So let our minds rush to the search for God, and let the power of desire become an attraction to Him, just as let the fierce beginning enter into the struggle to preserve Him. Or, more precisely, let [our] whole mind extend to God, prompted, as if by a certain voice, by the tension of passion and inflamed by the utmost impulse of the power of desire48. Imitating in this way the heavenly angels, we will always be servants of God and on earth we will demonstrate an equal life with the angels,49 and therefore, along with the angels, we will have a mind completely indifferent to what is lower than God. Living in this way, through Prayer we will receive, as our daily bread, life-giving and satiating our souls to preserve the strength of the blessings given to us, [the] Word itself, which spoke: I am the bread of life that came down from heaven, giving life to the world (John 6:33, 35-38). This Word becomes everything, proportionate to us, saturated with virtue and wisdom, and is embodied in various ways, as soon as It Himself knows, for the sake of each of those being saved. [Let us accept Him], while still living in this age, according to the meaning of the following saying of the Prayer:

Matthew 6:11. Give us this day our daily bread.

The word “today,” I think, means the present age. Or, to interpret this passage of the Prayer more clearly, we can say: give us our bread, which You prepared in the beginning for the immortality of [human] nature, today, in this mortal life, so that the eating of the bread of life and knowledge will overcome sinful death – that bread, the communion of which was deprived by the crime of the Divine commandment by the first man. After all, if he had been satisfied with this Divine food, he would not have been taken captive by the death of sin.

However, the one who prays to receive this daily bread does not receive it entirely as it is, but receives only as much as the recipient himself can [perceive it]. For the Bread of Life, as the Lover of Mankind, although He gives Himself to all who ask, does not give Himself equally to everyone: to those who have done great deeds He gives more, but to those who have done [deeds] less He gives less, that is, He gives to everyone as much as his spiritual dignity can accept50.

The Savior Himself led me to this understanding of the present saying [of the Prayer], commanding [His] disciples not to worry at all about sensual food, telling them: Do not worry about your soul, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear (Matthew 6:25), because the people of this world seek all this (Luke 12:30), [and you] seek first the Kingdom God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you(Matthew 6:33). How does [the Lord] teach in Prayer not to seek what He [Himself] previously commanded? – It is clear that in Prayer He did not order to ask for what He did not command in His commandment, for in Prayer we must ask for what we should seek according to the commandment. And what [the Lord] does not allow us to seek is unlawful to pray for. If the Savior commanded to seek one Kingdom of God and truth, then He encouraged those seeking Divine gifts to ask for the same thing in Prayer, so that, through this Prayer, having confirmed the grace of those sought by nature, to unite and identify through relative unity51 the will of those asking with the desire of the Giver of grace.

If Prayer commands us to ask for that everyday bread that naturally supports our present life, then this is so that we do not go beyond the boundaries of Prayer, covering whole periods of years in our thoughts, and do not forget that we are mortal and have [here] life, like a passing shadow, but so that, without being burdened by unnecessary worries, we ask in Prayer for bread for the day. And we will show that we wisely, according to Christ, turn [our earthly] life into a meditation on death, by our own will forestalling nature and, before death, cutting off the care of the body from the soul, so that it does not cleave to the corruptible and does not pervert [by attraction to] matter the natural use of [its] desire [for God], becoming accustomed to covetousness, which deprives the wealth of Divine blessings.

So, let us avoid, as far as possible, love for matter and wash away, like dust, from [our] mental eyes the very connection with it; Let us be content only with what supports our life, and not with what gives it pleasure. Let us pray to God, as we have learned, so that our soul does not fall into slavery and not, for the sake of the body, fall under the yoke of visible [things]. Then it will be clear that we eat in order to live, and not live in order to eat,52 since the first is characteristic of rational nature, and the second – of irrational nature. Let us be strict guardians of this Prayer, showing by our very deeds that we firmly adhere to one and only life – life in the Spirit, and to acquire it we use [our entire] real life. Let us prove in practice that for the sake of spiritual life we ​​only endure this [mortal life], strengthening it with bread alone and preserving it, as far as possible, in a healthy state, only so that we do not [simply] live, but live for God, making the body, inspired by virtues, a messenger of the soul, and making the soul, distinguished by constancy in goodness, a preacher of God53. And we will naturally limit this bread to [the needs of] one day, not daring to extend requests for it to another day out of [obedience] to the One who granted this Prayer. Therefore, having actively adjusted ourselves in accordance with the meaning of the Prayer, let us proceed in purity to the rest of the sayings, saying:

Matthew 6:12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Who, according to the understanding of the previous saying of the Prayer, in this age, which is symbolized, as we said, [by the word] “today,” seeks through Prayer the incorruptible Bread of Wisdom, [the eating of] which the original transgression [commandments] deprived us of; who recognizes only one pleasure – success in the Divine, the Giver of which by nature is God, and the preserver by choice is the free will of the recipient; who knows only grief – failure in this success, the inspirer of which is the devil, and the accomplisher is anyone who, due to weakened will, gets tired of the Divine and does not keep [this] treasure, which is held [in the soul by a loving] disposition of the will; whoever does not voluntarily gravitate towards visible things and therefore does not yield to the bodily sorrows that happen to him, he truly forgives dispassionately those who sin against him54. After all, no one can take away the good that he preserves within himself with love and care, for it, as verified by faith, is inalienable by nature. He appears before God as an example of virtue and, so to speak, calls on the Inimitable to imitate himself, saying: forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; he prays to God to be what he himself was in relation to his neighbors. For if he wishes that God would forgive him in the same way as he himself forgave the debts of those who sinned against him, that just as God dispassionately forgives those whom he forgives, so he also forgives those who have sinned, remaining dispassionate to what happens to him, and therefore does not allow [his] mind to be imprinted with memories of previous sorrows, showing himself to be a person who is not separated from other people and does not dismember [single] nature [human]. For when the will is united in this way with the logos of nature, then the reconciliation of God with [human] nature usually occurs, since it is impossible otherwise for nature, which voluntarily rebels against itself, to accept the ineffable condescension of the Divine. And of course. The Lord desires our reconciliation with each other not in order to learn from us to be reconciled with those who have sinned and agree to redress many and terrible grievances, but He desires this in order to cleanse us of passions and show that our state of mind is closely connected with grace55. And it is clear that when the will has united with the logos of nature, the free will of the people who do this will no longer rebel against God. After all, there is nothing contrary to reason in the logos of nature, since it is both natural and Divine law, taking into itself the movement of the will acting in accordance with it56. And if there is no counter-reason in the logos of nature, then it is quite natural that the will, moved in accordance with it, will act in everything in accordance with God. This is the active disposition of the soul, through the grace of the Good by nature [God] contributing to the birth of virtue.

The one who asks for spiritual Bread in Prayer has this disposition, and after him the same disposition will be found by the one who, forced by the [needs of bodily] nature, asks only for everyday bread. Realizing himself to be mortal by nature, he leaves debts to debtors, and then, in view of the uncertainty [of the hour of death], every day he awaits the naturally inevitable and with his will warns nature, becoming a self-willed dead man for the world according to the words of [the Psalmist]: For your sake we are killed all day long, counted as sheep of the slaughter (Ps. 43:23). As a result of this, he is reconciled with everyone, so that, when he is presented to unfading life, he does not bring with him signs of the depravity of the present age, and in order to receive from the Judge and Savior of all in equal recompense what he borrowed here [on earth]. For a [good] spiritual disposition towards those who have grieved is necessary for both57 for their own benefit. And this is demonstrated by the following words of the Prayer:

Matthew 6:13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

With these words, Scripture shows that whoever has not completely reconciled with those who sinned [against him] and has not presented to God a heart pure from sorrow and enlightened by the light of reconciliation with neighbors, he will not only not receive the grace of those benefits for which he prayed, but will also be handed over by righteous judgment to temptation and the evil one, so that he can learn to be cleansed of sins, eliminating his complaints against others. The law of sin is called temptation – the first man brought into being [by God] did not have it, and by “the evil one” is meant the devil, who mixed this [law] into human nature and deceived a person into directing [all] the aspirations of [his] soul to the unlawful instead of the permitted, and thereby inclined to violate the Divine commandment, as a result of which he lost the incorruptibility given to him by grace.

Or in other words: “temptation” is the voluntary disposition of the soul towards carnal passions, and “evil” is the way of actively fulfilling the passionate mood of the soul58. No righteous Judge will deliver from them the one who did not forgive debts to [his] debtors, but only asked for it in prayer. Such [a person], cruel and harsh in heart, [the Lord] allows to be defiled by the law of sin and leaves him in the power of the evil one, since he preferred the passions of dishonor, the seeds of which are sown by the devil, to nature, the Creator of which is God [Himself]. And indeed, [the Lord] does not hinder him when he is inclined by will to carnal passions, and does not deliver him from the [many different] ways of actively realizing the passionate moods of the soul, since, considering nature lower than passions that do not have an independent existence, he, as a result of caring for these passions, did not know the logos of nature. And [man] must learn what the law of nature is and what the tyranny of passions is, not naturally, but randomly invading him due to his free consent. And he must preserve this [law of nature], observing it in an activity consonant with nature, and expel the tyranny of passions from his will and [by the power of] reason preserve [immaculate] his nature, in itself pure, untainted and free from hatred and discord. Then he is obliged to make his will, which should not bring anything that is not given by the logos of nature, a companion to nature. And therefore, he should remove [from himself] all hatred and all discord towards those close to him by nature, so that God would hear him when he says this Prayer, and instead of simple grace would give him double grace: forgiveness of past sins, and protection and deliverance from future ones; and so that he would not allow him to fall into temptation and become a slave of the evil one – [all this] for the sole reason that he readily forgives debts to his neighbors.

Therefore, when we return, we will briefly repeat the essence of what was said. If we want to get rid of the evil one and not fall into temptation, let us believe in God and forgive the debts of our debtors. And if you do not forgive people their trespasses, then your Father will not forgive you your trespasses (Matthew 6:15). Then we will not only receive forgiveness of the sins we have committed, but we will defeat [the] law of sin itself, [since the Lord] will not allow us to experience it, and we will trample on the parent of sin, the evil serpent, for whose deliverance we pray. And our Commander will be Christ, who has conquered the world; He equips us with the laws of the commandments, and in accordance with these laws, through the rejection of passions and through love, he binds [human] nature together. As the Bread of life, wisdom, knowledge and truth. He draws our insatiable desire to Himself; in fulfillment of the Father’s will, He makes us co-servants of the angels, so that even in this life, imitating [the angels], we demonstrate heavenly pleasing [God] in our lives. Then He raises us to the highest levels of the Divine, leading to [Him] the Father of lights (James 1:17) and makes us, through grace-filled communication with the [Holy] Spirit, partakers of the Divine nature, thanks to which we will all be called children of God without limitation and will most pure bear [within ourselves] the whole Son of God by nature – the very Perfecter of this grace, from Whom, through Whom and in Whom we have and will have being, and movement, and life.

So, let the purpose of this Prayer be for us to contemplate the sacrament of deification, so that we may know in place of which and what kind of exhaustion through the flesh of the Only Begotten has made us, and also from where and to where [the Lord] has elevated us, having occupied the lowest place in the universe, into which the weight of sin has cast us down, by the power of [His] humane hand59. And let us love even more the One who so wisely prepared this salvation for us. Let us show by our deeds that this Prayer is fulfilled and we will be preachers of God, [our] true Father by grace. And may we not have the passions of dishonor, which show that we have the evil one as the father of our life, always attempting to tyrannically control [human] nature. And we will not exchange life for death without noticing it. For each of them60 has the habit of rewarding those who join him. One will give eternal life to those who love Him, and the other, through the instillation of voluntary temptations, brings about death in those who approach [him].

For temptations are, [as can be seen] from the Holy Scriptures, of two kinds: one kind is pleasant, and the other is painful61; one is voluntary and the other is involuntary. The first of these is the parent of sin, and therefore we must pray so as not to be subject to it, according to the instructions of the Lord, who says: Lead us not into temptation and Watch and pray so that you do not fall into temptation (Matt. 26:41). And the second [type of temptation], punishing love of sin by inducing involuntary suffering, is the punisher of sin. If anyone endures such [temptation], and if he is not nailed down by the nails of vice, he will hear the great James clearly crying: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations, knowing that the testing of your faith produces perseverance; patience must have its perfect effect. Patience results in experience (James 1:2–4; Rom. 5:4). The evil one maliciously watches these and other temptations: voluntary and involuntary. In the case of the first, he, sowing seeds of bodily pleasures in the soul and irritating it with them, plots to distract it from the desire for Divine love. He himself [sometimes] craftily asks for temptations of the second kind, wanting to destroy [human] nature with torments [and sorrows] and force the soul, exhausted in suffering, to raise its thoughts to enmity with the Creator.

But we, knowing the plans of the evil one, abhor free temptation, so as not to distract our desire from Divine love; and we will courageously endure [the temptation] involuntary, which happens by God’s permission, in order to show that we prefer the Creator of nature to nature [itself]. And let all of us who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ get rid of the present pleasures that come from the evil one, and avoid future torments, becoming partakers of the visible essence of future blessings, revealed to us in Christ our Lord Himself, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, glorified by all creatures. Amen.

* * *

Notes

The tone of humiliation is generally characteristic of many of the works and messages of St. Maxima. Humility is one of the main traits of his personality. According to the author of the Georgian “Life”, “his humility extended to the point that he considered himself worse than everyone and, if he met a monk or layman less than himself, he treated them as the least and indecent” (Kekelidze K. Information from Georgian sources about the teacher Maximus the Confessor. Kyiv, 1912, p. 47).

The theme of love, which is the leitmotif of all the work of the Rev. Maxima, here presented in the dynamics of the conjugation φόβος – πόθος. This love is a return to the original unity of human nature, destroyed by the Fall of Adam; it also leads to our reconciliation with God. The designation of love as a “law” points to the doctrine of the three laws developed by St. Maxim in his other creations. These laws are the “law of nature,” “written law,” and “law of love” (or “law of grace,” “spiritual law”). Their creator and connecting principle is the Divine Word, which acts and manifests itself in each of these laws. The “law of love” given to us by the Lord is the basis of our salvation and the source of deification. See: Völker W. Maximus Confessor als Meister des geistlichen Lebens. Wiesbaden, 1965, S. 201–208; Dalmais I. Saint Maxime le Confesseur. Doctor de la charité // La Vie Spirituelle, 1948, t. 2., p. 294–295; Idem. La fonction unificatrice du Verbe Incarné d’après les oeuvres spirituelles de Saint Maxime le Confesseur // Sciences Ecclésiastique, 1962, t. 14, p. 458–459.

[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, without specifically noting them. – Editorial board of the ABC of Faith.]

The term βουλή, which is traditionally translated here as “counsel,” also has the meaning of “will, intention, design.” As such, it is identical to the concept βούλησις. The scholia points to this identity: “It is the same in God’s counsel and will.”

An indication of the already repeatedly encountered theory of “logoi,” fundamental to the theology of St. Maxima. In this case we are talking about the “logoi of Providence and Judgment,” which differ from the “logoi” that preexist in God, as well as from the “logoi of natures.” See: Dalmais I.N. La théorie des “logoi” des créatures chez Saint Maxime le Confesseur // Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 1952, t. 36, p. 244–249.

The term γενεά has many meanings; among them, in addition to the meaning of “clan, tribe”, there are also “birth, age, time”, etc.

God the Father is designated here as χορηγός (lit. “choir leader”). But in antiquity, “choreg” was also the name for someone who supplied a choir for a festival at his own expense. Hence the meaning of “giver of [goods].” In Christian literature, the designation of God the Father as “Horeg” is found in Clement of Alexandria, Origen (“Giver of all life”), and Serapion of Tmuite. These theologians should in this case be the Venerable. Maxim, which once again confirms the “Alexandrian” orientation of his theological system. See: Lampe G. W. H. Op. cit., p. 1527.

See 1 Tim. 2:5. The idea of ​​the Son (Logos) as a Mediator was actively used by ancient Christian apologists, but mainly in cosmological terms (Logos Mediator in the creation of the world). Rev. Maxim, in contrast to them, returns (in this place in the Interpretation) to the very origins of Christian doctrine – Holy Scripture, emphasizing the role of the Son in mediation between God and people. Here he follows such fathers as, for example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who says: “For the Mediator of God and men had to, through His kinship with both, bring both into friendship and harmony and introduce man to God, and reveal God to men” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons Five books against heresies. M., 1868, p. 368).

Lit. “the restoration of nature dispassionately directed towards itself.” Rev. Maximus uses the term ἀποκατάστασις, which had a suspicious connotation due to the heretical theory of “apocatastasis” developed in Origenism. According to this theory, at the end of time there will be a “restoration” in essential unity with God of all “smart entities” that fell away from him as a result of the “pre-worldly fall.” The Origenist concept of “apocatastasis” (developed, by the way, not by Origen himself, but by his later followers), condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, presupposes the final salvation of all people and even the devil. Rev. Maxim, without directly polemicizing with this theory, distances himself from it, replacing it with the theory of “heading”, which goes back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons, where the “end” of the world is by no means equal to its “beginning” (which was the case in Origenism, which leaned toward pagan-ancient cyclism). The foundations of the theory of “headship” were laid by St. The Apostle Paul, who in Eph. 1:10 says: “That all things in heaven and on earth might be united under the head of Christ” (the verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω is used here; the noun derived from it is identical to the Latin recapitulatio). For St. Irenaeus, the concept of “heading” (recapitulatio) means “to reduce to unity through brief repetition.” Therefore, Christ “headed all of humanity, repeating in the history of his life all the details of the life of Adam, the usual course of life of each of his descendants and the history of mankind in its entirety” (Popov I.V. The religious ideal of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, p. 12). About the indicated discrepancies between the theology of St. Maxim and Origenism, see: Daley V.E. Apokatastasis and “Honorable Silence” in the Eschatology of Maximus the Confessor // Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur. Ed. par F. Heinzer et Ch. Schönborn. Friborg, 1982, p. 309–339; Ivanka von E. Der Philosophische Ertrag der Auseinandersetzung Maximus der Bekenner mit dem Origenismus // Jahrbuch der österreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft, 1958, Bd. 7, S. 32.

Rev. here. Maxim clearly expresses the deep connection, clearly recognized by all the holy fathers, between “theology” itself (the sacrament of the Holy Trinity) and “economy” (the Economy of the Incarnation and our salvation). It can be noted, however, the difference between Rev. Maximus in this case from St. John of Damascus, who says that neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit participated in the Incarnation of the Son, except by “the favor of ineffable miracles” (Saint John of Damascus. An exact statement of the Orthodox faith. Translation, preface and notes by Alexander Bronzov. St. Petersburg, 1894, pp. 29–30). Rev. Maxim, while establishing a connection between “theology” and “economy,” nevertheless does not mix or merge them. See: Heinzer F. L’explication trinitaire de l’économie chez Maxime le Confesseur // Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium, p. 151–161; Piret P. Le Christ et la Trinité, p. 61.

Saying this, Rev. Maxim relies on Holy Scripture (John 3:2–8, etc.), where “being born again” is identified with spiritual rebirth, or new birth. The theme of “spiritual rebirth” (or “being born again”) is characteristic of many Church Fathers; for example, she is one of the leaders in the work of Rev. Macarius of Egypt (see: Domes N. Die Theologie des Makarios/ Syméon. Göttingen, 1978, S. 228–237). For him, the essential and most important feature of this “birth again from the Spirit” (τῆς ἄνωθεν τοῦ πνεύματος γεννήσεως) is the work of ascetic feat. See: Makarios/Syméon. Epistola Magna, S. 94.

The idea of ​​equal honor between people (the righteous) and angels goes back to the New Testament (Luke 20:36). In the Alexandrian tradition (Clement, Origen), the idea was also expressed about the transformation of righteous people into angels. This idea underlies the depiction of monastic life as an angelic life, characteristic of patristic ascetic writing. Many holy fathers shared this idea, and, for example, Rev. Simeon the New Theologian says that the one who through [spiritual] work and “sacred struggles” has been granted higher knowledge becomes an angel. See: Syméon le Nouveau Théologien. Chapitres théologiques, gnostiques et pratiques. P., 1957 (Sources chrétiennes, no. 51), p. 74.

In this passage, attention should be paid to the fact that both vice and the ignorance resulting from it, generated by the fall of the first people, resulted in the destruction of the universal primordial harmony. The second point to which attention should be paid is that the two main parts of created being (“intelligible” and “sensible”) are designated as “edges”, “ends” (ἀκρότης). This designation has a parallel in the Christology of St. Maximus, where the natures of Christ are also designated as τὰ ἄκρα (see: PG 91, 556). The use of these related terms once again indicates the organic unity of all parts of the theological system of St. Maxima. Finally, it is characteristic that the “extreme” parts of created nature (“intelligible” and “sensible”) are united, or “knit together,” by virtue and knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις) of the First Cause, i.e., thereby virtue and knowledge acquire, as it were, the status of “ontological quantities.”

Rev. here. Maxim once again uses the polysemy of the concept λόγος. Just as the Divine Word (Logos) is the principle of connection of all created being, so in man the mind (logos), being a reflection of this universal Mind, is a synthesizing and unifying principle (opposition λόγος – ἀλογία).

Lit. “smart feeling” Rev. Maxim often speaks of this kind of “spiritual feelings (sensations)”, which are an integral part of the activity of the mind and correspond to the “image and likeness of God” in us. See: Fraigneau-Julien V. Or. cit., p. 88–90.

Wed. Ps.77:25: “The bread of the angels is given to men;

This refers to Jews and Gentiles. Wed. Eph.2:11-13.

Lit. “subject to tyrannical violence, under the rule of tyranny” (τυραννουμένων). This captures the opposition of the Kingdom of God to the “tyranny of the devil.” As for all the holy fathers, for Rev. Maxim free will is the most important component of the “image of God” in us.

The image of poison, or poison (δηλητήριον), and its antidote in the form of the resurrected flesh of the Lord in St. Maxima most likely goes back to St. Gregory of Nyssa. See: Grégoire de Nysse. Discours catéchétique, p. 172–174.

In Minh’s “Patrology” the word “son” is capitalized, but in P. Van Deun’s edition it is capitalized, which is more true, since the one who pronounces the words of the Prayer is likened to the Lord (“Son”); he is also a son, but “through grace” (or: “according to grace”, “in grace” – ἐν χάριτι).

Drawing a distinction between προσευχή (prayer in the proper sense of the word) and εὐχή (not only prayer, but also vow), Rev. Maximus follows Origen and Evagrius. But this distinction no longer appears in the Commentary (it appears only once more in the Questions and Answers to Thalassius) and does not play a significant role in the theology of the monk, being for him simply an insignificant element of tradition. See: Dalmais I.N. Un traité de Théologie contemplative, p. 131–132.

A. Riu points out that the word ἀρχή can also mean God the Father – the Beginning and Source of the Divinity. Therefore, they are given the following translation: “coming from the very Beginning.” See: Riou A. Or. cit., p. 223.

Β text οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστώς; This expression shows the unity in essence of the Father, the Son and (just below) the Holy Spirit.

Identifying the “Kingdom” with the Holy Spirit, Rev. Maxim follows St. Gregory of Nyssa. As for the identification of the “name” with the Son, it was widespread in patristic literature, starting with Origen. The origins of this “theology of the name” go back to the Old Testament and can be clearly traced in the New Testament (John 17:6) and in other monuments of early Christian literature. See: Daniélou J. Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme. Tournai, 1958, p. 199–216; Dalmais I. H. Un traité de Théologie contemplative, p. 132; Piret P. Op. cit., p. 62.

It should be noted that Rev. Maxim in this reading of this passage of Holy Scripture (Luke 11:2) follows St. Gregory of Nyssa (PG 44, 1157, 1160). In the West, this discrepancy was known to Tertullian. It is also recorded in some manuscripts. See: Novum Testamentum Graece. Ed. by E. Nestle, K. Aland. L., 1975, p. 181.

Rev. Maxim again uses the logos-tropos distinction.

In the text in both cases λόγος is written with a small letter. But, I think, we are talking about the Divine Word (Logos).

Lit. “reason (or rational basis, meaning) virtue” (τῆς ἀρετῆς λόγον).

Scholia: “Reason, being by nature free from praise and blasphemy, makes dispassionate the one who chooses to live in reason alone, convincing the passionate principle of the soul to separate from [everything] that brings destruction. And when the soul becomes uninvolved in the material, then a person, as is characteristic of the meek, no longer perceives in a passive way either those who praise or blaspheme [him].”

The power (power) of the Divine Kingdom creates δεσποτείαν. But this “despotism” (or “sovereignty”), unlike earthly ideas of power, is incompatible with any kind of slavery.

In the text of Minya’s “Patrology” the word “spirit” is written with a small letter. But the whole context of the sentence rather points to the Holy Spirit, which is confirmed by the new edition of P. Van Deun.

Outerwear made of sheep or goat skins. In the Old Testament it is associated with the clothing of the prophets. In patristic literature it became a symbol of the mortification of sinful passions. It is in this capacity that Origen uses this image, followed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and Evagrius. See: Evagre le Pontique. Traité pratique, p. 488–490.

Rev. Maxim uses the adverb τυπικῶς, which indicates a typological (prototypical) interpretation of the Old Testament, fundamental to all Christian exegesis. The basic principles of this exegesis are laid down by St. The Apostle Paul, who, by the way, in 1 Cor. 10:11 uses the same adverb. These principles were then developed by St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome and others. He skillfully applied typological interpretation in his numerous works and blessed. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. See: Glubokovsky N. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Kirre. T. 2. M., 1890, p. 43–49; Daniélou J. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. L., Philadelphia, 1973, p. 199–300.

The image of the prophet Elijah in the interpretation of St. Maxima clearly shows once again the relationship between “doing” and “contemplation”. In general, in Christian writing, this prophet, starting with the “Gospel of Luke,” was a prototype of either St. John the Baptist, or (much more often) the Lord Himself. The Ascension of Elijah prefigured the Ascension of the Lord, and his passage through the Jordan was interpreted as a symbol of baptism. See: Danielou J. Bible et Liturgie. La théologie biblique des Sacraments et des fêtes d’après les Pères de l’Eglise. P., 1951, p. 145–149.

Scholium: “He calls unequal mental dispositions the movement of rage and lust, which form the soul according to themselves. The disciple of Christ must be free from them, without slipping into pleasure due to the spilling of blood around the heart, and without falling into anger due to the boiling of this blood.”

This comparison of the soul with the Most Holy Theotokos is very characteristic of St. Maxim: a soul that has been worthy of deification here, having rejected sinful passions and been worthy of the knowledge of God, becomes like the Mother of God. This motif appears more than once in the works of Rev. Maxima. See: Squire A. K. The Idea of ​​the Soul as Virgin and Mother im Maximus the Confessor // Studia Patristica, 1966, vol. VIII, pt. 2, p. 456–461.

Scholium: “It is clear that [we are talking about] Hellenic and Jewish teachings, each of which is absent from Christ. For the teaching of Christ is equally pure from polyarchy and from monarchy limited to a single [Divine] Person.”

The scholiast here uses the term πολυαρχία to designate pagan polytheism, and the concept monarchia to refer to Jewish monotheism. For similar use of these terms by Christian authors, see: Lampe G. W. H. Or. cit., p. 877, 1115.

Rev. Maxim defines the opposition between paganism and Judaism within the framework of the antithesis διαστολή – συστολή. The first, as it were, “stretches” (or “expands”) the Deity into many gods, and the second “compresses” (“pulls together”) this Deity within the rigid framework of its lifeless monotheism.

The meaning of these reasonings of the monk is probably this: paganism with its polytheism makes the Divinity as if torn by strife, “rebellious” (στασιαστικόν). Judaism, with its narrow monotheism (“one-hypostaticity”), turns the Divine into something “passionate” (τὸ καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἑνικῷ παθητόν). The last statement of Rev. Maxim, I think, should be understood in the sense that this “single hypostasis” either excludes the incarnation of God, or presupposes the incarnation (and, therefore, “suffering”) of God the Father Himself.

In other words, the Trinity of the Divine is not an “accident (συμβεβηκός) of His Unity, and Unity is not a quality abstracted from the Trinity. See: Piret R. Or. cit., p. 68.

Scholium: “For not by birth, or coming out, or manifestation.”

The scholia itself, due to its brevity (οὐ γὰρ κατὰ γέννησιν, ἠ πρόοδον, ἤτοι ἔκφανσιν), requires explanation. Its meaning is that the relationship of the Hypostases in the Holy Trinity cannot be thought of in the manner of “birth” or “manifestation”, comprehended in a crudely bodily way. The term πρόοδος, used in Neoplatonism (by Proclus) to designate the One going beyond itself, shows that this relationship cannot be thought of as a Neoplatonic emanation.

In the text ἀγένητος ὑπάρχουσα καὶ αὐτέκφαντος. Here it should be remembered that the Church Fathers designated God both as ἀγένητος and as ἀγέννητος. Despite the fact that both designations are close in meaning, they were formed from different verbs: γίγνομαι (not only “to be born”, but also “to occur, to become, to be made”) and γεννάω (“to give birth, to bring into being”). The distinction between the two verbs may have had a subtle nuance of distinction between creation and birth, which sometimes disappeared in the dogma of the early fathers (see: Prestige G.L. God in Patristic Thought. L., 1952, pp. 37–51). However, during the Arian disputes, when, for example, the Anomean leader Eunomius began to cleverly play on the ambiguity of the concept of ἀγεννησία, this nuance acquired great importance (see: Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils, p. 358). Therefore, already St. Athanasius of Alexandria makes a distinction between ἀγέννητος and ἀγένητος: creatures (τὰ γενετά) relate to God as ἀγένητος, and to God as ἀγέννητος corresponds to the Son begotten by Him (τὸ γέννημα). This three-part ontological scheme (God (ὁ ἀγέννητος, ἀγένητος) – His Only Begotten Son – creatures) later played a big role among the great Cappadocian fathers (see: Kopecek Th. A. AHistory of Neo-Arianism. Cambridge (Mass.), 1979, p. 90–91). Rev. Maxim, saying that the Trinity did not originate from the (ἐκ) Unit κατἀ παραγωγήν, most likely denies precisely the “createdness” of the Holy Trinity, for he, following Dionysius the Areopagite, designated the act of creation of the world with the verb παράγω. This once again emphasizes the general patristic teaching about the fundamental difference between the Creator and creatures. See: Völker W. Der Einfluss des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita auf Maximus Confessor // Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik. Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag. B., 1961, S. 336.

One can note here the internal affinity of the theology of St. Maxim and Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. The latter, speaking of the “Trinity Unity,” also emphasizes the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. See: Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Venerable Simeon the New Theologian, p. 255–261.

In this case, Rev. Maxim ascribes to Judaism a teaching characteristic mainly of Gnosticism and Manichaeism. However, it should be noted that currently the theory of the Jewish origin of these heresies has gained great popularity among scientists.

According to Rev. Maxim, since the fall of Adam, humanity has been dominated by the universal “law of self-love,” which applies both to individuals, dominating the minds and hearts of people, and to entire nations. From it flow the “law of murder” and the “law of tyranny.” National and social conflicts are rooted in these laws, and ultimately in the lack of reverence for God, love for Him and for our neighbors. Predecessor Rev. Maxim in the development of this idea was Clement of Alexandria, who argued that wars are the work of those who do not want to renounce their selfishness and the lust for power that flows from it. See: Hausherr I. Philautie, b. 88–89.

In other words, existence itself is given to man by God as if on loan.

In this case we are talking, naturally, about the Word of God (Logos).

Origen often speaks about such “reasonable (or spiritual) service” (λογικὴ λατρεία). See: Daniélou J. Origène. R., 1948, b. 42–52.

In this case, Rev. Maxim again returns to one of his favorite thoughts, that passions should not only be cut off and suppressed, but that, curbed and guided by reason, they can serve spirituality.

This “life equal to the angels (πολιτείαν)” seems to be a reflection on earth of the “form of government” of the Heavenly City. In his “Ecclesiastical History” Evagrius Scholasticus speaks of St. Simeon the Stylite: “In the flesh, imitating the life (πολιτείαν) of the heavenly Powers, Simeon renounced earthly things and, conquering nature, which gravitated to the valley, strived for the highest” (The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, p. 21).

Similar thoughts are developed by Origen, who says that just as the body needs food, so the spiritual part of our nature is saturated with “incorporeal speculations and words.” Moreover, rational beings do not receive such spiritual food in equal quantities, but in proportion to their needs and capabilities: a baby in Christ cannot eat solid food, like a mature husband, and a spiritually sick person cannot eat the same things as a reasonable (λογικώτερος) and spiritually healthy person (νοητός). See:Origène. Cominentaire sur Saint Jean, t. III, p. 144–148.

This expression (δι’ ἑνώσεως σχετικῆς) indicates union with God by grace.

Rev. Maxim uses here a popular ethical maxim, known in antiquity, but at the same time emphasizes that it is necessary not just to “live,” but to “live for God.” See: Dalme I. Un traité de théologie contemplative, p. 147.

The body, as if “intelligible” or “spiritualized” (λελογισμένον), by virtues, Rev. Maxim calls the “messenger” (“angel”) of the soul, which, in turn, is the “herald” of God.

Scholia: “How can anyone leave debts [to his debtors?”

Scholium: “Divine justice comes into due harmony with the state of our souls; it becomes what we become for each other, and represents God to us as we have become in relation to people like us.”

In the “logos of nature” there is no “paralogy”, since it combines both the “law of nature” and the “divine law”. The scholia speaks about this: “The Logos of nature becomes the law of nature, perceiving the will consonant with it for the implementation of natural possibilities.”

This refers to the offenders and the offended.

In this case, the idea is developed that the “sinful tropos of activity” distorts our nature and thereby comes into conflict with its “logos”.

Here again the connection between the Incarnation and deification, emphasized by many holy fathers, finds expression. Therefore, for Rev. Maxim, a person can ascend to God only if God “condescends” to him. Therefore, our deification (understood as “ascension – “anabasis”) is unthinkable without the Incarnation of the Son of God, or His “condescension” (“katabasis”). See: Loosen J. Logos und Pneuma im begnadeten Mensch bei Maximus Confessor. Münster, 1940, S. 127–128.

In Min’s “Patrology” there is a note in the margins of one of the manuscripts: “It is clear that we are talking about God and the devil.”

Usual for prep. The maxim is dialectics, reflected in a pair of opposites: “pleasure – torment” (ἡδονή – ὀδύνη). Such a conjugation of two opposites is the result of man’s voluntary renunciation of God. See: Schönborn Ch. Plaisir et douleur dans l’analyse de S. Maxime, d’après les Quaestiones ad Thalassium // Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium, p. 277.

Lit. “sophistically” (σοφιστικῶς); in other words, the devil here acts as if in the role of a cunning sophist.