St Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Luke (First Part)

Translated by R. Payne Smith

St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print

This Part: 128 Pages

Page 115

And this too we ought to observe: that in Matthew's account we find that the blessed disciple said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God:" but the wise Luke, summing up so to speak the purport, agrees with him in the thoughts, but using fewer words, tells us that he said, "The Christ of God." Moreover no mention is here made of that which the Saviour spake to him: but in Matthew again we find that He said to Him plainly: "Blessed art thou, Simeon, son of Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father in heaven." The disciple therefore was verily taught of God; nor did he make this profession of faith for us of his own thoughts merely, but because the divine light shone upon his understanding, and the Father led him to a correct knowledge of the mystery of Christ. What therefore do those mistaken innovators [2] say to this, who unwarrantably pervert the great and adorable mystery of the incarnation of the Only Begotten, and fall from the right way, walking in the path of crookedness? For the wise Peter acknowledged one Christ: while they sever that One into two, in opposition to the doctrines of truth. 'But yes, he replies, the disciple acknowledged one Christ; and so do we also affirm that there is one Christ, by Whom we mean the Son, even the Word that, is from God the Father [3].' To this then what do we reply? Is it not plain then, we say, to every one, that Christ asks the holy apostles, not, Whom do men say that the Word of God is? but, who "the Son of man is?" and that it was of Him that Peter confessed, that He is "the Christ of God?" Let them also explain this to us: How is Peter's confession worthy of admiration, if it contain nothing profound and hidden, and, so to speak, not apparent to the generality? For what verily did God the Father reveal to him? That the Son of man is a man? Is this the God-taught mystery? Is it for this that he is admired, and deemed worthy of such surpassing honours? For thus he was addressed, "Blessed art thou, Simeon, son of Jonah."

The reason, however, for which he was thus admired is a very just one; for it was because he believed that He Whom he saw as one of us, that is, in our likeness, was the Son of God the Father, the Word, namely, That sprang forth from His substance, and became flesh, and was made man. See here, I pray, the profundity of the thoughts, the importance of the confession, the high and weighty mystery. For He Who was there in the likeness of mankind, and as a portion of creation, was God, Who transcends all created things! He Who dwells in the high and lofty place was abased from His glory to be in poverty like unto us! And He Who, as God, is Lord of all, and King of all, was in the likeness of a slave, and in the measure of a slave! This is the faith the Saviour crowns; to those thus minded He extends His bountiful right hand. For when He had praised Peter, and said that he was taught of God, as one who had obtained the revelation from above, from God the Father, He makes him more assured and more abundantly confirmed in the faith he had professed concerning Him, by saying: "And I say unto thee, that thou art a stone; and upon this stone I will build My church: and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

2. [e] The Nestorians.

3. [f] These words contain the supposed defence of Nestorius, confining the appellation "Christ" to the divine Person, the Word, and denying it to the human person, the "Son of man," or "Son of David." But they require some modification: for Nestorius did not confine the appellation, Christ, to the divine Person, but said that it was a title common to both. So in his letter to Cyril, Harduin's Conc. I. 1278, having quoted the words of the Creed, "We believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, His only-begotten Son," he says, 'Observe, I pray, how, having laid down as foundations the terms Lord, Jesus, Christ, Only-begotten, and Son, as common both to the Godhead and the manhood, they proceed to build upon them the tradition of the Incarnation, and the Passion, and the Resurrection.' And soon afterwards commenting upon Phil. ii. 5, he says, 'St. Paul being about to speak of the Passion, that no one may imagine God the Word to be capable of suffering, uses the term Christ, as significative of the Substance incapable of suffering and of that capable of suffering in a single person.' So again he does not object to the title of Χπιστοτόκος being applied to the Virgin; οὐ φθονῶ τῆς φωνῆς τῇ Χριστοτόκῳ παρθένῳ: Quat. xxi. p. 1412. What he denied was that there was any such union of the two natures in our Lord as for the Virgin to be correctly called Θεοτόκος, or for it to be orthodox to affirm the divinity of our Lord considered as the Son of man. Thus in Quat. xvi, p. 1415, he says, 'Because God was present in that which was assumed, viz., human nature, that which was assumed, as being joined with That Which assumed it, is also called God, because of the Assumer.' Ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τῷ ληφθέντι Θεὸς, ἐκ τοῦ λαβόντος ὁ ληφθεὶς, ὡς τῷ λαβόντι συναφθεὶς, συγχρηματίζει Θεός. But in this very quaternion he says that Christ is a title applicable to either nature: 'The appellation Christ, like that of Son, and Lord, as used in the Scriptures of the Only-Begotten, expresses the two natures, signifying at one time the Godhead, at another the manhood, and at another both together.' Nevertheless he affirmed that these titles were used differently of the two natures: for while they belonged to the divinity absolutely, they belonged to the manhood only κατὰ συνάφειαν, by conjunction: for the two natures were not united but coupled, each energizing separately and apart. And this συνάφεια was the very keystone of his doctrine, so that he well said in Quat. xv. ἀσύγχυτον τὴν τῶν φύσεων τηρῶμεν συνάφειαν. In Cyril's answer to his letter preserved in Harduin I. 1286, we have a most temperate and exact statement of the doctrine sanctioned by the council of Ephesus, and confirmed subsequently at Chalcedon; 'Confessing that the Word was substantially united----ἡνῶσθαι not συνῆφθαι----to the flesh, we worship one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, not putting them apart and distinguishing between man and God, nor regarding them as joined to one another by oneness of dignity and command: nor again giving the name of Christ in one special sense to the Word of God, and in another special sense to the seed of the woman: but acknowledging one Christ only, even the Word of God the Father, with the flesh which He made His own." This last quotation shews with what, modification we are to take the less exact statement in the text; in answering which, however, S. Cyril refutes, not the confining the title, Christ, to the divinity, but the separation of the natures, shewing that Peter acknowledged Him Whom he saw present before him as "the Son of God the Father, the "Word That sprang forth from His substance."

Previous Page / First / Next Page of St Cyril - Luke Commentary

St Cyril of Alexandria Home Page / Works ||| More Church Fathers

Elpenor's Free Greek Lessons

Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/luke-commentary.asp?pg=115