Sacramental Theology
5: CYRIL'S USE OF SCRIPTURE, AND HIS THEOLOGY
Since Jerusalem was a point of contact between Greek- and Syriac-speaking Christians, it is no surprise that Cyril's theology shows numerous points of affinity with both Antiochene and Syriac writings. Thus his Christology is in some respects in the tradition of Antioch, while his use of typology and imagery has many parallels in Syriac literature.
THE USE OF SCRIPTURE
Cyril subscribed to a form of scriptura sola doctrine, stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures: ‘let us not presume to speak of what is not in Scripture’ (Cat. 16.24).
For where the divine and holy mysteries of the Creed are concerned, one must not teach casually without reference to the sacred Scriptures, or be led astray by persuasive and elaborate arguments. Do not simply take my word when I tell you these things, unless you are given proof for my teaching from holy Scripture. (Cat. 4.17)
The Creed summarizes the Scriptures which contain the whole of doctrine (Cat. 5.12).
Cyril's method of interpreting Scripture had more in common with Antioch than with Alexandria. The Alexandrian Fathers, following Philo, Clement and Origen, influenced no doubt by the methods which the literary critics of their city employed to expound the Homeric poems, were quick to seek a philosophical or spiritual message beyond the literal interpretation of a passage, and in doing so were prone to attach a deep, allegorical significance to each detail of a narrative. Thus for Origen the ‘two measures’ which the pots at Cana contained refers to the two senses of God's word, ‘the soul meaning and the spiritual meaning’. The Antiochenes, on the other hand, while suspicious of the arbitrary nature of allegory, were not opposed to every kind of ‘spiritual’ interpretation, provided that the historical narrative was respected. Thus John Chrysostom appealed not only to verbal prophecy but also to ‘prophecy expressed in terms of things’.
It is this Antiochene method which Cyril adopts and develops. In the Catecheses he repeatedly regards events in the Old Testament as prophecies of the circumstances of Jesus’ Passion and resurrection, providing ‘testimonies (marturias) concerning the cross’, and ‘proofs (apodeixeis) concerning the resurrection’ (Cat. 14.2). His aim is not ‘to perform an allegorical (theoretiken) exposition of the Scriptures, but to deepen our faith in things we already believe’ (Cat. 13.9). For example, the Old Testament provides the key to understanding the details of the resurrection (Cat. 14.5):
Do you want an indication of the place? It says again in the Song of Songs: ‘I went down to the nut-garden’ (Cant 6.10 (11)). For it was in a garden that he was crucified. For although it has been largely decorated with royal gifts, it was once a garden, and the signs and remains of it are still present. ‘A garden enclosed…a spring sealed’ by the Jews who said: ‘We have remembered that that deceiver said while he was still alive: “after three days I shall rise.” So give orders for the tomb to be made safe.’ And later: ‘They went and made the tomb safe with the guard, sealing the stone’ (Mt 27.63–4, 66). There is a saying which applies to them neatly: ‘You will judge them to your rest’ (Job 7.18 (LXX)). What is the sealed spring? What is the meaning of the ‘spring of the well of living water’ (Cant 4.15 (adjusted))? It is the Saviour himself, about whom Scripture says: ‘With you is the spring of life’ (Ps 35 (36).9).
Underlying this exegetical method is a theory of salvation-history resting on two presuppositions. The first is that God's saving action is a continuous whole, so that what he has accomplished in the Old Testament gains its true significance as a preparation for his work in the New. A hermeneutic of this sort was already familiar to St Paul, according to whom the misfortunes which befell the Israelites in the desert were types or symbols (tupoi) of our situation: ‘these things befell them symbolically (tupikos) but were written as a warning for us’ (1 Cor 10.6, 10). Adam was ‘a symbol (tupos) of the one to come’ (Rom 5.14). So too in 1 Peter the salvation which comes to us through baptism is symbolized by (antitupon) the safety which the ark provided for Noah and his family amid the water of the Flood (1 Pet 3.21).
The second presupposition of this method is that the symbol provided by the Old Testament event is less ‘real’ or ‘true’ than its application in the life of the Church. To transfer one's gaze from the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism is to pass from symbol (tupos) to reality (MC 1.3). Our baptism is an ‘image’ (eikon) and ‘imitation’ (mimesis) of what happened ‘really’ (ontos, alethos), of Christ's Passion and resurrection (MC 2.5). Solomon was anointed as a prefiguration (tupikos) of the anointing which Christians receive in reality (alethos).
Cyril does not develop this typological interpretation of Old Testament events and persons until the Mystagogics, where he uses it in various ways and extends it beyond the Old Testament to other areas:
THEOLOGY
Space is not available here for a complete summary of Cyril's teaching; nor is one necessary, as he provides his own in the fourth Catechesis. We shall be content with selecting four major themes: theological language, the Trinity, Christology and sacramental theology.
Theological language
The inadequacy of human language to describe God is a recurrent theme in Cyril's writings. He develops his idea most fully in the opening paragraphs of Cat. 6. ‘For in what concerns God the height of knowledge is to confess one's ignorance’ (Cat. 6.2). There is much in creation we cannot explain; how can we presume to give an account of the Creator? Cyril gives more than one reason why God is hidden from us: we often find it impossible to express analytically in words complicated facts which we recognize by insight; God's ‘substance’ (hupostasis) or ‘nature’ (phusis) is hidden from us, even though we know enough from his works for our needs (Cat. 6.5; 9.2). Thus in his analysis of the statement that the Father ‘begot’ the Son, Cyril warns the listener against an anthropomorphic understanding of the word and against curious speculation (polupragmonein):
So will you speculate about matters which even the Holy Spirit has not written of in the Scriptures? If you are ignorant of what is written there, will you speculate about what is not written? (Cat. 11.12; cf. 11.8–13)
The purpose of theology is ‘to glorify the Lord, not to explain him’ (Cat. 6.5).
Trinity
The pastoral and liturgical orientation of Cyril's theology helps to explain why he never became deeply engaged in theological controversy over the Trinity. In the Catecheses he expresses regret at the schisms which were dividing the Church, but shows little interest in the doctrinal issues involved. Thus, speaking on the signs of the Second Coming, he advises the candidates not to bother with the theological issues which lead to schisms:
If you hear that bishops are proceeding against bishops, and clerics against clerics, and congregations against congregations, even to the point of bloodshed, do not be disturbed. It was foretold in Scripture. So pay no attention to what people are doing; attend to what is written in Scripture. (Cat. 15.7)
The early Arians could regard him as a man who posed no threat; his clashes with Acacius were perhaps concerned more with ecclesiastical politics than with dogma. He never includes Arius or his followers in lists of heretics. Although Rufinus thought it characteristic of Cyril's episcopate that he ‘varied sometimes in faith, more often in communion’, J.Lebon seems to be right when he suggests that this judgment is only half true: though Cyril's ‘communion’ varied, in so far as he changed his allegiance from the Arian to the anti-Arian party, his faith remained unchanged.
Nevertheless there are points at which, even as early as the Catecheses, Cyril's intention seems to be to refute an Arian tenet. He rejects the Arian watchword: ‘There was once when the Son was not.’ According to St Athanasius, the Arians had argued from Phil 2.9 (‘therefore God has highly exalted him…’) that Christ became God and Son as a ‘reward of virtue’, through advancement (prokope) and improvement in humility (c. Arianos 1.37, 40); Cyril by contrast, apparently anticipating Athanasius by several years, states that Jesus ‘did not gain the rank of Lord by advancement (prokope) but possesses it by nature’ (Cat. 10.6).
It seems unlikely that Cyril was ever expressly opposed to the homoousion, as A.Harnack and A.Stephenson suggest. It is, however, true that the word occurs only once in his works, namely in the formal conclusion to the Letter to Constantius (8), where he refers to ‘the holy and consubstantial Trinity’. This passage is surprising for several reasons. First, one would not expect to find Cyril speaking in these terms to the Arian sympathizer Constantius, especially as he seems concerned to win the Emperor's favour. Moreover, whereas the Nicene Creed speaks of the Son as consubstantial with the Father, this passage describes the whole Trinity as consubstantial, a use of the term which was not officially adopted until the Council of Constantinople (381). Even in the late Mystagogic Catecheses Cyril speaks of the Spirit as ‘like (homoiou)’ the Son, rather than ‘consubstantial’ with him (MC 3.1). Presumably it is reasons such as these which led Stephenson to conclude that the term ‘consubstantial’ in the Letter to Constantius is ‘certainly an interpolation’.
Still, granted that it was not to be expected that Cyril would describe the Spirit as ‘consubstantial’ as early as the Catecheses or the Letter to Constantius, it is clear that he already believed in the Spirit's full divinity: ‘the Only-begotten Son shares in his Father's divinity together with the Holy Spirit’ (Cat. 6.6). However, he explicitly renounced any attempt to express this truth in scientifically exact terms:
There is one God the Father, one Lord, his Only-begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. This is all we need to know, without inquiring curiously about nature or hypostasis. For if it had been in Scripture, we would have spoken of it; let us not presume to speak of what is not in Scripture. (Cat. 16.24)
However, Cyril has many ways of formulating his understanding of the Trinity without recourse to the controversial homoousios. The language of the Gospels and the Creed (‘I believe in one God, the Father…’) encourages him to apply the name of God pre-eminently to the Father: ‘One should not think of God without thinking of him as Father’ (Cat. 6.1). Like Justin and the other Logos-theologians, Cyril explores the process of speech as an analogy for the begetting of the Father's Son or Word (Cat. 11.10).
Cyril has various ways of expressing the Son's equality with the Father. ‘For the Son is in everything like (homoios) the Father’ (Cat. 11.18; cf. 4.7). The Son is eternally begotten: he has an arche in the the sense of an origin, but not a beginning in time (Cat. 11.20). His glory and his worship are identical with the Father's; their wills are inseparable. Jesus’ words: ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn 10.30) mean that they are one in the dignity of their Godhead, in their reign, in unity of wills and operations; the Father creates through the Son (Cat. 11.16).
Thus Cyril envisages the Son as in a sense subordinate to the Father, though equal to him. The Father is the principle or beginning (arche) of the Son (Cat. 11.30). The Son ‘honours’ the Father, and obeys him. It is by the Father's decree that he rules over the world he has created (Cat. 10.5).
Christology
Cyril kept apart from speculative controversy about the nature of Jesus Christ, just as he did about the Trinity. Nevertheless his treatment of the Saviour in his addresses implies a firm Christology, for he wanted to show his hearers how to assess various heresies, and to make them see the significance of what had taken place ‘here in Jerusalem’. Thus we find him affirming against the Docetists the reality of Jesus’ earthly existence:
The humanity he assumed was not an appearance only or an illusion, but true. He did not pass through the Virgin as if through a pipe, but truly took flesh from her and was truly nourished by her milk…For if the Incarnation was an illusion, so too was our salvation. (Cat. 4.9)
There is no hint of the hesitations which even orthodox theologians sometimes showed about asserting that Jesus experienced real suffering:
You must believe too that this Only-begotten Son of God came down from heaven to earth because of our sins, assumed a humanity subject to the same feelings as ours, and was born of the holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit. (Cat. 4.9)
Christ was really crucified and really buried and literally rose again, and all of this he did for our sake so that we might gain salvation literally. What unmeasured love this showed for mankind! Christ received the nails in his pure hands and experienced pain, and grants me salvation through sharing his experience without the pain and the toil. (MC 2.5)
In his comments on the Creed he is equally explicit about the distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity, and about the unity between them. Cyril does not draw the conclusion that every event in Jesus’ life had both a divine and a human dimension, but like Tertullian he attributes some of Jesus’ experiences to the divinity and others to the humanity:
Christ was twofold: man in appearance, and God, but not in appearance. As man he ate truly as we do, for he had the same fleshly feelings as ourselves; but it was as God that he fed the five thousand from five loaves. As man he truly died; but it was as God that he raised the four days dead body to life. As man he truly slept on the boat; but it was as God that he walked on the waters.
SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY
In addition to what has been said above concerning Cyril's celebration of the liturgy and his use of typology, two more points need to be made. The first concerns the importance he attached to the epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit). In the most fully worked out formulation of this, the celebrant calls upon the Father to send down the Holy Spirit, so as to make Christ present or active in a sacrament. This trinitarian form is evident in Cyril's account of the epiclesis at the Eucharist:
we call upon the God who loves mankind to send down the Holy Spirit on the offerings so as to make the bread Christ's body and the wine Christ's blood, for whatever the Holy Spirit touches is made holy and transformed. (MC 5.7)
The same process is at work with the water of the baptismal font:
after the ordinary water has received the invocation of the Holy Spirit and Christ and the Father, it acquires the power of holiness (Cat. 3.3)
and the muron:
just as after the invocation of the Holy Spirit the bread of the Eucharist is no longer ordinary bread but the body of Christ, so too this holy muron is no longer ordinary or, so to say, common ointment, but Christ's grace which imparts to us his own divinity through the presence of the Holy Spirit. (MC 3.3)
The second point concerns Cyril's explanation of Christ's eucharistic presence in realistic, almost materialistic terms. The bread and wine are ‘transformed’ by the Holy Spirit; if one loses a particle of the Eucharistic bread, ‘it is as if it were part of your own body that is being lost’ (MC 5.7; 5.21). When we receive holy communion, ‘we become Christ-bearers, as his body and blood are spread around our limbs’ (MC 4.3). The sacrament benefits the body and the soul in different ways:
In the New Testament there is the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation, which sanctify both body and soul. Just as the bread is suitable for the body, so the Word is adapted to the soul. (MC 4.5)
In receiving the sacrament the communicants apply the bread and wine to their senses:
Before you receive, carefully bless your eyes with the touch of the holy body…While your lips are still moist, touch them with your hands and bless your eyes, your forehead and your other senses. (MC 5.21–2)
Christ is present as a ‘sacrifice of propitiation’, because of which the intercessions included in the Eucharistic Prayer have a special efficacy,
for we believe that great benefit will result for the souls for whom prayer is offered when the holy and most awe-inspiring sacrifice lies on the altar. (MC 5.8–9)