St. Maximus the Confessor on the infinity of man

Contents From the translator St. Maximus the Confessor on the infinity of man Translator's notes It seems that there is no aspect of the theology of the Orthodox Church that would not be reflected in the works of St. Maximus the Confessor. His figure, as a mystic and contemplator of the ineffable mysteries of the Incarnate Logos, theologian and confessor, rises highly in the history of Christianity. I believe that through the prayers of St. Maximus, as well as all the Holy Fathers - the seers of the Uncreated Divine Light, who already here on earth were vouchsafed to become inhabitants of the shining sky, and it became possible to study his complex theology, which is the surest guide and guide for all “possessing [spiritual] vision, (for whom) the entire intelligible world seems mysteriously imprinted in the entire sensory world through symbolic images. And the entire sensory world, with spiritual speculation, appears to be contained in the entire intelligible world, cognizable [there] thanks to its logoi" (Myst. [p. I, p. 159]. Here and further in square brackets, pointers to the modern translation of the works of St. Maximus the Confessor, book I, translation by A.I. Sidorov and book II, translation by S.L. Epifanovich and A.I. Sidorov, M., 1993, Martis.). And also in theology, Rev. Maximus the Confessor, all who comprehend sacramental theology find the source for the comprehension of Wisdom, in which lies the true knowledge of that primal logos of every thing, and of all creation, and of the mysterious existence of the Most Holy Trinity, where all human knowledge ceases, and only the all-blessed knowledge abides in contemplation. “And as far as this is possible for a person here on earth, he unites in mysterious theology with the Silence of the invisible and unknown eloquence of the Divine, becoming what one truly should be who is worthy of being with God and imprinted with His all-luminous rays” (Ibid. [pp. I, p. 161]). Whether we consider the Confessor's teaching about the Holy Trinity, Christology, pneumatology, eschatology or other aspects of his complex theology, everywhere we begin to comprehend that Great Teacher of all Christians - the Spirit of Truth, Who abides everywhere with the Confessor, to whom he remained faithful throughout his earthly life and to whom he followed into rebirth with his confessor's death... In many ways, the presented translation of the report of the remarkable scientist-patrologist Panagiotis K. Christou became possible thanks to the recently published theological works of S.L. Epifanovich and Vl. Lossky, where I was sufficiently able to familiarize myself with both modern scientific and theological language and statements on the teachings of St. Maximus the Confessor. And also thanks to the publication of the translation of the works of this Father of the Church and commentaries on them, masterfully performed by S.L. Epifanovich and A.I. Sidorov. For the materials provided, instructions and invaluable assistance in the work, I would like to thank Rev. Valentin Asmus and M. M. Kedrova. The conference at which this paper was made was held in Fribor (Switzerland) from 2 to 5 September 1980 (Maximus Confessor; Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Friborg, 2–5 September 1980; édités par Felix Heinzer et Christoph Scönborn, Éditions Universitaires, Friborg Suisse, 1982) and brought together leading scientists - representatives of various areas of theology, linguistics and church history, through whose works, as is now becoming clear, the picture of the prayerful and theological heritage of our great saint is becoming more and more complete. St. Maximus the Confessor on the infinity of man The topic of the report for this conference prompted me to choose the study of the written heritage of Gregory Palamas, which I was preparing for publication with the help of a group of my students in Thessalonica. Palamas, seeking to emphasize the difference between knowledge of a subject and participation in it, in one of his treatises suggested that those who praise God through the knowledge of His uncreated energies are simply pious, while those who participate in them become beginningless and infinite by grace - άναρχοι and ατελεύτητοι. He bases his optimistic outlook mainly on the writings of Maximus the Confessor, whose views had a great influence on him throughout the middle period of his writing career. Gregory Akindinus, against whom this treatise by Palamas 1 was directed, of course, rejects such a point of view 2 and ironically asks him how Palamas himself managed to become a beginningless man, if all people have a physical beginning 3 . Subsequently he refers to a heresiarch who was rejected by the Church on the grounds that the latter simply said that the human body of Jesus Christ was beginningless and heavenly. He clearly meant Apollinaris. Palamas again had to return to this topic and devote several pages of his polemical treatise Antieretics 4 to it. Despite the fact that this time he was more extensive, he was not able to set out all the complex speculations that led Maximus to create his teaching on this problem. Of course, man can be considered as άναρχοι and ατελεύτητοι in the system of Neoplatonism, where everything is essentially the same as the One. Everything that exists comes directly from and returns to the One. However, in this case there is no question of personal existence, but only the idea of ​​man or the general existence of humanity. In this regard, Maxim’s position is personal, and, of course, at first it seems strange and incredible that a person can enter into the existence of the uncreated. The uncreated is that which really exists and is not subject to number and movement, it is one of a kind. On the other hand, creation comes from nothing and is subject to number and movement, it is diverse 5. Maximus affirms this fundamental doctrine of Christian theology, saying: “the distance and difference between the uncreated and the created is infinite.” 6 The words he uses in this case, κτιστόν and άκτιστον, differing only in the negative alpha prefix, express two realities that are not just different, but alien to each other, two realities located on two levels, nowhere in contact with each other. Referring this statement only to man, Maxim characterizes this distance as immeasurable, as an “abyss,” as an abyss: “there really is an “abyss,” great and terrible, between God and man” 7 . It is not difficult to understand that Maxim’s opinion about the dignity of man fits well into the integral system of his teaching and is even its pinnacle. Indeed, a title such as “The Cause of Divine Creation” would probably be most suitable for his entire theological written heritage. True to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, he shows the connection between the two categories of existence - Divine and created - two-way, i.e. as alien to one another and at the same time in close contact. In this way he managed to avoid the danger of both philosophical and Gnostic dualism. According to Maximus, only a person who unites and connects two extremes, and, starting from overcoming his division into masculine and feminine principles, can unite all other divisions of the universe and achieve God as the cause of everything 8. The connection between uncreated and created nature is expressed in the concepts of the transcendental as well as the virtuous. First, we might note that the uncreated nature, as infinitely superior to the created, remains unknowable; secondly, uncreated nature realized and produced the knowledge that pre-existed in it from eternity 9 . Bliss (bliss), transferred to the level of created beings, receives the name έρως from Maxim. This name expresses the entire aspiration of creation towards its perfection and acts in both directions, being the έρως of God and the έρως of man. “The Divine, as abiding eros and agape, is movable, and as an object of eros and agape it moves towards itself those who are capable of perceiving eros and agape. To put it more clearly, the Divine moves, seeking to produce an inner affinity of eros and agape with those who are capable of receiving it, and it moves by nature, attracting to itself the desire of those who are moved for this reason. Bliss is the cause of creation; eros is his perfecting force. Everything that exists has its own plans, logoi (λόγοι) pre-existing eternally in the First One Logos, i.e. in God, although according to the Divine will they were created at a favorable time out of nothing 11. Each was created according to a corresponding design, his logos, which determines his genesis and essence. From this beginning, creation moves rapidly towards its completion. The term Logos, in its long pre-Christian and Christian traditions, acquires a special meaning from Maximus, which is associated with his doctrine of image, likeness and participation 12. “Everything that exists participates in God in accordance with his creation, especially rational beings, which, due to their creation, are established in God himself, and therefore are called a particle of God (μοίρα Θεού)” 13. “Every person is a particle of God (μοίρα Θεού), but not in every state: he was created as μοίρα Θεού, and remains such as long as he moves in accordance with his logos, otherwise he collapses and can again return to non-existence” 14. In any case, logoi constitute the first-affirming potential capabilities of man, which should elevate him above his natural state. By this elevation we mean the transformation of nature into person (φύσις into πρόσωπον). This is another fundamental statement in the theology of Maximus, followed by many other expressions, such as: κίνησις and ενέργεια, φυσικόν θέλημα and γνωμικόν θέλημα, εικών and ομοίωσις. Nature or essence is the common essence of all species; the face or hypostasis is nature, together with its distinctive features in each individual 15. In this case, anthropology corresponds to theology, according to which the Divine nature is hypostasized in Three Persons. Movement is a distinctive property of creation, which arose from the foundation of the world as its consequence, including a state of change. Everything that moves is subject to change, but the being of God is by nature motionless and unchangeable 16. The main category of movement is time, which unfolds along with movement and measures the existence of the world. Time and infinity (crÒnoj and a„wniÒthj) are categories of creation, while eternity is a category of God. Being beyond all conditions, God is above time and age. He is pre-eternal, “like all His energies" 17 . Movement belongs to the nature of the created thing, to everything endowed with reason and perception, although it is different in each case 18. In rational beings, this is associated with the difference between the categories of nature and person. During our development, a transformation into energy occurs from nature to person. Although Maximus also perceived energy as a property of nature, he affirms this only in a special case and under the influence of circumstances that contributed to the development of his teaching when confronted with the doctrine of his opponents about the uniqueness of energy in Christ. In Christ, each nature has its own energy, and this does not mean simply nature as such, but related to the person. Indeed, His Divine nature is the Face, while His human nature, not even the face itself, has been developed to such a level that its movement has become energy. Thus, basically Maxim does not consider motion and energy to be identical; in his opinion, energy is a direct development of movement, and every created nature is determined by its energy 19. A century later, similar terminology was used by John of Damascus 20 . For Maximus, nature without energy would be absurd, as it was later for Gregory Palamas. And the movement determined in each individual through his energy is the force that leads to the goal, beneficially or unsuccessfully. The division of the will into two categories is entirely consistent with the previous distinction between movement and energy. Natural will is a quality of natural being, at the same time it is an instinctive need and the connecting force of all properties belonging to the category of a given nature 21. On the other hand, gnomic will is a self-motivating impulse that carries out changes in any direction and is also a quality of a person (personality) 22. Thus, the natural will is associated with nature and movement, while the gnomic will is associated with person (personality) and energy 23. To distinguish between image and likeness, Maxim uses the same systematic approach. The image belongs to the category of nature and is located between being and well-being (eO_Enai and eâ eO_Enai), while the likeness belongs to the category of person and indicates the perfection of man. It is worth quoting here one of his very characteristic chapters on this subject: God, bringing into being a rational and spiritual essence, in His highest goodness imparted to it four Divine properties, through which He contains everything together, protects and saves those who exist: being, ever-being, goodness and wisdom. [God] bestowed the first two properties on wisdom, and the other two on willpower; that is, He gave existence and ever-being to the essence, and the abilities of the will - goodness and wisdom, so that the creature through communion would become what He Himself essentially is. That is why it is said that man was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26). “In the image” - as the existing [image] of the Existing and as the ever-present [image] of the Ever-Existing: although it is not without beginning, it is infinite. “In the likeness” - as good, [the likeness of] the Good, and as wise, [the likeness of] the All-Wise, being by grace what [God is] by nature. Every rational nature is in the image of God, but only the good and wise are in [His] likeness 24 . According to this theological statement, being and ever-being were proposed to nature (or essence) and, therefore, became properties of rational beings by nature. The meaning of the image is precisely that the created essence received the properties of being and ever-being, although the second is not infinite. All sentient beings were created in the image of God, which is their nature. Two other properties, goodness and wisdom, were imparted to the gnomic quality (freedom of choice) of created beings, i.e. their energy. Rational beings are not automatically endowed with these properties when they are created, but acquire them through their free action. These are components of the Divine likeness, acquired only through grace. Similarity is associated with personal freedom and, therefore, constitutes belonging to the category of person (personality). The face is not something completed in advance. Rather, the face is formed through intense struggle, striving to elevate its nature or even to transform it. For man to form his face means to transform his movement into energy, his natural will into gnomic will, and his image into the Divine likeness. This means being elevated to the level of God and communicating with Him face to face. The goal set for man illuminates Maximus's view more clearly of the close connection between man and God. The fact that man was created as a part of God is not a sufficient property and remains meaningless if it is not accompanied by man's participation in the Divine glory. The confessor gives a clear definition of man's destiny by analyzing the sacrament of Christ. He says that the great and hidden mystery is proepinoÚmenon tšloj; for this purpose God created the essence of beings. This is precisely the hypostatic union of God and man in Christ 25 . Of course, the exact meaning of this statement is interpreted from the opposite side, when they come to the conclusion that the purpose of the creation of man is such a union of him with God, the archetype of which was supposed to be a hypostatic union in Christ. The purpose of man is participation in the Divine nature and participation in the eternity of God, achieved through God’s instillation of the corresponding logos into man at his creation and through his energy into the world as a single whole. The difference in lÒgoj fÚseoj is sharply opposed to the uncreated, while the difference in trÒpoj Øp£rxews does not contrast, but unites. God is the One in whom communion takes place; His Divine energies are properties that can be shared by intelligent beings 26 . Achieving a person's high destiny is carried out in terms of a dialectical connection between metecÒmenon and meqektÒn and metšcon. Man was given the task of unifying the five great divisions in nature 27 "through the right use of natural faculties" 28 28. Beginning with his own division into male and female, man was to, through dispassion, in Divine chastity, renounce his nature and become simply "naked man"; then, passing through other opposites, in the end he could unite the uncreated nature with the created, by the gift of grace revealing them as one 29. However, the first man was not only unable to maintain the connection of the existing foundations, but even fell away from approaching his prototype, because he was not ready for the correct use of his natural energies. Thus, instead of subjugating his senses, man became subordinate to the sensory world, followed the path leading to further division and almost came to non-existence 30. And since then all humanity has followed the same path. In this situation, another supernatural process began: not according to nature and not against nature, but above nature; God Himself became man in order to unite what was divided and to reveal the foundations through which this unity could be realized. The Divine Logos became “perfect man” because of us, through us, for our sake, possessing all our properties except sin” 31. In this event lies a second paradox of exceptional significance, namely: Christ, through His incarnation, makes human nature another sacrament. He takes it with him and transforms it 32. However, the ascension was not accomplished once and for all. Maximus's personal opinion here is that God and man are examples for each other (parade ί gmata ¢ll"lwn). God makes Himself a man out of love for people as much as man deifies himself out of love for God, and God lifts man into the incomprehensible to the extent that man reveals God, invisible by nature, through his virtues 33. There is One Person Who imparts grace, and another person (person) who receives grace; on the other hand, man in general and each person (personality) separately is what humanity gave to Christ, and Christ is the Person Who received it. One, accepting human nature, enters creation, and the other, achieving the unity of his nature with the Divine, enters the realm of the uncreated. One descends, the other ascends. Here we find the correct explanation of Maximus's view of the role of the incarnation in the Divine plan. Based on what was said in the last lines, we can conclude that the reason for the incarnation must be sought in the fall of man, and the purpose of the incarnation is in his restoration. However, this would contradict Maximus's assertion that the incarnation of the Logos was pre-existent (proepinooÚmenon tšloj) in the Divine plan. And indeed, man, by his own means, was unable to achieve his destiny - deification (theosis). In any case, the descent of God to man was necessary in order to facilitate the ascent of man. Incarnation is the pinnacle of human perfection 34 . The Fall of man was not a fact for God to make a new decision, but simply added a detail to the eternal plan. Here the teaching of Athanasius was developed in the work “De Incarnatione Verbi”. Under the conditions prevailing after the incarnation of Jesus Christ, three factors influence and move the human will: God, nature and the world 35 . Man does not develop if his will is subordinate to nature; he becomes simply carnal if his will is defeated by the world; and through adoption he becomes a god if his will is obedient to God. Thus, man's task is first to overcome the world, then his own nature in order to achieve God. All this does not happen by force; rather, the human will is offered motives for making a decision. This is the most important thing in the process of a person organizing his own life, this is aÙtexoÚsion, i.e. self-determining power, the ability to transfer one’s natural attraction from the permitted to the forbidden, from good to evil and back; the right to choose between “being united to the Lord, becoming one with Him in the Spirit, or being united with a harlot, becoming one with her in the flesh” 36. Free choice means a state of struggle among various circumstances, the characteristics of which are determined by the attitude to the main threefold law. The third of them, i.e. the law of grace, superior to others in the sphere of virtue, teaches direct imitation of God and through the transformation of nature leads to deification. Virtue is not good contained in nature or in accordance with nature, but beyond nature; virtue surpasses nature and fights with it in order to remain uncontrollable, just as true contemplation fights with time and age. Divine likeness comes from two energies, namely knowledge (or gnosis) and virtue (qewr ί a and ¢reth) 37 . This narrow path is a continuous ascent towards God, from energy to energy, from glory to glory, beginning with the movement given by God, and moving towards eros and ecstasy, until the union of the traveler with the One Beloved. Eros is the highest stage of man's love for God and God's love for man. All virtues contribute to Divine Eros, and above all pure prayer, through which the mind gains wings in order to leave everything material and ascend from the human to the Divine. Thus a person becomes able to follow Jesus Christ in His passage through heaven 38 . He who has been purified through practical philosophy, taught natural contemplation, and finally brought into mystical theology, meets God inexpressibly, in ignorance, as in darkness (gnÒfoj). Such a person has already become Moses—spiritual Moses 39 . As has already been said, movement is a means to pursue a high goal, which, if we talk about a person, is perfection. Its completion is found in the ascent of creation to God, where peace resides, as a consequence and completion of movement. The narrow path of man shows that the beginning and the end are one and the same. Movement begins with time, and rest begins with the end of time, thus the beginning and the end meet at one point. And since the beginning determines the movement caused by the creation of everything, it was rightly called also the end, where the movement comes to rest, as in the movement of objects. Thus, a person striving for his ultimate goal, his completion, naturally reaches the beginning, which is identified with the end. This path from movement to rest means the transition from time to eternity, transcending the division between the uncreated and the created, the transition to God, who is beyond time, movement and change. This is kat£pausij or sabbatismÒj, i.e. peace. However, only that which is in the power of time stops moving, and everything that is morally perfect, being beyond the limit of time, continues forever and, even if an end is put, moves again in the direction of further improvement, and such an end becomes the beginning of another, deeper improvement. The state of peace, which is absolute in the ideal world of Plato and Origen, here, in the world of spiritual perfection, in Maximus’ system is only relative. This is ever-moving rest and ever-resting movement (¢eik ί nhtoj st£sij and st£simoj k ί nhsij) 41. Spiritual perfection is limitless, as Gregory of Nyssa taught long before 42. Maxim, trying to explain the state of transcendental life, cites the examples of St. Paul and Melchizedek, more persistently pointing to the second. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, presented in the Book of Genesis as if without a genealogy, takes on a messianic character over time. In the Epistle to the Hebrews he is described as having no father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being likened to the Son of God 43 . The transition to eternity is not only an eschatological issue, since it belongs to the sphere of action of the spiritual, independent of temporary or timeless conditions. Time and space can be abolished at any moment of human life, even on earth, if they are surpassed by reason and virtue. The gap between God and man is bridged, even while man is still in the flesh in a world of change and corruption, solely on the basis that he, through his will, has risen above the flesh and the surrounding world 44 . The attributes - without father, without mother and without offspring - were not given in order to “define his natural or time-related properties” that characterize father, mother, offspring, the beginning and end of days, i.e. something that was abolished by Melchizedek himself. They were given to him “because of his divine and gracious properties,” because of his virtues, through which he transformed his nature. In other words, he was so named not because of his nature, created from nothing, according to which he began and ended his life, but because of the divine and uncreated grace that comes from the Eternal God, and is always above all nature and time. Man is understood as being born “gnomically” in his integrity, only through his uncreated grace, as having acquired this state because he preferred virtue to his nature. So he was begotten by the Logos in the Spirit in the divine, infinite and immortal substance of God, and this indeed bears the likeness of the God who begot him 45 . He who has put to death his earthly members dies and rises with Christ 46 . Since he rejected the blessings of the world and killed his earthly members, he overcame within himself a life measured by time, which has a beginning and an end and is shaken by many passions. He left this for the sake of the better, Divine and eternal life of the Logos, Who abides in him 47 . Freed from the bonds of time, he is freed from the two extremes, thus becoming not only infinite - a very understandable aspect - but also beginningless, since the beginning lies in the structure of time, which has been abolished. The end of times and ages means the complete unity of the true beginning and the true end in the person who is saved. And since the true beginning and true end is only God, the unity of these two elements in saved people means unity with God. Therefore, first we consider the choice of man, then the completed unity of beginning and end, and finally deification (theosis) 48 . He who receives the gifts of the incarnate Logos, through the sacraments, is forever united with Him, and forever retains His hypostasis in his soul. For Christ is always mysteriously born in him, and his giving birth soul becomes a virgin mother 49 . Having God the man constantly within himself, he is in constant and perfect communion with the Divine. He who is able to ascend to heaven through the Logos of the Divine, who came to earth for this purpose, becomes God, just as God became man 50. When a man changes his nature (nature), he by grace becomes what the Giver of grace is by nature; after he ceases his natural actions, as required by the flesh, feelings and mind, man becomes God through participation in Divine grace. Thus, as he participates in theosis, deification, he is also deified in soul and body; this is deification (qšwsij) that is offered to the worthy. And just as deification is Divine energy without beginning and end, the deified personality is also infinite. A certain difficulty can be encountered when trying to differentiate between the concepts of “Person” and “personality”. In established practice, the former is taken to designate the Three Divine “Persons” of the Blessed Trinity, while the latter refers more to the “personality” of created man. However, since the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ was for all created humanity a perfect example of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures, theosis, the deification of human nature and its transformation, then, as it seems to me, the question of using the concepts of “Person” and “personality” should be considered in the light of traditional ideas about the transformation of the human personality into the Divine Person during the communication of properties, communicatio idiomatum, in Christ. In the mystery of the Incarnation, the Divine Logos carries out a hypostatic union with human nature. This is the greatest mystery of the Incarnation for the sake of our deification, a mystery predetermined in the eternal council of God, in the foreknowledge of which all created being was created. Rev. Maxim distinguishes two moments and periods: “The Sacrament of the Divine Incarnation” and “the grace of human Deification.” However, in a certain sense, the Hypostasis of the Word through the Incarnation, as it were, becomes from a simple complex (“composite”, sunqetoj), but this “complexity” only means that the single Hypostasis is immediately and inseparably a hypostasis for both (unfused and invariably) united natures. “Complexity” lies precisely in the combination of natures that remain without any change in natural properties. The Incarnation is the “ineffable condescension of God” (kenosis), but is not the “impoverishment of the Divine.” And the human in the hypostasis of the Word does not cease to be “consubstantial” with us. Consequently, natures remain different and dissimilar. Their “difference” is not interrupted by the connection and is preserved in that inextricable and unrelenting mutual communication (“contact”, pericwrhsij eij allhlaj), which is established by the connection. And this “union” becomes understandable in accordance with the creeds of the IV Ecumenical Council that “deification in Christ means an inextricable connection, perfect agreement and unity.” “Inseparability”, i.e. always in communion with each other, since Christ, being God, “unchangeably made man,” acts always and in everything “not only as God and in his Divinity, but together as a man, in his humanity. In other words, all Divine life involves humanity, and is manifested and exuded through it. This is “a new and ineffable way of revealing the natural actions of Christ” - an inseparable connection, however, without any change or derogation in what is characteristic of each nature, i.e. "invariably." This unity is realized so completely in the duality of natures, because human nature is generally a similarity to the Divine. And here Rev. Maxim first of all sees the unity of life, the unity of the “Face” 51. In the doctrine of two wills in Christ, it seems necessary to present the traditional point of view on this issue. First of all, the creed of the VI Ecumenical Council, the formulation of which, without a doubt, was decisively influenced by the views of the holy fathers, confessors and defenders of Orthodoxy: Rev. Maximus the Confessor, Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Martin and Agathon of the Popes and others. The Venerable himself. Maxim died in exile in the Caucasus (August 3, 662) at the age of 82, without waiting for the triumph of Orthodoxy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) under Emperor Constantine IV (668–685). In the oros of the cathedral, the definitions of faith of the Ecumenical Councils were repeated: Nicaea, Constantinople, the main part of Chalcedon, with additions from the oros of the V Ecumenical Council, and, finally, a new definition of faith: “We also preach, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him (Jesus Christ) two natural wills, two natural desires, and two natural actions are inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, unmerged. And two natural wills, not opposed to one another, as the wicked heretics said - let it not be! But His human desire does not contradict (does not actually stand in opposition) and does not oppose (does not deliberately resist), but follows or, better said, submits to His Divine and omnipotent desire” (i.e., the human will in Christ is not contrary, but submissive to His Divine will). On this issue (the doctrine of two wills), Rev. Maximus introduces his famous distinction between natural and gnomic (elective) will. Will is a property of rational nature. “The power of striving for what is in accordance with nature, embracing in itself all the properties that essentially belong to nature,” defines Maxim. “Reasonable” nature cannot but be strong-willed. We (all created humanity) by nature have a natural will, the implementation of which depends on our choice, carried out by the gnomic will. Freedom and will are not arbitrariness. True freedom is the undivided, unshakable, integral aspiration and attraction of the soul towards the Good. Gnomic will is not a property of nature, but is a property of the individual. Adam in paradise had a natural will and ate from the tree of life. When he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, his natural will became gnomic. The difficulty and contradiction in Christ’s assimilation of the human will lies in the fact that, since He is the incarnate Divine Word, it follows from this that He was not able to sin. At the same time, He (Jesus Christ) experienced everything that leads to sin in an ordinary person. And the description of Christ’s behavior in the Gospel indicates the presence in Him of human existential will (temptation in the desert, Gethsemane struggle, etc.) He faced all the adversities of human existence and did not succumb to them. Salvation would not have been accomplished if all human nature, including the human will, had not been accepted and healed, but this is the nature of the primordial. There is no hesitation or contradiction in the human will of Christ. It is internally unified and internally consistent with the will of the Divine. There is no (and there cannot be!) a clash or struggle between two natural wills, for human nature is the creation of God, it is the fulfilled will of God. Therefore, in Maximus’ system, Christ has a natural human will, but He does not have a gnomic will, since it presupposes the inevitability of sin. Here the secret of the Incarnation is that the Divine Word, Logos, possessing all the properties of the Divine nature, including energy and will, at the same time possesses all the properties of human nature. Due to the Divine-human unity of His Person, all His human properties follow the Divine. In a sense, human action and will in Christ were above or beyond nature. “For through the hypostatic union she was completely deified, which is why she was completely innocent of sin.” In the image of Rev. Maxim Christ's human nature turns out to be especially active, active and free. And this applies most of all to redemptive suffering. It was “free passion,” free acceptance and fulfillment of the Divine will 52. Written late 1341 or early 1342. Apud Palamas, Antirreticos 3, 4, 7 (ed. P. Christou 3, 165–166). See Carit. 4, 9; PG 90, 1049B. [r.p. I, p. 135]. Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1172A. Carit. 4, 4 and 5; PG 90, 1048D. [r.p. I; 4 and 5, p. 134]. Amb. Io. 23; PG 91, 1260C. Amb. Io. 42; PG 91, 1329A. Wed. L. Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator. The theological anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Lund 1965, 78–81. I.-H. Dalmais, La théorie des logoi des creatures chez S. Maxime le Confesseur, in: RSPhTh 36 (1952) 244–249. Commentary to On the Divine Names 2, 3; PG 4, 352. Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1080A. Opusc. 23; PG 91, 264–265. Cap. Theol. 1, 68; PG 90, 1108C. [.p. I; 68, p.226]. Ibid. 48–49; 1100C-1101A. [.p.I; 48, 49, p. 222]. Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1072B. Amb. Th. 5; PG 91, 1057B. Cf. Thunberg, 94. De fide orth. 3, 15; PG 94, 1048. Wed. J.-M. Garrigues, Maxime le Confesseur. La charite, avenir divin de l'homme, Paris 1976, 91f. Carit. 3, 25; PG 90, 1024B. [.p. I; 3, 25]. God, bringing into existence a rational and intelligent being, in His highest goodness imparted to creatures four Divine properties that contain, protect and save them: being, ever-being, goodness and wisdom: the first two he bestowed on the creature, and the last two - moral capacity; to the essence - being and ever-being, and to the moral faculty - goodness and wisdom, so that the creature may be that which He Himself is in essence. Therefore, it is said that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Created in the image of the Existing, as the existing, the Ever-present, as the ever-present, although not without beginning, however, infinitely. In the likeness of the Good, as good, Wise by nature, as wise by grace. In the image of God there is every rational being, but in likeness there are only good and wise beings. Note lane I give two versions of the translation of this text. Qu. Thal. 60, PG 90, 620–621. Cap. Theol. 1, 48; PG 90, 1100–1101. [.p. I; 48, p.222]. Uncreated and created, intelligible and sensible, heaven and earth, heaven and world (beyond heaven), male and female. Amb. Io. 10; PG 91, 1148A. Ibid. 41; PG 91, 1305–1308. Amb. Th. 5; PG 91, 1048D-1049A. Amb. Io.10; PG 91, 1113 BC. A. Riou, Le monde et l'eglise selon Maxime le Confesseur, Paris 1973, 96 f. Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1092 D. Cap. Theol. 2, 18; PG 90, 1133B. [.p. II; 18, p.237]. Amb. Io. 10; PG 91, 1149BC. Qu. Thal. 59; PG 90, 613C. Ibid. 65, scholion 44; PG 90, 781C. Amb. Io. 10; PG 91, 1172A. Amb. Io. 10; PG 91, 1144C. Qu. Thal. 59; PG 90, 609A. Or. Dom.; PG 90, 889C. [.p., p. 185]. Amb. Io. 60; PG 91, 1385. A. V. Kartashov “Ecumenical Councils”, G. V. Florovsky “Eastern Fathers of the V – VIII centuries”, S. L. Epifanovich “Rev. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology.” A.V. Kartashov “Ecumenical Councils”, G.V. Florovsky “Eastern Fathers of the V-VIII centuries”, Prot. John Meyendorff, Introduction to Patristic Theology.