[PDF] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAS TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF

View - Download CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAS TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF

Previous PDF

Next PDF

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA'S TRINITARIANTHEOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE

Matthew R. CrawfordDepartment of Theology and ReligionDurham UniversitySubmitted in partial ful!llment of the requirementfor the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy2012

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA'S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE

by Matthew R. CrawfordAbstractCyrilofAlexandrialefttoposterityasizablebodyofexegeticalliterature.Thisthesisat-temptstoreconstructhistheologyofScriptureinordertosuggestthathisexegeticalpracticeisinseparablefrom,andmustbeinterpretedinlightof,hisoverarchingtheologicalvision.Iar-guethatthemostimportantintellectualfactorshapinghisexegesisishisChristologicallyfo-cused,pro-NiceneTrinitarianism,aninheritancethathereceivedfromfourth-centuryauthors.Cyril'sappropriationofpro-Nicenethoughtisevidentinhistheologyofrevelationandhistheologyofexegesis.Revelation,inhisunderstanding,proceedsfromtheFather,throughtheSon,andintheSpirit,followingtheorderofTrinitarianrelations.Moreover,thispatternap-pliestotheinspirationofScriptureaswell,insofarasinspirationoccurswhentheSonindwellshumanauthorsbytheSpiritandspeaksthewordsoftheFather.Correspondingtothismove-mentofGodtowardshumanityinrevelationishumanity'sgrowthinunderstandingthatoc-cursaccordingtoareversepattern - intheSpirit,throughtheSon,untotheFather.ThisschemeappliesbroadlytoCyril'ssoteriology,butalsotohisunderstandingofexegesis,sinceheregardedbiblicalinterpretationasameansofparticipatinginthedivinelife.Morespeci!-cally,thisTrinitarianpatternimpliesthattheSpiritisrequiredtoreadScriptureproperly,andthatintheactofinterpretationtheSpiritdirectsthereadertoaChristologicalreadingofScrip-ture,throughwhichthebelievergainsalimitedbutgenuineapprehensionoftheTrinitarianmystery.Thisprocesscontinuesuntilthe!naleschatologicalvisionwhenthetypesandriddlesofScripturewillbedoneawaywithinlightoftheoverwhelmingclarityofthevisionoftheFather.i

the work of persons other than myself have been properly acknowledged throughout.

Statement of CopyrightThecopyrightofthisthesisrestswiththeauthor.Noquotationfromitshouldbepublishedinanyformat,includingelectronicandtheInternet,withouttheauthor'spriorwrittenconsent.

All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately. ii

Acknowledgements

CyrilofAlexandriamadenosecretofthefactthathestoodinanintellectualtradition,onethathegladlyinhabitedanduponwhoseinsightshecreativelydrew.Inalooselyanalo-goussense,Istandacutelyawareofmyowninindebtednesstomanyotherpersonswithoutwhomthisprojectcouldnothavebeenbroughttocompletion.Imust!rstthankmydoctoralsupervisor,ProfessorLewisAyres,whonotonlypatientlyreadovercountlessrevisionsofthesechapters,butwhoalsointroducedmetotheAugustinianismofJohnnyCash.ThoughinthepagesthatfollowIcitehisworkonlyahandfuloftimes,mydebttoLewisextendsbeyondsuchexplicitcitations.Boththemodeofhistoricalscholarshipinwhichthisthesisiscarriedout,aswellasthehistoricallyconscioustheologicalprojecttowardswhich,Ihope,itcon-tributes, are intentionally modeled upon his own approach to the discipline of patristics. OthermembersoftheDepartmentofTheologyandReligionalsoin"uencedmywork.AmoduleontheTheologicalAnthropologyoftheFatherstaughtbyFatherAndrewLouthre-mainsoneofthehighlightsofmytimeatDurham.ProfessorWalterMoberly'smoduleontheTheologicalInterpretationofScriptureintroducedmetomanyofthecurrentconversationsinbiblicalstudiesregardingtheproperrelationbetweenexegesisandtheology.Ihopethatthematerialinthisthesisprovidessomefodderforthoseongoingdiscussionswithintheworldofbiblicalscholarship.Also,ProfessorRobertHaywardtaughtmetheSyriacIneededtoworkthroughsomeoftherequiredprimarytexts,andgraciouslyhelpedme!gureoutseveraldif!-cultpassages.Dr.KrastuBanevalsohelpedmethroughacoupleofpassagesinGreekthatprovedchallenging.Theparticipantsinthedepartment'sweeklypatristicsseminarenduredsit-tingthroughearlierversionsoftwoofthesechapters,andIamgratefulfortheirhelpfulnessinrespondingtoworkthatwasverymuchinprogressatthetime.OutlinesoftheprojectandchaptersinvariousstageswerereadbyThomasHumphries,BenBlackwell,RobertoAlejandro,StephenBagby,GeraldBoersma,WesleyHill,KeithE.Johnson,JonathanT.Pennington,andJacobShatzer.Eachoneaddedvaluablecommentsorraisedquestionsthatlingeredinmymindandcontributedtowardsthe!nalformofthisthesis.Moreover,inthe!nalstagesEmmaMc-Cabereadovermuchofthethesis,savingmefrommanytypographicalmistakes.AspecialthanksmustgotoJonMorganwhocollaboratedwithmeonseveralGermansources,andHan-nahMilnerwholookedupseveralreferencesformethatIcouldnotaccessinDurham.IalsoextendmygratitudetoDanielKeating,DimitriosZaganas,JohnJ.O'Keefe,CordulaBandt,and

iii

GregoryK.Hilliswhosharedprepublicationversionsoftheirworkwithme.Moreover,thete-diumofdoctoralworkhasbeenhappilyinterruptedmanytimesbymyof!cematesinNo.37NorthBaileywhoprovidedbothneededdistractionsandstimulatingconversations.Thisthesiswould not have been the same without them.Thelion'sshareofmygratitudegoestowardsmyfamilywhohavebeenunendinglypatientoverthepastthreeyearsofmyworkingonthisproject.Brandyhassacri!cedmorethananyonewilleverknowtoseethisthroughtotheend,andViolet,Camille,andElliothavehadtoenduremyabsentmindednessmanytimesoverasIwaslostinthoughtoversomequestionrelatedtothethesis.ApartfromtheirloveandsupportIdoubtiftheprojectcouldhavebeencompleted.Myparents,BillandJoyceCrawford,havesupportedmethrougheachstageofmyeducationineverywayimaginable.Ihopethatthisthesisprovestobeasuitableway of honoring their constant encouragement.

iv

Table of ContentsAbstracti.............................................................................................Declarationii..........................................................................................Statement of Copyrightii..............................................................................Acknowledgementsiii.................................................................................Table of Contentsv....................................................................................Abbreviationsvii....................................................................................Chapter 1INTRODUCTION1....................................................................................Chapter 2THE SON AS WORD AND WILL OF THE FATHER: A TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF REVELATION7......................................................The Son as the Revealer of the Father9...................................................The Messenger of Great Counsel10................................................The Pen of the Stenographer16......................................................The Inseparable Operation of the Undivided Trinity22..............................Everything Belongs to All Three24................................................Inseparable Operation, not Cooperation27.......................................From the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit35....................................The Son as the Power of the Father38.............................................The Spirit as the Finger of the Son41................................................A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation47................................................Inseparable Operations and Revelation48..........................................A Pro-Nicene Theology of Revelation54..........................................Chapter 3'ONE BOOK SPOKEN THROUGH ONE HOLY SPIRIT': THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE BY THE SPIRIT60................................................Inspiration by the Spirit in the Prior Tradition61.......................................Spirit-Bearing Authors of a Spiritually-Breathed Book64..............................The Prophetic Spirit70.....................................................................Patristic Theories of Agency in Divine Inspiration70..............................Analogies for Inspiration in Cyril's Corpus78....................................Inspiration as a Prophetic Vision82................................................The Mystagogy of the Spirit88............................................................The Apostles as Mystagogues88......................................................The Apostles Still Preach Today94...................................................Continuities and Discontinuities with respect to Inspiration98.....................The Redemptive-Historical Contours of the Spirit's Operation98...............The Inspiration of the Church Fathers102..........................................Scripture as One Book Sealed by the Spirit106..........................................Conclusion108..............................................................................v

Chapter 4'HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON': THE CHRISTOLOGICAL MEDIATION OF SCRIPTURE110.............................................The Son Speaks in the Prophets and Apostles111.......................................Christological Mediation among Earlier Pro-Nicenes116..............................The Son Speaks through Himself120...................................................Prophetic Indwelling in the Christological Controversies127........................The Soteriological Immediacy of the Divine Word133.................................Chapter 5'THE EVERGREEN ORACLES OF GOD': THE ROLE OF SCRIPTURE IN THE DIVINE ECONOMY138..........................................'The Lord Shepherds Me' (Psalm 22)140................................................Psalm 22 in the Prior Exegetical Tradition140....................................The Evergreen Oracles of God144...................................................The Evangelical Table and Its Enemies149..........................................The Shepherd's Two Rods (Zechariah 11)154..........................................Christ the Shepherd Feeding the 5,000160.............................................The Feeding of the 5,000 in the Prior Tradition160..............................Bread from Heaven (John 6)163...................................................A Table Prepared in the Wilderness (Luke 9:12-17)169........................Participating in the Divine Word through the Written Word171.....................Chapter 6SEEING THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON IN THE SPIRIT: THE THEOLOGICAL NATURE OF EXEGESIS 177......................................................Divine Illumination through the Son179................................................Illumination according to Creation (John 1)180.................................Illumination according to Redemption (John 9)188..............................Relating the Two Types of Illumination195.......................................Earlier Authors on Illumination203................................................Trinitarian Exegesis209.....................................................................Spiritual Exegesis210..................................................................Christological Exegesis216............................................................The Eschatological Vision of the Father223.......................................Chapter 7CONCLUSION: 'THE WHIRLWIND IS IN THE THORN TREE'226....................................Bibliography234....................................................................................Primary Sources234...........................................................................Secondary Sources255...........................................................................vi

Abbreviations

ACOActa Conciliorum OecumenicorumAugSTAugustinian StudiesAWAthanasius Werke BZNWBeihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde vii

MusLe MuséonNTTNederlands Theologisch TijdschriftNRTNouvelle revue théologiqueNovTNovum TestamentumNovVetNova et VeteraOECSOxford Early Christian StudiesOECTOxford Early Christian TextsOSHTOxford Studies in Historical TheologyOTMOxford Theological MonographsPGPatrologia Cursus Completus: Series GraecaPGLG. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961)PLPatrologia Cursus Completus: Series LatinaPOPatrologia OrientalisProEcclPro EcclesiaPTAPapyrologische Texte und AbhandlungenPTSPatristische Texte und StudienRBRevue bénédictineREByzRevue des études byzantinesRechAugRecherches augustiniennesRevSRRevue des sciences religieusesRHERevue d'histoire ecclésiastiqueRIPhRevue internationale de philosophieRIThRevue internationale de théologieRSRRecherches de science religieuseSCSources ChrétiennesSCeSecond CenturySJThScottish Journal of TheologySTStudi e testiSTACStudien und Texte zu Antike und ChristentumSTPatrStudia PatristicaSVTQSt. Vladimir's Theological QuarterlyTLGThesaurus Linguae GraecaeTSTheological StudiesTUTexte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen LiteraturTZTheologische Zeitschrift

viii

VCVigiliae ChristianaeVCSupSupplements to Vigiliae ChristianaeVetCVetera ChristianorumZKGZeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

1Introduction

For,asIsaid,allthingsarefromtheFather,throughtheSon,intheSpirit,andtheholyandconsubstantialTrinityisglori!edinallthingsthatareaccom-plished.ForconsiderhowallthingsbeginfromtheSpirit,astheonewhoisinusandwhobringsaboutthedistributionofdivinegifts.Andturningthedis-coursebacktowardstheSon,whoistheSonaccordingtonature,itthenap-proachesuntotheFather,towhomisassignedtheoperationthroughtheSpiritby the Son's mediation.

1 2 3 4 This thesis aims to contribute towards answering this question. 1

Cyril, 1 Cor. 12:7ff (Pusey, 287-8).

2

See,e.g.,RobertLamberton,HomertheTheologian:NeoplatonistAllegoricalReadingandtheGrowthoftheEpicTradition(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1989);DavidDawson,AllegoricalReadersandCulturalRevisioninAncientAlexan-dria(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992);MarenR.Niehoff,JewishExegesisandHomericScholarshipinAlexan-dria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

3

ThebesthistoricalsurveyofpatristicexegesisisFrancesM.Young,BiblicalExegesisandtheFormationofChris-tianCulture(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997).AshorterintroductioncanbefoundinJohnJ.O'KeefeandRussellR.Reno,Sancti!edVision:AnIntroductiontoEarlyChristianInterpretationoftheBible(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2005).AlsohelpfulisthereferenceworkbyCharlesKannengiesser,HandbookofPatristicExegesis, The Bible in Ancient Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

4 Onthein"uenceofgrammaticaltraininguponpatristicexegesis,seethebibliographybelowatpage177, n.2 1 5 6 7 5

SeveralshortsummariesofCyril'slifeareavailable,soIwillnotrehearsethatwellcoveredmaterial.Theonlyfulllengthbiographyiswelloveracenturyold:JosephKopallik,CyrillusvonAlexandrien,eineBiographienachdenQuellen(Mainz:F.Kirchheim,1881).MorerecentsurveyscanbefoundinLionelR.Wickham,CyrilofAlexandria,SelectLetters,OECT(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983),xi-xxviii;PierreÉvieuxetal.,eds.,Cyrilled'Alexandrie:LettresFes-talesI-VI,SC372(Paris:ÉditionsduCerf,1991),11-72;NormanRussell,CyrilofAlexandria(NewYork:Routledge,2000),3-63;JohnAnthonyMcGuckin,St.CyrilofAlexandria:TheChristologicalControversy:ItsHistory,Theology,andTexts(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir'sSeminaryPress,2004),1-125;SebastianSchurig,DieTheologiedesKreuzesbeimfrühenCyrillvonAlexandria:DargestelltanseinerSchrift'Deadorationeetcultuinspirituetveritate',STAC29(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2005),7-28;LoisM.Farag,St.CyrilofAlexandria,aNewTestamentExegete:HisCommentaryontheGospelofJohn(Piscataway,NJ:GorgiasPress,2007),11-69.OtherstudiesrelatingtohisbiographyincludeHenriMunier,'Lelieudenais-sancedeSaintCyrille',inKyrilliana(Cairo:LesÉditionsduScribeEgyptien,1947),199-201;F.M.Abel,'SaintCyrilled'AlexandriedanssesrapportsaveclaPalestine',inKyrilliana,202-30;E.R.Hardy,'TheFurtherEducationofCyrilofAlexandria(412-444):QuestionsandProblems',STPatr17/1(1982):116-122;A.Davids,'CyrilofAlexandria'sFirstEpiscopalYears',inTheImpactofScriptureinEarlyChristianity,ed.M.L.vanPoll-vandeLisdonkandJ.denBoeft(Leiden:Brill,1999);SusanWessel,CyrilofAlexandriaandtheNestorianControversy:TheMakingofaSaintandofaHeretic,OECS(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),15-73.AusefultimelineofeventscanbefoundatHubertDuManoir,DogmeetspiritualitechezSaintCyrilled'Alexandrie(Paris:J.Vrin,1944),441-7.Historicalintroduc-tionstothisperiodcanbefoundinRogerS.Bagnall,EgyptinLateAntiquity(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993);ChristopherHaas,AlexandriainLateAntiquity:TopographyandSocialCon"ict(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1997);FergusMillar,AGreekRomanEmpire:PowerandBeliefUnderTheodosiusII(408-450)(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press, 2006).

6

Marie-OdileBoulnois,LeparadoxetrinitairechezCyrilled'Alexandrie:Herméneutique,analysesphilosophiquesetargumen-tationthéologique,Collectiondesétudesaugustiniennes.Sérieantiquité143(Paris:Institutd'étudesaugustiniennes,1994),15-6;RobertL.Wilken,'CyrilofAlexandriaasInterpreteroftheOldTestament',inTheTheologyofStCyrilofAlexandria:ACriticalAppreciation,ed.ThomasG.WeinandyandDanielA.Keating(London:T&TClark,2003),1-2;DanielA.Keating,TheAppropriationofDivineLifeinCyrilofAlexandria,OTM(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004), 12-3; Schurig, Die Theologie des Kreuzes, 1.

7

On the meaning of the term 'pro-Nicene', see page

7 ff below.

1. Introduction2

8

Thoughtherehasbeensomediscussioninthesecondaryliteraturere-gardingCyril'sTrinitarianism,aswellassomediscussionofhisexegesisoftheBible,thesetwoconversationshaveyettobebroughttogether.WithrespecttohisexegesisofScripture,thisamountstoafailuretotakeintoaccountthemostsigni!canttheologicalcontextforun-derstandinghisbiblicalinterpretation.Hence,asIshallargue,givingattentiontohispro-NicenethoughtprovestobeilluminatingofhisexegeticalpracticeandrevealshisdistinctlyChristian understanding of interpretation.Ratherthanrestrictmyfocustoasinglework,Ihavedecidedtoconsiderrelevantpas-sagesfromseveralofCyril'sworks,mostsigni!cantly,hisCommentaryontheGospelofJohn,HomiliesontheGospelofLuke,CommentaryonIsaiah,andCommentaryontheTwelveProphets.

9 8 gle undoubtedly played an important role as well. 9 critical editions and translations of Cyril's works can be found in the bibliography.

1. Introduction3

changeshisinterpretationofthispassage,followinghisexegesisofitoverthecourseofhisca-reer reveals the trajectory of development in his thought.Thereare,admittedly,dangersinthissortofsyntheticapproach.Itmightleadtoacan-cellingoutofthedifferencesbetweentheseindividualCyrillinetexts,andamaskingofpossi-bledevelopmentsinCyril'sthought.Awareofsuchadanger,Ihavesoughttobesensitivetopossibledevelopmentsandhavenotedthemwhereappropriate.Thepossibilityofdevelop-mentislinkedtotheissueofdatinghisworks.Ihavenointeresthereinrevisingwhatiscur-rentlytheacceptedchronologyofhiswritings,excepttonotethat,apartfromtheannualpaschallettersandthetextsrelatedtotheNestoriancontroversy,itisdif!culttogiveaprecisedateformostofhisremainingworks.

10 11

Nevertheless,whatemergesfromthepresentstudyisthat,apartfromafewnotableinstances,Cyril'sthoughtontheissuesathandremained largely consistent across the works I consider.Thethesisprogressesintwostages,correspondingtothetopicsofatheologyofrevela-tion,andatheologyofexegesis.Thesetwofocimaybeunderstoodas,!rstaconsiderationofScripturefromtheperspectiveofitsrelationshiptothedivineintheeventofdivineunveiling,and,second,fromtheperspectiveofhumanity'sencounterwiththewrittenwordintheactofexegesis.Iarguethatineachcase,Cyril'stheologyisTrinitarianinstructureandChristologicalinfocus.TheargumentbeginsinchaptertwowithadetailedlookattheTrinitarianshapeofhistheologyofrevelation.InthischapterIsuggestthatCyrildemonstratesastrikinglyconserv-ativeandtraditionalemphasisontheSonastheagentofdivinerevelation.However,hesitu-atesthisfrequentpatristictoposwithinthecontextofapro-NiceneunderstandingofTrinitarian

10

ThebasiclinesofthechronologywerelaiddownbyG.Jouassard,'L'activitélittérairedeSaintCyrilled'Alexandriejusqu'à428',inMélangesE.Podechard(Lyon,1945),159-74,andhavebeenlittlechangedsince.N.Charlier,'Le"ThesaurusdeTrinitate"deSaintCyrilled'Alexandrie,questionsdecritiquelittéraire',RHE45(1950):25-81,offeredanalternateproposal,butJouassardrespondedin'LadatedesécritsantiariensdeSaintCyrilled'Alexandrie',RB87(1977):172-178,andmoststudiessincehavefollowedhislead.Foramorerecentoverviewofthesedebates,seeJohnJ.O'Keefe,InterpretingtheAngel:CyrilofAlexandriaandTheodoretofCyrus,Commentatorson the Book of Malachi (diss., Catholic University of America, 1993), 149-56.

11

However,eventhisdivisioncannotberigidlyapplied,sincetheChristologicaldualismthatbecamesuchanissueintheNestoriancontroversyalreadyappearsasaconcerninCyril'sFestalLetter8fromtheyear420andinhisCommentaryontheGospelofJohnwritteninthemid-420s.ForanillustrationoftheshiftinCyril'svocabu-laryasaresultofthecontroversy,seethetwotablesatDonaldFairbairn,GraceandChristologyintheEarlyChurch,OECS(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 228-9.1. Introduction4

agency.Asaresult,theSonistheprimaryrevealer,buttheobjectofhisrevelationistheFa-ther,andthemeansbywhichherevealsistheSpirit.Inotherwords,revelationcomesfromtheFather,throughtheSon,andintheSpirit.Chaptersthreeandfourcarryforwardtheargu-menttoconsidertheinspirationofScriptureasaspeci!cinstantiationofCyril'stheologyofrevelation.Thus,inchapterthreeIexaminehisunderstandingofdivineinspirationbytheSpirit.HiscommentariesontheHebrewprophetsproveusefulhere,asthesebiblicalpassagesprovidedampleopportunitytoexpoundonthisidea.FromhisdescriptionsoftheauthorsofScripturetohisdescriptionofScriptureitself,CyrilrepeatedlyemphasizesthattheChurch'sholybookswereinspiredbytheonedivineSpirit,and,assuch,areonedivineandspiritualbook.However,asIargueinchapterfour,thisideaisonlypartofthepicture,forCyrilalsospeaksabouttheinspirationofScripturewithreferencetotheSon.Thus,inthischapterIar-guethatCyrilregardstheSonastheprimaryagentresponsiblefortheinspirationofScripture,sincetheinspirationofscripturalauthorsoccursastheSoncomestoindwellthesehumanagentsbytheSpirit,andthenspeakthroughthem.Inthisrespect,Cyril'sunderstandingofin-spirationcorrespondstohistheologyofrevelation,sinceinbothcasesTrinitarianagencypro-ceedsthroughtheSonandintheSpirit.Moreover,inchapterfourIhighlightwhatisperhapsthemostdistinctiveaspectofCyril'stheologyofScripture.OnthebasisofthisChristologicalunderstandingofpropheticinspirationandthefundamentaldistinctionbetweentheincarna-tionandsuchpropheticindwelling,heisabletoarguethatthegospelsarethemostcentralpartofthecanon,asbeingespeciallyinspired,sinceinthemtheSonspeaksinunmediatedfashion. Inchapter!vethefocusofthethesisturnsfromatheologyofrevelationtoatheologyofexegesis.IbeginthispartoftheargumentbyconsideringtheroleofScriptureinthedivineeconomy,assumingthatCyril'spracticeofexegesisisafunctionofhisunderstandingoftheplaceScriptureoccupiesintheplanofsalvation.IfocusinthischapteronhispresentationofChristastheShepherdwhofeedstheChurchwiththewrittenword.TheconsistencyofthisthemeinhisworkssuggeststhatheseestheinspiredwordasplayingacentralroleinthelifeoftheChurch,oneanalogoustothatoftheEucharist,whichalsohassalvi!ceffectsonbeliev-ers.Infact,onatleasttwooccasions,Cyrilspeaksofbelievers''participation'inChristthroughencounterwiththewrittenword,usingthesortoflanguagehetypicallyreservesonlyfortheSpiritandtheEucharist.Finally,inchaptersixIcometoexegesisitself.GiventhatScriptureispresentedbyChristtotheChurchforitsbene!t,whatsortoftheologicalexplanationdoes

1. Introduction5

CyrilgiveforthewayinwhichScripturebecomesthisnourishingwordthroughtheactofin-terpretation?Thearchbishop'sTrinitarianvisiononceagainbecomesmorepronouncedinthischapter,asitwasinthesecond.HestatesthattheSpiritisrequiredforproperinterpretation,sinceonlytheSpirit,giveninbaptism,canilluminethemindsothatitcanseethespiritualtruthcontainedintheinspiredword.ThecontentofthisspiritualenlightenmentisnoneotherthanaknowledgeofChrist,andincludedinaknowledgeofChristisaknowledgeoftheFa-ther,sincetheSonperfectlyimageshisFather.Thus,weendwherewebegan.InthecomingofGodtohumanityinrevelation,inthepreservationofrevelationinthecanon,and!nallyinhumanity'sreturntothedivinethroughencounterwiththeinspiredword,thebeliever'sgazeisdrawntotheincarnateSonofGod,evenwhilethisChristologicalvisionissituatedwithinabroaderTrinitariancontext.SuchisthetheologicalaccountthatCyrilgivesoftheinterpreta-tion of Scripture.

1. Introduction6

2The Son as Word and Will of the Father:A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation

TheWord,whoisintheFatherandfromtheFather,transmitsthetrulyextra-ordinary,lofty,andgreatwilloftheonewhobegothim.Hedoesso,ontheonehand,throughtheutteranceofwords,asaman,whenhebecamelikeus,and,ontheotherhand,throughspiritualknowledgeandilluminationafterhisascensionintoheaven.Forherevealstothosewhoareworthythemysteriesabout himself.

1 2 1 Aubert's numbers listed in the margin of every page. 2

are seen as two aspects of a single reality, rather than domains of inquiry completely separate from one another.

7 3 4 5 3

SoLewisAyres,NicaeaandItsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology(NewYork:OxfordUni-versityPress,2004),6:'By"pro-Nicene"Imeanthosetheologies,appearingfromthe360stothe380s,consist-ingofasetofargumentsaboutthenatureoftheTrinityandabouttheenterpriseofTrinitariantheology,andformingthebasisofNiceneChristianbeliefinthe380s.Intrinsictothesetheologieswerecompatible(butnotidentical)accountsofhowtheNicenecreedshouldbeunderstood.TheseaccountsconstitutedasetofargumentsforNicaea - hencepro-Nicene'.Seealsopages236-40whereheoutlinesthreecentralprinciplesthatwerecom-montopro-Nicenetheologiesintheperiodfromthe360stothe380s.Oneofthosethreeprinciples,inseparableoperations,willbetakenupindetaillaterinthischapter.Theterm'pro-Nicene'wasalsousedinthemagisterialstudyofR.P.C.Hanson,TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod:TheArianControversy318-381(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1988),thoughwithouttheprecisionofde!nitionofferedbysubsequentscholarship.Forausageofpro-NicenethatdiffersfromAyres,seeChristopherA.Beeley,GregoryofNazianzusontheTrinityandtheKnowledgeofGod:InYourLightWeShallSeeLight,OSHT(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),10,n.27.IamunpersuadedbyBeeley'scriticismthatAyres'usageis'overlytechnical'.Onpro-Nicenetheologyingeneral,seealsoMichelR.BarnesandD.H.Williams,ArianismAfterArius:EssaysontheDevelopmentoftheFourthCenturyTrinitarianCon"icts(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1993);MichelRenéBarnes,'DeRégnonReconsidered',AugST26(1995):51-79;ibid.,'TheFourthCentu-ryasTrinitarianCanon',inChristianOrigins:Theology,RhetoricandCommunity,ed.LewisAyresandGarethJones(Lon-don:Routledge,1998);ibid.,ThePowerofGod:DunamisinGregoryofNyssa'sTrinitarianTheology(Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2000);JohnBehr,TheNiceneFaith,TheFormationofChristianTheology2(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir'sSeminaryPress,2004);AndrewRadde-Gallwitz,BasilofCaesarea,GregoryofNyssa,andtheTransformationofDivineSimplicity(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);LewisAyres,AugustineandtheTrinity(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

4 5

RelativelylittleattentionhasbeengiventoCyril'sTrinitarianthought.SeethediscussionsinE.Weigl,DieHeilslehredeshl.CyrillvonAlexandrien(Mainz:Kirchheim,1905),10-24;DuManoir,Dogmeetspiritualité,42-3;E.P.Meijering,'CyrilofAlexandriaonthePlatonistsandtheTrinity',NTT28(1974):16-29;ClaudioMoreschini,'Unade!nizionedellaTrinitànelContraIulianumdiCirillodiAllesandria',inLinguaeteologianelcristianesimogreco,Reli-gioneecultura11,ed.ClaudioMoreschiniandGiovanniMenestrina(Brescia:Morcelliana,1999),251-70Farag,St.CyrilofAlexandria,71-147;AndrewLouth,'LatePatristicDevelopmentsontheTrinityintheEast',inTheOxfordHandbookoftheTrinity,ed.GillesEmeryandMatthewLevering(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),139-40.ThesolemonographonthistopicisBoulnois,Leparadoxetrinitaire.InthischapterIrelyheavilyatpointsonBoul-nois'study,thoughIintendtoextendsomeofherobservationstoconsiderwhatCyril'sTrinitariantheologyim-pliesforhisunderstandingofdivinerevelation.AlthoughTrinitarianthemespervadehisentirecorpus,Cyrilcom-posedthreemainTrinitarianworks,allcomingfromtheperiodpriortotheoutbreakoftheNestoriancontroversy.Theseworksare,inorderofcomposition,theThesaurus,DialoguesontheTrinity,andCommentaryontheGospelofJohn.AlsoimportantishisdiscussionofTrinitariantheologyinhisFestalLetter12,fromtheyear424.An2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation8

consciouslyshapedhistheologyofrevelationinthelightofhisTrinitariantheology.Infact,itisTrinitariantheologythatprovidestheskeletalstructureforhisunderstandingofhowrevela-tionhascometohumanity.Moreover,bydescribinghistheologyofrevelationas'Christologi-callyfocused'Imeanthat,whentalkingaboutdivinerevelation,heconsistentlydrawsthereader'sattentiontotheOnly-begottenandincarnateSonasthefocalpointofalldivineunveiling.Theargumentofthischaptercentersonaconundrum.CyrilespousesaverytraditionaltheologyoftheSonmakingtheFatherknown,andhetherebyemphasizestheagencyoftheSonasrevealer.However,suchanemphasisappearstobeincompatiblewithhisrobustac-countoftheinseparabilityofallTrinitarianoperations.Hence,histheologyofrevelationap-pearsinitiallytostandatoddswithhispro-Nicenethought.Myargumentisthatitis,infact,hisnuancedunderstandingofTrinitarianoperationsthatenableshimtoofferapro-Niceneac-countoftheSonasrevealerinTrinitarianperspective.Morespeci!cally,CyrilholdsthattheSonrevealstheFatherintheSpirit,or,otherwiseput,divinerevelationcomesfromtheFather,throughtheSon,intheSpirit.ThusweseethistraditionalemphasisontheSonasrevealer,stretchingbacktotheearlieststrataofpatristicliterature,transformedbythepro-Niceneprin-ciples developed in the course of the fourth-century controversies.THE SON AS THE REVEALER OF THE FATHERTheideathattheSonistheonewhorevealstheFather!ndsexplicitwarrantintheNewTestamentdocumentsthemselves(cf.Matt.11:27;John1:18),andbecameaprominentthemeinsecond-centurywritings.IgnatiusofAntioch,writinginthe!rstquarterofthesec-ondcentury,speaksofJesusasthe'dooroftheFatherwhohasbeenentrustedwiththehiddenthingsofGod','theunerringmouthbywhichtheFatherhastrulyspoken',andthe'mind'(!"#$%)ofGod.

6 7

Infact,althoughthisideaismostoften

together relevant passages and themes from across his corpus. 6 Ignatius, Philad. 9.1; Rom. 8.2; Eph. 3.2 (SC 10.150, 136, 70). 7

Justin,1apol.5;63;2apol.10.SeealsoIrenaeus,haer.4.6.6;cf.MichelRenéBarnes,'Irenaeus'sTrinitar-2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation9

8 Justafewlineslater,hebroadensthisprinciple further, as he writes in comment upon Isaiah 43:9,

Knowingeverythingfrombeginningtoendwouldonlybe!ttingtoonewhoisGodbynature.Allunderstanding(*-"'*./)comesfromhimandheisthefountofallknowledge,and'inhimarehiddenallthetreasureofwisdomandknowledge'(Col.2:3),asitiswritten.Butifsomeoneisfoundtohaveknowl-edgeevenoffuturethings,itappearsthathehasreceivedthegiftbyrevelation(01(2,3-4')/) from him.

9

ThoughtheSonisnotexplicitlymentionedinthispassage,heiscertainlywhomCyrilhasinmindwiththephrase'theonewhoisGodbynature',sincehetakesthissectionofIsaiahasanannouncementmadebytheSontothosecalledfromthenations,andheherealludestoColos-sians2:3,aScripturepassagedescribingChrist.Inthispassage,then,hepresents,inthebroad-estpossibleterms,thedivineSonastheagentresponsiblefortherevelationofallhumanknowledge, and especially of future events.

The Messenger of Great Counsel

InordertoexplainhowCyrildevelopsthistheme,Iintendtolookatthreeanalogiesheuses - theSonastheFather'smessenger,astheFather'sWord,andastheFather'spen.InthissubsectionIwanttolookatthe!rsttwoanalogies,andarguethatCyrilconsistentlyinter-pretsIsaiah9:6(LXX)asadeclarationthattheSonistheFather'smessengerwhorevealshimtohumanity,becausetheSonistheFather'sOnly-begottenWord.

10

The!rstofthesetwo

ian Theology', NovVet 7 (2009): 67-106. 8 also Jo. 5:46 (Pusey, 1.392-3). 9 that Cyril has in mind the Son speci cally, rather than merely the deity in some generic sense. 10

Isaiah.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation10

11 12

ThebasicfeaturesofhisexegesishereinhisCommentaryonIsaiah - theidenti!cationoftheSonas'messenger',theconnectionwiththerevelationoftheFather,andtheidentitybetweentheSon'swordandtheFather's - areconsistentlyfoundthroughoutCyril'scorpusinhistreatmentofthispassage,aswe shall see below.Asnotedabove,inhisexpositionofIsaiah9:6CyrilcitestwoJohanninetextstosup-porthisreadingandtoexpoundmorefullyonhisnotionofChristasthemessengeroftheFa-ther,thussignalingthatthefourthgospelwasanimportantsourceforhistheologyofrevela-tion.IntheprefacetohisCommentaryontheGospelofJohn,Cyrilassertsthatheintendstowritea'moredogmaticexegesis'(:(!$,>.2)>D=,"...CFG!%*."),and,inkeepingwiththisstatedin-

11

Cyril,Is.9:6-7(PG70.252-3).OnthepedagogicalaspectofChrist'swork,seeWeigl,DieHeilslehre,116-25,althoughhisconcernismainlywithChristasamoralteacherandexample,whereasIammorecon-cernedwithChrist'srevelationoftheFather,thoughthesetwoaspectsofChrist'srevelatorymissionareobviouslyrelated.OnCyril'stheologyofrevelation,seealsoStevenA.McKinion,Words,Imagery,andtheMysteryofChrist:ARe-construction of Cyril of Alexandria's Christology, VCSup 55 (Boston: Brill, 2000), 23-32.

12

Cyril,Is.9:6-7(PG70.256).OntheChristologyofCyril'sCommentaryonIsaiah,seefurtherAbelH.A.FernándezLois,LacristologíaenlosCommentariosaIsaiasdeCirilodeAlejandriayTeodoretodeCiro(Rome:Ponti!ciaUniversi-tas Lateranensis, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1998).2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation11

13

ThismoredenselytheologicalexegesisofIsaiah9:6isevidentinhisinterpretationofJohn12:49-50('Ihavenotspokenonmyownauthority,buttheFatherwhosentmehashimselfgivenmeacommandment - whattosayandwhattospeak').Cyrilinitiallyexplainsthisversebypointingtoitsimmediatecontext:theJewsarere-jectingJesus'message,atrulyinexcusablefault,sincetheyhadthelawwhichspokeofChrist.Afterexplainingtheversealongtheselines,heturnsnexttoconsiderapossiblehereticalchal-lenge.AsoneofaseriesoftextsintheGospelofJohnthatspeakoftheSonreceivingfromtheFather,thispassagecouldposeproblemsforthoseholdingtoapro-NiceneinsistenceontheSon'sessentialequalitywiththeFather,sinceitimpliesthattheFatherpossessessomethingtheSondoesnot.Cyril'sresponseoperatesontwolevels.He!rstarguesthatitisastheincarnateSonthatJesussayshereceivesawordfromtheFather,inful!llmentoftheprophecythatGodwouldsendanotherprophetlikeMoses(cf.Deut.18:18-19).

14

Cyrilacknowledgesthatitisan'incredible'(01+&,"(")thingthatthe'Godwhospeaksintheprophetsshouldbecalledaprophet',butthismannerofspeakingisexactlywhattheincarnationentails,asthedivineWord has humiliated himself by taking on the name of slavery.

15 16 13

Cyril, Jo. praef. (Pusey, 1.7).

14 the section numbering in the English translation (FOC 76, 77). 15

Cyril,Jo.12:49-50(Pusey,2.339).Thementionhereof>H>8/:(73'+,/J"($,isundoubtedlyanal-lusiontoPhilippians2:5-11.BytheendCyril'sinterpretationofJohn12:49theallusionbecomesexplicit,ashecitesthepassage.TheChristhymnofPhilippians2wasperhapsthemostcentralpassageforhisunderstandingoftheincarnation.Cf.Liébaert,Ladoctrinechristologique,186-96;RichardA.Norris,'ChristologicalModelsinCyrilofAlexandria',STPatr13(1975):255-68;J.W.Smith,'SufferingImpassibly:Christ'sPassioninCyrilofAlexandria'sSoteriology',ProEccl11(2002):463-83;PaulL.Gavrilyuk,TheSufferingoftheImpassibleGod:TheDialecticsofPatristicThought,OECS(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),139,150;McGuckin,St.CyrilofAlexandria,189;Schurig,Die Theologie des Kreuzes, 114-78.

16

ThephraseK$'>;*,=2H/(I2("($+,isoneofCyril'sfavoriteexpressions,occurringhundredsoftimesinhiscorpus,and,moreover,wasonethatonethatheapparentlycoined.ItoccurstwiceinthefragmentsofAthanasius'ExpositioinPsalmos(PG27.373,377),buttheseAthanasianfragmentsareofuncertainauthenticityandmaycontainsomeCyrillinefragments.Previousauthorshad,however,usedsimilarexpressions.See,e.g.,ps-2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation12

ondpoint,usingthetexttodemonstratethat,withrespecttothe'Only-begottenhimself'(C1',L>(?...>(?M("(!'"(?/),heis'rightlyanddeservedly'saidtoreceivefromtheFather.TheSon,Cyrilnowargues,sayshereceivesawordfromtheFather,notsimplybecausehewasful!lling the role of a human prophet. Rather,

sinceheisthelivingandhypostatic(C"71N*>,>(/)WordofGodtheFather,itisnecessarythatheinterpretthethingsinhim(0",!2,+)/:.'=$%"'-'.>;C",L>O).Andasifbringingintothelightwhatisinthewill(C"&'3G*'.)ofhisownprogenitor,hesayshehasreceivedacommandment.Andanyonecouldseethatthematterisalsotruewithrespecttousourselvesandisnototherwise.Forthewordthatisspoken(3N!(/...P1=(@(=.2H/)consistsinthecomposi-tionofwordsandexpressions,andismadeaudible(:.,2>71(-$'"(/)totheoutsideworldbythespokenvoice(:.5...@)"8/>8/C"5=&=(7).Thisworddiscloses(C22,3-1>'.)whatliesinthought,whenourthoughts(:.,"(+,/),asitwere,giveacommandmenttoit[i.e.,thevoice],althoughtheprocessdoesnottakemuchtime.Foratthesametimethemind("(?/)hasunderstoodsomething,italsoentrustsittothevoice.Andthevoice,asitgoesforthtotheoutsideworld,interprets(:.'=$%"'-'.)thosethingslyinginthedepths,thatis,thosethingsinthemind,alteringnothingofwhatwascommandedtoit.Therefore,onemightwellsaytothem[i.e.,theheretics],'Whyisitstrange,Omen,iftheSon,beingtheWordofGodtheFather(thoughnotjustlikeourword,sincethethingsconcerningGodaregreaterthaneveryillustration),shouldinterpretthecounsel(6(73G")oftheonewhobegothim?Fordoesnottheprophetalsosaythatheiscalledbyanamethatismost!tting(1='1):D*>,>(") to him, "Messenger of great counsel" (Is. 9:6)?'

17 lesses humaines ou encore sa pédagogie'. 17 ly coined by Cyril. See ador. XIV (PG 68.936); Jo. 16:17-18 (Pusey, 2.641).

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation13

Father.The'goingforth'inviewhereisprobablynotthesendingoftheSoninincarnateform,sinceinthispassageCyrilisinterpretingtheJohanninetextnotwithreferencetothein-carnation, but with respect to the 'Only-begotten himself'.

18 19

Sheoutlinedthreefunctionsthatthismetaphorperforms:asadescriptionoftheSon'seternalgeneration,asanargumentfortheco-existenceofFatherandSon,andasametaphorfortherevelatoryfunctionoftheWord.Itisthelastwhichisintheforegroundinthispassage,but,asIjustnoted,eternalgenerationseemstobeimplicitinhisargumentaswell,sotheseusesoftheanalogyshouldnotbedistin-guishedtoosharply.Moreover,inthispassageCyrilhighlightstwoimplicationsofthismind-wordanalogythatareworthyofnote.The!rstisthattheprocessofathoughtbeingconceivedandthenexpressedoccursalmostwithoutanylapseoftime.Itisnotentirelyclearwhyhehighlightsthispointinthiscontext.PerhapsthelackoftemporalsuccessionservestofurthergroundtheSon'sagencyasrevealermoresolidlyinthenecessityofthedivinerelations.Ontheotherhand,itmightsimplyreinforcethesecondimplicationIwanttodrawattentionto.Cyrilalsopointsoutthatthevoice,asitisexpressed,doesnotalterthatwhichthemindcom-mandedittosay.Thus,theexpressedwordfaithfullyrevealsthatwhichwaspreviouslycon-cealed in thought.BothoftheseideasareamoretheologicalwayofmakingthesamepointthatCyrilmadepreviouslyinhisexegesisofIsaiah9:6inhisCommentaryonIsaiah,whenhearguedthatthewordsoftheSonarethesameasthewordsoftheFather.Infact,thecitationoftheIsaianicprophecyintheconclusiontothisJohannineexpositionunderscorestheconnectionbetweenthetwopassages.Ashedidpreviously,soalsohereinhisexegesisofJohn12:49-50,Cyrilde-scribesthecontentoftheSon'srevelationwithreferencetotheFather,speci!callycallingithis

18 later in this chapter. 19

picked up the analogy from earlier Christian authors rather than directly from philosophical sources.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation14

&D3%*./('will'),whichseemstobebasicallysynonymouswiththeFather's6(73G('counsel')aboutwhichhespokeinhisexegesisofIsaiah9:6.Furthermore,Cyrilusestheverbs:.'=$%"'-)('interpret')andC22,3-1>)('uncover')todescribetheSon'smission,whereaspreviouslyinhisexpositionofIsaiahhespokeofitasa'revealing'or'illuminating'.Despitethese slight differences, the exegesis remains basically the same.Inaddition,inthispassagehegoesfurtherthaninhisexegesisofIsaiah9:6byspeakingoftheSon'sagencyas'necessary',anddescribingtheSon'stitleastheFather's'mes-senger'a'most!tting'name.Similarly,intheThesaurus,CyrilstatesthattheSon'sdesignationastheFather's'Word'isa'mostappropriatename'(27=.)>5>%"),onethat'especiallydenoteshissubstance(>8/(L*+,/)'.

20 21
22
23

Theapplicationofthetitles'mes-senger'and'Word'totheSonisinkeepingwiththeoverallstorythatScripturetellsoftheSonwhobecamemantorevealtheFather.Moreover,theprinciplesof'!ttingness'or'properiety'displayedinthesepassagesalsoreinforcetheideanotedpreviouslythatCyrilseestheSon'srevelatory mission as grounded in his eternal relation to the Father as the Only-begotten Word.

20

Cyril, thes. XIX (PG 75.313).

21
what is ' tting' (>H 1=D1("), though she notes that it goes all the way back to Aristotle's Poetics. 22

Tryphon II, trop. 3.

23

OnCyril'susageofgrammaticalpractices,seeJ.DavidCassel,CyrilofAlexandriaandtheScienceoftheGram-marians:AStudyintheSetting,Purpose,andEmphasisofCyril'sCommentaryonIsaiah(diss.,UniversityofVirginia,1992),espe-cially163-210;Boulnois,Leparadoxetrinitaire,58-75.Onhisusageofrhetoric,seeWessel,CyrilofAlexandria,183-235.OnCyril'seducation,seeÉvieux,SC372.12-3;Hardy,'TheFurtherEducationofCyrilofAlexandria';Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 4-5.2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation15

The Pen of the Stenographer

SofarIhaveonlyconsideredtwoofthethreeanalogiesthatIsaidIwouldcoverinthissection.Inowwishtolookatapassagethatintroducesthethirdand!nalone - theSonastheFather'spen.Inthepatristictradition,Psalm44(LXX)wasakeytextfordevelopingtheanalo-gyoftheSonastheWordoftheFather,sinceversetwoofthepsalmreads'Myhearteruptedwithagoodword(3N!(");itisIthataddressmyworkstotheking;mytongueisapenofastenographer'.AtleastasearlyasTheophilusofAntiochthepsalmist'smentionofawordcomingforthfromtheheartwasregardedasadescriptionoftheSon'seternalgeneration,al-thoughOrigenrejectedsuchareading,probablyduetohisanti-'Gnostic'oranti-Monarchianconcerns.

24
25
26
24

TheophilusofAntioch,Autol.2.10.6.TheChristologicalusageofPsalm44goesbacktotheNewTesta-mentitself(cf.Heb.1:8-9).JustinMartyrreferredtothepassageatdial.38,butitisnotclearthathehadeternalgenerationinmind.OnOrigen'susage,seeRonaldE.Heine,'OrigenontheChristologicalSigni!canceofPsalm45(44)',Consensus23(1997):21-37.TheexampleshegivesareOrigen,sel.inPs.44:2(PG12.1428);Jo.1.24.151-2.Inaddition,thoughwithoutnotingPsalm44speci!cally,Irenaeusrejectedtheanalogyofamindemittingawordasa!ttingdescriptionofthegenerationoftheWord,presumablybecauseitwasbyhisoppo-nents,andalsobecauseitimpliedaspatialseparationbetweenGodandhisWord(haer.2.13.8;cf.Barnes,'Ire-naeus's Trinitarian Theology', 81-5

25
their exegesis of this verse in more detail in the following chapter. 26

Forthisreason,moststudiesofCyril'sexegesis,suchastheclassicworkbyAlexanderKerrigan(cf.St.Cyril2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation16

presentsthesameinterpretationofthe'hearteruptingagoodword'inhisThesaurus,Dialoguesonthe Trinity, and Commentary on the Twelve Prophets.

27

Afterpointing!rsttotheSon'seternalgenerationfromtheFather,CyrilpressesontomakeafurtherpointabouttheSon'sroleastherevealeroftheFather,relyingonthesecondhalf of the verse. He interprets the line, 'my tongue is a pen of a stenographer', by writing,

tary is needed, but the task will undoubtedly be a very dif cult and complex undertaking.

AccordingtoRondeau,LescommentairespatristiquesduPsautier,1.134,inCyril'sexegesisofthepsalter,'l'éru-dition,philologiqueouhistorique,neretientguère,nonplusquelesdéveloppementsmorauxoulesspéculationssurlaviespirituelle.Toutl'accentestmissurlathéologie'.ThisassessmentseemslikeanaccuratedescriptionofwhatweseeCyrildoingherewithPsalm44,andwilllaterseewithrespecttoPsalm22(seebelow,pp.140-154).ForstudiesofCyril'spsalterexegesis,seeM.A.Rossi,'OsservazionisulCommentoaiSalmidiCirilloeditodaAn-geloMai',Orpheus4(1983):116-124;ibid.,'Ancorasul'CommentoaiSalmi'diCirillo.ApropositodiunrecentelavorosuicommentaripatristicialSalterio',Annalidistoriedell'esegesi1(1984):45-51;E.Hirschauer,'L'exégèsecyrillienne du Psaume 94', VetC 41 (2004): 83-106, 313-339.

27

analogy of 'belching' (C='-!($,.) to describe the Son's relation to the Father at Jo. 1:2 (Pusey, 1.54).

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation17

penoftheFatherisexceedinglyfast(XFY/).For,ontheonehand,thelawwhichwasthroughMoseshintsatwhatisbene!cialinanobscureanddif!cultmanner,inlong,round-aboutwaysofspeaking,andwithmuchdif!culty,Imeanthatwhichwasaccordingtotheletter.Butontheotherhand,theSaviorandLordofall,withoutanycircumlocution,reveals(01'25374'")thewill(&D3%$,)oftheFatherconcisely,asIsaid.Forheis'themessengerofgreatcounsel' (Is. 9:6).

28
29

ThenotionoftheSonastheFather's'own'tonguereceivesonlyabriefexplanationandfunctionsinbasicallythesamewayasthemind-wordanalogy:astheFather's'tongue',theSonexpresseswhatisinhim. Thesecondmetaphorintheverse,theSonasthepenoftheFather,capturesCyril'sin-terestmuchmorethanthe!rst,and,althoughitsupportsthesamebasicpointabouttheSonwhorevealstheFather,italsoaddsthreefeaturestothepictureIhavesketchedthusfar.First,heusestheanalogytocontrasttheSon'srevelationinhisincarnatestatewiththatgiventhroughMoses,anddistinguishesthetwoonthebasisoftheclarityoftherevelation.Itisno-tablethatinbothcasesCyrilregardstheSonastheagentbringingdivinerevelation,andheimpliesthatthecontentofthemessageisthesameinbothinstances.Wewillrevisitthesethemesinchapterfour.Second,hede!nesthelocusoftheSon'srevelatorywork,whereaspre-viouslythiswasunstated.Cyrilwritesthatitisperformedinthe'heartsofthosewhobelieve',andaddstheadverb"(%>B/tofurtherspecifythatitisanactofrevelationoccurringinthein-nerperson.Finally,thewilloftheFatherisheregivengreaterspeci!city.Asintheprevious

28

Trinitarian operations.

29

Psalm44:2speaksofnotjustatypicalscribe,butanUF7!=5@(/,meaningsomesortofshorthandscribeorstenographer.AsarchbishopofAlexandria,Cyrilwouldpresumablyhavehadsuchscribesinhisemploy.AccordingtoSeverusibnal-Muqaffa',hist.1.12(PO1.431),the'principalinhabitantsofAlexandriaappointedcopyiststotranscribeforthem'Cyril'sdiscoursesandhomilies.Onshorthandwritersinlateantiquity,seeH.C.Teitler,NotariiandExceptores:AnInquiryIntoRoleandSigni!canceofShorthandWritersintheImperialandEcclesiasticalBureaucracyoftheRomanEmpire(FromtheEarlyPrincipatetoc.450A.D.),Dutchmonographsonancienthistoryandarchaeology1(Amsterdam: J.C. Geiben, Publisher, 1985).

On the term UF7!=5@(/, see especially pages 22-3, 226.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation18

30
31
32
30

Cyril, schol. inc. XXVII (ACO 1.5, 205-6).

31
Cyril, thes. VIII; XV; XXI (PG 75.105, 257, 260, 261, 360). Cf. Cyril, Jo. 8:29 (Pusey, 2.47). 32

364). In chapter four I will return to consider in more detail the last passage from his Commentary on Hebrews.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation19

33

Isaiah9:6doesnotmentiontheFatherexplicitly,sohemustbeimportingthisnuancefromelsewhere,most likely from the Johannine passages that speak of the Son revealing the Father.Moreover,Cyril'stendencytoconnecttheSon'srevelationtotheFather'swillislikelyalsoduetohistheologyofeternalgeneration.Itisnoteworthythathedevelopsboththeanalo-giesofawordspringingfromamindandofascribe'spenincontextsinwhichhealsodis-cussestheSon'seternalgeneration.BoulnoisarguedthatCyril'sthoughtrevealsadeepcorre-spondencebetweentheintra-TrinitarianrelationsandthemissionsoftheSonandSpirit.

34
35
36
33
the incarnation. 34

Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire, 511.

35
can be distinguished but not separated. 36

68.144), and I will discuss it in the

nal section of this chapter.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation20

consideredseveralmorepassages,IwillreturntoconsideroncemoreCyril'sunderstandingofthe relationship between the intra-Trinitarian relations and the economy of salvation.EarlierauthorsinthepatristictraditionhadofferedinterpretationsofIsaiah9:6thatre-semblethatofCyril.BoulnoisnotedthatJustinMartyrandIrenaeuswereprecedents,andwecanaddtothesetwoahandfulofotherauthorswhospeci!callyconnectedthetitle'messengerofgreatcounsel'withtherevelationoftheFather'swill,includingHippolytus,Origen,andEusebiusofCaesareainthepre-Niceneperiod,andinthepost-NiceneperiodAthanasius,BasilofCaesarea,andGregoryNazianzus.

37
38
39
37
as a title for the Son drops out of use shortly after the time of Justin. 38

220, 252, 334; SC 85.922).

39

Jerome,Is.9:6(CCSL73.125-7).ThefactthatbothCyrilandJeromegiveJohn14:27asacross-refer-enceintheirexpositionofIsaiah9:6couldbeevidencethattheAlexandrianarchbishopreliedtosomedegreeupontheLatinexegeteinthisinstance.The'parallels'betweentheexegesisoftheprophetsbyCyrilandJeromewere!rstpointedoutinF.M.Abel,'ParallélismeexégétiqueentreS.JérômeetS.Cyrilled'Alexandrie',VivreetPenser1esérie(1941):94-119,212-230.HehighlightedtherelationshipbetweenTheophilusandJeromeasbe-ingthepossiblesourceofJerome'sworksbeinginAlexandriaandavailabletoCyril.Moreover,Jerome'sfriendsandagentscametoAlexandriainordertoembarkforEurope,sohisworkscertainlywerenotunknowninthecity(p.96-7).InhisstudyofCyril'sOldTestamentexegesis,AlexanderKerriganalsoconcludedthat'Cyrilcon-sultedJeromefrequently'.SeehisdiscussionatKerrigan,St.CyrilofAlexandria,435-439.SeefurtherM.C.Pennac-chio,''Quasiursaraptiscatulis':Os13,8nell'esegesidiGerolamoeCirillodiAlessandria',VetC32(1995):143-161.2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation21

signsofapro-NiceneemphasisontheSon'seternalgeneration,butwecannotunderstandthisthemeinhistheologyuntilwelookmorecloselyatitsplaceinhispro-Nicenethought,speci!cally within the context of his understanding of inseparable operations. THE INSEPARABLE OPERATION OF THE UNDIVIDED TRINITYInthe!rstsectionofthischapterIhavearguedthat,forCyrilofAlexandria,theSonofGodactsastheagentofdivinerevelation.InowwanttoarguethatweunderstandthisideamoredeeplywhenwelookatitagainstthebackgroundofCyril'sownpro-Nicenetheology.Thespeci!cfeatureofCyril'spro-Nicenethoughtthatconcernsushereishisadherencetotheprincipleofinseparableoperations.Heholdsthat,asaconsequenceoftheone,undivideddi-vinenatureandthemutualindwellingofthethreehypostases,Father,Son,andSpiritareneces-sarilyimplicatedineverydivineact.IintendtodemonstrateCyril'sadherencetothisprinciplethroughaconsiderationoftwoimportantpassagesfromhiscorpus.Inthe!rst,drawnfromhisDialoguesontheTrinity,hearguesthatdivineoperationsarecommontoeachofthedivinethree,andinthesecond,drawnfromhisFiveTomesagainstNestorius,hearguesthattheunityofdivineoperationscannotbedescribedasthemerecooperationofFather,Son,andSpirittoachievesomeoverallgoal.Rather,everyactoftheFathernecessarilyinvolvestheSonandSpir-it, and the same principle holds true for acts attributed either to the Son or Spirit. Scholarshiponthefourthcenturyhasdemonstratedthattheprincipleofinseparableoperationshadwide-spreadsupportandwasawellestablishedfeatureofthepro-Nicenecon-sensus.

40
41
40
cal culture. 41

On divine simplicity in the fourth century, see

Radde-Gallwitz, Divine Simplicity.2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation22

42
43
44

ForGregory,asforotherpro-Nicenes,allthreedivinepersonsmustbein-volved in every divine operation if the divine unity is to be maintained.Cyrilwaswellversedinpro-Nicenetextsandthetheologicalculturethattheyinturnformed,andsoitisnotsurprisingto!ndhisclearaf!rmationofinseparableoperations.

45
42

Augustine, serm. 52.8 (CCSL 41Aa.64).

43

For an analysis of these two texts, see

Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 344-63, 372-4.

44

vine monarchy is 'held together' by, among other things, its 'identity of movement' (>,L>N>%/ 2."G*')/).

45

ForanoverviewofCyril'stheologyofinseparableoperations,seeBoulnois,Leparadoxetrinitaire,280-6.Weigl,DieHeilslehre,22-3,brie"ynotestheinseparabilityofTrinitarianoperations:'SiehtmanaufdieArtundWeisederWirksamkeitGottesnachaußen,sogiltderSatz,daßdieselbeallendreiPersonengemeinsamsei'.SoalsoJosephMahé,'Lasancti!cationd'aprèsSaintCyrilled'Alexandrie',RHE10(1909):476-7.Farag,St.CyrilofAlexandria,86-96,commentsuponTrinitarianagency,butherdiscussionisunclear.Ontheonehand,shesumma-rizesCyrilassayingthat'wedividetheactivityofcreationamongthethreepersons',andshesuggests,'CyrildidconsiderthateachpersonoftheTrinitycouldhaveaseparateactivitywhendealingwithhumanity'(p.90).More-over,sheevensuggeststhatFather,Son,andSpiritmaybedistinguishedfromoneanotheronthebasisoftheiracts:'[Cyril]explainedthedifferentactivityofeachpersonoftheTrinitytosignifytheseparateproperty'(p.78-9,n.238).However,ontheotherhand,shesays,'allworkisaccomplishedbythewholeofthedivinena-ture',and'anyactivityattributedtoGodortoanypersonoftheTrinityisinrealitythejointactivityofallthreepersons'(p.91-2).Moreover,twopageslatershesuggeststhatthereisnodivisionofactivityinCyril'sthought,althoughthereisavaried'intellectualrecognition'of'divergentactivities'(p.94).Inlightoftheseseeminglycon-tradictorystatements,itisnotclearwhetherornotsheinterpretsCyrilasholdingtoanotionofinseparableoper-ations.Attheveryleast,aswillbecomeclearinthefollowingtwosectionsofthischapter,Isuggestthatsayingthehypostaseshave'separateactivities',orspeakingof'dividingtheactivity'failstocaptureCyril'sunderstandingofTrinitarianagency,andprobablyimpliesexactlytheoppositeofwhathehasinmind.Perhapsthisapparentcon-fusionhasresultedfromamistranslationintheVictorianEnglisheditionofCyril'sCommentaryontheGospelofJohn.ThepassagetowhichFaragrefersisthearchbishop'sexegesisofJohn15:1,whereT.Randelltranslated,'Andifwemustapportionthegiftswhicharebestoweduponus,orthoseactivitieswhichTheydisplayaboutcreation,toeachpersonoftheTrinityseparately...',alinewhichimpliesthatCyrilhimselfactuallywasinfavorofdividingdivineactivities(CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoS.John,LFC48(London:WalterSmith,1885),365;emphasis2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation23

46

TheclearerandmorerobuststatementsaboutinseparableoperationsseemtocomefromhislaterworkssuchastheDialoguesontheTrinityandtheCommentaryontheGospelofJohn.Ofcourse,comparativesi-lenceaboutacertainpointdoesnotnecessarilyimplyachangeinanauthor'sunderstanding,butwecanatleastsaythatinseparableoperationsbecomesmoreprominentinhislaterwrit-ings.HencethetwopassagesIwillconsiderbelowcomefromhisDialoguesontheTrinity,com-posed probably sometime in the early 420s, and his Five Tomes against Nestorius, written in 430.

Everything Belongs to All Three

47
48
viding the activities', as Farag suggests. 46
trine of inseparable operations than the passages that Boulnois cites. 47

Cyril, dial. Trin. VII (631b) (SC 246.140).

48
For what follows, see Cyril, dial. Trin. VII (640e-642d) (SC 246.170-4).

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation24

49
49
lates to his argument. See his similar exegesis in Jo. 14:23 (Pusey, 2.496-500).

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation25

Isaiah6andassertsthatIsaiahsaidthesethings'whenhesawhis[i.e.,theSon's]gloryandspokeabouthim'.HeroundsoffthispartofhisargumentbyquotingStephen'sdenunciationoftheJewishleadersinActs7:51,sincethispassagearguesthattheJews'alwaysresisttheHolySpirit'.Thus,althoughIsaiah6presentssimply'theLord'asthesubjectspeakingthesewords,John12:41saystheywerespokenwithreferencetotheSon,andActs7:51bringstheSpiritintothepicturebypresentinghimastheobjectofthepeople'sresistanceforetoldinthepassage. Informinghisargumentthus,CyrilistakinghiscuesfromtheintertextualityofScrip-tureitself,payingcloseattentiontothewaylaterpassagestreatearliertexts,andheexploitsScripture'sintertextualitytomakeaspeci!callypro-Nicenepoint.Heconcludeshisargumentby asking rhetorically,

Isitnotnowclearthatbythedifference(\>'=N>%>.)accordingtoindividualhypostasis(2,&'c1N*>,*."I:.2Q")wecandistinguishverywellwhatistheFather,andalsowhatistheSon,andalsowhatistheSpirit?Bytheircomingto-getherinaunityofnature(1=H/\"N>%>,@7*.2G"),everythingbelongstoallthree,whetherpresence,words,participation,operation,glory,andwhatevergives to the divine nature its beauty.

50

Cyrilherestatesinsummaryfashionthepro-Niceneposition.Father,Son,andSpiritaredis-tinctaccordingtotheirhypostases,buttheirunityofnature(@-*./)meansthatthethreecannotsimplybedistinguishedonthebasisofadifferenceingloryorexternalaction.Onthecon-trary,whateverattributesmakethedivinenaturetobedivinearetrueofallthreeequally,andwhateverdivineactionsareperformedonbehalfofhumanity,suchasdivineindwelling,in-volveallthree.ThefactthatintheargumentleadinguptothissummarystatementCyrilcitesexamplesofactsperformedbyoneoranotherofthedivinethreeindicatesthatherehehasinmindtheinseparabilityofTrinitarianoperations,ratherthanmerelytheequalityofdivineglo-ry.EventhedivinewordsthatarespokentohumanityinScripturemaybeattributedvariouslyto each of the divine three by virtue of their natural unity.

50
de Durand, SC 231.73.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation26

Inseparable Operation, not Cooperation

51
52
53
51

TheContraNestoriumconsistsofaseriesofquotationsfromNestoriusfollowedbyrefutationsfromCyril.Theextractsfromthe!rsttwobooksoftheworkareidenticaltotheContraNestoriumbyTheodotusofAncyra,aworkthatremainsunpublished,existinginaSyriacmanuscriptintheBritishLibrary.SeeA.vanRoey,'Le"o-rilègenestoriendel'AdversusNestoriumdeCyrilled'AlexandrieetdutraitécontreNestoriusdeThéodoted'Ancyre',in Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, ed. Franz Paschke, TU 125 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981).

52
Boulnois, Le paradoxe trinitaire, 423-4, 486, 487-8, 510-1. 53

Thisaspectofthecon"icthasnotreceivedmuchattention,althoughseetherecentdiscussioninGre-goryK.Hillis,"TheNaturalLikenessoftheSon":CyrilofAlexandria'sPneumatology(diss.,McMasterUniversity,2008),51-80,91-9.HesurveyssomeofthematerialinContraNestoriumIVthatIamlookingathere,andIambroadlyinagreementwithhispresentation,althoughIwouldtakeissuewithsomeofhissummarystatements.Forexample,hesaysCyrilheldthat'theSpirit'soperationinthelifeandworkofChristmustbeprimarilyascribedtotheWord'(p.63).SuchastatementimpliesthattheSpirithasnorealagencyatall,andismerelyapassiveinstrumentusedbytheSon.AsIwillarguehere,Cyrilaf!rmstheagencyoftheSpirit,buthecannotconceiveoftheSpirit'sagencyasthoughitwereinsomewaydisconnectedfromtheoperationofFatherandSon.Tosay,asHillisdoes,thatforCyrilthe'theWordistheprimaryagentoftheSpirit'sintervention'inhumanaffairs(p.66)doesindeedsuggestthattheSpirithasnorealagency,andHillisissomewhatcriticalofCyrilonthisverypoint,notingthatheleaveshimselfopentothischargeasaresultofhis'pneumatologicalambiguity'(p.69,78,126).Onthecontrary,IsuggestthatinthispassageCyrilisnotambiguousregardingtheSpirit'srole,andinsteadisbuildinguponstandardpro-Nicenethought.WhatHillisdoesnotcommentupon,andsodoesnottakeintoaccount,isthatintheContraNestoriumCyriltakesthedebatefromthechristologicaltotheTrinitarianrealmbyfocusinguponthedoctrineofinseparableoperations.EssentiallyCyrilisattemptingtoarguethatpro-NiceneTrinitarianismneces-sarilyentailsacertainunderstandingoftheSpirit'soperationinthelifeofChrist,andNestorius'viewfallsafoulofthiscommonheritagefromthefourthcentury.OnthisaspectoftheNestoriancontroversy,seealsoDuManoir,Dogmeetspiritualité,224-7;McKinion,Words,Imagery,andtheMysteryofChrist,146-7;HansvanLoon,TheDyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, VCSup 96 (Boston: Brill, 2009), 360-2.2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation27

'I*2'2=.$D")/ 54
55

Asevidenceforthisaccusation,CyrilprovidesapassagefromNestoriusinwhichheclaimsNestoriusthinksheisprovingthatTrinityisequalinoperationinallthings(I*(7=!H"'I/ m1,">,). Nestorius writes,

56
Cyrilfollowsthispassageimmediatelywithanother,similaronefromNestoriusabouttheapostles, which reads,

TheSonchosethem(forhesays,'Ihavechosenyou'(John15:16,19)),theFathersancti!edthem(forhesays,'Father,sanctifytheminyourtruth'(John17:17)), and the Spirit established them as orators.

57
54

Cyril is the

rst to use the adverb 'I*2'2=.$D")/. 55
derstanding of the Spirit's agency in the ministry of Jesus. 56

InadditiontobeingincludedinNest.IV.1-2(ACO1.1.6,76),seethisfragmentandthefollowingoneinFriedrichLoofs,GeorgKampffmeyerandStanleyArthurCook,eds.,Nestoriana:DieFragmentedesNestorius(Halle:Niemeyer, 1905), 226-7.

57

P>.(?" C"D=!'.5 >' 2,E 6(-3%*./.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation28

outorbywayofaddition'((L2lF)&'"(L:e'I*1(+%>("),asdohumans,butratherthatheworks 'through his own Spirit' (I:+). . . . 2'V=%$D"(/ >B. 1"'-$,>.).

58
59

Inotherwords,noneofthethreeworkindividually,buteachpersonisin-trinsictotheoperationofeachoftheothertwointhecreationoftheworldandinthemira-cles performed by Jesus.InordertofurtherdemonstrateNestorius'Trinitarianerror,Cyrilquotesanotherpas-sage from him which reads,

Andtheproofofthecooperation(*7"'=!+,/)isclear.TheSonbecameman,the Father commended him, and the Spirit honored him with signs.

60
58

Cyril, Nest. IV.1 (ACO 1.1.6, 77).

59
rably (ep. Serap. 1.31.3). 60
without any surrounding context that might shed light on its meaning.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation29

61
62
63
64
65
61

Cyril, Nest. IV.2 (ACO 1.1.6, 80).

62
out the nal quotation from the Gospel of Mark that is included in Loofs' edition. 63

Nestorius, serm. 2 (Loofs, 226).

64

Nestorius,serm.2(Loofs,226):(LVf/>8/$._/$'=.A($D"%/&'N>%>(/,033;>8/&'+,/!=,@8/>;>8/$._/I*V-(/2,E2,&'\25*>%"$'=.A($D"%/c1N*>,*."'I/01N:'.F.">(?>8/>=.5:(/P$(+(7.2,+$(.*2N1'.>Hk$(.("C2>B"C"l=!(./2,.=B"0=F5$'"(".ThisfragmentwasalsoquotedinthesynodicaldepositionofNestorius(ACO1.1.2,49),andisgiventhetitle'AgainsttheHeretics'.The'heretics'inviewaresomesortof'Arians'whopresumetomaketheSpirita'slave'.SeealsoCyril,Nest.IV.3(ACO1.1.6,81),whereCyrilquotesanotherpassageofNestoriusinwhichheopposesthosewhomaketheSpirit'theslaveofChrist'.CyrilintroducesthefragmentbynotingthatNestoriusisspeakingagainstsomewhothinklikeArius.PaceHillis,CyrilofAlexandria'sPneumatology, 63-4, 69

, who thinks that in these passages Nestorius is opposing Cyril. 65
trinitaire de Nestorius ne présente rien de bien remarquable'.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation30

Father'soperation.TheSonisthe'counselandwisdomandmight'oftheFather,andassuch,theFathercannotbutworkthroughtheSontoaccomplishallthings.Theproperwayofspeakingaboutthesedivineactionsisrathertosaythatthechoosingofthedisciples,theirsancti!cation,andtheirbeingmadeoratorsoccurred'fromoutoftheonedivinity,thatis,from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit'.

66

TheholyTrinityperformsanidenticaloperation(>,7>('"'=!'p)andwhatevertheFathershoulddoorwishtoperform,thesethingstheSonalsodoesinanequalmanner,andsimilarlyalsotheSpirit.Buttogivetheoperations(C"'=!'+,/)insuccessiontoeachofthehypostasesindividually(I:.2B/)isnothingotherthantosetforthsuccessivelythreegodscompletelydistinctfromone another.

67

Cyrilfurthergroundsthisprincipleofinseparableoperationsinthefactthatthereisa'naturalunity'(>8/@7*.28/\"N>%>(/)intheTrinity,asaresultofwhichthereis'onemotion'($+,"...2+"%*.")toeverythingthattheTrinityaccomplishes.Therefore,wheneveroneofthehy-postases is moved to act, the other two inevitably are also. CyrilmightormightnothavebeencorrectlyreadingNestorius'understandingofTrinitarianoperations,butitisclearthattheAlexandriandoesnotthinkamerenotionof'co-operation'(*7"'=!+,)candojusticetotheunityofthethreeintheonedivinenature.

68
66
Cyril, Nest. IV.2 (ACO 1.1.6, 80). f/ C2 $._/ :%3("N>. &'N>%>(/, 1,=; 1,>=H/ :.' 7h(? C" 1"'-$,>.. 67
notes it as Nest. I.4, rather than IV.1. 68
consubstantial, then believers have 'two gods' dwelling within them.

2. The Son as Word and Will of the Father: A Trinitarian Theology of Revelation31

69

Inaddition,heelse-wherecoinedtheadjective>,L>(*&'"G/('identicalinpower')toarguemuchthesamething,that there is in the Trinity an operation identical in power (>,L>(*&'"8 >Q" C"D=!'.,").

70
71
72
73
74
69
Cyril, Jo. 6:27; 8:29 (Pusey, 1.447; 2.54); dial. Trin. VI (622b) (SC 246.114). 70

552e; 553e; 596b; 603d) (SC 231.280; SC 237.30, 98, 216, 284, 286; SC 246.36, 60); Rom. 6:5 (Pusey, 190-1).

71

Gregory Nazianzus, or. 29.2 (SC 250.178).

72

Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. I.396 (GNO 1.142).

73
>8/ &'t28/ @-*')/ 2,E C"'=!'+,/. 74
Basil, Spir. 25.59 (SC 17.222). Cf. ps.-Athanasius, dial. Trin. II (Pquotesdbs_dbs25.pdfusesText_31

[PDF] Bad Kinzau 3.0 - OMSI

[PDF] Bad Sachsa - Walkenried

[PDF] bad säckingen: 25 jahre zahnarztpraxis dr. nikolaus– ANZEIGE –

[PDF] Bad Salzig

[PDF] Bad Schandau 2016.pages

[PDF] bad schwartau - LN

[PDF] Bad Schwartau ist keine Marmelade

[PDF] Bad Soden 16.00 Hl. Messe in poln. Sprache 17.30

[PDF] Bad Soden mit Rhein- und Ahrtal Barockstadt Fulda

[PDF] Bad System config info - mega

[PDF] BAD THINGS ~ Bill Goodlad - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] Bad Urach | Metzingen

[PDF] Bad Vilbel und Karben setzen auf Zusammenarbeit

[PDF] Bad Waldsee

[PDF] BAD WALDSEE / AULENDORF