I wish I had time to get into this text more, because it has been my favorite so far. But my Holy Week activities have prevented me from really digesting it.
The thing I find most striking about Cyril's Scholia on the Incarnation is the tension he is able to hold in the Incarnation. He states that God and man were united into one Christ in the Incarnation, but still holds that suffering, death, etc. are properly said to have taken place in Christ's flesh. It is his ability to hold this tension that seems to separate him from his opponents. He can say that Christ suffered in the flesh, while remaining impassible in his diety. He can also say that the whole person of Christ suffered, by virtue of his being united as one person.
I find this quite helpful.
Cyril's Old Testament exegesis is also strange and fascinating. I wish I had time to reflect on that more.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dan, I'd really like to read further reflections if you're able get to them.
ReplyDeleteThe two things we discussed at length in the seminar are exactly what you point to - his exegesis and impassibility. Regarding exegesis, there's one thing to talk about typology as a cool idea and another thing altogether to seeing it used to prove a point. Which presumably, is where it gets strange and fascinating. Personally, I think Cyril is brilliant with the Scriptures, it's like he glides across their vast terrain with great elegance.
While Christ certainly suffered in the flesh, was his flesh not divine? Is the man Jesus of Nazareth any less divine than the pre-existent, eternal Word of God?
I guess another way of thinking about it is, whether for Cyril, there is any point when we have 'figured out' our faith, captured it by our rationality and logical skills? Or is the entire thing bounded by an incomprehensible ineffability that courses through its very heart?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete