Разъяснение некоторых трудностей в Св. Писании, писаниях Святых Отцов и других вопросов и недоумений

1. 133 passions, and the attack 134 of vice reduces, and again restores the image to the first, that is, to lust according to nature, if some desire 135 and attraction 136 of God 137 . The immersion of the hand in the bosom 138 means our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of the Father, embodied in the workshop 139 of our nature. This is what a sinus and a white hand [from leprosy] mean; and in the image of the hand, again restored to its former [form], it is shown how after the resurrection the Lord, having ascended, returned to the bosom of the Father 140. After all, Moses, being a mediator between God and the people, sometimes acts on behalf of God and the Father, sometimes from our nature. 2. What does the tower built in Shinar mean? 141 We also build a tower every time, moving from the east 142, that is, moving away from the knowledge 143 [of God], we come to the land of Shinar, that is, to the passion of gluttony 144. After all, Shinar is translated as “teeth vigil” 145. Then we build the tower - we put carnal passions above all else and build, pairing passion with passion even to heaven (Gen. 11:4), because those who are zealous for vain [goods] do not want to stop, but have an insatiable desire for them. God stops building the tower and confuses languages ​​(Gen. 11:7) whenever, for the sake of benefit, He, educating 146 us, hinders our vice. After all, every time He punishes the one enslaved by the filth of fornication with illness, and the one enslaved by gluttony He admonishes with need. It is as if He crushes the tower of passions, at the same time confusing languages: having restrained the fornicator with illness, who was constantly thinking about fornication, He makes him absorbed in concern for the health of the body, as if confusing the language of constant concern for lust 148. 3. What does it mean for David to sing psalms and pacify the evil spirit of Saul? 149 Anyone who, like blessed David, tends flocks, that is, the rational part of the soul, and conquers anger and lust, as David defeated the lion and the bear, 150 - he, resorting to verbal instruction, delights those who listen to [him] with the contemplation of the sublime and appeases vicious passions in him. 4. Since it is written in the Gospel that if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) and in another place, again: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16), I want to know what the difference is. In everyone, the Holy Spirit, indwelling, [or] as water cleanses the filth of the flesh, [or] as the spirit washes away stains from the soul, [or] as the Holy Spirit 151 lays down the ways (tropos) of virtues, [or] as fire, finally, by grace makes God, shining in him with divine signs of virtue 152. 5. In the Word for Pentecost, Gregory the Theologian 153 says that the apostles acquired perfection, [having been awarded] three gifts. The first is to heal diseases and cast out demons, the second is the breath after the Resurrection, and the third is the Spirit Himself, [descending] essentially 154 in the form of tongues of fire. So, if someone is equal to the apostles in virtue, then how can he be worthy of the mentioned gifts? And how should the word essence be understood? – Please explain this to me with an example. If we diligently imitate the apostles, then this will become possible for us. Firstly, through doing we will learn to command the passions and heal illnesses of the soul, secondly, through natural contemplation we will restore our nature in accordance with itself 155, and thirdly, through the preaching of the Word - after all, these are languages ​​- we will appear as fire to those who listen, on the one hand, like fire, incinerating their passions, and on the other hand, enlightening them. How the Holy Spirit acted before and how He ultimately descended essentially on the apostles - this should be clarified by example. If a piece of wood is placed on a baking sheet and a fire is lit underneath, then the wood through the baking sheet will receive the heat of the fire - this is how the Spirit previously acted in the saints in the same indistinct way. If someone, following the same example, removes the baking sheet that is between [the fire and the wood], then the fire will engulf the tree directly and immediately make its nature similar to its own. With such a material example one can explain the [meaning] of the word essentially 156. 6. Since what [exactly] Abraham gave to Melchizedek [as] tithe, Scripture does not clearly say 157, especially if he gave everything [to the king of Sodom] - after all, he himself says that he did not take anything, not even a shoe strap (Gen. 14:23) - then from what [property] did he give [Melchizedek] the tithe? For he did not take anything of his own with him, since he set out on the campaign amazed [by the news of Lot’s capture]. The Holy Scripture calls Melchizedek a priest of God (Gen. 14:18), and therefore it should be assumed that Abraham, who had the rank of a layman, as befitted him, gave the tithe to the priest. And the fact that he had a place to give [the tithe] is indicated by the following: the kings who took up arms against Sodom took not only the [property] of Sodom - they had booty captured in other lands that they had captured before. When Abraham defeated them and took it all, he returned [the property] to the Sodomites, and kept the rest for himself. From this [remainder] he gave tithes to Melchizedek 158. 7. For what reason are priests who [live] according to Christ 159 forbidden to have wives (as far as cohabitation is concerned)? After all, priests who [lived] according to the law were not prohibited. Lying ready [answer]: because the Gospel is more sublime and because virginity has become a passable [path] for many (due to the fact that through virginity the Lord of all deigned to be born), which was rare among the ancients 160 . On the other hand, since we believe that the priesthood of the Gospel arose according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the order of Aaron, 161 and it is not written about Melchizedek that he had a wife, it is necessary, therefore, that bishops priestly in his order do not allow wives. 162 8. It is written that the prophet Amos was a goatherd (αἰπόλος), scraping (κνίζων) sycamore trees. 163 What does αἰπόλος and κνίζειν mean? Αἰπόλος is a goat herder, and κνίζειν [here] means to cut. The sap of the sycamore is viscous, thick and poisonous, and the sycamore is cut with a knife so that the sap flows out. Small insects crawl inside and when exposed to sunlight make it sweet and soft. 164 That's the literal meaning. According to the anagogical interpretation, “goat shepherd” means one who grazes with a word 165 the desired part of the soul, and “the sycamore cutter” is the one who mortifies 166 the flesh with abstinence and releases the moisture of passions. Like [sycamore] insects, he perceives divine thoughts. His soul, [illuminated] by the Sun of Truth 167 [, that is, Christ], becomes sweet and soft 168, and he becomes a prophet of God and a teacher for others. 9 . What does the bronze serpent mean, which Moses hung on a high [banner] in the desert? 169 In ancient times, having deceived man, the mental serpent, through disobedience, mixed the law of sin into our flesh, like a serpent crawling into us through pleasure, therefore, if one who follows virtue, which does not have 170 passions, turns into Egypt, 171 that is, into the darkness of sin, then mental serpents will bite him. But if he looks at the crucified Lord, whose flesh, suspended on a high [cross], killed and made ineffective the law of sin, which is in our flesh from the serpent, then he will be saved. The copper serpent, since neither destruction nor rust touches the nature of copper, just as the Lord was not touched by the rust of sin and His flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:31). Gregory the Theologian mentions this in these words: The copper serpent is suspended against the biting snakes, but not as an image of the One who suffered for us, but as an image of the opposite. 172 And again: The believer mortifies the forces subordinate to him [that is, the devil]. 173 This also needs to be clarified. He who has purified the eyes of the soul with virtue and knowledge clearly realizes that evil is not [any] existing thing, 174 that it does not exist in anything that exists, 175 except in actions. So, since the serpent, the originator of evil, mixed the crookedness of 176 sin into man through disobedience, Moses ordered the bronze serpent to be hanged, revealing [at the same time] what was to happen to the Lord in the future; After all, he alone, through the passions, nailed sin to the cross and showed [it] inactive and dead. He who looks at Him and believes that the enemy has died and become inactive, also mortifies the forces subordinate to him, for [the enemy] can no longer harm him through the senses or the sensual - [through all that] over which he has power. That is why the [holy] father says: not as an image, but as an image of the opposite, pointing to the killing of the devil. 177 10. How should we, since the Law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), celebrate the Sabbath of days 178 and the Sabbath of weeks 179, that is, Pentecost, and the Sabbath of seven years, that is, seven years 180, and the Saturday of seven years, that is, Jubilee 181? We celebrate the week of days when we stopped the action of evil. And we celebrate the Saturday of weeks, when we have ceased to associate 182 with evil thoughts. We celebrate the Saturday of the seventh anniversary [then] when we no longer accept the pretext of lust, since during the year the fruits grow and the lust for them awakens. We also celebrate the Jubilee when we completely abolish the memory of evil and the imagination [that arises] from anticipation 184 of what will happen to us; after all, the Jubilee is interpreted as the release of an animal from bonds or the deliverance of an animal from sorrows. After all, when a person acquires perfect dispassion, then he is freed from the bonds of sin and, getting rid of sorrows, instills joy in the soul. 185 11. What does it mean that Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman? 186 The prophet Elisha reveals the Lord, and the son of the Shunammite reveals human nature. When she became weak through the crime and was destroyed by the devil’s fever, the Lord sent Moses, who performed miracles with a staff, 187 just as Elisha [sent] Gehazi, 188 but [he] did not resurrect the man. The prophets could not do this either. Then the Lord Himself, out of love for mankind, having accepted our flesh, through its suffering, revived our mortified nature. 12. Why does one of the evangelists lead the genealogy from bottom to top, 189 and the other vice versa? 190 I believe that they did not do this by accident, but rather with a mysterious [purpose]. After all, some of the believers are brought down from the promises 191 to doing the commandments, while others, starting from doing the commandments, are raised to the promises - for this reason, one [evangelist] brings down the genealogy, and the other raises it up. 13. For what reason, during the offering of the 192 venerable Body and Blood of the Lord, is it the custom of the Church to offer unequal bread and cups? Everything that happens in the Church has a sublime meaning. Since, predominantly, these symbols are the essence of sacraments and images of the Divine essence, which is simple - every creation is complex, but the Holy Trinity alone, as they say, is simple and uncomplicated - for this reason the Church brings unequal bread and cups, depicting the Divinity in them. 193 14. Some are perplexed: “Why is it said that the incarnation of the Lord was hidden from the heavenly powers, 194 while we learn that the prophecies about the Lord came from angels, and Gabriel preaches the good news about the conception of the Virgin, 195 and the angels show the way to the shepherds?” 196 What then was hidden from the angels? There should be no doubt that the angels knew about the upcoming incarnation of the Lord for the salvation of people. What was hidden from them was the incomprehensible conception of the Lord and how He who was all in the Father 197, all in everything and fulfilling all things, 198 was all in the womb of the Virgin. 15. Why was Joshua commanded to build an altar and write the Law on Mount Ebal, 199 on which the curse was pronounced? 200 "Gerizim" is translated as "circumcision" and "Ebal" is translated as "dough." Our Lord Jesus Christ sets up an altar, that is, the Church, in the “test” of the cursed pagan lot, and writes the Law, but not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh of the heart (2 Cor. 3:3). He says that the altar was built of perfect stones, 201 on which no iron was lifted (Joshua 8:31), meaning the spiritual stones of the apostles, 202 “uncouth” because of their simplicity and inexperience of character. From these the Church of the Pagans was built. 16. What does it mean when the prophet threatens those who make pies 203 (χαύωνες) for the heavenly army (Jer. 7:18) that they will be betrayed to Nebuchadnezzar, so that he will set up his throne at the gates of Jerusalem? 204 Χαύωνες are breads that have different appearances. 205 The Jews made them, and their wives laid them out in the windows of their houses, waiting for the light of the moon and the star. And the fact that [the word] χαύωνες means “windows” 206 indicates the following meaning: “pies” (χαύωνες) are made by one who, [receiving] pleasure, delights the senses with sensual things. By this he lets the mental Nebuchadnezzar into the gates of Jerusalem, that is, into the soul, and he reigns in it and causes it sorrow as subject to [him]. After all, “Nebuchadnezzar” is interpreted as “prophesying the judgment of tribulation.” 207 17. What are the five sacrificial animals offered according to the law: the sheep, the ox, the goat, the turtledove and the dove? 208 According to one understanding, the ram is interpreted as the sovereign [principle] in relation to the mind, the bull - in relation to the violent [principle], the goat in relation to the desirable, the turtledove - in relation to chastity, and the dove in relation to sanctification. 209 But one must also find the inherent nature of each animal and adapt the appropriate contemplation of each of them. Those who examined them say that a sheep brings three [things] to its owner: wool, milk, lamb; 210 The pupil of her eye is accompanied everywhere by the sun, and she lays three hundred and sixty-five [balls] of droppings every day. Man is a verbal sheep, if only he tries to sacrifice himself to the God who owns [us], he learns to offer moral deeds like wool, like milk - natural contemplation - after all, it [constitutes] food for the mind - like a lamb - to give birth to a disciple 211 through his teaching in order to lead him to God, similar to himself and perfect in everything. 212 Such a [person] also has the pupil of the eye, following the sun, that is, the mind [which follows] the Sun of righteousness 213 (Mal. 4:2), governing our affairs through providential care for existing things, that is, following [Him]; after all, in sorrow and in prosperity, thanks to [God], he follows [Him], who perfectly manages [all His] providence. Such a [person] “puts aside” three hundred and sixty-five [balls] of “dung” every day, that is, every time he rejects everything that is subject to time and emergence as perishable and unnecessary. They say about the bull that it has a triangular heart, pentagonal kidneys, that it also has three stomachs and eyes that are light-like during the day and fire-like at night; a third of the day and a third of the night he breathes, exhaling, and looks to the east; his right nostril smells with pleasure the calf, and its blood is lethal to all domestic animals except the dog. So we must, like a bull, bear the yoke of Christ, holding the plow of the Word in our hands, cut through the stones of the heart 214 and, uprooting the thorns of passions, 215 expand the earth of the heart 216 for the acceptance of the Word 217 of God. To have a triangular heart means to have a sound judgment in the heart about the Trinity, because just as the heart by nature transmits life to the body, so the [correct] reverence for God unites the members of the soul. To have five-sided buds means to turn the desired part of the soul not to the passionate, but through the five senses to consider the creature in one lust and love for the Creator. The bull also has three stomachs. The stomach, firstly, receives food, and through the power of digestion, what is pure in it, sending to each member, the rest is given to the belly. So it behooves us too, guided through ascetic, natural and theological contemplation, to devote what is useful to each member of the soul, but also to take care of the worst part, that is, the body, which is the womb. To breathe for a third of the day and a third of the night, looking to the east, means observing the threefold divine providence: preserving, converting and educating 218 and giving thanks in the night of temptation, [as well as] in the days of prosperity. 219 To have fire-like eyes in the night, and light-like eyes in the days - this means to have a contemplative power that perceives virtues during the day - from the Sun of righteousness, rays of knowledge, but in the night of successive temptations, endured for the sake of virtue, comprehending the logoi of 220 abandonments [of us by God]. [The bull] also has a right nostril that smells fragrance. The right side of a person is the soul, since we are dual - from soul and body; So, the one who has acquired the grace of the Holy Spirit through the virtues of the soul becomes fragrant to others [people]. The blood of [the bull] is lethal to domestic animals, [and] this means that wrong anger is destructive to people who imitate it, but for the demons barking at us [it serves] as food. 221 This is the nature of a goat: easily climbing mountains, it walks along steep slopes and enjoys the melodies [played by shepherds], and its right horn, if smoked in any place, gives the idea of an earthquake, and it defecates every day with two hundred [balls] of dung. This is how our soul should easily jump over the steep slopes of temptations, so that, climbing the prophetic mountains, we reach the heights of knowledge and enjoy it, and not only enjoy it, but also with the help of a reed pipe, that is, the fulfilled word, teaching, [this] pleasure is communicated to those who listen. The right horn means that the one who has brought the contemplative part of the soul closer to God through prayer, becoming a fragrant listener, shakes the habit of carnal passions in them. Such [a person] always rejects the seduction of the senses regarding the sensory; after all, the sensory perceptions of sensory things are intertwined in such a way that the number four times ten forms forty, and the number four times five forms two hundred. 222 18. What is the didrachm that is demanded from the Lord, and what is the fish that Peter is ordered to catch, take the statir from its mouth and give it to those who demand it? 223 Those who demand the didrachm show the image of our natural passions. They came to Peter, that is, to the active [beginning] of the Lord, who humbly and obeys the Father like a disciple, and demanded from Him - as from a man - the tax with which they usually imposed on all people. And the Lord - as God and Master - showed with a parable that He is free. However, since He took on our flesh and truly took upon Himself its impeccable passions, He agreed to pay nature [tax], but without sin. 224 When [the Lord] created man at the beginning, he put into him two generic logos, one of them, the original one, the logos of the soul, and the second - according to providence - the logos of the flesh, but man did not remain faithful to either of them, but damaged both: the first - by breaking the commandment, the second - by violating the boundaries of nature, and this [second] logos was hidden in passion and let go to float in the sea of ​​vain life. The Church knows three apokatastasis. The first is the restoration of each [person] by reason of 227 virtue, in which each is restored by realizing in himself the logos of virtue. The second [apokatastasis] is the restoration of all nature in resurrection - restoration to incorruptibility and immortality. And the third - the one that Gregory of Nyssa 229 used in his own way in his writings - is the restoration of the powers of souls who have fallen under sin to the state in which they were created. For it is necessary that just as all nature, in the resurrection of the flesh, received immortality at the desired time, so the perverted powers of the soul, after the lapse of centuries, would put aside the memory of the vice implanted in them, and, passing through all the centuries and not finding where to stop, they would come to God, who has no limit. Thus, through clear knowledge, 230 and not the participation of [Divine] blessings, the soul receives its strength and is restored to its original state, and the Creator is shown as not being the cause of sin. 231 Christ became the firstborn through the resurrection, then those of Christ who believed in Him, and then the end, the salvation of all nations through faith. 234 And if you want to [learn] the meaning of these words for each [person] individually, then the firstborn Christ is faith in Him, then Christ’s, [that is] the works of faith, and then the end, [which means] to renounce everything sensory and mental and through knowledge 235 cleave to God. The last enemy will be destroyed - death (1 Cor. 15:26): this [will happen] when we completely surrender to God 236 autocratic will. 237 Then the last enemy will be destroyed. It is called death because life is God, and the opposite of life is rightly called death. 22. What does the rainbow mean that God placed in the cloud as [a sign of] the covenant with the human race? 238 Since the rainbow is four-colored, it shows that the Lord’s flesh, like ours, consists of four elements 239 and that, like the rainbow, it has no cause. 240 He laid it in the cloud, that is, in the world - the world is a cloud because of the wrath of God, or the punishment of death. 241 Indeed, sometimes a cloud is perceived as a blessing when it irrigates with gentle rain or softens the heat by providing shade, and sometimes as a [sign of] anger if it brings down heavy rain or hail. That is why [the Lord] says that he places the rainbow in the cloud, that is, the Incarnation of the Lord in the world of wrath, so that the human race will never again be drowned by the waters of evil. And [He posits] a rainbow so that we know that the Lord’s reconciliation with us is a war with our enemies and adversaries, in other words, the Lord’s war with the enemy turned into a reconciliation with us. 23. For what reason does the Law prohibit eating any blood - both wild animals and others? 242 [Scripture] speaks not only about wild animals, but also about domestic animals, according to the Law - unclean, such as, for example, a donkey, a pig and the like. They are vicious passions, the most powerful and indomitable. We should not allow them, [for they lead] to the creation of vice in us. However, blood also means the creation of life, and often also anger, [for blood is] murder - [Scripture] suggests that it is appropriate to lay down our whole life before God 243 and live not for ourselves, but for God, as the Law prescribes: Pour out the blood before the altar; 244 or that anger should not serve personal revenge or passions [of a person], but only to fight courageously and steadfastly for God and the Divine. 245 24. What is, according to the Law, a gore ox, 246 and why is it, an unreasonable animal, killed? A carousing ox is one who has jealousy beyond reason, supposedly according to God, and uses it to attack others. 247 This passion should be killed so that, having struck many, it does not kill them, and also does not prepare danger for its owner, that is, the soul. 25. What is Joseph’s multi-colored robe, and what does it mean that he saw in his dream about his father and brothers coming and worshiping him? 248 All Israel, that is, the mind that sees God, 249 makes colored clothes for their son Joseph, that is, “born according to God,” that is, they clothe them with a moral tropos 250 [of life, decorated with] a variety of virtues. It is to him - and [name] Joseph is translated as “addition”, 251 - that father, mother and brothers worship; for everyone who adds and multiplies the measures of virtue and knowledge is worshiped by the law of nature and the nourishing feeling, bowing together with the logoi of nature and feeling corresponding to them. 252 However, Joseph also means the Lord, and therefore it is rightly said that God and the Father makes colored clothing for His natural Son, that is, flesh taken from us for our sake and colored with Divine virtues, as they say in the psalms: You have prepared a body for me (Ps. 39:7). The Jews, brothers according to the flesh, having taken off (Gen. 37:23) this [clothing], stained it with the blood (Gen. 37:31) of passion. His father, mother and twelve brothers bowed down to him, that is, the Law, worship 253 and the believers of the twelve tribes. 26. What does the pillar of cloud mean that shows the way during the day, and the pillar of fire that shines at night? 254 Both mean the word of God. 255 For those who follow the path of doing, it becomes a pillar of cloud that softens the heat of temptations; and for those who follow the path of knowledge, it becomes a pillar of fire that shines and dispels the darkness of ignorance. 27. What does manna mean and what does it mean that it stinks among those who gather more than enough (Ex. 16:20)? “Manna” means “the word of God,” which - through deeds and knowledge - is well assimilated by everyone and nourishes the soul. If someone treats it properly, wisely, that is, follows the middle path of virtues, avoiding both excess and deficiency in them, then he collects enough manna. 256 If he begins to handle the word not properly, but allows an excess, as, for example - after all, it will be convenient to show what is meant [by the example of] one virtue - [so,] if someone, observing chastity, not only avoids licentiousness, but also despises marriage, [this means] that the word of chastity stinks in him due to the excess, and not only stinks, but also produced worms, that is, gave rise to other passions. 28. What does it mean to mention a woman who miscarried when she was hit? And how can we understand that if the baby that emerged took on a [human] form, then the law commands the one who hit him to give soul for soul, and if he fell out shapeless, then only to pay a penalty? 257 Regarding the literal meaning, we think like this: since murder is [the killing of] the body, for the soul is immortal and murder cannot be committed, then [the death of a fetus] that has not taken on human form does not entail a severe punishment, but only a small penalty. 258 If the human image has already been formed, then the culprit is justly punished for the murder of a formed person. According to spiritual contemplation, we assume this: if a soul has received the word of God and formed the seed of virtue [into fruit] through skill, and someone has seduced such a soul and caused him to throw out this fruit of teaching, then he is subject to the death penalty. If the soul has received the seed of the word, but has not yet grown the fruit through skill and action, then the one who seduced it is worthy of [less] punishment. 259 29. What do the six cities of refuge mean and why are three [of them] given in the promised land, and the other three outside it? 260 The [sons of] the tribe of Gad had many herds, and therefore they received cities outside the promised land. Of these cities the Law allocated three for those who killed unintentionally to flee, 261 and the remaining three in the Promised Land. According to the anagogical interpretation, the meaning is this: there are three ways in which one can sin unintentionally: through the machinations of a tyrant [that is, the devil], through deception and through ignorance. The one guilty of such [sins], before the passion that pursues him overtakes and kills him, forcing him to sin deliberately, should take refuge: the one who has sinned from the tyranny [of the devil] - in the city of abstinence, by deception - in the city of experience and good cunning, and by ignorance - in the city of teaching. These [cities] are given to those who [follow the path of] deeds, for there are fertile [lands] and it is convenient to graze cattle. After all, an active [life] is fruitful of virtues and [provides] pastures for those like livestock. The inner cities are given to those who [follow the path of] knowledge. 262 The knower dwells in three [areas] of knowledge - moral, natural and theological, and he who commits murder unintentionally, that is, who approaches [knowledge] ineptly, the following is appropriate: for one who, contrary to moral teaching, unreasonably indulges in anger and lust, take refuge in the city of meekness, for meekness is the completion of moral philosophy; he who errs in natural teaching and judges ignorantly must take refuge in the city of knowledge; the one who is mistaken in theology should take refuge in the city of faith, so that the pursuing passion of ignorance cannot overtake him and destroy the one who is involved in it. In the fact that the murderer should remain there until the death of the great priest (Num. 35:25, 28), and then return to the land that he owns, one can see the following: the great priest is our Lord Jesus Christ. If we come to complete dispassion, we no longer bring Him anything from this world: neither words, nor thoughts; if we simply become above feeling and understanding and no longer know Christ according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16), then [it means] the Great Priest has died for us, for he does not accept service from us through anything created. 263 And we finally return to the land of our heritage, that is, that which is in God Himself, in Whom the logoi of the virtues [reside]. 30. What are the twigs that Jacob, having removed the bark, put in the watering troughs, 264 who is Rachel who stole the idols, 265 and what is the terebinth under which Jacob buried them? 266 Every “Jacob,” that is, “the one who stumbles,” 267 skins the rods, that is, cleanses the logoi of existence from the material images covering them, places them in watering troughs, that is, in the cognitive faculty, so that those who are instructed by instruction, like cattle, are conceived in it and imprinted in order to imitate [instruction]. Every soul, thus instructed, steals the idols of its father, who gave birth to it in evil. 268 Idols are not something that exists by nature in visible things; they are images converted into idols by the father of evil, the devil, 269 for deception. They are kidnapped by the one who, according to the Apostle, takes everything captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). [He, like Rachel,] hides them under a camel's saddle. 270 Understand the camel here as flesh because of [its] hunched position 271 and because, leaving footprints in the sand, the camel represents our flesh, which, due to apostasy, is twisted and subject to passions. And the saddle is various troposes of asceticism: sitting on it, the soul flees from the father of evil, who is looking for it and looking for idols invented by him for seduction. Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh from the tribe of Judah, walking along the path of life to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6, 15:24), found on the path of error the church of the pagans, walking prodigal after other gods (Judges 2:17) and, having united [with her], he gave her a reed, a baldric 276 and a ring, 277 that is, death on the cross, a pious concept of things and the grace of the Spirit. Simply put, active, natural and theological knowledge. 32. About Naboth and Ahab 278 [according to] Saint Cyril of Alexandria. 279 The story of Naboth points to Christ. Israel is, in the words of Isaiah, a vineyard. 280 Ahab is the image of those leaders of Israel who wanted to own it as a vegetable garden (1 Kings 20:2), serving drink laced with malice (Hab. 2:15). Christ is personified by Naboth, who did not want to give the garden as a paternal inheritance. Therefore, the mental Jezebel, that is, the synagogue, slandered Him and killed Him. 33. Who do Jephthah and his daughter represent? 281 Jephthah personifies the Lord, and the daughter [Jephthah] represents His all-pure flesh. Jephthah was born a harlot, expelled by his loved ones, going out [to war], fought with his opponents and defeated them, promising to God to sacrifice one of his household who would come out to meet him - so the Lord in the flesh came without sin from our nature, which walked fornication, appeared as a sower of His own flesh, was expelled by the Jews who seemed to be His close ones, 282 won a victory for us and offered His own flesh as a sacrifice to God and the Father. After all, [the name] “Jephthah” is translated as “revelation of God.” 283 34. What does [the saying] from Proverbs show: 284 From laziness the ceiling will sag, and when hands give up, the house will leak (Eccl. 10:18)? The ceiling signifies the natural forces of the soul. 285 Beams, if you do not take care of them, bend and fall under the pressure of the burden - in the same way, the natural forces of the soul, if you do not take care of them with the care of divine utterances, under the burden of voluntary and involuntary temptations 286 bend and fall, [falling] to the sensual. When hands give up, the house leaks - [this is about] when the soul, being in idleness from good deeds, absorbs, like moisture, images of material [things] and is deprived of the grace that resided in it. 35. What does the marriage at Cana and the sacraments performed there mean? 287 And the ministers mean the prophets, who, with the help of their teaching 295 nature, devastated through apostasy, and the Lord, having come, turned into spiritual knowledge, and raised the natural to the supernatural by faith. After all, the Mother of God personifies faith. The Mother of God was created Lord and Her Son, and according to the flesh [Herself] gave birth to Him. Likewise, faith came from the Word, but it itself leads the Word to fulfillment through the implementation of [good] deeds. Water carriers, for there are six of them, signify the creative ability of [doing] good [deeds] - after all, the Lord created the visible world in six days. 296 And the steward [of the feast] is the discriminating law. 297 That’s why he says: Every person first serves good wine, and... then worse (John 2:10). After all, the pure 298 discriminating law, distinguishing, says: It was necessary that the mind, in the process of cognition, first ascend to the Author, and only then [turn] to what comes after Him, which Adam did not do. 299 Or: It was necessary that the teaching of the Lord should be absorbed before the Law and [the teaching of] the prophets. 300 36. How should we understand the words of the Gospel: Of those who are born... there has not arisen a greater one than John... but he who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than him (Matthew 11:11; cf. Luke 7:28)? Whoever humbles himself more than John—after all, he is the lesser—is greater than John. Or in other words: it is believed that John achieved [all] knowledge accessible to contemplation here, but in the future state even small and insignificant knowledge is greater than [achieved] here. Or again: the highest theologian among men is less than the last of the angels. Or again: he who occupies the last place in citizenship 301 of the Gospel is greater than the highest in the righteousness of the Law. 37. According to the general meaning, what do 302 birds, land and water [animals] that are unclean according to the Law mean? 303 Birds in general, as we have suggested, signify the passion of vanity and pride, of which there are different varieties, like the varieties of birds. In general, [unclean] land animals mean the passion of the love of money, which is divided into different types, just as there are different types of animals. [Unclean] aquatic [animals], generally speaking, mean the passion of gluttony, for unclean fish, according to the Law, are sticky, 304 clumsy, floundering at the bottom and full of mucus. Those fish that have fins and scales are defined by the law 305 as pure - [a fish] having fins on its belly means [a person] who has an elevated mind that rules over pleasure, not allowing him to crawl on his belly; [a fish] having fins on its back [means a person] who patiently endures the coming [disasters] and bravely swims across the sea of ​​life; [a fish] having fins on its tail - [a person] skillfully avoiding the trap of demon fishermen; [a fish] having fins on both sides of the head - [a person] having [the ability] for contemplation, strengthening the mind on all sides. 38. Why does Scripture say that God hated Esau even before he was born, but loved Jacob? 306 If interpreted literally, it is clear that God, who knew everything before they were born, knew what both would become according to their own will, and knowing, he hated one and loved the other. If we look for meaning through anagogical interpretation, then every mind like Esau, shaggy - [overgrown with] worldly materiality and coarsened by wicked thoughts, is hated before God. And every Jacob is beloved, the mind is smooth - simple, immaterial and homogeneous. 308 [It can be interpreted] in another way: every Isaac has two sons, one of whom is hated even before birth, and the other is beloved. These [two sons] are the law of the spirit 309 and the wisdom of the flesh, 310 for even before it manifests itself in practice, the first is loved, and the second is hated. Or in other words: Isaac is understood as the image of God. He has two sons - the written law and the spiritual law, and one of them is shaggy and rough, and the second is smooth. After all, the Law contains an innumerable number of regulations. And he is hated because, according to Isaiah, My soul hates your holidays and Sabbaths (Is. 1:13-14 311). The other is loved because he is smooth, but the Gospel is smooth and concise, for it requires [only] sincere faith and a good conscience 312 [in relation to] one’s neighbor. Or again, based on the meaning of the names: everyone who despises piety and is careless in it is hated before God - after all, this is how the name “Esau” is interpreted. 313 Everyone who does evil is beloved, as the name “Jacob” is interpreted. 314 39. Why did Abraham see three angels, 315 and Lot two? 316 Abraham achieved perfection, rose above phenomena and was illuminated by the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Unity. That is why he accepts alpha in addition to the name, for he has approached the One in knowledge to the One 317 - 318. So, of course, [Abraham] sees three angels. But Lot in his knowledge has not yet passed through visible things. He served the Divine in visible [manifestations], did not imagine anything more, did not rise above the “two” - matter and form - from which visible things are [composed], and did not accept with knowledge the word about the Unity and the Trinity. That's why [Lot] sees two angels. 319 Therefore, when the angels hurried him and urged him to escape to the mountain, he did not dare to climb the mountain, but asked permission to go to Zoar, that is, to less knowledge - after all, the word Zoar is translated as small (Gen. 19: 15-23). And the two angels leading Lot out are understood as two Testaments - the written law and the gospel law. With their help, a person is led out, [that is,] flees from the deception of sensual things, and escapes from their burning. 320 With [Lot] the concubine also rises together - feeling. If it turns back, it becomes a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26) - it becomes an obvious example for everyone, revealing the unchanging state of evil, stone-like, like salt. [Lot] took wine with him from Sodom, which signifies the anticipation of 321 unclean thoughts, and his two daughters gave him drink to conceive. The first daughter is lust: as soon as the mind remembers these anticipations, lust immediately combines with it and conceives consent. The second daughter immediately keeps up - this is a pleasure. When combined with the mind, it initiates action. That is why such offspring are cursed and do not enter the community of the Lord until the third, fourth and tenth generation (Deut. 23:4; Exod. 20:5). 40. Why does the Lord in the Gospel call him subject to Gehenna, whoever tells his brother that he is stupid (μωρός), 322 although there are many more serious insults, considers the one who told his brother cancer (cancer) to be subject to the Sanhedrin? 323 It is believed that the word μωρός (stupid) meant unreasonable and insane, and the word ρακά is translated from Hebrew as despicable. The word fool was spoken of the godless and unfaithful, as it is said in the Psalm: The fool (ἄφρων) said in his heart: “There is no God” (Ps. 13:1), and as Moses says: this people are foolish (μωρός) and senseless. 324 Therefore, the one who calls his brother of the same faith an atheist and an idolater, or a heretic and an infidel, speaks to him as a fool and is rightly subject to Gehenna. The one who says ρακά, that is, despicable and unclean, slanders his brother’s [way of] life and, of course, is subject to a lighter punishment. 41. What does the story from the Book of Judges mean about the Levite and his concubine, who was killed by the sons of Benjamin after being violated? 325 The sacred mind, created in the beginning by God, killed the natural law by crime and therefore took a concubine, that is, worship according to the Law, which is not natural, but introduced. Then the natural movements rose up and, like wolves, killed the concubine. And the sacred mind, angry, cuts it and sends it to every border of Israel, to the twelve tribes, that is, it divides the commandments of the Law and gives each one to the appropriate strength of the soul, so that they all rise to destroy rebellious thoughts. And there are three powers of the soul: rational, desirable and angry. They need four generic virtues 326 - without them neither the extermination of evil nor the triumph of good is possible. Then, in order for righteous judgment to be accomplished in practice, [the powers of the soul] also need the five senses, so that the number twelve, representing all of Israel, is fulfilled. Or in other words: the number twelve means time and nature, for time is sevenfold, 327 and nature is fivefold. 328 The fact that many of the Israelites fell in battle, and then a few were victorious, means that those who fight with sin should be cleansed of all passions. After all, as long as he is obsessed with arrogance, vanity, pride or arrogance, or condemns others, or is overwhelmed by any other passion, so long, when fighting passions, he turns out to be weak and suffers defeat. You must [first] cleanse yourself of everything, [and] then get into battle formation, and then the Lord will grant victory. The same thing that Israel took pity (Judges 21:6.15) over the remaining of the [sons of] Benjamin, who fled to the rock of Rimmon, 329 means that he who fights passions should not, together with the passions, eradicate natural strength: 330 what is in accordance with natural strength, 331 [he should] preserve. For example: if someone is struggling with the passion of gluttony, he should not completely deprive himself of the food necessary to support life, but [give up] only luxury and frenzy. And to run to the rock means to run to faith in Christ 332 or to a solid skill in [ascetic] work, which easily suppresses the rebellion of passions - after all, “Rimmon” is interpreted as “raising death.” 333 42. What does it mean that the Apostle wrote in his letter to Timothy: Infusion 334 in season and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2 335)? What he means is this: if someone is possessed by evil, so teach him in a timely manner, instill in him through teaching so that he flees from evil and chooses good. If someone is not possessed by evil, so that it seems untimely to teach him, then instill in him knowledge, strengthening him for the future struggle with temptations. 43. What does the parable of the ten virgins mean? 336 A person has five mental 337 senses that comprehend the mental, and five bodily ones that comprehend the sensory, so the parable apparently points to each person. Anyone who has not only the lamp of active virtue, but also the oil of knowledge that nourishes [him], has subdued the body and combined the bodily senses with the mental ones and [therefore] has become [like] the five wise virgins. Whoever, as it seems, practices active virtue, but does not have the oil of knowledge 338 - in other words, indulges in it unreasonably, for the sake of empty glory, because of gluttony or love of money, 339 - he turned his intellectual feelings to the sensual and transitory, grounded them and therefore, of course, became like the five foolish virgins, for he knows based only on the sensual. 44. What does it mean, according to the anagogical interpretation, that paradise planted in the east? 340 Fish signifies human nature, swimming in a mixture of passions. The Lord, out of indescribable love for mankind, descended into the sea of ​​life, extracted human nature, roasted the Holy Spirit on fire, dried up the stickiness of 345 passions and turned it into food for Himself and the apostles. After all, the Word, together with those who follow Him, always hungers for our salvation - therefore, in imitation of Him, they chose death for the sake of our salvation. 46. What does the publican Zacchaeus mentioned in the Gospel mean and the story about him? 346 The publican Zacchaeus is a tax collector from God's creation for his own pleasure. He listens to the speech of the Passer and climbs a fig tree, when a word of repentance is born in him - it convinces Him to rise above the wisdom of the flesh. 347 That's what the fig tree means. After all, from there he can easily contemplate the Word, and then hear Him say to him: Come down quickly! (Luke 19:5) - that is: if you want to receive all of Me in your home, do not think that it will be enough for you to rise above the wisdom of the flesh, but complete the journey with Me through virtues. The words I will repay fourfold (Luke 19:8) are said about the one who, in order to do good deeds, practices each of the four generic virtues, or about the one who removes himself from action, and addition, and anticipation, and simple ideas 348 - from action - through abstinence, from addition - through attention and through keeping thoughts, from anticipation through diligent reading, from ideas - through earnest prayer. Or [he] speaks of active, natural, theological and prayerful [wisdom]. The vine of Sodom is foolishness. After all, “Sodom” is interpreted as “numbness” 351 or “blindness,” and “Gomorrah” as “bitterness,” 352 for from unreason comes the bitterness of sin and the insane intoxication of the intoxication of vice. That is why the Word instructs that a Nazirite should abstain from such wine, and “Nazarite” is interpreted as “fenced.” 353 After all, one who has defended himself by the law of God should abstain from such wine of foolishness, as well as from grapes, that is, from anger, and from the dried grapes of rancor ([grudge is] old anger); [one should abstain] from vinegar, that is, the bitterness of unsatisfied desire, and from strong drink, that is, the joy of vengeance on one’s neighbor, for strong drink is always sweet, and from grape marc, that is, from deliberate and deliberate evil. 354 Such [a person] does not cut his hair, that is, various thoughts that organize the mind and give it harmony. Because of this, Samson - he is interpreted when he is deprived of hair, 355 - “depicting the likeness”, 356 when thickly overgrown [with hair] - “their sun” 357 - at the time when he became clouded [in his mind] at Delilah’s thigh, that is, as far as the passionate part of the soul is concerned, he left the measure of pleasure, lost his hair, obviously - rational thoughts, that is, the strength given to him against passions, and became a plaything demons He was blinded in both eyes 358 - I am talking about active and contemplative knowledge. 48. What do the words of the Apostle mean, “having girded your loins with truth” (Eph. 6:14) and what are the other weapons [appropriate] for spiritual warfare? 359 The words having girded your loins with truth were correctly interpreted by Gregory, who is called the Theologian, saying: Isn’t this about the fact that the desirable principle is curbed by the contemplative? 360 The words having put on the armor of justice mean [the following]: since justice is a disposition that gives equally, it is necessary that in us the three forces of the soul should have equal strength, and that with their help the quartet of generic virtues 361 should be formed with equal strength (this is what justice [consists] of); and [since] the logical faculty, driven by prudence to investigate beings, like armor [plate armor] connects logos with logos, it is necessary that a person, by connecting together the various logoi - chastity and other [virtues], - strengthens himself so as not to be wounded by the arrows emitted by the enemy. The shield of faith (Eph. 6:14) should be perceived as the deadness of Jesus carried in the body (2 Cor. 4:10), for the shield, made of wood and leather, makes us think about the mystery of the Cross and the deadness in the body - after all, all this, if someone possesses it, becomes for him the shield of faith. The words shod your feet in readiness to preach the gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15) should be understood as follows: we have assumed that the gospel of peace is the grace of dispassion, which means that the Apostle orders those who have not yet acquired this grace to prepare to receive it by shod the feet of the soul in the deadness of the body - after all, the thorns of passions will not bite it, and snakes and scorpions, that is, evil thoughts, will not will sting. The helmet of salvation is hope: since the material helmet is armor made of copper, and copper is strong, shiny and not subject to change, and the head means faith, then it should be assumed that [the armor] that protects faith is hope, for hope, unshakable and unchanging, does not allow faith to be neglected. After all, [hope] hopes for everything (1 Cor. 13:7) and does not come from trusting God. But even if it seems to many, as it was in the story of Job, that [hope] seems to have been destroyed like rust, yet inside remains shining and shining the one who [always] rejoices in hope. 362 The sword of the Spirit is the faculty of discernment, 363 separating the best from the worst. The Apostle orders us to keep the sword in our hands all the time, that is, to exercise our ability in practice all the time. After all, an iron sword, if it is always in the hands, is terrible for enemies, and if it is left and lies idle, it is corroded by rust. The same goes for prudence: 364 if it is not connected with deeds, it becomes useless and unnecessary and is corroded by evil. 49. What is the meaning of Doik the Syrian, who killed three hundred and fifty priests? 365 Judging by the meaning of the name, Doik the Syrian is “an arrogant thought,” or “confusion of passions.” 366 Of course, this Doik tends Saul’s mules, 367 [that is,] the inability to produce the habit of virtue, 368 and opposes David, I mean, a humble mind. Indeed, according to one interpretation, the name “David” is interpreted as “humiliated.” 369 Doik kills the priests [of the city] of Nomva, that is, those planted in virtue 370 Divine and merciful thoughts - “Nomva” is interpreted as “planting.” 371 There are three hundred and fifty of them because, cognizing with our senses God’s creations, created in six days, we admire their Creator and glorify Him with rational mental knowledge, and if fifty is multiplied by six, we get three hundred. We add fifty by fulfilling the Ten Commandments through our senses. So, these thoughts, which serve God and abide in virtue, are usually killed by arrogant thoughts or confusion of passions. 50. How should we understand what is said in the Creed: Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary? 372 Some saints say that from the Holy Spirit, as from the seed of a man, the soul was allotted, 373 but the flesh was formed from virgin blood. 374 51. What do the words from the book of Proverbs mean: he who puts hand into hand ... will not go unpunished (Proverbs 16:5 LXX)? 375 Those who mix bad deeds with virtuous deeds will not go unpunished. 52. From there: Do not vouch for your friend (Proverbs 6:1 LXX) - because if you cannot pay, they will take your bed from under you (Proverbs 22:27 LXX). Solomon calls the body “friend” because of the soul’s relationship to it. He says that one should not vouch for him, that is, honor him with pity, and when he should reward virtue with labor, one should not allow him to seek rest. After all, if in asceticism the ascetic mind begins to give in somewhat (ὑπενδιδόναι) [yielding to the body] and [therefore] he cannot find [how] to reward (ἀποδοΰναι) 376 logos for virtue, 377 then demons also steal those types of asceticism on which he rested - this means bed. 53. What does the saying of Isaiah mean: Who measured the waters with his hand and a span of the heavens, and all the earth by the handful (Isaiah 40:12)? As the prophet Habakkuk says, the greatness of the Lord covered the heavens (Hab. 3:3), that is, His life in the flesh eclipsed the virtue of the angels in heaven. By doing - after all, this means a handful of the hand - He measured all knowledge, metaphorically called water, for the nature united in the Logos contained all knowledge. Heaven is a span: Isaiah calls heaven the highest logos 378 of existence, and a span is the knowledge of the sensory associated with deeds, for the hand has five fingers. So, the Lord, having become man, measured these logoi, heading everything in Himself (Eph. 1:10). 379 The words “measured the whole earth by a handful” (Isa. 40:12) mean that the Lord squeezed His own flesh (after all, it was earthly) on all sides so that even natural, that is, blameless, 380 passions did not act, [if] He did not let go. 381 54. What is Hezekiah, what is the disease, and what is the layer [of figs] with which the wound is healed? 382 This number is formed if you add up all the numbers from one to seventeen - therefore it means that those who are saved enter the Kingdom of Heaven through fulfilling the Ten Commandments and the seven actions of the Holy Spirit. 387 Or it [means] those who are saved and worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven thanks to faith in the Holy Trinity, hope for the future - for the number fifty exceeds the sevenfold time 388 - and the fulfillment of the commandments, which is indicated by the number one hundred. 389 57. What are the men, wives and snakes for whose sake the Lord, according to Gregory of Nyssa, 390 spent three days in hell? There are three powers of the soul: the rational [beginning], the angry and the desirable. Men [in the words of St. Gregory] are understood as a reasonable [beginning], wives - desirable, and snakes - wrathful. In the coming century, these three forces will be restored through knowledge 391. For their sake, the Lord accepted life-giving suffering and descended into hell. 392 58. How should we understand the words from Proverbs: Should a man who is discerning and quick in his thoughts 393 stand before kings? 394 The Word directs that the quick in action and in contemplation and in relation to gnosis 395 should stand before the three laws - natural, written and [the law of] grace, so that, guided by them, he would properly comprehend active, natural and theological wisdom. 396 59. From there: a righteous man will fall seven times and rise again (Proverbs 24:16). 60. Who does the Apostle mean when he writes [in the letter] to the Ephesians: who previously trusted in Christ (Eph. 1:12)? Each of the saints who lived before the coming of the Lord - no matter what virtue he labored in - although he did not know the whole mystery of God’s economy, but, naturally moved from partial [knowledge], he hoped and expected that the damaged 399 nature would be saved by Him who created it. 400 61. From there: ... that we might know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of His glorious inheritance for the saints, and how immeasurable is the greatness of His power... (Eph. 1:18-19). The hope of vocation is dispassion [achieved] in doing according to the example of the [earthly] residence of the Lord Himself; the riches of His glorious inheritance for the saints are the riches [included] in the knowledge of the truth; the immeasurable greatness of His power is deification, which will be granted to those worthy - it is supernatural and by grace turns those involved from people into gods. 62. From the same Apostle: For we are His workmanship, created... for good works (Eph. 2:10). Having appeared, the Lord abolished - this is said instead of: “put an end to” - the law of teaching, saying: It was said to the ancients: do not kill... But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother in vain is subject to judgment (Matthew 5:21-22). The Lord not only taught this, but also showed it in practice. 407 He also abolished the sacrifices [prescribed] by the Law, teaching them to be perceived spiritually, or rather, put an end to many [of them], showing that they are reflections of His sacraments. 64. From Proverbs: Who ascended to heaven and descended? Who gathered the wind into his bosom? Who crushed 408 water in clothes? Who rules over the boundaries of the earth? What is his name (Proverbs 30:4 (LXX))? In the beginning, man was created so that through love 409 he would ascend to the Cause, and then descend to the creatures following the Cause, properly examine them, applying knowledge, and trace their origin to the Creator; 410 but man did not do this, and before rising to God, he bowed down to matter. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, having appeared, headed everything in Himself 411 and showed why the first man was created. First, according to His perception of human nature, He ascended, moved 412 to the Cause, then, in the Divine nature, He descended, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), and then, in both natures, He ascended again, ascending after the resurrection from the dead. We should do the same: first rise to God, strengthening 413 the soul and directing all its love longing to Him, then descend for the sake of studying existing things, consider what the nature of each [thing] is, and again through these [creations] ascend with contemplative knowledge to their Creator. Such a person collects the winds into the bosom - collects the various logoi of existence, metaphorically called winds, into the bosom of his heart. Since the womb is the navel, in which, as they say, the fruit originates, 414 it should be considered that it collects various logoi in the fruitful 415 and contemplative part of the heart and gives birth to the one Word of God, for many logoi of existence are collected into One [Logos]. 416 He also crushes the water in clothes. Water - you will find many indications of this in Scripture - [means] temptations. Steadfastly enduring temptations in his own body, or in moral philosophy, he crushes them, driving them away without action. He rules over the boundaries of the earth, that is, he does not allow the natural passions of the body to manifest themselves [outwardly] unreasonably. 65. From Isaiah: The people who remain will be more valuable than gold not refined by fire (Isaiah 13:21 (LXX)). Those tested by temptations and left for a more important test - such as Job, Joseph and others like them - are more valuable than gold not purified by fire, that is, Adam, like gold, created upright, but not purified [in the crucible] of temptations 417 and did not endure them. 66. What do the coal and green stone mentioned in Genesis mean? 418 Both of them reveal the Lord: coal - since it is luminous and combustible, for the Lord gives knowledge and eradicates vice. The green stone also reveals the Lord, since it enhances the visual power, 419 for the Lord gives strength to the contemplative [beginning] of the soul. 67. What does Samson's blindness mean, according to contemplation? 420 The name “Samson” is translated as “sun”, 421 and “Delilah” is translated as “making beggars”. 422 Samson fell on Delilah’s thigh, that is, on the passionate member of pleasure, 423 and became impoverished by the virtue that illuminated him. Then Delilah called a barber with a razor and ordered him to cut his seven braids. 424 The barber is the devil; razor - deception, according to what has been said: You have created flattery like a cunning razor (Ps. 51:4 (LXX)); the seven braids are the seven actions of the Spirit indicated by the prophet Isaiah. 425 When his hair begins to grow back, that is, when he repents of what he has done, the youth, that is, the Law of God, leads him by the hand to the pillars on which the house of the foreigners is established (Judges 16:26 (LXX)): these pillars are anger and lust, with which every foreign mind is captivated. The same thing that Samson died with foreigners means the end or mortification of the wisdom of the flesh. 68. What does it mean for Samson to kill foreigners with a donkey's jawbone? 426 Here Samson represents Christ, a true Nazarene. Having taken on our flesh, deprived of the moisture of all sin, 427 he crushed the foreign demons. The same thing that Samson was bound by his own people and delivered into the hands of foreigners was obviously fulfilled with the Lord: the Jews, who seemed to be their own, 428 bound Him and handed Him over to the pagans. Just as from the jaw, from the body of the Lord flowed the water of knowledge, 429 which He thirsted for, saying: they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ who was sent to fight (John 17:3). [Otherwise]: every Samson, that is, a Nazirite, with the help of the jaw, that is, bodily abstinence - [despite the fact that] the body is alien to the soul, like a donkey, that is, a pagan lot [alien] to the Law - kills passions with active [virtue]. And then he thirsts for Divine knowledge, and when he calls [to the Lord], then Divine knowledge as a reward for virtuous deeds is sent down to him, quenches his thirst and refreshes him. If he is captured within the walls of Gaza, that is, [captured] by the sensual, then he lifts the gate, that is, feelings, onto the shoulders of active [virtue] and carries them to the mountain of higher knowledge. 69. Why does the Lord command the children of Israel to defeat the seven nations, but not the five satrapies? 430 The Lord hates all unnatural passions and therefore commands them to be defeated. He does not order the natural forces 431 of the five senses to be mortified, but if they move against nature, their actions must be destroyed. 432 70. What do the words of the Gospel mean: Wash your face and anoint your head (Matthew 6:17)? Our face is life, which, like the face, characterizes what we are like in our inner man (Rom. 7:22). This person is the Word 433 and commands to wash, that is, to cleanse life from all filth of sins. The head is our mind, which the Word commands to anoint, that is, to decorate with Divine knowledge. 71. What does the Lord’s answer mean: tell this fox ([Jesus] speaks of Herod)... I perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third [day] I will finish (Luke 13:32)? After all, like Moses, having gone through natural contemplation and the properties of time - such is the meaning of the seventy elders - having overcome sounds and thunder, that is, the manifestations of visible things, he takes with him only Aaron and his two sons, Nadab and Abihu, that is, reason and his two sons - anger and lust. But they too should be left behind, like smoke and storm, and take with you only Aaron, I mean a word that is easy to understand, as if illuminated by lightning with Divine illuminations, and then leave him outside and enter the darkness of ignorance, 441 where everything is irrational and incomprehensible. Those of the people who purified themselves under the mountain mean, as I believe, those who practice active virtue; seventy elders - devoted to natural contemplation; those who are with Aaron - those who have learned theology; those like Moses are those who apophatically and in ignorance united with God. 442 74. What is a diapsalm (between psalms)? 443 I think that this is either a transition from [one] thought to another, or from one way of learning to another way. The one who, having sabbathed by doing and knowing, 448 then, having become lazy, begins to collect for himself, like firewood, the flammable matter of 449 passions, or [if] the cognizer 450 turns around the appearance of visible things, then rightly the words 451 of God, like stones, kill such passions. But since God sees the negligence and easy slipping of people [into passions and matter], so that they, overcome by oblivion, do not discard the commandment, he orders purple 452 tassels to be tied to the edges of their clothes, so that those looking [at them] will remember the Divine commandment [about the Sabbath]. These [tassels] reveal the visible purpose of the Law, but the spiritual and purifying depth [of the soul] purpose is this: since the edges of the garment [consist] of matter, this means that it is necessary to attach faith to the himation of active and moral philosophy - after all, this is the basis - and simply weave faith and action, from them weave, like violet [tassels], knowledge or wisdom; After all, wisdom, according to those who study etymology, is called “sophia,” 453 and the purple color indicates it through the blackening [blue]. Hagar, Sarah's handmaid, is understood in relation to sense perception; she, having conceived through natural contemplation, gives birth to natural law. 473 If [the feeling] rebels against the mind, like that [Hagar] against Sarah 474 - Sarah is interpreted [as] "in charge" 475 - then sensory perception is driven away and the mind conceives Isaac 476 - the spiritual law from which Israel [comes], that is, the mind that sees God. 477 He, after being despotically ruled by the Midianites, that is, by fornication, is given over by [God’s permission] for seven years, that is, to passions [generated] by the temporary and transitory. 478 And, says Scripture, the children of Israel made holes and caves in the mountains (Judges 6:2); It seems that the militant mind is planning [to suffer] bitterness and labor, but doing this without knowledge, it labors uselessly. For it is said that the man of Israel sowed, and the Midianites and Amalek and the sons of the East came and destroyed the fruits of the land. 479 For Amalek, [that is,] gluttony, and Midian, [that is,] fornication, and the sons of the East, [that is,] vanity, destroy the entire harvest of the heart, over which, as it seems, [Israel] labors without [proper] knowledge. And they did not leave anything [necessary] for life in Israel, says Scripture, neither sheep, nor ox, nor donkey (Judges 6:4). That is, [nothing] of the rational and wrathful and willing faculty. [The Midianites] went up with their property, and their tents, and their camels, of which there was no number (Judges 6:5), that is, many images of their passions and memories and fantasies. And Israel became poor, says the Scripture, on behalf of the Midianites, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord sent a prophet to the children of Israel (Judges 6:6-8); after all, while the mind is impoverished by all virtue, his thoughts cry out to the Lord in repentance, and the Lord sends a word reminiscent of the exodus from Egypt (Judges 6:8), that is, of liberation from the darkness of sin. Only three hundred shining 486 [virtue] are chosen. These are those who crucified themselves and, through a hundred perfections, kept healthy the three powers of the soul; for a hundred is ten times the ten commandments; for each commandment embraces another and, more clearly speaking, is equated to ten, which is why Sarah (Σά ῤῥ α) who succeeded is appended [to the name] “ρ”, 487 when the Word reveals her perfection in virtue. These shining [with virtue] drink water with their hands, because they draw the water of knowledge through the labors of doing. The dream that the Midianites saw 490 indicates that while the mind begins to betray and torment its flesh through asceticism, the prodigal demons conclude, as if from a dream, that “if the mind is able to stretch out to such asceticism, it will kill us,” because rolling barley bread - that is, asceticism moving [forward] destroys the tabernacles of foreigners, that is, what constitutes [the] being demonic passions. 81. What do the words that the Lord said to the apostles mean: And lo, I am with you to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20)? It is said that in the present age the Lord Himself abides with us, and in the future the saints will abide with Him, deified by grace. 491 82. What does Jericho mean, and who is Achar, who stole from the accursed, and why does God order him to be burned, and Joshua [Joshua] stones him? 492 He who is enlisted in the army of God goes around Jericho seven times, blowing trumpets, 493 that is, passing through the sevenfold age of this time with the trumpet of the Gospel, he learns to dedicate everything temporal to God. And whoever steals an ingot of gold and hides it in the ground, that is, hides the word 494 in the earthly wisdom of this world, who steals the psila (this is clothing), that is, embellishes 495 the character to please the beholders, and two hundred coins, 496 that is, everything sensual along with feelings, and hides these coins in the earth of his carnal pleasure - he is killed: first it flares up against him like fire, the commanding Word, 497 and then he is stoned, as if with stones, 498 by the Divine logoi. 499 83. About the different wills (θελημάτων) of God. It should be assumed that God has three wills: by good pleasure, by economy and by permission. 500 [Will] through good will appears in the words spoken to Abraham: Get out of your land (Gen. 12:1); [will] through the economy appears in what was arranged over Joseph for the sake of the upcoming exodus [of the Jews from Egypt]; 501 [will] through permission - in what happened to Job. 502 84. What does it mean: Before death, do not call anyone blessed (Sir. 11:28)? The meaning, accessible to many, [is this]: [everything in life] is unclear, and the will of man is receptive [to sin], and therefore one should not call anyone blessed until he, having gone through every virtue, completes his life with an impeccable completion. 503 Here is the sublime meaning: whoever has begun to humble and weaken the earthly thoughts living in him through repentance and asceticism should not yet be called blessed until he mortifies himself through intense ascetic labor and achieves perfection. After all, he is [only] blessed who dies with Christ through not doing evil and rises [with Him] again through the height of virtues. The psalmist also points to this, saying: Blessed are those who are blameless in the way, that is, those who are pure from evil, walking in the law of the Lord (Ps. 119:1) - walking the path of good deeds. 504 85. What does the psalmist indicate when speaking about enemies: around the attackers (Ps. 3:7)? Around – this is in front, behind, right and left. 505 So, demons attack us from the front when they seduce us with the appearance of matter, from behind - when through anticipation 506 they set in motion the memory of vicious thoughts, on the left - when they crush the soul with uncontrolled carnal passions, on the right - when they attack the soul, armed with vanity and pride. 86. What does it mean: Take a psalm, give a tympanum (Ps. 80:3)? Take the Divine teaching and give virtuous deeds achieved by mortification of the flesh. 507 87. What is poetry? 508 They say that there are three [kinds of] bodies: the first is that of the four elements - fire, water, earth and air; then from them the second kind of bodies are growing trees and plants; Of these, the third kind of bodies is people and non-rational [animals], because their bodies are formed by feeding on plants. Just as the four elements are the beginning and composition of the world, so the composition and the beginning of the soul from the four generic virtues creates the correction of morals; 509 then from this there seems to be a second kind of body - the habit of virtues; then from this [skill] the body of knowledge or contemplation is created; 510 “after all, doing is an approach to contemplation.” 511 88. What is the meaning of the ladder that Jacob saw, and who are the descending and ascending angels? 512 We believe that the ladder is godliness before God. The angels descending and ascending [mean the following]: the ascending ones are the logoi of virtues, exalted through us, and the descending ones are the logoi of knowledge, 513 descending due to the exaltation of our virtues. 514 89. What does the denarius given to the Lord by the Pharisees mean? 515 Or in other words: He calls human souls cities · 517 The Savior sends words to them, like apostles; accepted by the worthy, they move into them, and expelled by the unworthy, [thereby] condemning themselves, they move into other souls that can accommodate their teaching. And they will truly not have time to bypass these cities of Israel, but will live in them, first moving in, then going into exile - when the Son of Man comes (Matthew 10:23), fulfilling everything at His glorious coming. 91. What do the words mean: A bruised reed he will not break and smoking flax he will not quench (Matthew 12:20)? Whoever, in imitation of the Lord, treats [people] with compassion, does not allow someone broken by sin to be completely broken, and if someone’s mind, due to virtues, is shrouded in the smoke of vanity, he does not extinguish it, but allows him to feed the same zeal until this person comes to perfect awareness. After all, this, I think, also means that along with the good seed the tares also sprout, 518 that is, along with virtue the passions of man-pleasing and vanity sprout. The Sower of Souls commands not to pull up the tares until the virtues are strengthened, 519 so that whoever wants to pull out these passions does not pull out the zeal for virtue along with them. 92 What does the allegorical saying of the prophet mean: Blow the trumpet in the new moon, on the blessed day of our holiday (Ps. 80:4 (LXX))? 520 What is a blessed holiday? The Word commands that the teachers of the Church trumpet the word of doctrine; they blew the trumpet, that is, the deadness of the body; in the new moon, that is, on the new moon, for the moon is called a month. And the well-known holiday is the Feast of Trumpets, celebrated among the Jews in the seventh month (Lev. 23, 24). 521 On the tenth day of this month they observed the fast of propitiation, 522 and on the fifteenth they celebrated the Feast of the Setting up of Tabernacles. 523 We celebrate these celebrations spiritually. Thus, we [also] celebrate the blessed day of the Gospel in the seventh month, that is, according to the seventh law - [the law of] grace. After all, [if we count] from the beginning, [the Creator] of all things God gave seven laws to human nature: two laws for Adam - before a crime, not to eat the fruit of the tree 524, and after a crime to eat bread by the sweat of the brow (Gen. 3:19); third law to Noah; 525 fourth - under Abraham, that is, [the law of] circumcision; 526 fifth – [law] of Moses; 527 sixth – prophetic; the seventh is the Gospel, according to which at the beginning of [our] enlightenment we bring to God the firstfruits of the fruits of virtue. There was no hope for perfection when man, through disobedience, perverted the natural abilities given to him. It was impossible for nature, subject to addiction to material things, to return to perfection until the Creator of nature, becoming man above nature, returned nature to the natural state. The same thing that pleasure is allowed, 532 is said instead: given over to the autocracy of seduction. 533 94. From his own interpretation of the first psalm: why did Vasily compare the beginning of the Psalter with the foundation of a house, the keel of a ship and the heart of an animal? 534 99. From there: I know the fire, not purifying, but punitive, or Sodom, which the Lord “will rain on the wicked,” combining with “brimstone and scorching wind” (Ps. 10:6), or the fire “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), or that fire that “comes before the Lord and scorches His enemies all around” (Ps. 96, 3), or an even more terrible fire, acting together with a never-ending worm, not extinguished, but burning forever for the wicked. Gregory], that fire that acts together with the never-ending worm and does not go out, but burns forever for the evil: when the Divine appears and carries within Himself the reward worthy, then those who are not adorned with good deeds and (as if the worm is constantly sharpening their memory) reflect on how they did not achieve and were deprived of good - such a flame constantly devours them and endlessly torments them worse than fire. 100. Interpretation of words from his own Word about the hail: I do not agree that the source should be blocked and the stream flow. 543 The source is the gospel teaching, eternally exuding faith, and the stream is “external” 544 philosophy, convincing only with words. Or in other words: the source is the one whose life agrees with the word, and the flow is an inactive word that only enchants the ear when it is uttered. 545 Or in other words: the source is the one who teaches the students, following the meaning of what is written, and the flow is the one who teaches, following the letter. 101. From there: about the righteous judgments of God, whether we comprehend them or do not know the great abyss. 546 The word abyss (ἄ βυσσος) refers to the incomprehensibility that comes from stopping (βύειν) [ears], or blocking [hearing], according to what is said in the psalm about the asp plugging the ears - instead of blocking (Ps. 57:5). [The judgments of God] are incomprehensible to us, who are unable to understand the providence that pours out judgments; and in other ways - comprehensible. 547 102. From there: What is “mercy by standard”, according to the word of Saint Isaiah (Is. 28, 17 (LXX))? After all, [God’s] goodness is not without calculation, although it seemed so to those who... [were] in the vineyard. 548 If God's mercy is measured, then it means it is limited. Rather, we must assume [the following]: we have the ability to see, hear and smell, but we cannot perceive all the air, all the light and all the sounds - otherwise, perhaps, there is nothing left for the other - but each is given according to his ability. Likewise, God’s mercy bestows forgiveness and grace, judging by the quality of each [person’s] disposition: if someone has completely repented, then he is forgiven completely, and if he has partially repented, then he is partially forgiven. The same applies to the lover. 103. From there: And wrath, called the cup in the hand of the Lord (Ps. 74:9) and the cup of the fall that is drunk (Isa. 51:17 (LXX)), is measured against sins, although it subtracts from everyone some of the deserved punishment and dissolves the undissolved wine of wrath through love for mankind; bowing from severity to mercy... 549 The hand of the Lord is a creative, preserving force, creating good things, and destroying bad things. Every sin, as soon as it is committed, is firmly associated with [the coming] judgment in the end. He will bow from severity to mercy when, through the saving commandments, he instills in the soul repentance that cleanses from judgment. 104. Question about difficulty from the Word on the improvement of 550 of St. Gregory the Theologian; how a word [is] a product of the mind and gives birth to a word in another mind. 551 What kind of word is [the theologian] talking about - internal or spoken? 552 Our fathers say that [nothing] is absolute and simple 553 in essence, except for God alone, and everything else, whether it has existence after God or from God, [consists] of essence and quality, or power, that is, of essence and incidental. 554 If this is so, then certainly the soul, being a mind according to its ability, has, itself being ungenerated, what is naturally born of itself; just as the word, 555 which is born in the mind and from the mind, is [something] different in relation to it, the mind that gave birth to it, [it is born] together with a peculiarity by birth, which does not in any way accept a reverse change. 556 So, this very word, which exists like this and [thus] born, receiving sound from the supporting nature, is pronounced and gives birth to a word in another mind, sent to the mind through the hearing of the receiver. It gives birth to a word in another mind, not creating a word in another, but giving images so that, I would say. [to communicate] and the power of form to form a thought in the hearer. 105. From the Word on Peace of the same Saint Gregory: The Trinity is perfect from the Three perfect. [For] the One moved because of wealth, the Two was surpassed (because [the Divinity] is higher than the matter and form of which bodies are composed), and the Trinity was determined due to perfection, [as] the first thing that surpasses the addition of the Two. 557 It is not stated here that the Divine Trinity has a cause, which is above cause and logos, but [this is said] to our guidance to the truest veneration of the Holy Trinity. 558 After all, just as we come to know the Creator of creation from the essence of existence, so we mysteriously study the method of existence of the supra-verbal Deity from certain symbols corresponding to existence; It is clear that from the most holy Divinity, who moves us into the knowledge of Himself and provides pious means to boldly comprehend the way of His supernatural existence. It is said that [the Unit] moved either because of us, who were moved in relation to It, 559 or as the reason for our movement towards the knowledge of It. 560 So, She moved Herself within us to make it clear that there is a certain cause for everything; Here's what it is: The unit has moved. The two were surpassed, it is said, because the divine nature is contemplated outside of addition. 561 The Trinity was determined due to perfection - it is said, since existence itself does not exist outside of wisdom and life. Having understood this, we determined that the Son is the Wisdom and Logos of God, the Holy Spirit is life, 562 since our soul was created in the image of God [and] is contemplated in these three: in the mind, logos 563 and spirit. 564 106. What do the words from the book of Ezra mean: Frighten them in the law of the Lord (2Ezra 10:3 (LXX))? It is said to frighten instead of shake them, 565 that is, influence not with promises of benefits, but with terrible threats - this method is slavish and appropriate for Jews. 107. From the moral instructions of Saint Basil on the first psalm: ... so that in it, as in a common physician of souls, all of us, humans, find healing (τὸ ἴαμα) 566 - each from his own ailment. For it is said: “healing (τὸ ἴαμα) will satisfy great sins” (Eccl. 10, 4 (LXX) 567). 568 Why didn't the teacher follow the Scripture here? After all, Scripture by “τὸἴ αμα” 569 means to leave untouched the approaching evil thought and not to accept it, 570 and [St. Basil] means healing by this word. The teacher was not talking about someone who simply sings, but who knows how to sing consciously. After all, Elisha also asked the kings to bring a young man who could sing with knowledge of the matter, 574 that is, who understood and was capable of conveying to the soul through what was spoken and imprinting in it the meaning contained [in the speech]. Such a [psalmist] can not only pacify anger, but also cast out demons, that is, not only quench carnal passions, but also cast out the demons that awaken these passions, like the great David, who cast out the evil spirit of Saul. 575 110. His: a weapon in the fears of the night, peace from daytime labors. 576 At night [St. Vasily] named the secret insidious tricks 577 of the enemy [that is, the devil], and during the day - open and obvious temptations. He who has acquired the skill of Divine knowledge and does not miss any of the enemy’s intentions, is not afraid of any of the enemy’s secret lies. After all, fear is nothing more than an expected evil. 578 He considers as peace the hardships [borne in the struggle] with open temptations - in the battle with them the soul is tested, and [so it] is given hope for the blissful acceptance of the crown of incorruption. 579 111. From the Apostle's letter to the Romans: For God has concluded everyone in disobedience (Rom. 11:32). Just as the owner himself chases after the runaway and lost cattle, and if, having imprisoned it along with those who persecuted [it], he finds that it is wounded, then he takes care of it - so the Word of God, having become man, imprisoned everyone (this is said instead of received) and, finding that everyone was disobedient and sinful, had mercy and saved. 580 112. From there: But the weak eat vegetables (Rom. 14:2). This is not said by the Apostle about a bodily illness, for he always rejoiced at [his] bodily illnesses; It is he who commands those with weak souls to eat vegetables, that is, unpretentious, simple, digestible food that does not fatten the flesh. This is the Available meaning. According to contemplation, he is weak and eats vegetables, who is not able to ascend to the heights of knowledge and, like Moses, to approach the darkness where God is (Ex. 20:21), but, being either as if one of the people, or one of those most exalted seventy elders, 581 eats, as if vegetables, by natural contemplation. 582 113. From there: I mean that Christ became a minister of circumcision for the sake of the truth (Rom. 15:8583). Man, who was initially deceived and committed a crime, became like cattle (Ps. 49:13) and was condemned to be born and die in the same way as they; The Lord could not bear for His own creation to completely perish, and therefore at different times he cared about its salvation and in Abraham most clearly indicated the salvation that would be accomplished through His coming in the flesh, for which reason He, after all the promises, gave him circumcision, 584 meaning the removal of the passionate side of the soul; 585 and so, since all the saints circumcised the passionate side of the soul, but did not completely remove [it] (born from intercourse, they were subject to the condemnation that [comprehended the whole] nature), therefore the Lord and Master of nature, Who gave circumcision to Abraham, appeared and became truly the Servant and Performer of circumcision, completely abolishing birth in passion, for He was conceived without seed and born without decay. 586 114. From there: And so [do], knowing the time that the hour has come for us to awaken from sleep (Rom. 13:11 587). Since [the Apostle] refers to dead bodies, for it is they who fall and rise; and we are baptized for the sake of their resurrection, for baptism reflects burial and resurrection (after all, this is evidenced by immersion and perception [from the font]), - therefore the Apostle says, stopping the lips of those who doubt about the resurrection: Why are they baptized for the dead? 116. In the Acts of the Apostles, what does the linen revealed to Peter and the animals, reptiles and four-legged animals in it mean? 590 Since the vision of the prophet Ezekiel, according to which their work was as if a wheel [is] in a wheel (Ezek. 1, 16 (LXX)), means that the sensory world and the mental world exist one in the other - after all, the mental world [exists] in the sensory in images, 591 and the sensory in the mental [exists] in logos 592 - then, it means that everything that is in in the sensory world: the lowered veil, tied at the four corners, means a world composed of four elements, which in the mental [world] is pure because of the Logos located in these [principles]. 593 [Peter] heard: Arise..., slaughter and eat! (Acts 10:13) - that is, rise with your mind from what is comprehended by the senses, and “slaughter and eat,” [that is], by cutting [with the help of] logos 594, perceive it spiritually and assimilate it. Or [the veil] reveals the Church, which is based on four principles, in other words, [speaking], four generic virtues. Beasts and reptiles demonstrate the different morals of pagan people who intend to convert to the faith of Christ, and kill and eat means [the following]: First, with the word of teaching, kill the vice in them, and then eat, accepting their salvation, as the Lord made it his food. 117. What does the number of burned books mean in the same Acts of the Apostles - fifty thousand? 595 Since the number ten thousand (μυριάδος) is the limit of all numbers, 596 then [the number of books] means that the limit of all magic and sorcery is nothing more than the deception of sensory [things], 597 and those who recognize this [seduction] burn [it] with the fire of the apostolic teaching. 118. What is the reason that the Lord died before the thieves, and what do the thieves and the breaking of the legs mean? 598 Thieves are understood as our nature, divided into righteous and sinners. The crushing of the legs shows that among the dying people you will not find a single one without error and contrition of sin - the Lord alone died healthy and without any sin. In relation to each person, thieves are understood in many ways: after all, they are understood both as soul and body, and as carnal and spiritual wisdom, and also as anger and lust, and as the sensory world and the mental world, and as the written Law and the Law of grace. 599 Since, when we sin or act righteously, the Logos always descends and is crucified among us, then every time we, through crime or ignorance, make the Logos inactive and bowing down, the demons immediately attack and crush our powers of the soul walking and passing [through the sensory]. 119. What does the contradiction in what Acts says about Paul's vision mean? [Talking] about the vision on the road, Luke says that those who were with him heard a voice, but saw no one. 600 When he [reports] how Paul spoke about the same vision, [standing] on the stairs, he says that those who were with him saw the light, but did not hear the voice of Him who spoke. 601 From the point of view of historical interpretation, Chrysostom explained this passage very insightfully. 602 He pointed out that the first account, which testifies that those who were with Paul heard a voice, implies that they heard the voice of Paul saying: Who are you, Lord? (Acts 9:5) - and they did not see any other person except Paul. The second story, which testifies that they saw the light, but did not hear the voice of the One who spoke, implies that they did not hear the voice of the Lord addressed to Paul, but only saw the light. According to the contemplative interpretation, this passage should be understood as follows: the cognizing mind, like Paul, is accompanied by thoughts. 603 When the Word appears to the mind for the first time, the thoughts only hear echoes and similarities of knowledge, but do not see anything clear. When the mind succeeds and finds itself on the ladder, that is, reaches sublime contemplation, then thoughts [perceive] no longer similarities, but are fully involved in the light of truth. 120. How is God's repentance spoken of in Scripture to be understood according to piety? 604 Those who have comprehended how to think piously about the Divine say that it is impossible that God, by nature the Creator, would not also be by nature a provider of created things. 605 If this is so, then since God by nature provides for humanity, it is absolutely necessary that for the nature for which He has providence, He should have many means of salvation. After all, since man is a changeable creature, easily adapts to time and circumstances, it is absolutely necessary that God’s Providence, remaining Himself, adapts to our states, 606 finding ways of salvation [depending] on the vices growing in nature, [selecting what] is easily assimilated. And just as in the art of medicine many illnesses are subject to [treatment], and it is necessary for a competent physician, since the body to be [treated] falls into many different ailments, to move from weaker means to stronger ones - so it [happens] with God: the transition from one method of providence to another is usually called in Scripture the “repentance” of God. 121. What does what is said in the hundred and fourth Psalm mean: He turned his heart to hate His people (Ps. 104:25)? 607 God not only knows existing [things] before the ages as existing in Him in truth itself, even if all these things, already existing and future, did not assume independent existence at the same time as when they were known [by God], but each in due time, 608 - after all, it cannot simultaneously be that of them that is limitless [that is, God], and having a limit [that is, creatures] 609 - but [knows] the purpose of the position of each, according to his movement; 610 for there is neither time nor century that would tear him apart in the midst of God; there is nothing recent in Him, but the future as existing [in Him], but times and ages are shown not to God, but to us by those existing [things] that are in God. The Egyptians are all voluptuous and worldly lovers, despite the fact that they are beautiful in body. The Israelis are all God-loving and worldly-hating. For the first, water is blood, and for the second, water is [actually] water by nature. After all, since water is nutritious and life-giving, it is clear that for anyone who obtains his means of living through injustice, theft and extortion, and thereby is the murderer of those whom he oppresses, for him water [is] blood. For anyone who earns a living by righteous labor, for such water [is] the water of life. The firstborn of the Egyptians are killed because their doorposts are not anointed with the blood of the lamb. The firstborn are the first creations and thoughts of the mind, the doorposts are the feelings, the destroyer is the devil, who through the senses chains the soul to the sensory and kills every Divine movement in it. The firstborn of the Israelites are preserved by anointing with blood, that is, the Divine movements of the mind [are preserved] by the mortification of the senses. 123. What does what is said in Psalm LXXV mean: a man’s thoughts will be confessed to You, and the remnant of his thoughts will celebrate before You (Ps. 75:11 (LXX))? The holiday is for those who rejoice, and confession is for those who are being tested. The second is characterized by sadness, and the first by joy. Therefore, the saying means that when at the Judgment a fleeting and imperfect good thought is weighed against a completed evil thought, it will outweigh the good, for one is put to the test, and the other makes 618 partakers of celebration and joy. 124. What does the Apostle point to when he says: It would be better for me to say five words in the church than a thousand words in the tongue (1 Cor. 14:19)? 619 Five words are spoken by the one who - even if he is speaking alone to himself 620 - pronounces a word of instruction to the five senses, but a thousand words are spoken in the tongue by the one who with his word creates the invocation of 621 passions. Or again: five words are spoken by the one who, through the contemplation of what exists in the Spirit, points to the Creator, for nature is fivefold, since it is composed of species 622 and four elements; a thousand words are spoken by the one who, for the sake of his own glory and pleasure, invents exquisite speeches and [sounding] convincing weaves of words about the action of visible [things] and instead of the Creator idolizes the creation, 623 - after all, the creation was not given in order to be deified, but to instruct [us] about God. 125. What does it mean in the Gospel to reject an invitation because of land, marriage and a pair of oxen? 624 A woman means voluptuousness, a pair of oxen means covetousness, and the earth means gluttony. Every person seized by these [passions] falls away from God's promises. 126. What is the etymology of the word "gluttony" (γαστριμαργία)? None of the grammarians or rhetoricians mentioned this. Only Aristotle, in his work On Animals 625, mentions an animal called “marg” (μαργοῦ), 626 which is born from decay between earth and water; from the moment it is born, it does not stop eating the earth until, having made a passage in the earth, it comes to the surface. Having come out, it dies for three days, and after three days a cloud comes with rain, waters it, and it comes to life, no longer constantly devouring [everything]. Based on this, I believe, the ancient philosophers called gluttons “gluttons” (γαστριμάργους). Anyone who knows how can interpret what is said also according to spiritual contemplation. After all, it is inherent in every passion to be born from putrefaction, 627 and, after it is born, it does not stop eating the heart that produced it until, persistently, 628 it comes to the surface. Having emerged, the passion is mortified by the three forces of the soul, 629 and then the grace of the Holy Spirit, appearing as if in a cloud of teaching, bestows drops of knowledge and revives it, but not for the former life in passions, but for a life in virtues pleasing to God. 127. What does the Gospel parable about the workers hired to work in the vineyard mean, and what is imaginary inequality? 630 The judgment of God is carried out regardless of time and body, for the soul, being timeless and incorporeal, since it does not accept either increase or end over time, also produces changes in [moral] disposition outside of time. It will be good to clarify what has been said with an example: one person lived a monastic life for seventy years, and another for one day. The purpose of the promise is for a person to turn his entire soul to God, renouncing it from attachment to the sensual and connection with it, and [if] someone who lived a monastic life for seventy years died without at all caring about such dispassion, and he who lived one day completed [the days], having renounced all partial thoughts about material things and bringing the whole soul into the bosom of God, [then] when the distribution of rewards is made at the Judgment, the second receives reward according to merit, for he fully realized the purpose of the promise, and the first - by grace, and only because he endured the work of asceticism. 631 128. Was it really unacceptable for Job to be sad about what happened to him? We say that Job did not allow himself to be sad. 632 After all, the one who once and for all 633 surveyed [all] things piously and strengthened in himself hatred for the transitory and love for the imperishable - how could such a person grieve because of the suffering that passes through the variability of the tropos, 634 [after all] the transitory endured what it usually suffers by nature. 635 129. Why did none of the saints allow [themselves] sadness, and why [then] is it said about many saints that they experienced sadness, as, for example, Paul says: There is unceasing sadness for me (Rom. 9:2636) and so on? He who practices active [virtue] grieves with praiseworthy sadness, while his conscience strikes and wounds him due to the images [emerging] in his memory. The one who has reached the measure of perfection turns out to be higher than such sadness - after all, enlightened through knowledge, having opened the mental part of the soul inseparably to God according to the equal identity of movement 637 and having found inexpressible joy in the constant enjoyment of divine beauty, how can he accept the opposite [of this joy] sadness? 638 When they say that the saints are sad, [then they are sad] in imitation of their Master; After all, it speaks of sadness and joy in relation to God in relation to providence: 639 sadness - about the lost, joy - about the saved. However, the single word “sadness” allows for many ways of looking at it. What the saints call sorrow is mercy, compassion and the abundance of joy of God-like perfection, stored within and providentially distributed outside. 640 130. Does contemplation precede doing? 641 The way of contemplation is twofold; one - determining what it is necessary [to do] for the doers, which precedes the doing; the other is the one who comprehends what is being done, and such is conceived after 642 doing. 131. From Isaiah: I planted a vineyard and surrounded it with a fence (Is. 5:2 (LXX)), etc. The planting of a vineyard signifies creation, the fence signifies natural law, 643 and the stockade signifies written law; The Creator protected nature with these laws. The one who, by [good] will, conscientiously cultivated the natural seed of goodness, brought fruit to the gardener. The one who unreasonably rushes towards what does not exist brings thorns, that is, passions, and is trampled under foot by the demons who set them into motion. 644 132. From the Song of Songs: From Lebanon, bride! Get out of Lebanon! From the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards! (Song. 4, 8). God the Word commands the soul betrothed to Him by good deeds, or the whole human nature, to leave idolatry - after all, this is what Lebanon means; 645 from evil - this means lion's dens, for the lion always throws itself on the shoulders, and shoulders are the work; and from the mountains of leopards > that is, from ignorance - for this animal, according to its nature, jumps into the eyes, 646 and the eyes are clearly understood as knowledge. 133. From Isaiah: By the mountains and hills I will plead with you. 647 Just as the life of soul and body and this earthly place are providentially entrusted to the angels, who convey to us God’s words, so the prophets, through their words, showed us the ways to salvation. With such [mountains and hills], says [the prophet, the Lord] will judge us - he calls angels mountains, and patriarchs and prophets hills. 648 134. What does what is said in the psalm mean: he will accept the orphan and the widow, and destroy the way of sinners (Ps. 145:9)? A widow is a soul that has destroyed the natural law, 649 an orphan is a cunning 650 way of 651 [life], [in which] the one who is a lover of glory and great profit does not have God as a father. 652 Those who bring voluntarily are those who come to good, prompted by the natural seeds that reside in them; 661 those who are ordered are those who come to good, prompted by the teaching. He who piously makes a judgment about theology brings gold; silver - who leads a pure life and creates a clear and transparent teaching; precious stones - who adorns the active government with Divine words; 662 the spun fine linen [brings] - the one who unwaveringly preserves the skill of virtue in involuntary temptations and through them [that is, temptations] - like water - washes away the thoughts arising in the soul from sin and whitens the soul; spun scarlet - he [brings] who completely destroys, through the predominance of reason, through the mortification of the fleshly members, 663 passions that are in us from pleasure; purple - who accurately and without flaw perceived the knowledge of existence, for, according to one opinion, purple is understood as knowledge, since it is composed of many different types, just as knowledge is composed of many different contemplations. 664 The stained skins are brought by those whose feelings have been completely mortified, and the wool - by those who have acquired complete insensibility towards the present. 665 138. What do the words of the psalm mean: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling (Ps. 2, 11 666), and how is it possible to tremble and rejoice at the same time? And why does David say in Psalm XVIII: The fear of the Lord is pure and endures forever (Ps. 18:10); and John says: Love casts out fear (1 John 4:18), and if fear is cast out, how does it remain? Fear is of two types: one due to wrongdoing, and the other due to the merits of what is loved. Love eliminates fear due to wrongdoing, but fear due to the worth of what is loved preserves. 667 Rejoicing is a joyful mood 668 due to the acquisition of something, and joy is the enjoyment of what has been acquired. 139. What do the cows and ears of corn that appeared to Pharaoh in a dream mean? 669 Pharaoh is understood here as nature. 670 Good cows mean doing, and good ears mean doing. For knowing and doing is accomplished in this seven-fold time. Other cows and ears of corn, thin and withered by the wind, mean ignorance and evil - they were able to absorb the active maturity of the cows and knowledge, which are good ears of corn. 671 But our Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone is the true Joseph, the Seer and Corrector of such hunger, accepting the faith that gold, pure life, like silver, moral philosophy, like cattle, zeal and vigor in life according to God, like horses - [accepting all this] gives bread, 672 that is, true knowledge. 673 140. What does an unrighteous judge mean in the Gospel and who is a widow? 674 [The evangelist] calls the natural law an unrighteous judge, which has become hardened as a result of crime 675 and is not ashamed of either God or people; 676 a widow [he calls] a widowed soul [deprived] of good deeds. 677 After all, if the soul comes to repentance, 678 then it forces the natural law to abandon the unnatural, bothering it with ascetic deeds and abstinence. So, says [the evangelist], if the mind, through diligent and persistent requests, can reach the supernatural, 679 then how much more likely, he says, is that God will hear those who cry out to Him with diligent prayer and bold persistence. 141. What is the scroll given to the prophet Ezekiel, on which was written: lamentation, and song, and woe (Ezek. 2, 9–10 680)? And why did his lips become sweet? 681 However, we can consider this issue from another point of view: the Word of God is hidden in His ten commandments, it is embodied in us, descending to us through our works, 687 and then elevates us, elevating us through knowledge, 688 until we reach the highest of the commandments, which reads: The Lord your God, the Lord is one (Deut. 6:4). After all, when our mind, freed from everything, or rather, leaving everything, reaches God, 689 - then it perceives tongues of fire, becoming God by grace. 690 143. What does it mean that Luke said in Acts about Paul, that he hastened, if possible, so that he could be on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), and turns out to be kneeling, 691 which is prohibited by the canons. 692 He is not talking about Pentecost itself, on which the Holy Spirit descended, but since the fifty days [from Easter to Pentecost] are said to be the day of Pentecost, Paul hastened to spend the first day after Easter in Jerusalem, from which it can be seen that during the fast he knelt [in prayer]. 693 144. Why is the apostle? Paul calls himself a Roman 694 and, talking with the captain of a thousand, says: And I was born (Acts 22:28)? The inhabitants of each region [of the Roman Empire], since they believed that being called Romans was something important, paid money and were registered as Romans, and this name was passed on by inheritance. 695 Since the parents of the apostle, who lived in Tarsus, were recorded among those called Romans, therefore, of course, the apostle - as born by them - says: And I was born. 145. From the prophet Amos: And two or three cities will come together into one city to drink water, and they will not drink their fill (Amos.4:8 LXX). What do cities mean? Cities here should be understood as souls, 696 for they, like houses, 697 are composed and receptive to virtues. The two cities should be understood as souls protected by work and contemplation, and the three cities as souls who have achieved theological knowledge with unshakable faith. The fact that the prophet clothed this in the form of a curse means [the following]: whenever there is a famine, not of bread and water, but of hearing the word of the Lord (Amos. 8:11), then such souls, even if they have achieved the measure in the mentioned virtues, but have shown negligence, [such souls] seem to seek knowledge, but do not find it, because they do not practice it. 698 Even if they seem to converge in one city, that is, to a teacher, they do not get their fill of knowledge - after all, he is not given the grace of teaching, [that is] the ability to quench the thirst of those in need of Divine knowledge. 146. From there: in the city from which a thousand came out, a hundred will remain, and in the city from which a hundred came out, ten will remain (Amos 5:3 LXX). Since the total sum contains four tens (for the first ten is made of units, the ten itself is also one [tenth], but for a hundred, a hundred is one [tenth] for a thousand, and a thousand is one [tenth] for ten thousand) 699 - and so, since the number of virtue, 700, increases, multiplies and receives addition, then, I believe, from the numbers the following is clear: who has succeeded so much in [the fulfillment of] the ten commandments that each commandment consists in the rest, he, multiplying them by ten, reached a hundred and, like Sarah, took the letter “ρ” in addition. 701 The one who at the same time succeeded in knowledge - he, multiplying a hundred by ten, reached a thousand. Since this was also spoken by the prophet in the form of a curse, it means [the following]: he who has reached the level of a hundred in virtue, [if he shows] negligence, is reduced and reaches tens. In the same way, from a hundred [achieved] in work, a person descends to simple observance of the commandments according to custom, in other words, he fulfills them in the Jewish way. 147. From there: Woe to those who wish for the day of the Lord! ...And he is darkness, and not light, the same as if a man ran away from a lion, and a bear met him, and if he came home and leaned his hands on the wall, and a snake bit him (Amos. 5:18–19 LXX). The Day of the Lord is enlightenment and knowledge of the Lord. 702 Anyone who wishes 703 to perceive the knowledge of God without active virtue is, of course, worthy of pity. After all, passions, anger and lust, get to him - trying to avoid the mouth of a lion, that is, anger, he ends up with a bear, that is, lust 704. Then, pressed by these passions, he comes home, leans his hands on the wall, and the snake bites him. The house is the soul, and the wall is the body, and every time it finds support for the active forces of the soul 705 in bodily pleasure, then pleasure comes out - after all, this is the snake - and bites him. 706 Pleasure stings the unfortunate soul, creeping into every sense of the body, as if through a crevice. So, for one who is so weak in the eyes of the soul, the sun of knowledge is darkness and blindness. 707 148. From the Psalter: the words of the Lord are pure words, burnt silver, tried in the earth, 708 purified seven times (Ps. 11:7 LXX). They are called pure because they cleanse us from all filthiness of sin, and burnt silver because of their brightness and radiance, like silver, and also because they are divine and test our hearts, for the heart in the Gospel is called earth. 709 And purified seven times - since we purify each commandment seven times. It would be correct to explain what has been said using the example of one commandment. The law commands: do not kill (Ex. 20:13). However, anyone who wants to purify this commandment seven times not only keeps his hands from killing, but every time he sees a hungry person he feeds, when he sees a thirsty person he gives water, when he sees a naked person he clothes him, when he sees a stranger he accepts him, when he sees a weak man he does not despise him, when he sees a prisoner in prison he runs to him. 710 And the one who in one of these [cases] simply showed negligence, [thereby] committed murder, because, as far as it depended on him, he allowed [the person] to die, although he could support the one who needed him. So, whoever connects the six listed commandments of the Lord with the commandment of the Law: You shall not kill (Exod. Through this, the spiritual advice of Scripture is expressed that we should be wary not only of completely obvious sins in order not to receive condemnation for them in the future, but we should also be wary of sins committed out of ignorance, [and therefore! always trim the veins of the heifer, that is, our flesh, in the gorge of abstinence and asceticism. For this reason, they left the heifer alive, so that we too would learn [that we should] not kill the body, but only cut off the veins of the pleasures rising [in us] and suppress [them]. 715 152. What do Nadab and Abihu mean, who brought strange fire and were therefore burned? 716 Those who, like priests, always offer themselves to God as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1) and, like Cleopas, 717 keep within themselves the burning of the Holy Spirit - they bring God His own fire. When people carelessly move away from this state and allow their passions to inflame, then they bring alien fire and are burned in their conscience by the fire of accusations. 718 153. Why is it that for sacrifices according to the Law, wheat flour is always taken, which is sometimes mixed with oil, sometimes baked in an oven, and sometimes in a frying pan? 719 Wheat flour should be understood as intelligence (λόγου), for it is the food of intelligent (λογικῶν) creatures. When flour is mixed with oil, it signifies intelligence with the enlightenment of knowledge; when it is baked in a frying pan, it means a mind tested and strengthened due to temptations that come to us from within and [associated with] pleasures; when it is baked in the oven, it means a strong mind, for it is tested by resistance to temptations that come to us from the outside. 154. Why, when they celebrated seven days, beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month according to the Law, did they offer fourteen bulls on the first day, 720 and then subtract one bull each day until they reached seven? 721 According to the word of God, it is proper to turn and be like children (Matthew 18:3), but a child is completely devoid of passionate movement, but when he reaches fourteen years old, a passionate movement immediately begins to arise in him. 722 This, I believe, reveals the mysterious meaning of the law: we should sacrifice to God the reduction of natural movement, 723 until we achieve perfect dispassion. 155. What is the meaning of the two hundred and fifty men who rebelled against Moses, and when they offered incense, fire came out from the Lord and consumed them, and the Lord ordered Eleazar to gather their censers, make forged plates of them and cover the altar? 724 The number fifty always signifies the divine as beyond that which is subject to time. 725 The number two hundred means sensual and feelings due to the combination of numbers four and five. 726 So those who perceive sensual things sensually and seek Divine virtues through sensual things—those rebel against the Law of God and are burned in their conscience by the fire of accusations. 727 And then the sacred word of teaching collects their censers - that is, the mind in which, as they believe, they offer their zeal to God, but not according to reasoning (Rom. 10, 2) - through teaching forges it, [so that it loses] thickness and becomes thinner, and brings it to the altar, that is, to Divine knowledge. 728 156. Why does the Law forbid [bringing into the house of the Lord] the price of a dog and the wages of a harlot (Deut. 23:18)? Through this, Scripture indicates that virtues should be offered to God without any admixture of anger and lust - it calls anger a dog, and lust a harlot. 157. Since Psalm XXI clearly speaks of the Lord, how can we understand the words: I am a worm, and not a man (Ps. 21:7)? Our Lord Jesus Christ, out of indescribable love for us, became and called himself a worm. 729 After all, just as a worm is born without intercourse, 730 so the Lord was conceived without a seed. However, He also served as a bait for the devil, like a worm: the devil swallowed His flesh like a worm and ran into the Divine. 731 However, even for [all] His enemies He is a worm, for the wise man is immediately revealed by wisdom, but the evil one by foolishness 732. But [also] He becomes a worm in us, every time we sin, for [then] He exposes and pricks our conscience. 733 158. What does it mean that it is written in the book of Genesis: and he placed... Cherubim and a flaming sword that turned to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3, 24 (LXX))? Just as the tree of the senses is food for the flesh, so the tree of life, which is the Lord, is the food and life of our souls. The path leading to it is virtues. He is guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword. Cherub is translated as the fullness of knowledge: 734 thanks to knowledge, an attraction 735 to God is instilled in us, and because of the flaming sword, that is, the discriminating ability that destroys 736 evil, fear is instilled in us. 737 So, the path to the tree of life is guarded by fear [of God] and attraction [to God]. It is said about the sword that it turns, because whenever we sin, it stands before our eyes, convicting us of our conscience, and when we repent, it opens the way for us. 159. From the Apostle: If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw... - fire will test it. 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 (1 Cor. 3:12-15). The foundation is the faith of Christ. Someone builds on it from gold, [that is] theological secrecy, [someone] from silver, [that is] a glorious life, [someone] from precious stones, [that is] pious thoughts, [someone] from wood, [that is] addiction to sensual things, from hay [builds] those who nourish foolishness, and from straw - he who creates corruption. And for those who do good deeds, the day of knowledge 738 reveals that their deeds were revealed in fire, that is, in the Spirit. As for those who sin, their deeds are burned away, but recognition, 739 condemning the conscience, through repentance reduces sins and saves a person, punishing only for neglecting 740 virtues in the past. However, in the coming century, sinful deeds disappear into oblivion when, having passed through the fire of Judgment, nature receives back its healthy powers. 741 160. What does it mean that David sings: Grant Thy strength to Thy servant, and save the son of Thy handmaid 742 (Ps. 85:16)? Since we are servants 743 of God by nature, but also sons of His servant - wisdom, David first of all prays to God that we be given strength, that is, dominion over the passions, and then through this salvation will come to us. 161. The book of Kings says that God moved David to number the people (2 Samuel 24:1), and the book of Chronicles says that the devil did this (1 Chronicles 21:1). How can one show that Holy Scripture does not contradict itself? Since the Apostle calls the devil the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), then on this basis we should understand what is written in the book of Kings. 744 Or in other words: since nothing happens apart from the will of God’s Providence, but everything happens either by good will, or by economy, or by permission, 745 then it would be pious to believe that in the book of Kings God stirred up what is written instead of allowed, and in the book of Chronicles the devil is the perpetrator and the culprit. Seventy thousand people died (2 Kings 24:15; 1 Chronicles 21:14), that is, either those who ended up with Absalom, or those who were overwhelmed by the passion of arrogance and pride. According to contemplation, this means [the following]: every David who gave birth to a thought not in accordance with a good disposition, but [overtaken by] pride, repenting, prays to God, and his thoughts related to the temporary and transitory die - after all, the number seventy, in connection with the septenary circle, means the movement of time. Therefore, it is better to pray for forgiveness than to endure the persecution of demonic enemies or the hunger of hearing the word of the Lord (Amos. 8, 11). 162. What does the paralytic mean, whom four people lower down by opening the roof, and was it possible, according to history, to open the roof of the house? 746 According to history, the roof of the house was definitely uncovered, 747 for those who saw these places with their own eyes say that the roofs of the houses [there] are made of the lightest pumice stone, so that anyone who wants to open the roof can do it easily and quickly. According to the anagogical method of interpretation, the paralytic is every mind that is weak in sins and unable to see the Word through natural contemplation - after all, it is the door. [And so] through faith he reveals the roof, that is, the dense cover of the letter of the Law, through the four [generic] virtues he descends from the heights of vanity to the self-humbling (Phil. 2:7) Word and with the help of faith and action receives healing. 163. What does the Babylonian furnace mean? 748 What happens is that temptations befall us in two ways: according to [our] will, through passions [associated with] pleasures, and against our will, through attacks from without. 749 When this happens by our will, then, by order of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, the devil, we ignite the furnace of passions in ourselves, kindling it with anger, like brushwood, lust, like tar, pleasure, like oil, and the delusion of reason, like oakum (Dan. 3:46) - after all, flax is understood as reason, which is why the priests, when performing sacred acts, wore linen dress. 750 Therefore, when the mind is mistaken, it always turns into tow, and through it the other passions are easily ignited. If someone, like the blessed youths, calls on God with humility and fervent prayer, he will be freed from the fetters on his hands and feet, which means an active path pleasing to God, and will be moistened by the visitation of the Holy Spirit. 751 Whenever we fall into temptations against our will and the mental Nebuchadnezzar lights the furnace for us 752 through attacks from without, that is, illnesses and other vicissitudes that come against [our] will, then here too we can, through patience and thanksgiving, be moistened 753 with the hope of deliverance from passions. 164. Why, when the children mocked the prophet Elisha, did he pray, and two she-bears came out of the forest and tore to pieces forty-two children (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Some say that the children were not Israelites, but foreigners, and that they were children not in age, but in mind. They heard that the prophet was doing many signs, but they did not believe and mocked him; but there were some who did not agree with their crazy opinion, and therefore, so that they would not suffer harm and blasphemy would not ascend to God, God punished the scoffers. According to contemplation, when every mind, like Elisha, bald, 754 that is, pure from thoughts about the material, ascends to knowledge, then thoughts about the sensual, about matter and about form mock him very [viciously] - after all, the number forty means the sensual, 755 and matter and form, added to it, make up [with it] the number forty-two. 756 So such thoughts ridicule the mind in order to instill in it indecisiveness [in relation to] virtues, [and then] he [performs] prayer and kills them with the help of two bears, that is, pleasure and lust - after all, these passions, if reversed and used for a good purpose, 757 will kill the mocking thoughts. 165. What does the gospel parable mean, which talks about the war of kings with ten and twenty thousand? 758 The king who marches with ten thousand signifies the mind reigning in us, which with the ten commandments fights with another king leading twenty thousand, that is, with the ruler of the world, who comes against him with the sensuous and the senses, for the five senses, inclining towards sensual objects consisting of the four principles, 759 make up the number twenty - because with this the enemy comes against us. To sit down and consult means [to decide] whether it is possible for the sake of virtue to accept all kinds of suffering and labor. If not, then, says Jesus, an embassy should be sent [to ask for] peace, that is, if it is impossible to lead a life according to the Gospel, to obey the natural [laws] that were prescribed to us after the [ancestral] crime. 166. What does a dumb demon mean in the Gospel? 760 A soul that is deaf to the commandments of the Lord is possessed by a dumb demon, 761 but when the Logos of God is born in it through doing the commandments, then it not only hears, but also speaks through the knowledge of God. 762 167. What in the Gospel, in the parable of the Lord, does the tower mean, the one who is unable to complete it endures the ridicule of those passing by? 763 The tower signifies the perfection of virtues built through knowledge. Anyone who, having achieved dispassion in action, has the ability to perceive natural, contemplative and theological logoi, 764 with the help of which perfect knowledge is built, completes the construction of the tower. Anyone who lacks at least one of these [logoi] cannot complete the construction and [therefore] is ridiculed by those passing by. 765 ...of the evangelists will be shown. The general, they say, has the meaning of what is [said] about particular [things], and what is applied to the particular has the meaning of the general. Thus, saying: He came to seek (and save) what was lost (Luke 19:10), He denoted the common nature, which is Israel, according to the book of Genesis, and always seeing God; 767 saying: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), He designated the general through the particular. 768 For since the goodness of nature, which expired through disobedience in the forefather, was saved in Abraham through knowledge, 769 God promised him that it would be given to him to become the father of many languages, 770 who through knowledge came to a faith similar to his and received sonship; It is clear that, as sons, they are both the house of Israel, and joint heirs, and co-fellows. 771 The Canaanite woman’s request for crumbs 772 shows the teaching appropriate for those who enter the life of virtue out of unbelief; after all, the simple and most perfect logos of knowledge is divided into many parts according to the property of the 773 recipients; So, a clarification is due to those entering, 774 which is compared to crumbs. The dog, since it is an animal that constantly barks, drives away strangers and caresses its own, is understood as a practical skill that drives away evil that is contrary to nature, but caresses towards natural virtues, vigilantly preserving them. 169. What does the story about Joab mean (2 Sam. 20), when he pursued Sheba, the son of Bichri, who raised his hand against David (2 Sam. 20, 21), and who is the wife who threw his head from the wall? 775 [Name] "Joab" 776 with a thick aspiration is translated as "being outside" or "pursuing", and with a thin aspiration - as "giving" or "delivering". 777 Here Joab should be understood as courage, and Sheba as pride, 778 which, as the head of the structure, embraces all other passions. Whenever a virtuous mind 779 learns of the rebellion of pride, it sends Joab, that is, courage, who pursues 780 pride and incites the powers of the soul to mortify it. Fleeing, pride hides in a certain city, that is, in one of the virtues. 781 Courage besieges the city, seeking to carry out the murder of pride, and the wise wife, who is wisdom, finds the creative causes of virtue and kills the creative causes of passions, 782 through which all the creation of evil occurs in the soul. 170. What does the story of Amasa mean when Joab killed him? 783 [Name] “Amasai” is translated as “anointed” or “anointed.” 784 Amasa is understood as dispassion, for in his perfection he easily avoids every trap of the enemy, and Joab is understood as courage. Whenever the soul, which, having acquired perfect dispassion in [its] disposition, 785 has anointed prayer with courage, 786 is vainly carried away 787 by some passion, 788 [it] kills [dispassion], that is, renders ineffective the most perfect way of contemplation, busy [pursuing] a defeated enemy. 789 171. What does the story of Joab mean when he killed Abner, and what is the curse placed on him? 790 Here Joab is understood as having a vindictive thought, for which he receives a curse - to lean on the staff and fall by the sword (1 Sam. 3:29). By means of the staff here, I think, the hope of the vindictive in sensual [goods] is indicated - after all, any vindictive thought, always circulating among material [things], finds support in them; 791 the words “fall by the sword” signify the destruction of such a relationship with the help of the sharpest word [of God]. 792 172. Who does Hushai represent when David sends him to upset the advice of Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:34)? Since Hushai was the son of Jemini, his [name applied] to him personally is translated as “spinner,” and in relation to his father it means “right son.” 793 Hushai is understood as prudence - after all, it exhausts the discerning ability 794 and frustrates the advice of enemies. 173. What does it mean that the Apostle said: the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:23)? In essence, God is apophatically excluded from [the number of] existing [things], for he is not named in any way, is not thought of, is not involved in anyone (or anything); 795 but by providential 796 participation by many, it is filled with them. After all, each of the [creations] that came into being according to their logos, existing in God, is called a member of God, that is, having a place in God. Without a doubt, even if [it] receives wisely and consciously a movement in accordance with this [logos], it will end up in God, filling its place and producing beauty as a useful member in the Body of Christ. 797 And the one who, having missed his own logos, rushes in contradiction with [this] logos to non-existent [goals], will rightly bear eternal responsibility for the condemnation that has arisen - insofar as he was [to blame] - in the Body of Christ. 798 174. What is the meaning of Adoni-Bezek, who was hanged by Joshua on the double tree? 799 The double tree carries a symbol of the action and relationship of the soul and body to sensory things. 800 So, the one who, according to Jesus, through the commandments, clearing the path of virtues, makes evil not affect the soul and body in relation to the sensual and in relation to the commission of unnatural things, such a one hanged the prince of this world on a double tree. 801 175. What does the story of Ahab mean when the prophet saw angelic forces on the right and left hand of the Lord? 802 Here the prophet weaves [the likeness of] the universal Logos of Providence, for he knows that the original Logos is mixed into everything. On the right hand, the logoi of proper work are introduced, and through the left hand, the logoi of judgment or that which does not depend on us. 803 Anyone who is not instructed to follow the straight path neither by the teaching of the Law of God, nor by the flow of occurring disasters, is betrayed, remaining in the power of selfishness 804 or the sin that resides in him, which will push him deeper into the abyss of vices and will not stop until, having killed him without repentance, he leads to the [coming] Judgment there. 176. What does the Gospel mean for a woman who was crucified for eighteen years? 805 By means of a crouched woman, the soul is designated, tied to the sensual by its three forces. After all, if the number six - for in six days the sensory world was brought into existence - is multiplied by three, 806, then the result is eighteen. If this soul comes to the Word and God through repentance, it will become healthy - no longer bent towards earthly things, but contemplating heavenly beauty. 177. What do the words in the song of Habakkuk mean: the sheep have disappeared from food, and there are no bulls in the manger (Hab. 3, 17 (LXX)). Sheep are thoughts and movements of the mind, oxen are spiritual teaching, and mangers are dispassion [achieved] in accordance with action, in the absence of which spiritual teaching disappears. When [spiritual teaching] disappears, then along with it, naturally, the thoughts and movements created in the mind through it disappear - after all, the soul, due to the hunger of the word (Amos. 8:11), descends to everyday affairs. Or in other words: the verbal sheep disappeared, because they did not feed on the spiritual food of teaching - after all, there were no spiritual bulls, that is, teachers, in the manger of the Church. 178. What, according to the anagogical interpretation, does the Lord’s instruction mean: If someone forces you to walk one mile, go with him two (Matthew 5:41)? 807 It is the Lord who compels us, through His teaching, to walk one mile of His commandment. It is fitting for us to listen to His commands and walk two miles, that is, heed the commandments and add another mile through deeds. Or in other words: [The Lord] forces us to walk a mile of faith, but also requires from us works that [confirm] faith. 179. What does it mean again: If someone hits you on the right cheek, turn the other to him (Matthew 5:39)? If demons, says [the Lord], through thoughts strike you on the right cheek, instilling pride in right deeds, then turn your left, that is, bring to your gaze the wrong deeds that we have committed. 808 180. What do the words of the Lord addressed to the disciples mean: I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that [day] when I drink new [wine] with you in the kingdom of My Father (Matthew 26:29)? Since, according to what is written, the food and drink of God is our salvation, 809 the Lord, having accomplished it through the dispensation of the flesh, and having brought this very salvation of ours to the goal and completion through His teaching and living [with us], makes His disciples rise above the sensual, and says that He will not drink from the fruit of the vine, that is, the completed dispensation of salvation through His dwelling with people. 810 However, in the coming age He will drink new [wine], that is, renewed by the Holy Spirit, creating grace from the worthy - gods, through ecstatic 811 and intoxicating participation in [Divine] blessings. 812 181. What do the words mean: My Spirit will not abide in these people, because they are flesh; will their days be a hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3 (LXX))? 813 Concerned about the salvation of people, God then predicted that their days would be one hundred and twenty years. Twenty years passed before Noah was ordered to build the ark, but he built the ark for a hundred years, 814 so that by staying near him, [people] would come to correction. Then God brought a flood and destroyed everyone. Thus, the Scripture truly says that this generation will live one hundred and twenty years since God threatened them. 815 182. What does Eutychus, who fell from the third tier during Pavlova’s conversation (Acts 20:9) mean in Acts? 816 Every mind that ascended to the first tier, that is, doing, stood on the second, that is, natural contemplation, and rose to the third, that is, [reached] the heights of theology through unshakable faith, and then neglected the word of God and fell asleep - [every such mind] falls from what is called the third tier. 817 If the word of teaching descending upon him finds something living in him, and if he has not completely died of despair, then he is revived again through repentance. 183. How is it [to understand] that when the intention 818 [was] not the same, it is said in the Gospel that one denarius was given by the steward to those who worked in the vineyard, although the callings were different. 819 Some of the holy fathers say that different [times] of calling mean different ages, 820 others mean different intentions. 821 About the denarius, suppose that this is [for example] chastity, but [there are] many varieties of it; After all, he who has a wife maintains chastity in accordance with this; There is also a higher [chastity], this is when someone does not constantly use legal rights; the other does not use his wife except for procreation and procreation; another, after conceiving one or two children, completely withdraws from marital cohabitation; There is also a more exalted kind of [chastity] than all these, this is when they do not completely give themselves up to marriage, but through love for the Lord they strive in virginity. The Word indicated five intentions, each higher than the other, in which are five callings, and one denarius - chastity; the same is true with other virtues. 822 184. What does the story about the prophet Jonah mean, and what is Joppa from which he flees? 823 Jonah, fleeing from the presence of the Lord (Jon. 1:3), is understood as our nature. Being in Joppa - this [word] is translated as "contemplation of joy", 824 and means paradise - it disobeyed, fled and gave itself up to the sea of ​​life, fell into a storm, was swallowed up by a mental whale and was cast out 825 from the grave, because of the Lord's stay in hell, [after] three days. 826 Jonah is also understood as a prophetic gift - he preaches in Nineveh, 827 that is, to the pagans, and is upset about the pumpkin (Jon. 4:9 (LXX)); the pumpkin is a bodily service to the Law, which dried up [when it was undermined] by the worm, 828 Lord Jesus Christ, who said: “I am a worm, and not a man” (Ps. 21:7). 829 For by His coming He abolished the transitory service of the Law. 830 The same thing that in the city there are twelve thousand 831 people who have not known either the right hand or the left (Jon. 4, 11 (LXX)) denotes those who follow virtue neither insufficiently nor excessively, but in the middle, royal way. 832 185. Why does the raven feed Elijah bread in the morning and meat in the evening? 833 The raven is understood as a nature darkened 834 due to disobedience, and Elijah, sitting by the stream, is understood as the mind of the leader, 835 which is based in the stream of temptations and ascetic labors. This mind receives bread in the morning from the darkened nature, that is, it collects knowledge through the natural contemplation of existing things, and in the evening it receives meat - after all, it is initiated into the mystery of the incarnation of the Lord, which will take place in the last days, for He who created nature from non-existent will, of course, restore it if it is spoiled. Or else: Elijah is understood as the image of the Lord. After all, when all hearts were seized by spiritual hunger, He entered the stream, that is, into life, and voluntarily endured temptations and suffering; when He came to His own, His own did not accept Him (John 1:11) and did not feed Him, but the pagans, darkened by idolatry, accepted Him and fed Him with knowledge and work, 836 for bread means knowledge, and meat means work. 186. What does what is said in the psalm mean: he will rejoice like a giant to run a race (Ps. 18:6)? 837 The giant is translated as an attacker, and means the Lord, for He rejoiced, having achieved our salvation in the field of house-building, and attacked the demonic phalanxes, abolishing their power over us. 838 187. From Psalm LXXI: In his days will righteousness arise, 839 and there will be an abundance of peace until the moon disappears (Ps. 71:7 (LXX))? It is clear to everyone that the prophet announced in the spirit the deeds of the Lord in the flesh. The days of the Lord are not the days that He lived in the flesh on earth, but the virtues that, illuminating us as if with the light of day, cause righteousness to rise in us. 840 What is this righteousness, 841 if not the ability of [correct] distribution, 842 not allowing the worse to rise up against the better, that is, the wisdom of the flesh 843 against the law of the spirit? 844 An abundance of peace comes to us when the passions that have been calmed [in us] remain [no longer] rebelling against the soul. The words until the moon disappears mean the following: through the knowledge of God, who gives birth to righteousness in us, abundant peace comes, such that even simple images 845 produced by our changeable nature - after all, this is the moon - completely disappear. And He will rule, says the psalmist, from sea to sea. In the first case, the sea signifies the work from which He takes possession of those who are subject to His law. To the sea means to the immeasurable knowledge in which those who have become involved in this knowledge through the contemplation of existence swim. Or understand that the sea is baptism: in the saying of the prophet, 846 according to which the face of the enemy is cast out into the first sea, and his back part into the last sea, consider baptism to be the first sea, as already said, and the resurrection, in which the rear part of the enemy disappears, as the last sea. After all, then our nature is completely freed from the law of sin implanted in us due to the [ancestral] crime. 847 Or else: the face of the devil, that is, evil deeds, is driven out by doing, for this, as was said, is the first sea; the back part, that is, anticipations 848 of evil and fantasy, 849 are driven out by the second sea, that is, knowledge. 188. What spirit is meant in the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus, where the Lord says: The Spirit breathes where it wants, and you hear its voice (John 3:8)? Some believe that the Lord is speaking about an airy spirit, 850 but it seems to me that He is more likely speaking about the Holy Spirit. 851 After all, He breathes sovereignly wherever He wants, and He wants - in those who are able to perceive Him and are pure in mind. Inhaling God's gifts, they do not know where and for what reason any gift was sent to them, [they do not know] what outcome the sending down of a gift [to them] leads to, but they only hear the voice, that is, the implementation of the gift, which is made manifest because of the purity of life and in some way emits a voice - be it the gift of teaching, or healing, or. 852 189. What is blasphemy against the Spirit, and why is every sin forgiven to men, but those who blaspheme Him will not be forgiven either in this age or in the next? 853 The confusion about the blasphemy against the Spirit is resolved this way: when the Lord performed various healings, the Jews attributed the actions of the Spirit to the prince of demons (Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:24; John 3:8). The same words that those who blaspheme the Spirit will not be forgiven either here or in the age to come should be considered this way. Some of those who have received accurate knowledge of this in spirit 854 say the following: there are four ways by which the forgiveness of sins occurs - two ways here and two in the age to come. Since memory is not enough for a person to remember sins throughout his entire [life] and be able to repent of them here, the Lord of nature, being humane, has arranged ways of repentance, even if we do not repent. In the coming century, as was said, there are two of them: if someone in this life sinned unconsciously and just as unconsciously did good, prompted either by pity or compassion for one’s neighbor, or by something else associated with love for mankind, then in the coming century these deeds of his are weighed at the moment of the Judgment, which is taken into account, 855 and forgiveness is granted. Here is the first method, and the second is this: if someone is mired in sins, but, hearing the words of the Lord, do not judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1), fears and does not condemn anyone, then in the hour of testing his deeds, he - as a keeper of the commandment - will not be condemned, for the Most Truthful One does not forget about His commandments. Two other ways bring forgiveness here. If Providence arranges misfortunes, hardships or illnesses for someone living in sins - he does not know in what ways God cleanses him - then if he, [enduring] temptations, thanks [the Lord], he receives a reward for gratitude, and if he does not thank, then he is cleansed of those sins for which he was punished, but bears punishment for ingratitude. So, if someone sins in relation to people, then, as the Word has shown, he has many reasons to be forgiven, for if he sins in relation to one person and does good to another, then [this means that] he was justified before the same nature in relation to which he sinned. And blasphemy against the Spirit - and this is unbelief, the basis for forgiveness of which can be nothing other than becoming a believer - of course, will not be forgiven to a person who has lived a life in unbelief, neither here nor in the future [life], for this is a sin of unbelief and atheism. 856 190. From the Gospel: Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1). This is what Mark says, and Matthew [differently]: how they will already see the Son of Man coming in His glory (Matthew 16:28857). 858 Since the Word of God does not limit itself to what happens in a historical sense, but, being always active, radiates its light like the sun - therefore the Lord said there are some of those standing here not only in a historical sense, addressing the disciples, but spoke about everyone, like them, who shone in virtue, as if he said: from those whose place is next to Me on the basis of virtues. The words will not taste death were spoken, firstly, about the apostles, for they will not taste physical death until, through the Transfiguration, they see the image of that radiance that is prepared for the saints. However, the mind knows different types of death - after all, the mortification of passions is also called death; but even [who leads] an active [life], when he completes the struggle with the passions and moves on to natural contemplation, then dies in the same state, for, having abolished the intense active battle with the passions, he devotes himself to the contemplation of existence; but he who has surpassed natural contemplation 860 has abandoned everything that has a cause and through theological negation 861 has come to the Cause - and he dies in [regard to] the previous state, for he no longer moves among created things, but transfers all movement to the Creator of all. So, about death, which means abstraction 862 from everything, the Lord says: they will not taste death, that is, those equal to the apostles in virtue will not experience it, until the Lord, having been transformed, reveals Himself to them, no longer affirming Himself [cataphatically], based on the position of existing things, and through apophatic theology points out the incomprehensibility of the mystery 863 of the Divine. The same thing that one of the evangelists says: the Son of Man coming in His glory, 864 and the other: as they will already see the Kingdom of God coming in power - this means [the following]: since in Divinity He is the Son of God, and in humanity He became the Son of Man for our sake, then, being the Son of God, He always has glory, and having become the Son of Man, according to [the Evangelist], He is coming in His glory - after all, He so glorified the human nature He assumed that, just as He Himself in a body subject to suffering appeared on the mountain transfigured, so we, through the resurrection, will receive back [our] body incorruptible. The words “coming in power” mean that the expected incorruptible and eternal kingdom of the saints has not yet been realized in reality. 191. After six days had passed, Jesus took Peter, James and John... and led them up a high mountain alone and was transfigured before them: and His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became white as light (Matthew 17:1-2). Since the Lord brought the visible creation into being in six days, the words after six days mean [the following]: those who, in the abundance of virtues and knowledge, have surpassed everything visible, ascend together with the Word to the mountain of theology. 865 As for the fact that Luke mentions eight days 866 and seems to contradict the rest of the Gospels, I think this confusion can be resolved, and the historical interpretation can be suitably combined with the contemplative. After all, [it is resolved] both in the historical sense - the evangelist who spoke about six days meant the days enclosed between two events, and who said about eight meant both that first [day] on which the Lord spoke [with the disciples] and the last on which the Transfiguration took place - and in the contemplative sense: since, having committed a crime, man has descended to an unnatural [state], then whoever wants to ascend the mountain of theology together with the Word must as if in one day, to surpass the unnatural, then, as if in six days, to surpass nature, and then to be above nature, which is the eighth day, for it surpasses time and reflects the future state 867. Why does [the Lord] take with Him only Peter, James and John alone? 868 Since the Word always avoids [that which is] in a state of confusion and disorder, Peter, based on his first name Simon, is interpreted as obedience, and based on the name Peter - as constancy, and therefore denotes constant and unshakable faith in God, [acquired] through obedience to the commandments; 869 since Jacob is translated as “the one who stumbles,” 870 and means hope, for if someone hopes that instead of these transitory and perishable goods he will receive imperishable and imperishable ones, then he will be able to stop 871 the devil, who always deceives with the help of the sensual; since John is interpreted as a dove, and means love, for meekness is nothing other than the immobility of anger and lust in relation to the unnatural, 872 and whoever does not harbor lust and, if he does not receive what he desires, does not harbor anger, he obviously loves everyone - therefore [consequently] the Word ascends the mountain of theology along with those who have found faith, hope and love, and before them is transformed, bestowing Oneself no longer by cataphatic (affirmative) definitions - God, Saint, King and other similar ones - but by apophatic (negative), that is, Supergod, Superholy and all [words expressing] superiority. 873 The face of the Word, which shone like the sun, is the hiddenness, the distinctive feature of His Essence, Which cannot be seen by mental explanation, just as it is impossible [to see] the bright sun, even if a person has purified visual ability. 874 Since Scripture mentions clothing, for the sake of coherence of discussion it is necessary to mention the body: the body of the Word is the essence of virtues, such as kindness, meekness, and the like, and the himation 875 of the Word is the sayings of Scripture and the peace produced and received from God. The whiteness of these clothes is seen by those who cleanse the letter of the Holy Scripture from the whiteness [of flesh] that envelops it and with spiritual contemplation look at the radiant beauty of intelligent [things]; those who contemplate sensual creations with a clear [gaze], depriving [them] of sensual seduction, and in accordance with the greatness of [their] beauty, conclude about their Creator. 877 192. And then Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. At this Peter said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you want, we will make three tabernacles: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah (Matthew 17:3–4; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29). Those who pass 878 from the literal [meaning] to the spiritual see the Law and the prophets who are with the Word and proclaim His coming with a loud voice. Why did Peter mention tabernacles? Because any knowledge and any virtue in comparison with the future state are no different from a short-lived tabernacle - according to the Apostle: prophecies... will fall silent, and knowledge will be abolished (1 Cor. 13:8). [The number of] tabernacles is three: active, natural and theological. Peter devoted the theological tabernacle to the Lord, for He is God, natural contemplation - to Moses, for he wrote about the creation of everything, and the active [tabernacle] - to Elijah, for he is a virgin, zealot and ascetic 879. 193. For what reason did Moses and Elijah fast for forty days, 880 why did the Lord, as if sealing the deeds of His servants, Himself agree to live without food for the same forty days, 881 and what does the number forty mean? In many places of inspired Scripture, the number forty is understood as harmful, because for forty years the Jews suffered disasters in the desert, 882 for four hundred years they were in slavery in Egypt, 883 and also this world, in which we endure disasters, is composed of four principles. Therefore, the fact that Moses, as the first legislator who transmitted the Law to the Hebrew infants, fasts for forty days, means that his legislation prescribes abstaining from sins in practice - after all, every sin is composed of feelings and the sensual. The same thing that Elijah, displaying the prophetic gift, because he surpassed the requirements of the Law, fasted for forty days, means that the prophetic gift commands to abstain from mental acceptance [of sin]. The Lord, the Completer of the Law, Who alone took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, gave us the ability not only to abstain from sin in practice and in thought, but also to rise above mere images. 884 194. What do [the words] of the Gospel mean when, after the Lord repelled all the temptations of the devil, the evangelist notes that the devil departed from Him for the time being (Luke 4:13)? Until what time? Temptations are of two types: voluntary and involuntary, that is, [associated] with pleasure and with suffering. 885 First, the devil tested the Lord with temptations [related] to pleasure, that is, gluttony, love of money and vanity, for all these are sources of pleasure; when he was repulsed, he departed before the time. Until what time? Until the time of suffering on the cross, so that, as he believed, he would be able, with the help of temptations [associated] with suffering, to find in the Lord some [manifestation] of human passions. However, he was reflected in this too and, defeated by the cross, stopped temptations. 886 195. If the Lord Himself testifies that John the Baptist is the greatest of all those born 887 - after all, his life was pure and removed from all sin - then why . 888 Hereinafter, this is how the lacuna in the manuscript is designated. Or: "attack" (προσβολήν). For the ascetic term “attack” (“prilog”) (προσβολή), see: Zarin 1996, p. 250–251, especially approx. 165. Or: “longing”, “longing” (πόθος). Later, in amb. 48: PG 91,1361A prp. Maximus will say that God gave us attraction and love (πόθον και ἔρωτα) for Him by nature. As Larchet notes: "At the beginning of Thal 61, Maximus speaks of the natural impulse (εφεσις) of the mind towards God" (Larchet 1996, pp. 128–129). According to the teaching of St. Maxima, this natural desire for God was perverted during the Fall and turned into a lust for matter and flesh. In the first part qu. dub. 1, which has not reached us completely, obviously, we are talking about the restoration of this natural desire, which is “lust according to nature.” About the loving longing of the mind that finds itself in God, St. Maxim writes in many places, see, for example, carit. 1. 100. and approx. 61 A.I. Sidorova in: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. I, p. 274. One of the sources for this theme is obviously James. 4, 5. In a note to this place, P.K. Dobrotsvetov gives numerous examples of the use of the expression “workshop (ἐργαστήριον) of nature” in patristic literature (see Maxim the Confessor 2008, p. 43, note 2). It should be noted that the Venerable himself. Maxim in the Difficulties to John develops the image of the “workshop” already in its cosmic dimension. V.V. Petrov (Petrov 2007, pp. 48–50) dwells on the meaning of the phrase: τῶν ὅ λων συνεκτικώτατον ἐργαστήριον (PG 91, 1305A14–15), which occurs in amb. 41 in the context of the well-known teaching about overcoming five pairs of oppositions and man as a mediator, and comes to the following understanding: “The workshop in which the binding of the whole world is carried out to the greatest extent” (ibid., p. 50). In the present place qu. dub. 1 obviously emphasizes, first of all, the soteriological dimension of the idea of ​​“the workshop of our nature.” Or: “in the Father’s bosom” (ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ κόλπ ῳ). Wed. In. 1, 18. Or: “gluttony” (γαστριμαργίας). Shinar is interpreted as “blasphemous teeth” (βλάσφημοι ὀδόντες) (see analysis of onomastics in Questions and Answers to Thalassius of St. Maximus in: Schoors 1994). Or: “punishing” (παιδεύων). Or: “educates” (παιδεύει). The concept of παιδεία has a wide range of meanings associated with education and instruction, and is most accurately translated by the word “punishment” in the meaning of this word in the central word. language: strict education or training. St. Maxim in his writings, based on his teaching about the circle: pleasure - pain (ἡδονή - ὀδυνή), as a rule, emphasizes precisely the punishing aspect of God's “paideia”, which coincides with the meaning of this word, which we find in the New Testament and reflected in the Russian Synodal translation: “If you suffer punishment ( παιδείαν), then God treats you as sons. For is there any son whom his father does not punish?” (Heb. 12:7; cf. Heb. 12:11). “Language” (or “speech” - φωνή) probably corresponds to St. Maxim with “thought”. Thus, in the case of a fornicator punished by illness, not only is his passion crushed (which is symbolized by the destruction of the tower), but he is now forced to think about something else. See also the interpretation of Gen. 11, 7 in Thal. 28, where a different interpretation of the construction of the Tower of Babel is given - not in the sense of combining passion with passion, but in the sense of combining various kinds of errors in opinions about God. Otherwise – in relation to the problem of knowledge of God – it is interpreted in Thal. 28 and the destruction of the tower. See 1 Sam. 17, 36. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 275), the images of the lion and the bear are widely used in ascetic literature. Thus, Abba Pimen correlates anger with a lion, and lust with a bear (apoph. patrum: 352.25), like St. Gerasim (see Joan. Euer. spir. pratum 107: PG 87, 2965C-2970B). At the Venerable himself. Maxim this image appears again in qu. dub. 53 and Thal 53: PG 90, 501B. By writing “holy spirit” in this place with a lowercase letter, as above with a lowercase letter – “spirit,” we sought to convey that in the original these words were used by St. Maximus without artron, while at the beginning of the sentence He is obviously spoken of as a Hypostasis (that is, ἅ γιον πνεῦμα), and not in the sense of His actions, as is done further. This does not, of course, change the fact that all the actions of the Holy Spirit are divine. Wed. in cap. theol. 2.64: “Some are reborn through water and spirit, while others receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11; John 3:5). I think that all four - water, spirit, fire and the Holy Spirit - are one and the same Spirit of God. For some, the Holy Spirit, like washing away external bodily dirt, is water; for others, as a performer of good [deeds] of virtue, He is simply a spirit; for still others, as one who cleanses the inner stains [of sin] in the depths of the soul, He is fire; for the fourth, like the great Daniel, He, as the Giver of wisdom and knowledge, is the Holy Spirit. And from the difference in the action on the subject, the one and same Spirit receives different names” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 246). See Greg. Naz. or. 41: PG 36, 444B-C. ἐφ ’ ἑαυτήν. This probably refers to living in accordance with the logos of nature, which implies purification of the mind and dispassionate contemplation of creation. A passage from the Word on Pentecost, which is interpreted here by St. Maximus, is one of the classical passages around which debates will unfold mainly in late Byzantine theology. Of the Orthodox theologians who interpreted this passage, mention should be made first of all of St. Nicholas of Metho, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus (see Benevin, Shufrin 2004, pp. 75–87 and articles dedicated to these holy fathers in the currently published two-volume Anthology of Eastern Christian Theological Thought). At St. Maximus, however, this place is St. Gregory the Theologian is discussed in the context of revealing the teaching about the three degrees of spiritual life: work, contemplation and mystical theology (however, it is not directly mentioned here), which he correlates with the apostolic preaching. However, St. Maximus, as with the later fathers, the essential gift of the Holy Spirit to the apostles at Pentecost is explicitly related to deification (see also above - qu. dub. 4), the very image of the direct action of fire gives reason to assume that the “essential” gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was understood by St. Maxim as the embrace of the apostles by the action of the Divine essence. St. Maximus will return repeatedly to the interpretation of Pentecost (see, for example, Thal. 65: 549–552, ed. Laga, Steel). One example of the interpretation of St. A maxim of the literal, or historical, meaning of Scripture, which is not accompanied by anagogical interpretation. This example demonstrates that the Holy Father did not at all disdain this kind of interpretation. Or: “to the priests corresponding to Christ” (οἱ δὲ κατὰ Χριστὸν ἱερεῖς). We are not talking about Christian priests in the literal-historical sense (as is known, they are not prohibited from having wives). As we will see below, as an example of a priest who lived “according to Christ,” St. Maxim brings Melchizedek, who for St. Maximus in the Difficulties to John (amb. 10: PG 91,1137D-1141C) will be considered as an example of a completely deified person. Below prp. Maxim nevertheless appeals to the practice of an unmarried episcopate, obviously meaning that the bishop is an image of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. This “nearest” answer obviously does not fully satisfy the Rev. Maxim, and he moves on to the next, deeper one, in which it is no longer the Gospel and the Old Testament and the eras corresponding to them that are contrasted, but those who in everything were like Christ both before and after His coming, with those who before and after this coming live in relation to marriage “according to the Law” (cf., however, the development of the theme of acquiring the virtue of chastity in qu. dub. 183, where it is emphasized that this Virtue can also be acquired in marriage). See Heb. 5, 6, 10 ; Ps. 109, 4. See Amos. 7, 14. In the Synodal translation it is different - “I was a shepherd and collected sycamores.” As Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 277), the book “Physiologist” (it dates back to the 2nd - 3rd centuries) also contains a passage about the fig tree (that is, sycamore), but the spiritual interpretation given there differs from that given by St. Maximus (see Physiologus 48: 157, ed. Offermans). In the Physiologist, in the article “sycamore”, the same passage from the prophet Amos is interpreted, which is interpreted by St. Maxim, but there the image of the sycamore and the actions performed on it are interpreted in relation to three days - from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection of Christ, and the juice flowing from the tree as an image of the blood and water flowing from His rib. The people saved by Christ are compared with the insects that inhabit the sycamore tree and live in darkness, and then see the light. Lit.: “pressing” (ὑπωττιάζων) (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27; in the English translation: “putting to death”). άπαλύνεται. Perhaps an allusion to 2 Kings. 22:19: “Your heart was softened, and you humbled yourself before the Lord,” where the same verb is used. Or: “deprived” (ἔρημον). An allusion to the place where the story is told about crossing the desert (“desert” in Greek: ἐρημος). See Greg. Naz. or. 45. 22: PG 36, 653B12–15. See ibid.: PG 36, 653C2–3. Or: “non-existent” (άνυπόστατος). The teaching is found in many holy fathers, and is most thoroughly developed in the Areopagitica (see d. paragraph 4, 19 f.). Or: “cunning” (σκολιότητα). On the “curvature of sin” cf. qu. dub. 30. Of the numerous patristic interpretations of the copper serpent lifted up in the desert by Moses, special mention should be made of the interpretation of the Macarius Corpus (Ps.-Macar. horn.: 2. 12, ed. Berthold), with which the interpretation of St. Maxima. In particular, this interpretation says that the serpent lifted up by Moses on the cross is “a mysterious image of life and death, that is, of sin and the Lord” (Ps.-Macar. horn.: 2. 12. 7; Russian translation quoted from: Macarius of Egypt 1904, p. 223). That is, the fiftieth year (see Lev. 25:10). Or: “agreement” (συγκαταθέσεις). Ascetic terms: “preposition” (προσβολή), “suction” (συγκαταθέσις), “anticipation” (προλήμψις) and others are discussed below in notes: 189, 333, 798, 847. Or: “attack” (προσβολήν). This very topic in the interpretation of Holy Scripture has a long history, dating back to Philo and Clement of Alexandria. The theme of the seventh day and Saturday by St. Maxima paid attention to Larchet (see Larchet 1996, pp. 168–173; 498; 514; 527; 531; 533; 546). See also our article: Saturday with St. Maxim the Confessor in: Benevich, Shufrin 2004, p. 173–193. ἐπαγγελιών. D. Prassas understood this word as “pronouncements” (see Prassas 2003, pp. 112–113). Accordingly, she interprets the entire passage in relation to the transition from the proclamation of the gospel teaching to the doing of the commandments, or from the doing of the commandments to the teaching (see Prassas 2003, p. 280). ἐν τ ῇ προθέσει. According to Larchet, we are talking about bread and wine before the meal (see Larchet 1996, p. 429). However, in the preface to the French edition (qu. dub. 1999, p. 18) he allowed another possibility, noting that in this case the well-known “symbolism” of the liturgical language of St. Maxima does not cancel his belief in the reality of the Body and Blood in the Holy Gifts. So, this question and answer talks about “symbolism” not in relation to the Flesh and Blood of Christ, but in relation to the Divine essence. This is the unusual approach of St. Maxima. The idea of ​​hiding the Incarnation from angels appears in Judeo-Christian literature (see: Jean Danielou. Theology of Judeo-Christianity, chapter 7 [see: http://portal-credo.ru/site/index.php?actlib&idi347]); it can be found in “The Ascension of Isaiah” (XI, 17), and in the ap. Paul (Eph. 3:9–12). In one sense or another, it is found in subsequent Christian literature. Wed. In. 10, 38; In. 14, 11. In the Septuagint - ὁλοκλήρων (“whole”), in Maximus – τελείων (“perfect”). – Approx. translation In ts.-sl. translation: “unleavened bread”; in the Synodal translation: “pies.” We are obviously talking about a sacrificial cake (cf. Chrysostom’s explanation: PG 64, 837. 47–48). Or: “[baked] from various types of [flour].” kauän. Long "a" close to "o". Consonant with hallon “window” (biblical). Another explanation: consonant with hoah “hole, crevice” (biblical). The first explanation is more likely, since the word hoah (not to be confused with the homonym meaning "thorn") is not attested in rabbinic texts. Nabukadr(n)e᾿assar – Nebuchadnezzar. Consonant with naba᾿ "to prophesy", kaddur "ball", "ball" (bibl.), which has been widely interpreted by Jewish authorities (see Angel Sáenz-Badillos, "Some minutiae of Ray Scheindlin᾿s Job Translation in Light of medieval Hebrew Exegesis, Philology, and Poetry", Jonathan P. Decter, Michael Rand (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Hebrew Letters in Honor of Raymond P. Scheindlin, Piscataway, NJ, 2007, p. 164. Most likely, Maxim has in mind an interpretation similar to those mentioned by Abraham ibn Ezra, namely the understanding of kaddur as “worldwide sorrow.” Finally, the third element, apparently, is ’eser “happiness” (biblical), “fate” (medieval Hebrew). On sacrificial animals, see Lev. 1, 10; Lion. 3, 12; Lion. 1, 14. Or: “purification” (ἁ γιασμοῦ). In amb. 31 prp. Maximus will again turn to this comparison and, in particular, will write that Christ, teaching in parables, called man a “sheep” (see Luke 15:4), since a person needs providence, he is commanded and led, and he delivers wool, milk and lambs to the owner. Next, a brief interpretation of this image is given in relation to moral wisdom, natural contemplation and mysterious knowledge (see PG 91, 1277A). On animal sacrifices see also Thal. 64: PG 90, 300D. Or: “punishing.” The doctrine of God's providence by St. Maximus will reveal in detail in the Difficulties to John (see amb. 10: PG 91, 1133A-1137C and amb. 10: PG 91, 1189A-1193C). Probably Rev. Maxim correlates breathing (inhalation) with the perception of Divine providence, and exhalation with gratitude. Demons are compared to dogs, for which only, according to St. Maxim, and the blood of a bull is not lethal. Four is the number of the four elements, of which all material things are, five is the five senses, and ten perhaps means the Ten Commandments. Or “sticky”, but also, according to another meaning, “intrusively asking”, “begging”, “pathetic” (γλίσχρον). ἀποκατάστασις (“apokatastasis”). μάλιστα κατακέχρηται. According to Sherwood: “especially abused” (Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 487). However, this verb does not necessarily have such a strong meaning; it can be translated as “used in his own way,” which, it seems to us, is more suitable for conveying the characteristics given by St. Maximus, “the depths of contemplation” of St. Gregory of Nyssa. See St. Gregory of Nyssa: Greg. Nyss. de hom. op ., 17: PG 44, 188C11–13; Greg. Nyss. de virg. 12: VIII. I. 302. 6–7, ed. Jaeger). The topic of apocatastasis by Gregory of Nyssa recently became the subject of a dissertation research by A. A. Likhodedov: The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about apocatastasis in the light of ancient sources of his anthropology (candidate's thesis; Moscow State University, Faculty of Philosophy, 2006). See review of it by V. M. Lurie in: Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d'hagiographie critique et d'histoire ecclésiastique, 2, 2006, p. 470–479. τῇἐπιγνώσει. Sherwood translates ἐπίγνωσις as clear knowledge (“clear knowledge”; see Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 487); we adhere to his understanding here. According to the observation of D. Prassas, έπίγνωσις is used ten times in Qu. dub., as a rule, in relation to the restoration of knowledge of God (see qu. -es: 1919 "35–37, 57–8, 91–8, 99.25,105.13, 155.14, 168.9 and 11, I, 5.4, ed. Declerck). The doctrine of apokatastasis by St. Maximus was studied in detail by Polycarp Sherwood (see Maximus the Confessor 2007a, pp. 478–494), who showed the difference between the corresponding teaching of St. Maximus is not only from the position of Origen, but also of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Sherwood's conclusion is clear - there is no teaching about universal salvation in St. There is no Maxim, although there is a teaching about the restoration of the mental and physical powers of nature in all people in the resurrection, and he even speaks of God communicating to all people the knowledge of Divine blessings. God gives Communion to Himself only to those who are worthy. This conclusion of Sherwood was actually bypassed in the well-known, including Russian translation, article by Daley 1982. This article is largely erroneous, as J.-C. showed. Larche, who took the next important step after Sherwood in studying the theme of “apocatastasis” in St. Maxima (Larchet 1996, p. 652–662). Larcher attracted a number of places from St. Petersburg to consider this issue. Maxim, who were not attracted by Sherwood and Daly, in particular qu. dub. 99. The last text, which did not come to the attention of Sherwood, since it is not in Minh's edition, is of particular interest for the reason that in it St. Maxim, as in qu. dub. 19, concerns the doctrine of apokatastasis in St. Gregory of Nyssa. Moreover, if in qu. dub. 19 in relation to those sinners who will be restored to their natural powers through knowledge, nothing is said about the fact that they will experience - despite this restoration - eternal torment, then in qu. dub. 99, as Larshe points out (ibid., p. 661), this is said in the context of the interpretation of a passage from St. Gregory the Theologian (or. 40.36: 282.28–30, ed. Moreschini, Gallay), where, on the one hand, the types of “fire” with which God punishes sinners are distinguished, and, on the other hand, the transitory fire, serving as temporary punishment, which differs from the “most terrible fire” perpetuated for the wicked. Based on this location from qu. dub. 99, same as Thal. 59 and a number of other places, Larcher makes an unambiguous conclusion that the restoration of natural powers in sinners, if they are not among the worthy, according to St. Maxim, accompanied by eternal torment; this torment is caused to them by Divine fire, which is nothing more than Divine energies (actions) that bring bliss to those worthy of ever-blessedness and torment to those who deserve ever-evilness. To this consideration, A. M. Shufrin and we made a clarification (see Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 495), that according to qu. dub. 99 the torment caused by Divine energies is not eternal, since the latter “burn” only human forces perverted to the point of dissimilarity (and even to the opposite) of them, which, as he claims, referring to St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maxim – everything will eventually be restored to its original state. The cause of eternal torment will be the memory of the missed opportunity to realize these forces through good deeds that decorate nature; this memory will be awakened by the inaccessibility of pleasure, rewarded in eternity by God for good deeds to those worthy. In the Difficulties to John, the main anti-Origenistic work of St. Maximus, we find the following passage, clearly polemically pointed against the doctrine of apokatastasis as universal salvation and bliss: “The eighth and first, or rather one, that is, an unbroken day, is the unalloyed and extremely clear presence of God that comes after the repose of the moving ones, who, dwelling entirely as wholes in those who have productively used the logos of being in the proper way in harmony with nature, gives them ever-blessing through the communion of Himself as the only one in its own sense, existing, ever-existing, and well-being; but He [that is, God], to those who deliberately used the logos of being against nature, gives evil being in justice instead of good [being], since good being is no longer possible for them, who are opposed to it and wholly after the appearance of the sought-after do not have the movement, according to which the object of the search is usually the seeker” (amb. 65: PG 91, 1392C-D, trans. A. M. Shufrin). Or: "cognition" (γνώσεως). τῷ θεῷ παραχωρήσωμεν . Here at Rev. Maximus outlines one of the most important theological ideas for him, developed in more detail in the Difficulties to John. Its essence can be briefly formulated as follows. As a result of Adam's fall, human nature began to undergo suffering as a punishment for it. In itself, exposure to suffering is an irreproachable passion, but if a person’s will is not devoted to God, then this natural passion leads to the fact that our intention (γνώμη) and our will (προαίρεσις) can be - and usually find themselves - in the power of the devil, influencing them with the help of our passion and plunging us into all kinds of sins. As a result, our intention and will very often become sinful; in the presence of freedom of choice and volition as abilities, “our choice” turns out to be not ours, but the choice of the devil. On the contrary, the free surrender of our autocracy to God makes us truly free from the “law of sin” and the power of the devil. St. Or: "free will" (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον θέλημα). As D. Prassas notes in a commentary to this and the following question-answer: “the four elements: air, earth, fire and water correspond to the colors of the rainbow: yellow, green, red and blue, as well as the four fluids of our body: blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile (the latter were believed to correspond to the four elements)” (Prassas 2003, pp. 290–291). This refers to unfamily conception. In Difficulties to John St. Maximus will reveal in detail his teaching about the birth of Christ according to the flesh, in which, while preserving the logos of our nature, the way of its existence was renewed, starting with the way of its origin (see amb. 42: PG 91, 1316A-1349A). In Difficulties to John in amb. 10 prp. Maxim will interpret the words of St. Gregory the Theologian from or. 21.1: PG 35, 1084C about those “who, with the help of reason and contemplation, managed to dissolve matter and the carnal ... cloud and veil, and draw closer to God.” In this context, he interprets the “cloud” by saying that St. Gregory here designated “cloud” as passion, and feeling as “veil” (see amb. 10.2: PG 91, 1112A7-D2; this chapter itself is called “in what sense is flesh a cloud and a veil”). In the same place, he calls carnal passion a cloud, which obscures the sovereign principle of the soul, that is, reason, emphasizing at the same time that evil lies not in materiality as such, but in addiction to the material and carnal. See Lev. 7, 26; Lion. 17, 12–14. Wed. 2 Cor. 5.15; Rome. 6, 10; Gal. 2, 19. See Ref. 29, 12; Wed Lion. 1, 5. Wed. about the transformation of the passionate part of the soul in the Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer: “So let our minds rush to the search for God, and let the power of desire (έπιθυμίαν δύναμις) become an attraction (πόθον) of Him, like the violent beginning (τὸ θυμικόν) let him enter into the struggle [or: “strive” (ἀγωνιζέσθω)] to preserve Him. Or, more precisely, let the whole mind stretch towards God, tense, as if by some kind of tension [or: “rope” - τόν ῳ], ardent disposition (τῷ θυμικῷ τρόπ ῳ) and longing (πόθω), inflamed by the highest aspiration ( ἐφέσει) desires (ἐπιθυμίας)" (Max. or . dom.: PG 90, 896С; Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov with significant changes and additions quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 196). More about the transformation For passionate powers of the soul, see Blowers 1996. Wed. from Philo: “the best race tends to see the best, the truly existing - after all, “Israel” is interpreted as “seeing God”” (Philo congr. 51. 3–4, ed. Wendland; Russian translation according to: Philo of Alexandria 2000, p. 412). This etymology is widely used in patristic literature. In “Questions and Perplexities,” St. Maxim resorts to it repeatedly (see qu. es: 80.9; 168.5). πρόσθεσις (cf.: “and she called his name Joseph, saying: May God add (προσθέτω) to me another son" (Gen. 30, 24 (LXX))). In Difficulties to John St. Maximus will continue this theme, based on the same etymology and bringing together Joseph the Beautiful and Joseph of Arimathea (see amb. 54: PG 91, 1376С-1377В). Moreover, the idea of ​​this interpretation was probably developed in amb. 10: PG 91, 1121B-C in contemplation of the words of the psalm: My father and my mother have forsaken me (Ps. 26:10). St. Maxim gives several interpretations of these words; in the first interpretation, “father” is understood as the natural law of the flesh, according to which, after the Fall, the birth and existence of people occurs, and “mother” means “the feeling that nourished us”; He who wishes to acquire incorruption must leave both for the sake of God. He who does this will find a Father in God, who adopts us “through knowledge and virtue.” According to another interpretation, the outlines of which we also find in qu. dub. 25 (see text to the next note), “by father and mother he means the written law and bodily worship [of God] in accordance with it, with the abandonment of which the light of the spiritual law usually shines in the hearts of the worthy and freedom from the slavery of the flesh is granted” (Russian translation by Archim. Nektary (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 200b, p. 104). That is, worship of God, cult, service to God (ή λατρεία); in Greek it is feminine, and this emphasizes that it is Joseph’s mother who personifies λατρεία. The law (about νόμος), personified by the father, is masculine. In Difficulties to John St. Maximus clarifies that he means “bodily worship”, consistent with the written law (see previous note), obviously in contrast to the worship of God “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). We are probably talking about Scripture, although perhaps about the Word of God Himself (as Ponsois understood this passage). Wed. qu. dub. 184.16–18. St. Maxim will repeatedly address the theme of excess, deficiency and the “middle path of virtue.” In particular, in this sense he will interpret the passage of Israel through the Black Sea in the Difficulties to John (see amb 10: PG 91, 1117A-B). This theme itself goes back to the ethics of Aristotle, who writes: “Virtue is a consciously chosen disposition [of the soul], consisting in the possession of a mean in relation to us, and [a mean] determined by such a judgment as a reasonable person will determine it. There is a middle ground between two [types of] depravity, one of which is from excess, the other from deficiency” (eth. Nie . 2.6, 1107a1–5, Russian translation by N.V. Braginskaya with amendments, cited from the edition: Aristotle 1 975–198 3, p. 87). Among the holy fathers one can find both an almost literal following of Aristotle (see, for example: Isidore Pelusiot 2001, vol. II, p. 143 [letter 221] and pp. 257–258 [letter 411]), and the development of this teaching. In particular, Rev. John Cassian connects the observance of the “middle” or “royal way” with the virtue of prudence (see Joan. Cass, collat ​​2.2; 2.16) and reveals this topic within the framework of the “trichotomous” anthropology scheme: “On the one hand, the heat of the spirit, and on the other, the coldness of the flesh, establishes the arbitrariness of our will in proportion to the fervor of jealousy; That is why the desire of the spirit does not allow the unbridled passions of the flesh to carry away our soul, nor does the weakness of the flesh allow the spirit to be rushed by the exorbitant desires of virtues, so that otherwise, in the first case, all kinds of [carnal] vices would not take root, and in the second, exaltation would not inflict a deep wound on us with the sword of pride; the correct balancing of their mutual confrontation, while maintaining a reasonable measure between one and the other aspiration, teaches the warrior of Christ to follow the royal path” (ibid., 4.12:176, ed. Pichery, Russian translation, quoted from: John Cassian 1993, p. 232). Of course, this interpretation cannot serve as a justification for abortion, since we are not talking about abortionists, but about someone who hits the mother and thereby destroys the fetus. At the same time in qu. dub. 28, as subsequently more carefully in amb. 42: PG 91, 1341A prp. Maxim, apparently, agrees with the opinion that the adoption of a human form by a human embryo is not completed until a certain time, but this statement for him does not in any way contradict the fact that the human soul appears in the embryo from the moment of conception. Many theologians and scientists of the 4th-7th centuries looked at this differently, proving, in particular, on the basis of what is interpreted in qu. dub. 28 passages of Scripture (Ex. 21, 22–23), the appearance of a rational soul in an embryo only after it takes on a human form. Thus, John Philoponus devoted a special chapter to the interpretation of this passage in the de opificio mundï “On the fact that from the law regarding miscarriage, Moses shows that embryos are animated after their formation,” where, quoting Scripture, he writes: “The prophet clearly teaches by this that after the formation [of the embryo] the implantation (εἴσκρισις) of the soul occurs. What some, trying to avoid the law, say [objecting to this], is very easy to expose. They argue that the fact that [the Law says that] before formation it is not necessary to give soul for soul, [it is] not because the embryo is not animate, but because of the uncertainty as to whether a certain blood clot fell out or unborn flesh, which doctors call “premature birth.” But Moses resolved this difficulty before they formulated it: “her child will come forth unformed.” The child is neither a premature baby nor a blood clot. So, if Moses knows that a woman’s child is a miscarriage [unregistered], then he orders compensation that is worthy, which the wife’s husband will appoint upon demand and request, and not soul for soul. If it is formed, then it orders to give soul for soul, as for murder. After all, he believes that the embryo is animated when it is formed. This is consistent with the fact that after the formation of [man] from the earth, God breathed into him the breath of life [and man became] a “living soul”” (Joan. Philop. de opific. mund. 6. 25: 280.20–281.12, ed. Reichardt). St. Maximus specifically refers to the interpretation of Ex. 21, 22–23 in the Difficulties to John in the context of polemics with those who do not believe in the simultaneous creation of soul and body and their union from the very beginning of man and writes: “according to the generally accepted opinion, the wise Moses wrote this not showing the time of the entry of the rational soul into the body, but arguing that then the perfect formation of what was thrown out is completed” (amb. 42: PG 91, 1341A; Russian translation by Archim. Nektarios (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 2006, p. 309). However, it should be noted that in qu. dub. 28 prp. Maximus does not at all mean to raise in the context of the interpretation of Ex. 21, 22–23 the problem of the order or simultaneity of the creation of soul and body, which proves: at that time he was not yet interested in this problematic, to which he devoted so much space in the Difficulties to John (most likely at that time he was not yet familiar with the exegesis of Philoponus and other supporters of the theory of the post-existence of the soul to the body, who substantiated their opinion in this place, or did not attach importance to it, otherwise one could expect that he would have “preempted” such an interpretation). Regarding the own context of the exegesis of Ex. 21, 22–23 in qu. dub. 28, then it is clear from the spiritual interpretation of this place (see next, note). As can be seen from this interpretation, in qu. dub. 28 prp. Maxim continues the theme of previous question-answers, namely the acceptance and assimilation of the word of God and what can interfere with this and what can serve it. In particular, here he emphasizes that it is a much greater sin to seduce a soul who has accepted the gospel and changed his life than the soul of a beginner who has not yet transformed his life in Christ. From this it is clear that, according to St. Maxim, the more perfect a state (in being or in virtue) a person is in, the greater the sin it is to interrupt his movement towards God or the possibility of such. D. Prassas notes a parallel passage in Origen, who “dedicated a separate sermon to the interpretation of Ex. 21, 23 and compares the soul conceiving the word of God with a woman conceiving a child. Next, he describes a perfect person who puts into practice the word of faith, using the example of St. Paul (Orig. hom. X in Exod. 3: PG 12, 369B), but Origen describes the soul as weak, because she is a woman and has a miscarriage due to two arguing men (Origen understands these men as teachers arguing over secondary issues of doctrine or over the letter and harming the fragile souls of Christians with their disputes. - G.B.). Origen concludes his sermon by referring to St. Paul (1 Tim. 3:3) and exhorting that church teachers should not strike pregnant women (that is, the souls of neophytes), lest they stumble” (Prassas 2003, p. 296). It can be added to Prassas's observations that, unlike Origen, who devotes the first part of his sermon to proving that Ex. 21, 23 cannot be understood literally at all, St. Maxim does not refuse a literal interpretation. On the other hand, it is Origen in this sermon who says that the word of faith conceived in the soul can be considered born, from which a virtuous life follows, and we find a similar thought at the end of the interpretation of St. Maximus, so the direct or indirect influence of Origen in this question and answer is very likely. Here Rev. Maxim reveals the mystical meaning of Christ's death according to the flesh. πτερνιστής. Wed. Os. 12, 3: “Even in his mother’s womb he kicked (ἐπτέρνισεν) his brother” (cf. Gen. 25, 26; Gen. 27, 36). Philo already calls Jacob a stutterer, or a stutterer (πτερνιστής) (see Philo leg. alleg. i. 61. 2–3, ed. Cohn) and in many other places, see next. approx. As D. Prassas notes, drawing a parallel between this interpretation of St. Maximus and Philo, “Philo in Legum allegoriarum I speaks of James as a reproacher. However, just before this passage, Philo compares people to wax in their ability to receive impressions, both good and bad. These impressions of everything are imprinted on the soul. In Book II, Philo speaks of the image of a serpent that becomes a staff when Moses takes it in his hand. Philo interprets the hand of Moses as an image of doing, and the staff as instruction. Jacob is spoken of as a conqueror (or conqueror) of passion; he also takes a staff in his hand to cross the Jordan, which is interpreted as earthly, base and corruptible nature. Philo further writes that the mind of the ascetic passes over them in the process of learning. In Book III, James is again described as a stammerer, having acquired virtue through discipline and hard work. And before Jacob could not leave Laban, he could not improve his condition, that is, he could not subjugate the sensory perception” (Prassas 200, 3, p. 299). In Difficulties to John St. Maxim again turns to the exegesis of Gen. 30–31 and, in particular, interprets Jacob’s cleansing of the bark from the twigs as an action of the mind, which, being wise in the Spirit, purifies the Divine logoi of existence from the surrounding matter, and then ascends through the contemplation of these logoi to angelic life and knowledge (see amb. 51: PG 91, 1369C-1372B). Or: “cunning” (τὸ σκολιόν). At the stage of perfect knowledge of God, everything is left behind except God Himself, that is, the ways of doing and the logoi of natural contemplation (see the previous question and answer about the death of Christ in the flesh). ορμίσκον (“belt” or “seal chain”). Wed. Life 38, 18. St. Maximus reverses the order in listing the gifts of Judah to Tamar, adapting the words of Scripture to the sequence that he needs to reveal the thought of ascent to God through work, contemplation and theological gnosis. See Cyr. Alex, in reg. III PG 69, 692B-C. See Court 11. In the translation of P.K. Dobrotsvetov, a gross error was made, making the question of St. Maxim is at least strange: “Is there one person for whom Jephthah and his daughter are taken?” (Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 85). So, by the mysterious meaning of the parable, it is commanded that, through the firmness of our virtues, we should be unyielding to the influxes of temptations, without which, softened by the surf of passions, we will become hollows and accept into our innermost [depths of the soul] from the outside the influx of such waters penetrating into the heart, from which the things stored in us are spoiled” (Greg. Nyss. Cant.: PG 44, 837B, Russian translation according to: Grigory Nissky 1 999, p. 113 with amendments). So, if St. Gregory understands the ceiling beams as virtues, then St. Maxima are natural forces. As in a number of previous questions and answers, he emphasizes the importance of studying the word of God, called here “divine sayings” (or: “words” - λογίων). However, in the second part of the interpretation, etc. Maxim turns to the topic of virtues, or rather, good deeds, without which the perception of sensory impressions can easily lead to a loss of grace. As for the very difference in interpretation of the image of the ceiling rafters among St. Maximus (in the sense of natural forces) and St. Gregory (in the sense of virtues), then it is not so great, if we keep in mind that, as J.-C. notes. Larchet (see Larchet 1994, p. 73), for St. The concept of voluntary and involuntary temptations is used by St. Maxim in a number of other works (see, for example, qu. – es: 164; 194; Thal. 27; 47; 49). The development of these concepts in the context of the Stoic doctrine, adopted by Christians, of what depends on us and does not depend on us, is found in the Difficulties of John, where he says that the saints become completely unaffected by temptations, neither voluntary, taking place in accordance with the logos of what is in our power, nor involuntary, corresponding to what is not in our power. The saints dry up the first temptations with abstinence, and the temptations of the second with patience (see amb. 10: PG 91, 1204С-1205С). So, under involuntary temptations, St. Maxim obviously understands those that are completely independent of us, such as natural disasters and the like; He obviously refers to those within our power as temptations associated with bodily passions, the uprising of which, say, during free fasting, according to St. Maxim, it may be “dry.” The toponym Qanä is consonant with the verb qäna “to buy” (correspondingly in the passive “to be bought”). Similar interpretation in: Epiph. Rapar.: 2. 303. 6, ed. Holl. The toponym Gälil is consonant with the word gälil “that which rotates”, as well as the verb gäla “to open”. The noun of this verb meaning "revelation" is not attested in Scripture. However, in the Talmud (that is, already in Aramaic) there are the words gataya and gallayyä with this meaning. νοῦς ἕ ζιν ἀποκαλυπτικὴν ἔχων . The expression is found in St. Maxima in: qu. Theop.: PG 90, 1400D. This may refer to the human mind (λόγος), which St. Maxim is often understood as “practical reason”, mediating between the mind and the vital force (see, for example, Mystagogy, Chapter V). So, obviously, Rev. Maxim interprets the transformation of water into wine. Wed. in Thal. 40, where prp. Maximus again turns to the interpretation of marriage in Cana of Galilee: “The mother of the Word is true and undefiled faith. For just as the Word as God is by nature the Creator of the Mother who gave birth to Him in the flesh, whom He made such through [His] love for mankind, having taken birth from Her as a man, so in us the Word, having first created faith, then becomes the Son of our faith, incarnate from it in virtues according to [spiritual] work. Thanks to this faith, we do everything [good], receiving charisms from the Word for [our] salvation. For without faith, of which the Word is God by nature and Son by grace, it is completely impossible to have the boldness to make petitions to Him” (PG 90, 400B-C, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 106). Some of these thoughts are found in St. Maxima for the first time in qu. dub. 35 (see just below). Or: "god-like disposition" (θεοειδῆἕ ζιν). Maxim “shifted” the interpretation somewhat, including among those who draw water not only prophets, but also evangelists and apostles, that is, everyone who prepares people for what only God Himself can accomplish - deification. Wed. in cap. theol. 1. 55: “The sixth day is the perfect fulfillment of virtuous deeds corresponding to nature” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 224). Wed. interpretation of "water bearers" in Thal. 40: “Scripture speaks of water pots containing two or three measures (John 2:6), since they, according to the nature of the active force, contain, according to natural contemplation, like two measures, the total knowledge of created [things] or knowledge that embraces corporeal and incorporeal [things], that is, corporeal natures [consisting] of matter and form, and intelligible beings [consisting] of essence and incidental properties" (PG 90, 396C, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from the publication: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 104 with slight modification). Or: "distinctive law" (διακριτικός νόμος). Lit.: “unmixed” (άκραιφνής), or “untouched”, “unharmed”. From a slightly different perspective, a similar thought by St. Maximus will express this later in Thal 40, where he first calls reason the most important force of our nature, creating the virtue of love (we are talking about the interpretation of the sacrament of marriage!), and then continues: “Having arisen in accordance with this [power], nature perceives its main law - the infallible judge of truth, whom Scripture calls “steward.” He clearly recognizes that the “good wine,” which the Word prepared for the end through His Coming, should have been drunk from the beginning and should have intoxicated human nature (John 2:10). I mean that initially one should be initiated into the best and highest logos, which relates to God, and then, as if [tasting the worst] wine, one should become initiated into the logoi of created [things], inferior to the first logos. For the most just and appropriate is the initial initiation into the logos, which serves as the cause of the emergence of nature, and only then can one explore the logoi [of things] that arose as consequences of this nature” (PG 90, 397B-400A, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, cit. according to the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. II, p. 106). Above Rev. Maximus describes the order of the economy that took place due to the Fall, that is, the gradual preparation of humanity for the coming of Christ. In this economic order, the prophetic word preceded the Gospel. But the discriminating law corresponds to the “reverse perspective,” affirming the primacy of the Gospel in relation to the Law and the Prophets and the primacy of the knowledge of God in relation to the knowledge of creation. St. Maxim, obviously, considers this “reverse perspective” correct, but he also recognizes the need for economic, historical consistency. Historically, people come from the Law and the Prophets to the Gospel, but the Gospel is primary, and, ultimately, it is from it that the Law and the Prophets should be comprehended (which is what he does in his interpretations); similarly, after the Fall, people ascend to the knowledge of the Creator through the knowledge of creation, but knowledge of the Creator is primary, and the correct approach to creation must also take place ultimately based on the knowledge of God as its Creator (cf. It was not possible to find an exact etymology. Close to this is the interpretation of Philo: “the name [“Esau”] is interpreted... as an oak tree... since it is by its nature inflexible, unyielding, stubborn and stiff-necked, following crazy advice, truly oaky” (Philo congr. 61. Russian translation, quoted from: Philo of Alexandria 2000, p. 364). Perhaps this interpretation of the name “Esau” (‘ēśàw) by Maxim is due to the consonance of the name with the verb ‘azāb “to refuse”, “to leave”, “not to do”. On the etymology of the name “Jacob” cf. qu. dub. 30.4. Wed. in Plotinus (Ennead): “the flight of the one to the one” (φυγή μόνου πρός μόνον) (Plot. Enn. 6. 9.11.51, ed. Henry, Schwyzer). That is, Abraham, who surpassed the world of phenomena, was able to contemplate the plural (in terms of the number of individuals) as one according to the logos (cf. this topic in Ep. 2), but Lot was not capable of this. Therefore, for Abraham, the three angels became the image of the one nature of God according to the logos - since Abraham moved from the phenomenal to the invisible logos of things, while Lot stopped at the external appearance of things, not seeing a single logos behind it, but obviously cognizing each existing thing in its being (which, according to St. Maximus, can lead to faith in the existence of God, but does not yet introduce into the mystery of the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity). Wed. this topic in Thal. 28. In Difficulties to John (amb. 10: PG 91, 1200A-B) St. Maximus will again turn to the interpretation of the addition of alpha to the name of Abraham in a special speculation, where, in particular, it is said that Abraham received typologically the grace of deification, “secretly united by faith with teaching [or logos. – G.B. ] about the Unity, and having become, in accordance with him, one-formed (or, better said, one out of many), in a magnificent way he was completely united [as] one with the One God, no longer carrying with him a single impression from anything fragmented, which, I believe, is the meaning of the letter “a” [that is, the number 1] given to him in addition to his name” (amb. 10: PG 91, 1200A; Russian translation by Archim. Nektariy (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 200b, p. ἐμπρησμόν (we are talking, perhaps, about the eschatological, final burning of everything sensible. See the dictionary entry in Lamp's dictionary). Wed. parallel place in ep. 1: “Let us leave Sodom, that is, the delusion and confusion of the senses regarding the senses perceived, in order to avoid fire - I mean the punishment of fire, their inevitable consequence. Let us be saved on the mountain (Matthew 24:16), understand - at the height of a God-pleasing life, so as not to be taken (Matthew 24:40-41), without yet completely renouncing the sensual, even if we seem not to be involved in vice, like blessed Lot, who did not do what the inhabitants of Sodom did; that is, let us even free ourselves from that sensuality that only inclines us to passions. As much as we have enough strength, we will run away from the transitory, which in no way can be under our control and, by its very nature, flows and disappears” (PG 91, 377A; Russian translation by E. Nachinkin, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 2007b, p. 82). προλήψεις. Wed. in qu. dub. 10: “We also celebrate the Jubilee when we completely abolish the memory of evil and the imagination [arising] from the anticipation of what will happen to us.” “Anticipation” from St. Maxima, judging by these examples, is associated with the memory of sensual pleasures, the memories of which, emerging in the mind, incline it to desire them. See this ascetic term in qu. – es: 10; 46; 79; 85; 187; I. 79. In the Synodal translation: “mad.” The generic or fundamental virtues from which the others are derived are chastity, courage, prudence and justice. A detailed teaching on the combination of generic virtues into a single whole through the abilities of the soul and feelings will be developed by St. Maxim in amb . 21: PG 91, 1241D-1256C. See amb for analysis of this topic. 21 in: Steel 1992, p. 2423 and Törönen 2007, p. 161. Wed. also qu. dub. 87. In carit. 2. 79 prp. Maximus interprets the “image of the heavenly” Adam (see 1 Cor. 15:49) as four generic virtues. The septenary nature of time is probably justified by the lunar cycles by which time was traditionally measured. Because of the five senses, through which everything sensible is perceived, or “nature is fivefold, since it is composed of species and four elements” (qu. dub. 124). About the sevenfold nature of time and the fivefold nature of nature, see more in amb. 67: PG 91, 1396B-1404C. Wed. Thal. 55: “Scripture mysteriously shows that only the one who finds himself above feelings and time (they are denoted by the number twelve, consisting of five - a figure indicating feelings, and seven - a figure indicating time) and cuts off the connection of the soul with them, comes from their confusion, rushing to the mountain city" (PG 90, 540D, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim Confessor 1993, book II, p. 165) and in exp. Ps. 59: “The valley ... is the flesh, which, due to disobedience, has become a despicable land of passions. In it, as if in a valley, every pious and God-loving person defeats nature and time through reason and contemplation. ... And the number twelve means this nature and time, since nature is fivefold due to the [five] senses, and time is sevenfold, as is obvious to everyone. And five combined with seven makes the number twelve” (PG 90, 860A-B, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov cit. according to the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. I, p. 209). Or: “possibility”, “ability”, “potentia of nature” (τὴν φυσικὴν δύναμιν). Or: “naturally possible.” νοεράς. The concept of intelligent feelings is widespread in patristics. In particular, it was developed by Origen (see, for example: “Someone will ask us: why is it said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, that they will see God?”” (Matthew 25: 1-12). But this saying, I think, further confirms our thought: for what does it mean to see God with the heart, if not to understand and know Him with the mind, as we stated above? In general, names sensory members often refer to the soul; hence, to see with the eyes of the heart means to know something mental by the power of thought. In the same way, to hear with the ears means a feeling of the deepest understanding. We also say that the soul can use the teeth when it tastes and eats the bread of life that comes from heaven. It is also said that the soul uses the functions of other members, which are applied to its powers. transl. quoted from: Origen 1993, p. 47); Cf. in “Spiritual Conversations”, attributed to St. Macarius of Egypt: “There are eyes, the inner of these eyes, and there is hearing, the inner of this hearing. On the inadequacy of reducing Christian life to the fight against passions related to the irritable and desirable forces of the soul (which is what bodily activity is primarily aimed at), St. Maxim also writes in the Chapters on Love: “The method of doing is insufficient for the complete liberation of the mind from passions and for the possibility of concentrated prayer, if various spiritual contemplations do not succeed it. For this method frees the mind only from intemperance and hatred, and spiritual contemplation frees it [also] from oblivion and ignorance: thus, it gets the opportunity to pray as it should” (carit. 2. 5, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov with amendments quoted from the edition: Maxim the Confessor 1993” book I, p. 107). It is significant that, as A.I. Sidorov notes in his commentary to this place, St. Maxim here follows Evagrius almost literally: “Work is a spiritual method that purifies the passionate part of the soul. Active implementation of the commandments is not sufficient for the complete healing of the powers of the soul if the corresponding mental contemplations do not succeed them” (Evagr. pract. 78–79, Russian translation, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book. At the same time, understanding the parable of St. Seraphim is a kind of polemic with the interpretation of the Synaxarion. Interpretation of St. Maxima in this context turns out to be closer to the tendency that we find in St. Seraphim, - do not reduce the meaning of the parable to a call to practical action, but emphasize the need for experienced knowledge of God. As D. Prassas notes (see Prassas 2003, p. 309), already in Origen there is an interpretation of the lamps of virgins as the light of knowledge, and the oil in these lamps as zeal for the knowledge of [God] (ἡἐν ἐπιγνώσεις σπουδή). Prassas, however, did not pay attention to the fact that in fact Origen interprets oil not simply as “zeal for the knowledge of God,” but also as “doing the commandments” (ἡ ἐν ἐπιγνώσεις σπουδή, καὶ ἐντολών έργασία) (Orig. scholia in Math.: PG 17, 304. 54–55). Thus, most likely, the interpretation of St. The maxim at this point goes back directly or indirectly to Origen. The spiritual understanding of heaven in relation to the heart, or the word of God kept in the heart, was widespread in monastic literature even before St. Maxim, in particular, it is found in the Macarius Corpus (see: “The Scripture commands to guard one’s heart with all care (Prov. 4:23), so that the one who keeps His [the Lord’s] word like paradise may taste grace, not listening to the serpent that creeps inside... Noah was brought into this paradise, keeping and fulfilling the commandment, and by love was delivered from wrath (see Gen. 6-8)... In a similar way, David cultivated this [paradise], and therefore prevailed over his enemies. But Saul, while he kept his heart, had success; when he finally transgressed [the commandment], then he was finally stopped. 1–2, ed. Berthold (The word is attributed to St. Mark the Ascetic), Russian translation according to the edition: Macarius of Egypt 2002, pp. 681–682). Wed. interpretation of "east" in qu. dub. 2. γλισχρότητος. Wed. in qu. dub. 18: “The Lord and Corrector of nature, through the word of action, caught the sticky (γλίσχρον) sinful passion in the sea of ​​life”; or in qu. dub. 37: “the fish are sticky (γλίσχρον), clumsy, floundering at the bottom and full of mucus.” Or: “carnally minded” (see Rom. 8:6). Or: “naked fantasies”, or: “naked dreams” (ψιλὰς φαντασίας). Discussion of this term in ascetic literature, in particular, by St. Mark of the Ascetic, see in: Zarin 1996, p. 250–251, approx. 165. Zarin translates φαντασία as representation. About “anticipations” in the understanding of St. Maxim, see note. 189 to qu. dub. 39. From this place it is clear that the theology of St. The maxim is by no means absolute. Moreover, sometimes he speaks of theology far from being in the highest sense of the word, specifically distinguishing it from what he considers even higher. Thus, the highest form of knowledge of God (which he calls apophatic) St. Maxim sometimes explicitly distinguishes it from “theology.” For example, describing the ascent of Moses and those accompanying him to Mount Sinai in qu. dub. 73, he writes that in the penultimate phase of the ascent, Moses “took with him only Aaron,” that is, “a word (or: reason), simple for knowledge, as if illuminated by lightning with Divine insights,” but “then he left him outside and entered the darkness of divine ignorance, where everything is irrational and incomprehensible.” He goes on to call “those who are with Aaron” “those who have learned theology,” and “those like Moses” as those who “are united with God apophatically and in ignorance.” Here apophysis clearly relates to the experience of union with God in His incomprehensibility. Maxim specifically distinguishes theology from prayer: “Prayer [philosophy] is higher than theological: the second theologizes about the Divine based on created [things], and the first unknowable and ineffably combines the soul with God Himself.” From these quotes it is clear that St. Maxim establishes a correspondence between the nature of theology (on the one hand, it can be an activity of reason, on the other – prayerful, mystical) with whether the knowledge of God is accomplished from created things or in the combination of the soul with God Himself. The interpretation of Sodom as blinding (τύφλωσις) is found in Philo (Philo de ebriet.: 222. 6, ed. Wendland; Philo de somn.: 2. 192. 4, ed. Wendland). There Philo also gives an interpretation: “sterility” (στείρωσις), which St. Maxim doesn't use it. Interpretation of “numbness” (ἐνέωσις), except for this place in St. Maxim, it was not possible to find, but Sədom is similar to the Aramaic (very often used in the Talmud) verb sātam (stam) “to close” (including lips and eyes), so there is a certain “justification” for the etymologization of St. Maxima is there. Or: "irritation" (παραπικρασμός). We were unable to find such an interpretation, but 'ãmorā (Gomorrah) has a sound similarity to tamrur ("bitterness"), a derivative of the verb marar. The Talmud contains the word merer (“bitterness”). And in modern Hebrew the word magā has the same meaning. So we are again dealing with a case of, albeit indirect, but not unfounded association in the etymologization of St. Maxima. Or: "separated" (περιπεφραγμένος). A detailed analysis of the types of passions associated with the passionate part of the soul is given by St. Maximus is carried out in the Difficulties to John (see amb. 10: PG 91, 1196C-1197D, where, in particular, in the interpretation of the types of anger, St. Maximus follows Nemesius of Emesa (Nemes. de natura hom. 19). The origin of this interpretation could not be found; it probably belongs to the saint himself. Maxim, however, see the following note. From Šəmšon – similar to šemeš “sun”. Wed. qu. dub. 67.2. If Samson, overgrown with hair, is interpreted as the “sun,” then the shaved one obviously “depicts the likeness” of the sun, but is not it. Perhaps this is how one should explain the interpretation of the name “Samson” by St. Maxima. See Court. 16, 21. Wed. interpretation of Sodom as “blinding.” See Greg. Naz. or 45.18: PG 36, 649A. Thus, Rev. Maxim does not agree with the opinion that Job at some point in his life despaired. He again turns to the figure of Job in Difficulties to John (amb. 11: PG 91,1205D-1108A), where he explains the replenishment of Job with a hundredfold of earthly goods as arranged for the sake of “these little ones,” so that they would not be tempted by this story; St. Job himself Maxim considers that he did not need this replenishment, since he acquired eternal blessings. Or: "prudence" (διάκρισις). Or: “the ability to discriminate.” See 1 Sam. 22.18 (LXX), although there the number of killed priests is 305. In the Synodal Version there are 85 men. P.K. Dobrotsvetov translated: 305, apparently adjusting the text of St. Maxima under 1 Samuel 22, 18 (LXX) (see Maximus the Confessor 2008, p. 49). Or: “excitement” (σάλος) of passions. A similar interpretation of the name Doik as σάλος is given by Didymus the Blind (Didym. fragm. in psalm.: 554. 3, ed. Mühlenberg), although St. Maxim, as usual, there is a clarifying addition: “passions”. In such images, if we compare these statements, a peculiar parallelism will be revealed: the soul of Christ is from the Holy Spirit, as if from the seed of a man, and the “seed” of His flesh (by which here we can understand the entire human composition - both soul and body) is the Hypostasis of the Son, although the firstfruits of the body is taken from the Mother. This whole topic requires further understanding, in particular, in the context of the question: St. Maxim and Origenism. See discussion of translation and understanding of this question and answer in Live Journal: http://benev.livejournal.com/378249.html. In the translation by P.K. Dobrotsvetov, an erroneous reference is given to: Proverbs 11, 21, which contains similar words, but exactly St. Maxim quotes Proverbs. 16, 5. άποδου and ύπενδιδόναι are words with the same root, etc. Maxim is obviously playing this up. μὴ εὑρίσκων ἀποδοῦναι ὁ νοῦς τὸν ὑπὲρ ἀρετῆς λόγον. The meaning of this expression is not entirely clear. Perhaps this means a mind that does not try to find a reasonable basis for doing virtue, or a mind that does not apply rational force (logos) to this doing. Maxim is truly the “measure of all things,” that is, He revealed everything as it should be (this is, after all, the meaning of the logoi, which sets the “ought” for everything), becoming a kind of standard or measure for the entire creation. The concept of natural, blameless passions is found before St. Maximus in a number of authors, including, one of the first, Didimus the Blind (see Didym. fragm. in psalm.: 716a. 14, ed. Mühlenberg). This expression is often used by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Here we can also note the important role of the number 17 in two famous lives - St. Mary of Egypt and St. Alexy, man of God (see Benevin 1999, pp. 95–159). The present interpretation is an example of exegesis using arithmology. About the arithmology of St. For Maxim, see: Blowers 1991, p. 211–219; van Deun 1992, p. 237–242; Prassas 2003, p. 73–77; 408–409. See Greg. Nyss. or. I. in Christi resurrect .: PG 46, 612Ä “For even at the first creation of the world, the Divine power was not weak, so as to complete all things in an instant; but, despite this, during the creation of existing things, it determined the existence of temporary intervals. And just as there, on the first day, part of creation was completed, and on the second - another, and then, in order, in the same way, everything that exists was completed, so that God on certain days arranged the entire creation well - so here, according to the unspoken thought of His wisdom, evil is expelled from existing things in three days - from husbands, from wives and from the race of snakes, in which the nature of evil first received existence" (Russian translation, quoted from ed.: Gregory of Nyssa 1872, part 8, p. 37). τή έπιγνώσει. Wed. in qu. dub. 19: “Thus, through clear knowledge (τή έπιγνώσει), and not through the participation of [Divine] goods, the soul receives its strength and is restored to its original state)” and commentary on this place. Giving an allegorical interpretation to the words of St. Gregory, St. Maxim prevents their interpretation in the sense of the doctrine of universal salvation, including demons (cf. qu. dub. 19 and comments to it). At the same time, he emphasizes that in Christ the restoration of all the powers of the soul took place. See the discussion of this question and answer in the preface to this publication. Inaccurate quotation from Proverbs. 22, 29 (LXX). Wed. Eph. 1, 10. About the teaching of St. Maxim about “heading” (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις ᾽е) see note. 247 to qu. dub. 53. κινηθείς. St. Maximus obviously says that human nature in the Incarnation was brought into unity with the cause of its existence - God, or, in other words, moved towards the Cause. He distinguishes this moment from the next one, which relates to the kenosis of God Incarnate Himself. Or: “sharpening” (στομοῦντας). Or: “the original conception takes place.” This use, as is clear from what follows (note that there are specific sensual and sexual symbols here), implies that the soul becomes “pregnant” with spiritual contemplations and carries within itself an unquenchable, most burning love (eros) for God (1364B-D). Thus, even sexuality represents for Maximus an aspect of man’s relationship to God, which has its right place in his communion with Christ.” However, Thunberg in his comment slightly shifts the emphasis or does not express himself entirely accurately, so one might think that St. Maxim had in mind a kind of sublimation of sexuality in the spirit of Catholic mysticism. In fact, the whole context of “communion to the belly” implies that we are talking about contemplation, which for the fertile soul (see also amb. 49) becomes from the perception of the sensory in its diversity the natural contemplation of the logoi of creation in their unity. So it is in qu. dub. 64 he speaks of the one who collects the various logoi in the fruitful and contemplative part of the heart, thus connecting the fruitful ability with the contemplation of the logoi united in the One Logos. There is no doubt that in this interpretation of St. Maxim proceeds from the Stoic concept of seed logoi, adopted by Christians, and plays on precisely this metaphor. St. Maximus again turns to his teaching about logoi, which all belong to the Logos, are raised to Him and are contemplated in Him. This topic will be revealed to him in more detail in the Difficulties to John, primarily in amb. 7. Obviously, this means Adam before the Fall. That is, Job, Joseph and similar righteous people, who steadfastly endured temptation, are “more valuable” than Adam even before his fall, not to mention the one who fell. These saints, having a nature that inherited the consequences of the Fall, resisted temptations, and Adam, not having these consequences, nevertheless did not resist. Job and Joseph St. Maxim will remember again during the debate in Viziya, when in response to the words of Bishop. Theodosius: “Isn’t grief sent to many for the sake of testing?” St. Maxim will say: “The test concerns the saints, so that their disposition to what is good by nature, through sorrow, would be revealed in the lives of people, at the same time revealing in themselves virtues unknown to everyone, as was the case with Job and Joseph: the first was tested for the manifestation of the courage hidden [in him], and the second was tempted for the revelation of [his] sanctifying chastity. Or: “plowing”, “loosening unplowed land”, νέωσις. Contrary to D. Prassas (2003, p. 327), who claims that only Maximus has such an interpretation, we find at least one other such, or similar, interpretation in the corpus of texts falsely attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, where Horeb is interpreted as Νέωμα (Sut. Alex, collect, diet. Vet. Test. [Sp.]: PG 77, 1260. 32). But more important is the origin of this word, which Prassas did not pay attention to, considering Maxim’s usage unique. This origin, meanwhile, is restored by the dictionary entry in Lampe's dictionary, where νέωμα is interpreted as the breaking up or loosening of newly plowed earth, and it is said that this image was used to indicate what the catechist was to do in preparing the minds of the hearers to receive the teaching. In this sense this word is used by St. Gregory the Theologian (PG 36, 25С) and in a number of other authors, including Chrysostom, who also uses the word νέωσις. It is in this sense, as can be seen from the context of qu. dub. 73, it is used by etc. The doctrine of union with God “in ignorance” (ἀγνωσίας), as well as the understanding of apophatics, is developed in detail by St. Maximus in the Difficulties to John, although in Questions and Perplexities he touches on these topics in a number of places, and especially when interpreting the Transfiguration (qu: – es: 191–193). Apophatic union with God in ignorance, according to Polycarp Sherwood, for St. Maxima is “a simple, inexplicable movement around God in ignorance (άγνώστως), not gaining knowledge of God in things because of His superiority; in this movement the mind is freed from its movement around things and rests from its own action (amb. 10: PG 91, 1112D7–1113A2; 1113B3)... The movement of the mind, the constant movement (amb. 10: PG 91,1113D2–1116C1), is carried out in ignorance, άγνώστως) due to superiority (διὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν) is something other, as one can conclude, than the natural movement from which he rests. These moments in Maxim are from Dionysius” (Maxim the Confessor 2007a, pp. 425–426). See also note. 217 to qu. dub. 46 and the text thereto, as well as qu: – es: 190–191 and notes to them. About the celebration of Saturday according to St. Maxim see qu. dub. 10 and notes thereto. To sabbath by doing means, obviously, to maintain dispassion by doing, and to sabbath by knowledge means to contemplate the logoi of creation, ascending to their one Logos. We cannot agree with P.K. Dobrotsvetov’s interpretation of “Saturday” here as inaction (see Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 126, note 1). If anything is “inactive” in such Sabbathism, it is in dispassion - passions, and in pure contemplation - sensual (in which spiritual meanings did not appear) ideas. That “Sabbathism,” from which the fall then occurs, does not at all imply “inaction,” is clear from the fact that the cause of the fall of St. Maxim exposes negligence or laziness (mention of this was completely omitted from Dobrotsvetov’s translation). The paradox of the metaphor used here is that in the literal sense, gathering firewood is precisely an action, and the Sabbath in the literal sense is rest, but St. Maxim correlates the gathering of wood with spiritual laziness, negligence, and Sabbath - with doing and doing. ὁ γνωστικός – “engaged in knowledge.” Wed. in Thal 49. 283–288, ed. Laga, Steel: “if blessed Abel... had not gone out into the field with Cain, that is, had not gone out to [achieve] dispassion on the plain of natural contemplation, then Cain, who exists and is called the “law of the flesh,” would not have rebelled and killed him (Gen. 4:8) with the help of deception, luring him to [do] good deeds in accordance with contemplation existing before [acquiring] perfect skill [in virtues]” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, published by: Maxim Confessor 1993, book II, p. 135). The scholia for this place is also interesting (in the translation of the scholia we leave the translation of Genesis 4:15 as, according to the Synodal translation, it was reproduced by A.I. Sidorov, although what exactly the meaning of St. Maximus put into these words and how they should be translated remains open and is discussed by us below): “Cain is the law of the flesh - he was first born by Adam, who transgressed the divine commandment. And Abel is a spiritual thought generated by Adam after repentance - this is a thought that began natural contemplation before [acquiring] perfect skill [in virtues], and Cain kills. And God says: “Whoever kills Cain will be avenged seven times” (Gen. 4:15). He also calls Cain an “evil spirit,” who took with him seven other spirits more evil than himself (Matthew 12:45). Perhaps this refers to a selfish or gluttonous thought, which is naturally followed by a thought of fornication, a thought of love of money, a thought of sadness, a thought of anger, a thought of despondency, a thought of vanity and a thought of pride. Consequently, he who kills Cain according to God’s judgment, that is, gluttony, kills along with him the passions that arise due to this gluttony, according to the words: “Whoever kills Cain will be avenged seven times”” (scholia 49. 145 f.; Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov according to the edition: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 231). This scholia can also serve as a key to what is written in qu. dub. 77 regarding the murder of Cain. According to the scholiast, Rev. Maxim considered the “murder of Cain” in a spiritual sense, and therefore it is God’s sentence (that is, unconditionally positive), being the murder, together with this “spiritual Cain,” of evil spirits or vicious passions. In this context, the question arises about the correctness of the traditional translation: “Whoever kills Cain will be avenged seven times” (Gen. 4, 15), the meaning of which is that revenge will befall the killer of Cain (see below, note 325). “He who killed sorrow” is Cain who killed Abel, interpreted as “sorrow.” ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα παραλύει. Wed. Life 4, 15 (LXX): ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα παραλύσει. It should be noted that the interpretation of Gen. 4, 15 St. Basil the Great dedicated Letter 260, where, in particular, he writes: “Since Cain is determined to suffer sevenfold punishment for his sins, it is said that what is determined about them by the judgment of God will lead to the end (παραλύσει) the one who kills him (Bas. Caes. er: 260. 2. 22–23, ed. Courtonne)... And if by the word “revenged” (τὰ ἐκδικούμενα), you mean the sins of Cain, then you will find seven of them, or the punishments imposed on him by the Judge, then in this case you will not sin” (Bas. er: 260. 3. 25–28; Russian translation according to ed.: Vasily the Great 1911, vol. III, p. 320). “Avenges Lamech” should obviously be understood to mean that if we sin in the sense in which St. Maximum Lamech’s sin, then we are “revenged”, or we are punished. The exegesis of this passage of Scripture is a clear example of the principle that for St. Maxim in Scripture, with its anagogical interpretation, there are no “external” heroes or characters, but all of them are ourselves, or rather, something done by us and happening to us. However, having applied the image of Lamech to us, and demonstrating on it the principle of Divine justice, St. Maxim does not stop there and further cites the words of Christ from the New Testament, teaching us to forgive our neighbors who sin, just like us - in thought (or word) and deed. That is, what he accepted in his thoughts. Composition (συγκατὰθεσις) is the penultimate stage in the development of sin before its implementation: 1. adposition (or: “attack” – προσβολή), 2. lust (or: “wish” – ἐπιθυμία), 3. copulation (or: “acceptance” – συγκατάθεσις), 4. act (or: “action” – ἐνέργεια). See qu for details on all four stages. dub. I, 31 (and notes thereto) and I, 33, as well as Zarin 1996, p. 248–258. Interpretation of St. Maxim Life. 4, 24 differs from the interpretation of this place and St. Basil the Great (in Ep. 260), and St. John Chrysostom in his Discourses on the Book of Genesis. Both holy fathers understand the moderation of punishment for Lamech as due to the fact that before his eyes was the example of Cain, which he did not heed; St. Maximus interprets this passage anagogically (in relation to the doctrine of the stages of development of sin), and not in a moral sense. Or: “the one mysterious logos of contemplation.” For “these little ones” see qu. dub. 75. D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 331) believes that St. Maxim here speaks out against teachers who “teach based on the external phenomena of the created world and write their essays on this basis. Such writings can be tempting and dangerous for those who cannot understand what external phenomena indicate. Maxim reproaches the teacher who gives his essay to those who are not ready to read it.” This interpretation of this passage by St. Maxim, although not excluded, is still far from obvious, since Gideon, as can be seen from the following question-answer, for St. Maximus is one of the Old Testament saints, and it is unlikely that he served as an image of an incorrect teacher. It is more likely that there is a contrast here between the righteous Gideon, who unites the multitude and diversity of the created world into a mysterious unity of words, and “those who are infants in mind,” who are tempted about Gideon because of this mysterious word revealed to the world, believing that he has fashioned something like an idol or graven image, which is spoken of in the Judgment. 17, 3–5. Another (additional to the previous) possible understanding of the words of St. Maxim: those who are infants in their minds cannot understand the activity of synthesis, which “fuses” together what is taken from many teachers, but sees only that something is taken from one, something from another, and they are tempted about the teacher, considering him simply a compiler. It is possible that with such an interpretation (if St. Maxim had it in mind), this question-answer reflects the perception of his works by some contemporaries. See Gen. 16, 15. In Difficulties to John in amb. 15 (PG 91, 1216A-1221B) ex. Maxim, interpreting the words of St. Gregory the Theologian (Greg. Naz. or. 28.6: PG 36, 32C), will specifically focus on the issue of distinguishing between sensory perception, more precisely vision, and natural law. Distinguishing between vision, albeit accompanied by the contemplation of the beauty and harmony of creation, on the one hand, and the “natural law”, which rises from the contemplation of this beauty and harmony to faith in the existence of the Creator and Provider, on the other, St. Maxim emphasizes that contemplation of creation itself is not identical to ascent to the Creator and God. ἄρχουσα. The etymology is found in Philo (Philo de mutat, nomin. 78. 1, ed. Wendland). See note. 117 to qu dub. 25. An interesting parallel to qu. dub. 81 represents Thal. 22, where prp. Maximus divides the entire economy of God into centuries intended for the sacrament of the Incarnation, and centuries intended for the sacrament of deification. However, Rev. Maximus, in the same question-answer to Thalassius, further clarifies that for each person these “ages” are realized in their own way, that is, the coming centuries of deification come for the worthy already in this life. In the mystical sense, the ages of deification correspond to a passive transformation, when a person’s own natural action ceases and he undergoes the constant transforming and deifying action of God. In this sense, one can understand the difference in what St. Maxim speaks in qu. dub. 81, between the time when Christ is with us and the time when the saints are with Him. Or: “exercises” (ἐξασκῶν); that is, he engages in asceticism out of vanity. στρατηγοῶντος λόγου (cf. myst. 12: PG 91, 692A). κατ ’ εὐδοκίαν , κατ ’ οἰκονομίαν , κατὰ συγχώρησιν . In Greek reception, St. Ephraim the Syrian has already expressed a similar formula: τα μὲν εὐδοκί ᾳ, τὰ δὲ οἰκονομία, τὰ δὲ παραχωρήσει (that, what by good will, what by dispensation, and what by concession) (Ephr. Syr. modi dei prouident.: 2, ed. Phrantzoles); cp. Athan. (?) synt. ad quend. politic.: PG 28, 1400. 51. See Job. 1, 13 – 2, 13. St. Maxim will return to this topic in qu. dub. 161 (cf. also Ep. 26: PG 91, 617A: “For “from Him, by Him, and to Him are all things” (Rom. 11:36), which is or will be at all times and in every way: some by good will, some by dispensation, something else by permission"). Wed. in Plato: “it is not safe to honor living people with songs of praise and hymns until they have gone through their entire life path and crowned it with a wonderful end” (Plato leg. 7. 802a2–3, ed. Stephanus); rus. lane cit. according to the publication: Plato 2007, vol. 3, p. 302). To this parallel Sir. 12, 28 and Plato is indicated by Eusebius of Caesarea (see Euseb. praep. evan. 12. 34.1, ed. Mras). Qu. dub. 84 is very important for understanding the views of St. Maxim on spiritual life, on the relationship between the feats of “negative” asceticism, mortification of the flesh, on the one hand, and the “positive” aspect of Christian life, on the other. In the correct perspective, ascetic work is for him “co-crucifixion with Christ” (in the image of the prudent thief; see amb. 53: PG 91, 1376B) in order to rise with Him and live a life full of divine knowledge and virtue; Outside of this correct perspective, mortification turns out to be a “Jewish service” that distorts the meaning of asceticism and Christian life itself. So, in amb. 10 in the speculation about Melchizedek as a priest, whose priesthood differs from Aaron's, Rev. Maximus writes that “those who adhere only to the letter and for salvation are content with [sacrificing] foolish passions [desire and anger] and proclaim the death of Jesus cannot partake of the mysterious bread of divine gnosis and the life-giving vessel of wisdom (1 Cor. An option not included by Declercq in the main text of the critical edition, but available in some manuscripts: “What does it mean: Take a psalm, give a tympanum, the psalter is pleasant with the harp (Ps. 8o, 3)? Take the Divine teaching and give virtuous deeds achieved by mortification of the flesh. The psalter is pleasant with the harp means: the psaltery is the spirit, the harp is the soul, the tympanum is the body” (Declerck 1982, p. 68). Wed. in Evagrius's interpretation of Ps. 80, 3: “take spiritual teaching and give mortification to the members of those on earth (Col. 3, 5)” (Evagr. in Psalmos 80. 34, ed. Pitra). στοιχείωσις. This word is polysemantic; it can mean a combination of letters, a combination of elements (elements), primary education, and an introduction to any discipline (training). St. Petersburg uses this ambiguity in his interpretation. Maxim, drawing a Parallel between the combination of elements, or principles in the natural world - ascending from the four basic elements to the highest forms of life - and the combination of generic (that is, underlying all others) virtues and the formation on their basis of a life full of knowledge or contemplation. τήν τῶν ἠ θῶν κατόρθωσιν. The expression is found in St. Basil the Great (see PG 31, 933A). The doctrine of “poetry” is developed further by St. Maxim in amb . 21: PG 91, 1241D-256C and covered in detail in Carlos Steil's article on amb. 21, which he calls the 17th (Steel 1992, p. 2420, paragraph 4). As Steil notes, the concept of στοιχείωσις even in antiquity denoted elementary primary education, formative learning (the origin of the word is associated with the “elements”, or the beginnings of counting and writing - letters and numbers). Clement in the Stromata uses this word when speaking about the preparatory role of science and philosophy in relation to theology (6.8; 15), while he plays on the expression of St. Paul from Col. 2, 8, where he warns against philosophizing “according to the elements of this world.” In addition, στοιχείωσις generally designates the basic formation of the being of things, “poem composition.” St. Maxim, however, connects one meaning (primary education) with another and speaks of teaching the fundamentals or primary elements. Such primary elements for him are not only the primary elements (elements) of the sensory world, but also the virtues corresponding to them in the moral (or spiritual) world. The peculiarity of the thought of St. Maxima in amb. 21 compared to its early development in qu. dub. 87 is what's in amb. 21 he connects to the “composition” of the four Gospels, and in addition, the feelings of a person and the strength, or abilities of his soul. Greg. Naz. or. 20, 12: PG 35, 1080V. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, pp. 335–336), the expressions: “logoi of virtues” and “logoi of knowledge (or: knowledge)” are often found in St. Maxim (see qu. dub. 29 (where it is emphasized that the logoi of the virtues are rooted in God) and many examples in Thal). The interpretation of angels as logoi is repeatedly found in St. Maxima. So, for example, in amb. 56: PG 91, 1380B he interprets the angels seen by the myrrh-bearers in the tomb as “spiritual logoi of beings,” proclaiming the cause of everything - the Word. In amb. 60: PG 91, 1384D-1385A he compares the logoi of providence and judgment and the logoi of theology with the angels “seeing off” and “meeting” God the Word entering the gates of the soul that open for Him. Further, in Thal. 17 prp. Maxim writes: “Indeed, the path of virtues is filled with many holy angels, that is, logos and methods that produce every kind of virtue, as well as angels who invisibly help us towards good and arouse similar inner voices in us” (PG 90, 305A, Russian translation by S. L. Epifanovich and A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993 , book II, p. 55). Of course, one cannot completely identify angels with logoi, since angels are God’s creatures themselves and as such have their own logoi, to which, however, the holy angels ideally correspond. It can be assumed that the contemplation of angels as logoi by St. An allegorical interpretation of these words can be found in the interpretations on the Psalms attributed to Origen, but probably belonging to Evagrius (see Orig. (?) selecta in Ps.: PG 12, 1684, 33 f.). A lengthy typological interpretation in relation to Christ is given by Eusebius of Caesarea (see Euseb. comm. in Ps.: PG 23, 973· 5-ЗЗ). With these words begins the First Word about the Fast of St. Basil the Great (it is interesting that it is from him that St. Maxim parses the quotation in the next qu. dub. 93) and the Word for the Nativity of Christ by St. Gregory of Nyssa. However, the interpretation of St. Maxima is original. Feast of Trumpets – Feast of Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head of the year”). On this day the new year in the Jewish calendar begins. The main thing these days is Teshuvah - which means “return or repentance.” Teshuvah begins on the first day of the month of Elul and lasts forty days, ending on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). On the thirtieth day of Teshuvah, Rosh Hashanah occurs on the first of Tishrei. This day begins a ten-day period called the “Days of Trembling,” or “Ten Days of Repentance.” The Sabbath that falls during this ten-day period is called the Sabbath of Repentance. At the end of this period comes Yom Kippur (tenth of Tishrei). During all thirty days of the month of Elul, the shofar (a trumpet made from the horn of a ram) is blown to call the people to repentance and turn to the Lord. The holiday of Yom Kippur (“Day of Atonement”, usually translated into Russian as “Day of Judgment”). Celebrated on the tenth day of the month of Tishrei, completing the Ten Days of Repentance. Wed. Lion. 23, 27; 34. Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, is one of the main holidays among Jews, beginning on the fifteenth day of the month of Tishrei (autumn) and lasting seven days. St. Maxim obviously means that the name “Jesus” (Ί ησοῶς) begins with an iota, which denotes the number ten (cf.: “the number ten means the letter iota, and this letter is the first in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Consequently, in the name of the Lord both the old and the new people, both the inner and outer man are redeemed” (qu. dub. I, 6). See 1 John. 2, 2; 1John 4, 10. This means that to the name Jesus, corresponding to 10, add 5 (according to the number of feelings) and get 15. άπόλαυσις. Bas. Caes. de jejunio I, 5: PG 31, 69B; rus. lane no ed.: Vasily the Great 1993, part IV, p. 5. At St. Vasily literally refers to the permission to eat wine, meat and all food in general. συγχωρηθήναι. Perhaps it is emphasized here that we are talking about what happened by permission (κατὰ συγχώρησιν) (see qu. dub. 83). We are talking about deception of the senses or sensual pleasure. Together with the receipt of leather vestments, the senses became organs of deception for people, and this deception became sovereign (that is, autocratic) in the sphere of feelings, sensual pleasure is at the complete disposal of deception (interpretation by A. M. Shufrin). In fact, in qu. dub. 44 prp. Maxim writes about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in connection with the sensual: “for those who dwell on the senses, are deceived by the appearance of the sensual and turn all the lust of the soul to matter, this is the knowledge of evil.” See Bas. Caes. hom, in Ps. I, 3: PG 29, 213C-D. Or: "transient" (τὰ παρόντα). See Greg. Naz. or. 40, in s. baptisma. 27: PG 36, 397C. See Greg. Naz. or. 40. in s. baptisma. 33: PG 36, 405B; cp. Μφ. 15, 21. The problem with this question and answer, which is a comment on Greg. Naz. or. 40.in s. baptisma. 36: PG 36, 412A6–14, discussed in detail in the comments to qu. dub. 19, dedicated to the analysis of a passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa, which St. Maxim quotes in this question and answer. See also qu. dub. 159 and notes thereto. Greg. Naz. or. 16. in patr. tac. I PG 35, 936A (in Russian translation, Word 15, spoken in the presence of the father, who was silent from grief after the hail devastated the fields. See Gregory the Theologian 1994, vol. 1, p. 231). In the literal sense of the word, St. Gregory represent a rhetorical device by which he justifies what he says in the presence of his father, Bishop Nazianzus, when the elder is silent. St. Maxim, however, moves away from this literal meaning and interprets the words of St. Gregory anagogically; thus we have here an example of the anagogue being used by St. Maximus as a method of interpretation not only in relation to St. Scripture, but also the writings of the holy fathers. However, at certain points in his interpretation of St. Maxim repeats in a more condensed form the thought of St. Gregory, taken in a broader context (see below). That is, pagan, non-Christian, Hellenic. See St. Gregory in the same word a little further: “An abundant word is not more useful than a wise one: having delivered, perhaps, a few pleasures, it flies away and disappears along with the vibration of the air, producing nothing more, and only captivates the ear captivated by it with eloquence, and the wise word penetrates the mind, expanding the lips, fills them with the spirit, survives its birth, and with a few syllables cultivates much” (Greg. Naz. or. 16: PG 35, 936, 14–20; Russian translation, cited by: Grigory Bogoslov 1994, vol. 1, p. 232). See Greg. Naz. or. 16, in patr. tac. 4: PG 35, 937C-D; “either we comprehend them, or we do not comprehend the great abyss” (Russian translation, quoted from the editor: Gregory the Theologian 1994, vol. 1, p. 232). The doctrine of providence and judgment, the logos of providence and judgment, plays a large role in the theology of St. Maxima; He develops it in more detail in Difficulties (Ambigua) and other works. The doctrine of the logoi of providence and judgment by St. Maximus apparently goes back to Evagrius, see Dysinger 2001, p. 462–471. However, for Rev. Maximus, of course, was also of importance to the doctrine of providence set forth in the Areopagitica; about the latter, see, for example: Golitzin 1994, p. 61–70; 101–105; 135; 194; 270–282; 329. In the prologue of the Difficulties to St. Thomas. Maxim, turning to his addressee, says that he acquired active knowledge, or wise activity, and thanks to this, the logoi of providence and judgment reached their fullness in him (see PG 91, 1032A). It is in this sense, obviously, that judgment and providence are comprehensible. Elsewhere – amb . 10: PG 91, 1169A-B – prp. Maxim says that on the Mount of Transfiguration the apostles were initiated into the final secrets of the economy, into the secrets of providence and judgment and the final destinies of the world. So, it is obvious that Rev. Maxim did not consider it impossible to initiate people into the providence and judgment of God, but as a holy revelation of God, the image of which is the Transfiguration. See Greg. Naz. or. 16, in patr. tac. 4: PG 35, 937D-940A. See Greg. Naz. or. 16, in patr. tac. 4: PG 35, 940A4–9. See Greg. Naz. or. 32, de mod. in disp. 27: PG 36, 205A13–14. The doctrine of the inner and spoken word was developed by the Stoics, whose legacy was included in the writings of apologists and other Christian writers; for St. Maxims could be relevant, for example, the texts of Nemesius (cf. Nemes. de. nat. hom. 14: “On the inner word and what is spoken”). Literally: “detached” (or: “free”) and “simple” τὸ ἄφετον καὶ ἁ πλοῦν. Since Rev. Maxim refers to “fathers,” then we can assume that his words have a specific source. The closest parallel place we have found are words in the Areopagitica, where similar expressions are found, however, in relation to angels: ε ὔ λυτον καὶ ἄσχετον καὶ καθαρεῦον τῆς τῶν ἐκτὸς προσθήκης ? (“nakedness and shoelessness mean freedom, lightness, unburdenedness and freedom from any external addition and assimilation, to the extent possible, to divine simplicity” (Ps.-Dion. p. h. 15, 3: 54–17" ed. Heil, Ritter; Russian translation by M. G. Ermakova according to the edition: Ps.-Dionysius, On the Heavenly Hierarchy 1997, p. 143). Wed. in Thal 40: “...corporeal beings, [consisting] of matter and form, and intelligible beings, [consisting] of essence and incidental properties” (PG 90, 396C, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from the edition: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 104 with slight modification). Or: “logos” (in this case we are obviously talking about the “inner word”). Wed. at St. Gregory the Theologian about the immobility (or: immutability) of the hypostatic features of the Hypostases of the Trinity: “[the hypostatic] feature is unchanged, for as if it remained original if it changed and transformed” (Greg. Naz. or. 39.12: PG 36, 348. 31). Thus, Rev. Maximus sets out the theory of the inner word, drawing an analogy with the doctrine of the Trinity, as it was developed by the Cappadocian fathers, in particular, resorting to the concept of “peculiarity” (birth) in relation to the word generated by the unborn soul-mind (he in this analogy is likened to God the Father), likened to God the Word, who has the hypostatic peculiarity of “birth” (cf. St. Gregory Theologian or. 23: PG 35, 1161C-1164A, where this analogy is drawn, expanded, however, from the dispensation of man to the dispensation of the Trinity). We find the analogy justified in the following, qu. dub. 105: “Our soul was created in the image of God [and] is contemplated in these three, in the mind, logos and spirit.” Nevertheless, Venerable begins. Maxim qu. dub. 104 with the assertion that only God is simple and absolute. See Greg. Naz. or. 23.8. de pace: PG 35, 1160. 38–45. Wed. in amb. 1: PG 91, 1036B: “Here is no explanation of the cause of the super-essential Cause of beings, but an interpretation of the pious opinion of It.” Problems qu. dub. 105 - one of the most important in theology of St. Maxim, judging by the fact that he returned to her many times throughout his life. Particularly in the Difficulties to Thomas, in amb. 1: PG 91, 1036A (c. 634, that is, almost ten years after the writing of qu. dub. 105) prp. Maxim answers the question of how the passage from the words of St. Gregory on the world (or. 23.8), analyzed in qu. dub. 105, and the other - from his first Word about the Son: “Therefore, from the beginning the Unity, moved into the Duality, [reaching] the Trinity, stopped” (Gr. Naz. or. 29.2; Russian translation quoted from: Gregory the Theologian 1889, vol. 3, p. 43). In turn, the passage from the Word about the Son (containing the same problematic - “movements” in the Trinity) is analyzed by him in amb. 23: PG 91, 1257С-1261А (approx. 328–330). Finally, both passages from St. Gregory, concerning the issue of movement in God, which St. Maximus persistently rejects it, again discussed by him in his Second Letter to Thomas (c. 640). Many researchers St. Maxim paid attention to analyzing these places. In particular, the amb issue. 1 deals with Piret (see Piret 1983, pp. 78–79); from other works on amb. 1 and adjacent amb. 23, the articles by Louth (1993) and Redovics (2001) should also be mentioned. The last article provides a short but very useful bibliography on the interpretation of or. 29.2 St. Gregory in the context of succession and polemics with Neoplatonism; this passage represents one of the “classical” difficulties and its interpretations vary considerably among modern patrolologists and theologians (see, for example, Cross 2006, pp. 105–116). In addition, we should point out a brief but very informative analysis of the problems of the “movement of God” in the patristic tradition in connection with amb. 23 in the scholia of A. M. Shufrin in: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 301–305. So, if St. Gregory and in or. 23.8. and in or. 29.2, at first glance, we are talking about the “formation” of the Trinity, then St. Maxim does not interpret these words in the sense of such “self-unfolding” in God. In amb. 23 he makes this clear by saying that “The Divinity... is completely motionless in essence and nature” (PG 91, 1260A), from which it follows that what is said about the movement of the Divine does not characterize God-in-Itself, that is, the “unfolding” of the Hypostases in a certain movement of the Divinity (from Unity to Duality and Trinity). As Larchet notes: “Gregory’s statement that “from the beginning the Monad [in this context, the Father] moved towards the Two [Father and Son] and stopped in the Trinity [Father, Son and Spirit]” cannot be applied to God considered in Himself, and is understood exclusively in relation to man trying to find and know Him” (Larchet 1994, p. 17). So in qu. dub. 105, amb. 23 and amb. 1 prp. Maxim understands the movement that St. is talking about. Gregory, not in the sense of a movement of self-unfolding in God during the “formation” of the Trinity, but as a movement of the mind of a person or an angel, enlightened and moved by the action of God. Overcoming the “two” in the context of triadology is discussed by St. Maxim in amb . 10: PG 91, 1193D-1196C. In Thal. 13, interpreting Rom. 1, 20, that is, the statement of the ap. Paul, which talks about the possibility of knowledge of God by the pagans (who did not have the written Law), St. Maximus states that “on the basis of wise contemplation of creation we comprehend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that is, [the doctrine of] the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and even adds that “cursed are those who have not learned to comprehend from the contemplation of beings their Cause and the natural properties of this Cause, that is, Power and Divinity. For the creation calls out by its deeds and, as it were, proclaims to those who have spiritual hearing its own Cause, trinitarianly sung, that is, God and the Father, and His ineffable Power and Divinity, that is, the Only Begotten Word and the Holy Spirit. This is the “invisible of God” (Rom. 1, 20), mentally contemplated from the creation of the world” (PG 90, 196B-C, Russian translation by S. L. Epifanovich and A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 47). Thus, the thesis about the knowledge of the Trinity from natural contemplation in St. Maxima appears repeatedly. Sherwood (1955, p. 145, para. 39) refers to Thal. 13: PG 90, 296B and writes: “The source of the triad [being – being wise – being alive] is Proclus through Dionysius.” Wed. also scholium 1 to Thal. 13: PG 90, 296C-D. Thunberg specifically addresses the issue of imago Trinitatis, that is, the human soul as an image of the Trinity, according to St. Maxim (see Thunberg 1965, pp. 137–139) He, in particular, notes two places in which this idea is clearly visible in St. Maxima. One of them is the place in amb. 10: PG 91, 1196V, and the second is amb. 7: PG 91, 1088A, which speaks of the state of deification as one in which “[we] ... will know all things, no longer maintaining [the state of] movement around them due to ignorance, as having moved with our mind, word-logos, spirit close to the great Mind, Word-Logos, Spirit, or better [to say]: with ourselves entirely - to the whole God, as a prototype Image" (Russian translation by A. M. Shufrin). Thunberg draws attention to the background of the idea of ​​imago Trinitatis in St. A maxim that goes back to or. 23: PG 35, 1161C-1164A St. Gregory the Theologian: “We know that one and the same nature of the Divine, cognizable in the Beginningless, in Birth and Origin (as if in the mind that is in us, in word and spirit, since the spiritual is compared with the sensory and the highest with the small, while the imaginary image does not fully reach the truth" (quoted from the ed.: Gregory the Theologian 1994, vol. 1, p. 333 with amendment). The maxim idea imago Trinitatis appears for the first time in qu. dub. 105. Summarizing all these cases, Thunberg writes that the presence of St. The maxim of the idea imago Trinitatis is undoubtedly, but at the same time St. Maximus does not dwell on this point in too much detail, that is, in him (as Louth also notes, see Louth 1996, p. 211, n. 120), as in Byzantine theology as a whole, this idea does not play the same role as in the West after Augustine (see Augustine: de Trin. 9-10). Thunberg believes that such an insignificant role of such analogies among St. The maxim relates to the apophatic nature of his theology, warning against seeking knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity in creation. Following Sherwood, Thunberg claims that for St. Maxim, everything found in nature can only be a “hint” (adumbration) of the Trinity. However, Thunberg notes that these hints could also have played a role for St. Maximus plays an important role at the anthropological and interhuman level, as can be seen in the example of Abraham (Mach. ep. 2: PG 91, 400C and Thal. 28: PG 90, 360D), in which the coming of the three angels illustrates the relationship between the inner unity of man, achieved through the liberation of the mind in terms of dependence on the material, and the revelation of the Holy Trinity to rational beings in the created world. To the examples given by Thunberg and Lauth, one can add one more, where, although it does not talk about assimilation to the Trinity, it is about achieving unity between the three forces of the soul: mind, intelligence and vital force (myst. 5). In all these cases, Rev. Maxim emphasizes that turning to the One God, His preference for everything sensory and even created, creates the unity and integrity of man without abolishing the differences between the three forces of his soul, but through likening his internal structure to the Holy Trinity. It is not the trichotomy of the soul as such that appears in St. Maxim is a means of knowing God (as in Augustine), but the soul, having become like the Trinity, imprints It on itself and learns “the unity conceivable in It.” Törönen (Törönen 2007, p. 77, paragraph 39) points to several more places where St. Maximus speaks of the soul as an image of the Trinity: Thal. 32: 225 and or. dom. 436–438: 52–53, as well as: Thal 25: 161–163 (Laga, Steel) (to this list can be added qu. dub. I, 34. He also notes several cases when such parallels are drawn in the subsequent Orthodox tradition: Sym. N. Theol. hymn. 44: 70 ff. (SC 196); Greg. Pal. cap. 150: 40.126–128, ed. Or: “strike” (κατάπληξον). Or: "medicine" (τὸἴαμα). The whole verse: “If the possessive spirit comes upon you, do not leave your place, so that healing may satisfy the sins of many” (Eccl. 10:4 (LXX)). The question clearly presupposes an ascetic understanding of this verse in its full context, so the crux of the question is obviously why St. Vasily did not interpret this verse in exactly this ascetic sense. See Bas. Caes. horn, in Ps. I.1: PG 29, 209A-212A. Probably "medicine" here. This interpretation obviously follows from the interpretation of the words of the verse: “If the spirit of the possessor comes upon you, do not leave your place” (Eccl. 10:4 (LXX)) in the sense that the mind should not leave its place, aligning itself with an evil thought. St. Maximus cites this passage in the Word on the ascetic life and speaks after the quotation from Eccl. 10, 4: “The place of the mind is virtue, knowledge and fear of God” (Max. lib. ascet. 18. 17, ed. Cantarella, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 81). In the ascetic sense, this passage from Eccl. 10:4 was interpreted by many Christian writers, in particular Origen, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephraim the Syrian (Greek “corps”), St. Cyril of Alexandria and others. Bas. Caes. hom. in Ps. I, 1: PG 29, 212A. Interpretation of St. The maxim is obviously directed against those who understand these words of the Apostle in the sense that God forced everyone to be disobedient. He not only does not allow such an interpretation, but even a softer one in the sense that God allowed everyone to be disobedient, but he interprets Rome. 11:32 exclusively in the sense of God’s love and the economy of our salvation, that is, the perception of our nature by the Logos and its salvation. Thus, Rev. Maxim understands. Paul through the Gospel - the parable of the good shepherd. The disobedience and sinfulness of people were revealed in the Incarnation, but as diseases of our nature, pardoned and healed by Christ. The expression: “having imprisoned her along with those who persecuted [her]” is not entirely clear; perhaps under “those who persecuted” within the framework of the interpretation of St. Maximus is to be understood as the angels who ministered to the Word in His economy. See Ref. 24. For the seventy elders, as corresponding to natural contemplation, see qu. dub. 73. This question and answer briefly formulates the teaching about the meaning of the Incarnation, which St. Maximus will develop later, most notably in the Difficulties to John (in amb. 42: PG 91, 1316A-1349A). According to this teaching, unfamily conception introduced a new way into the existence of our nature in comparison with what arose with us after the Fall and is associated with a passionate birth, entailing the condemnation of death. Or: “imprints”, “imprints”, “signs” (τύποις). Wed. myst. 2: “To those who have [spiritual] vision, the entire intelligible world appears mysteriously imprinted on the entire sensory world through symbolic images. And the entire sensory world, in spiritual speculation, appears to be contained in the entire intelligible world, being known [there] thanks to its logoi. For the sensible world exists in the intelligible through its logoi, and the intelligible in the sensible through its imprints. Their work is one and, as Ezekiel, a wondrous contemplator of the great, said, they are like a wheel within a wheel (Ezek. 1:16), speaking, I believe, about two worlds” (PG 91, 669C, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, pp. 159–160). As can be seen from this passage, the sensory world for St. The maxim is pure for us (that is, it does not turn out to be a source of temptation) if we handle it correctly, namely, when, turning to the sensual, we ascend to its spiritual, logos beginning. He develops this topic in more detail in the Difficulties to John, especially in amb. 10. Spiritual interpretation of the vision of St. Peter, continuing the ideas of qu. dub. 116, see Thal. 27. Or: “reason”, or: “the word of God” (cf. Heb. 4:12). Here is the usual for St. Maxima polysemy. Wed. Acts 19, 19. The Scriptures talk about the cost of the burned books, and Maximus talks about their quantity. – Approx. translation Wed. from Philo of Alexandria: “ten thousand is... the greatest limit of those numbers that increase from one, and also the most perfect [number]” (Philo de plant.: 76. 4, ed. Wendland). Seduction by the sensory world, carried out through the five senses, hence probably fifty thousand. That is, Rev. Maxim emphasizes that the highest seduction (delusion) is the seduction of the sensory world, that the fire of the apostolic teaching - apparently the fire of Pentecost - burns out precisely this seduction. Magic and sorcery in this context are obviously only some of the phenomena of this seduction, which is more total in nature than the “primitive religiosity” manifested in magic and sorcery. See In. 19, 32, 33; Matt. 27, 38; Mk. 15, 27. P.K. Dobrotsvetov understood the Venerable’s question. Maxim is incorrect: “For what reason was the Lord crucified on the cross between two thieves” (Maxim the Confessor 2008, p. 164), which was further reflected in his translation. More detailed anagogical interpretation of the two thieves in St. Maxima in amb. 53: PG 91.1372С-1376В. See Joan. Chrys. hom. In act., 47–2: PG 60, 328–329. An interesting example when St. Maxim pays tribute to the representative of the Antiochian school of exegesis, Chrysostom, for his insightful historical interpretation, this once again proves that St. Maxim showed interest in such interpretations, and not just in the anagogue. D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 345) notes another interpretation of this passage in Chrysostom (Joan. Chrys. hom. in act., 19: PG 60, 153), the interpretation of which is somewhat different from the passage referred to by St. Maxim. Or: “thoughts” (λογισμούς). Lamp's dictionary gives the following examples of the use of this word: “λογισμός is the movement of the soul around something” (doctr. patr. 33. 262. 26, ed. Diekamp), or: “the first thought that comes to mind” (ibid. 263.9). The doctrine of God's providence for creation was developed by St. Maximus in the Difficulties to John (see, in particular, amb. 10: PG 91, 1189A-1193C, especially: 1193A). Compare: “If the difference between people is great and incomprehensible - each in relation to each - and the changeability of each in relation to himself in [the way of] life and morals, and opinions, and wills, and desires, in knowledge and needs, and intentions, and the very thoughts of the soul, which are almost limitless, and in everything that changes every day and hour along with the circumstances that arise (for this being (τὸ ζώον) - man - changes very changeably and quickly along with times and circumstances), then every necessity [belongs] and Providence, covering everything and everyone with its foreknowledge, appears different and diverse, and complex, and spreading according to the immensity of the multiplied [of God's creations], and adapts to everyone's benefit in everything and in every sense, down to the smallest movements of the soul and body" (amb. 10: PG 91, 1193B, Russian translation by Archim. Nektariy (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 2006, p. Following Nemesius (Nemes. de nat. hom. 44), St. Maxim insists on the existence of providence for every human individual, without considering that the changeability of our states and will may somehow contradict the presence of providence, “appropriately adapting” to our changeability. The incomprehensibility for us of such a fishery “adapting” to our variability does not negate for Nemesius and others. The maxim of faith that he exists, arising from faith in God, who cares for His creation; rather, this incomprehensibility strengthens faith in providence. About God's providence for individuals, according to St. Maxim, see: Benevich 2009a. At St. Maxim is like this: “his heart”, in LXX - “their heart”. Wed. in amb. 42: PG 91, 1328B: “He desired, thought through and knew everything that exists in one way or another in essence before [its existence]; and He realizes and hypostasizes each of the existing things at a suitable and beneficial time” (Russian translation by Archim. Nektariy (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim the Confessor 2006, p. 298). Outlines of this topic are already found in carit. 4. 4.: “When the Creator willed, he realized and brought into being from eternity the knowledge of beings that preexisted in Him. It is absurd to doubt that omnipotent God can accomplish anything when he desires it” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, published by Maxim Confessor 1993, book I, p. 134). Wed. this topic in carit. 4. 6: “Some say that creatures coexist with God from eternity, but this is impossible. For how can [things] limited in everything coexist from eternity with the Infinite? Or how can they really be creatures if they are co-eternal with the Creator?” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov according to the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book I, p. 135); Wed development of this topic by Rev. Maxima in amb. 7: PG 91, 1081B: “After all, it is impossible to exist in the same [sense] as Infinite and limited [with limits]; and no argument (logos) can be found to prove that essence and super-essence can exist in the same [sense]; and reducing the immeasurable to the same thing as the measurable; and what is not relative - besides, what is relative” (translated by A. M. Shufrin, published by: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 261). John Philoponus wrote about the impossibility of coexistence from eternity between the Creator and the creature and about the pre-existence in God of the logoi of creatures, according to which they are created at the appropriate time, in the context of polemics with the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Contesting the doctrine of Proclus, based on the doctrine shared by his opponent about the existence of God's providence for all things, he wrote: “If we accept these [positions] on the basis of teaching - I am talking about providence or fate - it is necessary that the logoi of future [things] be both foreshadowed and pre-existent [of these future things themselves]. Since this is so, it is clear to everyone that it is not necessary that the things themselves coexist with their creative logoi and the causes of created things, and on the contrary, it is necessary from what has been shown that their logoi preexist all created things. So, even if the ideas and paradigms [patterns] of beings are the thoughts and logoi of the Creator, in accordance with which He brought the world into being, it is certainly not necessary that the world itself coexist from eternity with God’s knowledge of the world” (Joan. Philop. de aeter. mund. 2.5: 41. 8–22, ed. Rabe); cf.: “in God, the creative logoi of beings always have effectiveness and all-perfection, but God brings each [of beings] into existence and gives it existence, desiring this, and He desires this when the emergence is good for the emerging one; and that which is in accordance with nature is good in all respects (or: good), and ... for things that come into being, it is in accordance with nature not to be coeternal with the one who brought them into being” (ibid., 4.9: 79.4–12). It is also significant that the doctrine of logoi by John Philoponus was developed on the basis of dissociation from the understanding of Platonic ideas as essences: “If they [that is, opponents of Philoponus, first of all – followers of Proclus. – G.B.] will claim that they [that is, ideas. – G.B. ] not essences, but creative logoi or thoughts, according to which the Creator created everything - for what else could they be, if they are not essences - then there will be no need for creative logoi and creations corresponding to them to coexist at once. Rather, the opposite is necessary. If such creatures exist, then, in any case, there must be logos in accordance with which they arose, but creatures do not always follow logos. A shipbuilder or carpenter may have logos [here: plans, plans. – G.B.] [building] a ship or a house, but not yet build them. ...So, if things corresponding to them [that is, logoi. – G.B.], do not always directly follow the logos, nothing prevents the world from existing forever, even if the creative logos of the world are eternal” (ibid., 2.5: 37. 1–10, ed. Rabe). The peculiarity of the thought of St. The maxim is that in the horizon of “logology”, developed before him by the same John Philoponus, he included the “moral” ontodynamic aspect relating to the chosen good or evil. We see the outlines of this approach already in this qu. dub. 121, but he talks about this in more detail below, in qu. dub. 173 and in many places of the Difficulties to John, especially amb. 7 and amb. 15. On the relationship between the existence of a creature and its movement towards God or from God, see qu. dub. 173 and amb. 7, where this topic is examined in more detail in the context of polemics with Origenism and its doctrine of Enada. See the discussion of this passage from qu. dub. 121 in scholium 86 A. M. Shufrina to amb. 7 in: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 353. In this translation qu. dub. 121 the translation given by A. M. Shufrin is partially used. συγχωρούσης. About permission, according to St. Maxim, see qu. dub. 83. Maximus significantly complements the ontological plan for considering this problematic, which we find in John Philoponus (see previous notes and notes to qu. dub. 173 and the text of this question-answer itself). In general, in this approach, Rev. Maximus follows the path to solving this issue, already outlined by Origen in his treatise On Principles in the chapter “On Free Will.” Moreover, unlike Origen, who, within the framework of his teaching about universal salvation, considered any identification of moral choice to be pedagogical on the part of God the Provider, St. Maximus, in his interpretation of the same topic, proceeded from his doctrine of God's foreknowledge of the final goal chosen by rational creatures. Therefore, literally from the very beginning of his interpretation of St. Maximus states that God "[knows] the purpose of each one's position, according to his movement." Or: "darkness" (σκοτασμός). This interpretation can be found in St. Cyril of Alexandria: Cyr. Alex. comm, in xii proph.: 2. 443. 4, ed. Pusey; Cyr. Alex. ep. pasch.: PG 77, 484.11. Declerck (1982, p. 90) gives – questionably – a reference to Theocritus as a possible source (Theocr. idyll: 17.79, ed. Gow). However, a closer reference could be to Agathias Scholasticus (VI century) (Agath. histor. 60. 28, ed. Keydell). Lit.: acts as a “proxen” - a person who provides hospitality to a stranger on behalf of a given state. – Approx. translation The original text is not conveyed accurately. Lit.: "one". Probably Rev. Maxim, within the framework of the anagogical interpretation, emphasizes here that the church can also be understood as an individual person, and accordingly he changes the text of Scripture, releasing what is said in this place about other people: “but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in an [unfamiliar] tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). In his place of “others” there are feelings that represent our “other” in relation to the mind. πρόσκλησιν is a word that can mean a call to trial, battle or trial. In this context, however, it is used most likely in a reproachful sense. See Arist. fragm. varia: 7. 39. 361. 3–4, ed. Rose. This word means: “gluttonous”, “greedy”, “lustful”. By rotting we probably mean the improper (pernicious) use of the natural energies of nature. Lit.: “thanks to ascetic skill” (διὰ τῆς ἀγωνιστικής ἕ ξεως). It is not entirely clear whether we are talking about the persistence of passion coming out (in this case, the ascetic skill is spoken of in an ironic sense), or whether it is about the ascetic skill of the person whose heart is gnawed by passion. However, this place has a large number of discrepancies in various manuscripts, in a number of which instead of ἀγωνιστικῆς there is: άγνωϊστικής, or: γνωϊστικής, or: διαγνωϊστικής (see Declerck 1982, p. 93). That is, this place obviously seemed difficult for many scribes to understand. That is, reasonable, willing and angry. Perhaps this refers to the well-known teaching of St. Maxim on the dialectic of pleasure and pain. Namely, that passion explicitly brings suffering either because of satiety, or because of the diseases it brings, or because of the shame associated with its satisfaction, which is realized by the rational power of the soul, which can reject passion. But this is the “fate of passion” for St. The maxim does not end, and he outlines the possibility of its transformation for a new, virtuous life (cf. the theme of repentance and a turn to good after total defeat by sin in qu. dub. I, 79). See Μφ. 20, 1–16. We find another interpretation of the same parable in qu. dub. 183. What gave the basis to St. Maxim raise the topic of dispassion in connection with this parable? Most likely, the first-hired workers who complained about the latter were jealous of the eleventh-hour workers, that is, they did not show the proper dispassion, which means that they did not acquire dispassion in their work; as St. Petersburg clarifies. Maxim, it was not their goal. Nevertheless, in this parable he draws attention not only to this fact, but also to the fact that both of them received their denarius, that is, the salvation of the soul. Based on these two observations, St. Maxim builds his interpretation: some receive salvation by appearing before God at the hour of death, completely renouncing earthly things for the sake of God (even at the last moment), while others receive it undeservedly, simply because they have endured ascetic labors. It is worth noting that both of them strove for salvation, although some hoped to find it solely through the works of asceticism, while others managed to renounce everything by turning to God. The paradox is that, according to the literal meaning of the parable, it may seem that the owner showed great generosity towards the workers of the eleventh hour, while St. Maxim, it turned out that “by grace” (or by mercy) it was the first hired workers who received salvation. It is possible that Rev. Maximus interpreted the words about the “idleness” of workers at the eleventh hour at the time they were hired (see Matt. 20:6) in the sense of their abolition from earthly affairs and addictions to earthly things. In qu. dub. 131 vineyards are interpreted as human nature. It is interesting that in the prologue to the Mystagogy of St. Maxim calls himself the one who came after Dionysius the Areopagite to cultivate the spiritual vineyard. And the payment for this cultivation (denarius) is understood as the exaltation of the divine and royal image, once stolen by the evil one because of the crime of the commandment (see Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, published by: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 155). Wed. about Job's internal state in qu. dub. 48: “even if it seems to many, as it was in the story of Job, that [hope] seems to have been destroyed like rust, yet within remains shining and shining the one who [always] rejoices in hope” (see also the note to this place). τρόπου – “lifestyle or state.” Sorrow (λύπη) not for God (about good and praiseworthy sorrow, see the next, 129th question) is a sinful passion. However, the biblical story of Job may well create the sense that he was grieving over his losses and misfortunes. This can be seen at least in several places in the Synodal translation of the book of Job: “My soul is disgusted with my life; I will indulge in my sorrow; I will speak in the sorrow of my soul" (Job 10:1), or: "My insides boil and do not cease; Days of sorrow greeted me” (Job 30:27). It is characteristic, however, that the Septuagint does not speak of “sorrow” in the relevant places. Nevertheless, the very possibility of thinking that Job was in despair or sad about his losses and misfortunes is obvious. She probably prompted St. Maximus to explain that the righteous Job, who even before the troubles befell him, loved only the enduring, could not fall into sadness over the transitory, as above, in qu. dub. 48, it is said that he was always inwardly “rejoiced in hope.” The question of what it means to apply various kinds of passions to God and the saints in Scripture is discussed by St. Maxim in detail in qu. dub. 129 and in Thal. 1. And how he understood what happened to Job is clear from his answer to Bishop. Feodosia during a visit to St. Maximus in exile in Vision: “The test concerns the saints so that their disposition to what is good by nature, through sorrow, is revealed in the lives of people, at the same time revealing in themselves the virtues unknown to everyone, as was the case with Job and Joseph: the first was tested for the manifestation of the courage hidden [in him], and the second was tempted for the revelation of [his] sanctifying chastity. And each of the saints, not voluntarily undergoing tribulations in this age, endures this because of some similar purposes [of God], so that through the weakness that it is given to them [from God] to be subjected, they trample on the proud and apostate dragon, that is, the devil, for patience is a testing matter for each of the saints” (Max. disp. Biz. 3: 78–80, ed. Allen, Neil, Russian. translated by M. D. Muretova, quoted from: Maxim Confessor 2007a, pp. 176–177). Here we obviously encounter one of the earliest developments of St. The maxim of that teaching is about the “ever-moving rest” of the mind in God, which is “steadily identical movement” around the same One and Only (see Thal. 65: PG 90, 757C-760A and Larchet 1996, p. 667). When receiving pleasure from the final, sadness is mixed with this pleasure, since there is a fear of loss or satiety. Enjoyment of the inexhaustible God is pure joy, and no sorrow is mixed with it, and satiety with it is impossible (for more details, see amb. 7). Wed. discussion of the applicability of "sorrow" and other words denoting passionate states to God and the saints in Thal. 1. This problem, obviously, was important for St. The maxim is both exegetical, ascetic, and theological. How to understand the dispassion of God and how do the references in Scripture to His seemingly “affective” states agree with it? A similar question applies to saints. St. Maxim gives an answer to this question, taking care not only that the doctrine of the impassivity of God and the saints remains unshakable, but also that the doctrine of a living and active Provider God and saints who are impassive, but not indifferent to people, are preserved. As a result, he comes to the paradoxical statement that sometimes what is called sadness is actually joy, compassionately poured out on people by saints who experience god-like sadness for them. Wed. in Ps.-Galen in relation to the art of medicine: “theory (or: “contemplation”) precedes practice” (προηγείται δὲ τῆς πρὰξεως ἡ θεωρία) (Ps.-Galen. definit. med. 19. 351. 9, ed. Question from Rev. The maxim is obviously “provocative” in relation to the traditional scheme of ascent to God: doing, contemplating, theology. This three-stage scheme is found repeatedly in St. Petersburg himself. Maxim (see, for example, qu. dub. 145 or carit. 2. 26). For more details about the close relationship between doing and contemplation and, in particular, about the fact that doing must be reasonable, that is, be guided by reason, see amb. 10: PG 91, 1108 ff. As a result, according to Rev. Maxim, contemplation embraces doing, it precedes it as determining what needs to be done before doing itself, and comprehends what has already been done. In this case, we are obviously talking about that aspect of ascetic life, which is traditionally called “doing” in contrast to another aspect, which is called “natural contemplation,” or contemplation of creation, which, in turn, cannot be pure, leading to God, without first, in doing, the irrational part of the soul being cleansed of passions. Lit.: “afterthought” (μετεπινοεῖται). D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 349) notes that Nil. Anc. comm, in Cant. Cant.: 61. 31, ed. Guérard, in his commentary on the Song of Songs, interprets the fence as a natural law. Let us cite for comparison the translation of A. M. Shufrin: “From Isaiah: “he planted a vineyard and surrounded it with a fence,” and so on (cf. Is. 5:2). “Planting a vineyard” signifies creation; “fence” is a natural law; and the palisade supporting [the vines] is written; with them the Creator strengthened nature. So, whoever, according to (conscious) preference, nobly grows the good sown [in him] in accordance with nature, he will produce fruit for the gardener; and whoever rushes in contradiction with reason (logos) to the non-existent, produces thorns, that is, passions, and is trampled by the demons acting from them” (quoted from the editor: Maxim the Confessor 2007a, p. 357). A. M. Shufrin, following Declerck (Declerck 1982, p. 95), points to a parallel place in amb. 7: PG 91, 1081D-1084A: “every person who participates in virtue, according to a solid habit [in it], undoubtedly participates in God - the essence of virtues, how nobly, in accordance with (conscious) preference, who has grown the good sown [in him] in accordance with nature” (translated by A. M. Shufrin according to the publication: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 263). It is to this place that J.-C. refers. Larchet (see Larchet 1994, p. 73), when he says that for St. The maxims of virtue are not only set by the logos of human nature as a norm to which a person is called to conform (see amb. 7: PG 91, 1084B), but also from his birth are present in this nature as seeds that a person must grow, which, of course, requires our will. D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 350) indicates a number of authors who interpret Lebanon as idolatry (for example, St. Basil the Great - PG 29, 293D and St. Procopius - PG 87 (2), 1882B). Prassas's attempt to draw a further parallel with the interpretation of “beasts” in St. Gregory of Nyssa (PG 44, 944–945) does not seem convincing. In any case, St. Gregory, lions and leopards are not interpreted as clearly as in St. Maxims in relation to doing and contemplation (see next note). About how a leopard will attack a person, St. Maxim could have learned from St. Basil the Great in: Bas. Caes. Note. dict, in Lacis.: PG 31, 1456. 41. However, in Origen there is a parallel that is more appropriate to this place, in which the lion appears as the image of the enemy of doing, and the leopard - of knowledge, while the leopard is said to attack the eyes: “It seems that malice in relation to doing (πράξεις) is committed by those [demons? passions?], which metaphorically (or: “figuratively” - τροπικῶς) are called “lions”, and malice in relation to knowledge (γνῶσιν) - those who want to harm the visual power of the soul. After all, it is said that the leopard jumps right into the eye, and the lion, as they say, having grown old, lives near cities, desiring people” (Orig, fragm. in Jerem. (in catenis): 3. 4, ed. Klostermann, trans. D. A. Chernoglazov). Wed. Ezek. 6, 2; Mich. 6, 1 (LXX). D. Prassas (2003, p. 350) refers to a parallel passage - the interpretation of mountains as angels in Origen (see PG 12, 1632B); however, there are many similar interpretations by other authors after Origen. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea interprets mountains and hills as angels and archangels (Euseb. de eccles. theol.: 3. 3. 39. 5, ed. Klostermann, Hansen). The closest interpretation is St. Maxim to Didymus the Blind, who interprets mountains and hills as angels and righteous people (Didym. in Genesim: 215. 22, ed. Nautin, Doutreleau). However, with all these parallels, only St. Maxim we find the terminology of logos and tropos (methods) specific to him; this topic is developed in more detail in the next question and answer. On the evolution in patristic exegesis using the example of the interpretation of “mountain”, see the article by A. G. Dunaev, in which, in particular, the author refers to the interpretation of “mountain” by St. Maxim (see Dunaev 2006, pp. 119–121). In this article, A.G. Dunaev uses the example of the exegesis of St. Maxima notes that in the 7th century. The synthesis of the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of exegesis has not yet occurred, attributing the exegesis of Maximus primarily to the Alexandrian tradition. To this conclusion we should add the consideration we noted in the preface that St. Maxim, at least during the period of writing Qu. dub., worked taking into account the Antiochene tradition, especially the exegesis of Chrysostom. This is probably what distinguishes him from most other “Alexandrians,” as well as the fact that he somehow integrated his exegesis into his specific theological and philosophical system (see, for example, the concepts of logoi and tropos). Parallel passages indicated by D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 350): Origen (PG 12, 1568C-D), Athanasius the Great (PG 28, 720C; 27, 409C). At the Venerable himself. Maxim, the image of the “widow-soul” appears more than once, see, for example, qu. dub. 140, to Theopempus the scholastic (in the interpretation of Luke 18:6), in amb. 10: PG 91, 1125С in speculation about Saint Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta. The soul that has destroyed the natural law is a soul that does not live in accordance with the logos of nature, is possessed by passions, and is unreasonable. Or: “insidious”, “treacherous”, “treacherous” (ὑπόκλοπος). This rare word is found in the Greek reception of the works of St. Ephrem the Syrian: τὸ ὑπόκλοπον καὶ ψευδώνυμον ἧ θος (Ephr. Syr. encom. in sanct. quadr. mart.: 144. 10, ed. Phrantzoles). Or: "image" (τρόπος). In almost the same combination as here (ύπόκλοπος τρόπος), these words are found in St. Maxima one more time in ep. 12: PG 91, 497С, when he speaks of heretics, whose cunning intentions and cunning (or, as can be seen from the context, thieving and predatory) disposition (τρόπου τὸ ὑπόκλοπον) the Lord had in mind when he warned against false prophets, who are ravenous wolves (see Matthew 7:15–16). St. Maxim considers man in two aspects - the logos of nature and the method (tropos) of his existence. In the aspect of the logos of nature, the soul, overwhelmed by passions, does not realize its rational nature, as it should, but in the aspect of the way of existence of man, as we see from the words of St. Maxim, is deprived of his sonship due to the wrong choice of values ​​to which he devoted his life - perishable glory and earthly wealth. The second aspect concerns existence (way of being), and the first is natural. Both require correction. It is interesting that orphanhood in St. Maxima is associated (without any sentimentality) not only with fatherlessness, but also with cunning and deceit. συμβουλῆς. Perhaps we are talking about the eternal “council” about the salvation of the human race, or perhaps about advice and instruction to man through angels and the righteous (see the previous question and answer). The peculiarity of the anagogical interpretation of St. Maxim is not only that he relates everything said in the verse of the psalm about widows and orphans to the nature and life of an individual person, but also that in his interpretation he removes the opposition between “widow and orphan”, on the one hand, and “sinners” and their paths, on the other. With a superficial and external historical reading of this verse of the psalm, the “good and the wretched” widow and the orphan are contrasted with the “bad” sinners, who obviously oppress the widow and the orphan. At St. Maxim, in his anagogical interpretation, the widow and the orphan themselves turn out to be symbols of our sinful and passion-filled existence. The opposition between “bad” and “good” is removed, or rather, in the place of bad and good people another opposition arises: on the one hand, a person overwhelmed by passions and who has lost the true Good, and on the other, God, who restores our nature and elevates it to a divinely filial way of existence. According to the remark of A. M. Shufrin, Rev. Maxim, ultimately, is faithful to the letter of the verse, since it is said: “the path of sinners will destroy,” but not the sinners themselves. What will God do with the “sinners”? About this, according to St. Maxim, and it is said in the first part: “it will take orchard and water, and the path of [them] sinners[,] will destroy.” But the path of sinners is, strictly speaking, their sin. Moreover, sin is deprivation of good. In the case of a widow, this is literally the deprivation of a husband, in the case of an orphan, of a father. To destroy sin in this context means to restore the missing good, and not with a transitory, perishable one, which can still be lost, but with a true one. Having accepted the widow and the orphan, the Lord becomes the Husband for our nature (since in the incarnate Logos of God the logos of our nature is fully realized), in addition, in Him she receives adoption, that is, the divinely-filial way of existence and Divine glory. From the beginning of this question and answer to the present place, lane. A. M. Shufrina. That is, they have a real existence as Hypostases. This question and answer develops one of the topics qu. dub. 105, has several correspondences in the subsequent works of St. Maxima. Thus, in the Difficulties to John, speaking about the types of natural contemplation from which one can know God, he writes: “primarily for the knowledge of God, they are offered [to us] for guidance: the logoi of essence, movement and distinction, by which God becomes known to people who draw from existence indications about Him as Creator, Provider and Judge... So, for example, essence is a teacher of theology, through which, seeking the Cause of beings, we learn from them that Such exists, without, however, trying to know what It is in essence, since there is no projection in beings by which this would appear and through which we could at least somewhat rise from the caused to the Cause; and movement reveals the providence of beings, through which, seeing the unchangeable identity in essence of each type of creation, as well as uninhibited development, we understand the One who Contains and Preserves in ineffable unity all [various species], clearly differentiated from each other in accordance with the logos by which He brought them into existence; and the difference announces the judgment, from which we learn from the natural power of the logoi contained in all beings, inherent in all beings, commensurate with the essence of the subject, that God is a wise dispenser. I mean providence that does not reverse and somehow arrange the return of those for whom it provides for, from what is not due to what is due, but which contains everything and observes it in accordance with the logos according to which it first arranged everything; and the judgment is not admonishing and in any way punishing those who sin, but a salvific and distributing division of beings, according to which each of the creatures, united with the logos according to which it was created, immutably possesses a legality unchangeable in its natural identity, as from the beginning the Creator judged its being and what exactly it is” (amb. 10: PG 91, 1133B-1133D, Russian translation by Archim. Nektariy (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 2006, p. A more accurate match to qu. dub. 136 is Thal. 13: PG 90, 196В-С, rus. lane S. L. Epifanovich and A. I. Sidorov, see in the edition: Maxim Confessor 1993, book. II, p. 47. See an excerpt from this translation and an analysis of this issue in approx. 430 to qu. dub. 105, which also discusses the problem of knowing the Trinity from creation. See Greg. Naz. or. 19. ad lui. tribute, exaequat. 8: PG 35, 1052B. See Ref. 25, 3–5 (LXX), St. Gregory quotes this passage in Greg. Naz. or. 19: PG 35, 1052B-C. In this place of the Word 19 St. Gregory, a passage from the Old Testament is read in the context of the New in relation to the virtues and gifts that Christians contribute to the creation of a united Church. St. Maxim continues this interpretation, already dwelling in detail on the symbolic meaning of each gift in relation to spiritual life. Wed. the topic of “natural seeds” of virtues in approx. 153 to qu. dub. 34 and approx. 512 to qu. dub. 131. Or: “provisions” (θεωρημάτων). Or: “transitory” (τὰ παρόντα). The teaching about fear, which is also present in the Kingdom of Heaven, is found before St. Maximus from a number of holy fathers, for example, St. John Chrysostom, who, in a polemic with the Anomeans, emphasizing the incomprehensibility and transcendence of God, says that even the angels glorify God “with great trembling” (Joan. Chrys. de incomp. Dei nat. 1. 312, ed. Malingrey). At St. Maxim's idea of ​​sacred fear, which persists in the life of the next century, is found, for example, in Questions and Answers to Fapassius: “God is terrible for everyone who is around Him, as if mixing fear with love among those who love Him and find themselves around Him. For love in itself, without fear, is inherent in becoming contempt, as often happens if the intimacy naturally born of it is not restrained by the bridle of fear” (Thal. 10. 74–79, ed. Laga, Steel, Russian translation by S. L. Epifanovich, edited by A. I. Sidorov, published by: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book II, p. 43). Just above this place, St. Maximus explains that this is not about fear of punishment (which the angels could not have), but about reverence for the infinite (see Thal. 10. 61–63, ed. Laga, Steel). Discussion of the role of reverent fear in the “system” of St. For Maximus, see the scholia of A.M. Shufrina to amb. 7 (Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 294). Understanding 1 John 4, 18 pr. Maxim significantly complements the understanding of this place by a number of authors, for example, St. Diadochos of Photiki (see his Ascetic Word 16–17 in: Do6rotolu6ie, vol. 3, pp. 15–16). Or: "disposition" (διάθεσις). Wed. in Thal 26: “sometimes Scripture understands Pharaoh as the devil, when he becomes the destroyer of Israel, and sometimes as a law of nature, when Joseph, according to [God’s] economy, serves him, prophetically signifying God the Word, who voluntarily entered into the service of our passions and nature, with the exception of one sin” (Thal. 26. 141–142, ed. Laga, Steel, translated by A. I. Sidorov, published by: Maxim Confessor 1993, book II, p. 76). Here Rev. Maxim, obviously, relies on what was said by the ap. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1-2) the idea that the pagans, to whom the natural law was given, could and did know God through creation, but then their knowledge was distorted due to the fact that they did not glorify God and lived unrighteously. As a result, their religiosity was distorted. At least the description of the app. Paul, the result of this distortion: “they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and reptiles” (Rom. 1:23) - very reminiscent of the Egyptian pantheon. Be that as it may, on the paths of “natural” knowledge of God and “natural morality” people as a whole suffered defeat; this knowledge turned out to be unstable and easily distorted. It took the coming of God Himself, in whom alone it turned out to be possible to raise humanity to the true knowledge of God in a stable and immutable manner. Now it is given by God Himself, who has accepted our nature, however, in response to what we offer: faith, pure life, and so on. This idea is pursued by St. Maxim in the second part of this question and answer. The topic of natural law is discussed further in qu. dub. 140. See Gen. 47, 14–17. Perhaps, Rev. Maxim wanted to emphasize here that true knowledge is given only by Christ Himself, but a person must bring Him faith and an appropriate life. This sequence differs from what happened before, when people acquired knowledge themselves. Receiving knowledge from God, that is, knowing the source of this knowledge, a person gives Him what is due. Or: “subjected to petrification” (πωρωθέντα). The same verb is used here as in John. 12, 40: “this people ... have hardened (ἐπώρωσεν) their hearts.” Below prp. Maxim clearly correlates this “judge” with the mind: “if the mind responds to zealous and persistent requests...”. According to A. M. Shufrin, “the hardening of the natural law” means the mental imperative of the indispensable satisfaction of all the needs of nature that appeared after the “crime”, when the opposite of the pristine nature (as It was before being clothed in leather vestments) became “natural”. Wed. a slightly different interpretation in the later work of Theopempus the scholastic (according to Sherwood, c. 630–633): “under the ‘unjust judge’ in the Gospel we figuratively understand our understanding, which, as a result of the transgression of the commandment, initially carried out an unrighteous judgment,” and “a pestering widow is a rational soul, deprived of reason, sowing seeds that are good by nature for the fruition of sacred and pious affairs" (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, published by: Maxim Confessor 1993, book I, p. 204). Wed. interpretation of "widow" in qu. dub. 134 and notes for this Q&A. εις μετάμελον. D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 353) notes the non-accidentality of the use of this word, and not the word repentance (μετάνοια), believing that St. Maxim used a more general concept, expressing a turning point in the choice of a goal, and not repentance regarding a particular act. However, perhaps what played a role here is that μετάνοια as a “change of mind” is more appropriate for the mind, and the widow here acts as the personification of practical reason, which could in fact be convinced that the path of sin leads to nowhere, and regret such a life, moving on to attempts to start living differently, with which he bothers the “unjust judge” - the mind until the mind will not change (in its understanding of “natural”), that is, will not come to repentance. Or: “to fulfill the supernatural” (ἀνύσαι καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν). It is interesting that Rev. Maxim speaks here of the possibility for the mind not only to move away from the unnatural, but also to reach the supernatural. See Ps.-Dion. With. h. 4, 2: PG 3, 200D. Wed. Eph. 1, 10. One of the places where St. Maximus resorts to the doctrine of ἀνακεφαλαίωσις 'е (“heading”) of everything by Christ (see note 247 to qu. dub. 53 and text). Perhaps such a teaching was widespread in the circles of the Origenists or those in contact with the Origenists, but a completely Orthodox source of this teaching, based on the words of Scripture: “he showed himself to the angels” (1 Tim. 3:16), which many Orthodox authors applied to the Ascension, is not excluded. Although it is obvious that the interpretation spoken of by St. Maxim, could only appear after the Areopagitik. In any case, the Venerable himself. Maxim, further giving an anagogical interpretation, avoids elements characteristic of the layer of tradition associated with Judeo-Christian and, possibly, Origenistic ideas, although he does not call the first approach incorrect. Compare: “The Word becomes everything, proportionate to us, saturated with virtue and wisdom, and is embodied (σωματούμενον) in various ways, as soon as It Himself knows, for the sake of each of those being saved” (Max. or. dom.: PG 90, 897A, Russian translation by A. I. Sidorov, cited by ed.: Maxim Confessor 1993, book I, p. 196). About the incarnation of Christ in virtues, according to St. Maximus and his predecessors (starting with Origen), see Thunberg 1965, p. 342–350. This movement - the descent of God, embodied in virtues, and the elevation of us to true gnosis - is later understood by St. Maxima in terms of “expansion-compression” (συστολή – διαστολή). Thunberg, following Balthasar, draws a parallel between the use of the concepts of “expansion” and “compression” in relation to the existence of the created world and in relation to Christology, where “expansion” in St. He correlates Maxim with God’s condescension to creation, and “compression” with deification; Thunberg finds a parallel here with the tantum-quantum formula and Christology in amb. 33: PG 91, 1288A (for details see Thunberg 1965, pp. 63–64). Here, obviously, the influence of Christian Neoplatonism is evident. The unity of the mind, gathering in itself upon moving away from existing things, is, according to the Areopagite (see d. p. 4.9), the condition of its combination with God, unity with Him as one with the One, which is also true. Maximus, following the Areopagite, considers the highest form of theology - a unity that surpasses any theology that thinks about God based on creation. It was Pentecost at St. Maxima correlates with deification, in turn understood as the achievement of the Divine Unit. The point, obviously, is that first the Logos is embodied in the fulfillment of all ten commandments, and then there is an ascent from multitude (of doing) to unity - the knowledge of the Divine Unit, that is, to the knowledge of the One and Only One, in Whom is the source of all commandments and virtues. See Canon 20 of the Council of Nicaea. That is, all the events described in Acts. 20, when Paul decided to be on the “day of Pentecost” (understood by St. Maximus as the period between Easter and Pentecost) and when he performed kneeling prayers, occurred before Easter. This interpretation of St. Maxim is an example of the fact that the literal meaning of Scripture, and not just the allegorical one, was important to him, that is, in this case it was important to show that St. Paul did not violate the canon that was formulated much later. St. Maxim seems to be defending here the unity of Church Tradition and its presence even before it is recorded in conciliar decrees. We also find a literal (historical) interpretation of Scripture in the following, qu. dub. 144. At the same time, Rev. Maxim, presumably, is not limited to clarifying the literal meaning. Bearing in mind that in the previous, qu. dub. 142, Pentecost was associated with knowledge, and what precedes it with doing, one can understand the thought of St. Maxima in qu. dub. 143 so that the genuflection of the ap. Paul before Easter corresponds to work, and the state after Easter, which he calls one day of Pentecost, corresponds to true knowledge and deification, which is why kneeling is prohibited at this time. According to Rev. Maximus, God the Word condescends to us in action and raises us to Himself in knowledge (see cap. theol. 2.37). In the Byzantine (Roman) Empire there was no longer such privileged citizenship as in Rome until the Edict of Caracalla (212), which granted Roman citizenship to the entire free population of the empire, therefore, obviously, St. Maxim decided to clarify this issue. The interpretation of cities as souls was found in qu. dub. 90. Or: “family.” The place is not entirely clear. The inability to acquire divine knowledge (gnosis), as well as correct contemplation, according to St. Maxim, can become a punishment that befalls even those who, through unshakable faith, entered the “measure” of contemplation and theology, that is, reached the second and third stages of the ascetic life, but neglected the work. 265) and expresses the hope that it can be understood by referring to mathematics. In fact, in the Theologumena of Arithmetic we find a kind of key to the education of St. The maxim of numbers that are multiples of ten from units: “For all in the order of numbers, every set of sets... forms its form through a unit: one ten, one thousand...” (Iamb, theol. arith. 2, ed. de Falco, Russian translation by V. V. Bibikhina); this explains, at least, why the “substrate” of each such number (see Thal 55, Russian translation in the ed.: ibid., p. 166) is one. Understanding the ten in ancient arithmology is also important: “It was called everyone because there is no longer any natural number greater than it; if something is thought, then it comes back to her: a hundred is ten tens, a thousand is ten hundreds, darkness is ten thousand; any subsequent number will return in the same way again either to itself or to something inside it, and everything is resolved or returned to it in various ways” (Iamb, theol arith. 80, ed. de Falco, Russian translation by A. I. Shchetnikova). Thus, in ancient arithmology, which here apparently follows St. Maxim, one and ten turn out to be the basis of any number, and even more so of numbers that are multiples of ten. The same arithmological principle of St. Maxim uses amb . 67: PG 91, 1404B, interpreting the number four thousand, D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 355) notes that “Gregory of Nyssa discusses the connection between one, ten, hundred, thousand and ten thousand in his response to the second book (apparently, the second Apology is meant. - G.B.) of Eunomius. He asserts that a ten consists of units, a hundred - of tens, a thousand - of hundreds, and ten thousand - of thousands” (see Greg. Nyss. contra Eunom. 2: GNO. I. 428. 3). Prassas also points out another parallel in St. Maxima in myst. 5: PG 91, 676A, where the four virtues are associated with the Ten Commandments. Probably, four is meant as the number of four generic virtues. The letter "p" stands for the number 100. Cf. in qu. dub. 80: “For a hundred is the tenth of the ten commandments; for each commandment embraces another and, more clearly speaking, is equated to ten, which is why Sarah, who succeeded, is added [to her name] “p” when the Word reveals her perfection in virtue.” The doctrine of the Day of the Lord, correlated with enlightenment and true knowledge, goes back to Philo and Clement of Alexandria (see a detailed study on this topic in: Choufrine 2002, pp. 123–138; a Russian translation is currently being prepared), cf. in Didymus the Blind (Didym. fragm. in epist. it ad Corinth.: 17. 28, ed. Staab). Or: “lusts” (έπιθυμεί). Probably the forces of the soul directed towards the body. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 356–357), “in qu. dub. 3. 4–5 St. Maximus also speaks of anger as a lion, and of lust as a bear. The correlation of the lion with anger can be found in many Christian authors: for example, in Origen (Orig, fragm. in Jerem.: PG 13, 321D)... The house was already interpreted as a soul by Philo (see Philo de cherub.: 101. 1, ed. Cohn),... Origen interprets the wall as a body (Orig, schol. in Cant.: PG 17, 265A), and the snake is interpreted as pleasure by Philo (Philo de opific. mundï 160. 2, ed. Cohn)". Obviously, this refers to the case when a person striving to know God does not go to Him through an ascetic life and the achievement of dispassion. His attempts are hindered by anger and lust, depriving him of that unstable peace that he may have had. For example, due to one or another external irritant, he may lose this peace and fall into anger. From anger, in order to calm down, he can give himself some kind of pleasure, becoming dependent on it. Having realized that he falls either into anger or into lust, he can again try to withdraw into himself, that is, to find a certain balanced and supposedly calm state that he needs for the knowledge of God, without falling into either obvious anger or lust. Since the original desire of the mind was to know God, then in this “peace” the mind still tries to engage in “theology”; at the same time, since he has not acquired the proper dispassion, he also relies on the body and feelings. In this case, as noted by St. Maxim, the desire for pleasure, not overcome by such a “theologian,” distorts knowledge, which from the knowledge of God becomes blindness. Perhaps we are talking about the fact that the knowledge of God in this case is distorted by carnal wisdom, that is, God is known in sensual forms and in the image of the sensory, which brings pleasure, but perhaps we are talking about the fact that being chained to the physical does not allow one to truly strive for God. Wed. the theme of knowledge of God without acquiring dispassion in the Chapters on Love (carit. 1. 18): “Like a sparrow, tied by the leg and trying to fly, falls to the ground, drawn by a rope, so the mind, which has not yet acquired dispassion, but is trying to soar to the knowledge of heavenly [things], falls to the ground, pulled down by passions” (Russian translation by A. I. Sidorova, quoted from: Maxim Confessor 1993, book I, p. 105). Or: “by the earth” (although, perhaps, “for the earth”, τῇ γῇ). What exact meaning does St. Petersburg use? Maxim, it’s not entirely clear. According to his interpretation, we are talking about the fact that the words of God test the “earth” of our heart. In the translation by P.K. Dobrotsvetov (see Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 194), gross errors were made in this and the two following question answers due to the reliance on the Synodal Translation of Scripture instead of the Septuagint. Or: “following” (ἴχνει). According to the remark of A. M. Shufrin, the concept of a “trace of the soul,” however, is found in a slightly different context in Plotinus: “Therefore, “we must flee from here” and “separate” ourselves from what was attached to us, and not already be a composed thing, an animate body, in which the nature of the body is dominant, having in itself only a trace of the soul” (Plot. ep. 2.3.9, trans. T. G. Sidash, published by: Plotinus, Second Ennead 2004 “p. and further: “the whole cosmos is, on the one hand, consisting of a body and a certain soul associated with the body, on the other hand, it is the Soul of everything, which is not in the body, but shines inside its trace left by it in [that lower] soul that [is] in the body” (Plot. ep. 2.3.9, trans. T. G. Sidash. according to the edition: Plotinus, Second Ennead 2004 , p. 143). It is interesting to compare the interpretation of this passage from Proverbs. Maxim with interpretation by Evagrius: “Do not often bring your foot to your friend, lest when he has had enough of you, he will hate you (Proverbs 25:17). It is necessary to rarely touch upon theological problems and “not to do it more often,” so as not to tell us something unprecedented about God and how the ungodly do not fall away from spiritual knowledge, since the mind, due to its weakness, cannot constantly listen to contemplation” (Evagr. schol. in Prov.: 310, ed. Géhin, trans. N. A. Olisova). Evagrius’s interpretation can be understood in the sense of an exhortation to humility before God, or in the sense of the Origenistic teaching about satiation (in this case, “satiation” is not the reason for the collapse of the Origenistic Enada of the original minds, but the reason for the falling away from the knowledge of God). Vectors of interpretation of Abba Evagrius and St. The maxims are opposite. Probably, we are talking about the fact that the body will reveal in itself the action of demons - enemies and haters of man. Compare: “He does not order the natural forces of the five senses to be killed, but if they move against nature, their actions must be destroyed” (qu. dub. 69). In qu. dub. 117 prp. Maximus wrote that “the deception of sensual [things]” is consumed by “the fire of the apostolic teaching,” that is, the fire of Pentecost. Now he talks about the opposite situation, when people lose their spiritual fire, bring in “strange fire,” first allowing passions to inflame, and then being burned in their conscience. Number 29.13 (LXX) – thirteen. See Num. 29, 12–34 (LXX). Wed. from Didymus the Blind that from the age of 14 a young man begins to emit semen into: Didym. comm, in Ps. 29–34: 157. 2, ed. Gronewald. It is interesting that Rev. Maxim calls such a movement “natural”; We are obviously talking about the state of nature after the fall and endowing it with the “leather vestments” of passion. Reducing to seven means achieving dispassion, since 7 is the number corresponding to peace (from passions). Since it is formed by adding one to seven multiplied by itself, which symbolizes everything temporary. Four corresponds to the four elements, and five to the five senses. Probably, in this question-answer we are talking about the fact that in addition to the feats of asceticism, purification of the mind is necessary in order to perceive the sensory spiritually, and only a purified and refined mind can acquire true knowledge. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 361), already Origen (however, this text belongs to him is controversial, most likely it is Evagrius) in the interpretation of this passage called Christ a worm (Orig. (?) s electa in Ps.: PG 12, 1253, 28) as did Chrysostom (PG 62, 425). The source of this opinion could not be found, although Chrysostom, for example, says that a worm is born from wood (firewood, or stump: άπό του ξὑλου) (Joan. Chrys. ad popul. Antioch.: PG 49, 75. 27), which can also be understood in the sense that not through intercourse. At the Venerable himself. Maxim's symbol of Christ - the worm - is found in qu. dub. 184 and Thal. 64, 484, ed. Laga, Steel, in the interpretation of the “Book of Jonah”, where a lengthy anagogical interpretation is given, in which the symbolism of the “worm” is played out. Wed. in Gregory of Nyssa: “The Divinity was hidden under the cover of our nature, and the enemy [of the human race], like a greedy fish, along with the bait of the flesh, swallowed the hook of the Divinity” (Greg. Nyss. orat. catech. mag.: 24, 38–40, ed. Srawley). σκολιός; perhaps there is a play on words here: σκολιός – σκώληξ (worm). Thought of St. Maxima is not entirely clear. Perhaps it consists in the fact that in relation to Christ the wisdom of the wise and the foolishness of the wicked is manifested. As noted by D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 363), the interpretation of cherubim as the completeness of knowledge can be found in many authors, for example, in Athanasius the Great (PG 28, 940A), in the Areopagitica (p. h. VII, 1), in Theodoret of Cyrus (PG 81, 829C-D), however, exactly the same interpretation as in St. Maxima before him is found in Didymus the Blind (Didym. fragm. in psalm.: 825.13, ed. Mühlenberg). Or: "aspiration" (πόθος). ἀναλωτικῆς. Lamp's Dictionary gives examples where this word is applied to the flame of God's judgment and the wrath of God. The sword is associated with distinctiveness, obviously, according to Heb. 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” ἡ τῆς γνώσεως ἡμέρα . Wed. in qu. dub. 147: “The Day of the Lord is enlightenment and knowledge of the Lord.” Or: "reasoning" (διαγνώσεως). Wed. in amb. 10: PG 91, 1125C: “Every widowed soul who does not have good works, virtue and knowledge of God, when she receives the divine and discerning (διαγνωστικόν) Word of God, remembers her sins.” Elsewhere in the Difficulties of St. Maximus says that in whomever the Word of God is born, in him It destroys the movements of the flesh and restrains the soul from striving for them and fills [this soul] with all true recognition (see amb. 10: PG 91, 1125A). Lit.: “inaction”, “idleness”, “laziness”. In the translation of Sherwood's treatise "Early Ambigua", following the thought of the researcher, we translated this passage as follows: “With sinners, deeds are burned when the penetrating knowledge (διάγνωσις) [of God] burns the conscience, reduces sin (through repentance), saves a person, punishes for the lack of virtue in the past. But in future centuries, the deeds of sin will disappear into oblivion, in while nature will receive its healthy power through fire and judgment (845C6–848A6)” (Maximus the Confessor 2007a, p. 489) · Sherwood does not have the words enclosed in curly brackets. Obviously, this passage is one of the evidence in favor of St. Maximus’s doctrine of the apocatastasis of nature (which should be distinguished from the doctrine of the universal personal. salvation), see qu. dub. 19 and also qu. dub. 99 and the part of Sherwood’s study (Maximus the Confessor 2007a, pp. 478–495). παιδίσκης (“young woman”, “young slave”, “maidservant”). St. Maxm uses a different word here (δοῦλοι) than in the words of the psalm (there it is: “to the servant” (or: “to the servant” (παιδί) of Thy); “δοῦλος” more clearly means – slave. That is, the first possible understanding is that by “god” in the words: “God stirred up David to number the people” (2 Samuel 24:1) should not be understood as God at all, but as the devil - the god of this age. Wed. qu. dub. 83; er. 26: PG 91, 671A. Another example of defending St. Maximum of fidelity to the letters of Holy Scripture. Wed. amb. 10: PG 91, 1204С-1205С. For more information about these two types of temptations, see note. 154 and the text to it in qu. dub. 34. See Lev. 6, 3; Leo 16, 4. Obviously, according to the four elements of which everything material consists (cf. qu. dub. 1.30). That is, 40 (sensible) † 2 (matter and form) 42. Obviously, we are talking about the fact that thoughts about the sensual mock the one who has directed his mind towards gnosis, laughing at the fact that he has abandoned pleasures and desires, and thus his life has become the dull life of a “bald old man”, who knows neither strong desires nor their satisfaction. The Gnostic destroys these thoughts; with the help of prayer, he prevents these ridicule from having the effect that he again begins to seek pleasure in the sensual and renounces the acquisition of virtues, but, not only this, pleasure and desire, directed towards a good goal, that is, towards the true Good, will be completely destroyed, according to St. Maxim, an attack on thoughts about the supposedly pitiful and joyless life he leads. For more details, see the discussion of this question and answer in the preface to this publication. Or: “elements” (earth, water, air and fire). St. Maxim, in his anagogical interpretation, paradoxically connects spiritual hearing and speaking (perhaps not only spiritual, but also physical) by raising the meaning of the Gospel miracle to restoration in doing, and through this in knowledge. Perhaps he was starting from the interpretation of Didymus, who emphasized that the dumb demon in this place refers specifically to speaking, and not to hearing (see Didym. comm, in Ps. 35–39: 267. 34, ed. Gronewald). Or: “teachings” (λόγων). Probably, we are talking respectively about: 1) that which relates to the nature of things as they are in their present existence; 2) about things as they are in God’s plan, or about their proper existence, and 3) about what is said about God Himself. A gap in the text, which probably refers not to this issue, but to the beginning of the next one. Wed. Life 32, 30; qü -es 25.4; 80.9. St. Maxim obviously means that we are talking about spiritual Israel, the Church from all languages, although in the literal sense, as if, we are talking only about Israel according to the flesh. As proof of his understanding, he cites the interpretation of the name Israel - seeing God (it is clear that “seeing God” in Christ can be a person from any nation). δι ’ ἐπιγνώσεως . This probably refers to Abraham's knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity and Unity, see qu. dub. 39: “Abraham achieved perfection, rose above phenomena and was illuminated with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Unity. That is why he takes alpha in addition to the name, for he has come closer in knowledge to the One (Gen. 17:5).” See Gen. 17, 5. The promise to Abraham that he will be the father of many nations (languages) is given by God in the same place where it is said about the addition of “a” in his name, the meaning of which, according to St. Maximus, in the knowledge of the God of Trinity and Unity (see previous note). Thus, the tongues that become the children of Abraham will, according to Maximus, have the same knowledge and faith. See Rome. 8, 17; Eph. 3, 6. Or: “temper”, “skill” (ἕ ξιν). Catechism (oral instruction). Mention of Joab is found in St. Maxim, in addition to this question and answer, in the next two and in the Commentary on the 59th Psalm. Yo ab (lit. “God is the Father”) – Joab. Perhaps the root ya'ab ('abā) is meant. In the Bible Hebrew "to desire passionately." In rabbinic “to press”, “to oppress”, “to surround”, “to surround”, “to embrace”, “to be ready”. "Thick aspiration" probably corresponds to the causative h- in Hebrew (but not in Aramaic). It seems that Maxim has confused the meanings of the form with and without an indicator, because it is the form with weak aspiration (that is, without h) that has a causative meaning, and the form with thick aspiration - simple. Moreover, in Greek Joab is used with a weak aspiration and means, according to Maxim, “courage”, and not “the gift of courage” or anything similar (opinion of T. A. Shchukin). It seems to us that the interpretation of the name Joab: “persecuting” could arise when this name is brought closer to the name Job (persecuted) (see Bible, Brussels, 1983, p. 2461). Šebá – Savey. Either sābá – “to be satiated”, or Sābá – “to abound”. Most likely, the name Savey is a derivative of the second verb, but Maxim could also mean the first. This is how David is understood in this case, sending Joab. That is, Rev. Maxim nevertheless plays with the translation of the name “Joab” as “persecuting,” clarifying that in this context it is courage pursuing pride. What is meant, obviously, is that when the mind tries to eradicate pride, the latter “hides” behind some virtue, that is, it feeds on and justifies itself by some virtue that a person possesses or thinks that he possesses. The creative causes of virtue are obviously in God Himself; and the wise woman, that is, wisdom (knowing the true causes of virtue), according to Scripture, persuades the inhabitants of the city (the powers of the soul) to behead pride, which apparently consists in attributing virtue to oneself. At the same time, the causes of passions are destroyed, since pride embraces all passions. 'ãmasā – Amasai. In consonance with the root mašāh – “to anoint”. Wed. maiiah "anointed one". Or: “skill” (ἐν εξει). We offer an understanding of this passage that is different from that of other translators (Ponsois, Prassas and Dobrotsvetova), who read καταλείψασα τὴν εὐχήν in the sense of abandoning prayer. Grammatically, such an understanding is not excluded, but it seems probable that St. Maxim here plays on the theme of “anointing,” stated at the very beginning of his interpretation, that is, he works with the verb ἀλείφω - “I anoint,” “I rub with oil.” The expression “to anoint the mind” is found in St. Maxima in carit. 2. 21. Or: “occupies himself” (προσασχολεῖται). There is probably an allusion here to an episode from Holy Scripture, when Amasa, sent by David to gather the Jews to fight the rebel Sheba, delayed (see 2 Samuel 20:5), for which he was subsequently killed by Joab. The meaning of this question-answer is not entirely clear, as is the relationship between the anagogical interpretation of St. Maxim and the text of Scripture. However, it can be assumed that what we are talking about here is that a soul that has achieved dispassion and acquired prayer should not be distracted by the fight against passions that have already been defeated, since in this case it loses both dispassion and the most perfect path of contemplation. If καταλείψασα τὴν εὐχήν is understood in the sense of the soul abandoning prayer, then the question answer will be devoted precisely to the danger of abandoning prayer, because of which the soul is carried away by passion, loses dispassion and contemplation. That's right qu. dub. 170 was understood by D. Prassas (see Prassas 2003, p. 367), and such a meaning cannot be excluded either. Probably Rev. Maxim means that rancor is associated with the memory of evil and the intention to repay the insult inflicted on us in the struggle for material wealth, and it is this attachment to material pleasures that is the source of rancor, and not that someone “did us evil.” Huši is possibly related to the verb huš, which in Rabbinic Hebrew has the derivative meaning “to think” (but does not in Biblical). The meaning of "spinner" is possibly related to hus "to bind tightly." “Son of Jemini” is a corruption of the LXX translation of the expression ben yamini “a Benjamite.” “Benyamin” (Binyamin) “son of the right side”, “south”, figurative meaning: “happiness, good luck” Or: “thinner” (λεπτύνει). Wed. in amb. 7: PG 91, 1081B: “with the exception of the highest, that is, the apophatic theology of the Word [or: Logos], - according to which [Logos] is neither called [word] (λέγεται), nor thought [by the mind] (νοείται), nor is it generally anything conscious of others (as super-essential), nor is it participated by anyone according to something, one Logos is many logos, and many are one” (translated by A. M. Shufrin, published by: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 261). προνοητικήν πρόοδον. The expression is found in the Areopagitica (see Ps.-Dion. pp. h. 15.1; 15.6: d. p. 9, 9). Wed. amb. 7: PG 91, 1080C: “So, each of the speculative and verbal [creations], [that is,] angels and men, according to the very logos according to which it was created - “being” in God and “towards God” (John 1:1) - is and is called a “particle of God” (due to its, as said, pre-existing logos in God). Without any doubt, even if it receives movement in accordance with this [logos], it will end up in God, in Whom, as the beginning and cause, its logos of being preexists, and if, in accordance with longing, it does not desire to acquire anything else before its own beginning, it does not flow away from God, but, rather, through being drawn towards Him, it becomes God and is called a “particle of God” - through that which appropriately participates in God, as - according to nature, wisely and consciously - through a magnificent movement acquiring its true beginning and cause, not having much further than its own beginning to be moved ([after] ascending to the principle [or: logos] by which it was created, and restoration), nor - how to be moved, [if] depending on the goal (ἐπὶ τῷ σκοπῷ) - it is clear that the Divine - its movement has received [it has achieved] a limit: very [this] Divine goal" (translated by A. M. Shufrin, published by: Maxim Confessor 2007a, p. 259). The text is given in the translation by A. M. Shufrin according to the scholium (78a) to his translation amb. 7. In the note to the last phrase qu. dub. 173 Shufrin writes: “The meaning put here by St. Maxim’s expression “condemnation in the Body of Christ” is not entirely clear to us” (Maxim the Confessor 2007a, p. 351). Attention should be paid to the difference between the idea of ​​a “member of God” (cf. “particle of God” in amb. 7), which every person who comes into being is called according to his logos, and the idea of ​​a member of the Body of Christ, which not everyone can become, but only one who finds himself in God, having rested from movement according to his logos. Thus, from the fact that the logos of every rational creature abides in God, it does not follow at all, according to St. Maxim, that each such creature will definitely become a member of the Body of Christ and will be saved, that is, not only in its logos, but in reality will become a “particle of God,” about which St. Maxim writes further. Together with qu. dub. 121 this question and answer represents the earliest development of the teachings of St. Maximus, which formed the basis of his future polemic with the Origenistic doctrine of Enada in amb. 7. Analysis of the teachings of St. We have devoted a separate article to the maxim on the providence of rational creatures in relation to the doctrine of logoi (see Benevich 2009a); see also notes to qu. dub. 121. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 230), “The king of Gai was hanged on a double tree... Maximus apparently mixed two stories in qu. dub. 174, saying that Adoni-Bezek was hanged on a double tree. If the error was intentional, then the purpose was to emphasize his doctrine of soul and body.” About Adoni-Bezek the Scripture says that they cut off the “edges” (probably meaning fingers) on his hands and feet (Judges 1:6), that is, his punishment was also “double”, and the fingers as an organ of touch could well symbolize in the understanding of St. Maxim's attitude to the sensual. Wed. In. 12, 31; In. 14, 30; In. 16, 11. In this case, the “double tree” can also be understood as a cross. About understanding what does not depend on us, see note. 154. In Difficulties to St. John. Maxim explicitly distinguished two senses in which he speaks of providence and judgment. One of these meanings is ontodynamic, it concerns the distinction of creatures according to their natures, the logos of these natures, the natural movements and forces corresponding to these logos, invested by God in beings, due to which movement occurs. Another meaning of providence and judgment is “moral”; they turn beings (obviously, we are talking about rational beings, more precisely, about people) to the correct movement and admonish them through punishment. Let us cite this passage in its entirety, which distinguishes the two meanings of providence and judgment: “Movement reveals the providence of beings, through which, seeing the unchangeable identity in essence of each type of creation, as well as unchecked development, we understand the Container and Preserver in ineffable unity all [various species], clearly differentiated from each other in accordance with the logos by which He brought them into existence; and the difference announces the judgment, from which we learn from the natural power of the logoi contained in all beings, inherent in all beings, commensurate with the essence of the subject, that God is a wise dispenser. I mean providence that does not reverse or somehow arrange the return of those for whom it provides for from the undue to the due, but contains everything and observes it in accordance with the logos according to which it first arranged everything; and the judgment is not admonishing or in any way punishing those who sin, but a salvific and distributing division of beings, according to which each of the creatures, united with the logos according to which it was created, immutably possesses a legality unchangeable in its natural identity, as from the beginning the Creator judged its existence and what exactly it is” (amb. 10: PG 91, 1133C-D, Russian translation. Archimandrite Nektariy (Yashunsky) according to: Maxim Confessor 2006, p. In qu. dub. 17 prp. Maxim says that it is necessary to contemplate “the threefold divine providence: preserving, converting and educating (or: “punishing”).” According to the remark of D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 369), this is the only mention of the passion of self-love (φιλαυτία) in Questions and Perplexities, although in other works of St. Maxim dwells on it in great detail. The three powers of the soul are rational, willing and furious. The translation of this passage by P.K. Dobrotsvetov: “if he says that demons with their thoughts will hit you on the right cheek, inciting [you] to do just things” (Maxim Confessor 2008, p. 221) is erroneous, it also disagrees with the translations of Ponsua and Prassas. This incorrect translation corresponds to an incorrect and “too human” interpretation: “here we are talking about the need not to overstep one’s own measure of achievement, so as not to “strain yourself” spiritually” (ibid., note 1). Wed. interpretation on Matt. 5, 39–41 in carit. 1. 62. General thought of St. Maxima obviously echoes the words of St. Paul: “But even if we knew Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know it” (2 Cor. 5:16). About this ecstasis (frenzy) St. Maximus writes in the famous passage from the Difficulties to John: “who has received the divine action, or rather, has become God in deification and, all the more, receives pleasure from the frenzy, [becoming] outside of what exists with him both naturally and [as such] is thought of due to the grace of the Spirit, which has gained victory over him and shown him to have only God acting [in him] so that there is one, even only one in all [relations] the action of God and those worthy of God, or rather, of God alone, as [coming] in a manner befitting the Good, entirely into interpenetration with the worthy as wholes” (amb. 7: PG 91, 1076C-D, trans. A. M. Shufrin, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 2007a, p. 253). Present place qu. dub. 180 about deifying participation in divine goods has an indirect parallel in the classic place of Scripture for the doctrine of deification - 2 Pet. 1:3-4: “...who called us by glory and goodness, through which were given to us great and precious promises, so that through them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” The “coming age” here obviously should not be understood exclusively in the sense of life after death or after the Second Coming, but as the life of the saints in the Spirit, which begins for them already in this life and does not end in the future, for it was precisely such a life that was the goal of the economy of salvation, completed by the Resurrection and Pentecost. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the interpretation of this question-answer by D. Prassas: “The monk’s local salvation comes from the sacrament of the Eucharist, as well as communion of correct teaching and life, while future salvation occurs through deification, becoming a god by grace, through the sacrament of goods” (Prassas 2003, p. 372). One of the difficulties that could arise in connection with this passage is that the words of God can be understood in the sense that people will now live one hundred and twenty years (although, as a rule, they do not live that long), but St. Maxim does not even allow such an understanding of these words. Wed. Life 5, 32; Life 6, 6; Life 7, 1. As D. Prassas notes (Prassas 2003, p. 234), the passages listed here provide some context for the statement of St. Maxim about the construction of the ark within 100 years, although there is no direct indication of this fact in Scripture. It is possible that St. Petersburg’s own interpretation Maxim deliberately contrasts the interpretation of Chrysostom, whose works he knew well (see the reference to him in qu. dub. 119). Chrysostom explains the story of God’s threat to people before the construction of the ark began as follows: “When the threat and prediction of God was made, Noah was five hundred years old, and when the flood came, he was six hundred years old. This means that a hundred years have passed in between; but they did not take advantage of these hundred years, although the very construction of the ark by Noah taught them so much. But perhaps someone would like to know why the Lord, having said: “Their days will be a hundred and twenty years,” and, promising to endure for so many years, brought the flood before these years expired. And this serves as the greatest proof of His love for mankind. He saw that people sin incorrigibly every day, and not only do not take advantage of His ineffable long-suffering for their own good, but also multiply their wounds; Therefore, he shortened the term so that they would not become worthy of even greater punishment. What, you may ask, would be an even greater punishment than this? There is, beloved, a greater, and more terrible, and endless punishment - a punishment in the next century. Some, having suffered punishment here, although they will not escape the torment there, will, however, suffer a lighter punishment, reducing the greatness of the torment there by the suffering here” (Joan. Chrys. in Genesim 25: PG 53, 220, Russian translation, quoted from the editor: John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Book of Genesis. 1993, vol. 1, p. 243). General in the interpretation of St. Maxim and Chrysostom (see ibid.: PG 53, 219–220) that Noah should have served as an example to other people, but they did not heed this example. However, Rev. Maxim, obviously, did not accept Chrysostom’s interpretation that God said that He would wait a hundred and twenty years, and then went ahead and canceled His promise. Thus, the interpretation of St. The maxim turns out, oddly enough, to be more “literal” (more precisely, striving to defend the exact meaning of the word of God) than the interpretation of the brightest representative of the Antiochian school of exegesis, Chrysostom. Perhaps, in his answer, Rev. Maxim wanted to emphasize that God, before punishing sinners, first gives them the opportunity to correct themselves (which corresponds to the first 20 years after the threat), then gives them an example of the righteous (another hundred years after the threat), and only then punishes. From this question-answer it is clear that St. Maxim, the term “theology” can be used in a “neutral”, purely technical meaning. As such, it signifies the third stage of spiritual life, following action and contemplation. In this sense, “theology” is not at all equivalent to deification, that is, at this stage, as at the previous ones, fall and repentance are possible. This can be seen, for example, from the description of such a fall in qu. dub. 182. In this interpretation, it is interesting that St. Maximus not only gives the image of the apostle Paul, who is not yet perfect in theology (Eutychus), but also implicitly and perfect in theology, personifying in this case the “word of teaching.” As the last stage, “theology,” if it achieves its goal, is crowned with deification, which is at the same time the goal of the entire ascetic life, including work and contemplation. This question-answer is already the second interpretation on Matt. 20, 1–16 in the series of Questions and Perplexities. The first was the interpretation in qu. dub. 127, where prp. Maxim emphasized that what is important is not how much a person strives, but whether he has really renounced the created and sensory for the sake of God. In the present question-answer, he emphasizes that the same virtue can be acquired in different ways. According to A. M. Shufrin, the interpretation of St. The maxim makes it clear that the “size” of a Christian’s reward, which is virtue (in this case, chastity), is the same for everyone who has acquired it. Perhaps the reverend was influenced by the Stoic idea that there is no degree in virtue. In Christian terms, this means that competition in virtue is impossible. The one who makes extra efforts for the sake of a reward is therefore trying in vain: he still will not receive more than the one who fulfilled only what is required by the legal minimum (in this case, this is fidelity in monogamy). Or: "justice" (δικαιοσύνη). Translation: “righteousness” does not reflect the full meaning of the Greek word, which primarily means “justice”; It is precisely this meaning that St. Petersburg uses. Maxim in his interpretation, however, also means: “righteousness.” Moreover, he understands justice approximately in the sense in which it is understood in ancient philosophy, in particular among the Stoics. According to the literal meaning of the words of the psalm, one can read it as an expression of messianic aspirations for the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. This perhaps represents the “difficulty” of this place, which St. Maxim resolves it with his typological and anagogical interpretation. On the “day of the Lord” as the knowledge of God, see qu. dub. 147 and notes thereto. ἀπονεμητικὴν ἕ ξιν. The understanding of justice as correct distribution is found in many ancient philosophers (see, for example, Zeno: Zeno. fragm.: 200. 6, ed. von Arnim), but most accurately the words of St. Maximus coincides with the words of St. Basil the Great: Bas. Caes. hom, in principle. proverb.: PG 31, 401, 24 and St. Gregory of Nyssa: Greg. Nyss. orat. de beat.: PG 44, 1233, 47. So, if in Chrysostom the words of Christ are understood not in a literal sense as being applied to the Holy Spirit, but only in terms of comparison, then in St. Maximus they are understood literally in relation to the Holy Spirit. Obviously, Chrysostom was prevented from such a literal understanding by the fact that the Gospel speaks as if about the sensory perception of the spirit (“you hear his voice”), which, it would seem, does not apply to the Holy Spirit. But for St. For Maxim, this was not an obstacle, of course, not because he thought about the Holy Spirit in sensual concepts, but, as can be seen further from the text of his answer, because he interpreted hearing the “voice” of the Spirit in the sense of the manifestation of His action, that is, phenomenologically. Thus, this is not the first time in his question answers the Rev. Maxim follows the literal meaning of God's words more than Chrysostom (cf. qu. dub. 181). At the same time, such a “literal” understanding of Scripture appears in St. Maxima is at the same time highly spiritual. That is, we are dealing in his exegesis with the transformation of the letter of Scripture. See more details. a discussion of this topic, as well as an analysis of this question and answer, is in the preface to this publication. The following is an almost verbatim passage that can be found in the Scholia in Matthaeus (in Russian translation: Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew), attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria (see note 724). That is, it will matter at the Judgment. When someone did good without distinction, or motivated by mercy and compassion for one’s neighbor, or for some other humane motives, then in the next century during the Judgment this will be weighed, and if there is any advantage in this, then he will be forgiven. And this is the first way. And the second is the following: when someone, possessed by sins, hears what the Lord says: Judge not, lest you be judged, and being afraid, does not condemn anyone for his life, then, as a keeper of the commandment, he will not be condemned, because the All-False One does not forget His commandment. The other two ways of forgiveness take place here. When someone, being in sins, according to the providence of God, is exposed to misfortunes, needs, illnesses - for through this God, in a way unknown to us, cleanses him - and if the tempted one gives thanks, then he receives a reward for gratitude. If he does not give thanks, then he is condemned for the sins for which he suffers punishment, and, moreover, he will be held accountable for ingratitude. Therefore, whoever sins in something before people has many opportunities to receive forgiveness. Qu. dub. 190 opens a series of three questions and answers devoted to the interpretation of the Transfiguration. This topic is one of the most important for St. Maxima. He addressed it several times throughout his life, and it is of great interest in the light of the controversy surrounding the interpretation of the Transfiguration during the Palamite disputes in the 14th century. However, we were unable to find evidence that the parties to the dispute in the 14th century. resorted to reference to the interpretation of the Transfiguration by St. Maxima in Questions and Perplexities. Usually everyone referred to the Difficulties to John, where the speculation of the Transfiguration is dedicated amb. 10: PG 91, 1125D-1128D and amb. 10: PG 91, 1160С-1169В. After Difficulties to St. John Maxim again resorts to the themes of the Transfiguration in cap. theol. 1.97; 2. 13–16. In these notes we cannot cover all the issues related to the interpretation of the Transfiguration by St. Maxim, but we will note only those points that are essential for understanding qu. -es: 190–192. εικόνα. One of those expressions that seem to be related to the problem of difference for St. Maxim of the light of the Transfiguration from the light that will illuminate the saints in the Kingdom of Heaven. As you know, it was precisely such expressions that became the reason for the anti-Palamites to refer to St. Maxim as an authority in favor of his doctrine of the creatureliness of the Tabor light. Discussion of this controversy, in which Palamas offered his interpretation of the corresponding passages in St. The maxim in the sense of an “uncreated symbol” (see Meyendorff 1997, pp. 266–268) is beyond the scope of this commentary. Let us note, however, that the very understanding of the Transfiguration as a paradigm and a kind of “icon” of mystical theology is the approach outlined by St. Maxim already in qu. -es: 190–192 – shifts the center of gravity in the conversation about the speculation of the Transfiguration from the question of the nature of the Tabor light (St. Maxim did not raise it) to the question of what, from his point of view, this light and its contemplation means and symbolizes. But further he says that the Lord, having been transfigured, revealed Himself to the apostles not only “who affirmed Himself [cataphatically] based on the position of existing things” in relation to which He is the Cause, but also “through apophatic theology” pointed out “the incomprehensibility of the mystery (or: “hiddenness”) of the Divine” (qu. dub. 190). Thus, the first understanding of apophatic theology - in the transition from creatures to the Creator as their Cause - differs, apparently, from St. The maxim is from the second understanding, when apophatic theology corresponds to the comprehension of the “incomprehensible hiddenness of the Divine.” Wed. understanding apophatic theology in amb. 10: PG 91, 1128B, where it is said that the apostles were elevated cognitively "by means of theological negation (θεολογικῆς ἀποφάσεως), which glorified His absolute incomprehensibility for all, to the glory of [Him] as the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).” This place, in turn, should be compared with the place from cap. theol. 2. 39: “He who theologizes apophatically, proceeding from negative judgments, makes the Word the Spirit, as being in the beginning of God and existing with God (John 1:1)” (Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 242). This is precisely the place cited by St. Maxim is different from the accepted reading. Wed. from Evagrius: “the mind cannot be saved except by ascending this mountain (Heb. 12:22). And the intelligible mountain is the spiritual knowledge of the Holy Trinity, the ascent to the top of which is difficult for man. However, the mind that has achieved it eliminates all material thoughts from itself” (Guillaumont 1987, p. 218, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, published by Evagrius 1994, p. 174, note 70). See also the article by G. Bunge on spiritual mountain and knowledge of God in Evagrius (Bunge 2000). The author, in particular, writes that the mountain is a symbol of the knowledge of Christ and spiritual contemplation (ibid., p. 9). D. Prassas (Prassas 2003, p. 381) cites a number of parallels among Christian writers to the interpretation of the name Simon as “obedience.” πτερνιστής. See the origin of etymology and parallel places in qu. dub. 30, approx. 135–136. Declerck (1982, p. 133) points out parallel passages in St. Maxima: amb. 22: PG 91, 1249V; er. 13: PG 91, 509D-512A. Later Rev. Maxim, in connection with apophatics, develops the doctrine of “superior negation.” This concept appears in the Difficulties of John, for example in amb. 9: PG 91, 1105C in the interpretation of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “After all, [God] has nothing at all and will not have anything more sublime” (Greg. Naz. or. 21.1: PG 35, 1084B). St. Maxim explains that these words should not be understood in the sense of comparison, distinction, or any other attribution of God to created things. And further he refers to those who are “skilled in this”, who say that this type of reasoning is irrespective and equivalent to the words “incomparably above all,” since “it has the sense of a superior negation” (δύναμιν ὑπεροχικῆς ἀποφἔσεως ἔχοντα) (The expression is found in the famous letter 4 to Gaius from the Areopagitik (Ps.–Dion. er.: 4.1.15, ed. Heil, Ritter), where it refers to statements about Jesus Christ; cf. its interpretation by St. Maximus in: amb. 5: PG 91, 1055 ff). In this case, the expression “having the force of superior negation” St. Maxim understands in the sense that the quote from St. Gregory Palamas in a dispute with Varlaam about the nature of the Tabor light: “the divine essence is higher than even that which is unattainable for any sense, because the One who exists above all things is not only God, but also a Supergod; and not only above all positing, but also above all negation, the greatness of the Transcendent rises, surpassing all greatness conceivable by the mind” (Gr. Pal. tr. 2.3.8, Russian translation by V. Veniaminov [V. V. Bibikhin], quoted from: Grigory Palama 1995, p. 197). In addition to the obvious reference to the Areopagite, as we see, in St. Maxima is already in qu. dub. 191 it is said, and precisely in relation to the interpretation of the Transfiguration, that: “The Word... is transformed, endowing Itself no longer with cataphatic (affirmative) definitions - God, Holy, King and other similar ones - but with apophatic (negative), that is, “Supergod”, “Superholy” and all [definitions expressing] superiority.” What is the light of the Transfiguration in the teaching of St. This place allows us to demonstrate that the explanation of St. The maxim of the Transfiguration corresponds to his teaching on mystical theology. This can best be done through the example of his use of such an important concept of mystical theology as “the hiddenness of God.” According to one passage from Mystagogy, at the highest stage of knowledge of God, the soul “reaches the hiddenness (κρυφιότητα) of God” (Max. myst. 5: PG 91, 680D). However, in qu. dub. 191 prp. Maximus says that: “The face of the Word, which shone like the sun, is the hiddenness (κρυφιότης), distinguishing His Essence.” The word κρυφιότης, which is used in this place, is found in St. Maximus and in another place of Mystagogy: “emanating from everything, the soul unites with The unity of His hiddenness [that is, God as our “only one... by the grace of the Father”]” (Max. myst. 23, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from: Maxim the Confessor 199 3, book I, p. 176). Finally, in amb. 10: PG 91, 1160C-D ex. Maximus again resorts to the interpretation of the light of the face of Christ and says that the light revealed to the apostles was “a symbol of the invisible hiddenness (τῆς ἀφανοῦς κρυφιότητος).” It is obvious that Rev. Maximus adopted this term from the Areopagitica. Wed. about the “divine hiddenness” (Ps.-Dion. p. h. 4.2: PG 3, 180A) and about the “super-essential hiddenness of God” (Ps.-Dion. d. p. 2.6: PG 3, 645A). Wed. also scholium 2 to er. 3 Areopagite to the words: “But He is Hidden even after the appearance”; The scholiast writes: “Hidden (κρύφιος) he often says instead of “God” and “hiddenness” (κρυφιότητα) instead of “divinity”” (Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorova, quoted from the editor: Dionysius the Areopagite. Maxim Confessor 2002, p. 775). In his treatise On the Heavenly Hierarchy, the Areopagite speaks of Divine hiddenness in connection with deification: “the divine Hiddenness (κρυφιότητος) is super-essentially removed from everything and above all, and nothing that exists can truly and completely be called like It. However, when any of the mental and rational [beings], as much as possible, turns upward to unite with Her and, as far as possible, incessantly rushes upward towards Her divine illuminations, then, to the best of his ability, so to speak, God-likeness and divine homonymy" (Ps.-Dion. p. h. 12.3, Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorov, quoted from the edition: Dionysius the Areopagite. Maxim Confessor 2002, p. 159). At the same time, the use of the term “secrecy” by St. Maxim and comparison of its use among the Areopagite requires a separate study. In particular, it is not entirely clear whether St. Maxim by “hiddenness” means the Divine essence or that which is around God. There is no doubt, however, that, speaking about the union with the “Unity of Hiddenness” in Mystagogy, as well as the revelation of this hiddenness in the radiance of the face of Christ on Tabor, St. Maxim emphasizes that at the highest stage of mystical knowledge of God there is cognition in ignorance of the super-unknowability of the Trinity and participation in Her idolizing benefits, and not just those of Her actions that are aimed at the creation of the world, Providence and Judgment in relation to it (depicted, according to the speculation of the Transfiguration, by the whitened robes of Christ, Moses and Elijah (see amb. 10: PG 91, 1168B-1168D), the latter, in turn, correspond to cataphatics, which finds its correct place in the order of mystical knowledge of God in the horizon of apophatics. Wed. parallel place in amb. 10: PG 91, 1128V. Blowers (Blowers 1991, p. 102 and p. 155, paragraph 37) not without reason believes that St. Maximus, in his description of the Transfiguration, was “inspired by Origen’s interpretation of Matt. 17 "and points to a parallel from Origen (Orig, schol. in Matt. 12.38). Let us quote this passage in its entirety: “He [Christ] was not only transformed before such disciples [who left behind everything visible and carnal. - G.B.] and not only added to the Transfiguration that His Face shone like the sun, but also to those who alone were raised by Him to a high mountain, His robes appeared white as light. But the garments of Jesus are the expressions and letters of the Gospels with which He clothed Himself. But I think that even the words of the apostles that point to the truth about Him are the garments of Jesus that turn white for those who climb the high mountain with Jesus. But since there are differences among white [things], His garments became white, like the brightest and purest of all, that is, like light. So, when you see someone who not only has a perfect knowledge of theology about Jesus, but also makes every expression of the Gospels clear, do not be afraid to say that for him the garments of Jesus have become white as light. But when the Son of God in His Transfiguration is so known and contemplated [it happens], that is, when His face is the sun, and His vestments are white as light, immediately they appear to the one who sees Jesus in this way: Moses - the Law and Elijah - in the sense of synecdoche, not only one prophet, but all the prophets, talking with Jesus" (PG 13, 1069B-1072A). As Blowers notes, in cap. theol. 2. 14 prp. Maxim also says that the vestments symbolize “the letters and sayings of the Gospels,” and for the first time St. Maxim used a similar interpretation in qu. dub. 191. Wed. also cap. theol. 2.60, where there is a distinction between the contact of the mind with the naked Word and the Word, which in appearance is flesh under the veil of allegories and parables of Holy Scripture. About the speculations of St. For the maxim on the Transfiguration, see also Louth 1997. Or: “simple (lit.: “naked”) dreams”, “simple ideas”, “simple images”, “simple impressions” (ψιλών φαντασιών). Wed. in Chapters on Love: “It is a great thing not to be partial to things, but much greater is to remain dispassionate in relation to dreams (πρὸς τὰς φαντασίας) about them. Because demons, through thoughts, wage [spiritual] warfare with us, which is heavier than the warfare waged through things” (carit. 1.91, Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov, quoted from the publication: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 106). However, in this place qu. dub. 193 at prp. The maxim has a three-stage scheme: dispassion in relation to things, thoughts about them and, finally, a state that exceeds simple images, that is, that, obviously, that characterizes going beyond the limits of the sensory, if not the created, in general. Wed. in qu. dub. 187: “through the knowledge of God, who gives birth to righteousness in us, such abundant peace comes that even simple images (ψιλὰς τὰς φαντασίας) produced by our changeable nature - after all, this is the moon - completely disappear.” Probably the concept of simple images of St.