Does Christology inform our understanding of Holy Scripture? The Christian tradition affirms that Christ is one person with two natures, and these two natures are not united to one another. As the Chalcedonian Definition affirms, they do not mix or comingle. Rather, Christ’s divine and human natures are united hypostatically, that is, in the one person of Christ. Christ always acts as one person, but some of his acts are proper to the divine nature and others to his human nature. This is the basic claim made by the church father Cyril of Alexandria (d.444) in his important book On the Unity of Christ. But what does this have to do with reading Holy Scripture? If Christ is one person, does a two-nature Christology have anything to say about how we should read Holy Scripture? Cyril shows that it does.
Many modern commentaries on the Gospels do not say much about how Chalcedon helps us read and interpret the text, and this is unfortunate. The Christ we read of in the Gospels is one person with two natures and, though he always acts as one person, we do find certain works recorded in the Gospels as divine works and others as human works. This is especially true of texts such as John 11, where Jesus grieves over the death of Lazarus. “Jesus wept,” we read. The doctrine of impassibility states that the divine nature is not moved by things outside of itself. Therefore, Jesus’ weeping is a human act. In the same chapter, however, Jesus also raised Lazarus from the dead. Clearly, resurrection is a divine act.
Cyril provides a helpful model for how a two-nature Christology helps us read biblical texts. To uncover this model, we should first investigate Cyril’s Christology that informs his exegesis. Second, we will look to Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of John, where this model is at work. In sum, retrieving Cyril’s method provides an interpretive strategy that allows us to read such texts theologically in a way that more robustly honors the concerns of Chalcedon than most modern commentaries allow.
Cyril’s Basic Christology
Cyril’s one-person Christology developed during the fifth-century Christological debates, especially against Nestorius, who argued that if Christ has two wills, he must also have two persons. Cyril found it problematic that Apollinaris claimed Christ did not take to himself a human soul or mind. If Christ did not assume a human mind, then he did not truly become a man in the Incarnation. In part, Cyril is careful that we do not confuse or comingle Christ’s two natures. Yet he is also clear that every act of Christ is done by his one person.
Cyril’s concern is both theological and exegetical. How do we read texts that speak of the weakness of the human nature, or even the death of Christ, given that Jesus is the impassible divine Son of God? Human nature is passible, but becomes a “omnipotent instrument” in the hypostatic union as it is now an instrument of the divine nature. Cyril appeals often to salvation history to hold together strong paradoxes. So strong is the unity of Christ that Cyril often presses these paradoxes as far as possible. For instance, one of Cyril’s favorite phrases is “The Logos suffered impassibly.” This is not a simple appeal to impassibility. Rather, Cyril attempts to stress the intimate connection between both natures—the glorious divine nature and the human nature that suffers, while still attributing certain acts to the proper nature. Cyril builds a dynamic understanding of impassibility that attempts to maintain both the unity of Christ’s person and the distinction of his natures. With this sketch of Cyril’s Christology in place, we are equipped to turn to his commentary on the Gospel of John. This text was written before the major debates with Nestorius, but it shows Cyril’s dynamic two-nature Christology at work in his biblical interpretation.
Cyril on John 1:14
John 1:14 speaks of the Incarnation: “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” Cyril writes that the Only Begotten has become the Son of Man as the Word became flesh—Christ assumes a human body but also a human soul and mind. In so doing, Christ’s divine nature is neither left behind nor changed. Cyril understands the phrase “he dwelt among us” as communicating Christ’s two natures. The One who by nature is the Son of God lived among us as a true human being. In so doing, the “divine dignity” of Christ remains intact. Christ “is not overcome by the weakness of the flesh … and he did not fall away from his primeval power and glory when he clothed himself with our weak and most inglorious body.” Cyril is alert to the unity of Christ, but also to Christ’s two natures. This is a feature found throughout Cyril’s commentary and is important to have in mind as we move into his interpretation of John 11.
Cyril’s Interpretation of John 11
John 1:14 helps us wade into Cyril’s exposition, but we really see his Christology in service of exegesis when we turn to John 11:43-44, where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Cyril writes of the miracle of resurrection, clearly showing that this is a work proper to Christ’s divine nature. He further proves this point by understanding Jesus’ loud cry, “Lazarus, come out!” as a foreshadowing of the great trumpet blast of the Last Day. Jesus’ voice is a type of the trumpet of God that will signal the general resurrection when Jesus returns. Cyril’s canonical reading of Jesus raising his voice is insightful, yet the main takeaway for our purposes is that Cyril clearly understands resurrection as miraculous and divine.
This is clearly in Cyril’s comments on John 11:36-37, where observers respond that Jesus loved his friend. Recognizing his divine power in John 9, the text sets us up for a divine act. Jesus’ divine power opened blind eyes, and surely he was able to prevent Lazarus’ death in the first place. Many commentators reduce this exchange to a mere response to the situation to show Jesus’ love and solidarity with Lazarus. Yet Cyril understands this question as setting us up for John 11:38. Christ is troubled in that his will is stirred up to act. Lazarus is dead. Mere solidarity does not overcome death. The divine power that raises the dead overcomes death and defeats our great enemy.
Turning back to John 11:33-35, we gain more insight into Cyril’s interpretive model. In John 11:33-35, Jesus grieves for his friends and weeps. Cyril unpacks these poignant verses by first saying that Christ is life by nature and shows his “God-befitting power” when he announces to his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem to wake Lazarus. Regarding the grieving sister back in Bethany, Cyril explains that Jesus “condescends to her and reveals his human nature by weeping and being troubled when he sees her weeping and the Jews who had come to her weeping.” Cyril attributes Jesus’ weeping to his human nature because the divine nature is impassible.
Yet Christ’s unity of person allows us to say divine things of the human nature and human things of the divine (theologians call this the communication of properties). He is God in the flesh, so you can say God wept, although the divine nature most properly does not weep. Cyril does this when commenting on John 11:35: “When the Evangelist sees the tearless nature weeping, he is astonished, even though the suffering was proper to the flesh and not the divine nature.” Jesus weeps, but the point of his weeping is to dry our tears by defeating death. There is a dynamic relationship between his two natures. Through the instrumental human nature, Christ’s divine nature heals and restores his people. Therefore, distinction of the two natures does not entail separation of the two natures. As God incarnate, the Impassible one can weep even though the divine nature is not grieved. Throughout John 11, Cyril is clear that Christ is one person. Yet Christ’s two natures are united in his one person. The human weeps and the divine raises the dead.
Theology needs Exegesis; Exegesis needs Theology
There are several ways in which Cyril helps us read Holy Scripture well. First, Cyril shows us that exegesis can and should be theological—not merely historical and grammatical in nature. This has a practical benefit. Average people in pews are not going to ask about the Jewish custom of hiring professional mourners and how many is too many (a concern discussed by many modern commentators). They may, however, wonder how we can say that Jesus, who is God, weeps. Our youngest daughter asked this very question one night while we read the Bible as a family. Her specific question came from John 17 as she asked, “How can Jesus pray to God if he is God?” To answer such a question well requires a basic understand of Christology. Put somewhat simply, the divine nature does not pray to itself. Christ’s human nature, though, constantly prayed. As a Reformed theologian, I find Cyril’s instrumental understanding of Christ’s human nature lacking, but I still find his basic dynamic a helpful tool when approaching texts like John 1 and John 11.
A second, albeit related, conclusion is that we should not leave behind our systematic theology when we read the sacred text of Holy Scripture. Cyril reminds us of the importance of systematic theology for reading Scripture, not just for the sake of good theology but for the good of the people we serve. I am a minister in a tradition that affirms God’s impassibility, and the prospect of leaving this doctrine behind when preaching John 11 seems irresponsible and unhelpful. It is often said that theology needs exegesis, which is true, but it is equally true that exegesis needs theology. In fact, the two should work together.
Cyril shows us that a robust two-nature Christology allows us to speak well of divine suffering that stops short of attributing passibility to Christ’s divine nature. This is important. The plight of sinful humanity is not helped by one who merely understands our situation. The Apostle Paul says that the wages of sin is death. Therefore, we need a Savior who is also divine—One who has the power to overcome death. John 11, for Cyril, speaks of the Son of God incarnate, who alone is able to save us from sin precisely because he is truly God and truly man. Perhaps Cyril’s greatest contribution is that he unashamedly allows his theological commitments to guide his reading of Holy Scripture. In this, we have much to learn.
The Rev. Jason Pickard, PhD is a Guest Writer. He is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California. Previous appointments include Grace Theological College, Auckland, New Zealand and campus pastor for Reformed University Fellowship at Texas A&M University.
