Translation of “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews” by St. Cyril of Alexandria

The article presents a translation from ancient Greek of a fragment of one of the exegetical works of St. Cyril of Alexandria - “Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” The introduction provides brief information about the sources, publications and studies of the work. A translation of the first part of the work is published, in which the saint comments on the verses of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The translation of the text is provided with thematic headings; the notes contain references and allusions to biblical texts, as well as information of a textual nature, and the addressees of the saint's polemics are indicated. Based on the sacred text of St. Kirill reveals issues of triadology, Christology and pneumatology. He teaches about the superiority of Christ over the angels and prophets, considers the issues of birth, inheritance, righteousness of Christ, His anointing with the Holy Spirit, His appearance after the resurrection to the angels. Based on the verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the saint refutes Arianism and Christological dualism. Key words: Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle to the Hebrews, Theodore of Mopsuestia, psalms, exegesis, patristics, Christology, triadology, Arianism, Christological dualism, Nestorianism. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria of Egypt (c. 375–444) is one of the greatest exegetes and theologians of his time. He is also one of the most famous representatives of the Alexandrian theological school. The saint left us a colossal written heritage, most of which are exegetical works. In his numerous works, he polemicizes with the Arians, pagans, Jews, and Nestorians. St. Cyril was the most ardent opponent of Nestorius at the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431). At the same time, Miaphysite theologians (who profess one nature in Christ) relied on the authority of the saint to argue for their teaching. The only complete edition of the works of St. Kirill in ten volumes was published in the 19th century. Abbot Jacques-Paul Migne in his “Greek Patrologia” (Patrologia graeca) 1. This edition reproduces the publication of the monk Jean Aubert 2 with some additions taken from the edition of the Italian philologist Cardinal Angelo Mai 3 . In the same era, the English patrolologist Philip Edward Pusey prepared a critical edition of several of the saint’s works, 4 dedicating his work to the memory of St. Philaret of Moscow. In the 20th century some works of St. Kirill received a critical edition with a translation into French in the series “Christian Sources” (Sources chrétiennes) 5 . In addition, scientists have published unpublished fragments of the saint's works discovered in newly discovered catenas, florilegia and other manuscripts. Part of the heritage of St. Kirill has been translated into modern languages ​​(English, French, German, Russian, etc.) However, most of his works are awaiting critical publication, translation and study. As was said, St. Cyril of Alexandria is known primarily for his Christological polemics with Nestorius, which led to the latter’s condemnation at the Council of Ephesus. Among the works of the saint, we chose the “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews” (CPG 5209 (3), hereinafter referred to as “Commentary”), because it says a lot about the superiority of Christ over angels, prophets, priests, and therefore this message is a significant biblical basis for Christology. Moreover, there is no translation of this work by St. Kirill into modern European languages. There are also no studies devoted to this work. "Interpretation" of St. Cyril has survived only in fragments, but its existence is attested by several later authors, calling it “ὑπόμνημα/ἑρμηνεία τῆς (Παύλου) πρὸς Ἑβραίους (ἐπιστολῆς)" and quoting its passages. In particular, this work of the saint is quoted by: Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis (432), Acts of the Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431), Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Sevier of Antioch, Leontius of Jerusalem, Leontius of Byzantium, St. Justinian, Fakund Ermiansky, Acts of the Lateran Council (649), St. Anastasius Sinaite, author of the "Teaching of the Fathers", St. Nikephoros of Constantinople, St. Photius of Constantinople, Dionysius Bar Salibi. Most of the fragments of the Commentary are found in the biblical catenas (mainly in the codes Coislin 204 and Parisian 238, published by J. E. Cramer 6 , as well as the Milanese codex E63, used by A. May) and in the dogmatic florilegium “The Seal of Faith”, by K. Termekertchan 7 . Biblical catenas are a collection of passages taken from the works of the Church Fathers and other authors commenting on a particular biblical verse. A dogmatic florilegium is a collection of fragments from the Church Fathers and other authors proving one or another aspect of Christian teaching. Based on these sources, fragments of the “Interpretation” of St. Cyril were published by A. May 8 (republished by J.-P. Min 9 ), F. E. Pusey 10 and J. Le Bon 11 . Regarding the dating of the work, P. M. Parvis concluded in his study that the Interpretation was written between 428 and 432 12. J.-M. de Durand 13 and H. Chadwick 14 also agree that the work was written during the Nestorian controversy. F. E. Pusey hypothesized that there were two works by the saint dedicated to the exegesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews, namely the Commentary and the Homilies 15, but this opinion was not supported by either O. Bardenheever 16 or J. Le Bon 17. Revealing the structure of the work, we tried to establish the distribution of excerpts from the “Interpretation” among the volumes on the basis of Armenian fragments and the research of J. Le Bon. We have assumed that the Commentary consisted of at least two parts, with the first containing at least six volumes and commenting on Hebrews 1:1–4,13, and the second part (and possibly subsequent parts) being almost completely lost. A. May and F. E. Pusey, preparing their editions of the Commentary, excluded from the text passages that came from other works of St. Kirill. We have continued their work by showing that the text of F. E. Pusey's critical edition also contains fragments from other works of the saint, and even from another author. In this regard, we have removed these passages from the text of the critical edition of F. E. Pusey as not belonging to the Interpretation and do not take them into account in the translation. Relevant textual information is indicated in the translation footnotes. We translated the work from the critical edition of F. E. Pusey 18 taking into account our textual comments. For ease of reference to the original text, we have retained the pagination of the text by F. E. Pusey. Lemmas of the authors of catenas from the critical edition are given in bold. Thematic headings, which we made to make it easier for the reader to navigate the text, are given in bold italics. In the text of the Commentary, the verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews are also highlighted in bold. The words we added for the coherence of the text are placed in parentheses. The footnotes contain biblical references and allusions, textual information, explanations of difficult passages, and also indicate the addressees of the saint's polemical passages. Translation of the work (pp. 362–382) "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews" by St. Cyril of Alexandria (discovered fragments) And the way of his 20 instruction is very wise and prepared very subtly and skillfully. For it is adorned with the letters of the Law, the thoughts of the Spirit, and the manifold preaching of the holy prophets. His goal is to teach and convince his future readers in every possible way that (what was said) through Moses was 21, (for) this gives rise to the power of truth, and the truth is Christ 22. (For) he shows that the indication, as if in an image 22 and a shadow 23, which was very useful for the ancients, (at present) is unnecessary. In addition, it also explains to us that even those who lived brilliantly in the Law managed to acquire glory and favor only through faith in God, and that faith is an ancient thing and known to the holy fathers. And he did not use the usual beginning and introduction, because the believing Jews suspected him and slandered him, saying that he devoted himself to (people) from the pagans and taught everyone everywhere to put the Law into nothing, to despise the customs of their fathers as empty and to go, in some way, a different way, as one can learn (about this) in the “Acts of the Apostles” 24. Thus, very consciously, he omits what is usual for him and is silent about the grace of the apostleship, but rather moves on to the need to mention the fathers and holy prophets, believing that thanks to this his word can be received by them. Therefore he said: "He who spoke to the fathers in the prophets" (Heb. 1:1) The Economy of the Son in the Old Testament (Heb. 1:1) God spoke to the ancients in the Spirit through the mouth of the saints and through the voice of the prophets, and He spoke through at least one of them, shaming the foolishness of the Jews: “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, will they live forever? But accept My laws and My statutes, all that I command in My Spirit to My servants the prophets" 25. But, although the ancients had the grace of prophecy in the Spirit, it was not realized without God the Word, the very Father, for His Spirit speaks to the saints in exactly the same way. And, of course, it cannot be said, at least with common sense, that the Holy Spirit, performing an auxiliary ministry for us, P. 364 from God the Word, on a par with the prophets, knowledge, that is, revelation, about what He would 26 want, and that He thus accomplishes it 27 in us. For He 28 in that case would in no way differ from the holy prophets. But He knows all that is in Him 29 and it is said that He receives from Him and declares it to the saints 30 . Therefore, the Only Begotten also spoke “in ancient times” to the 31 fathers through the Holy Spirit. He spoke “in a variety of ways,” 32 commanding that He typify the venerable and great Mystery of His incarnation. So, one should hear the One who speaks through the prophets: “I have multiplied visions and become the subject of comparisons in the hands of the prophets” 33 , and again: “The Speaker Himself, I am present like spring on the mountains, like the feet of one who brings good tidings of peace, who brings good tidings of good news” 34 . The Economy of the Son in the New Testament (Heb. 1:2a) For at the end of the ages the Son Himself spoke to us through Himself, (so that) the prophet or the voice of the saints was no longer a mediator, but the Only Begotten, having become like us, addressed us with a word through Himself. And we say that the Father spoke in the Son, not as through some individual person - who is an intermediary and conveys to us not his own (words), but (the words of) another - but with his own voice, through the body of the Son speaking to us. For this flesh was of the Only Begotten Himself, and not of someone else. For, being God by nature, He became man, remaining God. For He then revealed the secret counsel of God the Father, therefore “His name is the Angel of the great council” 35. So, rightly, Paul says that God the Father has spoken to us in the last days” 36 in the Son. For he knew that Emmanuel is God and that the Word, (originating) from the Father, became in His humanity one of us, he recognized the Free One in the form of a Slave 37, P. 365 the fullness of Him who emptied Himself because of us, 38 contemplated the height of the glory of Him who sent Himself down into humiliation because of us, 39 Who also for this reason, it is said, was made “Heir of all things,” 40 although He owns the universe, since He is God in thought and reality. Indeed, He ascends again into His own riches even with the flesh, for He in no way remained in poverty like us. He did not become flesh in order to remain poor with us, His own wealth due to God, but rather so that we, who suffer from the lack of Divine grace, might be enriched by His poverty 41 . Exegesis of Psalm 2:7–8 Birth of Christ (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5) Indeed, being by nature the Son and co-eternal with the Father, when He suffered for us to be born in the flesh from the Holy Virgin, as if returning to the beginning of sonship, He said through David: “The Lord said to Me: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.”42 For “today” refers to the present time in which He became flesh, 43 remaining by nature also the Lord of the universe. For John testified of Him that “He came into His own,” 44 calling the world His own. As if called to the unusual glory of royal power, He said: “I have been made King by You,” 45 that is, by God the Father. And He endured this, as an adopted man - although He was God by nature - to pave the way through Himself to participate in adoption for human nature 46 and to call into the Kingdom of Heaven those who are in the power of sin. For just as through the crime of Adam 47 we acquired misfortunes, like some kind of inheritance passing from the father to the entire race descended from him, and were doomed to damnation and death, likewise the splendor that is in Christ will spread to the entire human race. For the Only Begotten receives (this) for us, and, of course, not for Himself, for He is full, because He is God by nature and needs absolutely nothing, but rather enriches the whole creation with the highest blessings. Inheritance of Christ (Ps. 2:8; Heb. 1:2b) So, as a man, economically He was made “Heir of all things” 48 in order to then save as His own the inheritance due to Him of those on earth, criminally torn apart by the devil and the evil forces (existing) with him. Therefore, God the Father says to Him: “Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations, Your inheritance” 49 ff. When His end drew near, He said to His Father about us: “Those whom You gave me out of the world, they were Yours, and You gave them to Me” 50 . So, notice how He ascends even with His flesh to His riches, inherent in Him by nature. Indeed, if (those who were) in the world belonged to the Father, how can it be considered that they (belonged to) the Word co-reigning with Him? And that’s why He said that “all that is Mine is Yours, and all that is Yours is Mine, and I am glorified in them” 51 . How is it that He is commanded to ask and He receives the nations as His inheritance, although He owns the boundaries of the earth? The Creator of all and the Father, wanting to save man who had foolishly deviated from slavish obedience to God, sent His Only Begotten God the Word into this world, so that He, having become flesh and dwelling with people as a man, would proclaim liberation to the captives, sight to the blind, and announce the favorable time of the Lord 52. The Divinity of Christ (Heb. 1:2c) So, even if it can be said that He received (the inheritance) and that He was made Heir 54 because of (His) humanity, (but) we recognize (in this) dispensation. For how is He completely 53 if He did not become like us, that is, a man, remaining God? The Divine Paul, urging us to think this way, of necessity added: “through whom also he created the worlds” 54 . How can this also be true? After all, if the Holy Virgin gave birth to us Emmanuel in the last times of the age, how can we say that the centuries were created by Him? With good reason! For it is said that the Word, (proceeding) from God the Father, begotten before all age and time, “at the end of these days” 55 was born according to the flesh from the Woman. And neither the newness of the economy will in any way infringe upon Him who is so by nature in relation to His antiquity due to God, nor will the decay of His existence destroy His own glory. For it is written that “Christ Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” 56 And the fact that, having appeared in the flesh, He testified to His old age in the Divine nature, he certified by saying to the Jews: “Amen, amen, I say to you: before Abraham was born, I am” 57 . And the divine evangelist John also said: “He who came after me stood before me, because He was before me” 58 . For Christ is rich 59 and preeminent 60 in everything. "Which being the brightness of glory" (Heb. 1:3a) The Divinity of the Word (Heb. 1:3abc) Just as the Father is unchangeable and always remains what He is, namely the Father and not the Son, so the Son also remains in what is proper to Him, remaining always the Son and not changing into the Father, so that it is for this reason that He is the real Imprint of the Hypostasis of the Father 61. And one can see in Him the brilliant beauty of the excellence and glory of Him who gave birth to Him. For He is true God from true God, Light from Light, and Life from Life. And, in my opinion, He is as superior to all creation as the Father Himself. For He is the Uncreated from the Uncreated, and is not among those brought into being out of nothing. For the Word was in the beginning, “and the Word was God” 62. How can those who attack the Divine Scriptures say that (the expression) “He was not” 63 is true of Him? For if He was created according to them, He will necessarily be subordinate with all others, will inherit the yoke of slavery, and will in no way be distinguished from His creatures. So, on the contrary, He is God because He comes from God. For he bears “all things by the word of his power” 64 . For through Him all things came into being, “and without Him nothing came into being” 65. And again He Himself lifts everything to unshakable constancy. We said that God prophesied to the ancients through Moses and the prophets, and we became, according to the voice of the prophet, disciples of God 66. For we had as a Teacher the Word Himself, (originating) from God, made human because of us, the Creator of ages, the Radiance of the Father’s glory, the Imprint of His Hypostasis 67 . Having considered this periodically, we will add what follows from it. Namely... 68 Being the omnipotent Word of God the Father, “He spoke and they were born, He commanded and they were created, He appointed them forever and ever and ever, He commanded them, and they shall not pass away” 69 . For, since the nature of those brought into being does not possess incorruptibility, nor therefore the ability to be constantly the same - for this is the property of the essence that exceeds all - He carries everything “by the word of His power” 70. For He is the Word hypostatic and born of God the Father by nature, and His Word is omnipotent and effective 71 and He has the power to easily carry out everything. The Passion and Exaltation of Christ (Heb. 1:3de-4) And he 72 adds to this: “having completed the cleansing of sins, He sat down to the right of the Majesty in the highest, becoming as superior to the angels as He inherited a name that was more distinguished than them” 73. Having shown that He is the Imprint of the Hypostasis of the Father and His Radiance 74, he necessarily moves on to the economy of the Incarnation, by which we are saved, enriched by the remission of sins 75 and sanctified through His blood. For, as the wisest Paul himself said: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the remission of trespasses” 76 . And John also writes about God the Father: “If we walk in the light, then we have fellowship with Him, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” 77 . So, by the holy blood of Christ, the Savior of us all, we are cleansed. He sat down “at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” 78 but when? When He accomplished the cleansing 79 through His blood, then it is said that He sat down and even became superior to the angels, and inherited a name most distinguished from them 80, for He is called the Son. For the Word became flesh 83 , being the Word and Radiance of the glory of the Father and the Imprint of His Hypostasis 81 , enduring, so to speak, the torments of the economy with the flesh not by its own nature - for He “endured the Cross, despising the shame” 82 , dishonor, insults, spitting - but in order to rid us of every stain, having cleansed us with His own blood, and to unite us again through Himself with God and Father. For through Him we have access 83 , He is the Door 84 and the Way 85 . However, although the Word became flesh “and dwelt among us,” 86 having made His own body from what it had received from the Holy Virgin, nevertheless It abided in the glory and nature of the Divinity and did not depart from the highest thrones of God and the Father. For He was a man on earth, and on the other hand He filled the sky, and everything was filled by Him. He was briefly humbled before the angels 87 because of the measure of His humanity—for the nature of man is lower than the glory of the angels—but even so He was “above all principality, power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the age to come.”88 And knowing this, the divine Paul writes: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, He became poor because of us, so that through His poverty we might become rich 90. “And again, when He brings in the Firstborn” (Heb. 1:6a) And he 94 calls Him “Firstborn” 91 not as those who pervert right-wing objects say P. 374 and relating this (expression) to creation, but since He takes precedence 92 in everything... 93 The appearance of the risen Christ to the angels (Heb. 1:6b) ... marveling, they said: “Who is this who came from Edom?” 94, that is, from the earth, “The redness of (His) garments is from Bozrah?” 99, which in Greek means sorrow and grief. “Why are Your garments red and Your veils like the winepress?” 95 And they continued to question, saying also this: “Why are these wounds in the midst of Your hands?” 96 He (answers) them: “By them I was wounded in My beloved house” 102. And, undoubtedly, it cannot be said that it was necessary that the marks of the nails should be on Him after His resurrection and that He should ascend to heaven even with them. Rather, this is what you should think intelligently about. Just as He showed the marks of the nails and even His side to the unbelieving Thomas, so as to cause him to say with his quickly taught mind: “My Lord and my God,” 97 likewise, I believe, making manifest the manner of His economy with the flesh, He appeared to the holy angels with the signs of His sufferings, bearing (on Himself) red garments and even the marks of the nails, so that they also would believe that He who was by nature and truly God also became the Son of man, taking a body from the Holy Virgin and sending Himself down into desolation in order to save (those) under heaven, exalting Himself to God the Father as an offering and sacrifice for all for a sweet aroma 98 . This is why also the holy multitude of angels worship Him, not rejecting worship because He was the Firstborn and Man among many brothers, 99 but having learned the economy and recognizing the Son, (derived) from the Father by nature, even when He became flesh. “And to the Son: Thy throne, O God” (Heb. 1:8; cf. Ps. 44:7) How unreasonable and impudent is it to explore the nature through which everything was brought into existence, the most ancient of all time? For (everything) was created by Her, and the Word, (originating) from God the Father, existed before all ages, but the insolent 100 accuse Him of being new and say that He was created, not knowing that they resist the words of the Holy Spirit. For those who speak in the Spirit say that the worlds were created by Him 101. And they claim that God is created above words and reason, and even accept this contrary to common sense. For God did not become the Father in time, but He was always and in the beginning. And if this is so, then it is absolutely necessary to think that the Son coexists (with Him) in order for God to truly be the Father. So, let them learn, if the Son is the Word 102 of the Father, and Wisdom, and Power 103, and the Imprint, and the Radiance of His Hypostasis 104, what time was it when the Father was wordless, (because) the Son did not exist? And when Was the Source of Wisdom without its Own Wisdom? And when (He was) without Power? And when was there no radiance of His glory in God? Or how can His Imprint not be constantly with Him and in Him? Therefore, if (all) this arose in time, He was not therefore the Father before the (Son) came into being, He was dumb and unwise, without Power, without Imprint and Radiance. I believe that it is wicked to think so, it shows wickedness. But the Father was always there, p. 376 therefore, the Son was also there, always coexisting with his own Parent. “Thou hast loved righteousness” (Ps. 44:8a; Heb. 1:9a) The Righteousness of Christ (Ps. 44:8a; Heb. 1:9a) The divine David addressed to God the Father, (who exists) in heaven, a kind of general prayer for all humanity: “Command, O God, by Thy power, strengthen, O God, what Thou hast done in us” 105 . And the Father's Power is The Son through whom He strengthened the heavens and founded the earth 106 and put all these things in order. And he created man in his own image and likeness, 107 a worker of righteousness, surpassing corruption and death. But since death began to reign because of sin and we were subject to corruption and “all went astray and came to nothing together,” 108 the Creator and Lord of the universe, of course, took care of His creatures, for God the Father was pleased to “put all things in Christ” 109 and renew them as (were) in the beginning. So, David explains the profound mystery of the incarnation, exclaiming to the Son, (originating) from God the Father by nature: “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore, O God, Thy God has anointed Thee with the oil of gladness (pre-eminently) before Thy fellow-partners.”110 But some 111 think that such expressions do not befit the Only Begotten, but that they are spoken rather in relation to a simple person born of the Holy Virgin. But it has already been shown to the thinker that this is nonsense, through many words. For no ordinary man was born for us, or (a man) deprived of unity with God, so that it can be said, according to their word, that the God of the universe knew in advance about him that he would love righteousness and hate iniquity 112 solely by his own will. However, we rightly apply the expression of the hymn to the Only Begotten, who appeared in the form of a man, also perceiving in a subtle spirit the prophecies of Isaiah about Him, because he said this: “Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and they will give Him the name Immanuel. He will eat butter and honey before He understands, (and instead of) choosing evil, He will choose good. Therefore, before the Child understands good and evil, He will resist evil in order to choose good” 113. But He loved righteousness and hated iniquity, 114 since He is in reality both Righteousness and God. Indeed, (if) a child cannot yet know what is worthy of blame and praise the opposite - how (can he do this) starting from a certain moment - how did He resist evil in order to choose good? But, as I have already said, He was God in the flesh, unable to go beyond His natural goodness, which is inherent in Him. And I do not support what I will now say, but, if we follow the word of the foolish, let us assume that He who is Honored only by the connection of the Face also has His own virtue. However, I will ask those who say this: “For what merits can someone, being a man by nature, become so great as to be worthy of even divine thrones, sitting with God the Father, even being called Lord along with the One who is such by nature, the worship of angels, as well as the whole earth serving him, although the Scripture says: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” 115 and does not allow us to have a new one among us God. But perhaps they will resort to this usual defense P. 378 will say that through union with God the glory of the Divinity is by nature (His). So, confess the true union and do not distort the matter by dividing the natures and putting each one in turn, saying that they do not touch, and inventing, I don’t know how, only a union of Persons. The anointing of Christ with the Holy Spirit (Ps. 44:8b; Heb. 1:9b) We affirm that (the verse) “Thou loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God anointed Thee, O God, with the oil of gladness (pre-eminently) before Thy fellows” 116 is said in relation to the Son, (originating) from God by nature, becoming like us, that is, man. For after the first man trampled upon the divine commandment, human nature became ill with a strong inclination to sin. Therefore the Word, (coming) from God, being unchangeable by nature, holy and righteous and hating unrighteousness, became like us and was called a servant and called His Father God 117 because of (His) humanity, although He (Itself) is God. And it is said that It was anointed by Him (the Father) through the Holy Spirit, 118 receiving It not for Himself, for as God It is also holy by nature, but as if leading us through Himself to grace and showing us worthy of blessing from the Father, although we were in stumbling because of the transgression in Adam and the sin that tormented us after that. For we were saved neither by a messenger nor by an angel, but by the Lord Himself 119. And, of course, if anyone thinks that the Word, (coming) from God the Father, receives sanctification into His own nature, He is sent into the vast and great sea of ​​blasphemy. For if we say that the anointing or sanctification in question was accomplished in the last times of the age, how is it that we do not necessarily and voluntarily confess that He cannot be holy by nature, but rather that He was also unholy in the times (which were) in the beginning and before the anointing, that is, to the ages of eternity, being deprived of sanctification before He became like us? But if this were true, then He would not be free from sin. How does the wisest Paul say that the Son is the Radiance of the Father’s glory and, likewise, the Imprint of His Hypostasis 120? After all, the imprint completely takes on the form of its prototype. Consequently, the Father Himself is unholy by nature. Then who sanctifies Him (the Son)? Therefore, having said goodbye to their utterances, we will confess that the Son is holy by nature, as, undoubtedly, is the Father Himself. But we say that He was sanctified according to the flesh when it is said that He became emptied, calling Himself a man, for whom sanctification is possible by communion from God, and not by His own nature. And there is nothing surprising if the Word, being God, appropriates to Himself the properties of humanity, according to Philokalia and economy. After all, He who wished to completely endure devastation, of course, how could He avoid its consequences 121? Therefore, on the one hand, if they think that the Word, (originating) from God the Father, (exists) by Himself, then He does not need any good, and we say that the Holy Spirit is His own. On the other hand, as I said, since It became flesh, It Himself anoints His church with His own Spirit, for the Father does not do what He wants to do in Israel through anyone else but the only Son. Therefore, it is said that He received the Spirit economically as a man. “For,” he says, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,” 122 and, as God, He grants (Him) to those worthy to receive Him. Indeed, He breathed (It) into the holy apostles, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit” 123. And also the divine Peter addressed the assemblies of the Jews about Him: “Therefore, being exalted by the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Spirit, He poured out Him whom you see and hear.”124 You hear in these (words), and very clearly, He was exalted by the right hand of God, that He received and at the same time bestowed the Spirit, and it is clear that He was exalted after He humbled Himself. For just as He sent Himself down into this (state) voluntarily, in the same way He Himself exalts Himself again, even with the flesh, being the Hand of the Father, through which He performs all things in a manner befitting God. So, He was exalted through Himself, by the will of the Father, when, breaking the bonds of death and saying to the lower spirits “Come out,” 125 He sat down to the right of the Father. So, the Son was by nature anointed with the oil of gladness, when the Father also was called His God, who became like us. But in no case is it strange to say this, because He nowhere said to the holy apostles: “I go to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” 126. Know therefore clearly that He said that His own Father was His God by reason of (His) humanity. And since we were called through Him to sonship, He called Himself brother to the servants by nature, and gave us (as) His Father. But just as we, even if we are called sons of the Father, are, of course, people, and we have known the grace of the One who honored (us), likewise the Son and Lord by nature, although He recognized, because of the flesh and likeness to us, the Father as His God, however He did not lose (His) being what He is, and we also recognize (these) words befitting (His) economy with the flesh. So, how is it said that He is anointed (pre-eminently) before His fellow-partners? Let's say it's possible. We are anointed with the Holy Spirit, but our (state) is different in nature as much as we can believe the nature of the Godhead is (different) from every created thing. But the Word of God, made man because of us, anoints His own church with His own Spirit, not doing a partial work, and certainly not giving a certain deposit, as (it is done) for us, but rather filling (the church) with sanctification and His power and glory. And that's why He said: “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in the truth.” 127 The Divinity of Christ (Heb. 1:10–12; cf. Ps. 101:26–28) And the divine Paul himself does not allow us to doubt that It (the Word) has not ceased to be what It was, that It is and what It will ceaselessly be, namely God - although they say that It was anointed of the Father according to humanity - adding immediately after: “Thou, O Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands; they will perish, but You remain, and they will all wear out like a garment, and You will fold them up like a garment, and they will be changed; but You are the same, and Your years will not end” 128. The superiority of Christ over the angels (Heb. 1:13–14; cf. Ps. 109:1) Then he immediately adds to these (words): “And to which of the angels did He ever say, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool?” 129. And, in my opinion, having common sense, one cannot believe that He who sits with the Father is different from the One born in the flesh from the Holy Virgin. Emmanuel himself confirms this for us, saying to the Jewish leaders: “What do you think about Christ? Whose Son is He?" They say to him: “David” 130. Then Christ (says) to them: “How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand’?” 131. So, understand that he also calls the Lord the Anointed One as a man (mainly) before His partners and said that (He) founded the earth in the beginning and created the heavens themselves, and that He exists unceasingly 132. For the Word, (originating) from God the Father, is eternal by nature, while those who began to be through Him do not essentially have no beginning in time, because they were called into being from God, Who, as it is said, alone possesses immortality, for, with the exception of Him, everything is perishable and mortal. And he adds to these (words) a clear and obvious proof of the superiority inherent in Him by nature: “To which of the angels,” he said, “Sit at My right hand”? Aren’t they all spirits of worship, sent to serve because they will inherit salvation?” 133 For if One 140 sits on the seats of the Godhead, surrounded by sovereign dignity - although He became the Son of David, taking the body from the Holy Virgin - and the other 134 stand around (Him) as (around) God and King of the universe, to which of those who exist is not obvious the difference separating Christ and the angels? For One is Son and God, while others boast of the measure due to slaves, and obedience to the highest glory is considered proper for them. But perhaps someone will say: “What reasoning will convince us to think that He who was born in the last times of the age by the Holy Virgin founded the earth in the beginning and raised up the heavens themselves?” In turn, he will hear from us that if he wanted to understand the meaning of the true union - which is not only in persons, neither by will nor by good pleasure - he will discover, on the one hand, that human (properties) have become proper to God because of the economy, and on the other hand, have become non-alien to humanity (properties) appropriate to the Word alone united with him. And since Emmanuel is one, the only and true Son, we consider Him God and Man. 1. The Greek New Testament, 5 e ed / ed. B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger. Munster, 2014. 2. Septuaginta/ed. A. Rahlfs, R. Hanhart. Stuttgart, 2007. 3. Athanasius Alexandrinus. Oratio I Сontra Arianos // Athanasius. Werke/Hrg. K. Metzler, K. Savvidis. Bd. 1. Die dogmatischen Schriften. Teil 1. Lieferung 2. Berlin–New York, 1998. S. 109–175. 4. Catena in Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Ed. J. A. Cramer // Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. Τ. 7. Catenae in sancti Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum, Titum, Philemona et ad Hebraeos. Oxonii, 1843, pp. 112–598. 5. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., trad. et not. A. Mai // PNB. T. 3. Romae, 1845. P. 107–127 (Greek text), P. 69–82 (Latin translation). 6. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Ed. J. P. Migne // PG. T. 74. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1863. Col. 953–1006. 7. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., et not. P. E. Pusey // CAO. T. 5. Oxonii, 1872. P. 362–440. 8. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., trad. et notes J. Lebon // Le Muséon. 1931. No. 44. P. 72–88 (Armenian text), P. 89–102 (Latin translation); Le Muséon. 1933. No. 46. P. 241–244 (Armenian text), P. 244–245 (Latin translation). 9 . Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide/ed. E. Schwartz // ACO. I, 1, 5. Berlin, 1924. P. 26–61. 10. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. De Incarnatione (fragm.) / ed. H. B. Swete // Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii. T. 2. Cambridge, 1882. P. 290–312. 11. Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. T. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1924. 12. Chadwick H. Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy // JTS (NS). 1951. No. 2.2. P. 145–164. 13. Clavis patrum graecorum, 6 t. /Ed. M. Geerard, F. Glorie, J. Noret, J. Desmet. 14. Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. 15. Parvis P. M. The Commentary on Hebrews and the Contra Theodorum of Cyril of Alexandria // JTS (NS). 1975. No. 26.2. P. 415–419. 16. Sophocles E. A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. New York, 1900. 17. Dvoretsky I. Kh. Ancient Greek-Russian dictionary / ed. S. I. Sobolevsky: in 2 volumes. M., 1958. 18. Dvoretsky I. Kh. Latin-Russian dictionary. M., 1976. CAO = Sancti Patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini [opera], 7 vol. /ed. P. E. Pusey. Oxonii, 1868–1877 (reprint: Bruxelles, 1965). CPG = Clavis patrum graecorum. JTS (NS) = Journal of Theological Studies. New Series. LXX = Septuaginta/ed. A. Rahlfs, R. Hanhart. Stuttgart, 2007. NT = The Greek New Testament, 5 ed. /ed. B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger. Munster, 2014. PG = Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca/ed. J. P. Migne. PNB = Patrum nova bibliotheca, 8 vol. /ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1843–1854. SC = Sources chrétiennes. Priest Maxim Nikulin. Translation of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Portion for Hebrews 1). In the present article the author offers a translation from Ancient Greek of a fragment of one of the exegetical works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the introductory section, the author offers some information about the sources, editions, and studies of this work. The translation of the first part of this work, in which the father comments the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The translation is supplied with thematic rubrics and comments, which provide references and allusions to biblical texts. The author also offers textual critical information and demonstrates the addresses of the hierarch’s polemics. In this text, St. Cyril discusses issues of Trinitarian doctrine, Christology, and Pneumatology. He teaches that Christ is much higher than the Angels and Prophets and considers Christ’s being begotten, the inheritance, and the righteousness of Christ, His being anointed by the Holy Spirit, and His appearance to the Angels after His resurrection. Using the text of Hebrews, the father argues against Arianism and Christological dualism. Keywords : Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle to the Hebrews, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Psalms, exegesis, patristics, Christology, Trinitarian doctrine, Arianism, Christological dualism, Nestorianism. Priest Maksim Sergeyevich Nikulin – Master of Theology, Master of Humanitarian and Social Sciences (Practice School of Higher Studies, Paris), Graduate Student at St. Petersburg Theological Academy (maximvzzz@gmail.com). PG. T. 68–77. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1859–1864. Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi opera in VI. tomos tributa/ed. J. Aubert. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1638. PNB. T. 2–3. Romae, 1844–1845. CAO. T. 1–7. Oxonii, 1868–1877 (Bruxelles, 1965). S.C. T. 97 (De incarnatione Unigeniti; Quod unus sit Christus); T. 231, 237, 246 (De sancta Trinitate Dialogi I-VII); T. 322 (Contra Julianum imperatorem, I-II); T. 372, 392, 434 (Epistulae paschales sive Homiliae paschales, I-XVII). Catena in Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Ed. J. A. Cramer // Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. Τ. 7. Catenae in sancti Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum, Titum, Philemona et ad Hebraeos. Oxonii, 1843. P. 112–598 Sigillo fidei/ed. K. Ter-Mekerttschian. Etschmiadsin, 1914. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., trad. et not. A. Mai // PNB. T. 3. Romae, 1845. P. 107–127 (Greek text), P. 69–82 (Latin Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Ed. J. P. Migne // PG. T. 74. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1863. Col. 953–1006 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., et not. P. E. Pusey // CAO. T. 5. Oxonii, 1872. P. 362–440 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., trad. et notes J. Lebon // Le Muséon. 1931. No. 44. P. 72–88 (Armenian text), P. 89–102 (Latin translation); Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., trad. et notes J. Lebon // Le Muséon. 1933. No. 46. P. 241–244 (Armenian text), P. 244–245 (Latin translation). Parvis P. M. The Commentary on Hebrews and the Contra Theodorum of Cyril of Alexandria. Durand de G. M. Excursus VI. La Bible dans les dialogues // Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques. Sources chrétiennes. T. 97. Paris, 1964. P. 532 Chadwick H. Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy // JTS (NS). 1951. No. 2.2. P. 145–164. Pusey P. E. Commentariorum fragmenta in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. P. VII-VIII. Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. T. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1924. P. 43. Lebon J. Fragments arméniens du Commentaire sur l’Épître aux Hébreux de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie. P. 114, note 2. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / Introd., ed., et not. P. E. Pusey // CAO. T. 5. Oxonii, 1872. P. 362–440. Pagination is based on the critical edition of F. E. Pusey, from which the translation was made. St. Apostle Paul, whom St. Cyril is recognized as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Wed. Rom.5:14; 1 Corinthians 10:6. 22 Wed. Gal.14:6. Wed. Rom.5:14; 1 Corinthians 10:6. Wed. Isa.61:1–2. 54 Wed. Hebrews 1:2b. This refers to the Arian thesis that “There was once (a time) when the Son was not.” Further text in the manuscript has not been preserved. Wed. Hebrews 1:4ab. 83 Wed. John 1:14. Further in the text of the critical edition by F. E. Pusey (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / P. E. Pusey. P. 370.5–7) there is a fragment from the “Speech on Faith to the Empresses Pulcheria and Eudoxia” by St. Cyril (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide. P. 29), and then (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in sancti Pauli Epistulam ad Hebraeos / P. E. Pusey. P. 370.7–373.25) - a large excerpt from the “First Speech against the Arians” by St. Athanasius the Great (Athanasius Alexandrinus. Oratio I Сontra Arianos, 53.2–62.2. P. 109–175). We leave these passages untranslated as they do not belong to the text of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by St. Kirill. 94 St. Apostle Paul. Further text was not preserved. Zechariah 13:6a. 102 Zech 13:6b. Probably Theodore of Mopsuestia. Compare: Theodorus Mopsuestenus. De Incarnatione (fragm.), XIV. P. 308–309. Wed. Ps.44:8a; Hebrews 1:9a. Matthew 4:10; Wed Deuteronomy 6:13. That is, the consequences of His devastation (kenosis). Hebrews 1:13. Wed. Ps.109:1. Matthew 22:43–44. Wed. Ps.109:1. Wed. Hebrews 1:10–12; Ps.101:26–28. Hebrews 1:13–14. 140 Christ.