However, if we talk about religious experience, then the images of the liturgy of the Transfiguration feast do contain something new. In creating these images and symbols, the Eastern Church introduced into them not only her dogmatic concepts, her teaching, but also her experience of Christ, which is significantly different from the experience of Him by the Western Church. In the Byzantine liturgy of the feast of the Transfiguration we see Christ illuminated by Divine light, enveloped in Divine glory, changing everything by His Divine power. This is Kyrios[73] – the Lord in His majesty and glory. True, He is the True Man and is therefore connected with the ontological depths of our nature. But first of all, He is the True God, the Second Person of the Holy Spirit. The infinite and beginningless Light of the three-solar All-Godhead. In the experience of the Eastern Church, the Divinity of Christ, as the basis of His Person, is manifested so strongly that even before His resurrection His divinity illuminates, transforms, adores human nature and thereby frees it from the laws of human life, making it a likeness of the Godhead. The shining Kyrios – this image – is the main one in the liturgy of the Transfiguration and it is he who first of all attracts attention when studying this liturgy.

      The Eastern Church calls itself the Church of the Resurrection (others also call it that – A.M.). This is a beautiful, deeply meaningful name! However, we often forget that the Eastern Church considers the Transfiguration on Tabor to be the beginning of the resurrection and thereby extends the state of resurrection to the entire life of Christ. The state of resurrection has always been inherent in Him, it has always been His own. It did not arise only after His victory over death on Easter morning. It's just that this state was imperceptible before. The Transfiguration is a reflection of the resurrection, it is the proclamation of the "salvific resurrection," as the Byzantine liturgy calls it. This suggests that both of these events – the Transfiguration and the Resurrection – are essentially one and the same, namely, they are a breakthrough of the Divine power in human nature. In Christ, as in the Divine Logos, this power has always been contained. Christ always lived in the state of the resurrected. However, the darkness of earthly existence hid this state from people. But on Tabor the darkness of nature dissipated and Christ shone in the same way as on the morning of His resurrection. Thus, the resurrection, as the first principle of the Eastern Church, lies in the very foundations of this Church. The Eastern Church is the Church of the risen Christ, and not because it clearly singles out and solemnly celebrates the very event of the resurrection, but precisely because it sees the state of Christ's resurrection not only in His heavenly glory, but also in His earthly history. It is not the feast of Pascha itself, as the main feast of the Eastern Church, that makes it the Church of the risen Christ, but it is precisely the extension of the transfigured state of Jesus to His entire life and the position of this state as the basis of religious experience. In the light of this experience, Christ is always the Great Lord, clothed with power and glory. Therefore, it does not matter whether we perceive Him to be sitting at the right hand of the Father or walking along the shore of the Lake of Gennesaret.

      Here we must sincerely admit that it is precisely this image of Christ, if approached from a dogmatic point of view, that has a very deep meaning, and if it is approached from a psychological point of view, then this image is extraordinarily attractive. Every historical image of Jesus of Nazareth pales before the face of the transfigured Kyrios. Therefore, it is not surprising that theologians of the Eastern Church and students of the Holy Scriptures do not pay special attention to the historical Christ and do not feel special interest in him. In our time, especially in Protestant theology, a distinction is made between the historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Jesus, that is, between the Christ in history and Christ as the Word and "finisher of the faith." Such a distinction is unknown to the Eastern Church: it considers it a misunderstanding and even an absurdity. Even the very expression "historical Christ" more than once caused angry irritation. The Russian religious philosopher V. Ern (1881-1917) indignantly asks: "Why not just Christ? Is there another Christ besides the Christ of history?" And then he answers: "Yes, there is, but not for believers." [75] Developing this idea, W. Ern emphasizes that "for people who recognize Christ as a simple man, there are undoubtedly two Christs. The only real one, whose image is revealed by the results of historical criticism, is the Jewish rabbi, devoid of any halo of miraculousness and supernaturalism; the other is the Christ of believers, legendary, not real, decorated with fiction. And for these people – the historical Christ really has a certain meaning – as the opposite of another Christ, not historical, i.e. not real. In the mouth of a believer, the word "historical Christ" is absurdity or blasphemy." [76] But the historical Jesus, active in Palestine in the time of Herod and crucified in Jerusalem by the decision of Pontius Pilate, is the same Christ of faith. The historical Jesus became the Christ of faith, for He was resurrected. The resurrection made the historical Christ eternal. On the other hand, the historicity of Jesus made the resurrection itself a reality. If the resurrection had not taken place, then Jesus of Nazareth would have long been forgotten, as would many of his contemporaries. But if Jesus had not been a historical figure, then the resurrection would have remained only a myth, like those found among many peoples whose gods die and are resurrected. Thus, whoever distinguishes between the historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Jesus does not take into account the intrinsic connection between historicity and resurrection. For the Eastern Church, however, this connection, which she has always emphasized, has always been both understandable and indisputable, and therefore Christ has always remained whole for her, not divided.

      The Eastern Church avoided the temptation to consider the historicity of Christ as insignificant for faith, which is very characteristic of the Protestant so-called mythological theory today. Nor was it carried away by the scientific-historical method of studying the Gospel narratives in order to gain a deeper knowledge of the Person of Christ and His work. The Eastern Church has always known that Christ is a historical personage—He was born Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, taught in Palestine, and died on the cross in Jerusalem. However, the Eastern Church has always considered the historical figure of Jesus in the light of the resurrection. She sees in him the Transfigured Lord, in whom the Divine Logos has become visible, but who, however, has drawn the whole earthly life of Jesus into the realm of mystery. That is why this life was hidden from the uninitiated eyes of science. In the life of Jesus, science sees only a series of bare facts, but it does not and cannot see their ultimate meaning, without which even the most accurate and objective description of these facts will not help to understand and reveal Christ. After all, it is important for us not only what Christ did, but also why He did it, for only this "why" can tell us who Christ is. And no secular science can penetrate into this "why," for the deep basis of all the deeds of Christ is hidden in His divine mission, which is inaccessible to science.

      Therefore, history, being one of the secular sciences, can say little about Christ, as well as psychology. Just as the psychology of Christ is impossible, since in the depths of His Person lies the mystery of the Son of God, which makes all psychology absurd, so the earthly history of the life of Jesus is impossible. N. Berdyaev (1874-1948) drew our attention to this impossibility, preceding R. Guardini by as much as ten years. "The absolute reality of the God-Man Jesus Christ is given in the sacred tradition of the Church, in the spiritual experience of the Church. It is only within the Church that the whole face of Jesus Christ can be seen, in which Jesus and Christ, man and God, cannot be separated. The absolute reality, the integral face of Jesus Christ, is not visible in external empirical reality, in historical empiricism. That is why the problem of Jesus Christ cannot be solved by means of historical science... The earthly biography of the Son of God and the Son of Man cannot be written on the basis of objective scientific historical data alone," for "the absolute reality of Jesus Christ and His integral face is revealed in a different order of being, not a natural historical, but a supernatural historical, spiritual order... Christ appeared in history, but the magnitude of His appearance was not visible in history, in its external process. The dimensions of His appearance are visible only in the Church, which is the mysterious presence of a different order of being in our order of being." [78] In other words, Christ rises above history; history does not exhaust Him. Historical science is not able to convey His life and work in such a way that the whole and true Christ appears before us. The divinity of Christ escapes the gaze of the historian, and without this the image of Christ becomes not only incomplete, but distorted and therefore incorrect. Therefore, he who supposes that he can embrace Christ and explain Him with the help of historical science distorts Him, for he transfers His Person to the earthly level and thus deprives Him of His divinity.

      That is why the Eastern Church does not trust purely secular studies of the life and person of Jesus. After all, it is very characteristic that Vl. Solovyov, in his "Short Story of the Antichrist" (1900), allows the Antichrist to establish a World Institute for the free study of the Holy Scriptures. It may at once seem that the establishment of such an institution should be an important religious event, but in essence this is the idea of the Antichrist, for in it there is a hidden intention to exclude Christ God from the Holy Scriptures and to engage in the study of Jesus, but Jesus only as a historical man, which for the Antichrist is not only desirable, but even necessary. [79] It is precisely this distrust of secular studies that can explain why in the Eastern Church the branch of theology dealing with the interpretation and interpretation of the meaning of Holy Scripture or exegesis has not been developed as widely as it was in Catholicism and Protestantism. The Russian religious philosopher G. Fedotov (1886-1951) asserted that "until now, Orthodoxy has not had its own serious and strictly armed exegetical tradition." [80] The transfigured Kyrios sends his light also to the Holy Scriptures, and in this light the Holy Scriptures appear inexhaustibly deep, like "a window into another world, from which the rays and sounds of the Kingdom of God break through." [81] The Orthodox prefer to read or listen to this Holy Book during the service, rather than to study it in their offices, for the Eastern Church does not expect anything new from these studies that would help her to know Christ better and to love Him even more.

      The radiant face of the transfigured Kyrios raises a question of extraordinary importance: how does the Eastern Church experience the suffering humanity of Christ? After all, Christ is not only the transfigured and resurrected Kyrios, but also the crucified Martyr. So how does the Eastern Church show precisely this side of Christ's existence? It is often heard that in the Eastern Church Christ pays almost no attention to the suffering, that it is concentrated only on the risen Christ, Who by His Divine power overcame suffering and death. This general attitude is also confirmed by prominent representatives of Orthodoxy. "The cult of the humanity of Christ is alien to the tradition of the Eastern Church," says Vl. Lossky, or, rather, this deified humanity is clothed here in the same glorious image as the disciples saw Christ on Mount Tabor." [82] This means that the Eastern Church experiences and comprehends the humanity of Christ in the light of the Transfiguration. There is no doubt that the Eastern Church has every reason for this, for the humanity of Christ is truly transformed. But even this does not give an answer to the question of what significance the suffering and death of Christ has in this transfigured situation. Are these extremely important events really insignificant and insignificant for the Eastern Church?

     When examining the Byzantine liturgy of the feast of the Transfiguration in order to find an answer to this question, one gets the impression that even the liturgy confirms the opinion that the crucified Christ is bypassed here. Describing the Transfiguration on Tabor, the Gospels quite clearly mention the suffering and death of Christ: Moses and Elijah conversed with Jesus "about His exodus, which He was to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). In general, the Transfiguration on Tabor took place precisely when Jesus Himself "began to reveal to His disciples that He must go up to Jerusalem, and suffer much at the hands of the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and on the third day rise again" (Matt. 16:21). Christ Himself inwardly unites transfiguration, suffering, and death. Meanwhile, the Byzantine liturgy of the feast of the Transfiguration does not take into account this inner connection at all. Indeed, in several places of Great Vespers and Matins of the feast it is mentioned that Christ conversed with Moses and Elijah, but the content of this conversation, namely suffering and death in Jerusalem, is touched upon only once (Great Vespers, Litiya) and only as an event that seems insignificant in comparison with the Transfiguration. On Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah appear not as foreshadowers of suffering and death, but rather as witnesses of Christ's glory and heralds of His triumph. "And Thou hast brought the supreme prophets, Moses and Elijah, bearing unquestioning witness to His Divinity," sings the Eastern Church at Great Vespers (Litiya) and at Matins (Ode 3). The Liturgy of the Feast of the Transfiguration also glorifies Moses, Elijah and the Apostles, who rejoice at the glory of Christ (cf. Matins, Cantos 7, 8, and 9). In the Divine services of this feast there is not even a thought that the light of Tabor will soon be extinguished and that the darkness of death will obscure the radiance of the transfigured Christ. The radiance of Christ's deified humanity fascinates the Eastern Church so much that the imminent death of the Savior slips from her field of vision. The soul of the Eastern Christian seems to catch the upcoming celebration of Paschal morning, the beginning of which is revealed in the Transfiguration, and it, like Peter on Tabor, begins to forget what Moses and Elijah talked about with Christ.

      And yet it would be a great mistake to consider the Liturgy of the Feast of the Transfiguration as a kind of generalization and the image of Christ appearing in it as exclusively characteristic of the entire Eastern Church. The Eastern Church does especially revere and admire the shining Kyrios – this is true, but not all of it, for the suffering Christ is by no means forgotten here. Moreover, the suffering Christ is the deepest experience of the Eastern Church in her prayerfulness. We often forget about this or simply do not notice it, for the suffering Christ is understood differently by the Eastern Church than by the Western Church. However, it is this other point of view that deepens our experience of Christ's suffering and death and reveals Him as inexpressibly close to us, our own. For it is not suffering and death as such that make Christ our brother, but His taking on our suffering and mortal nature, which Christ took on out of love for us, humbling Himself to the utmost degree. The self-abasement of Christ is what excites and delights the soul of the Eastern Christian.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS,

used by the author in the work on the first chapter

     1. V. Lossky, Die mystische Theologie der morgenlandischen Kirche, Graz 1961.

      2. Athenagor, Apologie. Bibliothek der Kirchenvater. Fruhchristliche Apologeten, Kempten 1913, t. I.