12) Профессор М. М, Тареев.

Life and teachings of Christ. Part one. Philosophy of Gospel history (The Life of Jesus Christ is the Glory of God). Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. 1903. In the XI chapter of the said work, which bears the title: “The Resurrection of Christ,” the professor, analyzing the various views that have become known in scientific and journalistic (partly) literature on the essential significance of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1192 sets out in general essential terms the view on this subject, which he calls unconditionally and “outright false” 1193 and according to which “Christ rose from the grave to continue bodily-sensual life, although surrounded by the radiance of Divine glory." 1194 This question “in recent times” “has been raised in literature in connection with a more general question about the relationship of modernity to Christianity, spirit to flesh, holiness to culture.” 1195 “Striving to reconcile modernity with Christianity and defending the holiness of the flesh, they hope to find justification for this view in the gospel facts of the birth of Christ, His transfiguration and (especially) resurrection.” 1196 The representative of such a view, although not yet brought to extreme conclusions, was, according to the author, in the sixties of the last century, Archimandrite Feodor Bukharev, whose views are briefly presented. 1197 The peculiarity of the reasoning of this spiritual publicist is “in establishing a direct relationship between the resurrected body of the Lord and the spiritual corporeality of our earthly life. 1198 Currently, we have gone even further along the path paved by Bukharev. “Nowadays secular writers are already telling us about holy flesh, about holy voluptuousness, relying with the same decisiveness on the facts of the birth of Christ, His transfiguration and resurrection.” 1199 The professor here first and most of all has in mind D. S. Merezhkovsky, from whom a rather long excerpt is given. 1200 “In contrast to the above reasoning,” prof. Tareev’s goal is “to point out the unfoundedness of carnal conclusions from the truth of the resurrection of Christ.” 1201 The essence of his own conclusions is that “Christ Jesus has risen spiritually.” 1202 “The spirituality of the risen Christ is precisely divine spirituality. The divine spirit is a principle completely opposite to the human, spiritual-personal principle, which in Holy Scripture is called flesh... As such, opposite to the spiritual-personal, human, carnal principle, the spirit was revealed in the resurrection of Christ, and will also be revealed in our future resurrection in the image of the resurrection of Christ. 1203 Our future “spiritual body” “will not have anything material in itself, unless this word is given a real meaning - our life after the grave will not have material content.” 1204 This is the essence of Prof. M. M. Tareeva. It should be noted that his thoughts, unfortunately, in this case do not differ in the definiteness of their meaning and the accuracy of their formulation. Bearing in mind the undoubted extremes of the analyzed view, which considers carnal, passionate sensuality and voluptuousness to be an essential, most important, normal property of ideal human nature, Mr. Tareev himself, in the book analyzed, essentially reaches the complete and decisive exclusion from the human ideal nature of the bodily element, every moment in contact with sensuality. The professor, apparently, would not like to reach such an extreme and dangerous conclusion, but the entire course of his argument leads him with fatal inexorability to precisely this conclusion. Only this, in our opinion, can explain his elastic, indefinite, vague, hard-to-grasp judgments, such as the following: “this fact (i.e., the resurrection of Christ) confirms the spirituality of Christ in contrast to directly and directly not mental-physical life, much less in conformity with it, but in direct opposition to the carnal, “human” direction of life.” 1205 From such restrictions, which we see in the last phrase, it is not at all easier, and the matter still comes down in conclusion, if we are strictly consistent, to the complete destruction in man not only of corporeality, but also, at the same time, of his personal individuality, a certain concrete individuality. According to the author, “one cannot talk about our absolute metaphysical incorporeality after the resurrection”; 1206 meanwhile, in fact, it turns out that the opposite is not guaranteed by anything and is not determined by any more specific features - on the contrary, from everything we must conclude that “spiritual corporeality is not only incorporeality, but also incorporeality. In our deepest conviction, Prof. Tareev expressed Orthodox teaching on this issue inaccurately. All the examples given by the author, the entire complex chain of his argumentation proves only that the body of Christ after the resurrection was incommensurable with our real body in its characteristic features, but this is still far from the right to conclude that the “spiritual body” of Christ lost all physical, material properties, for, thus, the professor comes close to docetism. The body of Christ after the resurrection was spiritualized, this is true, but it did not lose the properties of materiality. This is the most definite evidence of the gospel. When the risen Christ appeared to the Apostles and others, during the story of the Emmaus travelers about the appearance of the Lord to them, the disciples “confused and afraid, thought that they saw a spirit” (εδοκουν πνευμα θεωρεΐν. Luke ΧΧ IV, v. 37). But Christ told them that you are troubled, and why do such thoughts enter your hearts? Look at My hands and at My feet; this is Me Myself; touch Me and see, for the spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see with Me ( έχοντα) 1207 and having said this, he showed them his hands and feet. While they still did not believe for joy and were amazed, He said to them: Do you have any food here? They gave Him some of the baked fish and honeycomb. And he took it and ate before them (vv. 40–43; cf. John 20:20, 25, 27, 29; 21:5). 1208 In any case, there is no doubt that the resurrected body of Christ had members - arms, legs - and was accessible to touch. He ate food, although not out of necessity, but truly, accurately, in the usual sense. Thus, even after the resurrection, the body of Christ retained at least some physical properties. Consequently, physicality, speaking in principle, is not the opposite of spirituality - these principles are not necessarily incompatible, mutually exclusive; on the contrary, physicality, while remaining such, can and should be imbued with spirituality. From this point of view, it is also possible to draw the conclusion that everything generally material that relates to the body - earthly in the broad sense is not in itself contrary to the spiritual, heavenly, divine - no; on the contrary, the human must be imbued with the divine, the earthly - with the heavenly, the material - with the spiritual, and this corporeal, earthly, material, without losing its basic properties, will be elevated to a higher kind of being, just as iron, penetrated by fire, does not lose its properties, but only modifies them, though almost completely unrecognizable. If prof. Tareev argues that “there is no basis to deduce from the fact of the resurrection of Christ the justification of our mental-physical conditionality” 1209 then, agreeing with him, we would like to add that in this fact, this mental-physical conditionality, without disappearing, can and should be imbued with a divine unconditional principle, which will spiritualize the first, but will not destroy it, giving it a new, more perfect form of being. 1210 Thus, we, disagreeing with the representatives of the prof. Tareev’s view, in fact, on this point we do not completely agree, however, with him, considering it correct to highlight the essence of Orthodox teaching on this issue from a slightly different angle. If Merezhkovsky and others want to deify the human body, human flesh in its empirical presence - with all its passions, urges and drives, without leading a person through the crucible of asceticism, but directly, as if arbitrarily wanting to penetrate the realm of mysticism, then Prof. Tareev tends to completely deny the body, the material element of human nature, the opportunity and ability to achieve “deification”, communication with God in any way, and resolves this issue, of course, negatively. We almost completely agree, further, with the final conclusions of Prof. Tareev regarding the significance of the fact of the resurrection of Christ for the fundamental illumination of the issue of Christian asceticism. According to him, “we must avoid two extremes in drawing conclusions from the fact of the resurrection of Christ: pagan asceticism, or self-mortification, and the crudely sensual expectations of Judaism. The spirit of a Christian is not an anatomical part of the human being, the immortality of which would require ascetic freedom from physicality, it is the spirit of divine life. But still, our hope is resurrection, not for the continuation of sensory life, but for spiritual life. In Christianity there is no basis either for pantheistic asceticism or for the holiness of the flesh.” 1211 While we fully agree with the first part of his conclusion, we must still make an important reservation regarding the second. If the “spirit” of a Christian is the “spirit of divine life,” then it not only can, but must pierce the entire human nature, in all its sanctified and ennobled integrity. Consequently, the body can and should be holy, that is, spiritual, divine. As for the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism, the real sanctification of this issue is more or less achievable only from the point of view of the integral essence of religious and moral Christian teaching, with which it is in an inseparable organic connection. Analysis of the single fact of the resurrection of Christ, although important in this regard, is still, taken in isolation, insufficient. A more general, broad and fundamental coverage of the issue of the meaning, content and meaning of Christian asceticism by Prof. Tareev offers in his study “Spirit and Flesh”. 1212 Question about asceticism, in connection with the question of “spirit and flesh”, prof. Tareev seeks to consider “exclusively from the gospel point of view, exclusively in essence, the relationship between spirit and flesh.” 1213 In this regard, he finds that “there is no reason to consider the ascetic problem as exhaustive of the evangelical problem.” 1214 We would express this thought in such a way that the ascetic moment in Christianity is not only a comprehensive beginning, but even the main, fundamental, initial one. No - this moment, as we will see, is only secondary, auxiliary, completely and completely, in all its accessories and details - subordinate, dependent. Its content, volume, meaning and significance are determined by the absolute and universal principle of Christian love. “Christianity lies in that and only in that which is above the flesh - only in spiritual absolute love, only in the absolute striving of the spirit towards divine perfection.” 1215 Not entirely accurate, but in general the following expresses the correct idea. the words of the professor: “the line separating evangelical absolutism from one-sided asceticism is not as rough as is commonly thought (here, of course, Rozanov and Merezhkovsky are closest); the truth is not in the antithesis of asceticism, not in recognizing it as false, but in recognizing it as a symbol that hides the truth of the Gospel.” 1216 Elsewhere the professor says that “ascetic virtue” is not a “spiritual good,” but only a “form” that appears by “natural” and not by “ideal necessity.” 1217 Those “for whom spiritual life is not a real good, but an ideal and a duty, acquire what is, initially, only the result of spiritual life, an external good deed - ascetic virtue, which is for them an external commandment.” 1218 It would be more accurate and correct to recognize asceticism as a methodological means for achieving Christian God-like perfection not only of the spirit, but also of the body (in its terminology, “flesh”) and external nature. The presence of sinfulness, depravity, perversity in nature (all existing reality in general) is not shaded by the author; “natural,” i.e., observed and experienced in present reality, is recognized without any restrictions or reservations, and at the same time normal, although not perfect, inert, but not opposed to the beginning of Christian revival and sanctification. It is, of course, true that “the Christian attitude towards nature and the flesh begins only from the moment from which the natural attitude becomes an attitude towards man, towards the person”, 1219 - from the point of view of the main Christian goal - likeness to God, at the beginning of truly Christian "freedom". However, from this side, asceticism (in the broad sense) is fundamentally assumed in Christianity - as a means and way to acquire and ensure true freedom for oneself. “You, brethren, are called to freedom, if only your freedom is not a reason for pleasing the flesh; but through love serve one another” (Gal 5:13). “I say, walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh, for the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh: they oppose each other, so that you do not do what you would like” (vv. 16-17). “But those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts” (vv. 24–25). So. Arr., Christian “freedom” in its relation to the “flesh” (in the religious and ethical sense) presupposes a struggle, a path of gradual and methodical removal from human religious and moral life of elements alien and hostile to it, i.e. “asceticism” in the broad sense. 1220 Prof. Tareev narrows the scope of the concept of “asceticism” too much when he says that “the natural attitude of a Christian does not inevitably become ascetic and does not create an escape from the world. The Christian spirit manifests itself in real love for living people, and not in abstract contemplative religiosity. 1221 First of all, monasticism and hermitage do not exhaust “asceticism”, do not cover it entirely, and then ascetic contemplative religiosity was not necessarily “abstract” - but could be, as indeed happened, living, concrete, intense. Prof. I. V. Popov correctly characterizes the mood and characteristics of mystical asceticism when he says that “the entire interest of an ascetic’s life is concentrated on the all-consuming and all-excluding attachment of love for God, whom he contemplates in the depths of his soul. This love is not some abstract amor Dei intellectualis, but rather a feeling, and, moreover, a bright one, capturing the entire being of a person. An excellent expression of the tension and liveliness of this feeling is the constant likening of it to the ideal love that connects the pure bride with her groom. The soul of man is the “bride of Christ”... which he receives into the holy, mysterious and pure communion of marriage. 1222 In the consciousness of its insignificance and the boundlessness of the benefits received, the soul contemplates with its inner eye “the sweetest and most desired bridegroom and his indescribable beauty”, is wounded by Divine love and acquires boundless and inexhaustible love for him” 1223). 1224 In general, in order to correctly evaluate hermitic asceticism, it is necessary to analyze its actual mystical justifications - otherwise, the assessment will be unfair and one-sided. Prof. Tareev had in mind the views of Mr. Rozanov and Merezhkovsky, and therefore is expressed - noticeably - in relation to their terminology. But this is also where, perhaps, some significant inaccuracies in his interpretation originate, which, for example, follow: “freedom of the spirit can have a necessary support point only in the freedom of the flesh. Freedom of the flesh - in the fullness and originality of carnal life, in the fullness of its joys, its passions, especially the joys of marriage, in the freedom of the personal principle, in the fullness of natural development in all forms - in the family, national, state, scientific, artistic..., 1225 “From the evangelical point of view, carnal life should be given complete freedom. This follows from the fact that Christianity, or the gospel, cannot determine carnal life. The Gospel cannot be preached to children, because this would mean instilling in them hatred of their father and mother, hatred of brothers and sisters, and this would be complete absurdity” ..., 1226 - the same absurdity, we add on our own, as it would be to instill in children to “cut off their right hand,” “pluck out their right eye,” etc. But such absurdities, i.e., instilling a literal understanding of the Gospel words, forgetting all the rules necessary for understanding not only the sacred text, but also any literary work in general, - i.e., idiocy of language, tributary, allegorical way of expression, etc., should not be instilled not only in children, but also in adults... “For God’s work, says the author, a Christian must hate everything that is his, abandon his mother and father, wife and children, to despise all worldly goods - this, and only this, is Christianity.” 1227 But all these concepts require special analysis, their disclosure in connection with an integral Christian worldview; otherwise, you can give rise to significant misunderstandings and, at least partly, fair criticism... And since prof. Tareev has a lot, then, despite some apt thoughts contained in his articles, these latter do not give a completely definite and accurate - even, of course, general, idea of ​​​​the subject - about asceticism and other closely related subjects. And Prof. himself. he has this passage in mind (cf. p. 270), but he tries in every possible way to weaken its meaning in this regard. According to him, “the material-corporeal element in the appearances of the Risen One to the disciples before His ascension to the Father, of course, constitutes their feature from His later appearance to Saul (Acts IX, 3-6). But what kind of physicality was this, for which closed doors did not serve as an obstacle, for which eating food and even appearance itself was a matter not of necessity, but of indulgence, we cannot comprehend this” (ibid). However, even though it is impossible to comprehend and imagine all these properties in relation to the human body, it should be borne in mind that in general we are still far from knowing the actual and possible properties of matter. The latest discoveries are sometimes capable of turning our stereotyped observations and ideas upside down (X-rays, etc.). In this regard, the teaching of Gregory the Theologian is especially characteristic. According to St. Father, “Christ perceives my flesh in order to save the image (i.e., God) and immortalize the flesh, ( ι va και τήν ε᾿κόν a σώτγ κ ai την σαρκα άθανατίσγ ,). Or. XLV, p. IX. T. XXXVI, col. 636A. Cp. Athanasius A. Epistola ad Epictetum. 7. T. XXVI, col. 1061.Cp. Gregory Palamas. De Hesydiastis. T. C. L., col. 1113B. Theologian. News. 1905 January, pp. 1–27; February, pp. 234–266; Martha., pp. 435–452. p. 235. Briefly but correctly, the meaning of asceticism in Christianity is defined by prof. M. M. Tareev next. in the words of his other article. “The self-preservation of the spirit presupposes its freedom in relation to the body - moderation, courage, etc. But these mental-physical, or ascetic, virtues do not have independent spiritual value, but acquire it only in religious or ethical (altruistic) light.” Religion and morality. Theologian. News. 1904 November, p. 395. But in this case, Prof. follows O.I. L. Yanyshev. Wed. 2nd edition of his “lectures” (SPB. 1906), p. 202, where Fr. I. L. himself notes the dependence on his views M. M. Tareeva (note 1). Macarius E. N XLVII, p. XVII, col. 808С. N. XXVIII, p. V, col. 713B. Prof. I. V. Popov. Mystical justification of asceticism in creativity. Makaria E. Bogosl. Vestn. 1905 Jan. page 49. January, page 22. Italics are ours.