Clarification of dogmas

The dogmatic and polemical work “Explanation of Dogmas” was written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem after 431, is directly related to the treatise “Answers of Tiberius to the Deacon and the Brethren” and, in fact, is his later compilation. The treatise opens with a petition from Tiberius and other Palestinian monks. They write that some false Christians from Avilina (a city in Syria near Damascus) and Egypt appeared among them, and dogmatic disputes arose because of this. In the main part of the work of St. Cyril gives answers to 11 questions in which Tiberius formulated the doctrinal problems that emerged. The content of the questions concerns “anthropomorphic” statements about God in the Holy Scriptures, the image of God in man, the origin of the soul, its prosperity, the problem of original sin, the resurrection from the dead and the final fate of people. *The title of the work in Greek is ᾿Επιλύσεις δογματικῶν ζητημάτων. *The title of the essay in Latin is De dogmatum solutione. Contents Abstract Petition submitted to St. Cyril, a faithful bishop, a true servant of God, St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, from the brethren First chapter of clarification of dogmatic issues presented to His Holiness Cyril Bibliography Translations and sources Abstract Published in Russian translation of the treatise of St. Cyril’s “Explanation of Dogmas” is a continuation of his treatise, “Answers to Tiberius the Deacon and the Brethren,” which was published earlier in the “Theological Bulletin,” with which the “Explanation” is very close in content and questions raised. This essay represents answers to eleven questions proposed to the saint by Palestinian monks regarding biblical anthropomorphisms, on the topics of soteriology and eschatology, as well as on the interpretation of certain passages of Holy Scripture. The translation of the main part of the “Explanation” is preceded by a letter to St. Cyril of the Palestinian monks, in which they report dogmatic disputes in the neighboring region and express a request to resolve dogmatic difficulties. The answer to this letter is the text “Explanation of Dogmas”, in which St. Cyril also answers questions about the image of God in man, about the creation of the soul, about original sin, and also about whether the reward for sins, which is spoken of in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, has already come, and whether God can make what was not what was. Published texts are preceded by a preface, which addresses the issue of the addressees of the work, its dating, gives an overview of its contents, and indicates the editions of the text and the manuscript tradition. Key words: Cyril of Alexandria, Greek patristics, patristic exegesis, ancient Armenian translated literature, anthropomorphisms, anthropomorphites, image of God, anthropology, soteriology. This publication is a continuation of the treatise of St. presented in the previous issue of the Theological Bulletin. Cyril of Alexandria “Responses to Tiberius the Deacon and the Brethren” 1. The treatise “Explanation of Dogmas” 2 offered here also provides answers to puzzling questions (eleven in number) proposed by a group of Palestinian monks. The treatise is preceded by a letter addressed to the saint, which reports on the dogmatic disputes that have arisen in the neighboring region, and makes a request to resolve the dogmatic difficulties associated with these disputes. This petition mentions the “book that resolves the dispute about our right dogmas” that they had previously received from the saint, which in all likelihood is “Answers”. From this we can conclude that its addressees in the “Explanation” are the same brotherhood of Deacon Tiberius 3 and that this treatise was compiled some time after the first 4, which was definitely written no earlier than November 431 and, presumably, no later than 433. 5 The content of the “Explanation” does not provide additional data to clarify the dating, nor do we have any third-party information for this. Both treatises have similarities in content. A number of chapters of the “Explanation” in a slightly different aspect touch upon topics already raised in the “Answers”: about the incorporeality of God and the reason for the use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic expressions to Him in the Holy Scriptures (chapter 1) and about the image of God in man, namely: should we distinguish between the “image” and “likeness” of God in man (chapter 3) and whether man is not the “image of the image” of God, that is in fact, in the “image” of the Son (chapter 4). The question of the image of God in man is also touched upon in Chapter 2, the main theme of which is an explanation of what is to be understood by the “breath of life” given by God to man at creation (Gen. 2:7), while the explanation places emphasis on the special role of the Holy Spirit both in the sanctification of the first-created man and in the economy of salvation. Chapter 5 discusses whether it is possible to talk about the success of the human soul in the future life. In the 6th chapter, explaining why a person, washed from ancestral sin in baptism, does not pass on this sanctification directly to his offspring, the saint expounds the doctrine of the inheritance of ancestral sin and the remission of sins and victory over death in Christ. The following examines a number of biblical passages. It is explained what Ezekiel's vision of the resurrection of dead bones refers to (Ezekiel 37:7–10) and whether this prophecy can be considered already fulfilled (chapter 7). In relation to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–22), the question is resolved whether the reward for the righteous and sinners already mentioned in this parable took place (chapter 8); whether the prophet Hosea really took a harlot as his wife and fathered children from her (Hosea 1:2–6) (chapter 9); who was the biblical Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20) (ch. 10). Chapters 9–10 contain, in fact, only questions: in his short answer, the saint only refers the addressees to his other works. Finally, in the last 11th chapter, the saint answers the question whether God, by His omnipotence, can make what once was never be. In general, the “Explanation”, like the “Answers”, illustrates important and not devoid of originality aspects of the teaching of God, anthropology, soteriology and eschatology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, giving examples and his biblical exegesis. Among the works of the saint, whose usual style was not without reproaches for ponderousness, verbosity and pomposity, 6 both treatises stand out for their laconicism and clarity, which is quite natural for the genre of explanation of “difficult passages” presented in them. There is no Greek manuscript with the full text of the Explanation, but this treatise is presented in its original composition in an ancient Armenian translation in at least three manuscripts of the 14th and 17th centuries. 7 The translation itself, marked by extreme literalism, dates back to the beginning of the 8th century. 8 It was published in Constantinople in 1717. 9 The main witnesses to the original Greek text are two manuscripts from the 11th and 12th centuries. Florentine and Vatican collections, the first of which contains the beginning of the treatise up to the 5th chapter, including the introductory letter of the Palestinian monks, and the second - its entire text, with the exception of the introductory letter 10. Chapters 1–8 and 11 were included in the later compilation work “Against the Anthropomorphites,” inscribed with the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria and published in 1605. 11 “Explanation” as an independent work in Greek was first published in 1872 by F. Pusey 12. A small fragment missing from F. Pusey's edition (questions 9–10) was additionally published in 1903 by Cardinal G. Mercati based on the above-mentioned Vatican manuscript 13 . The newest critical edition of the Greek text, now in its entirety, was carried out by L. Wickham, accompanied by an English translation in 1983. 14 The present translation was made from the last edition 15 . Petition submitted to Saint Cyril, a faithful bishop, a true servant of God, Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, from the brethren 16 It was good for us to live in silence, since in some way we even achieved, perhaps, the goal of our labors, but we expect to receive no less benefit when leaving there, thanks only to looking at you, and we gain especially a lot by learning piety from your very lips. After all, although even for those who are in a distant country, reading the books and works of your reverence is good and useful and it attracts those who listen to them to greater things, but to be imbued with teaching from your very lips, exuding Divine grace and spiritual sweetness, is more reliable and life-giving. So, we came again out of attraction to you and piety, and together for the sake of our progress and the correction of others. After all, having previously received from your hands a book resolving the dispute about our right dogmas, we have derived considerable benefit for ourselves. For for us this word served for confirmation, for others for correction; those who did not follow sound doctrine 17 were few, and their mouths were stopped 18 . But those in the Avilina region 19, cruelly arguing with each other over certain dogmatic issues, reached such madness that they decreed depositions and anathemas against each other, instituted persecutions against each other and dared to rob. And it seems that neither the local bishops and fathers, nor those with us, nor any other of the saints agree to recognize a greater degree of knowledge, with such force was the satanic turmoil carried them away from the divine world. Moreover, some of the Egyptians, not taught, in turn, the right to philosophize about God, seized by the same madness as those of them, attack each other with an equal desire for superiority, however, by inspiration from above, both sides arrived to the saints in Palestine and they were asked controversial issues. We, having assessed our strengths, decided that we should not give a definition about this, and we are not able to present a satisfactory reasoning regarding such research. Therefore, the persons mentioned above, having learned that we had boldness towards your reverence, begged us, through our badness, to receive them a word of your instruction to end mutual discord. So, with the approval of our holy fathers, we willingly accepted the request, giving pleasure to ourselves rather than to others, since we ourselves will give joy to our eyes and will be comforted by your presence and living word, and not by a letter sent through someone else and only more inflaming the desire, so we seized the opportunity to set off, rejoicing immensely, so that through us the least they would put aside the enmity that they had started among themselves, and through you sound instruction as soon as possible, both we and they were rewarded with the peace of Christ, whether due to the fact that we depart for the sake of the silence that is dear to us, or due to the fact that we remain for the sake of love and support and the prosperity resulting from them and send back what is written in a timely manner. But you yourself, Most Holy Father, do not refuse to sincerely meet with us, saving your fatherly compassion for us too. For we, I believe, do not need justification, using boldness together with reverence by the grace of God and by your goodness, which we ask to extend to ourselves in proportion to our sincerity, and we ask with prudence. After all, it will happen that in the meantime we will also receive reward, and Your Reverence will deign to deal with us in an appropriate way, to which the Savior of all will be even more favorable, since you, in imitation of Him, condescend to us, the least, not out of coercion, but out of sincere love, and bring this gift to Him. Controversial issues are listed below. [Although the chapters were appended to the petition, we, in order not to write them down twice, added each chapter to the interpretation.] 20 First chapter of explanation of dogmatic questions presented to His Holiness Cyril 21 1. Since Divine Scripture calls God, who is above everything, 22 having hands, feet, eyes, ears and wings, do we need to think of Him like that? It is not human-like, taking these members as members of the body, because He is incorporeal, but insofar as there is an essence, the things mentioned pertaining to the essence are divine members, and they are consistent with the essence. Those who have a sound mind and subtly penetrate with the gaze of their minds into the concepts of the ineffable Deity, see that It dwells on the other side of all created things, surpasses the acuity of every mind, is completely beyond the boundaries of bodily conception and, as the wise Paul says, dwells in the unapproachable light 23 . If the light that surrounds Him is unapproachable, how can anyone consider Him Himself? For we see in a mirror, fortune-telling, and we know in part 24. So, the Deity is completely incorporeal, devoid of size and magnitude and is not in a describable form. And if It is such in its own nature, how can one imagine It as consisting of parts and members? After all, if we assume that this is true, then It is no longer thought of as incorporeal. For what is entirely contained in form necessarily has size, and what has size is located in some place, and what is conceivable in some place does not exclude description. And this is characteristic of bodies, but completely alien to ethereal nature. Therefore, one should not think of God as having eyes or ears, nor arms, legs or wings, even if someone, perhaps, decides to think of these kinds of things not as in tangible and gross bodies, but as in subtle and immaterial, and even in accordance with the nature of God, because the desire to invent something like that is completely absurd. For God is Spirit 25, and being such, He has knowledge of everything, surveys and looks out for everything, and nothing that exists is hidden from Him. If the Divine Scripture, telling us about what pertains to Him, mentions parts or members, then we should know that this is said for our sake, based on what we know and what we are by nature, because otherwise we could not think of what pertains to God. Thus, the true reason and reason that the inspired Scripture speaks to us about God using bodily expressions (σωματικῶς) is the poverty of our mind and tongue. After all, what relates to Him is completely inexpressible, and it would be impossible for those who dwell in tangible and gross bodies to understand anything necessary if they did not take their own members as examples, and so we little by little ascend to subtle ideas about God. 2. God created man from the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul 26 . And some say that the soul was created by this inspiration, just as the body was created by hands, and others that this inspiration became the soul for man; others that this inspiration gave life force to the man created entirely, and others that this inspiration is the mind, and it is different from the soul, and “in the image” means that man as a separate being (ἰδιαζόντως) is constituted into a unity of these three: mind, soul and body. And whether this inspiration is one’s own for the essence of God or extraneous. Such subtle and unusual questions do not require dogmatic judgment, but rather further questioning and insightful testing, at the same time it is unacceptable to allow reasoning to slip where it should not, that is, to be carried away beyond the proper meaning. For it is written that if you seek 27, seek, and live with me 28. And what is not clearly stated in the Holy Scriptures, how can it be clearly interpreted? For example, in the book of the creation of the world it is written that first God created the heavens and the earth 29 . And what He did, says the Holy Scripture, and by faith we accept it as truth. The study of how, or where, or in what way the heavens, earth and other creations were brought into existence is not harmless, because there is no need to delve into deeper objects with the mind, therefore, when Scripture does not speak too clearly about something, it should be left aside and passed over in silence. If it is necessary to make an assumption, while striving to preserve the correctness of thoughts, let us say that the Creator of everything formed man, that is, the body, from the earth, and having animated him with a living and rational soul 30 in the way that He knows, He by nature placed in him the desire for every good deed and the knowledge of it. After all, this, I think, reveals what the blessed Evangelist John said: There was true Light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world 31. For this living being is born with a natural inclination towards goodness. And this is taught by the wise Paul, who writes that we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, in which God prepared beforehand that we should walk. After all, although a person is controlled by a deliberate choice and is entrusted with the reins of his own plans, so that he moves where he pleases: either towards good or towards the opposite, yet his nature also has an inherent desire and zeal for every good deed, and a desire to care about goodness and righteousness. For thus, we affirm, man originated in the image and likeness, due to which this living being is by nature good and righteous. Since he had to be not only reasonable and capable of good deeds and righteousness, but also partaker of the Holy Spirit, so that he [this living being] would have more clearly the features of the Divine nature 33, God breathed into him the breath of life. And this is the Spirit, given through the Son to the rational creation and transforming it into the highest, that is, Divine, image. After all, that the Spirit blown into a person did not become either his soul or his mind, as some think, can be seen from the following. Firstly, He who breathed is considered to be God, and what was blown from Him is certainly considered His own, that is, belonging to His essence. How then would the Spirit from God be transformed into the nature of the soul or even become the mind? After all, it is impossible for the Spirit to transform. If anyone admits that the Spirit can become a soul or mind through transformation (which is impossible), then one can immediately notice that if the Divine Spirit became a soul for a person, then the soul and mind would remain immune to sin. If the Spirit from God, having been transformed into the soul, fell into sins, then we bring a double accusation against Him. First, that He underwent a transformation into something that He was not, and furthermore, we affirm that He even became susceptible to sin. Thus, although this living being was animated by the ineffable power of God and received a likeness in relation to Him, due to which it is by nature good, righteous and receptive to all virtue, it was sanctified, becoming a participant in the Divine Spirit, which it lost due to sin. After all, God said that My Spirit will not dwell in these people 34 , for they are flesh 35 , that is, they think only about the things of the flesh. Since God and the Father deigned to unite everything under the head of Christ 36, that is, to raise it to its ancient state, again returning to us the Holy Spirit who had retreated and departed from us, He (Christ) breathed Him into the holy apostles, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit 37. After all, the renewal of that ancient gift and inspiration given to us was this (inspiration) through Christ, transforming us into the first sanctification and returning human nature, as in the first fruits in the holy apostles, to that sanctification that was given to us from ancient times, in the first dispensation 38 . 3. Is “in the image” really one thing, and “in the likeness” is another, or are they one and the same? After all, they say that we received “in the image” immediately when we were created, but “in the likeness” - no, for this is preserved for us for the age to come. Therefore, they say, it is written: “When Christ 39 is revealed, we will be like Him” 40 . And also, they say, it is said: “Let us create man in Our image and in Our likeness” 41, and after the creation of man (Moses) said: “And God created man, in His own image 42 He created him” 43, passing over here in silence “in the likeness” to show, they say, that we have not yet received this, but it is reserved for us in that blessed life 44. If they say that “in the image” is one thing, and “in the likeness” is another, let them explain the difference. For we believe that “in the image” does not express anything other than “in the likeness” and, in a similar way, “in the likeness” - “in the image.” We received similarity in relation to God, of course, in the first dispensation, and we are images of God. After all, human nature, as I said, is receptive to goodness, righteousness and holiness and has a God-given inclination towards them. And this can be seen from the following. The deviation in the way of thinking of a person occurred, of course, not from bad to good, but from good to bad, therefore it is necessary that what we left behind when we went astray must first be present. After all, that from the first dispensation the desire and zeal for every good thing and its knowledge were instilled into the soul of man, the wise Paul reveals, saying: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what is lawful, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves, they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness.” And if it is even possible for pagans who are outside the law to know the law by nature, that is, the goal of the Lawgiver, then, finally, it should be clear to everyone that human nature was originally righteous and good, and that it was created for this by God, bearing His image and image of goodness. And in fact, the first time of a person’s life was holy, but when sin happened, the features of similarity in relation to God no longer remained obvious in us. Since the Only Begotten Word of God became man, human nature again became holy, newly formed according to Him through sanctification and righteousness. Thus, the wise Paul says: “But we all, openly, as in a mirror, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord 46 . The Lord is the Spirit." 47 Therefore, in Christ there has been a renewal and, as it were, a re-creation of human nature, since our flesh is brought into conformity with the holy life in the Spirit. If the Holy Scripture says that God created man in His image, but passed over “in the likeness” in silence, then it should be understood that it was enough to say “in the image,” since this does not express anything other than “in the likeness.” After all, it is needless to say that it is saved for us for the next century. In fact, if God said: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” who would dare to assert that although it arose “in the image,” yet “in the likeness” is not yet? And we will be like Christ, of course, in incorruptibility and in the fact that we will find ourselves beyond death, as well as in the glory with which He Himself will grace us. After all, the divine Paul writes again: “For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, your life, appears, then you will appear with Him in glory.”48 And again: “Who will transform our lowly body so that it will be like His glorious body” 49 . For even now we are not outside of being in His likeness, if it be true that He is portrayed in us through the Holy Spirit. After all, Paul also writes to the Galatians: “Children 50 , for whom I am again in birth pangs, until Christ is portrayed in you.” 51 After all, when we keep ourselves faithful and holy, then it is clear that He is portrayed in us and intelligibly illuminates our thoughts with His features. 4. They say that we are not the image of God, but the image of an image. After all, the Son and Word of God and the Father is His image 52 , but man is the image not of the prototype, but of the image, that is, of the Son, so that we are the image of the image 53 . After all, it is not said, they say, that God created man “in His own image,” but in the image, so that man would be in the image of God and the Father, that is, the image of the Son, which is the image of the image. The Divine and consubstantial Trinity resides beyond all appearance and bodily representation, but one must believe that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, and that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father 54 . Likewise, the Son is seen in the consubstantial Spirit, for it is written: “The Lord is Spirit.” 55 And where there is complete identity of essence, there is absolutely no difference. But whatever you think of the Father, such is the Son, except that He is not the Father, and whatever you think the Son to be, such is the Spirit, except that He is not the Son. For although each of those named exists, having his own being ( ἰδιοσυστάτως), and truly there is what is said about Him, but the likeness in everything of the Holy Trinity is indistinguishable, therefore, even if man is created in the image of the Son, even so he appears in the image of God, because in him the features of the entire consubstantial Trinity shine, since the Divinity is one in nature in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Moses writes: “And God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness” 56. “To ours” does not indicate one Person, since the fullness of the ineffable Divine nature is in three Hypostases, therefore it is unnecessary to zeal in vain, indulge in sophisticated reasoning and say that we are not images of God or a prototype, but the image of God, but it is enough to believe in simplicity that we are created in the Divine image, having naturally received a resemblance to God. If it is necessary to say something not devoid of conviction, then we, who were to be called sons of God, had to be created rather in the image of the Son, so that the distinctive feature (χαρακτήρ) of sonship 57 would also be manifested in us. 5. That in the future dispensation the soul, since it has the ability to think and therefore is not devoid of knowledge, will succeed 58. Others say that if she has success, then there will certainly be decline, passion, and corruption, and hence death, and again resurrection. Those who believe this seem to be ignorant of the grace that will be given to human nature after the resurrection of the dead. After all, if this corruptible thing must put on incorruptibility 59 and put off corruption, then it is obvious that along with corruption we will throw away the passions that arise from it, and to them all carnal lust belongs, and we will finally move on to a holy and spiritual life, since steadfastness in this is given to us by the Savior of us all, Christ. For if even now, having the deposit of the Spirit, 60 we live a holy life, what will we be like when we receive His fullness? And where there is fullness of the Spirit, there will certainly be security of mind and stability of the heart, turned to goodness and an unclouded vision of God. Consequently, we will become better than ourselves, having stripped ourselves of corruption and possessing a spiritual body, 61 that is, striving only for what belongs to the Spirit. Then there will be no confusion that reduces us to evil, since the Creator, by the Holy Spirit, will hold us in His will, as He, without a doubt, holds the holy angels. Christ revealed something similar when he said: “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but remain as the angels of God in heaven” 62 . 6. Why, dying in Adam 63, we repay our father's condemnation, and everyone is obliged to repay for his crime, but my father, quickened in Christ 64 and cleansed by the Holy Spirit from his forefathers' debt and his sins, did not convey to me, born (from him), participation in this purity and did not benefit me from the grace of justification operating in him, although it overcomes sin? We need to examine how the forefather Adam conveyed to us the condemnation imposed on him because of the crime. He heard: “For you are earth and you will go back to earth” 65, he became corruptible from incorruptible 66 and was brought down into the bonds of death. Since he, having fallen into such a state, gave birth to children, we, who came from him as from a corruptible one, were born corruptible. Thus we are heirs of the curse in Adam. After all, we suffer punishment not at all because together with him we disobeyed the commandment that he received, but, as I said, when he became mortal, he passed on a curse to the seed that came from him, namely: we were born mortal from a mortal. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, being called the second Adam and the second beginning of our race after the first, transformed us anew into incorruption, having overtaken death, abolishing it with His flesh, and the power of the ancient curse was destroyed in Him, therefore the wise Paul says that as death is through man, so through man is the resurrection of the dead 67 . And again: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 68 Thus corruption and death are the universal and general punishment due to the transgression in Adam. Likewise, in Christ the universal and universal redemption was accomplished. For in Him human nature put aside the death that was sent upon it because the first man became corruptible. However, the father of any of us, even if he is sanctified by the Holy Spirit and receives remission of sins, will not give us this gift, for there is only one who sanctifies, justifies and returns to incorruption, our Lord Jesus Christ, and this gift comes to everyone equally through Him and from Him. But remission of sin is one thing, and deliverance from death is another, and although everyone receives remission of their own sins in Christ by the Holy Spirit, we are collectively delivered from the punishment imposed on us in ancient times, that is, from death, which overtook us all, in the likeness of the first (Adam), who fell into death 69 . After all, this is why the wise Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses and over those who did not sin, like the crime of Adam, 70 for the punishment of death received force before the law. When Christ finally shone forth, righteousness entered, justifying by grace and driving away corruption from our bodies. 7. Has the resurrection that the prophet Ezekiel saw already happened, when bone was joined to bone, and joint to joint, and flesh, and skin, and hair, and spirit, and he saw the resurrection of a great multitude 71, or has Divine Scripture shown us in a prophetic vision an image of the future general resurrection? 72 The prophets taught about great events and because of excessive surprise at them, which aroused distrust among some, not only announcing them in their time, when the Holy Spirit illuminated them with knowledge about each of them, but they even saw these events themselves, so that by believing before others, they would dispose others to believe it. Therefore, God promised everyone, even those who had already died in Babylon, to return back to Jerusalem, which, of course, is thought to be not at all on earth, but above and in heaven, 73 clearly showed the prophet the resurrection, as well as how it would happen in due time. The divine David already proclaimed it, speaking about us, that is, about every person, that when You turn away your face, they will be confused and return to their dust. You will send Your Spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth, 74 namely: when we stumbled in Adam because of the transgression, God turned away from us, and for this reason we returned to our dust, finding ourselves under the curse. After all, the Creator said: “For you are earth and to earth you will go” 75 . But in the last times of this age, God the Father, by the power of the life-giving Spirit in Christ, will raise up all the dead. And that there has not yet been a resurrection of the dead, but it will happen in due time, is confirmed by the wise Paul, who writes that Hymenaeus and Alexander suffered shipwreck in faith 76, saying that the resurrection has already happened 77. If the one who says this suffers shipwreck in faith, then it may finally be obvious that the blessed prophet Ezekiel, in prophetic contemplation, saw for our benefit the power of the resurrection. 8. A certain man was rich and feasted brilliantly every day, but a certain beggar named Lazarus lay at his gate, covered with sores 78, according to the Gospel narrative. So, it happened that both of them died, 79 and if this beggar went to rest, then the rich man went to punishment. Has this already happened and everyone has received a worthy reward, or is this an image of a future judgment? But they say that since the name of Lazarus is mentioned, it means that it happened and happened truly. After all, why is it said that it is not a certain “man” who is a beggar, but Lazarus, if not to show by this name that this happened in reality and in truth? 80 Divine Scripture everywhere says that judgment will take place after the resurrection from the dead. But there will be no resurrection until Christ appears to us again in the glory of the Father along with the holy angels 81 . So the wise Paul says: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God 82 . For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will rise incorruptible,” 83 therefore, since the Judge of all has not yet descended from heaven, the resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred. How then can one consider it probable that there has already been retribution for someone either for evil deeds or for good ones? 84 Therefore, what Christ said about the rich man and Lazarus is presented in the form of a skillfully decorated parable. The point is that, as the tradition of the Jews reports 85, at that time there was a certain Lazarus in Jerusalem, suffering extreme poverty and weakness, whom the Lord mentioned in order to take him as an example for the most clear disclosure of speech, therefore, since Christ had not yet descended from heaven, there was no resurrection, and no reward for the deeds followed. But, as in the picture, a rich man living in luxury and devoid of compassion, and a beggar living in weakness are described through a parable, so that those who have wealth on earth may know that if they do not want to be good, generous and sociable 86 and do not take care of the needs of the poor, then they will undergo a terrible and inevitable punishment. 9 . Did the prophet Hosea take a harlot as his wife and father 87 children from her in reality, or is he saying something that must be understood in a prophetic sense? 88 10. Was Melchizedek 89 really not just a man or a spirit, but a man who did not receive the beginning of being from people, but was recently created by God? 90 We compiled a long discussion about these subjects when we wrote an interpretation of the prophet Hosea 91, and in the book of Genesis there is a large study about Melchizedek 92; and Your Reverence can read these books and from there understand the meaning of what is said about each of them. 11. Can the God of all make it so that events that have already happened never happen, according to what was said: “No word will remain powerless with Him 93” 94? We do not mean that they would not exist, but that they would not occur in the first place. For example, can He make a harlot a virgin from her mother’s womb, so that she who has fallen into fornication would not be a harlot, since what is impossible for men is possible with God? 95 We need to ask, is the power of God really great and amazing when the action is not unbecoming to the Divine glory? Indeed, on the basis of the fact that He can do everything, we should not see in Him the performer of absurd deeds, namely: we believe that it is absurd to ask whether God can do with Himself so as not to be God; whether He can make Himself susceptible to sin; whether He can do such a thing to Himself as not to be good, or life, or righteous, therefore such absurd questions should be rejected with all our might. Why can’t God make sure that someone who has fallen into fornication will never be a harlot? Because He cannot make truth a lie. And this is not a reproach of impotence, but proof that His nature does not allow itself to experience anything inappropriate for it, and for God lies are completely alien, because lies are to make sure that someone who has fallen into fornication will never be a harlot. But, as I said, one should initially not even allow such frivolous and extremely absurd questions in content. And there was no need to put this in writing, but in order that your reverence, when he reads this in private, will see that his own thoughts are sound, I have tried, as far as possible, to explain what relates to each of the chapters. Diesperov 2002 – Diesperov A. Blessed Jerome and his age. M., 2002. [Diesperov A. Blazhennyi Hieronymus i ego vek (Blessed Hieronymus and his time). Moscow, 2002.] Dunaev, Fokin 2008 – Dunaev A. G., Fokin A. R. Evagrius Ponticus // PE. 2008. vol. 16. pp. 557–581. [Dunaev A. G., Fokin A. R. Evagrii Pontiiskii (Evagrius of Pontus) // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). Moscow, 2008. v. 16. p. 557–581.] Theodore (Yulaev), priest. 2014 – Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. and others. Cyril, St., Archbishop. Alexandrian // PE. 2014, vol. 34, pp. 225–291. [Feodor (Iulaev), ierom. i dr. Kirill, svt., arkhiep. Aleksandriiskii (Cyril, St., Archbishop of Alexandria) // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). Moscow, 2014. T. 34. P. 225–291.] Bardenhewer 1924 – Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Bd. 4. Freiburg i. Br., 1924. Bardy 1926–1927 – Bardy G. Melchisédech dans la tradition patristique // RB. 1926. Vol. 35. P. 495–509; 1927. Vol. 36. P. 25–45. Boulnois 1989 – Boulnois M.-O. Le souffle et l'Esprit. Exégèses patristiques de l'insufflation originelle de Gn. 2, 7 en lien avec celle de Jn. 20, 22 // Recherches Augustiniennes. 1989. Vol. 24. P. 3–37. Burghardt 1957 – Burghardt W. The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria. Wash., 1957. Conybeare 1907 – Conybeare F.C. The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alexandria’s Scholia on the Incarnation and Epistle on Easter. Oxford, 1907. Euringer 1943 – Euringer S. Übersetzung der Homilien des Cyrillus von Alexandrien, des Severus von Synnada und des Theodotus von Ancyra in Dillmanns “Chrestonathia Aethiopica” // Orientalia. 1943. Vol. 12. P. 113–134. Hespel 1955 – Hespel R. Le florilège cyrillien réfuté par Sévère d’Antioche. Louvain, 1955. Holopainen 1996 – Holopainen T. J. Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century. Leiden – New York – Köln, 1996. Kerrigan 1952 – Kerrigan A. St. Cyril of Alexandria, interpreter of the Old Testament. R., 1952. Mercati 1903 – Mercati G. Un nuovo frammento del “de dogmatum solutione” di S. Cirillo Alessandrino // Mercati G. Varia sacra. V., 1903 (StT 11). P. 83–86. Σταμούλης 1993 – Σταμούλης Χ . Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρίας "Κατὰ ἀνθρωπομορφιτῶν". Θεσσαλονίκη, 1993. Vaccari 1937 – Vaccari A. La grecità di S. Cirillo d’Alessandria // Studi dedicati alla memoria di P. Ubaldi. Milano, 1937, pp. 27–39. Wilken 2004 – Wilken R. L. Cyril of Alexandria, Biblical Exegete // Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity / Ed. Ch. Kannengiesser. Leiden – Boston, 2004. Vol. 2. P. 840–867. Anselm of Canterbury 1995 – Anselm of Canterbury. Essays. M., 1995. [Anselm of Canterbury. Sochinenia (Works). Moscow, 1995.] Gregory of Nyssa, St. 1861 – Gregory of Nyssa, St. Creations. M., 1861. Part 1. [Grigorii Nisskii, svt. Creation (Works). Moscow, 1861. Part’ 1.] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. 1865 – Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. M., 1865. [Epifanii Kiprskii, svt. Creation (Works). Moscow, 1865.] Jerome of Stridonsky, bl. 1894 – Jerome of Stridonsky, bl. Creations. K., 1894. [Ieronim Stridonskii, blazh. Creation (Works). Kiev, 1894.] Cyril of Alexandria, St. 1887–1893 – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 1887. Part 6; 1890. Part 8; 1891. Part 9; 1893. Part 10. [Kirill Aleksandriiskii, svt. Creation (Works). Moscow, 1887. Part’ 6; 1890. Chast’ 8; 1891. Chast’ 9; 1893. Chast’ 10.] Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2000–2002 – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2000. Book. 1; 2001. Book. 2; 2002. Book. 3. [Kirill Aleksandriiskii, svt. Creation (Works). Moscow, 2000. Kn. 1; 2001. Kn. 2; 2002. Kn. 3.] Methodius, St. 1905 – Methodius, bishop and martyr. A complete collection of his creations. Sergiev Posad, 1905. [Mefodii, svt. i much. Complete set of works. Sergiev Posad, 1905.] Origen 1899 – Works of Origen, teacher of Alexandria, in Russian translation. About the beginnings. Kazan, 1899. Issue. 1. [Tvoreniia Origena, uchitelia Aleksandriiskogo, v russkom perevode. O nachalakh (Origen’s works, teacher of Alexandria, transalted from Russian. On the principles). Kazan, 1899. Vyp. 1.] Theodore (Yulaev), priest. 2015 – Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Answers to Tiberius the deacon and the brethren / Translation from Syriac and notes by E.A. Zabolotny, M.G. Kalinina. Translation from ancient Greek, preface and notes by Hierom. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2015. No. 18–19. Vol. 3–4. pp. 342–379. [Sviatitel’ Kirill Aleksandriiskii. Answer Tiveriiu diakonu s bratiei (Answers to Tiberius the deacon and his brethren) / Perevod s siriiskogo i primechaniia E. A. Zabolotnogo, M. G. Kalinina. Perevod s ancient-grecheskogo, predislovie i primechaniia ierom. Feodora (Iulaeva) // Bogoslovskii vestnik (Theological herald). 2015. No. 18–19. Vyp. 3–4. P. 342–379.] Philo of Alexandria 2000 – Philo of Alexandria. Interpretations of the Old Testament. M., 2000. [Filon Aleksandriiskii. Tolkovaniia Vetkhogo Zaveta (Exegesis of the Old testament). Moscow, 2000.] Pusey 1868 – S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII prophetas / Ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1868 (Bruxelles, r 1965). Vol. 1–2. Pusey 1872 – S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Euangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo / Ed. Ph. E Pusey. Oxford, 1872 (Bruxelles, r1965). Vol. 1–3. Wickham 1983 – Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters / Transl. L. R. Wickham. Oxford, 1983. St. Cyril of Alexandria. An exegesis of dogmata (Translated from Greek with and introduction and notes by hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev)) The present publication is a treatise by St. Cyril called the “Explanation of dogmata”. It follows the previously published (see the previous Theological Herald) treaties “Answers to Tiberius the deacon and his brethren”. The “Explanation” is quite close in content and themes to the “Answers” ​​treaties. It consists of answers to eleven questions, posed by Palestinian monks regarding biblical anthropomorphisms, soteriology and eschatology and certain specific places of the Holy Scripture. The translation of the main part of the “Explanations” is prefaced by a letter of the Palestinian monks to St. Cyril, in which they talk about dogmatic arguments in the neighboring region and request to resolve these dogmatic difficulties. The answer to this letter are the “Explanations” themselves, where St. Cyril also deals with questions such as the image of God in man, the creation of the soul, original sin and whether the Divine retribution had already happened (mentioned in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) and can God undo events of the past or not. The texts are prefaced by a foreword, which discusses who were the addressees of the work and its date. It also contains an overview of the contents, a summary of the different editions of the work and its manuscript tradition. Keywords: Cyril of Alexandria, Greek patristic, patristic exegesis, ancient Armenian translated literature, anthropomorphisms, anthropomorphist, image of God, anthropology, soteriology. See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2015. Next – “Answers”. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De dogmatum solutione (CPG 5231). Next - “Explanation”. In the manuscript tradition, just such a title, “explanation of dogmas,” is absent (see below). But as a “treatise on the explanation of dogmas” (Ἡ πραγματεία ἡ περὶ δογμάτων ἐπιλύσεως = Tractatus de dogmatum solutione) this work is mentioned in the one compiled by supporters of the Council of Chalcedon anti-monophysite “Cyril's florilegium” (Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 120 (Hespel 1955. P. 163)). Previously, we proposed another option for the title of this work: “resolution of dogmatic questions” (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2014. P. 249). L. Wickham (1983) gives it the title: Doctrinal Questions and Answers. This is also confirmed by the fact that in the manuscript tradition both treatises are presented together, and in some manuscripts the “Explanation” is directly inscribed as addressed to the brotherhood of Tiberius (see below). Pusey 1872. Veil. 3. P. VIII. Nevertheless, F. Pusey in his edition places the “Explanation” before the “Responses to Tiberius”, following the order in which they are located in the manuscript he used (Ibid.). In the newest edition by L. Wickham (Wickham 1983), the treatises are already arranged in chronological order. See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2015. Bardenhewer 1924. S. 30; Vaccari 1937. P. 27. One in the collection of the Venetian Armenian monastery of St. Lazarus (San Lazzaro 308 (XIV p.)) and two in the collection of the Oxford Bodleian Library (Arm. e. 20 (1394a.). Fo1. 37v-48r; Arm.e.36 (1689a.). Po1.33v-42v) (Conybeare 1907. R. 165–166; Wickham 1983. P. XLVII). Conybeare 1907. pp. 167–168. Laurentianus gr. Plut. VI. 17 (XI s.). Fol. 206v-209v; Vaticanus gr. 447 (XII s.). Fol. 295r-302r. (Ibid. P. XLVII-XLVIII). These are the same two manuscripts that are the basis for the treatise “Answers to Tiberius the Deacon” (See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2015. P. 338). As a useful addition to them, L. Wickham notes a 13th-century manuscript. from the Paris collection, which contains selected chapters of the treatises “Answers” ​​and “Explanation” (Parisinus gr 1115 (1276 a.). Fol. 116v-121r) as part of a florilegium of unknown authorship (Wickham 1983. P. XLVIII). See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2015. pp. 344–345. Pusey 1872. Vol. 3. P. 547–566. Wickham 1983. pp. 180–213. During the translation, the Latin and Modern Greek translations of the corresponding chapters of the treatise “Against the Anthropomorphites..” (PG 76, 1077B-1100B; Σταμούλης 1993. 2.104–155) were also taken into account. In the Armenian translation, the title is placed here: “Cyril, Archbishop of the City of Alexandria, an explanation of the dogmatic questions of Tiberius the priest.” (Wickham 1983, p. 180). Two episcopal sees of that time are known under the name Abila (Avila): Abila of the province of 2nd Palestine, subordinate to the bishop of Scythopolis, and Abila of Lysani province of 2nd Phenicia, subordinate to the Patriarch of Antioch (Abila // DHGE. 1912. Vol. 1. Col. 120–122). From the fact that the mentioned persons, as reported below, “arrived to the saints in Palestine,” L. Wickham concludes that they were precisely from the region of Abilah of Lysani, which is currently identified with the area of ​​Suq-Wadi-Barada in Syria, 22 kilometers northeast of Damascus (Wickham 1983, p. 181, note 1). Note from the copyist of the manuscript. This order is also preserved in printed editions of the Greek text. In the Armenian translation, the original form is retained, i.e. All questions are posted here. Then comes the addition, which is not in the Greek text: “Concerning these subjects, we ask you to strengthen in us the same piety of the teaching of your holiness, so as to strengthen us and those who receive your word and themselves behave appropriately and act rightly for the purpose of exhorting or correcting unbelievers, praying, as we unworthy creatures do. And then we, properly pursuing what pleases God, will find grace in due time to be at your feet and then with boldness to say: “Here am I and the children whom God gave me (Isa. 8:18), the children who followed your word, with which you gave me the word of your teaching.. (Wickham 1983, p. 182. Note 3). So in Laurentianus gr. Plut. VI. 17. Title variations: “Chapters presented by the brethren to Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. The first" (Vatic.gr. 447); “Cyril, the Most Holy Archbishop of Alexandria, explanation of the dogmatic questions asked by Deacon Tiberius and the brethren” (Paris, gr. 1115, see: Pusey 1872. Vol. 3. P. 549). In the Armenian translation, the title is missing here, since it is prefaced above the letter of the Palestinian monks (Wickham 1983, p. 184. Note 1). Wed: Rome. 9:5; Eph. 4:6. ζητῶν : ἐὰν ζητ ῇ ς (Rahlfs). Common for St. Kirill’s definition of a person: “Flesh (body) animated by a rational soul.” Although here he does not directly respond to the idea expressed in the question about the trichotomous natural composition of man (mind - soul - body), it is known that he himself adhered to a strict dichotomy in anthropology. According to him, man “by nature is something complex and not simple, composed of two: a sensible body (αἰσθητοῦ σώματος) and a rational soul (ψυχῆς νοερ ᾶ ς)" (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem 2, 1 (Pusey 1872. Vol. 1. P. 219); Russian translation: St. 5). According to St. Cyril, thanks to the fact that the Holy Spirit is “inscribed” in a person, he “rises above the limits of his own nature” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaph. in Pent. In Gen. Lib. I, 2 // PG 69, 20B; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2001. Book 2. pp. 10–11 (as amended)). At the same time, he sometimes says that “the image of the divine nature” was given to man “when the Holy Spirit was breathed in” (Idem. De adoralione 1 // PG 68, 145; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2000. Book 1. P. 132). Sometimes, as in the present place, it indicates that man has the image of God already by his natural dispensation. One can agree with W. Burghardt’s statement that the saint was not inclined to consider man in his “pure” nature, in isolation from the destiny determined by God (Burghardt 1957, pp. 38–39). Although the image of God belongs to human nature itself, man is also potentially “supernatural,” since thanks to natural abilities “the creature (i.e., man) ascends to the one who surpasses its nature by the grace of Him who glorified it and crowned it with various honors” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem 1, 9 (Pusey 1872. Vol. 1. P. 111); Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2001. Book 2. P. 512) (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2014. P. 270). “forever” (Rahlfs, Elizavet., Yungerov). Review of patristic interpretations of Gen. 2:7, believed in connection with John. 20:22, which is suggested by the use in both cases of the same verb ἐμφυσάω (“to blow”), is given in the article by M. Boulnois (Boulnois 1989, pp. 3–37). According to her observations, most ancient authors saw Genesis as “inspiration.” 2:7 the act of creating a person’s soul, understanding by soul either his life force (Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia) or the rational soul (Clement, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom). Some noted the “affinity” (συγγένεια) of the soul with God (Clement, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian), while the Antiochians (Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus) emphasized the difference between “inspiration” and the soul itself, in order to exclude its consubstantiality with God. The comparison of two “breathings” (Gen. 2:7 to John 20:22) is outlined by St. Gregory the Theologian and is clearly carried out by the Antiochians (Diodorus, Theodore) and by Blessed. Augustine. But the latter rather emphasize their differences (Ibid. P. 23). Among the predecessors of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who identified the “breath of life” (πνοὴ ζωῆς) breathed into man during creation with the Holy Spirit, M. Boulnois indicates Tertullian, Origen, Apollinaris of Laodicea and Didymus the Blind (Ibid. P. 24–30). He himself “shows more interest in this issue than others”; he has at least seventeen places with an interpretation of Gen. 2:7, of which in nine cases the interpretation of this passage is connected with the interpretation of John. 20:22 (Ibid. P. 30). As a special uniqueness of St. Cyril in relation to his predecessors M. Boulnois notes what for him in In. 20:22 we are talking not simply about the restoration of an “ancient gift,” but about a gift that is superior, since “1) in Christ after His baptism the Holy Spirit rests inseparably in human nature, 2) by virtue of the Incarnation and the closest unity of the Divine and human natures, Christ brings creation closer to the Creator, 3) By His inspiration, Christ imparts to man the gift of adoption, which allows man to say: “Abba, Father.” (Rom. 8:15)" (Ibid. P. 35). Christ: < (NA, TR, syn., Bishop Cassian). To one’s own: God’s (Rahlfs, Elizav., Yungerov). “Image” and “likeness” were distinguished by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, for whom the first is a natural gift consisting of reason and free will, the second is the supernatural possession of the Word and the communion of the Holy Spirit, lost by man after the Fall (Burghardt 1957. R. 2). A similar distinction was made by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and later by St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Diadochos of Photiki (5th century), for whom the “image” was given at creation, and the achievement of “likeness” is determined by a person’s free choice and life of virtue. But neither St. Athanasius of Alexandria (who departed in this matter from the early Alexandrians), nor the Cappadocians of St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa, nor the Antiochians Theodore of Mopsuestia and Blessed. Theodorite of Cyrus did not make a distinction between these terms (Ibid. R. 3–6; PGL. R. 141 (εἰκών III C), 956 (ὁμοίωσις)). mine (NA, TR, syn., Bishop Cassian). Compare: “Christ, who is the image of the invisible God” (2 Cor. 4:4). A similar point of view was expressed by Clement of Alexandria: “For the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4) is His Word (the Divine Word is the true Son of Mind, the primary Light from Light), but the image of the Word is true man, that is, the mind that is in man, called for this reason created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26), compared by our feelings with the Divine Word and therefore rational ( λογικός)" (Clemens Alexandrinus. Protrepticus 10, 98; Russian translation: Clement of Alexandria. Exhortation to the pagans. Which of the rich will be saved. S.-P., 2006. P. 124). According to the remark of L. Wickham (Wickham 1983. P. 197. Note. 11), Clement here follows Philo of Alexandria (Philo Alexandrinus. De opficio mundi 69–71 (Philonis opera / Ed. L. Cobi. B., 1896. Vol. 1. P. 23–24); Russian translation: Philo of Alexandria 2000. P. 65–66). That is, although the “image of God” refers to the entire Divinity, common to the three Persons, in a sense, man, as potentially the “son of God,” already at creation has some special relationship to the Son, which, however, does not have much significance for the saint, being only “not devoid of plausibility,” an assumption, with the exception of the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2 (which was discussed in the 15th chapter of “Responses to Tiberius the Deacon.” See: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Responsiones ad Tiberium (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2015. pp. 376–377)), for St. Cyril, “sons of God” are people who have received reconciliation with God and renewal of nature in baptism, so “sonship” is a new feature of the image of God, which is a consequence of the economy of the incarnate Word and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Wickham 1983, pp. 198–199. Note 12). Origen has the concept of prosperity in the future century, according to which all rational beings “little by little during endless and innumerable centuries” will go through the path of improvement until they acquire a “spiritual body” and peace in unity with God (Origen. De principiis 3, 6, 6 (Origenes Werke. Leipzig. 1913. Bd. 5. S. 287–289); Russian translation: Origen 1899. P. 298–299), which was also adopted in the eschatology of Evagrius of Pontus (Dunaev, Fokin 2008. P. 570). St. Gregory of Nyssen also speaks of spiritual prosperity, but he posits it as the endless ascent of man to the infinite God (Gregorius Nyssenus. De vita Moysis 2 (Gregorii Nysseni opera. Vol. 7.1. V., 1991. S. 112–113); Russian translation: Gregory of Nyssenus, St. 1861. P. 343–344) (Wickham 1983, pp. 198–199. Note 12). “Incorruption” (ἀφθαρσία), “corruption” (φθορά) and cognate words occupy an important place in the thought of St. Kirill. Incorruptibility in man is part of the image of God (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem 9, 1 (Pusey 1872. Vol. 2. P. 484); Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2002. Book 3. P. 560), however, the primordial man “did not by his own nature have incorruptibility and indestructibility, for this belongs in essence (οὐσιωδῶς) only to God... To support them, it was necessary to “exceed nature’s good,” namely, the grace of the Holy Spirit – that very “inspiration” (Gen. 2:7) about which the saint writes in the 2nd chapter of this treatise, the loss of which entails corruption and death. At the same time, the human soul is immortal and only the body itself is subject to destruction (Ibid. Lib. 1, 9 // Pusey 1872. Vol. 138–139; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2001. Book 2. pp. 532–533), so that Christ returns incorruption to a complete man, consisting of a soul and a body subject to corruption (Wickham 1983. R. 201. Note 15). According to St. Cyril, although Christ as the “second Adam” and the “new root” of the human race (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos // Pusey 1872. Vol. 3. P. 182) grants victory over death to all people, salvation for each person is achieved personally and is determined by his own choice. “Everyone will rise from the dead, because the grace of resurrection has been given to all nature. And in Christ alone, who from the beginning was the first to destroy the power of death and resurrected into eternal life, all of humanity in general is also transformed into incorruption, just as again in Adam, in one and the first, he is condemned to death and corruption. But at that time there will be a great difference between the resurrected. Some who have fallen asleep with faith in Christ and received the pledge of the Spirit during their bodily life will receive the most perfect grace and, called to Divine glory, will be changed.” Others “did not believe in Christ. .. will inherit with others only one revival” and “will descend into hell for punishment” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem 6, l // Pusey 1872. Vol. 2. P. 220–221). The teaching reflected in this chapter about Christ as the second Adam, adopted from the Apostle Paul (Rom. 5:11-19; 1 Cor. 15:22,45), is one of the key provisions of the saint’s soteriology, and at the same time the most important unifying principle of his biblical exegesis (Wilken 2004, pp. 840–867). At the same time, classify the saint among the supporters of the so-called. an "organic" theory of the Atonement would be incorrect. The renewal of human nature in Christ Himself is achieved immediately after the Incarnation, due to hypostatic unity with God (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos // Pusey 1872. Vol. 3. P. 212–213). But in order to communicate this renewal to other people through the return of the Holy Spirit to them, it was necessary to offer a Sacrifice to God, which the saint writes about in completely “legal” terms, understanding it as the fulfillment of Divine justice on Christ through His acceptance of the punishment assigned to people. He speaks of the satisfactory price of the Sacrifice of Christ, Who became “recompense for all” (ὁ πάντων ἀντάξιος)) and “ransom” (ἀντάλλαγμα) for the human race (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2014. P. 272). According to the testimony of St. Methodius of Olympus, Origen explained this vision allegorically, applying it to the return of the captive Israelites from Babylon (Methodius Olympius. De resurrectione in: Photius. Bibliotheca. Cod. 234 / Éd. R. Henry. T. 5. P. 104–105; Russian translation: Methodius, St., martyr 1905. P. 267). This is probably the view implied in the present question (Wickham 1983, p. 205, note 19). From the interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the book of the prophet Ezekiel, only small fragments have been preserved (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Fragmenta exegetica (CPG 5205) // PG 70, 1457C-1460D; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 1890. Part 8, pp. 528–530). X. Stamulis refers this series of definitions “not at all on earth, but above and in heaven” to the word “resurrection” (Σταμούλης 1993. Σ . 141). Such a grammatically acceptable reading leads to the difficult to explain idea that the general resurrection will be in heaven and not on earth, therefore the interpretation of L. Wickham, who applies these definitions specifically to Jerusalem, should be recognized as correct (Wickham 1983, p. 205). The concept of heavenly or “intelligible” Jerusalem, when the biblical Jerusalem is considered as a prototype of the Church (militant or triumphant), is a topos in the works of St. Cyril (Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam l, 3 // PG 70, 129D; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, cdt. 1887. Part 6. P. 134; In Michaeam. T. 2 // Pusey 1868. Vol. 1. P. 661; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 1887–1893. Part 10. pp. 109–110, etc.), who directly follows the Apostle Paul in this (Heb. 12:22). OK. 16:19–20 (translated by Bishop Cassian). According to the instructions of L. Wickham (Wickham 1983. R. 207. Note 22), many ancient commentators believed that the events told in this parable actually happened (St. Hilary of Pictavia, Blessed Jerome of Stridon, St. Cassian the Roman, Origen), and Tertullian and St. Ambrose of Milan justified this precisely by the fact that the beggar Lazarus is named here by name (Tertullianus. De anima 7 (J.H. Waszink. Turnhout, 1954 (CCSL 2). P. 790); Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Euangelii secundum Lucam 8, 13 (M. Adriaen, P.A. Ballerini. Turnhout, 1957 (CCSL 14). In the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” by St. Cyril discusses this parable twice (Cyrillus Alexandrenus. Commentarii in Lucam. Homilia 29, 111 // Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium / Ed. R. Payne Smith. Oxford, 1858. P. 4–9, 306–310 (Sir. translation) = Fragmentum 30, 241–242 // Lukas-Kommenlare aus der Griechischen Kirche / Hrsg. J. Reuss. B., 1984 (TU 130, 174–175 (Greek fragments)). Here he does not touch upon the question of the reality of its events, but only notes that the rich man, unlike Lazarus, is not honored with a name due to his heartlessness, in accordance with the words of the psalmist: “I will not remember their names with my mouth” (cf. Ps. 16:4) (Fragmentum 241 // Lukas-Kommentare... S. 175). Nevertheless, St. Cyril fully shares the doctrine of a private judgment before the general Last Judgment. According to him, the essential property (τὸ συμβεβηκός) of human death is that “souls are not destroyed along with bodies from the earth” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Eristula 1, 24 // ACO 1, 1 (1). P. 22; Russian translation: BV. 2010. No. 11–12. P. 97), and the posthumous state of the souls of the righteous and sinners is different, because if “the souls of sinners are cast into the place of the most terrible punishment, that is, hell,” then “the souls of the saints, leaving their earthly bodies, by the goodness and love of God are, as it were, surrendered into the hands of an all-loving Father” (Idem. Commentarii in Johannem 12 (Pusey 1872. Vol. 3. P. 96–97); Russian translation: Kirill of Alexandria, St. 2002. Book 3. P. 838) (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2014. P. 273). Researcher of Old Testament exegesis of St. Cyril A. Kerrigan notes his familiarity with Jewish traditions related to biblical events and persons, most likely through the medium of Bl. Jerome and Eusebius of Caesarea (Kerrigan 1952, pp. 309–322). The source of the legend mentioned in this chapter is unknown (Wickham 1983, p. 209, note 23). Those. figuratively. L. Wickham (Wickham 1983. P. 209. Note 25) notes that, according to Julian of Eclan, in Palestine and Egypt many, under the influence of Origen, denied the reality of Hosea’s bodily marriage, interpreting it in a “spiritual” sense (Iulianus Aeclanensis. In Osee prophetam 1, 1 // Ed. L. de Coninck. Turnhout, 1977 (CCSL 88 P. 119), while in Syria the opposite point of view was taken (Ibid. P. 121). In the ancient Church, the identity of Melchisidek also caused controversy, on the history of which there is a long-standing article by G. Bardy (see: Bardy 1926–1927). From the sources cited by G. Bardi, L. Wickham (Wickham 1983. R. 210. Note 26) notes the treatise of St. Mark of the Ascetic (Marcus Eremita. Opusculum 10. De Melchisedech // Marc le Moine. Traités2 / Ed. G.-M. Durand. P., 2000 (SC 455). P. 182–222), as well as the corresponding sections of the works of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Epiphanius Constantiensis. Panarion. Haeresis 55 (Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion) / Hrsg. K. Holl. Leipzig, 1922. Bd. 2. S. 324–337); Russian translation: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. 1865. P. 435–453) and Timothy of Constantinople (Timotheus Constantinopolitanus. De iis qui ad ecclesiam accedunt // PG 86, 33BC). In the "Interpretation of the Prophet Hosea" by St. Cyril defends the historicity of this narrative, polemicizing with a certain “notorious man” who rejected its literal meaning because of the seeming “indecency” of such an event and proposed to see here only an allegory of the spiritual unity of the once sinful human soul, personified by Gomer, with the Word of God, personified by the prophet (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Oseam l (Pusey 1868. Vol. 1. P. 15–24); Russian translation: Kirill of Alexandria, St. 1887–1893. Part 9. pp. 23–36). Based on the testimony of the bl. Jerome, that during his stay in Alexandria Didimus the Blind, at his request, dictated to him an interpretation of the prophet Hosea (Hieronymus. In Osee prophetam. Prologus (CCSL 76). P. 5; Russian translation: Jerome of Stridon, bl. 1894. P. 151), L. Wickham suggests that the mentioned “notorious man” was precisely Didymus (Wickham 1983. P. 210–211. Note 27). In the Glafiers on the Book of Genesis, St. Cyril refutes the point of view that the Holy Spirit or an angel appeared to Abraham under the image of Melchizedek and only in a vision. Although the saint sees in Melchizedek one of the prototypes of Christ, he insists that he was an ordinary person who at one time reigned in Salem (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. In Genesim 2 // PG 69, 84A-88A; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2000–2002. Book 2. pp. 50–52). In the “Sayings of the Fathers” there is evidence of a case when St. Cyril wisely and tactfully brought to his senses a certain “great old man”, who in his simplicity shared the false opinion that the biblical king Melchizedek was not a man, but the Son of God (Apophthegmata. De abbate Daniele 8 // PG 65, 160; Russian translation: Memorable tales about the asceticism of the holy and blessed fathers. M., 1846. P. 81–82). Under the name of St. Cyril, two homilies about Melchisedech have been preserved in the Ethiopian translation (Homiliae de Melchisedech 1–2 (CPG 5280) // Dillmann A. Chrestomathia Aethiopica. Leipzig, 1866 [Darmstadt. r 1988]. S. 88–98). L. Wickham, without any explanation, denies their belonging to St. Kirill (Wlckham 1983. R. 211. Note 28). However, S. Euringer, who translated them into German, based on the nature and content of their exegesis, considered his authorship quite probable (Euringer 1943. S. 114–115. Note 5). with Him: with God (NA, TR, syn., Bishop Cassian). OK. 18:27. L. Wickham connects this unusual question with the 9th chapter, understanding it this way: can the purity of the harlot Gomer, who became the wife of the prophet Hosea, be restored? (Wickham 1983, p. 211, note 29). Blzh. Jerome of Stridon answered a similar question in the negative: “I boldly say: God can do everything (omnia polest), but cannot raise up a maiden after her fall. He has the power (valet) to save her from punishment, but he is not able (non valet) to crown her deprived of chastity” (Hieronimus. Epistula 22, 5 (CSEL 54). P. 150: Russian translation: Diesperov 2002. P. 140 (as amended)). This statement found a kind of refraction in later times. OK. In 1064, a conversation took place between the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino, Desiderius (later Pope Victor III) and Peter Damiani, about this statement, which prompted the latter to compose the essay “On Divine Omnipotence.” In response to the instructions of the interlocutor, who defended the point of view of the blj. Jerome that God cannot restore virginity because He does not want it, Peter noted that among what God does not want, there are many things that He could do (Petrus Damianus. De divina omnipolentia. Cap. l // PL 145, 596 B-597 C; rus. transl.: Anselm of Canterbury 1995. P. 359). God is quite capable of returning lost purity when it comes to restoring chastity or even physical virginity (Ibid. Cap. 3. Col. 600B-601B; pp. 364–365). Moreover, answering in this regard a question similar to that asked in this chapter by St. Kirill: “Can God make it so that the past becomes not the past?.. - he writes: “In fact, about what was, it is impossible to truly say that it did not exist; and vice versa, what did not happen, it is wrong to say that it happened. After all, opposite (properties) cannot converge in one subject. However, this impossibility, although it truly reflects natural necessity, does not in any way relate to Divine power. After all, He who gave rise to nature easily, when He wishes, eliminates natural necessity” (Ibid. Sar. 11. Col. 612AB; P. 380) - famous words that secured his place in the history of philosophy (Holopainen 1996, pp. 6–7). You might be interested in: