Here’s a final selection of Cyril’s exegesis from his commentary on the gospel of John. Please weigh in with your thoughts or criticisms. I will probably post a brief summary of my own reflections in the next couple of weeks.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand A final passage that illustrates well Cyril’s exegetical method is his treatment of the feeding of the five thousand in John 6. In his opening comments on this passage, he makes several remarks that illustrate again his understanding of the nature of Scripture and the manner in which they signify meaning. He says there is no insignificant feature of a passage, but instead “there is an economy on almost every occasion, and on the nature of things, as on a tablet, He [i.e., God] inscribes mysteries.”1 The term “economy” seems to be a technical term for Cyril, as he uses it several times in his exegesis of John 6. The economy refers to God’s actions to redeem mankind through from the curse of the Fall through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Thus, for example, Jesus gave thanks over the bread as would a man because he was “concealing yet His God-befitting Dignity” by an “economy.”2 Later, in his comment on Jesus’ command that the disciples gather the remaining fragments, Cyril says that Jesus was not simply concerned about saving the leftovers for dinner, but instead “the verse has a great economy, and makes the miracle evident to the hearers.”3 Therefore, according to Cyril the details of John’s text serve to illustrate the economy of God. It is this principle that allows him to see spiritual significance of John’s text.
A recurrent motif in Cyril’s exegesis of the feeding of the five thousand is the Jews’ rejection of Christ. Their rejection Cyril certainly believed was a part of the economy, for it was their rejection of Christ that led to his death and that opened the door for the Gentiles to come in. For example, the very fact that Jesus withdrew across the sea of Tiberias during the Passover when Jews were supposed to be going to Jerusalem signifies that Jesus was “shunning the Jews who desire to kill Him.”4 Furthermore, by placing a sea between himself and the Jews, Jesus was signifying that the way whereby the Jews might be converted to him was “impassible.” Cyril adduces Old Testament texts to support this interpretation. Through the prophet Hosea the Lord had said that he would hedge up the way of Israel with thorns so that she would not find her path (2:6). The deliverance of Israel through the waters of the Red Sea also receives an ironic twist through Cyril’s understanding of the economy. Now Israel, rather than being redeemed, stands in the place of Pharaoh and will thus be destroyed for their refusal to submit themselves to Christ.5
In his exegesis of the wedding at Cana, Cyril employed some numerology. This same method is also evident in his treatment of John 6 to an even greater degree. Cyril asks why John would bother to record the number of fishes and loaves brought by the boy. Could he not have said “more simply and absolutely” that the multitude was fed by very little food? The fact that John recorded the numbers must mean that they possess significance. Therefore, Cyril says that the five barley loaves signify the five books of the law which are coarser (as is barley) than the New Testament. Similarly, the fact that the boy had two fishes points to the writings of the apostles some of whom were fishermen. The number two is a type of the “Apostolic and Evangelic preaching” of these fishermen.6 The twelve basketfuls of fragments left over signify the twelve apostles. Just as the bread and fish was distributed through their hands, so the apostles went on to distribute “spiritual food” through their ministries. Cyril brings his point into his own day, arguing that as Christ passed his authority and ministry on to the disciples, so they have done to their successors, the leaders of the church even up to the current today.7
A final component of Cyril’s exegesis is again his interest in moral exhortation. The reason, he says, that Christ ordered the disciples to gather the leftover pieces was in order to make “us most zealous in our desire to exercise hospitality most gladly.”8 However, the larger moral point that Cyril makes in his exegesis is that Christians ought not to respond to Jesus as did the Jews, but should instead submit themselves to the teaching of Christ. Jesus himself was the one who has ascended the mountain of the Lord (cf. Ps 24) as the firstfruits from the dead. Therefore, Cyril exhorts his readers to “go up into a mountain and there sit with [Christ],” just as the disciples in the text go up on the mountain with Jesus. When Christ returns with his “more manifest kingdom” then those who follow Christ will also “go up into the spiritual mountain” in heaven.9 Ever the pastor and theologian, Cyril’s exegesis always has a tropological slant.
1Cyril, Commentary on John, vol. 1, 312. Reno and O’Keefe define “economy” as “a structure of plot that allows to discern the flow of the narrative” (Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005], 37).
2Cyril, Commentary on John, vol. 1, 327.
3Ibid., 330.
4Ibid., 314.
5Ibid., 316-17. When he is introducing the example of Pharaoh, Cyril says that the “type seems as though it were pregnant to us with yet another hidden mystery” (316). It seems that by “type” he means the crossing of the sea of Tiberias, and by “mystery” he means the destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
6Ibid., 329. I am not sure what difference Cyril sees between the “Apostolic” and “Evangelic” preaching. It is clear that in his mind they refer to two distinct things.
7Ibid., 330-31.
8Ibid., 330.
9Ibid., 335, 319. Cyril’s exhortations have a paradoxical nature. He calls on his readers to ascend the mountain, but says that they will not really ascend the mountain until the return of Christ. This tension along with Cyril’s description of the second coming as Christ’s “more manifest kingdom” seems to imply something similar to what today is known as inaugurated eschatology.
Here’s John Calvin commenting on the phrase from John 1:16, “out of his fulness” . . .
First,
we are all utterly destitute and empty of spiritual blessings;
for
the abundance which exists in Christ is intended
to supply our deficiency,
to relive our poverty,
to satisfy our hunger and thirst.
Secondly,
as soon as we have departed from Christ,
it is vain for us to seek a single drop of happiness,
because,
God has determined that whatever is good will reside in Christ alone.
Thirdly,
we will have no reason to fear the lack of anything,
provided
we draw from the fulness of Christ,
which is in every respect so complete,
that we will experience it to be a truly inexhaustible fountain.
John Calvin, Commentary on John (Baker reprint, 2003), 50.
J.I. Packer highlights how Jesus’ incarnate state focused on pleasing the Father’s will.
It was a state of dependence and obedience, because the incarnation did not change the relationship between the Son and the Father. They continued in unbroken fellowship, the Son saying and doing what the Father gave him to say and do, and not going beyond the Father’s known will at any single moment . . .
It was a state of sinlessness and impeccability, because the incarnation did not change the nature and character of the Son . . . Deviation from the Father’s will was no more possible for him in the incarnate state than before. His deity was the guarantee that he would achieve in the flesh that sinlessness which was prerequisite if he were to die as ‘a lamb without blemish or spot’ (1 Peter 1:19).
It was a state of temptation and moral conflict, because the incarnation was a true entry into the conditions of man’s moral life. Though, being God, it was not in him to yield to temptation, yet, being man, it was necessary for him to fight temptation in order to overcome it. What his deity ensured was not that he would not be tempted to stray from his Father’s will, nor that he would be exempt from the strain and distress that repeated insidious temptations create in the soul, but that, when tempted, he would fight and win . . .
- J.I. Packer, “Incarnation,” in New Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 504.
The Woman at the Well In his exegesis of the woman at the well, Cyril adds a few remarks that reveal his understanding of the nature of Scripture. He admires John’s skills as an author, stating that he “excellently . . . manage[s] the compilation of this book, and omits nothing which he believes will at all be of use to the readers.”[1] In light of this statement, it would surely be incorrect simply to state baldly that Cyril has no concern for authorial intent, a charge often levied against premodern interpreters.[2] He believes himself to be following the flow of John’s argument in the book. Cyril so carefully pays attention to John’s book that he sometimes finds much meaning in what some interpreters would identify as incidental features of the text. He writes, “I do not think that any thing has been put in vain in the writings of the saints, but what any man deems small, he sometimes finds pregnant with no contemptible profit.”[3] His conviction that each word of the gospel is pregnant with meaning guides his exegesis, as will be demonstrated shortly.
Cyril used the principle that Scripture interpreted Scripture not only to bring clarity to individual difficult texts, but also to explain apparent contradictions in texts as well. For example, in his treatment of the woman at the well, he asks why Jesus here speaks truth to a Samaritan woman while in Matthew’s gospel he initially refuses to grant healing to the daughter of the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:26). The reason, according to Cyril, that Jesus responded to the Canaanite woman in this manner was because the Jews had not yet “wholly spurned the grace.” According to the text of John, Jesus had to go through Samaria, and “as fire will never cease from its inherent natural operation of burning,” so it is impossible that “the Wisdom of all should not work what befits wisdom” by teaching the woman at the well.[4] The problem of reconciling these two texts only occurs to Cyril because of his assumption that the Bible has a single divine author. Moreover, in answering it he both pays close attention to the text of the gospel itself, as well as relying upon his understanding of the mission of Christ (grace was only poured out on the Gentiles after the Jews rejected Jesus) and upon his understanding of the nature of Christ (since he is wisdom itself he cannot but pass on wisdom to those he meets).
An example of Cyril’s concern for Christology also reveals his attention to the minutiae of the text. Reaching John 4:22 in the commentary (“ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews”), he picks up on the use of the first person plural pronoun in the text and uses it to launch into a discussion of the nature of Christ over the course of several pages. The crux of the problem is, if Christ is indeed God, how can he be said to be among those who worship God? This text had a prior history, since Eunomians (i.e., Neo-Arians) had used it to argue for the inferiority of the Son to the Father (see Cyril’s De Trinitate). In order to solve this dilemma, he resorts to a text that he often quotes in his Christological discussions. Philippians 2:5-11 functions as a summary of Cyril’s theology of the incarnation, and he uses this text to explain other apparently difficult texts such as this one. Once again is evident the principle of Scriptura Scripturae interpres in Cyril’s exegesis. Using Philippians 2 as an explanatory key, Cyril concludes that Christ did not worship the Father prior to the incarnation as the “bare Word,” but because of the “dispensation [i.e., "economy"] of the Flesh,” he is classed among human worshippers “by reason of his manhood.”[5]
Finally, a moral emphasis is also apparent in Cyril’s exegesis of the Samaritan woman. He presents Christ’s dealing with the woman as a “type” for future teachers of the church to follow.[6] Those who teach should show Jesus to “new-born disciples” by giving them the word of teaching and gradually bringing them up from “slight instruction” to “the more perfect knowledge of the faith.”[7] Furthermore, because Christ took time to speak with a woman, so also church leaders should not “shun conversation” with women.[8] As the leader of the Egyptian church, Cyril’s apparent concern is to train up future teachers who can rightly instruct both new and old converts. Therefore, he places intense theological discussion side-by-side in his commentary with moral exhortation.[9]
[1]Cyril, Commentary on John, trans. Pusey, vol. 1, 224.
[2]See, for example, the dismissive remark made by Stephen Neill: “much in the patristic commentaries is quaint, unscientific, even absurd” (Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988], 98).
[3]Cyril, Commentary on John, vol. 1, 224.
[4]Ibid., 202-03.
[5]Ibid., 213-18.
[6]Ibid., 225.
[7]Ibid., 220.
[8]Ibid., 221.
[9]See J. David Cassel, “Cyril of Alexandria as Educator,” in In Dominico Eloquio – In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken, ed. Paul M. Blowers et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 348-68 who argues based on Cyril’s Isaiah commentary that he was responsible for training a large number of undereducated clerics. Farag, however, disagrees, stating that if this was the intention of the commentaries, they should have been written in the form of scholia (St. Cyril of Alexandria, 157).
Each of us at StandingonShoulders loves going to the library and looking at old books. Here’s a hilarious and ever painful example from Mr. Bean of how NOT to act when looking at old books. Enjoy!
One of the problems with discussions about patristic exegesis is that it is so easy to stay at the level of generalities and never get into specific examples of what the fathers did when interpreting the Bible. In this post and the two that will follow it, I will take a brief look at three passages from Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on the gospel of John. Please feel free to weigh in with what you think is positive or negative about his exegesis.
The Wedding at Cana A typical example of Cyril’s exegetical method in which he displays his concerns for Christology and soteriology is his treatment of the wedding at Cana in John 2:1-12. Cyril begins by asking a question that would not even occur to most modern commentators – why would Jesus bother to go to a marriage feast? He answers that Jesus attended the wedding because he was invited, but, more significantly, he went to the wedding in order “to sanctify the very beginning of the birth of man.” That is, Jesus’ mission as the one who would recreate the human race was not simply to bless those persons already called into being, but also to bless those “soon to be born” through the marriage and to “make holy their entrance into being.” A yet further point relates to the marriage itself. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, Cyril quotes the curse pronounced upon Eve in Genesis 3:16 – “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” As the one who came to redeem mankind, Jesus removed this curse of the Fall and in so doing honored marriage and erased the shame associated with childbearing. Jesus undertook this action because God has loved mankind and is the “Delight and Joy of all.” Finally, Cyril uses another text to drive home his point. The theme of the recapitulation of the human race in Jesus Christ is supported by Paul’s declaration in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that if anyone is in Christ he is a new creature.[1]
Having stated the historical account of the text, Cyril begins his description of “what is therein signified,” that is, the spiritual meaning of the passage. He states the principle guiding his exegesis as “holy Scripture carries up language from human things to a meaning that is above us.” In other words, the language or ordinary human experience mirrors greater divine realities. The realities he has in mind are the description of Jesus as the bridegroom and human nature as the bride. Furthermore, the fact that the marriage occurred on the third day is significant, for “the number three gives us beginning, middle, end,” signifying the whole of time. It is for this reason that Christ was raised on the third day. Thus, Cyril uses the wedding “on the third day” in conjunction with several other texts (Hos 6:1-3; Gen 3:19; 1 Cor 15:20) to argue that on the third day Christ was raised from the dead and so “rendered all our nature whole, raising it from the dead in Himself.” Other elements in the passage also have spiritual significance. The fact that the miracle was performed in Cana of Galilee rather than in Jerusalem reveals that the Jews would reject Jesus, but that the Gentiles would gladly receive him. The lack of wine at the feast signifies the inability of the Mosaic law to bring perfection, and the fact that Jesus created wine even better than the first foreshadows the greater blessings of the gospel brought by Christ (relying also upon 2 Cor 3:6, a classic proof text of patristic exegesis). Finally, in Cyril’s exegesis the ruler of the feast becomes a type of the priesthood. Just as the ruler was given the wine first, so the priest should be supported by the church (relying also upon 2 Tim 2:6).[2]
[1]Cyril, Commentary on John, vol. 1, 155. 2 Cor 5:17 is a text that Cyril returns to often in his exegesis.
[2]Ibid., 157-58.
Believers hear the voice of Christ calling them to come to him with their burdens (Matt. 11:28). So they come to him and lay their guilt upon him. They lay down their sins at the cross of Christ and he bears them on his shoulders. They stand at the cross and say, ‘He was bruised for my sins, and wounded for my transgressions, and the chastisement of my peace was upon him. He was made sin for me. So he is able to bear my sins. He calls me to lay the burden of them on him.’ This is the believer’s daily work. This is what it means to know Christ crucified.
There is nothing that Jesus Christ is more delighted with than that his saints should always hold communion with him by giving him their sins and receiving his righteousness. This greatly honors him and gives him the glory that is his due. What great dishonor we do to Christ to try and get rid of our sins in any other way. ‘Lord, this is your work. This is what you came into the world to do. You call for my burden which is too heavy for me to carry. Take it, blessed Redeemer, and give me your righteousness.’ Then Christ is honored. The glory of his mediation is given to him when we walk with him in this way.
-John Owen, Communion with God (Banner of Truth, 144-45).
On this date, 46 years ago, C. S. Lewis died. Without question, Lewis is one of the great gifts the Lord has graciously chosen to bless the Church with. As I was thinking of the impact of Lewis on me personally, I was reminded of an article I posted over a year ago, “The Necessity of Rooms.” Perhaps it will be of interest to the readers of this site.
“Three great books which a minister ought chiefly to study, to make him wise and prudent, are the Holy Word, his own Heart, and his own People.”
From George Trosse, The Pastor’s Care and Dignity, and The People’s Duty: A Sermon preach’d at the Assembly of Ministers, at Taunton, 7th September, 1692 (London, 1693), page 36.
