|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by P. E. Pusey
St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print
|
44 Pages
Page 5
B. The Divine Paul writes (they say) of the Son as having BEEN MADE both curse and sin [3]: for he says, Him that knew not sin He made for our sakes sin, and again, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, MADE for our sakes a curse. They say that He was not MADE actual curse and sin, but the holy Scripture is indicating hereby something else: thus they say that And the Word WAS MADE flesh is conceived of by us.
A. And verily as in saying that He WAS MADE a curse and sin, so this that He WAS MADE flesh introduces with it and has in its horizon the conception of what follows thereupon.
B. How say you? for when one says of Him, He that knows not sin has BEEN MADE sin for us, and has bought from the curse of the law also them who were under the law, MADE for their sakes a curse, how should one doubt that this is in the times wherein the Only-Begotten was Incarnate and MADE man?
A. It introduces therefore with the mention of the Incarnation the things too that on account thereof are economically brought upon Him Who underwent the voluntary emptying, as are hunger and weariness. For as He would not have been wearied Whose is all might, neither would He have been said to hunger, Himself the Food and life of all, had He not made His own the body whose nature it is to hunger and be weary [4]: so neither would He ever have been numbered among transgressors (for thus do we say that He WAS MADE sin [5]), He would not have been MADE a curse, enduring the cross for our sakes, had He not been MADE flesh, i. e., been Incarnate and made man, enduring generation like ours in human wise, that I mean through the holy Virgin.
B. I assent, for you deem aright.
A. It is without understanding another respects too to think and to say that the Word was in such sort MADE flesh as He WAS MADE a curse and sin.
B. What way do you mean?
A. Was He not accursed that He might undo the curse and did not the Father make Him sin that He might end sin?
B. Thus do they too say.
A. Therefore if it is true, as it is understood by them to mean rightly, that the Word has in such sort been MADE flesh, as He has been MADE both curse and sin; i. e. to the destruction of the flesh; how will He render it incorruptible and indestructible, as having achieved this in His own Flesh first? for He did not leave it to remain mortal and under decay, Adam transmitting to us the punishment for the transgression, but rather as the flesh of the uncorruptible God, Own and His, rendered it superior to death and to decay.
B. You say well.
A. The sacred Scripture somewhere says, that the first man, i. e. Adam, WAS MADE a living soul. Him that was after, i. e. Christ, a quickening spirit. Do we then say that as for the destruction of curse and sin He was MADE curse and sin, so that for the overthrow of being a living soul was He MADE a quickening spirit? for they twisting into what is incongruous the force of MADE, say that He was in such wise MADE flesh, as He was made both curse and sin. We must therefore take away the Incarnation, or being made man, of the Word. Which when it is received as a verity, gone is the whole plan of the Mystery; neither was Christ born, nor died, nor raised, according to the Scriptures. Where therefore is the Faith, the word of faith which we preach? for how did God raise Him from the dead except He also died? how died He except He was born after the flesh? where too is the living again of the dead, bringing in for the saints a hope of the undying life, except Christ have been raised? where too the quickening of our human bodies, which is wrought by the participation of His holy Flesh and Blood?
3. [c] Although (as said above p. 24 note q) Andrew's chief objection to S. Cyril's flrst chapter lay in misunderstanding S. Cyril's term, "She hath borne after the flesh," applied to the second Generation, viz. the temporal one, of God the Son, still he very briefly touches on, what was Theodoret's main objection, the risk of Apolinarianism. Andrew closes his objection with these words, "Besides, if we apply ourselves to the words without examination, we shall be imagining both a change of the Word and a passing into flesh, and thus we shall suppose that He has been made both sin and curse, except we give heed to what precedes and follows and to the usage of the Scripture. Moreover that the Word was made flesh, we shall duly take of the tabernacling in flesh, according to the sense of the Gospels."
S. Cyril replies, "Seeing that, on the Evangelist saying, The Word was made flesh, they say that they are afraid lest, the word was made retaining its proper meaning, some change be conceived of as taking place regarding the Divine Nature of the Word; I applaud their fear, but marvel that drawing aside the word and its true and necessary meaning, they say that the Word was so made flesh, as He may be said to be made curse and sin. How ought they not, being men of sense, to have seen, that the blessed Evangelist having put, Was made, removes all suspicion of any change, by subjoining immediately, And tabernacled in us?
"In another way too it is absurd to venture to say, that the Word was so made flesh, as He is said to have been made curse and sin (for He has not been made curse's very self, nor yet sin), but being Righteous He was reckoned among the transgressors, in order to bring sin to nought: and He Who blesseth the creation has been called a curse, in order to undo our curse and rid from sentence them that believe on Him. Hence He has not been made of a truth curse and sin but has been called so, to bring to nought curse and sin.
"Hence if He have thus been made flesh, He hath brought to nought the flesh, just as He hath curse and sin, and hath neither been made man nor been in truth incarnate: but in mere semblance is the mystery and in bare names is the plan of the Incarnation seen." p. 159 c d and 161 d e 162 a.
4. [d] See S. Athanasius against the Arians iii. § 30-35 pp. 442-450 O.T.
5. [e] Elsewhere S. Cyril says, "For Christ was made for us sin, as it is written. And surely not guilty of sin (for we are not wont so to wander in mind) seeing that He had no knowledge of transgression, being God by Nature and beaming forth of God the Father. But because He has been made a sacrifice for sin (for Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us), therefore do we say that He was made sin also." Glaph. 349 c. And in commenting upon Hosea iv. 8, They eat the sin of My people, S. Cyril says, "A kid therefore of the goats was wont to be sacrificed for sin, wherefore the sacrifice itself was also called sin." in xii Proph. 71 b. But the two explanations of being made sin may be but two aspects of what the Holy Ghost tells us in tnese words.
S. Athanasius says, "For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God: and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so &c." Agst Arians. ii. 55 fin. p. 359 O.T. Similarly S. Cyril, " As therefore He is said to have been infirm though not infirm (for He is the Power of God), because He bare our infirmities, and the Divine Scripture says that He has been made a curse, not meaning that He has been actually transmade into a curse, but that He bare the curse for us, and again He is said to have been made sin, not as forgetful of His own Nature nor passing into sin Who knew it not, but because He took on Him our sins, as it is written, in His body on the Tree, so" &c. Thes. cap. 15 p. 162 e, see also cap. 32 p. 276 e.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/christ-one.asp?pg=5
