To Theopemptus the scholastic

The essay “To Theopemptus the Scholastic” was written by St. Maximus the Confessor around 630-633. The addressee is probably Theopemptos, a representative of the Prefect of Africa George. The treatise is an interpretation of 3 difficult passages from the Gospels: - about the “unjust judge” (Luke 18:6); - the words “If someone strikes you on the right cheek” (Luke 6:29; Matt. 5:39); - the words “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father” (John 20:17). St. Maxim uses the allegorical method when interpreting, revealing the spiritual meaning of each fragment. For example, the mention of equal. Mary Magdalene is associated with the image of repentance and spiritual rebirth. The monk views her as an example of a deep metamorphosis of the soul, which, having gone through passions and sins, found true salvation and unity with God through repentance and faith. Her image serves as an illustration of the teaching about the struggle of the soul with internal passions and the possibility of transformation through God's grace. Thus, equal to Mary Magdalene stands as a symbol of Christian hope for forgiveness and spiritual renewal. asking about the “unjust judge” (Luke 18:6), [as well as about the words]: “If someone strikes you on your right cheek” (Luke 6:29; Matthew 5:39) and “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father” (John 20:17) For whom the Word is something to be worshiped, for those is life, the interpreter of the word 1 is something virtuously accomplished, so that they, having received the seal of true knowledge from [spiritual] work, learn through experience how much more important it is to be than to know. And to be will always [be] more important and greater than to know, until the [complete] assimilation [of those striving] towards the Cause of [everything] is successfully completed: assimilation that limits movement by peace 2, and by the immutability of the will - [passionate] impulses of the soul; in return, they are given, following grace, deification - a reward for a sacred and godlike life here. And you, God-protected ruler, wisely directing [your] life towards this, strive to achieve what is offered to everyone through [God’s] Goodness, but which eludes everyone due to its infinity. For it sometimes incites [our] desire with indescribable and blooming Beauty in order to attract us to itself; and sometimes, in order to school [us], amazement at the super-infinite and divine Greatness buries satiety - the parent of pride and the birth of riotous joy in those who do not see ahead the flaming sword placed with the Cherubim [at the Garden of Eden] and turning (Gen. 3:24) 3, as well as in those who approach virtue without fear [of God]. But you, augmenting [your] modesty with the greatness of success in the beautiful and firmly based [on faith], have advanced far along the path of spiritual improvement. And he honored me, unknown and humble, with his acquaintance, in a way provided by nature: I mean by the way of writing a message. For the word binds those who are absent [to each other] and reveals those who have [never] seen [each other]; through thought it brings together and combines [with us] a person who is hitherto unfamiliar to us in a sensory way, and he, thanks to this thought, begins to acquire his bodily features. Therefore, you, in your [spiritual] fullness, having desired my insignificance, moved towards an incorporeal vision of [me]. Having shown yourself to have an advantage in the gift of speech, as well as in other gifts, over other [people], adorned with all sorts of [virtues] as a result of a righteous life, you were jealous of somehow elevating me, blind, to the contemplation of sacred words, the ascent to which exceeds the [strength] of a person who has not yet gone beyond the limits of the nature and existence of [things] unstable and possessing extension. And [all] this is only for the sake of me, who voluntarily mixed with the dirt of these [sensual things] and like a worm crawling in the dung of impure passions. However, for the sake of obedience and respect for your love, encroaching on what exceeds [my] dignity, I answer your request and speak about [such lofty] subjects, but only guessingly, and not affirmatively. By “unjust judge” in the Gospel we figuratively understand our understanding, which, as a result of the transgression [of the commandments], initially carried out an unrighteous judgment 4 because it did not accept the commandments of the Creator, but clung to the advice of the destroyer. That is why it preferred to be and become earthly rather than divine. Its “city” is feeling or the visible world: connected with it and unreasonably based on [sensual things], our understanding exchanged life in our homeland for living in foreign lands, 5 not fearing God and not honoring Him, who became man for our sake. It did not fear out of unreason, but did not honor out of self-confidence, for unreason does not foresee the greatness of [Divine] judgments, and self-confidence does not allow [the possibility of] testing, which the Goodness of [God], awaiting the conversion of [man], does not allow for the time being. And due to its obstinacy, having fallen into the trap of these [vices, our understanding] unnecessarily abuses the honor bestowed by the Creator to carry out what is due, that is, free will. And therefore it made a decision that what appears [to the senses] is preferable to the intelligible [good], which was not legal 6 . The annoying widow is a rational soul, deprived of reason, sowing good by nature [seeds] for the fruition of sacred and pious deeds. This mind is overcome by complete love and disposition towards the widow, but does not remain [in such a disposition for long] due to [its] gravitation and voluntary inclination towards earthly things. The plaintiff of it, that is, of the soul, is the material impulse and thoughts of the pitiful flesh, which strives to desecrate the beautiful. [The plaintiffs are also] unclean demons, darkening the bright, when they, through pleasure, conquering us, in a terrible way bring upon us shame and the passions of wickedness. As a result of them, [human] nature was condemned to death, since it did not retain [in itself] the true joy of life given to it from the beginning. The harassment [of the widow] is the remorse and urge of conscience that prompts [us to action]. They, emanating from the soul, are usually subjected, albeit slowly, to the rigidity of [our] understanding; although unyielding in relation to the beautiful, due to her long experience [in vice], she cannot endure the torment hiding in the depths [of the soul] and, as it were, constantly tormenting and disturbing [our understanding]. [And remorse does not stop] until the passions that trample the soul are trampled upon, through abstinence and voluntary mortification of the fleshly members. Then, thanks to piety and perfect zeal for the best, [our understanding] is brought into kinship with the Word Himself. And with these [remorse], acting in a natural way, God, who transcends essence and nature, identifies what belongs to Himself and the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ, for [Scripture] says: Will not God protect you (Luke 18:7) for my sake, who became incarnate and through me destroys the destroyer of [human] nature? Thus, in a condensed form, I outlined [my understanding] of this [place of Holy Scripture], as far as the measure of my understanding allowed. Others comprehend this passage differently: some interpret it in relation to Christ, and others – with the Antichrist. But I am afraid to think and express each of these opinions, since such a comparison is unacceptable. For the protection of the Son is no less, and the protection of the Father no more; in general, it is only the protection of the Son, and [acts] only through the Son 8. And about her, as if in a comparative way, [Scripture] says: Will not God protect you? For [God] has no place; He will appear completely different, through a nature that cannot create an equal [to Him], and therefore disordered and only depicting [the Being] sublime, as being above 9. However, it is unacceptable and impossible to [imagine] the inventor and teacher of evil doing good. After all, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 7:18). And goodness is protection, and it properly soothes the annoyance of the one who resorts [to protection]. It is also impermissible to compare the Father, the Giver of all virtue and life through the Only Begotten Son and equal [to the Father] in nature and goodness, with the Antichrist. For it is not proper for good to be revealed through evil, as it is for light through darkness, life through death, or existence through something that is in no way existing. I say this not to refute the mentioned [interpreters], for thanks to their teaching I come into contact with life and follow its path, but because of extreme timidity and confirming my own mediocrity. It is not appropriate for me to accurately define the reading of [the word] “bother”, due to my [deep] ignorance of such things, [which cannot be compared] with the enlightenment of those who are sophisticated and have succeeded [in them] thanks to their zeal. They say that the reading of this word must be determined [according to all the canons of grammar] and have a blunt rather than a invested stress, because of [this kind of] words, not a single one is supplied with a invested stress, unless it arises from unstressed syneresis: for example, [the words] “I think”, “I do”, “I cover with gold” and similar ones retain, together with the prefix, the stress on the same syllable. As for the “right cheek,” then by “right” I mean [spiritual] work. The divine life that arises in us through [the implementation of] the commandments completely determines this work, and [naturally] it is subject to the blows of the evil one, who anticipates the moral nobility produced by the work. It is scourged by self-conceit [arising] from this 10, inflamed by vanity and exalted in relation to those who have not acquired such [life]. Therefore, one should, as it were, turn the other, left [cheek and turn] the already past life, which has defiled us with the lies of this century, and constantly expose it to blows by remembering. For those who do not possess humility, which is, as it were, the sacred foundation [of piety], 11 it is better to moderate themselves and be humiliated as sinners, than to be exalted as saints and then fall through pride. And let this, done in a bodily way for the sake of the commanded Lord, be revered along with [the speculations] perceived during contemplation, and even be preferred to them, since [it serves] sacred readiness and preliminary purification. Those who perform this are granted the skill of spiritual nobility, and thereby the disbelief of the striker is limited, for the zeal to strike is reflected by the readiness to accept it, and it is possible that [the striker] will be ashamed, if nothing else, then by a similar excess of humility. He who is able to do this never resists, being restrained by the command [of the Lord] 12. The words: Do not touch Me were spoken by the Lord to Mary Magdalene, who considered Him to be a gardener; with them He reveals and reveals the mystery that every thinking soul, which has not yet mastered the hut that has grown together with it, 13 and therefore accepts the Word only as the Creator of things that arise and perish, no different from cultivated vegetables (for in both of them there is a fluidity [of their nature], limited by time and periodicity), for their sake and to them, [as she believes], the Word came and descended. [Such a soul] is unworthy of spiritual contact with the Word, and therefore seeks Him in revealed [things]; she knows Him only as one who became flesh for our sake, but does not properly know Him as God, born of God the Father 14. In all likelihood, this is what the words make [us] think about: I have not yet ascended to My Father, spoken to a soul thus disposed, not yet ascended [to the heights of contemplation] by the path of higher theology and faith, which limit the nature of visible [things] 15. Such a soul, like a certain Galilean woman, still needs a more perfect understanding of this and for [the Lord], as the Educator 16, to raise it through contemplation to the ability to perceive the Revelation of divine things, to comprehend as far as possible. Him together with the logoi brought into existence by Him as prototypes [of visible things] 17. [This soul also needs to] become like the Lord, who became and appeared like us [in everything] except sin, and we, if we are granted this gift, will be with Him, deprived of only one [sinfulness] of nature 18. Now, accepting this [gift] through hope and glorifying it with the proper deeds of the commandments, you can already taste the joy of this gift, since you have believed and worked. [And your joy] is endless and abundant, since the Giver of this gift supersubstantially surpasses both the movement of nature and the comprehensibility of every age. The expression ἐκφάντωρ λόγου probably implies the meaning that the life of each person demonstrates and explains the correctness of his chosen teaching. [ When preparing the online publication, we tried to reproduce the spelling of Greek words from the original as accurately as possible. However, we corrected some obvious errors contained in the publication that we noticed, as a rule, without specifically noting them. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] In this case, there is a clear hint of the triad γένεσις - κίνησις - στάσις, which Rev. Maxim contrasted the Origen triad στάσις - κίνησις - γένεσις (see: Scherwood R. The Earlier Ambigua, p. 93). According to I. Meyendorff, in Origen’s scheme, the created world “is the result of a fall, which he understands as a movement away from perfection.” On the contrary, according to Rev. Maximus, “in the beginning God created the world by the action of His Divine will (genesis). The action of the Divine will was expressed in movement (kinesis). This movement ultimately strives for its completion and completeness, for stability in God (stasis), which is the goal of creation” (Meyendorff I. Introduction to Patristic Theology. New York, 1985, pp. 303–304). At St. Gennady of Constantinople, there is such an interpretation of this passage of Holy Scripture: Cherubim are invisible Forces to whom God has entrusted the protection (or: supervision of) paradise; this guard (φυλακήν) is visually represented (σχηματίζεσθαι) in the form of a fiery sword, preventing Adam from entering paradise again. Theodore of Mopsuestia does not agree with this interpretation: he believes that for the upbringing of Adam a certain sensory spectacle was needed, and therefore the Cherubim should be understood as that powerful and terrifying sight (ὄψιν) and the image of some animals that scared Adam (see: Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. Turnhout, 1986 (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, vol. 15), pp. 127–128). Didim the Blind devotes significant space to this verse in his “Commentary on the Book of Genesis.” He, following Philo of Alexandria and Origen, interprets the word "Cherubim" as "abundance of knowledge" (πλῆθος τῆς γνώσεως); “sword” is the designation of “punishing force.” Understanding “paradise” in a spiritual sense as “the Kingdom [of God],” Didymus says that entry into this paradise is impossible without participation in the “knowledge of the Truth,” symbolized by the Cherubim, and that the path there is difficult and painful (τὴν ἐπὶ πόνον ἀγωγήν) and associated with many sorrows - this is what the sword indicates (see: Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur la Genese, t. 1. P., 1976 (Sources chrétiennes, no. 233), p. 265–273). The reverend himself Maximus in “Questions and Perplexities” interprets the indicated passage of Holy Scripture in more detail (“question” 158). For the saint, the “tree of Life” in paradise is the Lord, who is nourishment (food - τροφή) and life for our souls. The path leading to Him is the essence of virtue, and this path is guarded by Cherubim and a fiery sword. “Cherubim” is interpreted as “abundance of knowledge,” for through knowledge love (πόθος) for God is born in us; and the “fiery sword” is the ability to discern, destroying vices - through it the fear [of God] is born in us. And love and fear [of God] guard the path to the Tree of Life (see: Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia, p. 110). Judging by this, Rev. Maxim, in his interpretation of the indicated passage, again develops the traditions of Alexandrian exegesis, approaching them, as always, creatively. The concept κρίσις means both “court” and “judgment.” The term παροικία (temporary, short stay somewhere) in patristic vocabulary often denoted life here; Rev. him Maximus contrasts the term κατοικία, denoting permanent residence, that is, eternal, heavenly residence. The essence of these thoughts by Rev. Maxim can be reduced to the following: the Fall consisted primarily of a perversion of our understanding (or reason - λογισμός), which, in the pursuit of sensual, material things, forgot about the spiritual. For “without sin the lower would be subject to the higher. Sin destroyed this possible and intended harmony” (Florovsky G.V. Byzantine Fathers of the V–VIII centuries, p. 209). With the phrase τὰ οἰκεῖα καὶ πατρικὰ παραβάλλων rev. Maxim seems to emphasize that remorse is not only characteristic of human nature, but the “voice of God” also sounds in them. The meaning of παραβάλλω in the sense of “to identify, to juxtapose”, in relation to this place in this work by Rev. Maxim, cited in: Lampe G. W. H. Op. cit., p. 1007. In other words, the whole Holy Trinity provides for and protects man, but such “protection” is carried out mainly through the Son, Who is our “Intercessor” and “Advocate”. The phrase εἰκονιζούσης δὲ μόνον, ὡς ὑπερκειμένην, τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν is difficult to translate and interpretations. But its meaning becomes clearer from the further development of the Rev.’s thoughts. Maxima. By ἐντεῦθεν we can also mean the evil one as a source of conceit. But, most likely, the undoubted and closer source of conceit (οἴησις) is in the soul of the person himself. Entering the difficult path of spiritual activity, he begins to reap its first fruits and can take credit for them, which leads to pride, vanity, etc. According to Orthodox ascetic teaching, these passions complete the list of main vices, and they “reach the highest degree of danger and destruction for the religious and moral life of a person, not only in their inner essence, basic ethical and psychological content, but also together with this, and by the especially subtle, sometimes difficult to perceptible form of its manifestation in the soul. The indicated trait of “vanity” and “pride” is determined by the fact that these vices in their true specific form appear precisely under the condition of noticeable success in the implementation of asceticism, in relation to some achieved perfections, as a result of the acquisition of any virtues... The proud “humiliation of others” can thus be based on confidence in one’s own righteousness, on actual good deeds, in this case being, according to patristic teaching, the most dangerous mood in spiritual life” (Zarin S. Op. cit., p. 291). In the text οὐκ ἔχοντας πῆξιν ἱερὰν τὴν ταπείνωσιν. In Minya’s “Patrology” it is pr)osaxin, [So in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] but I think this is a typo. That's why we read πρόσταξιν. Rev. Maximus uses the term σκῆνος (lit. “tent”), which, starting with St. Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 5:1, 4), in patristic writing was often used to refer to the body. Born according to the flesh of Christ, Ven. Maxim designates as γεγενημένον, and the Word born from the Father as γεγεννημένον, highlighting the difference between the verbs γίγνομαι and γεννάω, which was mentioned above. By “higher theology and faith” this nature is, as it were, “described” (περιγράφεται), that is, its boundaries are established. The adverb παιδαγωγικῶς probably implies the nurturing role of the Lord. The theme of the Logos-Teacher was adopted by Rev. Maxim, most likely, directly from Clement of Alexandria, who of all Christian theologians most fully revealed it. See: Mirtov D. The Moral Teachings of Clement of Alexandria. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 164–179; Fascher I. Der Logos-Christus als göttlicher Lehrer bei Clemens von Alexandrien // Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik. Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag dargebracht, S. 193–207. Here the idea is expressed that “logoi” are, as it were, paradigms of earthly things, and their bringing into existence (“formation”) precedes, in ontological terms, the creation of the sensory world. This is how we understand this rather dark place: δίχα μόνης τῆς φύσεως. The context of the entire sentence suggests that we are talking about deification. Rev. Maxim, as repeatedly, proceeds from the well-known patristic soteriological principle: “God became man so that man could become god.” Naturally, for him, deification is unthinkable without Communion with God, and the latter presupposes the desire for the ideal of holiness: “To cleanse oneself from sinful defilement, to achieve heartfelt purity, therefore, means to prepare oneself, to become capable of knowledge of God and likeness to God” (Archbishop Sergius. Orthodox teaching on salvation, p. 96). The indicated phrase by Rev. Maxim cannot be interpreted in the sense that likeness to the Lord and deification occurs outside (without) human nature, as such, which was damaged by hereditary sin - for for St. Maximus, like all the Eastern Fathers of the Church, was completely alien to the idea of ​​hereditary sin, which became widespread in the West after the Pelagian disputes. See: Gross J. Photios, ein Gegner der Erbsündendogmas // Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1959, Bd. 52, pp. 304–320. You might be interested in: