Из писаний преподобного отца нашего Максима Исповедника

II, 6. What do the words mean: Indeed, what [other] is good, or what is pleasant, except for brothers to live together (Ps. 133, 1: LXX)? 991 According to a superficial interpretation: if they are of the same faith, this is good, 992 if they agree in business, this is pleasant. [On the other hand,] understand that brothers living together 993 are the three powers of the soul 994 or soul and body, when they agree in knowledge of the Divine and in good deeds. When they do good, it is good, and when the knowledge in them is consistent, it is pleasant. II, 7. Like ointment on the head, flowing down onto the beard, onto Aaron’s beard, flowing down onto the hem of his garment (Ps. 133:2: LXX). 995 Myrrh is the Holy Spirit, the head is the mind, and the beard is the word, for the word embraces the heart. Aaron's beard is a word that mortifies passions and sacrifices virtues to God. The grace of the Spirit flows down to the edge of the garment, that is, through work it is also transmitted to moral philosophy, for the edge of the garment is the limit. II, 8. Like the dew of Hermon that descends on the mountains of Zion (Ps. 133:3). 996 The Mounts of Zion are saints contemplating the sublime; The dew of Hermon descends on them. “Hermon” is translated as “removing the 997 beasts.” They say that the Jordan also originates there. Therefore, the dew of Hermon signifies the grace of holy baptism. After all, it descends on the saints, and through it the removal of mental beasts is accomplished. II, 9. For there the Lord commanded blessing and life forever (Ps. 132:3). 998 For the guarantee of all blessings and a serene life is the grace bestowed through holy baptism; may we partake of it by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. II, 14. How should we understand what is written by Saint Dionysius: even the non-existent strives for God? 999 Since God is not something that exists, but is above all that exists, therefore the non-existent also finds a place. After all, what is mainly said about Him is “non-existent,” for He is not anything that exists. 1000 II, 18. What do the words mean: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:25; Matt. 19:24)? It is easier, says Jesus, for the crooked [nature] of the pagans - after all, this is the camel - to pass through the narrow [gates] and narrow [path] (Matthew 7:14), which means the ear, into the Kingdom of Heaven, than for the Jewish people, who have the Law and the Prophets. Just as a needle passes through two pieces of fabric and makes one out of them, so our Lord Jesus Christ, who is a needle, united two peoples, according to the Apostle, making one out of both (Eph. 2:14). However, [according to another interpretation], whoever through abstinence has exhausted and twisted himself [like a thread], it is easier for him to pass through the narrow gates into the Kingdom of Heaven than for a rich man who constantly fattens himself with food and human glory. II, 23. Why did the former people live for many years, but the latter live a short time? Since the former people were completely struck by atheism, God arranged for them to remain in this life for a long time - arranged in order to instill in them the idea that there is a certain Providence directing the various movements of what is happening. The last generation, since it has accepted the knowledge of the written and spiritual Law, therefore does not hold on to life for many years. III, 1. What does it mean that [at first it is said] let us create man in the image of God and likeness (Gen. 1, 26: LXX), and a little lower God created man, in the image of God he created him (Gen. 1, 27: LXX) [the words] in likeness are omitted? Since the first purpose of God was to create man in the image of God and likeness - and in the image means incorruptibility, immortality, invisibility, 1001 [that is,] that which reflects the Divinity - He conveyed this to the soul, transferring to it at the same time dominion and autocracy 1002 [, qualities,] which are all reflections of God's essence. And in likeness means dispassion, meekness, generosity and other features of God’s kindness, which are all components of God’s energy [directed towards creation]. So this is what relates to His essence - what [words] denote by image - this He naturally conveyed to the soul. The same thing that relates to God's energy - [this is] what is reflected [in words] in likeness - He left this to our autocratic mind, 1003 awaiting the end of man: will he make himself like God, reproducing in himself the godly traits of virtue? Therefore, the Holy Scriptures omitted in the second case the words according to likeness. 1004 The following are four interpretations of the verses of Ps. 132, these interpretations ended up in the Explanatory Psalter of Euthymius Zigaben. Or: “together” (ἐτὶ τὸ αὐτό), lit.: “for the same thing.” In early Christian communities, this expression was used to designate Eucharistic gatherings and, in general, the unity of the faithful who have everything in common (see Acts 2:1; 44; 47; 1 Cor 14:23), it is also used to designate the marital intimacy of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:5). Subsequently, the words of Ps. 132, 1 began to be applied to life in a monastic hostel, however, as we see, St. Maxim does not stop at this interpretation, but goes further, interpreting the verse anagogically, in relation to an individual person. That is, reasonable, willing and furious. The text of this and the following interpretation almost verbatim coincides with the text of the interpretation attributed to Origen (Orig. (?) selecta in Ps.: PG 12,1652. 2–10), however, there is no certainty about the authorship of this passage by Origen, most likely it is Evagrius; the fact is that the interpretation of the previous verse of this psalm in Selecta in Psalmos is missing. Meanwhile, in the authorship of Rev. Maxim is cast in doubt by the fact that in the interpretation we do not find the usual question-answer form, which, as a rule, indicates that the text was originally St. Didn't belong to Maxim. Who exactly could it have been introduced into Qu. dub., whether the Venerable himself Maximus or later scribes, it’s hard to say. The text coincides with the text of the interpretation attributed to Origen (Orig. (?) selecta in Ps.: PG 12, 1652. 20–26), but most likely belonging to Evagrius. Unlike the previous two, no parallel or source for this interpretation could be found. Ps.-Dion. d. paragraph 4. 3 and 18: PG 3, 713D10–716A1; Russian translation of this place: “the non-existent itself strives for the Good, which exceeds all things, striving to somehow itself be in the truly - after taking away everything - super-essential Good (Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorov with changes, quoted from the editor: Dionysius the Areopagite, Maxim the Confessor 2002, p. 301). Wed. in the Areopagitica: Ps.-Dion.: PG 3, 825, 872 and in St. himself. Maxim: Mystagogy, Prologue (see Russian translation by A.I. Sidorov in: Maxim the Confessor 1993, book I, p. 156). It is interesting to compare the interpretation of St. Maxim with scholium (20), probably belonging to John of Scythopolis: “how does something that does not exist strive for the Good? After all, if it itself does not exist, then how can it strive? We believe that by non-existent he means evil. As he shows below, so-called evil itself appears for the sake of the Good” (Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorov, with amendments, quoted from the edition: Dionysius the Areopagite, Maxim the Confessor 2002, p. 301). Indeed, just below the Areopagite says that “what does not exist participates in the Beautiful and the Good” (Ps.-Dion. d. p. 4.7. Russian translation by G. M. Prokhorov with changes, quoted from the publication: Dionysius the Areopagite. Maxim the Confessor 2002, p. 317), but St. Maxim in qu. dub. II, 14 primarily speaks of God as non-existent, in the apophatic sense of transcendence to all that exists. Whether he means here that “evil” “appeared for the sake of the Good” is not entirely clear, but, on the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that St. Maximus disputed the literal meaning of the Areopagite's words. Most likely, he accepts this literal meaning that everything, including even the so-called “evil” (non-existent), is not devoid of relation to the Good (God), but immediately notices that God should be called non-existent in the true sense. It can also be noted here that in qu. dub. 131 prp. Maxim associates with evil the desire for the non-existent, by which, of course, he does not mean God: “The one who unreasonably strives for the non-existent brings thorns, that is, passions.” Wed. about “non-existent” in the sense of the opposite of existing things in carit. 3. 28–29. For the incorruptible and invisible God, see 1 Tim. 1, 17. For man, created for incorruption, the image of God's own eternity, see Pres. 2, 23. According to D. Prassas (Pras – sas 2003, p. 394) parallel passages are in Clement of Alexandria (Clem. Alex, strom. 6.12: 97.1.2, ed. Stählin, Früchtel, Treu), Ps.-Athanasius (?) (Athan. (?) expos, in Psal.: PG 27, 393C; the text probably belongs to Evagrius), St. Gregory of Nyssa (Greg. Nyss. de vita Mosis: 2.318.6, ed. Daniélou) and others. On autocracy, non-subordination and dominion of the soul, see, for example, Greg. Nyss. conf. Eunomiï 139, 6, ed. Jaeger About the soul created in the image of God, St. Maxim wrote in qu. dub. 105: “our soul was created in the image of God [and] is contemplated in these three, in the mind, logos and spirit.” However, in qu. dub. 105 the image of God is seen in the analogy with the Persons of the Holy Trinity, in contrast to this in qu. dub. III, 1 we are talking about the fact that the soul has properties similar to the properties of the Divine nature. He wrote about the soul as the image of God, referring to St. Gregory the Theologian, and Emperor Justinian in his anti-Origenist Homily to Mina: “And that man... was created in the image and likeness of God and was worthy of divine inspiration, this shows that the soul was created not only rational, but also immortal. ...The same means what was said about the soul by Gregory the Theologian, that it is from God and divine, and has partaken of the highest goodness: not, as some say, that it has a Divine essence, but in such a way that it was created by the inspiration of God and received from Him the gift of being rational and judicious and immortal, and not dying along with the body... but to be, by grace, a participant in the highest well-being, that is, immortality” (Russian translation, quoted from the publication: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils 1996, vol. 3, p. 518). Or: “autocratic decision” (αὐτεξουσί ῳ γνώμη). The peculiarity of the thought of St. The maxim is that he distinguishes in God, on the one hand, that which relates to the essence of God, that is, God as such, regardless of creation, which characterizes the Divine nature (and the soul, as the image of God, by nature receives the same qualities), and on the other, that which characterizes the actions and manifestations of God in relation to creation. It is the latter that a person becomes involved in when he becomes like God. Such a distinction in God between the properties of the Divine nature in Itself and the actions of God in relation to creation is very important for St. Maximus and is carried out in many of his works (see, for example, his description in the speculations about the Transfiguration (Difficulties to John: amb. 10: PG 91, 1125D-1128D and amb. 10: PG 91, 1160C-1169B). For St. Maximus, this distinction, in turn, correlates on the one hand with apophatic, and on the other - with cataphatic (see qu. dub. 191 and notes to it). The first corresponds to the knowledge of God without regard to creation, and the second in relation to it. III, 1, however, the focus is not on this distinction itself, but on its implications in relation to the doctrine of man created in the image and likeness of God. Obviously, the fact that a person becomes like God, becoming involved in those His actions that are aimed at creation, testifies to the fact that not the soul itself, but only a person in the integrity of his embodied life, being in the world, can be truly God-like. At the same time, it is the autocratic and free soul, which is the image of the Divine nature, that is responsible for man’s acquisition of such godlikeness. A slightly different, although close, interpretation of the “image” and “likeness” of St. Maxim gives in carit. 3.25.