that it will be created by another, Stronger than he. He prepares the way for it, but he does not follow this path himself. He symbolizes it, but he really does not have it in himself. He baptizes only with water, that is, with the principle which he purifies, but which does not remain of its own accord. The forerunner is destined to disappear, merging into the reality proclaimed by him and the reality that follows him.

When Christ, baptized by John, began His mission as a messenger, the people immediately turned away from John and followed Him. And then John's disciples were saddened, seeing the end of the deeds of their teacher and not understanding the role of the forerunner. They came to John and said: "Rabbi! He who was with you at the Jordan, and of whom you testified, behold, He baptizes, and all come to Him" (John 3:26). Then John replied that this did not cause him sorrow, but joy, for in this way he saw that his destiny had been fulfilled. He was sent by God before Christ to pave the way for it. If people go to Jesus from Nazareth, then the way to Him has already been paved, and John's mission is finished. As the friend of the bridegroom rejoices in the happiness of the bridegroom, so the forerunner rejoices in the good fortune that came after him. "This is my joy fulfilled," said John to his disciples, adding: "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:29-30). It is necessary that the Forerunner disappears, turns on, dissolves in the future proclaimed and indicated by him. This is its meaning and the end of its activity. The Forerunner is never independent. He lives the life of future reality and shines with its light.

It is precisely this experience that is contained in the understanding of Christ as a forerunner. If Christ is the forerunner of our culture, He is drowned in it and dissolved. True, He was its herald, but He Himself did not create it. He was only a sign and symbol of her. He proclaimed the coming of a new age. However, he himself was not this new century. He himself did not introduce Christian morality, nor a democratic system, nor social relations based on love. That is why He receives His light not from Himself, but from the heights of modern culture. Christ as the Forerunner can be understood and evaluated only in connection with the entire process of history. The historical process has overtaken Christ: he has grown, and Christ has diminished. In connection with modern culture, we remember Christ as much as we remember St. John the Baptist in connection with Christ. Christ is transformed into a mere cell of historical development.

That is why Solovyov's Antichrist rightly believes that if Christ is the forerunner, then His meaning lies in preparatory work. He does not complete the historical process, but only rejects it. The consummation is never in the hands of the forerunner. To complete the story, other forces appear, more powerful than the forces of the forerunner. Solovyov's Antichrist considers himself such a consummator. With it, the modern world supports the development of culture, which increasingly sharpens the moral consciousness of mankind, increasingly strengthens the need for unity in the world, and more and more authoritatively directs the earth towards universal harmony. But in any case, the end of the world is not in the hands of Christ. Christ was only a forerunner. The developing history has outstripped Him and left Him far behind, in two thousand years, as it left Roman law, Hippocratic medicine, Arabic mathematics, and Hannibal's strategy. True, the ideas of all these forerunners live on today. But they have already been absorbed into a higher reality, into a higher totality, which is the fruit of all historical development, and not of the forerunners. The ideas of Christ are also alive today. Yet they too are already included in higher unities, in more powerful realities than He Himself proclaimed and perhaps believed. If Christ is the forerunner of modern history, then this history was precisely the more powerful beginning that was to come. Therefore, history increased, and Christ decreased.

These are the conclusions that necessarily follow if Christ is to be considered the forerunner. And they follow because in the understanding of Christ as the forerunner, Christ is excluded as the Last, as the end of all things, as the Omega (cf. Rev. 22:13). Christ is not the forerunner, but the First and the Last, the beginning and the end. He is not a herald or an omen of a new reality, but this reality itself, its beginning, its development and its end. His feat spreads in history. He himself proclaimed this, comparing his Kingdom to a mustard seed, "which, though it is the least of all seeds," yet "becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air fly and take refuge in its branches" (Matt. 13:22). But this spread does not take place according to the law of historical development, but by the power of Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. As a seed sown in the ground grows and lives not the life of the earth, but of its own, so is the Church of Christ. The earth gives the grain only the substances, only the conditions for the action of that inner force of the grain. So it is with history in connection with the Church. History is only the stage on which the drama of Christ takes place. The world is only the soil of the Church. It can be fruitful and stony. The seed of Christ can fall on stony places, by the wayside, or on fertilized ground (cf. Matt. 13:4-7). However, in any case, this seed falls from above. In any case, this seed is not a product of roads, not rocks, not rosehips and not fertilized soil. In each case, it contains the entire future tree. The seed is not the forerunner of the tree. The seed is the tree itself: its beginning and its end. The one who waters and fertilizes it is not higher than him. He is not that future reality for which the seed is only a herald and a stimulator. The seed is that reality, the whole reality, higher than the water with which it is watered, and higher than the fertilizer that nourishes it.

Christ did not compare his kingdom with the Roman Empire, the beginning of which was laid by Romulus, who erected a city, which in the course of centuries developed into a huge complex state. He compared his feat to a mustard seed, to leaven, that is, to such principles that develop due to their own inner strength. This is the law of natural development. Works of culture do not grow like seeds, for each of them is complete in itself. Works of culture are constantly being recreated. Those created earlier serve as a model that is transgressed in the process of culture, and what was created earlier is preserved as a historical rarity. There is no ontological identity in the process of culture. It exists only in nature, in supernature. That is why the Kingdom of Christ does not grow as a culture, that is, it is not recreated anew in the process of history, but naturally, as a seed under the constant action of that same inner force. The Kingdom of Christ is inseparable from Christ, just as the Roman Empire is inseparable from Romulus, as it is inseparable from Caesar, Augustus, and Julian, who developed it, made it mature, and defended it. The Kingdom of Christ is Christ Himself. It does not come to maturity under the sun of world history, but in the warmth of the Holy Spirit. It is not continued by Peter, nor Paul, nor Titus, nor Pius, but by Christ Himself. True, popes and bishops are the representatives of Christ on earth. But they are representatives, not new actors; they are conscious and voluntary instruments, but not creators in their own right. The whole religion of Christ is filled with His own existence: full in its hierarchy, in its sacraments, and in its teaching. Christ teaches, Christ rules, Christ initiates.

This is precisely the main difference between the Church and any other earthly creation, in which there is no personal presence of the author and cannot be. Each creation expresses its creator only symbolically, in the form of a sign. A work of culture only designates a creator, but it is not this creator. Meanwhile, the Church is the reality of Christ. The Church is not a symbol of Christ, not a figure, not an external form, as, say, Noah's Arch is a form of Baptism. The Church is the existence of Christ in history. Therefore, no one can develop this existence without Himself. No one can be higher than it, cannot take it in and immerse it. Christ Himself begins the Church, leads it, and completes it. He is not its forerunner, but He Himself is the Church, the Church's historical reality itself, the Cosmos itself, united with God and redeeming. There is no difference between Christ and the Church, just as there is no difference between the life of a seed and a tree. Christ is the Church centered in personal reality, and the Church is Christ revealed in historical reality.

So to consider Christ as the forerunner means to include the Church in the historical process, to perceive its spread not as the spread of the Holy Spirit, but as some kind of result of the activity of earthly ages. This means to place it on the level of all other human creations, in other words, to give it a purely human cultural character. This is the sense in which the idea of the forerunner refutes the divinity of Christ. To be a forerunner is the essential vocation of man. God is never a forerunner. God is always all at once. Under the thought of the Forerunner there is an exclusion of the Godhead. Whoever considers Christ to be the forerunner denies Him as God. Christ is the Forerunner only as a man: a man of genius, of great heart, of deep perspicacity, of excellent knowledge of life, but still only a man. He really existed in history, really suffered from the Jews and died. However, this was the end of His personal activity. In history, He lives only by His creation, like all other people. And this creation of His, called the Church, is also human, and consequently is subject to all historical laws and all historical conditions. This creation develops in the same way as all human works. History is above them. History transforms them, supplements, corrects, improves and adapts them.

And here it suddenly becomes clear to us why the idea of the forerunner is so readily accepted in the modern world and why it is so readily proclaimed. The world seems to be turning to Christ, and even those who do not consider themselves Christians turn to Him. However, they turn to Christ, man: they turn to the Church as a cultural product of historical development. They see in it only the natural focus of healthy human capabilities. The divinity of Christ and the supernaturalness of the Church are lost in their consciousness. Not one of the world rulers who have spoken of Christianity in recent times confesses Christ, God incarnate, suffering, dead, resurrected, and coming again. None of them recognizes the Church as a divine institution, Christ himself. But the most surprising thing is that we would consider it tactless to demand such a confession. We would consider an upstart who, say, at a conference on human rights, would demand, following the example of the elder Bishop John, to confess the bearer and basis of these rights, Jesus Christ, because these rights are formulated in the words of the Gospel. To do so would indeed prove that we have no criterion for judging earthly efforts, gifts, and opportunities; that we have no measure to distinguish souls and we do not feel how Christ is divided and how His divine-human fullness is destroyed. The division of Christ by the idea of the Forerunner is carried out extremely strictly. The denial of His divinity becomes clear. The involvement of Him and His podvig in the field of human culture is indisputable. And yet, more than once we have admired and admire and rejoice that the world now speaks so much and so often about Christ. That is why the spirit of the Antichrists takes advantage of our limitations. After all, he constantly talks about Christianity, about its values, about its significance for morality, society, for democracy, science, art, but keeping silent about Christ Himself or proclaiming Him to be the forerunner, but not as the First and the Last, not as Alpha and Omega. In fact, all these speeches are the speeches of the dragon, and the idea of the forerunner is a modern antichrist idea. Solovyov perfectly understood the deep essence of this idea, and therefore he introduced it into the attitude of the Antichrist in relation to Christ.

3. THE DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION

The affirmation of Christ as the forerunner is essentially connected with the denial of His resurrection. Solovyov's Antichrist, having fully developed the idea that he is the last and therefore standing above Christ, and Christ is only his forerunner, still could not fully rest on this thought and fully establish himself in it. The logical reasoning that "what is after in the order of time is essentially first" did not satisfy him. He was still tormented by doubt: "What if?.. What if it wasn't me, but that Galilean... Suddenly he is not my forerunner, but the real, the first and the last." But in what case can Christ be the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega? Only if He is alive, if His death on the cross was not final, but only transitory, if it was overcome; in other words, if Christ is risen. One can speak of the dead and unresurrected Christ only as a forerunner who was and has passed, but whose personal existence does not exist in the present. He lives in historical memory, in the scriptures, in the religion proclaimed by him, but only symbolically, not in reality, like every other creator in his work. And vice versa, if Christ overcame death, if He was resurrected, then He lives forever and ever: then He lives in His religion not symbolically, but in His own person; then His activity in history is not a memory, but a permanent present. The Resurrection is a sign that makes it possible to know who Christ is: whether only the Forerunner who has passed or the First and the Last, who always exists.

That is why Solovyov's Antichrist doubts – after all, perhaps Christ is still something more than just a forerunner, and draws a very logical conclusion: "But then he must be alive." And here suddenly it becomes clear to him how to finally eliminate this doubt. The Antichrist cried out in his hatred: "He is not alive, He is not, and will not be. Not resurrected, not resurrected, not resurrected! It rotted, rotted in the tomb, rotted like the last one..." The rotten Christ, without a doubt, can only be symbolically called the beginning and the end. Having joined the fate of the most insignificant creature and not having overcome it, He can only be the herald of universal salvation, but not the Savior Himself. In this case, everyone who comes after Christ can reasonably think about himself: or maybe he is the highest and the last. The denial of the reality of the resurrection is the most serious denial of the divinity of Christ and at the same time the pushing of Him into the ranks of the forerunners. That is why Solovyov's Antichrist seizes upon this last and very successful remedy. By this he does not in the least deny his belief that He is the Messiah. After all, the Messiah is none other than the messenger of God. So why can't Christ be one of the prophets and saints that God sent into the world? Why can't Christ be one of this long line of God's messengers? However, being one of God's messengers is one thing, and quite another to be God Himself. Solovyov's Antichrist does not deny that Christ is the Messiah; he only denies that this Messiah is at the same time the Son of God. And the fact that He is not the Son of God indicates that He was not resurrected, that He rotted in the grave, like all prophets and saints. The belief that Christ is the Messiah is essentially the same as the perception of Him by the forerunner. That is why this faith in the consciousness of the Antichrist is perfectly combined with a strict denial of Christ through the denial of His resurrection. That is why the Antichrist is not afraid to believe in the Messiah, without thereby renouncing either his self-love or his aspirations to rise above Christ. After all, every Messiah can be outstripped. At any time, God can send another, more powerful than the previous one. It is impossible to surpass only the one who is always, who is the First and the Last, who is God.

Consequently, it is not faith in Christ, the Messiah, that is the distinguishing feature of the Christian consciousness, but faith in the resurrection of Christ. And vice versa, the denial of the resurrection of Christ is an indisputable sign of the spirit of the Antichrist. If we think religiously, the eternal enemy of God knows perfectly well that Christ has risen. But this he will never admit or proclaim to the world. He may recognize the historicity of Christ, His messiahship, His infinite influence on world history, but he will never recognize His resurrection. The Antichrist can take part in our Nativity and stand by the manger; he can sing with us "Weep, Angels" on Good Friday; but he will never take part in the Easter procession, nor will he ever rejoice with us at the sound of the "Joyous Day." To recognize the risen Christ is to recognize Him as the only One who is and who is to come; it means to glorify Him and bow down before Him. Even the most sinful Christian can do this. But this cannot be done by the "unsullied morality" of the Antichrist. The idea of resurrection is a sword that divides souls.

Characteristically, when we observe, we notice how this idea is fading away in our days. In fact, the same scene that took place in the Greek Areopagus two thousand years ago is repeated today. Arriving in Athens, St. Paul entered into a dispute with the Epicureans and Stoics in the city square. Some considered him only a chatterbox, but others wanted him to expound his teachings to the respected citizens of Athens. Therefore, "they took him, brought him to the Areopagus, and said, 'Can we know what this new doctrine you preach?'" (Acts 1:19). Noticing the altar, on which was written "to the unknown God," he said that God "does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor require the service of human hands, as if He had need of anything" (Acts 17:24-25). Man can give nothing to God, on the contrary, God Himself gives "life and breath and all things to all" (ibid.). He created the human race: He determined the course of history; He instilled in man a desire to seek Him. He embraces everything: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being" (17:8). Thus, man is divine: "We are His offspring" (ibid.). But, "being the offspring of God, we must not think that the Godhead is like gold, or silver, or stone, which has received its image from the art and imagination of men" (17:29).