time of His departure to heaven. On the contrary, He remains united with the world, not only Eucharistically, through the mysterious partaking of His Body and Blood in Communion, but also by the power of Christ acting in the world. This is His, although not sacramental, but secret, invisible spiritual presence in the world and participation in human life, according to His promise to be with us always, now and ever, and forever and ever. This is not Luther’s pantheistic omnipresence, but genuine, so to speak, dynamic pan-Christism, that is, the life of Christ in people and the life of people in Christ, moreover, in such closeness that its inner intimacy surpasses any other closeness. Christ not only acts in the Church graciously, by the power of the Holy Spirit, who reveals Christ to us, but He also participates in all human life (according to the speech about the Last Judgment) by the power of incarnation, His God-manhood, i.e. already factually and, in this sense, natural, for His human nature contains all of humanity. For this invisible presence in the world, the ascended Christ has the path of incarnation laid out by Himself. The Lord himself speaks about His Ascension: “I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. A little more, and the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me, for I live, and you will live” (John 14:18-19). In the Ascension we have the ultimate revelation of the relationship between God and Man, the beginning of which was laid in the creation of the world and in it man in the image of God. There we are filled with “amazement,” philosophical and religious, how God could come from His eternity to the relative created existence of the world and man, and reveal Himself in relativity. Here we are in amazement at how this created, temporary being could be included in the absolute being of God, how heaven could open up to accept the created-relative, human nature, and through this become identified with it. That which is metaphysically unthinkable, namely the overcoming of the substantial separation of divine and created being, is carried out by the power of Divine love, which humbles itself to the point of coming out of itself towards creation and introducing it into itself: the Absolute becomes God, united with creation in man through the God-Man. God is the Son of God – the Son of Man. The Divinity, as it were, expanded in Itself, introducing into Its depths the creation called into being by Divine love. In God, his Divinity became God-Humanity, which in the Son of Man joins created being. The dualism of God and creation is overcome and the mono-dualism of God-humanity is established. In the heavenly God-man, in the light of His Divinity, His created and uncreated, divine and human nature are no longer distinguished. He is the only Son of God, “alpha and omega, beginning and end, - the Lord who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1, 8, 10, 17, 18). Through the Ascension and the sitting position of the God-Man at the right hand of the Father, the general problem that confronted us even in the doctrine of the creation of the world arises with final urgency: does God, absolute, unchangeable and eternal, change in His being by becoming the Creator and positing the world along with Himself, making Himself correlative to it? And here: through the Ascension to the right hand of the Father, the sitting of the God-Man, through the appearance in the Holy Trinity of created human nature, does not the Holy Trinity itself change? The thought here comes down to an obvious antinomy: both yes and no. No, for the being of God is absolute and eternal, and for Him and in Him there is no temporary existence or change. Yes, for it is impossible to deny some absolute reality of the world created by God, and, consequently, the authenticity of Christ’s humanity. Through the Ascension into heaven of the body of Christ in His God-manhood in eternity, aeternitas, another eternity aeviternitas, which has a created beginning, arises, namely the humanity of Christ, which is already inseparably present with the Divinity itself in the eternity of God in the God-man, at the right hand of the Father. The worldly God united with the world, became God and the world, and this is the union of two natures in a single Divine hypostasis, divine and human, inseparably and unmerged, in a single life. The Chalcedonian dogma retains its significance in heaven. Both natures participate in sitting at the right hand of the Father, for God and Man sit there in the one God-man, the Son of God and the Son of Man in the one Son, God and creation in the one hypostasis of the Logos. There is no God without peace, and there is no peace outside of God: peace is in God. And at the same time, the premium, eternal St. The Trinity abides in the motionless all-bliss of Its existence. The apparent contradiction here is resolved not in the opposition of abstract immutability to imaginary change, but in the general antinomic relationship between God in Himself, or the Absolute, and God the Creator of the world, who connected His own existence with it. At the same time, the Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father only reveals this general relationship between God and the world. Immutability befits only the Absolute, for which there is no relationship with creation and no relationship at all. In the relation of God to the world, there is a continuous correlation, and the image of becoming inherent in the world is shared by God in Divine condescension: the creation of the world, the providence of it, the incarnation of God, the ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit, etc., all these are acts of mutual becoming of God for the world and the world for God. This basic theological antinomy cannot be further clarified, but must be axiomatically accepted (see Chapter One). In the relationship between God and the world, we cannot conceive of the changeability of God in such a way that for God himself, through the formation of the world, something new could arise, that is, a genuine change, and for this the sophistry of creation is a guarantee. The eternity of God contains images of all created existence in its fullness, like the Divine Sophia. In particular, the eternal God-manhood of the Son already contains the entire fullness of the God-human existence in his paths, from the Incarnation to the Ascension and the new coming into the world. The Eternal God-Man has in His eternal existence all the images of His Humanity, supra-temporally and essentially, although they are revealed to created humanity only in time. In this sense, we can say that the place for sitting at the right hand of the Father is pre-eternally prepared and possessed by the Son, and only because of this the Ascension is carried out in time, in the Incarnation: here there is an ontological identity of the supertemporal and the temporal. What is new in time, for everything is new in time, exists from eternity in its immutability. Therefore, both the Ascension and the Sitting at the right hand of the Father do not introduce any change into Divine Eternity, and at the same time they are accomplishments achieved in the theanthropic process of God’s relationship with the world. The significance of the Ascension is not limited to the glorification of the Lord, for, in addition to the accomplished Ascension, there is also what is happening, like the glorification of created, not yet glorified, earthly humanity, which, however, is naturally identical with Christ. In this sense, the Ascension continues, it is the beginning and the end, the foundation and the goal: God “raised us with Him and made us sit in heaven in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). Through Christ we “have access to the Father in one Spirit” (2:18). And this corresponds to the revelation of the power of the Ascension, which we have in Christ’s farewell conversation according to the Gospel of John: “In My Father’s house there are many mansions, and if it were not so, I would tell you: “I am going to prepare a place for you.” “And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to Myself, so that where I am you may be” (14:2-3). This already applies to that final glorification, when “God will be all in all.” It is beyond what is visible to us from the “kingdom of grace” in which we are, and separate from us by the general resurrection, with the end of this world and everything that lies beyond it. However, it should be remembered that the ascension of humanity has already been accomplished in the person of the Most Holy One. The Mother of God, who, according to the belief of the Church, having been resurrected by Her Son, has already entered the “monastery” prepared for Her. It is revealed in the Word of God that the ministry of Christ, and therefore his kenosis, also continues for some time in heaven. Here we have to talk about time, even when applied to heaven. The high priestly ministry of Christ ends only with the final accomplishment of our salvation through the sending of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost. According to the earthly reckoning of time, another ten days pass, already completely incomprehensible and mysterious in relation to the Son himself, but known to us by its consequences - the sending of the Holy Spirit: “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever” (John 14:16), “whom the Father will send in My name” (26). And further: “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the spirit of Truth, which comes from the Father, He will testify about “Me” (15, 26). “I tell you the truth: it is better for you that I go, for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you” (16:7). “He, being exalted by the right hand of God, having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, poured out...” (Acts 2:33). Here the Ascension and Pentecost are clearly put into a causal relationship, and this relationship is defined from two sides: “I will ask the Father” and “I will send from the Father.” 407 The relationship of the Son to the Father remains kenotic: the High Priest, offering the sacrifice of His humanity, intercedes with the Father for the completion of His work on earth through the action of the Holy Spirit, whom the Father sends through the Son. Consequently, there is a side to the saving work of the incarnation of Christ, which, although it corresponds to the action of the Third Hypostasis, the sending of the Spirit is carried out by the Father with the direct participation of the Second Hypostasis (“through”). The Holy Spirit cannot be sent or descend and the world without or apart from the Son, as the God-man, who in His redemptive high priestly service paves the way for Him into the world, prepares for Him a “place” of descent. This is the Church, Christ's Humanity, His Body. The Holy Spirit teaches and “reminds” him of the truth of Christ (“he will take what is mine and tell you” John 16:16). That. sending of the Holy Spirit is the last and final work of Christ’s ministry, for which He, in his high priestly intercession for the world, begs the Father and through this sends down the Holy Spirit into the world. With this promise of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 1:4–8, Christ’s earthly stay on earth ends. “And having gathered them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard from Me” (4) (Cf. Luke 24:49: “And I will send the promise of My Father upon you; but remain in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high). “A few days after this you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit” (5), “you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit who has descended on you” (8). The Holy Spirit, always resting on Christ, overshadows Him after the Resurrection on the path to the Ascension, as is expressively emphasized by the instructions of the Acts. (2, 2) that in the Holy Spirit He gave His commands (the story of Evangel. John 20, 22 also applies here: “he breathed and said to them: receive the Holy Spirit”). This is not Pentecost, which is accomplished through the sending of the Spirit from the Father, but it is evidence of the presence of the Holy One. the Spirit on the Son in His Resurrection and ongoing glorification, the anticipation of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit, resting on Christ himself, is poured out on His earthly humanity in the person of the apostles, and this completes the work of Christ on earth. From now on, the Holy Spirit reveals Christ and acts in the power of Christ, and Christ himself abides in His divine glory. And there can be no more expressive confirmation of this than the first self-testimony of the Church through the mouth of St. Peter after the descent of the Holy Spirit. How is this speech constructed? It begins in the words of the prophet. Joel, testifying to the completed descent of the Holy Spirit, but then directly moves on to preaching about Christ, His death on the cross, resurrection and glorification (Acts 14–26). And we see this in all further speeches. “Therefore, all the house of Israel know surely that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This is the first news on earth by the Holy Spirit about the completed restoration of the Son of God - the Son of Man in the Glory of His Divinity, and from now on He appears as God in His Glory. (So ​​Stephen, “being filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the Glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” 7:55; Saul also saw Him “in the glory of light” 22:11). The salvation of the world has been accomplished. The path from heaven to earth and from earth to heaven has been passed, and it remains forever open in the descent of the Holy Spirit, who is in heaven and together on earth. The high priestly ministry is completed. God is reconciled with fallen humanity, and “man is introduced to the divine life in the God-man who is at the right hand of the Father. Heaven “received Christ until the time of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). “He, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever at the right hand of God, waiting then until His enemies were made His footstool” (Heb. 10:12-13). Christ's high priestly ministry was completed. “I glorified You on earth, I completed the work that You commissioned Me to do, and now glorify Me, Father” (John 17:4-5). However, this accomplishment relates only to Himself, Who passed from humiliation to glory, but this work does not end yet and does not exhaust itself for the world. On the contrary, the high priestly ministry is an eternal ministry, abiding and always continuing. Christ is the High Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5). “He, as He abides forever, has an imperishable priesthood, which is why He can always save those who come to God through Him, being always alive to intercede for them” (7:24-25), as “the Son forever perfect” (8). Just as the one and once accomplished Calvary sacrifice has power in all Eucharistic sacrifices, so the intercession of Christ as High Priest has power for all times and for all people. The reconciliation and reunification of man with God must be understood not as a one-time act, but as continuing all the time, as having the depth and power of eternity. In this sense it is said: “therefore He can always save those who come to God through Him, being always alive to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). “Christ died and rose again: He is also at the right hand of God, He also intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:34), “We have an advocate (comforter-paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous” (1 John 2:1). He is both an intercessor-paraclete and at the same time a mediator. His high priesthood has ceased to be a service in humiliation, but it exists as a high priestly dignity, and authority, and strength. It essentially remains identical with the incarnation of God, for precisely as the God-man, who inseparably and inextricably united both natures in Himself, Christ is the eternal High Priest. He brings creation to God, introduces it into the life of the Holy Trinity. He is not only the reconciliator of sinful creation with God, but also a mediator between creation itself and the Divine; in His high priesthood He overcomes the ontological abyss separating the Creator and the creature. And this mediation will not cease forever and ever, even beyond the borders of this world. The Eucharistic sacrifice for the remission of sins will become an offering of love and a sacrifice of praise from man to God in the God-man, and at the same time the divine food of the world, that tree of life, the prototype of which was still present in paradise, but we have the image of the true tree of life among the city of God coming down from heaven (Rev. 22:1-2). In this sense, the Eucharist has the same eternal power as the High Priesthood of Christ. In it, God-manhood, the connection of the Creator with creation, is realized. 408 The Ascension of Christ does not mean the return of the Logos into the bowels of the Holy Trinity, which He did not leave even in a state of kenosis, 409 but marks the completion of this latter. Kenosis was precisely the “descent from heaven” for incarnation, while the Ascension is the end of the kenosis of incarnation, moreover, on the basis of this latter, that is, the return to heaven in the flesh. In the eternal, transcendental existence of the Holy Trinity, where there can be no events and no place of time, no change could occur. God in Himself is “ever present, likewise, You and Your Only Begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit” (prayer for Worthy in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). But in the life of Rev. Trinity with the world and in relation to the world, we have a number of accomplishments, as we read in the same prayer: “You brought us from non-existence into being, and you raised up those who had fallen away again, creating everything, until you raised us to heaven and gave us your future kingdom.” Through the Ascension in heaven, in the depths of the divine life of St. Trinity, the Humanity of Christ appears, and it, initially deified and adored throughout the entire earthly ministry from the very incarnation, 410 now becomes completely and finally deified until the full acceptance of the glory of God. Not only does the Son of God, with the completion of kenosis, receive from the Father the glory inherent in Him before the creation of the world, but the Son of Man in the God-Man is also glorified, and this glorification of His Humanity is not the return of glory, but it is first perceived by creation. Following the Ascension of the God-Man into heaven, His earthly humanity follows, first in the person of the Most Holy One. Theotokos, and then the entire Church (Eph. 2:6) in the coming century, that is, the deification of humanity. 411 The Father saves and adores the world through the Son, the God-man, and through Him He also sends the Holy Spirit into the world. The Holy Trinity is addressed to the world and is united with it through the God-man in His God-manhood, on which the Holy Spirit rests. The God-manhood is therefore not only a fact, but also an act, and not only an event that took place once, but also an ongoing accomplishment, a continuing work of God and a human work. The history of the world and man has become a divine-human process, and the Logos is no longer only the demiurgic hypostasis by which God addresses the world in its creation, but also the historical hypostasis, as a mediating Intercessor, leading the world by the Holy Spirit to salvation. In this the promise receives its meaning: “I am with you until the end of the age,” for in the Ascension it receives all the power of eternity and the very incarnation of God. His history, (if such an expression is appropriate), still continues in heaven even after the Ascension, for it still contains new and unfinished events: this, of course, is the Second and Glorious Coming, the parousia, and these are the various events indicated in the Apocalypse (as well as the appearance of Christ to the Apostle Paul, Stephen and other righteous people of the Church). Here we touch upon one of the most important truths, which, although it has full force in the life of the Church, has not yet found a conscious and responsible dogmatic expression for itself. Christ, even in His Ascension, retained in all its strength His connection with this world and, having ascended to heaven, He remains in the world and does not leave it. 412 First of all and most obviously, He does not abandon him thanks to the Divine Eucharist established by Him: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” that is, of course, in remembrance not only subjective-psychological, but also objectively real, like an accomplishment or reproduction of what happened on earth. The Lord descends from heaven, without leaving him, to be present on earth in St. Gifts that hold Him praesentia realis (Catholics, in their practice of adoration of the Holy Gifts, even want to extend this real presence of Christ on earth to the point of opposing or at least somewhat limiting the power of the Ascension itself). The Divine Eucharist is thereby a divine ladder between heaven and earth, along which the Ascended Lord descends into the world, and to that extent, in it, the Ascension is truly overcome (albeit only within certain limits). But along with the Eucharist, the divine bread descending from heaven, there remains on earth the Blood and Water that poured out from the side of Jesus on the cross - the Holy Grail, 413 the earthly humanity of Christ, separated from His resurrected and glorified Humanity, although at the same time remaining in unity with it. This outpouring of blood and water from the side of Jesus outwardly reveals the fact that the ascended Christ dwells on earth with His humanity. This fact must be generalized and receive its dogmatic understanding on the basis of the general postulate of our faith in the Incarnation: all of it, or the entire earthly life of the God-man, not only represents a series of events of temporary significance that took place in time, but also receives a supra-temporal or, if we express this thought in the language of time, a continuing significance due to the strength of their God-manhood. They are taken out of time into eternity, but at the same time they remain with their faces turned to time. This truth acquires the character of religious self-evidence in the practice of the liturgical life of the Church. The feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God, like the entire church year, with its everyday memories - Holy Week, as well as the daily Gospel readings, have such an eternal-temporal meaning of memories and, together, accomplishments that took place once in the temporal chain, but received force for all times in eternity. Any celebration is, on the one hand, a commemorative repetition of an event in our memory, but at the same time a certain identification with it. Here we are immersed in this event itself, empathizing with it. We have the most clear evidence of this difference in identity or identity in difference, of course, in the Eucharistic sacrifice. In explaining this sacrifice, at once one and multiple, repeated and non-repetitive, dogmatic doctrine usually fails. It is required to explain, on the one hand, the reality of sacrifice on every altar and at every liturgy, and on the other hand, to combine this multiplicity of victims with the unity and identity of the single Calvary sacrifice. For rational thinking, which remains closed within the framework of space and time, an insurmountable contradiction arises here in this identity of the diverse and the unity of the plural, and this rational difficulty is one of the reasons why the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice is rejected in Protestantism. This contradiction is eliminated only with the removal of the boundaries of space and time, which takes place in relation to the events of Divine life: in the state of kenosis of the God-man they took place in time and space, according to the authenticity of the incarnation, but in the state of the glorification of the God-man they receive for themselves the power of eternity. This power in relation to the life of this world manifests itself as freedom from the limitations of time and space. Only in the light of this supra-temporal significance, by the power of which the rays of the one eternal sun penetrate into the openings of time and at these points illuminate and sanctify events, does this dogmatic paradox become understandable, that all Eucharistic sacrifices really are one and the same Calvary sacrifice, just as all commemorative church celebrations of any Gospel event are one and the same event. The wounds of nails on the hands and feet of Christ were visible on His resurrected body and will be visible on the glorified body of the Lord, who came to judge the world, and these wounds already contain a symbolic image of the entire earthly life of the Savior in what is its focus: in the feat of the cross, which includes and extends to His entire earthly life. That. The Ascension of Christ and His sitting at the right hand of the Father should be understood not as the end or cessation of His earthly work and His very connection with the earthly world, but precisely in this connection, as one of the events in the entire series of accomplishments of God’s economy (it is not for nothing that it is included in the series of the Twelve Feasts). Christ, seated at the right hand of the Father in Glory, is one and the same Christ, as is the One who institutes the Last Supper and Himself gives communion to His disciples. And to this day He does this, as the Church testifies in liturgical prayer. 414 From all these facts of dogmatic significance follow further conclusions about the relationship between the earthly and heavenly sojourn of Christ, His kenosis and Ascension. Doesn’t the ongoing reality of the events of Christ’s earthly life for the Church say that even with the glorified state of Christ, the ongoing reality of his kenosis as ministry remains compatible? Kenosis for Himself in His glorification ended and became, so to speak, the past, however, in relation to the life of the world, it can still retain its power: Christ suffers and is crucified in the world, for in it the Calvary sacrifice is offered until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). In His glorified Humanity, the Lord sits at the right hand of the Father, but in earthly humanity, for which He is the New Adam, in His Body - the Church, which is in a militant state, Christ abides not only in glorification, but also in kenosis. Only this kenosis no longer refers to the humiliation of His Divinity, but to humanity, and not to the personal Humanity of Jesus, which is also glorified in heaven, but to His earthly humanity, which is one with His Humanity as the New Adam. Christ walked the path of kenosis for Himself, but it remains untraversed in His Humanity, which has not yet lived out the “last time,” which begins after His first Coming and continues until His Second Coming. 415 The ascended God-man, sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven, lives in His humanity, as His Body, in the Church, and, according to the testimony of the Gospel (in the speech about the Last Judgment), even in every person. If His earthly life extends throughout all time, then His humanity expands to include all of humanity, this applies not only to the atoning suffering for the sins of all people that He accepted on earth, but also in general to His participation in the destinies of humanity and the destinies of the world, in all of history, until its very end, as revealed in the Apocalypse. This participation, moreover, is revealed in two ways: as compassion with the suffering and as unceasing warfare with the forces of hell - together with the militant church. Both must be understood with all reality, May the power of Christ’s own words and His witnesses not be diminished - with a reality, in its way no less than the mysterious all-time reality of His already accomplished earthly life. We are forced to the conclusion that the earthly work of Christ, and not only the work, but also the suffering of Christ in His earthly humanity did not end even after the Ascension. Moreover, it has two sides: firstly, in the Church the already completed earthly life of Christ with its prophetic-high priestly ministry is mysteriously accomplished, and, therefore, the life of humanity in the Church includes the completed life of Christ. Secondly, Christ participates in humanity’s own life, compassionate with it, crucified with it and in it, hungering, thirsting, in prison, persecuted and reviled. What He experienced and redeemed once and for all eternity as human sin, He empathizes with as its suffering. Of course, there is no rationally logical possibility to combine these seemingly contradictory and mutually exclusive thoughts: Christ in Glory in heaven at the right hand of the Father in glorified humanity, and He is suffering here on earth. However, this is no more difficult than accepting the fact, already certified by the Church and confessed by it, that the Church is the Body of Christ and He lives in it, moreover, not only in the future accomplishment, but also here, in the militant Church, He lives mysteriously, by the power of His redemptive feat. Therefore, being in heaven together with the life of Christ in the Church, and this life, of course, cannot be understood as a passive, indifferent stay, but as an unceasing action, full of strength, love and compassion. Thus, a new Christological aporia arises, consisting in the fact that the work of Christ, the completion of which He Himself testifies to the Father, still continues in the world, and is, therefore, not completed. T. arr., there is suffering that has not yet been experienced, although it has already been overcome on the cross, and a service that has not yet been completed, although the High Priest has already entered the Holy of Holies with the sacrifice. The formal contradiction of this thought to the direct word of Christ: “having been accomplished,” can be exegetically eliminated by the fact that these words generally testify to His completion of the redemptive work for which He was sent into the world. But this accomplished deed may contain, as a consequence, further accomplishments. It is the basis for new tasks, it opens them up. Although it is already a decisive victory: “take courage, for I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), but this victory is won only in the heart of the world, and in reality sorrows, temptations, and troubles still await it. The time of peace has not yet ended, but continues. And the assimilation of victory and its fruits requires new achievements, efforts, struggle, and special service. The prophetic-high priestly ministry, as such, ended in the sense that the victory was won. But from here begins the further ministry of Christ on earth, despite the completed Ascension, but no longer prophetic and high priestly. And this is the Royal service. 3. Christ's royal ministry This question is one of the least understood in Christology, and its interpretation usually reveals confusion and inconsistency. Some (in our country, for example, M. Macarius) attribute primarily the miracles of Christ to the royal service, which in fact do not belong to him at all, and should rather be attributed to the prophetic service. Further, the royal service includes the resurrection, the descent into hell and the ascension, and in general the entire glorification of Christ, which, as has already been explained, is associated with the high priestly service. And thus, through this erroneous relationship, royal service is usually interpreted not even as service at all, but only as a manifestation of Divine omnipotence, the action of the Heavenly King and God, and not the God-man who has laid bare His Divine glory. As a result, there remains ambiguity and confusion in the very formulation of the problem. In the Word of God, God is indeed called the King, who has His own Kingdom (“For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy. Spirit now and ever and unto ages of ages,” is constantly repeated in priestly proclamations). “Sing to our God, sing, sing to our King, sing, for God is the king of all the earth” (Ps. 46:7-8). The Lord is the “King of Israel” (Isa. 44, 6, Zeph. 3, 15), “The Holy Lord, your Creator of Israel, your King” (Isa. 43, 15), “King of the nations, the eternal King” (Jer. 10, 7, 10; 46, 18), “King of Heaven” (Dan. 4, 34). But this eternal kingdom of God, which is both the power of God and the glory, belongs to the eternity of God and expresses the general and fundamental relationship of the Creator and Provider to creation. It is, indeed, the basis of royal power and the God-man, which, however, is acquired by Him and is realized only as the achievement of His earthly ministry: “to Me is given all power in heaven and on earth.” And the basis for this gift is His entire earthly ministry, namely the prophetic and high priestly ministry. This connection is clearly shown in (Eph. 1:20-23: God “worked with His sovereign power in Christ, raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavens, above all principality and power and strength and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the future, and He put all things in subjection under His feet and made Him the head of the Church above all.” Thus, in the royal ministry it is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, its preparation, or rather, its anticipation in the earthly ministry of Christ, and then its passage in His glorification. This service is performed not simultaneously with the prophetic-high priestly service, but after it. Christ was born into the world as King on the throne of David, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). This was also the promise of the archangel already at the Annunciation: “And the Lord will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32-33). This same promise was essentially given by God to David along with the promise of the birth of Solomon’s son: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever... and your house and your kingdom will be established forever before you, and your throne will stand forever” (2 Sam. 12:16) Cf. Ps. 131, 11–14. And this prophecy, as applied to Christ, finds confirmation in the speech of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:30). And accordingly, Christ is born into the world as the “King of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2), to whom the Magi bring royal gifts, and about this the inscription was confirmed on His cross. – This same promise about the reign of the Descendant of David or, in general, the Messianic King and about His eternal Kingdom, one might say, permeates the Old Testament prophecies - in the psalms and prophetic books: Is. 9, 6, 7; 60, 18 ff.; especially Ezek. 37, 21–7 (“and I will gather them from everywhere and bring them into their own land... I will make them one people, and one King will be King over them all... And My servant David will be King over them and Shepherd of them all... and My servant David will be their prince forever”); Mich. 5, 2, Sof. 3, 15, Zech. 9, 9; 14, 9; Is. 60, 18 ff.; Jer. 23:5 (“behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up a righteous Branch for David, and a King will reign, and will act wisely, and will execute judgment and righteousness on earth”); Dan. 7, 14 (“To Him, the Son of Man, was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all nations, nations and languages ​​might serve Him; His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will not pass away, and His kingdom will not be destroyed”); psalms 2, 19, 20, 44, 71, 109. This also includes prophecies about the messianic kingdom: Isa. 9, 6; 11; 32; 35. Dove. 2, 34–44, Ps. 2; 28; 44; 71; 88; 109. The Son of David, the royal Descendant of the theocratic King, is repeatedly called Jesus by the people (Matthew 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9; Mark 10:47; Luke 18:38–39). Of course, all the outward inconsistency of the royal title with the wretched lot of the One who had no place to lay his head was too obvious. In addition, the political independence of Judea had long been lost, and the title of Son of David among the people became only a memory or a dream. Nevertheless, the Lord himself never denied this title, for which he would have had repeated reasons. On the contrary, asked by Pilate (John 18:37): “So are You a King?” Jesus answered in the affirmative: “You say that I am a King.” Wed. Mr. 15, 2, Matt. 27, 11, Lk. 23, 3. At the same time, He, however, adds that “My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight for Me; but now my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). And to His disciples He deliberately contrasted His service to the greatness of earthly power: “The Son of Man did not come (to be served), but to serve and to give His soul for the salvation of many” (Matthew 20:28, cf. 22:25-27). There is only one event in which the Lord revealed His royal greatness even during the days of his earthly ministry: this is the Royal Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, which the Church celebrates as the twelfth holiday, that is, it is one of the main and significant events of the life of Christ. However, the independent meaning of this Entrance and its entire significance remains, as it were, lost between the event of the resurrection of Lazarus and the onset of the passions. 416 Meanwhile, this solemn Entry of the Meek King into the Holy City in relation to the coming Kingdom of Christ has the significance of its significant anticipation on earth, completely analogous to the anticipation that was the Transfiguration of the Lord in relation to His glorification, entry into Glory. And just as the rays of His Glory shone here on earth, on Mount Tabor, so the coming of His Kingdom was revealed on earth, in the Holy City. That glorification of Christ, which is included in His free passion (“now is the Son of Man glorified”), is preliminarily revealed in these two events, of which one, the Transfiguration, is the beginning, the “exodus to Jerusalem,” and the other is the very entrance into it, suffering, but this entrance leads to glory and the kingdom. Therefore, the event of the Lord’s Entry into Jerusalem, according to the Gospel, is generally the only external manifestation of the “royal ministry” of Christ on earth, Who hid it in humiliation. Here this Entry is accompanied by deliberate intentionality. Christ, who previously shied away from royal honors and immediately retired to the mountain alone, “having learned that they want to come and accidentally take Him and make Him king” (John 6:15), now arranges the Royal Entrance for Himself. He sends two disciples to a nearby village to bring a donkey and a colt for this Entry, so that, sitting on it, he will enter Jerusalem. The Lord here clearly applied to Himself the prophecy of Zechariah (9:9, cf. Isa. 62:11) about the entry of the Messianic King: “rejoice with joy, daughter of Zion, triumph, daughter of Jerusalem: - behold, your King is coming to you, righteous and saving, meek, sitting on a donkey and on a colt, the son of a yoked.” And it is precisely in the sense of this prophecy and in this particular light that this event is depicted not only in the Gospel of Matt. 21, 4–5, but also in John. 12, 15–16, with the latter noting: “His disciples did not understand this at first, but when Jesus became glorified, then they remembered that this was what was written about Him, and they did it to Him.” The Solemn Entry of the Lord was accompanied by a multitude of people, the gathering of which, according to the testimony of John. 12, 9, 17–18, was prepared by the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus, which shocked everyone, and the desire to see both the Risen One and the Risen One. And the impression from this procession was such that “the whole city shook, saying: Who is this?” (Matthew 21:10); The farsightedness of the Pharisees, exacerbated by enmity and fear, told them: “behold, the whole world (the whole) has followed Him” (John 12:19). In. This purely Jewish procession also includes the participation of Hellenes, obviously from the proselytes who came to the holiday; they also want to see Jesus, which is done with the solemn self-testimony of Jesus, with a verb from heaven about His glorification (John 12:20-31). Jesus was greeted by the people royally, as the “Son of David,” i.e., the King of the Jews: “Hosanna to the Son of David”! True, when asked who this is, they said among themselves: “This is Jesus, the Prophet from Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 21:11). However, this was here only a designation of the Person previously known to them as the Prophet, and now met as the King. This is precisely what the exclamations of the people at this meeting indicate. It is instructive to compare them among different evangelists: Mr. 11, 10: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! Matt. 21, 20: Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” OK. 19, 38: “Blessed is he who comes, the King in the Name of the Lord, peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (with obvious consonance with the angelic song glorifying the birth in the city of David of the Savior - Christ the Lord: 2, 11-14). “Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord” is a direct application of the text of the Messianic Psalm 117:26, which was apparently performed liturgically on the evening service of Easter; This also includes the use of palm trees when walking around the altar, and they were waved while exclaiming: Hosanna - save now! The people here applied this Messianic text, instead of or in addition to its direct liturgical use, to the Messiah Himself, Who accepted its use, just as He Himself applied it to Himself, before and after the event in question. Before him, this text was prophetically applied by Him in a mournful address to Jerusalem, Luke. 13, 15: “Behold, your house is left empty. I tell you that you will not see Me until the time comes when you say: “Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord.” After him, at the end of the accusatory speech in Matt. 23, 38–39. The first, in any case, can still be attributed to the royal entry into Jerusalem, the second only to the coming apocalyptic - within the limits of earthly history, therefore to the 1000-year kingdom, or to the eschatological appearance of Christ the King in His Glory. In any case, with both interpretations of the text and understanding of the relationship between Lk. 13, 15 and Matt. 23, 38–39, it remains indisputable that the text applied to the solemn entry of the Lord into Jerusalem also applied to the future, glorious entry: the first event is transparent for the second, being its earthly, historical harbinger, and in this feature the apocalyptic-eschatological, mysterious significance of the latter is also confirmed. The people greeted Jesus with royal honors, laying out clothes before Him (cf. 2 Kings 9:13 and Mark 13:51) and with exclamations of “Hosanna”, which here meant not only a prayer for blessing, but also a greeting that was addressed to the Son of David, that is, to the Messiah (this identification was then the usual teaching of the scribes: Mr. 12, 35). But, what is most important for us here, these exclamations also included a direct greeting of the King and the Kingdom: “Blessed is the coming 417 kingdom of our father David, blessed is the King who comes in the Name of the Lord!” This was the entrance of the King and the meeting of the King. The Lord was welcomed as having, in the name of God, to restore “the throne of David His Father” (Luke 1:32). And the Lord did not reject this meeting, but accepted it. And when the high priests and scribes heard even from the lips of children the same royal greeting: “Hosanna to the son of David,” they, “being indignant,” turned to Christ “and said to Him: Do you hear what they say?” The answer was given by the Lord by reference to Ps. 8:3 (Matthew 21:15-16), and it is also added: “if they remain silent, the stones will cry out” (Luke 19:40). This was already a direct challenge to the leaders of the Jewish people, for whom only the last, decisive choice remained: either they, too, should follow Christ, or oppose Him. But there was no longer any doubt about the nature of this choice (which is clear from the fact that Christ, “when he approached the city, then, looking at it, He wept for it and said: “If only on this day you knew what serves for your peace” and further: Luke 19, 41-44). The future fate of Jerusalem was already clear. 418 Entering the holy city, which bowed that day before Him as its King, the Lord soon left it, revealing His calling as the Messianic, theocratic King, by cleansing the church through expelling the traders from it (Matthew 21, 12–13, Luke 19, 45–6, and Mark 11, 15–17 - the next day) and next ordinary healings (Matthew 14–15). This cleansing of the church, especially in this context, was also a manifestation of messianic authority. However, the echo of royal glory quickly ceased, just as the Tabor radiance soon went out, and the week of Christ’s passion begins after it. The Lord's entry into Jerusalem was only a significant precursor to future accomplishments that lay beyond the suffering and resurrection. However, the fullness of the Epiphany, which was for us in Christ, would not have been accomplished if the rays of His glory had not sparkled on earth in the Transfiguration, and the appearance of His kingdom had not been shown at His Royal Entrance. The latter was a prophecy of the future, it has an apocalyptic and eschatological meaning, and its meaning can be fully understood only when placed in the general context of the teaching about the royal ministry of Christ. The accession of Christ on earth is connected with His incarnation; He was already born as the King of the Jews, whom the prophetic wise men seek to worship (“Where is the born King of the Jews?” Matt. 2:2). And just as the fullness of His service in the incarnation is accomplished in His death on the cross, it is on the cross that we have the inscription containing this title: “King of the Jews,” just as the procession to the crucifixion begins with the solemn Entry of the King of the Jews. The Incarnation is the already beginning approach of the Kingdom of Christ, which contains within itself the Kingdom of Heaven or God (although it is not entirely identical with it), which is why the preaching of the “Gospel of the Kingdom” opens with the same gospel of the Forerunner and Christ: “The Kingdom of God has come near.” The Kingdom of Heaven (= God) is at the same time an immanent, transcendental, and historical concept. As immanent, it is spiritual and religious - life in God: “blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” It is achieved, “forced” by effort and is its crowning, like “truth, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” As transcendent, the Kingdom of God comes through the action of God in the world and over the world: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34). And it is historically apocalyptic: the 1000-year reign of the saints with Christ, His coming in glory. The concept of central biology is multifaceted; it does not even fit within the framework of Christology alone, but also extends into pneumatology (as well as into general triadology). However, His coming into the world begins and is essentially connected with the reign of Christ, which is precisely what is now subject to our consideration, and here we must, first of all, distinguish between two images of His accession, or, which is the same, His royal ministry: before His glorification in the Resurrection and Ascension, and after it. B) Image of the enthronement of Christ During the days of His earthly ministry, His reign was limited to His spiritual power over people, no matter how it was manifested: in words and deeds, in teaching and miracles. In short, it merges with His prophetic ministry, “the manifestation of His powers” ​​(Matthew 11:20–3, Luke 10:13, Matthew 13:54, Luke 4:36, 5, 17, etc.). This direct action of it directly on the soul is a kingdom not of this world, which does not need the help of the sword and even directly rejects it, as well as earthly power in general (Luke 22:25-27, John 18:36). The irresistibility of the image of Christ and His word is the only power by which He reigns in souls, and only with this power did He, the meek King, reign in the Holy City in those short hours in which He remained King in Jerusalem. However, He denied another power, the power of this world, and it appeared to Him as a new and last temptation from the prince of this world, who acted through his obedient instruments: “if He is the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him” (Matthew 27:42, Mark 15:32, Luke 23:37). But He remained defenseless in the hands of His enemies, drinking the cup that the Father gave Him. And this obedience was His victory over the world, His reign over it, which is why the inscription on the cross testified to this: “King of the Jews.” This does not refer to the kingdom of God in the world and above the world, as the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, but to the God-man kingdom established on earth by the feat of the God-man. This is the fulfillment of the promise of the theocratic Kingdom of the Messiah, given in the prophecies and types of the Old Testament. This is the kingdom of God in the world, and not above the world, although it comes from above, not from this world. This is the power and truth of the Incarnation, in which heaven and earth, Divine and Human, were united. God reigns over the world in a new way - in man and through man in the God-Man. And in this accession, just as in the resurrection, we have a two-way act; The God-Man, by His obedience to the Father, conquers the world and becomes worthy of power over this world, which He stripped away in His humiliation. And God the Father gives Him this power, no longer only as the Only Begotten Son, who eternally has in the Holy. The Trinity has the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, but as one who was exhausted, he immutably received the form of a servant to the God-man. Just as God the Father resurrects Christ, but Christ himself is resurrected, so power is given to the Son by the Father, but also taken by Him. “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18), proclaims the Risen One, and this message of power is identical with the resurrection, there is the resurrection itself: “Thanks to God the Father... who delivered us from the power of darkness and settled us in the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:12-13). But, on the other hand, “one like the Son of Man” (Rev. 1:13), that is, Christ, testifies of Himself: “to him who overcomes I will give to sit on My throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (3:21). And the voices around the throne of God testify: “The Lamb who was slain is worthy to receive power, and wealth, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (5:12). (Phil. 2:9-10 also applies here). Power over creation is given by the Father to Christ and is taken and appropriated by Him as a consequence of His high priestly ministry. However, this power given to Christ can still be exercised by Him, like the prophetic and high priestly service, with the difference, however, that both the first and the second are performed by Christ during the days of His earthly ministry (although the latter goes beyond its limits), while for the royal service only the foundation is laid here, and it itself begins and is completed only after the departure of Christ from the world, that is, after the Ascension. And this feature gives the “royal service” a particularly mysterious character. Christ is the King in the world, but He does not reign in it in the fullness of the Kingdom of God, but only reigns in it. His royal ministry in the world still continues today, unlike other ministries that have ended and are effective only in their fruits. The kingdom of Christ in the world still remains a kingdom not of this world, although in the fullness of time it has the potential to completely overcome the world and “come” into it. This final coming lies on the very edge of this world, and therefore acquires a transcendentally eschatological character. It begins at the Second Coming of Christ. Christ returns to the world as a King: “then the King will say - ὁ βασιλεὺς (Matthew 25:34), “who sits on the throne of His glory” (35). This eschatological accomplishment also has a historical or, what is also apocalyptic, precedence and preparation. The accession takes place in the struggle for the kingdom, in the confrontation with the power of Christ on the part of the prince of this world, the forces of the Antichrist. Such a confrontation would be impossible in relation to the power of God the Creator over creation. However, here we are talking specifically about the kingdom of Christ the God-Man in the world, and He acts here not with Divine omnipotence and not with the power of this world, “not by might or power, but by My Spirit” (Zech. 4:6). (Accordingly, it is said that the lawless one “The Lord Jesus will kill His spiritual ones and destroy them by the appearance of His coming,” 2 Thess. 2:8, i.e. by spiritual power). The accession of Christ in the world is a tragedy of confrontation and separation of light and darkness; the main theme is the same in both John’s Gospel and his Apocalypse, despite all the differences between both books, uniting them). Such an accession is definitely foreshadowed in the Word of God. The main text here, of course, is I Cor. 15:22-28: “Then is the end, when He will deliver up the Kingdom to God and the Father, when He will abolish all rule and all authority and power, for He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be destroyed by death. Because He put everything under His feet; when it is said that everything is subjugated (by Him), then it is clear that except (himself) everything was subjugated to Him. When he puts all things in subjection to Him, then the Son Himself will submit to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.” This text, a real crux interpretum, represents a condensed apocalypse of history and eschatology. It becomes clear, and everything falls into place if we proceed from the basic premise regarding the royal ministry of Christ, namely, that His enthronement takes place throughout history, which culminates in eschatology. And in its very last distance, even the kingdom of Christ itself is abolished in order to give way to the kingdom of the Father, and with it the entire Holy Spirit. Trinity, the Kingdom of Heaven (God), when the line between God and the fallen world opposing Him will be removed, so that “God will be all in all.” 419 On the basis of this text, one can affirm the continuing ministry of the God-man in the world even after the Ascension, and, despite the Sitting at the right hand of the Father, it remains unfinished. Through the royal service, it goes beyond the boundaries of the personal glorification of Christ, which thereby remains incomplete, and the state of creation is limited, until God becomes in everything, the last enemy is abolished - death and everything is subjugated by the God-man to the will of the Father. In a word, glorification remains incomplete while the reign of Christ continues, until the kingdom of Christ, having completed its work, makes way for the Kingdom of God. The ongoing royal ministry of Christ is based on His already completed high priestly ministry: “He, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever at the right hand of God, waiting then until his enemies were made His footstool” - Ps. 2, 8 (Heb. 10, 13). Wed. Heb. 2, 8–9, interpretation of the text of Ps. 8:5-7 about the Son of Man, who is here identified with the Son of Man: “When he put all things in subjection to Him, he left nothing unsubdued to Him. Now we do not yet see that everything has been submitted to Him. But we see that for suffering death Jesus was crowned with glory and honor” (and further). This general idea about the enthronement of Christ 420 taking place in history and His royal ministry is revealed in Revelation as its apocalypse, that is, the discovery of the hidden, inner content of history. In the heavenly vision of Him who sits on the throne and holds the book in His right hand - the historical destinies of the Church and with it humanity and the whole world - “no one in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth could open this book, nor look at it” (Rev. 5:3), but, according to the words of one of the elders, “behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David conquered, (to) open this book and (remove) the seven her seals" (5), "A lamb as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth" (6). And when He takes the book, general worship is performed, and voices are heard: “Is the Lamb who was slain worthy to receive power and riches? and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (12), and this is echoed by the voices of “every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and everything that is in them” (13). This is the enthronement of the Lamb on earth, or the beginning of His royal ministry. The Kingdom of the Lamb is not only His personal dignity and ministry, but also the royalty that He communicates to His people, the special royal dignity and charisma of the people of God, the “giftative priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), co-reigning with Him in His kingdom (as is also spoken of in Rev. 20:4, 6 about reigning with Christ in the first resurrection and 1000-year kingdom, also 22:5 - in heavenly Jerusalem). In the same way, the high priesthood of Christ extends to the “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9), the “kingdom of priests” Ex. 19, 6, “priests of the Lord” Isa. 61:6, “a spiritual house, a holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5), “who has made us kings and priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:6). (This connection and, as it were, identification of royal and priestly dignity, corresponding to the union of both ministries in Christ, is also characteristic). Accordingly, in 5:10, the reign of Christ includes their redemption by His blood: “You have made us kings and priests, and we will reign on earth.” With the opening of the seals, history begins, which takes place simultaneously in the spiritual and human world, under the royal leadership of Christ. After the seven seals (chap. 6–8) and the seven trumpets (9), follows (10, 1) the appearance of “another mighty angel” (mighty ἰσχυρόν - “Holy Mighty, - Son”), who swears that “there will be no more time” (10, 7), but “the mystery of God will be accomplished, as He preached to His servants the prophets.” In this appearance of “another Angel” it is difficult not to see, if not directly Christ himself (cf. his description: 10, 1–3), then at least his special messenger, imprinted with His image. The seventh angel already proclaims the ongoing accession of Christ as the onset of a new, final era, although history does not immediately end (11, 18). “Voices were heard in heaven loudly saying: “The kingdom of the world has become (the kingdom) of our Lord and His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever” (11:15), and the elders, worshiping God, say: “We thank You, Lord God Almighty, who was and is to come, that You have received great power and reigned” (17). Here the accession is spoken of as a new event taking place in history, in vague terms, which, however, are already approaching I Cor. 15 and they say about the kingdom, “it will have no end.” – In Chapter 12 with the appearance of a woman clothed in the sun, the war in heaven of Michael and his angels against the dragon and his angels, who were cast out to earth, is also described. And again a loud voice from heaven proclaims: “Now salvation and power and the kingdom of our God and the power of His Christ have come, because the slanderer of our brethren has been cast out” (12:10). But even after this, the story continues, revealed in further chapters with their symbolism of animals (chapter 13 ff.), 421 with earthly visions alternating with heavenly ones (chapter 14). The final accomplishments are preceded by the song of Moses, the friend of God, the founder of the Old Testament theocracy, which is sung by seven angels: “Great and wonderful are Your works, O Lord God Almighty, righteous and true are Your ways, O King of saints! Who will not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before You, for Your judgments have been revealed” (15: 3-4). After the 7 bowls and the appearance of the harlot Babylon, the beasts and kings with the eighth beast at their head “will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings” (17:14, Cf. 1 Tim. 6:15). This struggle is accompanied by terrible disasters. And after this, voices of praise are heard again: “Hallelujah, for the Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready” (19:6-7). And then the appearance of the One sitting on a white horse is described, who “was clothed in clothes stained with blood. His name is: The Word of God... On His robe and on His thigh is written the name: King of kings and Lord of lords” (19, 13, 16). After this battle and the binding of Satan, the first resurrection follows: “they came to life and reigned with Christ for 1000 years” (20:4). “They will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (6). Then again the peoples, deceived by the liberated Satan, appear, Gog and Magog, but here the story already turns into eschatology - judgment and general resurrection (20, 11-15) and, on the verge of the next century, the descent from heaven of the new Jerusalem takes place, in which God will dwell with people (21-22). And the mysterious book ends with a new self-testimony of Christ: “I am the root and descendant of David,” that is, the King, to which the Church responds with the call: “Hey, come, Lord Jesus” (22, 20). The images of the Apocalypse more clearly reveal the main idea outlined in the New Testament regarding the royal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, namely, that it takes place in history - and not only as an internal revelation of the power of the accomplished redemption, but also as a new, active action of “as if a slain Lamb.” And this enthronement of the Lamb is carried out in the struggle of the Lamb with the forces opposing Him - first in their intertwining interaction, and then in the final separation of good and evil forces, as a tragic accomplishment, which only ultimately contains the triumph of a new city descending from heaven onto a new earth under a new sky. This tragedy fills the whole of history, from the Lord’s ascension to heaven until its very end. The enthronement of Christ is accomplished through a long and intense struggle; therefore, it is a continuing service that does not yet end until the very end of history, namely the Royal service of Christ on earth. At the same time, according to the mysterious image of the Apocalypse, Christ descends again from heaven to earth for this struggle, and those who serve Him and do His work take part in it: on the one hand, “those who were killed for the word of God and for the testimony that they had” (6, 9) - they cry out to themselves: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on those who live on earth”? (10); on the other hand, they, together with those who did not worship the beast, have a part in the first resurrection and reign on earth (20: 4-5). Since the struggle continues with growing tension until the very end of history, it follows that the royal ministry of Christ is also still ongoing and not finished. The entire Apocalypse, that is, the revelation of the true content of history, is this enthronement taking place. What in Revelation is depicted primarily in the historical aspect, the same thing in essence, although in different images and in a different context, is depicted in the so-called predominantly eschatological aspect. The Small Apocalypse of the Gospel - in Christ’s speech about the end of the world, as well as some texts of the apostolic epistles. If Revelation refers to “what must soon be” (1, 1), that is, to the future, from the point of view of the content of the latter, then the purpose of the Lesser Apocalypse is exhortatory - to anticipate the sorrows and trials that await the faithful, instead of the messianic kingdom they expect, starting with the fall of Jerusalem, which is symbolic; merges with the end of the world: “be prepared” (Matthew 24:44), “beware lest anyone deceive you” (24:4). However, a closer analysis of even the Gospel Lesser Apocalypse (Matt; 24–25, Mark 13, Luke 21, 6 ff.) shows that here, although in a sharp eschatological light, it is contained; indeed, an apocalypse, i.e., the disclosure of history from some of its sides, in a certain light. In accordance with its main task, “calling Christians to courage”: vigilance and patience in trials, here, mainly, the whole tragedy of history is shown. This is done in response to the silent question, although not directly posed here, but repeatedly expressed by the disciples about the messianic kingdom, as the earthly triumph of the followers of the Messiah, the Mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 20:20-21), like them themselves (Mark 10:35), asks to be allowed to sit on the right and left sides “in Thy Kingdom.” Here, of course, there is a messianic kingdom, according to the widespread Jewish ideas of that time. The Lord answers: “You will drink My cup, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized, but it is not from Me that you let sit at My right hand and on My left, but to those whom My Father has prepared” (20:23). And even after the Resurrection, before the Ascension, the disciples are still able to ask Him (Acts 1:6): “Is it not at this time, Lord, that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel”? The Lord reveals to the closest four disciples that not the kingdom and glory, not peace and idleness await them, but the most sorrowful and difficult trials. The history of the Church, within the framework of general history, is not an idyll, and not the peace of the achieved kingdom, but tragedy, struggle and division, that is, the very thing that is shown in the Revelation of St. John, moreover; however, in accordance with the general goal, attention is focused here mainly on gloomy features. However, here too the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, that is, the universal triumph of the Church, is indicated as a condition preceding the coming of the end. The Lord answers the silent question of the disciples about the kingdom that has already come with a prophecy about the tragedy of the reign that is just beginning. This is the main and fundamental meaning of eschatological speeches, which are difficult to understand in detail, partly due to the fact that they are presented in the apocalyptic language of the era using Old Testament prophetic eschatological images (cf. Is. 13:9-40; 24:10-21; 34:4, Joel 2:30-31, cf. Acts. 2, 19–20). In addition, they are distinguished by a natural and, to a certain extent, deliberate mixture of different plans, passing into one another. Here we have before us, as it were, a series of parallel mountain ranges, stretching into the distance, but merging in a general perspective into one bizarre image, connecting them all in itself from different angles. It is possible, however, to highlight the main ideas. First of all, attention is drawn to the connection and even merging (in the question of the disciples) of two events: the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem with the capture of Jerusalem and the “end of the age” with the coming of Christ (Matthew 24:3). This connection stems from the self-awareness characteristic of the Old Testament Church: the end of the temple and Jerusalem merges in it with the end of the century and is, as it were, its prototype. In reality, historically, it is only the edge of a new historical era. But the Lord does not mind; against such a shift, on the contrary, answering both questions at once, he speaks about both, simultaneously and alternately: 4–14 and 15–22; again 23 words. Along with what relates directly to Jerusalem and the temple (Matthew 24, 15–22, Mark 13, 14–20, Luke 21, 20–24); a characteristic transition to Christian history is already outlined here: “Jerusalem will be trampled upon by the pagans until the times of the pagans are ended (24), i.e., the time of general triumph is foreshadowed Christianity, which deals a decisive blow to false Jewish messianic apologetics. At the same time, the Savior anticipates the tragic trials that man will have to endure in history before the end (“for all this must come to pass, but it is not yet the end,” Matthew 24:6). The end comes only after preaching the Gospel as a witness to all nations (14). These trials are temptations from false teachings, various counterfeits of Christianity, the increase of lawlessness and the cooling of love - terrible upheavals in the spiritual world, which are indicated in the language of the Old Testament prophetic symbolism (24, 29). Next, it speaks of the appearance of the sign of the Son of Man, and then of Himself, “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (30), and the angels sent by Him with a loud trumpet “will gather His elect” (31). But is this the end already? Exegetically, this can be doubted, because what follows seems to be a story that is still ongoing: the image of the fig tree (32) with its blossoming branches only says that “summer is near. So you too, when you see all these things, know that it is near, at the door” (33). “When this begins to come true, then look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. So you too, when you see these things coming true, know that the Kingdom of God is near” (Luke 21:28,31). It is close, but that means it has not yet come, so that history seems to continue even after the appearance in heaven of the sign of the Son of Man and Himself. In this case, does not this beg for comparison with that spiritual event, which in Revelation (20) is symbolized as the “first resurrection”? Of course, such a comparison is also not obvious, due to the obscurity of these prophetic texts, but it finds its basis in the fact that even after both compared events, history still continues, at least according to the direct testimony of the Gospel. The difficulty of the text is further enhanced by further words: “Truly I say to you; This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened; heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (34–5, Mark 13:30–31). What do these words refer to: the fall of Jerusalem and the church, which actually took place 40 years later, within the lifetime of a given generation, or to everything that was said above in chapter 23, i.e. in relation not to one generation, but to the entire human race? However, in both cases we are talking about events still within history, before the end. The end, as an event within historical time, is not directly predicted by Christ, but is only indicated in general. This is clear from the direct words of the Savior, with which His speech further continues: “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven (nor the Son; Mark 13:22), but only My Father alone” (36) (Cf. and Acts 1:7). No matter how we interpret this ignorance of the Son Christologically, it remains indisputable that this demonstrates a certain impossibility of prophecy about this, accessible to human knowledge, and, consequently, the inevitable absence of such a direct prophecy about the end as an event, even in this eschatological speech. This impossibility can have different interpretations: it means either the incompatibility in the human empirical consciousness of what is transcendental to him, or the uselessness of this knowledge for him. Or, finally, and what is most important, the very coming of the end depends on human participation and action carried out on the basis of human freedom, which should not be paralyzed or even only affected by this knowledge that is overwhelming and unnecessary for it (just as a person’s personal death is also imprisoned in ignorance). Therefore, the transcendental accomplishment of the end seems empirically as unexpected as the onset of the flood in the days of Noah, or the fall of fire in the days of Lot 422 (Matthew 24:37–39, cf. Luke 17:26–30), so that “insolent scoffers” are possible, expressing unbelief even at his very coming (2 Peter 3, 3–4). And from here, precisely from this uncertainty of the end, with its certainty, as a kind of transcendence, a general conclusion is drawn: “So, watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come” (24, 42, 44; 25, 13). And then follows a tributary confirmation of the same thought: 24, 4551) (about the faithful and unfaithful slaves), 25, 1–12 (about the ten virgins), 24, 14–30 (the parable of the talents, which contains a call specifically to earthly, historical work, to multiplying one’s talents), and all this ends with the tributary image of the Strange Judgment, however, not in relation to the time of the onset, but to its content. Parallel to the eschatological chapters of Matt. at Mr. 13, in general, has the same plan and the same content, with some details that have a practical exhortatory meaning: in particular, about persecution and the help of the Holy Spirit (11–13), with a general exhortatory conclusion: “keep watch” (35–7). In general, so does Luke. 21, 5–36, with special emphasis on persecution and God’s help in them: 12–19. Some particular features are added to the Gospel Apocalypse by separate texts of the Apostolic Epistles. This includes, first of all, 2 Thess. 2, 3–12, about the lawless man, as a personal manifestation of the fight against God and anti-Christianity, about the presence in “last times,” that is, already in the Christian era, of people of unbelief, sin and vice: 2 Tim. 3, 1–9, 1 Tim. 4, 1–3, 2 Peter. 3, 3–4. These texts, which the authors apply partly to phenomena from modern life, also have primarily an admonishing meaning - warnings, calls to firmness and confession. Of particular importance here are the texts of 1 Cor. 15, 22–23 and 1 Thess. 4, 14–17. The first of them speaks of the general resurrection of the dead: in Christ “all will live. Each in his own order: Christ the firstborn, then those of Christ at His coming. And then the end,” etc. In this completely unclear and mysterious text, it is as if it is possible to distinguish two resurrections: first “of Christ, at His coming,” and then, obviously, the general resurrection of the dead, with silence about whether this is merged in time into a single act, or whether there are two acts here, and perhaps two events similar to the first and second resurrection of the Apocalypse, with the first being put in connection with the coming of the Lord, which does not yet end history, similar to that in the Small Gospel Apocalypse. Also in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 speaks of the meeting of the Lord descending from heaven in the air and being with Him: “We who are alive, remaining until the coming of the Lord, will not warn the dead, because the Lord himself, with proclamations, with the voice of the Archangel and the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who remain alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so always with Let us be the Lord." It also speaks of “those of Christ” (“dead in Christ”), as those who are credited with meeting Christ in the air through the rapture in the clouds. This also accomplishes their separation from the midst of all humanity, which is still awaiting its resurrection. Again, here the question arises: isn’t the distinction that we have in the Apocalypse between the first and second resurrection indicated here? Are there not two different apocalyptic plans distinguished here too, which from the perspective merge into one, universal, resurrection of the dead? So, the kingdom of Christ is His divine-human service. This is not the power of God over creation, transcendentally, supramundanely ruling, “providing” for the world. This is the immanent service of the God-man to the world, who in His incarnation stripped off His divine power over the world, and, having received it from the Father after the resurrection by the power of His saving feat, realizes it, subduing Himself the world and His enemies in order to betray the kingdom to the Father, by continuing service, namely royal, through the ongoing accession. This latter is accomplished not by the power of God's omnipotence, but through the inner conquest of the world, the fight against opposing forces, and victory through persuasion. This reign of Christ, according to the testimony of the Word of God, is accomplished in two ways; through Christ's humanity, or the Church, and by Christ himself personally. The latter is also twofold: through the action of Christ in history and in His last coming, followed by the end of the age. Christ makes His humanity partaker of His royal ministry, making us a “royal priesthood,” “kings and priests.” Reigning in us, He reigns in the world, creating His kingdom through us. This reign in us and through us is, first of all, the action of His word in our souls - the work of “prophetic ministry”, spiritual power, a kingdom not of this world, the effective preaching of the Gospel, which is directly indicated by Christ in His commandment to the disciples, precisely in connection with His acceptance of authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore, go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:29). Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom throughout the entire universe, as a witness to all nations (Matthew 24:14), is a precondition for this reign. But this conquest of souls, their subjugation to the Gospel of the Kingdom must be expressed, cannot but be expressed in life and deeds. Each one, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 3:10-15), “builds on no other foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ, but each one be careful what he builds. Whether anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will be revealed, for the day will show it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test each one's work as to what it is. Whoever's work that he built survives will receive a reward. And whoever’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; However, he himself will be saved, but as if from fire.” This fiery test, in the figurative language of the apostle, is the criterion of the final, universal accomplishment, which is revealed as the work of all mankind at the Last Judgment. However, there is no reason to consider this matter only in the light of personal destinies, personal retribution or “reward”; it also retains its objective, supra-personal, pan-human, historical meaning: “the cause will stand”, and those who burn out will “suffer loss”, and if they are saved themselves, it will be as if from the fire, deprived of participation in the common cause of humanity, as some of its outcasts. 2 Cor. has a similar meaning. 5, 1–4. Here we are talking about a heavenly dwelling, a house not made with hands, i.e. the Sophia glory of our divine prototype, in which we strive to clothe ourselves as our heavenly dwelling. However, even at the same time we are exposed to danger, so that “even if we are clothed we do not find ourselves naked,” for we, “being in this hut, groan under the burden, because we do not want to be stripped and put on, so that mortal things may be swallowed up in life.” Here a direct and positive relationship is established between the earthly dwelling, the “hut,” and heavenly glory, in which mortal is not abolished, but is absorbed into life, raised to heavenly glory. Therefore, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive (what is done) with the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5, 10). God, having called us in Christ to His kingdom, gave us abundant grace “in all wisdom and understanding, revealing to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He first purposed in Him, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, so that all things in heaven and on earth might be united under the head of Christ” (Eph. 1:10, Compare Eph. 4:10). From the Head, Christ, “the whole body, being united and held together by joints and bonds, grows with the growth of God” (Col. 2:19). In the general perspective of the royal service, it is completely impossible to understand human “deeds,” that is, co-king with Christ, participation in His royal service, only transcendentally eschatologically, in the sense of the basis for “reward” or, in general, for the personal destinies of this or that soul. This complicity merges inseparably with its historical-apocalyptic significance, as the work of God on earth and in history through people. Christ speaks of works that will be greater than those done by Himself (of course, the works during the days of His earthly ministry), to which His followers are called by the Holy Spirit. This indicates the universal participation of humanity in the affairs of God. What these affairs are in the end, what is the common cause of mankind, is silent in the prophecies, this is entrusted to the creative human inspiration in history, for people will be taught by the Holy Spirit. God has entered into ignorance what share of participation in His work He gives to humanity itself, but the Word of God indicates what will be the final and general task and victory of this reign of Christ: “the last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26, cf. 15:53-56). “Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (57). And the Lord was pleased to grant us a part in this victory, whatever this part may be. After the Incarnation, all humanity of the human race is Christ’s, and everything good in it belongs to Christ. He acts in humanity not only by the impression of His teaching and His Image, by the power of conviction, but also by His immediate power, by a certain internal compulsion, for he who is baptized into Christ puts on Him (Gal. 3:27), and Christ lives in him (2:20), “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15 ). Christ lives in His humanity, reigning in it and through it, in His royal ministry. To the extent of this accession, the Ascension is also overcome in its meaning as the removal of Christ from the world, in which, however, He, according to His promise, is present “always, now and ever.” This overcoming is accomplished, on the one hand, through the presence of Christ in the world in His shed blood and water, in the Holy Grail, 423 and, on the other hand, in the Holy Eucharist, through which Christ communicates Himself to those who partake. This mysterious presence of Him in the world and humanity corresponds to the mysterious unity of His humanity with ours, based on the fact that Christ accepted human nature not in private isolation, but in integral universality, like the New Adam. Therefore, not only those who know Him in this life, but also those who do not know Him and even - strange to say - those who deny Him, participate in Him and are subject to Him. The history of humanity after Christ is not only the history of Christian humanity, but also of Christ’s humanity. The power of Christ, accomplished by the Holy Spirit, binds together all human history and makes it an apocalypse, that is, a revelation of Christ. And the affairs of this humanity, scattered and contradictory, in their synthesis are included in the work of Christ. According to the parable of the Last Judgment, Christ will live with each person and with all of humanity, which will be judged as a whole, “all nations,” in all its common affairs, in accordance with each person’s personal participation in it. This is co-existence with Christ (by the action of the Holy One who overshadows Him. Spirit) does not abolish personal human freedom, does not make a person a blind instrument. However, with the inner power of His humanity, Christ directs its paths and integrates its affairs into the common cause, paving the way through them for the transformation of the world or for the end of this eon. This integration of personal and seemingly self-legitimate human affairs into a single whole, into history, in general is always an action of God’s Providence. However, it changes perceptibly after the Incarnation, taking place not only from the outside, as if transcendentally, over man, but also from within, immanently, in man himself, as the action of Christ living in humanity. The principle that unites all humanity - whether known or unknown, and generally unknown - is here not only the natural unity of humanity in Adam, which in itself establishes the unity of its history with its regularity and purposefulness, but also its divine-human unity in the New Adam, in Christ. He gives humanity, as it were, a new nature (“new creation”). The action of Christ is not limited to personal Christianity and the personal life in Christ of an individual, but also includes the natural life of humanity, for all of it has changed in its destinies, it has become different from itself as a result of the Incarnation, for Christ is the King of all humanity, having to judge it for its deeds. The parable speech about the Last Judgment, where the Judge testifies that Christ lives in every person, and can be somehow known and accessible to every person judged by Christ, in general confirms this general idea that all human history after Christ, in all its broken and bizarre dialectics, is in its essence Christian history, connected with the Church of Christ, as its internal purposeful cause. This is precisely what the Apocalypse testifies to, depicting the destinies of nations as a single coherent body (as well as the Old Testament philosophy of history among the prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.). But aren’t we thereby turning the power of Christ into a natural force? Shall we naturalize her? This is the natural doubt and bewilderment that arises in us. However, what exactly is this “natural” force? Physical or metaphysical principle? Is it a force included in the mechanism of the world, or a specially qualified, new energy of life, even if it realizes itself through the action of natural forces? What is in this sense at least the power of the general resurrection, which is directly based in the Word of God on the power of Christ’s resurrection (“just as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all come to life” I Cor. 15:22)? All people are subject to resurrection, regardless of the personal relationship to Christ of each of them, both those who knew Him and those who did not know Him in earthly life, and those who believed and those who did not believe in Him. They will be resurrected, according to the meaning of the apostolic teaching about the general resurrection, not by the power of a new creative act of God's omnipotence, not by the power of their internal connection with Christ, the firstborn from the dead, and, however, in this case this internal connection is not personal, but natural. For everyone will be resurrected, simply by virtue of the fact of their humanity, which, having become Christ’s, received from Him the power of resurrection. But if all natural humanity is resurrected in Christ - and this does not raise doubts regarding naturalism, which is also contained in this thought in a certain sense - then why cannot it be connected with Him in its historical life? For life, death, and resurrection are connected with each other, and it is impossible to isolate from this common connection only resurrection, as such an external act that has no internal justification for itself in all human life associated with Christ, being, as it were, deux ex machina and obviously exceeding human nature. Of course, the resurrection is accomplished by the power of God acting in man, “in the trumpet of the archangel,” but it acts in the revelation and implementation of that principle of immortality that already lives in man through his natural participation in Christ in His incarnation. And therefore, the immortality of Christ is, in a certain sense, a law for people in their resurrection, and we must, to a certain extent, extend this same thought to all human natural life. This same thought is also included in an even more general idea, namely that eschatology, the end of the world and the resurrection, do not occur as a deux ex machina, 424 but are prepared by history, which, like the apocalypse, in a certain sense, itself enters into eschatology, but at the same time transcends it. Eschatology presupposes discontinuity and transcendence, and this is the idea of ​​the end. However, according to both the Gospel Apocalypse and the Revelation of John, the world must be ripe for the end, and history must internally end, having completed its work. But this matter is not, so to speak, only the algebraic sum of an infinite series of individual personal affairs in their random chaos, but a positive integral in the natural pattern of a connected series, and this pattern of it is Christ, “by whom are all things, and we by Him” - (1 Cor. 8, 6), In other words, in the history of mankind after the Incarnation, with all the intensity of the struggle between light and darkness, Christianity and anti-Christianity, with all the severity of its dialectical Antithetics, the work of Christ is being carried out, and those who are mistaken are those who, lingering attention only on individual moments of the historical tragedy, its tearing contradictions, see its entire result only in the appearance of the Antichrist, the general fall and corruption, generally reducing it not even to zero, but to a negative value. In any case, this is not the content of the Apocalypse with its images of tragic confrontation, but also of the victory and enthronement of Christ on earth after the first resurrection, as well as the descent of the heavenly city at the end. History is eschatologically overcome only in one specific transcendental moment, which is the action of God over the world - namely, in the general resurrection and transfiguration of the world: “I am making all things new” (Rev. 21:5), a new heaven and a new earth (21:1; 2 Peter 3:13), with a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven. This new creation, the renewal of which is the overshadowing of the Spirit of the Comforter, is, of course, in a certain sense already a super-world and super-history; here the life of this age and this world transcends, which is truly new: “not having appeared that we shall be.” However, both this transcendence and this overshadowing presuppose for itself as its object (or container) this world, and this earth, and this history, although in transformation, and in this sense there is a direct connection between them. The world must be ripe for its end, and the work of Christ in this world, no matter how we understand it, must end within its boundaries. The line between history and super-history or the end, between apocalypse and eschatology, in the New Testament prophecies (both the Gospel Apocalypse and the Revelation of John) is almost elusive, so much so that one turns into the other, they seem to merge into one in perspective. And yet it exists, so that the new arises from the old, like a new birth, with new life. Therefore, neither the historical apocalypse should absorb or abolish eschatology, nor this latter - history: both are mutually conditioned, and it is wrong to separate one from the other. Parousia, the second glorious coming of Christ, stands on the very edge of the eschatological transition: it equally belongs to the historical apocalypse and eschatology, as “the life of the future century.” In reasoning about the regularity of history, which is nothing other than Christ’s reign, or the royal ministry of Christ in His humanity, we do not introduce false determinism, which would be incompatible with personal freedom and responsibility - to that limited extent, however, which is generally inherent in created freedom. However, it is necessary to pay tribute to that true, ultimately Sophian determinism, which is based on the naturalness of its existence given to the creature. Christ, when He became incarnate, became the law of existence of natural humanity, its highest inner natural reality, although hidden, still immersed in the Old Adam, in the old natural and human world. And this reality of Christ’s humanity does not depend on the free and personal acceptance or rejection of it by each individual person. With his freedom, each individual person is, indeed, free to accept it or reject it, for he is called to this choice, but he cannot make it non-existent, just as he cannot create his own nature for himself. For freedom is only a mode of being, but not its content: nothing in itself is emptiness, not even having for itself an independent non-existence, which it receives only from natural existence. This highest naturalness of Christ’s creation outside of Christianity remains unknown and unconscious, but that does not make it invalid, although we cannot empirically feel and recognize the world and humanity as the body of Christ, beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. We only know that everything that lies beyond these boundaries is included in the sphere of influence of the Church, in its history. Here, a person’s free self-determination takes place, as it were, in twilight twilight, not in relation to Christ himself, but still to the beginning of Christ - to goodness, conscience, Divinity. 425 The entire history of mankind after Christ is directed along a new highway, due to such dynamic pan-Christism. In relation to those who are called, that is, Christians, this self-determination is accomplished quite consciously and responsibly, and this is evidenced at the judgment of Christ. If we put the question of Christ’s action on earth in fulfillment of His royal ministry in connection with the dogma of the Ascension, then from a new point of view it is revealed that the Ascension, as carrying out the final glorification of the God-Man, completely means His removal from the world with the cessation of communication with it. It is precisely in the royal ministry of Christ, as it continues beyond the Ascension, that this indissoluble connection with the world manifests itself in its own way and in different relationships. First of all, this is spiritual power, as the ongoing action of the prophetic ministry of Christ - through His teaching and, most importantly, through His holy image, imprinted in hearts and calling to follow Him. Secondly, this is the power of the Eucharistic, as the mysterious connection of the glorified Christ with man in communion and the ceaselessly continuing sanctification of the elements of the world through the presence in Him of the Holy Gifts, the Body and Blood of Christ. Thirdly, this connection is also natural-human, realized through the outpouring of blood and water from the side of Christ, through which Christ in His earthly state invisibly abides with His humanity, has compassion with it and never leaves it on its earthly path. Finally, fourthly, this is an energetic connection. Christ, who accepted in His humanity the whole of the old Adam, is his immanent law, not only in the order of free grace, but also in the natural. Christ leads His humanity, despite its opposition and resistance, in which the freedom of fallen man is manifested. This dynamic presence of Christ in humanity extends its influence beyond the borders of Christian humanity, to all humanity, both those who know Him and those who still do not know Him: “He must reign until he has overthrown everyone. enemies under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:25). The action of Christ in the world, as it is said, merges here with the general action of God's Providence, leading and watching over the world. This is a necessary postulate of Christology. Thus, the personal matter of salvation is woven into the common cause of humanity, and from these threads of subjective freedom and objective reality the motley fabric of history with its pattern is obtained. Exceeding all human capabilities to evaluate and take into account, integrate and connect all the actions of human freedom or individuality in history with its transmundane roots on the edge of time and empirical destinies, this is a matter of God's vision. However, the main components of this process, as well as its teleology and internal causality, are known to us. Human history, by the power of Christ, is moving towards its end, which is the general resurrection and transfiguration of creation, and the path to this is being laid out in it. In this world, everything necessary for its transition to the other world is accomplished. The common cause of historical humanity is the reign of Christ in the world, after which the Son betrays His kingdom to the Father. This is where the general eschatological conclusion regarding the time of the Second Coming comes from. The God-Man Himself responded about him without knowing how much He, in His humanity, was included in the historical process, taking place with the participation of human freedom and preparing with Himself the ripening of the world fig tree for the approach of the end. The second coming of Christ is not a one-sided act, but a two-sided one, just as the first coming of Christ in the world was. For him, a world time must come through a world accomplishment. And this time, among other conditions, is determined by human freedom; depending on it, it can be shortened or lengthened, although it comes at the behest of the Heavenly Father, who sets the times and deadlines for accomplishments. In this sense, the Second Coming is not only a Divine, but also a human affair that is about to take place along the paths of history. Such is the importance, seriousness and significance of human history after Christ on the path to his accession, which takes place in us and through us. History is not an empty corridor that must somehow be passed through in order to be freed from this world into the other world, it belongs to the work of Christ in its incarnation, it is an apocalypse striving for an eschatological accomplishment, a divine-human work on earth. This provides the basis for an apocalyptic-eschatological, immanent-transcendent, religious assessment of the common cause of humanity in the world. Being essentially the work of Christ, the hysterical creativity of man must reveal and demonstrate the depth and strength of humanity, reveal in him the likeness of the image of God. Consequently, all worthy human creativity, “culture,” is called to be transformed in the Kingdom of God, as the self-revelation of true humanity, at least in its immediate form and was “kept by fire.” And the humanization of the world, with dominion over it in the name of God, to which man is called by creation, refers to the manifestation of man’s royal service, according to the strength of his participation in the royal service of Christ, no matter how far man’s aspirations go along this path, even to the point of human participation in the general resurrection, according to the “project” of N. F. Fedorov. It is only necessary to most decisively disassociate ourselves from such an understanding of it, according to which with this human resurrection the work of God is completely eliminated, history cancels and absorbs eschatology, and the resurrection itself ceases to be a resurrection, but is only a reproduction of the likenesses of certain human “robots.” For what is essential for a person is the union of the personal spirit with the animated body, which only mechanical resurrectors are going to resurrect, but the human spirit after death remains in the hand of God. Therefore, immanent resurrection alone is impossible; there is a religious non-sens. It cannot be accomplished without a Divine act - the return of the human spirit to his body, with the creative restoration of the soul's ability to animate the body. However, this does not mean that in the resurrection everything from beginning to end should be the work of God without any human participation. On the contrary, it can become a divine-human work, in which the humanity of Christ, living in the Church, in His Name will realize everything available to man on the path to the general resurrection. And this will crown the earthly work of humanity. Such a thought, if it does not have eschatological and necessity for itself, then, in any case, expresses one of the historical possibilities on the paths of maturity of the human race in its movement beyond the boundaries of history, in the fight against the last enemy - death, also with human forces. But these opportunities are not given to a person, but only given, entrusted to his creative freedom. Therefore, one cannot dogmatize about them, but these possibilities can only be theoretically envisaged, determining their place in understanding the end. 426 However, even before the end, the Word of God still points us to the mysterious appearance of Christ in the world and in history, and this appearance of Him also refers to His accession to the throne. We have such evidence in the prophecy (Rev. 20) about the first resurrection, in which only the elect have participation. They "came to life and reigned with Christ." Here it is presented as an event among others in history. In any case, it testifies to some special and exclusive closeness of those who came to life to Christ. To destroy this event by violent spiritualistic exegesis (following St. Augustine and Tikhonius) is neither theologically nor exegetically unacceptable, as violence against the Word of God, even direct opposition to it for the sake of a biased and one-sided theological doctrine. At the same time, history does not yet have data for a concrete perception and understanding of this prophecy. It contains an indisputable promise that on the path of Christ’s reign in history there will be a whole era, when the presence of Christ on earth will be deliberately felt by the elect, as well as His personal participation in the historical accomplishment, precisely as in the divine-human process: “they reigned with Christ” for 1000 years. This personal participation of Christ in history, in addition to the 1000-year reign, is expressed in that mysterious appearance of Christ for the final battle with the forces of anti-Christianity, “the beast and the false prophet,” which is described in Rev. 19, 11–21. The vision begins with the appearance in the “open sky” (11) of Him riding on a white horse, followed by the armies of heaven on white horses, but then it describes a battle with the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, apparently on earth. The mysterious meaning of this image does not lend itself to direct interpretation, but the idea is indisputable that this phenomenon corresponds to some earthly event, occurring not only in heaven, but also in history (wasn’t this also the appearance of Christ in heaven to the Apostle Paul, which, being heavenly, i.e. transcendental, belongs to history and even personal biography?). The reign of Christ on earth in the 1000-year kingdom will become completely clear, just as it was clearly shown by Him in His royal entry into Jerusalem. The curve of history, with fluctuations deviating up and down, at this point in the path rises up and meets the sky, only to fall sharply down again, in the last uprising of Gog and Magog, beyond which the end and break of the curve, transcensus, is seen. This prophecy, contrary to the prevailing doctrine, which would be mistaken, however, to be taken as a dogmatic definition of the Church, refers to a future that has not yet been realized, so that we cannot concretely realize it for ourselves in thought. Based on the content of this prophecy, it can be established in any case that during the “first resurrection” the wall separating the world of the living and the dead is thinned and, as it were, eliminated, precisely for the souls who have come to life and reign with Christ for 1000 years. Through these revived souls, Christ himself reigns with them on earth. And this event, associated with the shackling of Satan for 1000 years, marks an important step on the path of the accession of Christ, and generally belongs to His royal ministry. But this does not exhaust the personal and direct participation of Christ in the earthly history of His accession. As one could see when analyzing eschatological texts, there remains a certain ambiguity in them regarding the Second Coming of Christ, the parousia. It is unclear whether this is already the end, or just one of the final events within history? 427 further, the question remains open whether this coming is not at least in connection with the event described in Revelation as the first resurrection? In this case, the Last Judgment is combined into one event with the parousia only in a general eschatological perspective, but is directly separated from it: such an image from a perspective is characteristic of apocalypticism. If, indeed, we understand here the event of the appearance of Christ in history, then we must see in it one of His most decisive actions on the path to His reign in the world. If we understand it primarily eschatologically, as the onset of the end, then in this case His appearance as a “King” serves at the same time as the last, final link in the historical chain, His true accession, which is immediately a “judgment.” This completes His Royal ministry, and at the same time His glorification. However, the earthly ministry of Christ, and therefore His kenosis in this ministry, has not yet ceased. Power has been given, but has not yet been finally accepted (just as glorification was given before suffering: “today the Son of Man has been glorified”). Christ, risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father in the glory of God, still continues His earthly ministry. The earthly reign of Christ is the path through history to the kingdom, “of which there will be no end.” The Lord is invisibly with us on earth. His Ascension and Seating at the right hand of the Father did not take Him from us, from our earthly pain, from our suffering and our struggle. Seated in the glory of St. Trinity, like God in heaven, He mysteriously remains united with the world, remains with us as a co-man, the God-man, in a still ongoing reign. It is accomplished “in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience that is in Jesus Christ,” with the “participation” (Rev. 1:9) of the faithful. The humiliation of Christ passed through many stages on the way to its overcoming through glorification. In essence, it has already been overcome, but it still continues to be lived out in what constitutes the consequence of this overcoming, in the accession of Christ on earth, still under the weight of the sin of the old Adam. Christ still today accepts the power given to Him together with humanity and continues to serve as a king. The true God, He, reigning in us and over us on earth, reigns for His eternal Kingdom, for which we always pray to the Father: Let Your Kingdom come, and we cry to the Son: Yes, come, Lord Jesus! It is this subjective human side of prophetic service that is usually meant in those cases when the title of prophet is bestowed on certain figures of thought and speech. Added to this is their pragmatic nature, with which the conventionality of prophecy is associated. In general, the idea according to which prophecy is obtained due to the ability for the prophet to look beyond the future and see it, and then talk about what he saw, should be rejected in its straightforward rudeness, for it is possible to predict a future that does not yet exist not from this unfinished future, but only from the present, since it is fraught with the future. This future itself belongs not only to the present, but also to human freedom, thanks to the tireless participation of which the inevitable vagueness and dullness of knowledge and prophecy about the future and the certain conventionality of these prophecies are obtained. The proper area of ​​prophecy therefore refers to those cases when it is revealed what God himself wants to do to the world. Therefore, among the prophecies, the Messianic prophecies, which speak of the future incarnation and redemption, are especially significant. A number of ideas related to this have already been developed by me in the essay “On the Miracles of the Gospel,” Paris. 1932, and here I no longer consider it necessary to return to this. “The power of the Lord appeared in healing (the sick)” (Luke 5:17). “All the people sought to touch Him, because power came from Him and healed everyone” (6:19). “Then He began to reproach the cities in which His powers were most manifested... if the powers that were manifested in you had been manifested in Tire and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in dust and sackcloth” (Matthew 11:20-22" Luke 10:13). The images of the Apocalypse with their main theme of “as if a slain Lamb,” who redeemed us with His Blood and made us kings and priests to our God, have a similar meaning (5, 9–10, etc.). Wed. I Peter 1, 19–20. And this, of course, includes the words of the Forerunner in John. 1:29: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” So, He again spoke to the disciples about this when they came down from the mountain after the Transfiguration (Matthew 18:9-13, Mark 9:9-13), and after healing the demoniac during their stay in Galilee (Matthew 17:22-23, Mark 9:39-32, Luke 9:44-45): “Put these words in your ears.” But the disciples “were greatly saddened” (Matthew), “they did not understand these words, but were afraid to ask Him” (Mark). And again He repeats this to them, ascending to Jerusalem, and “Jesus walked ahead, and they were horrified, following Him, they were in fear” (Mark 10:32, Matthew 20:13, Luke 18:31-34). It is noteworthy that both the Old Testament priesthood and the liturgical regulations in the Bible are defined as an eternal institution (Ex. 12, 14; 27, 21; 28, 43; 29, 28; 40, 15), but obviously, in their internal meaning, and not in the duration of their existence, which is limited. Wed. the development of these thoughts in the essay “The Holy Grail” (“The Path”, 1931). On this basis, the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is not abolished even beyond this century, as is clear from the symbolism of the Apocalypse: the water of life coming from the Lamb and the “tree of life” (Rev. 22:1-2). Wed. my essay “Judas Iscariot, the traitor apostle” (Path, 1930, article 2). Protestant kenoticists (in particular Hess) express the idea that during the Incarnation the Holy Spirit ceases to emanate “and from the Son” (filioque). This incorrect thought, associated with an incorrect dogma, distortedly expresses the general idea that the Holy Spirit is involved in the sacrament of redemption. Doesn’t the Lord himself say to his disciples: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41)? “The cup that his Father gives him is the cup of all the iniquities we have committed,” etc. (Filaret. “Words and Speeches” I, pp. 150–1). This reasoning has already been applied in St. Grail." “He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our diseases; and we thought that He was smitten, punished and humiliated by God... But He was wounded for our sins and tormented for our iniquities... He was tortured, but suffered voluntarily... for the crimes of My people He suffered execution... The Lord was pleased to smite Him, and He handed Him over to be tormented.” “Eternal torment” in the sense of temporary, evil infinity would mean nothing more than ontological death penalty with immersion in oblivion. But nothing living, called into existence by the Divine creative act, can be abolished into non-existence, which is why “eternal torment”, like immersion in non-existence, presupposes for its very possibility a support point in being, that is, dialectically limited by being, from where the further dialectic of death develops. It is “eternal torment,” the ontological dying of the subject, that itself plunges into death, into non-existence, that is, it is abolished: death dies, and life lives on. But in order to overcome spiritual death or eternal torment, the equivalent of which is the anguish of the Gethsemane struggle, this death itself must plunge into the death of non-existence on the cross of Calvary, so that new life can be resurrected from this death. Is it not this dialectic of death that refers to the vague meaning of the prophecy: “both death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev. 20:14)? This power of the suffering and death of Christ finds some expression in works of art. This is, for example, “The Crucifixion” by Matthias Grunewald (Colmar). A puzzling question may arise: to what extent are bodily sufferings connected with personal sin, as well as with the general one - the original one? Can they be attributed to the One Sinless One, albeit in equivalent? The answer is given in the general doctrine of the Lord's acceptance for the atonement of all sins and of every sin in its severity and, therefore, in its consequences. Therefore, to establish a distinction between what can be accepted and included in the bodily suffering and death of Christ, and what is excluded as inappropriate, is incorrect. It is worthy of attention that the Divine Eucharist, which is the ongoing high priestly service of Christ and the offering of an atoning sacrifice, represents, in the meaning of its prayers and sacred rites, also the action of the entire Holy Trinity. Most of the priestly prayers (with only a certain exception: “no one is worthy” - the prayer during the Cherubim, - before communion, “Look, Lord Jesus Christ” and before the consumption of the Holy Gifts: “fulfillment of the law”), and moreover, in the most important, perfect part of the liturgy, are addressed to God the Father or the entire Holy Trinity: in particular the prayers: “worthy and righteous,” “with these we are blessed forces" and, most importantly, the prayers of the epiclesis, as well as the very blessing of St. gifts. The latter is entirely an appeal to the Father (starting from the troparion of the third hour): “And make this bread the honorable body of Thy Christ, and in this cup the honorable blood of Thy Christ, translating it with Thy Holy Spirit,” as well as all further prayers, up to and including “Our Father.” This means that the liturgical sacrament, like the Calvary sacrifice, is performed by the entire Holy Trinity. In this there is liturgical evidence of the Trinitarian nature of the atonement. “The secretly great day of Moses was typified by the verb: “And God bless the seventh day.” This is the blessed Sabbath, this is the day of rest, on which the only begotten Son of God rested from all His works, having kept the Sabbath by looking at death in the flesh.” (Matins of Great Saturday, glory be to them). Wed. all the majestic antithesis of Life and Death in the praises and canon of Holy Saturday. In this part of this chapter, we have to touch again, in the light of the teaching about the high priestly service of Christ, a number of questions that have already been touched upon in another connection, in the teaching about the Theanthropic self-consciousness of Christ (at the end of the previous chapter), why repetition in particulars is inevitable. However, the theological problems and, in connection with this, the angle from which the issues are considered are completely different here and there and sufficiently justify the inevitable coincidences and repetitions in particulars. According to Orthodox teaching, St. John the Baptist is the Forerunner of Christ even beyond the grave: “thou preached the good news to them also in hell of God made manifest in the flesh, who takes away the sin of the world” (troparion). “You came down to earth to save Adam, but you did not find it on earth; you even descended to hell to seek it” (Praise at Matins on Holy Saturday). See my essay “About St. relics" (handwritten). According to the power of the incorruptibility of the Body of Christ, according to the belief of the Church, the Holy Body also remained incorruptible. The Mother of God in her honorable Dormition, before her resurrection, for her body, which was the seat of God, was sanctified by the Mother of God and shared the property of the body of Christ with its incorruptibility. “Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father” (Rom. 6:4), and therefore “Christ received you into the glory of God” (15:7). According to one of the interpretations accepted by the Eastern Church, they will be those “two witnesses” (Apoc. 11:3–7) who will appear in the last times and suffer death from the beast. Matt. 28:6: “He is not here: He has risen, as He said. Go, see the place where the Lord lay... Mk. 16, 6: “He has risen, He is not here. This is the place where He was laid." In. 20, 5-7: “and bending down (the other disciple) saw the linen cloths lying... after him Simon Peter comes and enters the tomb and sees the linen clothes lying and the cloth that was on His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but especially rolled up in another place.” “They were confused and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. But He said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do such thoughts enter your hearts? Look at My hands and at My feet; this is myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me. And having said this, he showed them his hands and feet. When they still did not believe for joy and were amazed, He said to them: Do you have any food here? They gave Him part of the baked fish and honeycomb, and He took it and ate before them” (Luke 24:37–43), this text directly confirms the real connection of the glorified and spiritual body of Christ with this world,” which, being meta-empirical, by the will of Christ can be realized - in the Eucharistic transfusion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. (Cf. my “Eucharistic Dogma.” The Path). This thought, in all its naked antinomy, is expressed by the Church in the kontakion of the Ascension: “having fulfilled your care for us, and having united us on earth with heaven, you ascended in glory, Christ our God, in no way departing, but remaining persistent, and crying out to those who love you: I am with you and no one is against you.” in fact, namely, the appearance of Christ after His Ascension to the Apostle Paul, who - and this is the most important thing in this case - speaks about him among other appearances of Christ after the Ascension: 1 Cor. 15, 4–8 (“then he appeared to James and all the apostles, and after all he appeared to me, as to a certain monster”). This idea is expressed plastically in some ancient images of the Ascension, where the Father lifts the ascending Son into the sky with his hand. Wed. Eph. 26: “God raised us up with Him and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” St. John of Damascus. Kr. izl. right faith, book IV, ch. II (p. 1104). The question of the meaning of dextera Patris, at the right hand of the Father of sitting, as well as the spatiality and general physicality of the body of the ascended Christ, was discussed in the Reformation in connection with the Eucharistic disputes that arose around Luther's theory of the so-called. ubiquitas, the ubiquity of the Body of Christ. Luther explained praesentia realis, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic elements, by the fact that the deified and glorified body of Christ also receives the divine property of omnipresence. It is present throughout the world dynamically. Dextera Patris is not a “special place”, but “the universal power of God, which at the same time can be nowhere and be in every place” “Nichts ist so klein, Gott ist noch kleiner, nichts ist so gross, Gott ist noch grösser. The ascended Christ is present in all creation (stone, water, fire, etc.) and outside of them.” This omnipresence is explained by the fact that “the body of Christ is born of the Spirit and holy, therefore it must not be flesh, but spirit.” In these provisions of Luther, we simultaneously have the abolition of this body with its transformation into spirit, which is an ontological absurdity, and at the same time its ultimate materialization, which is expressed in its all-dimensional presence in the world, albeit an energetic one. The spirit is not characterized by all-spatiality, but by non-spatiality or super-spatiality. Moreover, this teaching actually cancels the Ascension itself, as a removal from the world. Luther’s eucharistic ubiquism is objected to by Calvin and Zwingli, who support the medieval view regarding the local character of dextera Patis: “sitting at the right hand” is a special place, moreover, extramundane, and this locality excludes its presence in the sacrament, praesentia realis. This idea in its primitive crudeness does not deserve refutation. In Calvin's Eucharistic doctrine it receives a nuance and disincarnation. Christ is spiritually present in communion, but not physically: totus, sed non totum, not with the body, but through virtus et potentia. The Holy Spirit communicates not corpus ipsum, but communicatio corporis. These ubiquistic disputes never yielded positive results for theology. The transposition of St. has a similar meaning. gifts, that is, the inclusion of the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ for communion: it is possible by the power of this connection between Christ and the world, which is a consequence of the incarnation. (See Eucharistic Dogma. The Path). To correctly understand the Ascension of Christ, one must also correctly understand the Ascension of the Mother of God. Конечно, это последнее является совершенно отличным от первого. It does not at all mean the removal of the Mother of God from the world into the realm of Divine existence, but is only a stay in the resurrected and glorified body, transcendental for our perception, just as the body of the Risen Christ was inaccessible to him, outside the phenomena, although it was in the world. The resurrected and ascended body of the Mother of God marks the complete glorification of created being even before the general transformation of the world, in its anticipation. The life of the Mother of God is turned to God and is graciously united with the Divine being, being in a state of complete deification. Однако она не вводится в недра Св. Троицы. The Mother of God is “glorified” by the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit resting on Her, but at the same time She still belongs to the created world, although she constitutes its pinnacle, directly illuminated by the Divine Sun. Therefore, about the ascension of the Mother of God it cannot be said that She left the earthly body and remains in the “spiritual body”, as in its ideal image. On the contrary, the Mother of God retains Her flesh, albeit in a glorified state, no longer accessible to us. Since it providentially becomes available to us, we can talk about the descent of the Mother of God to earth and her appearances. Here one can establish a well-known analogy with the state of the Risen Christ, who made His glorified corporeality accessible to man in His appearances. The general question that arises in this regard about the procession of the Holy Spirit is left here without consideration, but is postponed for further research, namely pneumatology. The Catholic theologian (Pohle, Die kath. Dogm., 11, 202), on the contrary, considers it beyond any doubt that with the last Mass celebrated on earth, the priestly representation of Christ in heaven will cease. This erroneous opinion is associated with a one-sided understanding of the incarnation solely as atonement, while the independent significance of God-manhood, as such, is not noticed. The opposite statement is found in some extreme kenotic theories, e.g. y Gecca, who believes that during the earthly kenosis of the Lord He was absent from the Holy Trinity. Therefore, such a series of events is included in one general context in the priestly secret prayer at the liturgy of Chrysostom; “remembering... everything that happened to us: the cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection, the ascension to heaven, sitting on the right hand, the second and glorious coming again.” Corresponding to this is the vision of the Apocalypse about the heavenly Jerusalem: “But I did not see a church in it: for the Lord and God and the Almighty are His church and the Lamb. And the city has no need of either the sun or the moon to illuminate it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and the Lamb is its lamp” (21:23). This ability not to leave the world after leaving it through the departure to heaven is acquired by the Church even by the Most Holy One. To the Theotokos: “In Your Dormition you did not forsake peace, O Theotokos” (troparion to the Dormition of the Theotokos). The dogmatic significance of this fact is explained in the essay “The Holy Grail” (The Path 1931). “Take in, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, from Thy holy dwelling and from the throne of Thy kingdom, and come and sanctify us, who sits on the mountain with the Father and dwells here invisibly for us, and with Thy sovereign hand grant us Thy most pure body and holy blood, and to us all people” (prayer before communion). This also applies to identification of the priest with Christ: “For you are the one who brings and is brought and receives and is distributed, O Christ our God” (prayer on Cherubimskaya). The New Testament expression about “the last times (1 Peter 1, 5, 1 John 2, 18, 1 Cor. 10, 11, Heb. 1, 2, etc.) primarily refers to the era after Christ, regardless of its duration and, therefore, has not a chronological, but an ontological meaning. Even in our own troparion of the holiday we read: “Assuring the general resurrection before Thy Passion, Thou didst raise Lazarus from the dead, O Christ God. In the same way, like youths bearing the sign of victory, we cry out to You, the conqueror of death: Hosanna in the highest, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Here the resurrection of Lazarus is compared with the coming victory over death in resurrection, but nothing is said about the event of the holiday itself; it remains in a dogmatic shadow. The future - ἡ ἐρχομένη - although it usually has a connotation of the future tense, here, in comparison with the one standing next to it: blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord, which undoubtedly refers to Christ entering the city, also receives a connotation of the present tense: coming, although in conjunction with the meaning of the future tense. Therefore, the accusation by the Jews against Christ before the Roman authorities that He “calls Himself Christ the King” (Luke 23:2) cannot be considered entirely fabricated - “everyone who makes himself a king is an adversary to Caesar” (John 19:12). Not understanding His kingdom and blinded by hatred of Him and His teachings, they could only present His authority as a political contender. Only with this Christological understanding of the text, as applied to the still unfinished royal ministry of the God-Man, is the Trinitarian-subordinationist understanding of 1 Cor. 15, 22–8, which otherwise becomes inevitable. The Old Testament prototypes of this ongoing reign can be seen in the two theocratic reigns of David and Solomon, of which the first is full of struggle and victory over his enemies, while the second reveals him in glory, wisdom and power (of course, in his best era). We completely abandon here the task of interpreting the Apocalypse in all the complexity of its literary construction with the alternation of symbols and visions, especially since here it is impossible to achieve more than hypothetical constructions. We highlight only symbols of indisputable meaning, which retain their power even with different interpretations of individual visions. Verses 40-41 are more naturally attributed to the context of 15-22, to the destruction of Jerusalem (“then” - in all its ambiguity and uncertainty), rather than as a development of the general idea of ​​\u200b\u200bsurprise. See my essay “The Holy Grail” (The Path, 1931). Although in the Gospel we find a comparison between the coming of Christ and the flood? however, it is valid only in relation to its surprise for those who do not know how to observe the unfolding of the fig tree and its approach, although not exactly to known times and dates. “God has revealed to me that I should not consider a single person unclean or unclean... God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation whoever fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him,” Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:28, 34-5). Questions of eschatology, according to the plan of this work, are relegated to its further parts, and are touched upon here only incidentally, only in connection with Christology. Likewise, the text of 2 Thess. is unclear. 2:8: “And then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the revelation of His coming.” According to the scheme of the Apocalypse, the defeat of the “beast” does not take place before the end of the world, but only before the 1000-year kingdom and the first resurrection, and before the end of the world the uprising of Gog and Magog takes place. However, in this case, nothing prevents us from understanding this prophecy “spiritually,” that is, seeing in the “lawless one” the bearer of the spirit of lawlessness, which is struck by the spirit of Christ in the “manifestation of His coming,” that is, by the power of Christ acting in the world.