The Spiritual Gospel PDF

THE
SPIRITUAL GOSPEL
THE
SPIRITUAL GOSPEL
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
FOURTH GOSPEL IN THE
EARLY CHURCH
BY
MAURICE F. WILES
FELLOW OF CLARE COLLEGE AND LECTURER IN DIVINITY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, FORMERLY
LECTURER IN NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, IBADAN
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
i960
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www. Cambridge. org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521068024
© Cambridge University Press 1960
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1960

This digitally printed first paperback version 2006
A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN-13 978-0-521-06802-4 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-06802-9 hardback
ISBN-13 978-0-521-67328-0 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-67328-3 paperback
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS page vii
ABBREVIATIONS ix
INTRODUCTION Commentaries and commentators i
I The authorship and purpose of the Gospel 7

II The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels 13
III Historicity and symbolism 22
IV The signs 41
V Leading ideas of the Gospel 65
VI The Fourth Gospel and the Gnostics 96

VII Christological interpretation in the third and
fourth centuries 112
VIII The Christological exegesis of Theodore and Cyril 129
IX The Gospel of salvation 148
EPILOGUE An assessment 158
BIBLIOGRAPHY l6l
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES l6j
INDEX OF TEXTS 169

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my thanks to Professor Henry
Chadwick for advice and encouragement and to the
Rev. Barry Mackay for help with the proof-reading.
M.F.W.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
IBADAN
1i April 1959
Vll
ABBREVIATIONS
The following standard abbreviations have been used:
A.CO. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz
C.S.E.L. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
D.C.B. Dictionary of Christian Biography
E.T. English Translation
Exp. T. Expository Times
G.C.S. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte
J. T.S. Journal of Theological Studies
P.G. Patrologia Graeca, Cursus Completes, ed. J.-P. Migne
P.L. Patrologia Latina, Cursus Completus, ed. J.-P. Migne
R.B. Revue Biblique
Rev. Bin. Revue Benedictine
R.H.E. Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique
R.S.R. Recherches de Science Religieuse
The following additional abbreviations have been used in references to

commentaries on the Gospel:
I. ANCIENT
O. Origen, ed. A. E. Brooke (Cambridge, 1896)

Chr. John Chrysostom, P.G. 59
T. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium: Scrip tores Syri, Series 4, Tomus in, interpretatus
est J. M. Voste (Louvain, 1940)
T. Frag. Greek fragments in R. Devreesse, Essai sur Theodore de Mop-
sueste (Vatican, 1948), pp. 305-419
Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria, ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 1872)
Tract. Joh. Augustine, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 36 (Turnhout,
1954)
Corderius Corderius, Catena Patrum Graecorum in S. Johannem (Antwerp,
1630)
Cramer Cramer, Catena in Evangelia SS. Lucae et Johannis, Oxford, 1841
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
2. MODERN
Barrett C. K. Barrett, Gospel according to St John (London, 1955)
Bernard J. H. Bernard, I.C.C. (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1928)
Dodd C. H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953)
Hoskyns E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (2nd ed., London, 1947)
Lightfoot R. H. Lightfoot, St Johns Gospel (Oxford, 1956)
Macgregor G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (Moffatt Commentary)
(London, 1928)
Temple W. Temple, Readings in St Johns Gospel (London, 1947)
Westcott B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St John (2 vols., London,
1908)
See the Bibliography for fuller details of articles

INTRODUCTION
COMMENTARIES AND COMMENTATORS

Theological scholarship in recent years has shown an especial interest
in the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel and in patristic exegesis
of the Bible. Within the brief period between 1953 and 1956, three
major works on the Fourth Gospel have been published in England.1
On the continent the work of Pere Danielou and others has shown
a revival of interest in early Christian exegesis. This study is devoted
to the exegesis of the Fourth Gospel in the early Greek fathers in
the hope that it will be of value in both fields of study.
The Fathers knew well the fascination of the Fourth Gospel.
Origen describes the Gospels ;as the first-fruits of all Scripture, and
the Gospel of St John as the first-fruits of all the Gospels,2 and we
have in fact more than one work of major importance in commentary
upon it. There are some books of the Bible whose interpretation
has been so completely revolutionised by modern critical methods
that the exegesis of earlier centuries is unlikely to add much of value
to our understanding of them. There is probably no book of
which this is less true than the Fourth Gospel. It is of such a nature
that it seems to reveal its secrets not so much to the skilful probings
of the analyst as to a certain intuitive sympathy of understanding. We
need not, therefore, despair of finding amongst such early interpreters
significant examples of a true insight into the meaning of the Gospel.
It is also a particularly valuable field within which to study the
pattern of early exegesis. One of the most interesting features of
such a study is the contrast between the schools of Alexandria and of
Antioch. From Alexandria, we have considerable portions of the
commentary of Origen, the most renowned of her exegetes, and
practically the whole of the commentary of Cyril, the most powerful
of her leaders. From Antioch, we have (in translation) the com-
1
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (195 3); C. K. Barrett, The
Gospel According to St John (1955); R. H. Lightfoot, St Johns Gospel (1956).
* O. 1, 6.
THE SPIRITUAL GOSPEL
mentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the most renowned of her

exegetes, and the homilies of John Chrysostom, the greatest of her
preachers. We have thus abundant material for a comparative study
of the methods of the outstanding representatives of the leading
exegetical schools of the period.
Primary attention in this study has been given to the three com-
mentaries of Origen, Cyril and Theodore. Theodore's commentary
has only come to light in comparatively recent times, and is there-
fore not so generally well known.1 There is an obvious fascination
in comparing the work of Theodore with that of Origen, the two
most famous exegetes of Antioch and Alexandria, in commentary
upon the same book of the Bible.2 In many respects however, Cyril,
though not so pure an example of Alexandrian scholarship, provides
a better standard of comparison. In the first place his commentary
has survived in a far more complete form than that of Origen.
Secondly, Cyril and Theodore were contemporaries, whereas
Origen's commentary is at a remove of almost two centuries from
that of Theodore. Thirdly, Cyril is far less prone to personal eccen-
tricities of exegesis, which often mar the work of Origen and which
render it less readily usable for the purpose of comparative study.3
Our main concern, therefore, will lie with these three com-
mentaries, with their method in the work of interpretation and with
the meaning that they find in the text of the Fourth Gospel. But
before embarking upon such an analysis of their thought, a brief
survey must be given of our knowledge about the historical occa-
sions of their composition. Moreover, although these three works
1
It was discovered in 1868 and first published in Syriac by Chabot in 1897. It
was not translated into Latin until 1940. See J. M. Voste, *Le Commentaire de
Theodore de Mopsueste sur Saint Jean, d'apres la Version Syriaque\ See also
p. 5 n. 3 below.
2
Cf. J. Guillet, * Les Exegeses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioche: Conflit ou Malentendu?',
p. 260. Guillet carries out an interesting comparison of Origen's and Theodore's
interpretations of Psalm iii.
3
The most important factor making for the more controlled nature of Cyril's
exegesis is his recognition of the principle that not everything that is said in the
Bible need necessarily have a spiritual sense. See A. Kerrigan, St Cyril ofAlexandria:
Interpreter of the Old Testament, p. 50 n. 2, who quotes a clear affirmation of Cyril
to this effect from Glaph. in Gen. bk. iv {P.G. 69, 192 B). The Commentary on
St John also contains a warning against forcing a spiritual meaning out of passages
which ought to be treated historically (Cyr. in John ix. 4; 11, 154, 7-12).
are the most important for our purpose, they were not isolated
phenomena. They stand within a developing tradition of interpreta-
tion, within which other writings of importance have come down to
us in complete or fragmentary form. These too must be included in
our preliminary survey.
The earliest commentary on the Gospel known to us is that of
Heracleon, a Valentinian Gnostic, who probably wrote about
A.D. 170.1 We cannot be certain that his work represents a full
commentary on the Gospel, but it seems most probable that it does.
It is clear from Origen's quotations that he dealt at least with con-
tinuous passages of the Gospel of some length. Origen's remark that
Heracleon makes no comment on John iv. 32 suggests that this is
exceptional and that his commentary is normally verse by verse.2
It is true that there are long sections of Origen's commentary
(including the whole of the last two surviving books) in which he
makes no reference to Heracleon whatever. It is therefore possible
that Heracleon's work was incomplete, but there are other more
probable explanations. In view of the length of time and the varied
and unsystematic nature of Origen's writing of his own com-
mentaries, it seems more likely either that he grew tired of referring
to Heracleon (his later books are certainly less expansive than his
earlier ones) or that he did not always have his commentary readily
available for reference.
Origen's commentary was begun at a comparatively early stage
in his literary career before his departure from Alexandria. The most
likely date is about A.D. 225. The firstfivebooks were composed there,
but the work was interrupted by the upheaval surrounding his final
removal from Alexandria.3 The method of composition appears to
have been by dictation to stenographers—a fact which helps to
explain its prolixity and unsystematic character.4 Only eight and
a half books have survived; by the last of these (Book 32), Origen
has reached Chapter xiii of the Gospel. If, therefore, he covered
the whole of the Gospel, the completed work must have been of
prodigious length. However, as Jerome speaks only of thirty-two
books and there is an almost complete lack of surviving fragments
1
Cf. G. Salmon in D.C.B. vol. 11, p. 900; A. E. Brooke, * The Extant Fragments of
a 3 4
Heracleon', pp. 33-4. O. 13, 34. O. 6, 1-2. O. 6, 2.
of the later texts of the Gospel, it seems most likely that the work
was never finished.1
We do not possess any other commentary from the third century,
though the period was one of importance for the development of
the interpretation of the Gospel.2 The theology of Irenaeus, worked
out in conscious opposition to Gnosticism, involved a serious grap-
pling with the meaning of the Fourth Gospel. Not only Gnosticism,
but modalist and monarchian heresies also were forcing the Church
to pay ever-increasing attention to the problem of its correct inter-
pretation. With the impact of Arianism this pressure was increased.
It seems that a considerable number of commentaries were written
in the course of the fourth and early fifth centuries, but in most cases
only fragments of them have survived.
Probably the earliest of these was written by Asterius the Sophist
in support of the Arian cause.3 It is described by Theodore as a
prolix work, which contrives to say nothing of any value for a true
understanding of the Gospel, but achieves its great length by spending
many words on matters that are entirely obvious.4 Such judgments
need always to be received with caution, and Theodore himself is
certainly unusually brief by contemporary standards. It is perhaps
more significant that Theodore still finds it necessary to refer to the
work of Asterius more than half a century after its publication.
Theodore of Heraclea, who receives high praise as an exegete from
both Jerome and Theodoret, also appears to have written a com-
mentary on the Gospel about the middle of the fourth century. But
as he too was a supporter of the Arian cause, it is not surprising that
only small fragments of his work remain.5
1
Jerome, Ep. 33, 4.
2
The catalogue of works recorded on the statue of Hippolytus shows him as
having written a work on the Fourth Gospel, but it has not survived (cf. A. d'Ales,
Theologie de Saint Hippolyte, Introduction, p. iv).
3
The surviving fragments of the works of Asterius are to be found in G. Bardy,
Recherches sur Saint Lucien (TAntioche et son £cole, pp. 341—54. Although they do
not seem to include actual fragments of the commentary, they do include quotations
4
which throw some light on his exegesis of the Gospel. T. 2, 4-11.
5
Jerome, De Vir. III. 90; Theodoret, H.E. 11, 3. (See C. H. Turner, * Greek Patristic
Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles', pp. 497-8 and * The Early Greek Commenta-
tors on the Gospel according to St Matthew', p. 107, where he speaks of Theodore
as 'one of the earliest and ablest exegetes of the Antiochene school'.)
But the majority of the commentaries stood in the tradition of
Nicene orthodoxy and especially within the tradition of Alexandrian
exegesis. Didymus the Blind, head of the catechetical school of
Alexandria, Apollinarius of Laodicea, who was orthodox at least
on the issue of Arianism, and Ammonius, one of the celebrated ' Tall
Brothers', all appear to have written commentaries on the Gospel,
and fragments of their work are to be found in the Catenae.1
In the last decade of the fourth century we have another exposition
of the Gospel in the Antiochene tradition. The homilies of John
Chrysostom on the Gospel were delivered in Antioch itself before his
departure from the city in A.D. 398. Although delivered as sermons,
they appear to have been preached to a well-instructed congregation
and contain thorough and careful exposition fully worthy of com-
parison with more specific works of commentary.
The commentaries of Theodore and of Cyril, both of which are
to be dated early in the fifth century, thus find their place within
a succession of no mean magnitude. Theodore's commentary is to be
placed in the later part of his life, probably in the first decade of the
fifth century.* Of the original Greek text only fragments survive.
Like others of his works, however, it was translated at an early date
into Syriac. This version has now been rendered into Latin by Pere
Voste and thus made more easily accessible.3 In his introduction
1
In the case of Didymus, we have the express statement of Jerome (De Vir. III.
109). In the other two cases our judgment is based solely on the extent of material
attributed to them surviving in the Catenae. Apollinarius is not strictly an exegete
within the Alexandrian tradition; C. H. Turner ('Greek Patristic Commentaries
on the Pauline Epistles', p. 500) says of him that 'his exegetical position was there-
fore influenced more by his geographical connexion with the city of Antioch than
by his opposition to the teaching of its school in the sphere of theology'. None the
less the work of commentary on the Fourth Gospel is so essentially theological an
exercise that it is not surprising that the Catena fragments should reveal a closer
affinity to Cyril of Alexandria than to any other writer in this particular sphere.
2
J. M. Voste, 'Le Commentaire. . .', p. 541; 'La chronologie de l'activite litteraire
de Theodore de Mopsueste', pp. 77-80.
3
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium: Scrlptores Syri, Series 4, Tomus 3
interpretatus est J. M. Voste. The surviving Greek fragments have been collected by
R. Devreesse and printed as an appendix to his Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste, The
reliability of the Syriac translation is generally agreed. Voste ('Le Commentaire. . .',
p. 534) speaks of its 'fidelite admirable*. F. A. Sullivan, who is in general inclined to
be critical of the Syriac translations, believes it to be 'quite faithful to the Greek text',
though he regards the translations of ch. i and the last section of the Gospel following
5
to the commentary, Theodore not only refers to the earlier work of

Asterius, but also to his desire to write in defence of Basil against
Eunomius; this shows that he too has the Arian controversy much
in mind. He carefully distinguishes the work of the commentator
from that of the preacher. The task of the commentator is to make
clear the meaning of the text. If that meaning is obvious, it is not his
job (as it is the preacher's) to elaborate upon it. On the other hand,
he must be prepared to spend much time on the more difficult texts.
In particular this means that he will have to dwell in detail on any
texts which have been perverted in current heretical teaching.1
Cyril's commentary is one of his earlier works. There is difference
of opinion about its exact date, but there seems to be general agree-
ment that it is to be dated before the outbreak of the Nestorian
controversy in A.D. 428.2 The anti-Arian purpose, which is present
in the work of Theodore, is still more explicit in the work of Cyril.
His avowed purpose is a SoyiiocriKCOTepa e^riyrjcris, which will counter
the false teaching of heresy at every point.3 Like Theodore, there-
fore, he sees it as his especial duty to unmask the errors of heretical
interpretation, and to that end he includes in the commentary a
number of excursuses, which are often only very loosely attached to
the actual text of the Gospel. But he goes further than Theodore in
including in the commentator's task a full, positive exposition of the
doctrinal implications of the Gospel.
xx. 23 as less precise than the main body of the work {The Christology of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, p. 125). Many of the Greek fragments for the second half of the Gospel
are in the form of an epitome rather than direct quotation and are clearly less reliable
than the Syriac.
1
T. 2, 12-27.
2
For summaries of recent discussions of the date of the Commentary, see
J. Liebaert, La Doctrine Christologique de Saint Cyrille d*Alexandrie. . ., pp. 191-6;
H. Chadwick, * Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy', p. 151 n. 4.
3
Cyr., Praefatio (1, 7, 13).
CHAPTER I
THE AUTHORSHIP AND PURPOSE

OF THE GOSPEL
Towards the close of the second century, there appears considerable
and widespread testimony to the Johannine authorship of the
Gospel. Theophilus of Antioch quotes the opening phrases of the
prologue as the words of John, one of the inspired men.1 He does
not explicitly say that the John was the disciple of the Lord, though
that may well have been his intention. Ptolemaeus, whose exposition
of the prologue is quoted by Irenaeus, expressly attributes it to
1
John, the disciple of the Lord'. 2 Heracleon also believed the
Gospel on which he was commenting to be the work of a disciple.3
In fact the considerable Gnostic interest in the Gospel was probably
motivated at least in part by the desire to find in it apostolic authority
for their teaching.4
In addition we have four fuller accounts of the writing of the
Gospel. The anti-Marcionite prologue describes the Gospel as
dictated by John to his disciple Papias 'while still in the body'. This
presumably implies that it had something of the character of a last
will and testament of the aged disciple.5
The Muratorian Canon ascribes the writing of the Gospel to the
disciple John at the encouragement of his fellow-disciples and
bishops. The Gospel is said to incorporate not only the recollections
of John but of all the apostles. The writing down was the work of
John and the Gospel was, therefore, published under his name.6
1
Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, 2, 22.
2
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1, 8, 5 (Harvey, vol. 1, p. 75).
3
O. 6, 3. Origen is disputing Heracleon's assertion that John i. 18 is to be attri-
buted 'not to the Baptist but to the disciple*.
4
J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Churchy p. 65.
5
Rev. Ben. XL (1928), p. 198.
6
H. Lietzmann, Kleine Textefiir theologische Vorlesungen^ No. 1, Das Muratorische
Fragment^ p. 5. None of these sources can be dated with precision, but they can all
be placed with a considerable degree of confidence in the second half of the second
century.
Clement of Alexandria gives a similar, less elaborate but more
significant account. He writes: * But, last of all, John perceiving that
the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged
by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual
Gospel.'1
Finally Irenaeus declares that the Gospel was written after the
others, by John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on Jesus'
breast, while he lived at Ephesus.*
Over against this testimony, we hear of only one other suggested
attribution of authorship. The heretical Alogoi, in their opposition
to the Gospel, are said by Epiphanius to have ascribed it to Cerinthus.3
It has been argued that the tentative use made of the Gospel by
Justin 'makes it difficult to believe that he regarded the Fourth
Gospel as Scripture or as the work of an apostle'.4 However, even
the fact of Justin's knowledge of the Gospel cannot be regarded as
proved beyond doubt. If, indeed, the tradition was unknown earlier
in the second century it had established itself securely by the end of
the century, and from that time on was the universally accepted
view in need neither of question nor of proof.
Irenaeus' description of Ephesus as its place of origin has further
support of about the same date in statements of Polycrates^ and of
Clement.6 Here again only one dissentient voice has survived in all
the early literature. Ephrem Syrus records a tradition that John
wrote the Gospel at Antioch, where he lived until the reign of
Trajan.7 But apart from this one isolated exception the connection
of the Gospel with Ephesus appears regularly as a part of the un-
varying tradition.
The other feature which is common to more than one of these
early traditions is the allotment of some part in the origin of the
Gospel to others in addition to the individual apostle himself. The
different forms of this part of the tradition were inconsistent with
one another, but that the Gospel was written in some sense at the
prompting of others was also generally accepted.
1 2
Eusebius, H.E. 6, 14, 7. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 1, 1 (vol. 2, p. 6).
3 4
Epiphanius, Pan. Haer. 51, 2-3. Sanders, op. cit. p. 31.
5 6
Eusebius, H.E. 5, 24, 2-3. Ibid. 3, 23, 6-19.
7
Sanders, op. cit. p. 7; M. Goguel, Introduction au Nouveau Testament, vol. II,
pp. 180-1.
AUTHORSHIP AND PURPOSE
For all the later commentators, therefore, it is an accepted fact

that the author of the Gospel is none other than John, the son of
Zebedee. To speak of finding confirmation of this fact from the
internal evidence of the Gospel itself would be misleading. One
cannot confirm that about which one is not in any doubt. Rather
the commentator, knowing the secret of the authorship, is enabled
to recognise the hidden evidences of his firsthand authority, which
he has deliberately left within his record.
Irenaeus, as we have seen, identifies John with the beloved
disciple and this identification is universally assumed. The 'other
disciple' known to the high-priest of John xviii. 15 is also assumed
to be John without the need for any discussion of the matter.1 The
indirect method of referring to himself is regarded as a suitable
means of emphasising the unimpeachable nature of his authority
without at the same time abandoning a proper humility.2
Similarly he has given evidence of the unquestionable nature of
his testimony in John xix. 35. Different reasons are suggested as to
why such emphasis should be laid on the witness to this particular
occurrence. Theodore suggests that the issue of water and blood
was not visible to all the bystanders, but was a personal revelation
to himself alone.3 Chrysostom declares that so degrading an occur-
rence in the life of Christ demanded by its very nature especially
reliable testimony.4
John xxi. 24 is generally regarded as John's own seal of authority.
His claim to be the one whom Jesus specially loved is a part of the
guarantee of his utter reliability. Jesus, the Truth, would not so have
loved one who would desert the truth. His humility is shown in the
continued maintenance of his anonymity.^
The Muratorian Canon had pointed to the opening words of the
first epistle of John as evidence for eyewitness authorship of the
Gospel,6 but the ' we beheld' of John i. 14 does not appear to be so
1
T. 233, 23-6; Chr. 83, 2; Cyr. in John xviii. 15 (in, 29, 26-7). Cf. Westcott,
vol. 11, p. 273.
2
Chr. 83, 2; Cyr. in John xviii. 15 (in, 29, 27—30, 24).
4
3 T. 242, 27-34- Chr. 85, 3.
5
Cyr. in John xxi. 24 (m, 169-70). Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 5, 1 (vol. n,
pp. 18-19).
6
H. Lietzmann, op. cit. pp. 5-7.
used. The extreme doctrinal importance of the verse naturally

monopolised the commentator's interest at that point.1
The author, therefore, was John, the Galilean fisherman and the
beloved disciple. As a Galilean fisherman, he ought not to be ex-
pected to be a polished author. Origen is not afraid to assert of him
that he does not express his point at one place with perfect clarity
because he is no professional writer.2 To Origen of course this is but
one example of the general truth that there is nothing remarkable
about the form or style of Scripture as a whole, but that God has
entrusted his treasure to an earthen vessel so that its effectiveness
might be recognised as due not to the wisdom of men, but to the
power of God.3 Chrysostom actually argues that John must have
belonged to the poorest category of fisherman. No reason, he says,
other than extreme poverty would have persuaded a father to allow
his son to follow his footsteps in so mean a trade. Moreover, John
fished not in the sea, but in a small lake; he had to mend his own nets
and is described by St Luke in Acts iv. 13 as without learning.4
More significance, however, attaches to the fact of Christ's special
love for John, which has earned him the title of Beloved Disciple.
This has a greater importance as providing a clue towards the charac-
ter and intention of his work. At its simplest level, Chrysostom
declares that this love was the essential motive of his writing.5 More
important is the spiritual proximity to the mind of Jesus implicit
in such a privileged position. Origen finds this most vividly por-
trayed in the picture of John reclining at supper on the bosom of
Jesus. Just as it is the fact that the only-begotten Son is in' the bosom
of the Father' that constitutes him able to reveal God to men, so
John's reclining upon the bosom of Jesus symbolises his ability to
declare the deepest truths of the Gospel.6 John's unique and exalted
1
Cyr. in John xiii. 23 (11, 366, 30-367, 5) quotes the verse in the singular form
('I beheld. . .') applying it specifically to the evangelist, but he interprets it of his
spiritual understanding rather than of his historical testimony.
1
O. 13,54.
3
De Principizs, 4, 1, 7; extract in Philocalia from Book 4 of the Commentary on
St John (Fragment no. 15 in Brooke's edition of the Commentary).
4
Chr. 2, 1. 5 Chr. 88, 2.
6
O. 32, 20 (John xiii. 23). Cf. Origen, In Can. Can. bk. 1 (P.G. 13, 87B:
G.C.S. ed. Baehrens, p. 93).
IO
AUTHORSHIP AND PURPOSE
position is reflected in the unique and exalted character of his

Gospel.
All our three principal commentators express the purpose of the
Gospel not as something standing alone, but by comparison with
the first three Gospels. It is striking to find that they make no use
of John's own avowal of his purpose in John xx. 31. 1 All the exposi-
tions of the Gospel's purpose are in effect developments of the
dictum of Clement, that it is intended to be a spiritual Gospel in
supplementation of the earlier ones, whose concentration had been
upon the bodily facts.
Origen develops this idea with characteristic verbal ingenuity.
Matthew is a book of the 'genesis' of Jesus Christ; Mark is the
beginning of the Gospel; and Luke is a record of all that Jesus began
to do and to teach. All therefore leave the completion of the record
to the one who had enjoyed the privileged position on the breast
of Christ. And the essence of this completion of the Gospel records
is to make unequivocally clear the divinity of Jesus. This is John's
paramount purpose.2
Theodore states that the Christians of Asia recognised that the
omission of certain miracles and certain elements of teaching might
lead in future generations to men losing sight of Christ's divinity.
It was to rule out the possibility of any such misapprehensions in
the future that John undertook his task of writing. 3
Cyril gives a very similar account of the Gospel's origin and
purpose. The only difference is that the danger of false teaching is
not future but already present. The eternal generation of the Son and
the pre-existence of the Logos are already being attacked in John's
own lifetime.4 John's purpose is therefore a full and careful statement
of Christ's divinity, in correction both of present and of future
heresies.5
Thus there is complete agreement that the purpose of the Gospel
is so to supplement the other Gospels as to place beyond all
1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 16, 5 (vol. 11, p. 86) does refer to this verse as an ex-
pression of John's purpose, but it is significant that it is only the Christological aspect
of the verse as showing John's foresight of a particular form of Christological heresy
that he is concerned with. The desire to impart faith and life is not developed.
2
O. 1, 6. 3 T. 3, 16-4, 8. 4 Cyr. bk. 1 (Preface) (1, 14, 17-15, 10).
5
Cyr. in John i. 1 (1, 31, 5-17).
II
reasonable doubt the doctrinal truth of Christ's divinity. Although

the other commentators are evidently well aware of the fact, it is
only Chrysostom who states explicitly that John also lays more stress
than the other evangelists on the lowly aspects of Christ's humanity
in the ordinary course of his ministry, as distinct from his passion,
thus ensuring also a true belief in the incarnation.1
1
Chr. 63, 2.
12
CHAPTER II
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
The purpose of the Gospel was, as we have seen, conceived and
expressed in terms of a comparison and contrast with the other
three Gospels. So it is no surprise to find more detailed questions
of the relationship of St John's account to that of the other three
evangelists constantly recurring in treatments of the Fourth Gospel.
Differences between St John's Gospel and the Synoptics seem to
have been recognised as a possible stumbling-block to faith from the
very beginning. The Muratorian Canon appears to wish to reassure
the believer on this score.1 Origen refers to some people, probably
within the Church, who think that the discrepancies between the
different Gospel records show that the evangelists are not absolutely
reliable.2 One of the reasons given by the Alogoi for their rejection
of the Fourth Gospel was the impossibility of squaring its chronology
with that of the Synoptics, in particular the impossibility of finding
a place in the Johannine record for the forty days in the wilderness.3
The longer period of ministry required by the Johannine account
was noticed by Irenaeus and put by him to positive use against the
Valentinians. They had asserted a connection between the passion
and the twelfth aeon, on the ground that Jesus suffered in the twelfth
month after his baptism. Irenaeus objects by pointing out that,
according to St John, Jesus visited Jerusalem for four distinct pass-
overs, and that therefore the ministry must have extended over
a much longer period than a single year.4
1
See Barrett, pp. 96-7.
a
O. 6, 34 (see A. Harnack, Der Kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag. . ., Pt. 2, p. 28).
3
Epiphanius, Pan. Haer. 51, 4.
4
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2, 22, 3 (vol. 1, pp. 328-9). Irenaeus regards John v. 1 as
referring to a passover as well as ii. 13, vi. 4 and xiii. 1. Irenaeus in fact believed
in a very much longer ministry even than that required by the Johannine account.
On the basis of John viii. 57, he believed that Jesus was about fifty years old at the
time of his death {Adv. Haer. 2, 22, 6; vol. 1, p. 332).
'3
Thus the Church was aware of the issue from the earliest period,
but it is naturally in the later writers, when the Fourth Gospel was
fully and unquestionably accepted, that we find a more careful and
systematic attack upon the problem.
The general difference of character and of subject-matter presented
no problem. This very fact had largely determined the accepted
understanding of the purpose of the Gospel as a whole, and it was
therefore itself easily and completely explicable in terms of that
purpose. Where John includes incidents or teaching not recorded
by the others, he is simply supplementing them, particularly in such
a way as to enhance the divinity of Christ.1 Where he omits incidents
already recorded, the motive is obvious, especially in the case of such
incidents as the temptation story or the agony in the garden, which
emphasised the humanity of Christ.2 Where he does repeat what has
already been written, it is in order to develop new and important
theological teaching on the basis of the old story, as with the feeding
of the five thousand.3 This was John's particular role in the dispensa-
tion of the Holy Spirit.4 Here was no difficulty, but rather corrobora-
tive evidence of the overruling wisdom of the Spirit.
Difficulty, however, was most acutely felt when the work of
comparison was carried down into matters of detail. Eusebius,
Epiphanius, and Augustine set themselves specifically to the task
of resolving all apparent points of conflict.5 Nothing is to be gained
by following out in full detail the tortuous ingenuity of their
reasoning. It is, however, of interest to note that Eusebius is pre-
pared to allow himself the possibility of a copyist's error as a principle
to which appeal may be made in the resolution of these conflicts.
Yet this is normally one of two or more possible methods of solution,
and not the one to which his own personal preference is given.6
It is a sign of the historical realism, and of the fundamental honesty
1
Cyr. bk. i (Preface) (i, 12); Chr. 4, 1.
2
Origen, Matt. Comm. Ser. 92; 126; Luc. Horn. 29.
3
T. 4, 30-5, i3;45> 10-15.
4
Eusebius, Supplementa Quaestionum ad Marinum, 9 (P.G. 22, 1001 A).
5
Eusebius, Quaestiones Evangelicae {P.G. 22, 877—1016); Epiphanius, Pan. Haer.
51, 5—31; Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum.
6
Eusebius, Quaestiones ad Marinum, 2, 7 {P.G. 22, 948 B ) ; Supplementa Minor a
Quaestionum ad Marinum, 4 {P.G. 22, 1009 AB).
THE FOURTH AND SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
of Origen and of Theodore as commentators, that they alone are

prepared to admit quite frankly the impossibility of such methods
leading to a complete and successful solution of every difficulty. In
their fearless rejection of all facile solutions they are at one, but that
is as far as the similarity between them extends.
Origen declares that the Johannine and synoptic chronologies
cannot be harmonised. The Johannine account leaves no room for
the temptation story; 1 the different datings of the cleansing of the
Temple cannot be harmonised at a straightforward historical level.2
In addition there are clear discrepancies in the differing accounts of
the call and naming of Peter, and differing assertions on the subject
of the overlapping of the ministry of Jesus with that of John.3 The
discrepancies in fact are of such magnitude that they might well
undermine our whole faith in the trustworthiness of the Gospel
records.4 That they need not do so is due to one cardinal principle.
The factual differences are designed to express different spiritual
truths. Correct chronological sequence may be disregarded for
better representation of spiritual meaning.5 Spiritual truth can, in
fact, be preserved in material falsehood.6 In Scripture as a whole,
but especially in St John's Gospel, there is an admixture of the un-
historical with a view to spiritual teaching.7 Origen, therefore,
admits the presence of extensive disagreements only to deny that
they represent any serious problem at all. In fact, the greater the
variety of accounts, the greater the range of spiritual meaning.
This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of historical
harmonisation as well. In answer to an objection of Celsus about the
inconsistency in the Gospel records of the number of angels who
appeared at the time of the resurrection, Origen declares that the
Gospel statements can be justified both as historical events and as
manifesting some allegorical meaning concerning the truths made
clear to people who have been prepared to see the resurrection of the
1 z
O. 10, 3. O. 10, 20-2.
3
O. 10, 8. In O. Frag. 21 he does harmonise the initial calls of Peter, but does not
there discuss the different occasions of the naming. Chrysostom claims that the
Johannine account makes the synoptic record of the sudden call of Peter by the
lakeside more easily credible (Chr. 18, 3).
4
O. 10, 3. 5 o . 32, 2.
6 7
O. 10, 4-6. O. Frag. 74.
15
Logos. He does not, however, develop the argument in detail then

and there, because he regards it as an activity more proper to
commentaries on the Gospels than to a work of apologetics.1 In
similar vein within the commentary on St John itself he asserts that
the comparison of similar texts in the different Gospels is essential
for two reasons—first, to show the harmony of things that appear to
be in conflict, and secondly, to make clear the precise individual
meaning of each apparently similar text.2 It is, therefore, no surprise
to find that within his commentaries there are indeed examples of
harmonisation which are characteristic both in their ingenuity and
in their improbability. He argues that there must have been different
occasions when the Baptist spoke of himself as being unworthy to
bear his successor's shoes and as being unworthy to loose them.3
Similarly he decides in favour of the view that there must have been
three separate occasions of the anointing of Jesus by a woman at
dinner.4 But such argumentation is not required by his fundamental
position, and is rather the natural overflow of a restless inquiring
mind, always ready to notice the most subtle distinctions of detail,
and always overready to build a whole edifice of interpretation upon
them.
Theodore does not adopt any such position which would enable
him to evade the historical problem. For him the discrepancies are
not so extensive, but the problem that they raise is more real. The
chronologies he does not believe to be incompatible at all. The
fundamental principle to which he appeals is that the Synoptic
Gospels have in fact no true chronology. It is only John who is
really concerned with chronology, as the precision of his dates bears
witness.5 The exact dating of the first miracle at Cana of Galilee
proves that the temptation cannot have followed immediately upon
the baptism.6 The emphatic statement in John iii. 24 that John the
Baptist was not yet cast into prison shows that everything recounted
in chapters ii and iii of St John's Gospel must have happened before
1 2
Contra Celsum, 5, 56. O. 6, 24.
3 4
O. 6, 34 (John i. 27). Matt. Comm. Ser. 77 (John xii. 1-8).
5
T. 5, 14—35; 33, 22—33 (John i. 35). Cf. Temple, p. xi, 'We do not have to
choose between two incompatible chronologies, for the Johannine chronology is the
only one that we have'.
6
T. 39, 1-13 (John ii. 1).
16
the start of the ministry described by the Synoptics.1 In all probability

the cleansing of the Temple was performed on two occasions;
alternatively the explanation is to be found in the fact that Matthew
and the others are simply not concerned about the question of
date.*
Theodore does not, therefore, admit the existence of any conflict
in chronology. But discrepancies in matters of fact he does not deny.
He insists that they do not apply to essential issues, but occur only
over matters of detail.3 Such discrepancies ought not to be the oc-
casion of surprise. There are clear reasons why they ought rather
to be expected. In the first place Mark and Luke were not themselves
disciples, and therefore their records have not got the full evidential
value of the firsthand witness.4 The same distinction of Matthew
and John as the more important Gospels, in view of the position
of their authors as actual eye-witnesses, had been made by Eusebius
in his discussion of apparent conflicts within the Gospel records.
But to Eusebius this only suggested that in the dispensation of the
Holy Spirit they had been chosen to record the things of greater
importance, while less important matters were left for the secondary
evangelists.5 Theodore, however, finds in the distinction ground for
regarding Mark and Luke as less reliable witnesses in matters of
factual detail. The only exception that he mentions is in the precise
recording of the double cock crow associated with Peter's denial.
Here Mark gives the fuller and more strictly accurate account, but
1
T. 53, 11-23 (cf. also Eusebius, H.E. 3, 24, 7-13; Chr. 17, 1). On this point,
however, Theodore is strangely inconsistent. He appears to have forgotten that
he has earlier asserted that there is a gap between John ii. 11 and ii. 12 during which
several things happened which John has omitted as already recorded by others
(T. 42, 18-24). The main motive for this earlier assertion appears to be the feeling
that the cleansing of the Temple requires some degree of notable public ministry
before it (T. 43, 5-10).
2
T. 53, 23—33. Chrysostom also believes that there were probably two separate
occasions, and gives the additional reasoning that the wording of the Johannine
rebuke ('a house of merchandise') is milder than the synoptic wording ('den of
robbers') and is therefore more suited to an earlier occasion (Chr. 23, 2). More
surprising is Chrysostom's assertion that the two accounts of Jesus' walking on the
water in Matthew and in John refer to different occasions (Chr. 43, 1; John vi.
3
19-21). T. 244, 13-28.
4
T. 238, 34-239, 7; 244, 34-245, 2.
5
Eusebius, Quaestiones ad Marinum, 4, 1 (P.G. 22, 953 A).
2 17 WSG
this can easily be explained on the basis of Mark's close connection
with Peter.1
Secondly, a considerable proportion of these points of conflict
occur in the records of the passion. But at the time of the crucifixion
all the disciples except John had forsaken Jesus and fled. He alone,
therefore, was in a position to know the exact detail of those last
hours.2 In any event, the kind of points over which there are
differences are just the kind of points over which men do habitually
differ in the remembering of events. Differences in point of the
precise time of an event, for example, are just the sort of thing that
one should expect.3 But Theodore goes beyond the attempt to show
that these differences are not to be the occasion of surprise. He too,
like Origen, desires to give them some positive value. They ought,
he says, even to be welcomed, because they are clear evidence that
there has been no deliberate collusion on the part of the evangelists.4
The marginal element of discrepancy is in fact good evidence of
the veracity of the evangelists and thus of the overall historical
reliability of their accounts.
None the less Theodore is by no means averse to the activity of
finding resolutions of apparent conflicts. If Matthew says that the
woman with the alabaster cruse of ointment anointed Jesus' head,
while John says she anointed his feet, then doubtless she must have
done both. John, knowing that Matthew has already recorded the
anointing of the head, deliberately gives only the additional informa-
tion about his feet to provide a fuller account of the quality of her
love.5 When John says that Jesus carried his own cross, there is no
conflict there either. Jesus started out carrying the cross, which was
transferred to Simon of Cyrene en route, as the precise wording of
Luke in fact implies.6 Such comparatively reasonable instances of
harmonisation he does offer, but, because he does not regard it as
essential to find a complete solution to every conflict, he is free of
the temptation to work out unduly complicated and far-fetched
explanations of apparent differences. Mark's account of the exact
time of the resurrection can in fact be squared perfectly with that
1 3
T. 189, 10-13. T. 245, 2-3.
3 4
T. 239, 7-9. T. 244, 23-34; 252, 15-32.
5 6
T. 168, 7—28 (John xii. 1-8). T. 240, 7-27 (John xix. 17).
18
of the other evangelists, but it would not be a matter of any great

moment if it could not.1 The same is true of his record of the precise
hour of the crucifixion.2
Cyril is comparatively unconcerned with the issue. John's
purpose was to supplement the other Gospels by providing a deeper,
more doctrinal, account. Therefore, when we find differing accounts
of some incident, the important thing is to show how John has
brought out the most vital significance of the happening.3 His
concentration is therefore directed towards the theological meaning
of the Johannine record in itself. In this respect his approach to the
Gospel is more adequate than that of any other of the early com-
mentators. Comparisons of chronology he does not raise at all.
He does very occasionally point to apparent conflicts in points of
detail. Like Theodore, he insists that these apparent conflicts
concern only unimportant matters of detail, and not essentials, but
from that fact he draws a very different conclusion. To Theodore it
suggested that the inconsistencies, being in matters of detail only,
could be admitted without undue concern. Cyril, on the other hand,
argues that it is impossible to believe that the evangelists, while
agreeing so completely in all matters of importance, should then
contradict one another in something so insignificant. He therefore
finds it necessary to indulge in the somewhat improbable argument
that there were many attendants present at the crucifixion, and
while one lot gave Jesus a sponge of vinegar on a reed, others gave
him the sponge on a piece of hyssop.4 Cyril's strength as a com-
mentator lies, therefore, not so much in the way in which he meets
the detailed problem of the relation between John and the Synoptics,
but rather in his comparative readiness to ignore it.
While he does thus virtually ignore the more obvious points of
conflict in the varying accounts of the same incident, he does oc-
casionally raise less obvious points, which require treatment of
a rather different kind. John declares that when the word became
flesh, he was 'full of grace and truth'; yet Luke ii. 52 speaks
of Jesus advancing in wisdom and grace. The problem is met by
1 2
T. 246, 16-36; 251, 21-252, 7. T. 239, 9-17 (John xix. 14).
3
Cyr. in John xii. 14-15 (11, 306, 7-9).
4
Cyr. in John xix. 29 (in, 94, 6—29).
T9 2-2
drawing a distinction between what is said of Jesus as Logos and what
is said of men's growing estimation of him—a distinction of which he
makes use in other places in interpreting the Christology of the
Fourth Gospel as a whole.1 Again, he contrasts Jesus' action in
visiting Samaria with his own limitation of his mission to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel according to Matt. xv. 24. Here he
points to John's phrase 'He must needs pass through Samaria'. This
is an indication of a deeper purpose behind the action of Jesus. He
goes not simply to preach to the Samaritans, but to enact the trans-
ference of the blessing of God away from Israel. This too is part
of a consistent interpretation of the symbolism of the Fourth
Gospel, of which Cyril makes widespread use in other contexts.*
In these cases, therefore, Cyril is free from any criticism of special
pleading, because his solutions are entirely in line with his overall
theological interpretation of the Gospel.
Finally we find in all the commentators an occasional appeal to
the Synoptic Gospels in order to provide the explanation or
interpretation of some happening or saying in the Fourth Gospel.
Thus Theodore, Chrysostom, and Cyril all ascribe the hesitation
of Philip, in responding to the request of the Greeks to see Jesus,
to his memory of Jesus' words in Matt. x. 5, forbidding the disciples
to 'go into any way of the Gentiles'.3 Heracleon had an allegorical
interpretation of Jesus' going down to Capernaum in John ii. 12,
which was based on the fact that Jesus was not recorded to have
done anything there. Origen objects to the interpretation on the
1
Cyr. in John i. 14 (1, 143, 28-144, 9)- Cf. P- J 3 2 n - 4 below.
2
Cyr. in John iv. 4 (1, 263, 1—25). Origen tackles the same basic difficulty in
O. 13, 52, though the Matthaean text with which he contrasts the action of Jesus
is Matt. x. 5 and not xv. 24. The difference of method in meeting the problem is
interestingly representative of the difference between them as commentators. Origen
offers two lines of solution. (1) Matt. x. 5 can be given a purely allegorical intepreta-
tion. (2) If we observe the wording of the two accounts carefully, we will notice that
the injunction is against entering 'any city of the Samaritans'. John never asserts
that Jesus did enter the city, only that he abode with them for two days, that is,
with those who had come out of the city to him at the well. Origen here shows
great ingenuity and acute observations of detail, but lacks the theological depth of Cyril.
Chrysostom asserts that the Evangelist has made special mention of the woman's
coming out of the city, expressly to meet any Jewish cavil that he was disobeying
his own injunction given in Matt. x. 5 (Chr. 31, 4).
3
T. 170, 34—171, 6; Chr. 66, 2; Cyr. in John xii. 21—2 (11, 310, 12—21).
2O
ground that in the Synoptic Gospels Capernaum is the scene of

very much activity on the part of Jesus.1 Such comparisons do not
always further the cause of the best exegesis. In his consideration of
Jesus' saying 'A prophet is not without honour save in his own
country', Cyril makes no explicit reference to the Synoptic version
of the saying, but it is presumably due to his memory of its setting
there that he completely misinterprets the passage in John as
a reference to Nazareth.2
1
O . 10, i i .
2
Cyr. in John iv. 44 (1, 300, 6—12). Chrysostom refers it to Capernaum on the
strength of Luke x. 15 (Chr. 35, i? 2).
21
C H A P T E R III
HISTORICITY AND SYMBOLISM

I. THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
One of the bewildering features of modern Johannine studies is the

radically divergent answers that are given to the question of the
historical character of the book. While one interpreter may regard
it as the romantic creation of the mystical imagination, another
believes it to be absolutely rooted and grounded in history. The
cleavage of opinion does not find such violent expression in the
early centuries, but nevertheless it is already present. The only early
writers who accept at all the possibility of there being differing
degrees of historicity attaching to different parts of the scriptural
record are, as we have seen, Origen and Theodore. The two stand
in opposing camps in their assessment of the Gospel's historicity.
For Origen the Gospel has a special admixture of the unhistorical.1
For Theodore it has the greatest historical reliability as a firsthand
account.2
Origen was always on the alert to find a deeper meaning in the
words of Scripture. When Heracleon gives simply the natural
straightforward meaning of a text, Origen's repeated criticism is that
this is TTOAU &7rAoucrrepov, that it does not go nearly deep enough.3
Many incidents are recorded for doctrinal purpose, and not as a strict
historical account.4 He himself, therefore, is always ready to move
on to symbolic or allegorical meanings, to the complete exclusion
of the historical sense if necessary. No doubt he regarded the bulk
of the record as historical and even insists upon its historicity on
occasions, but the claim of Pere de Lubac that he never denies the
literal historical meaning does not seem to stand up to the evidence.5
De Lubac also asserts that on occasions Origen actually attacks the
process of getting rid of the literal meaning of the Gospel by
1 2
O. Frag. 74. T. 244, 34-245, 7-
3 4
O. 6, 39; 19, 19. O. Frag. 20.
5
H. de Lubac, Introduction to Orlgene; Homelies sur la Genese, pp. 5-6.
22
1
allegorising. But again the evidence does not confirm his assertion.
The passages concerned do criticise a false allegorising, but the
ground of criticism is not that they are getting rid of the literal sense.
He is not attacking allegorism itself in defence of history, but a too
facile allegorism which does not see through to the full and true
spiritual meaning.
Origen sometimes points out that the evangelist has given clear
indications that a passage requires allegorical interpretations, but in
practice he does not appear to need any special pointers before going
behind and beyond the literal meaning.2 The kind of deeper meaning
that he finds varies from the most arbitrary allegorising to a pro-
found understanding of the symbolism of the Gospel. Examples of
the former are particularly to be found in his treatment of numbers
and of place-names, though they are not restricted to such cases.3
For instance, the deeper meaning of the saying about the latchet
of Christ's shoe, which Origen prefers to Heracleon's own simple
interpretation, is an allusion to the incarnation and to the descent into
Hades.4 Over against this must be set such penetrating comments as
his interpretation of the words in John xiii. 30, ' H e . . .went out
straightway, and it was night'. Judas went out not simply from the
house in which the supper was being held, but altogether from Jesus
himself, like those of whom it is said in the epistle that' they went out
from among us'. The night into which he went was symbolic of
the darkness in his own soul, or the darkness which pursued but
could not overtake the true light.5 In each case a deeper meaning is
1
H. de Lubac, 'Typologie et Allegorisme', p. 214; Histoire et Esprit, pp. 124 and
202. The texts to which he appeals are O. 13, 9 and O. 20, 20.
2
O. 13, 30; 32, 4. H. N. Bate ('Some Technical Terms of Greek Exegesis', p. 60)
suggesst that herein lies the real difference between the allegorising of Alexandria
and of Antioch, namely that the Antiochenes really do accept the principle that the
context must give special evidence to justify an allegorical interpretation before
allegorising is to be allowed. J. Guillet in his comparative study of the exegetical
methods of Origen and Theodore finds them at one in their use of obscurities or
apparent inconsequentialities in the literal sense as evidence of a hidden sense (p. 264).
An example from Theodore's commentary is his comment on John xv. 15:' Evidenter
et hoc, sicut alia multa, figurate est dictum. Nam si attente verbum istud considere-
mus, ne verum quidem apparet' (T. 203, 4-6).
3
O. 2, 33 contains a specific assertion of the profit to be gained from the interpreta-
4
tion of names. O. 6, 35 (John i. 27).
5 O. 32, 24.
found in the detail of the narrative, but they are deeper meanings of
profoundly different character.
Such recognition of a deeper meaning is not, of course, exclusive
of a simpler historical meaning. Sometimes Origen5 s comment
draws specific attention to meanings of both kinds. The night by
which Nicodemus came to Jesus was both the historical means of
avoiding the observation of other Pharisees and a symbol of the
night of his own ignorance.1 The same phrase has both literal and
symbolic significance. On another occasion he suggests that it is
a regular scriptural usage for the same word appearing twice within
a single context to alternate between a literal and spiritual meaning.
While he describes this as a general practice of Scripture, he pre-
sumably found it particularly evident in the Fourth Gospel, as all
his illustrations are drawn from it. He cites the references to harvest
in iv. 35, to the drinking of water in iv. 7 and 10, and to seeing and
not seeing in ix. 39.^
Origen, in fact, does not regard the Fourth Gospel as requiring
a spiritual manner of interpretation radically different from that
applicable to Scripture as a whole. He is as free with his allegorical
interpretations when dealing with the first three Gospels as when
dealing with the fourth.3 The only difference is that he seems to
find the Fourth Gospel lending itself more readily to his general
manner of interpretation; it is there particularly that he finds pointers
towards and clear illustrations of his method. The method itself is
of universal application, but it is in the firstfruits of all Scripture
that its appropriateness is most patently evident.
1
O. Frag. 34 (John iii. i).
2
Comm. Rom. 3, 7. Origen, however, is not consistent in his treatment of John
iv. 35. In his commentary he agrees that the first half of the text sounds like a simple
historical statement, but goes on to argue that as such it simply cannot be fitted into
the gospel chronology. John iv. 35, he argues, cannot be as much as eight months
after the events of chapter ii, which a literal interpretation of the text would require.
This, he suggests, ought to convince people that * many of the things spoken by the
Saviour may be of purely intellectual purport and void of literal or bodily meaning'
(O. 13, 39). For this argument to be valid, Origen has to forget his other principle
that it may be the chronological sequence that is not historical. Cf. p. 15 above.
3
H. Smith, Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels, pp. 34-6. In so far as Origen's
Commentary on St Matthew is less allegorical than that on St John, the reason seems
more likely to be the later date of the former work than any supposed difference in
the character of the two gospels. Cf. R. Hanson, Origen s Doctrine of Tradition, p. 29.
24
Theodore, on the other hand, has, as we have seen, an especial

respect for the historical accuracy of the Gospel. This applies
particularly to the question of chronology. The only exception to
strict chronological order in the Gospel is the words of Jesus at
the close of chapter xii. These, he says, must actually have been
spoken before the withdrawal of Jesus recorded in xii. 36, but have
been placed after it at the very end of the whole section so as
to provide a final emphatic indictment of the Jews' failure to
believe.1
When curious historical details enter into the narrative, Theodore
is keen to give a historical explanation of them. Thus Christ's seam-
less robe woven from the top, which suggested to Origen the
wholeness of Christ's teaching, to Cyprian the unity of the church,
and to Cyril the virgin birth of Christ, receives from Theodore no
other comment than that such methods of weaving were common
in the time of Christ, although in his day they had died out except
for soldiers' uniforms.3
More important is the appeal to incidental points of detail as
corroborative evidence of the historical accuracy of the Gospel.
Theodore finds this particularly illustrated by the range of vivid
detail in the whole story of the raising of Lazarus.3 In this Cyril is
completely at one with him.4 It is, in fact, Cyril who makes the
most frequent use of this particular argument. He employs it
especially in connection with the many place-names and precise
time references to be found in the Gospel. John's memory of the
occasion of the teaching in chapter vi as having been given in the
synagogue at Capernaum is evidence that he is not likely to be at
fault about the content of the teaching.5 His description of the time
of Jesus' arrival at the well of Sychar as 'about the sixth hour' is
1
T. 180, 8-23.
2
Origen, Matt. Comm. Ser. 128; Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 7; Cyr. in John
xix. 23 (m, 89,11-22); T. 241,6-16. Even Chrysostom, while emphasising mainly the
precision with which the prophecy is fulfilled and the characteristic cheapness and
simplicity of such a robe, does mention that some people see in it an allegorical
allusion to the divinity from above possessed by the crucified (Chr. 85, 1-2).
3
T. 156, 2-10.
4
Cyr. in John xi. 31 (n, 278, 10-13).
5
Cyr. in John vi. 59 (1, 547, 14-18). Cf. also his comment on Bethabara in John
i. 28 (1, 165, 6-10).
25
a clear sign of his passionate concern for absolute accuracy, even in

the most insignificant matters.1
Again, the incidental historical detail may be regarded as a guaran-
tee not so much of the accuracy of the Evangelist as of the truly
divine character of the events that he records. This argument is
employed alike by Theodore, Cyril and Chrysostom. John the
Baptist's sojourn in the desert was to ensure that his witness to Jesus
could not be regarded as having the bias of personal friendship or
acquaintance.2 The water-pots used at Cana of Galilee were ones
after the Jews' manner of purifying to ensure that they had never
held wine and could have had no lees lurking at the bottom, and
they were filled to the brim to ensure that no wine could have been
added afterwards.3 Lazarus was allowed to remain dead four days,
so that no one could claim that he had never really died.4 Jesus was
laid in a new tomb, so that there could be no question about the
identity of the one who was risen.5 On other occasions the value of
the recorded detail is found in the way that it reveals more fully the
reasonableness and the intrinsic probability of the narrative. The
season of Nisan is a time when there would be much grass on which
the people could sit.6 Winter is a season when men would be likely
to congregate at Solomon's porch.? The sixth hour is the hottest
hour of the day, a time when it would be natural to sit down and
rest by a well.8
But for anyone who takes seriously the historical character of the
Gospel, the demonstration of its historical reasonableness and
intrinsic probability is clearly too big a problem to be settled by the
appeal to a few such incidental details. It is essential to show the
discourses and activity of Jesus not merely as having a coherent
theological interpretation but also as being credible occurrences in
1
Cyr. in John iv. 6 (i, 266, 27-267, 3). Cf. also his comment on the eight days in
John xx. 26 (in, 144, 5-9).
2
T. 31, 8-21 (Johni. 31).
3
Chr. 22, 1-2; T. 40, 21-3 (John ii. 6-7). O. Frag. 29 adds that this is also why
Jesus ordered the servants and not the disciples to do the filling.
4
Cyr. in John xi. 17 (n, 271, 19-22).
5
T. 243, 8-14; Cyr. in John xix. 41 (ill, 106, 26-30); Chr. 85, 4.
6
T. 94, 9-14 (John vi. 10).
7
Cyr. in John x. 23 (11, 249, 12-14).
8
Cyr. in John iv. 6 (1, 266, 21-7).
26
their original historical setting. This is a problem of which all the

commentators, and Theodore in particular, are acutely aware. The
first important principle of which they make use is the ability of Jesus
to read the thoughts and hearts of men. With the help of this
principle, it is always possible to strengthen the coherence of the
discourses. Any apparent jump in thought, which might atfirstsight
be supposed to have been baffling to an original audience, can always
be explained as the answer of Jesus not to the spoken words of his
interlocutors but to their unspoken thoughts.1
The second principle is one of even more far-reaching significance
and capable of a very wide range of application. This is the very
reasonable assumption that the aim of Jesus in his actions and his
discourses was the practical aim of converting his hearers to the
truth. If Jesus acts openly by sending the blind man all the way to
Siloam instead of healing him on the spot or by ordering the paralytic
to violate the law by carrying his bed on the sabbath, it is all with
this purpose in view, that the attention of the largest possible number
of people may be drawn to the greatness of the miracle.2 If, on
another occasion, he rejects the suggestion of his brothers to show
himself openly and delays his own attendance at the feast, his overall
intention is still the same. He wishes to give an opportunity for the
fury of his opponents to subside and for the interest of his friends
to grow, so that all may be better prepared to respond to his
teaching.3 The precise form taken by his dialogues with the Jews
can be better understood when we recognise that his aim is to woo
them gradually from their natural psilanthropism to a full acknow-
ledgement of his divinity. This principle, as we shall have occasion
to see later, was of particular importance, not merely in demonstrating
the historicity of the dialogues but also in making possible a uniform
Christological exegesis.4
1
Chr. 40, 1; Cyr. in John v. 37-8 (1, 375); in John vi. 43 (1, 505, 20-506, 10);
in John viii. 43 (11, 88, 25-89, 8).
2 T
- !34, 5~23 ( J o h n ix - 7; v. 8).
3
T. i n , 4-18 (John vii. 8-10). Cf. a Catena fragment of Theodore of Heraclea
who describes the withdrawal of Jesus at the end of his public ministry in John xii. 36
as an act of cpiAocvOpcoTria designed to give his enemies a chance to reflect (Cramer,
p. 332).
4
Cyr. in John xii. 49-50 (11, 339, 32-340, 14). For the Christological application
of this principle, see pp. 139—40 below.
27
Even when all these principles are pressed into full service, there
are still considerable elements within the discourses which must
have been largely unintelligible to their hearers, if we regard them as
strict history. It is further evidence of Theodore's honesty and of
his historical sense that he alone appears to recognise that a real
problem still remains. It is a problem with which he is prepared to
grapple, but which he is clearly uncertain just how to handle.
Figurative language, it is true, was not something foreign and
unfamiliar to the Jews,1 yet Jesus' use of it is on occasions designed
to conceal a truth for which his hearer or hearers are not ready.2
There is nothing therefore surprising in the failure of the Jews to
understand him at such points. Even the disciples frequently failed
to understand him until his words received confirmation in later
events.3 This is a principle which John himself has made explicit in
his reference to Jesus' saying about the destruction of the temple of
his body and its raising again in three days. It is a principle capable
of wide application. Much of Jesus' teaching only became intelligible
after his resurrection and ascension, and in such cases the purpose of
Jesus' words was not the benefit of his immediate hearers, but the
profit of future generations for whom they were later to be recorded
in writing.4 This is the primary means which Theodore employs to
overcome the difficulty, and he can justifiably claim the precedent
of the Evangelist's own example. On the one occasion when he
does not use this line of argument, the alternative adopted is very
much less satisfactory. The allegory of the good shepherd at the
beginning of chapter x was not understood by the Jews, because
in it the claim of Jesus to a superiority over all the other messengers
of God was wrapped up in parabolic form. Jesus' use of an obscure
and indirect method of teaching in this instance was deliberately
adopted to avoid the appearance of pride involved in the open
assertion of such a claim.5 Such a combination of arguments seems
to render the delivery of the allegory at all entirely pointless.
For Theodore, therefore, much of the failure of the Jews to under-
stand and respond to the message of Jesus was easily accounted for
1 2
T. 106, 8-10. T. 49, 27-30 (John iii. 11).
3 4
T. 114, 37-115, 2. T. 81, 4-12; T. 106, 9-10; T. 146, 24-35.
5
T. 141, 28-36 (John x. 1-6).
28
and not such as ought to be a matter of surprise. Not so with Cyril.

For him the failure of the Jews to understand is always culpable.
When the Evangelist declares of the allegory of the good shepherd
' This parable spake He unto them, but they understood not what
things they were which He spake unto them', he means the 'This'
to be emphatic. The parable was one of incomparable clarity and
free from every kind of difficulty, and yet they failed to comprehend.1
There emerges therefore at this point a cleavage between the
exegesis of Theodore and of Cyril. This cleavage becomes clearest
in their differing treatment of the issue of the faith of the disciples
in Jesus' own lifetime. Here there is a complete conflict of interpre-
tation. At the very outset of the ministry John the Baptist acclaims
Jesus as the Son of God, because he has seen the Spirit descending
and remaining on him at his baptism. Cyril declares that the title
Son of God signifies perfect Godhead and identity of substance with
the Father. This, it is implied, is the intention both of the Evangelist
and the Baptist.2 Theodore says that the words apply not to Christ's
divine nature, but to his human nature which receives the honour
of the title Son of God by virtue of its union with the only-begotten
in the Spirit, just as we too are made sons of God by the regenerating
power of the Spirit at our baptism.3 There is an underlying difference
of Christological belief here, with which we shall be concerned later.
But there is also a hestitation on Theodore's part about attributing
to the Baptist a full recognition of the eternal relationship of Father
and Son, which Cyril does not share.
This becomes far clearer in the case of the disciples and the
friends of Jesus themselves. For Cyril, the acclamations of Nathanael,
of Martha, and of Thomas are full affirmations of faith in the
1
Cyr. in John x. 6 (n, 211, 5-17). Cf. also Cyr. in John vi. 60-2 (1, 547-50). The
only instance in Pusey's edition of Cyril's commentary in which Cyril admits that
Jesus allows himself to run the risk of being unintelligible or misunderstood by his
hearers for the sake of giving beneficial instruction to later generations is an occasion
in conversation not with his opponents but with his disciples; they misunderstood
his reference to the death of Lazarus as a sleep, which must have had the ulterior
motive of giving us an example of the avoidance of boasting (Cyr. in John xi. 11;
11, 269, 8-14). The passage, however, belongs to the part of the commentary sur-
viving only in fragmentary form, and its authenticity is clearly open to question.
2
Cyr. in John i. 34 (i, 191, 15-20).
3
T. 33, 5-21 (John i. 34).
29
uniqueness and divinity of Christ. He finds support for this view

in the detailed form of each passage. Nathanael's faith is an appro-
priate response to the omniscience displayed by Christ, because it is
the property of God alone to search out the hearts of men.1 In the
cases of Martha and Thomas, the presence of the definite article is
evidence of the completeness of the faith affirmed.2 There is one
passage in the Gospel that appears at first sight to militate against
this interpretation. In John xiv. 7 Jesus says to the disciples 'If ye
had known me, ye would have known my father also. From hence-
forth ye know Him and have seen Him.' Cyril argues that the main
burden of the saying is of general application rather than applicable
to the disciples only. The only ignorance being ascribed to the
disciples is a failure to recognise the deeper metaphorical meaning of
the saying that Christ is the way. ' Henceforth' does not mean' from
this particular moment', but 'from the time of my coming to reveal
God', 'from the time of the incarnation as a whole'. The saying is
therefore not inconsistent with the Johannine and Matthaean tradi-
tions that the disciples recognised Jesus during the time of his
ministry as the Christ, the Son of the living God.3
For Theodore, this kind of interpretation is ruled out as a historical
absurdity. The disciples did not reach so complete a faith so soon.4
Words which might appear to suggest that they did must be capable
of a less exalted interpretation. Nathanael's response cannot repre-
sent a full assertion of Christ's inherent deity, for he had displayed
no greater power of knowledge than we can find recorded of the
prophets, as in the story of Elisha's rebuke of Gehazi.5 Martha is
a Jew accepting Jesus as the awaited Messiah, and the Jewish
expectation was of a human rather than of a divine figure.6 Even the
1
Cyr. in John i. 49 (1, 199).
2
Cyr. in John xi. 27 (11, 275, 8-16); Cyr. in John xx. 28 (m, 151, 20-152, 12).
3
Cyr. in John xiv. 7 (11, 414-17).
4
T. 159, 33-6; T. 169, 35-170, 2 (John xii. 16); T. 192, 29-193, 4 (John xiv. 10).
Cf. Theodore, Cat. Horn. 8, 3, which cites in evidence John viii. 19, xiv. 9, xvi. 25,
xvi. 24 and xvi. 12-13.
5
T. 37 (John i. 49). In this instance Chrysostom is in full agreement with him.
His main reason is that the other interpretation would destroy the significance of
Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. He does not, therefore, need to minimise the
confessions of Martha and of Thomas in the same way (Chr. 21, 1).
6
T. 161, 1—12 (John xi. 27).
30
exclamation of Thomas is an exclamation of gratitude to God for

the wonder of the miracle of the resurrection, rather than an affirma-
tion of faith in the divinity of Jesus. The sudden reversal of belief,
which would be involved if the latter meaning were the true one,
makes such an interpretation hardly plausible.1 For Theodore also
it becomes impossible to accept the cnrapTi of John xiv. 7 as referring
to that precise moment. But his need, in contrast to that of Cyril,
is to transfer the reference to a later rather than to an earlier moment.
He declares that Christ's reference is to the time of the coming of the
Spirit, and that was the moment from which the disciples' true faith
began.2 He has a clear conception of the gradual development of the
disciples' faith, which was not complete or firmly established until
Pentecost. Any statements in the Gospel that appear to conflict
with this historical scheme must be interpreted into conformity with
it. Thus, while Cyril has no difficulty in accepting the insufflation
of John xx. 22 as a real ccTrocpxri of the Spirit, Theodore interprets it
simply as a promise of the future gift. The word 'Receive' here
means 'You will receive'.3
Cyril and Theodore, therefore, are at one in their unqualified
acceptance of the full historicity of the Gospel. In this respect there
1
T. 256, 29—35 (John xx. 28). This particular feature of Theodore's exegesis was
one that caused especial offence, and was used against him to secure his condemnation
at the fifth general council in A.D. 553. (Cf. R. Devreesse, Essai sur Theodore de
Mopsueste, p. 221 n. 4 and pp. 247-51.)
a
T. 191, 16—19.
3
Cyr. in John xx. 22—3 (in, 133—8); T. 254, 29—255, 4. Cyril here follows the
tradition of Origen who regards the two occasions as representing gifts of the Spirit
differing in quantity; he finds this implied by the difference between the words
* Receive' and 'Be baptised' (Con. Cel. 7, 51). Eusebius states that the first gift
was the gift of authority to forgive sins only, while at Pentecost other gifts of the
Spirit, such as the power to work miracles, were given. He finds evidence of the
partial nature of the first gift in the absence of the article in John xx. 22 (Supplementa
Minora Quaestionum ad Marinum 9 and 10; P.G. 22, 1013B—IOI6B). Chrysostom
seems prepared to accept either Theodore's or Eusebius' line of interpretation (Chr.
86, 3). Cyril uses this incident to account for Thomas being allowed to touch the
risen Christ, whereas Mary was forbidden. Mary was forbidden because she had not
yet received the Holy Spirit; Thomas was allowed because he had, even in his absence,
received the Spirit as given to the twelve (Cyr. in John xx. 17; in, 119, 6-30; in John
xx. 27; in, 145, 21-146, 6). This at least seems preferable to Origen's curious sug-
gestions that it was due to Mary's being a woman, or to Christ's needing the
cleansing of the Father after the passion (O. 13, 30; O. 6, 55).
31
is no difference between them. The difference derives from Theo-

dore's greater historical realism. He is conscious, as Cyril is never
conscious, of the difficulties involved in the maintenance of this
axiomatic faith in the historicity of the Gospel. He also takes the
problem far more into account in the actual course of exegesis, with
results that on occasion distract from the fullest appreciation of the
Gospel's real content.
2. THE PRESENCE OF SYMBOLISM
God does nothing in vain, and therefore every detail of Scripture,

however small and insignificant, is intentional and capable of
bringing benefit to the careful reader.1 No early exegete would have
had any doubt about this principle. We have already seen how the
presence of such details in the Fourth Gospel was used in confirma-
tion of the accurate knowledge of the writer and of the intrinsic
probability of the events described. But this does not exhaust the
use made of them. It is the Alexandrines who give most frequent
and most explicit expression to this principle of the importance
of detail, and for them its significance was to be found primarily
(though, as we have seen, not exclusively) in its symbolic or alle-
gorical potentialities. The very same kind of detail that we have seen
used in the cause of historicity is employed by Cyril in the pre-
sentation of a deeper spiritual exegesis. The record of Jesus and his
disciples baptising in close proximity to where John the Baptist was
doing the same was intended to teach the similarity without identity
of John's baptism and Christian baptism.2 The 'much grass' of
John vi. 10 is a picture of spiritual refreshment, as the 'green pasture'
of Psalm xxiii. 2 suggests.3 The night through which the disciples
fished to no purpose is the darkness of the dispensation before
Christ.4 The night into which Judas departed was a cloak for his
unholy thoughts and a picture of the hell to which he was going.5
1
O. 20, 36; Cyr. in John iv. 31 (1, 291, 12-15); Chr. 36, 1.
2
Cyr. in John iii. 23 (1, 232-3).
3
Cyr. in John vi. 10 (1, 415, 14-21). For Theodore's very different kind of
comment, see p. 26 above.
4
Cyr. in John xxi. 1—6 (in, 157, 23-158, 17).
5
Cyr. in John xiii. 30 (11, 375, 11-13).
32
The loss of Malchus' right ear was a symbol of the Jews' loss of right
hearing in refusing to accept the teaching of Christ.1 In both these last
two cases, which are the only ones in which the equivalent comment
of Origen survives, we find that the earlier Alexandrian commen-
tator had already given the same interpretation.2 The language is
not particularly close, and it would therefore suggest not necessarily
that Cyril is in direct dependence here on the writings of Origen,
but rather that in this kind of comment he was continuing a general
Alexandrian tradition of exegesis, of which Origen was the chief
exponent. He follows the same tradition in his continuation of the
practice of an allegorical interpretation of the numbers in the Gospel
record. Here also there was clear precedent in the writings of
Origen, but in this case there is an even less close correspondence
in the detail of their exegesis. Cyril's interpretations of numbers
are no less arbitrary than those of Origen, but they have normally
a more specifically Christian content. The tenth hour at which the
two disciples followed Jesus is not just a holy number, as with
Origen, but a symbol of the lateness of Christ's coming.3 The five
fishes, which for Origen are associated with the meanings of scrip-
ture on the basis of the traditional five senses, are for Cyril a symbol
of the law expressed in the fivefold book of Moses.4 Cyril further
differs from Origen in not employing this kind of interpretation
at all in the case of place-names.5
It need hardly be added that such symbolic interpretations of
detail did not exclude the historical meaning, or the possibility of
that particular detail having some especial significance in its literal,
historical sense also. Sometimes the two different kinds of inter-
pretation simply stand side by side as separate comments. Thus for
Cyril the newness of the tomb in which Christ was laid is primarily
a symbol of the newness of the conquest of death that he was
1
Cyr. in John xviii. 10 (in, 25, 11-18). Cf. Apollinarius in John xviii. 10 (Cramer,
p. 378).
* O. 32, 24; Matt. Comm. Ser. 101.
3
O. 2, 36; Cyr. in John i. 39 (1, 194, 17-26).
4
Origen, Comm. Matt. 11, 2; Cyr. in John vi. 9 (1, 417, 10-418, 1).
5
This is the more surprising in that he does make considerable use of the ety-
mologies of names in his exegesis of the Old Testament and also in his commentaries
on St Matthew and St Luke (see A. Kerrigan, pp. 376-83; H. Wutz, Onomastica
Sacra, vol. II, pp. 1058—61).
3 33 WSG
accomplishing, yet he also adds as a subsidiary comment that which

for Theodore and Chrysostom was the central thing, namely that
it ensured that it was Christ and none other who came out from
the tomb. 1 The eighth day of Christ's second appearance to the
disciples after the resurrection is both evidence of the accuracy and
precision of the Evangelist, and a picture of the weekly appear-
ance of Christ in the body among his disciples at every Christian
Eucharist.2 At other times there is a more organic link between the
points emphasised in the two different kinds of comment. The
clearest examples of such an organic relation between the historical
and the deeper meaning are the occasions on which Jesus is said to
withdraw himself from the Jews because of their opposition and
unbelief. This was an intelligible and proper historical action. It
was also a picture of the withdrawal of God's favour from the Jews
and its transference to the Gentile world. The literal and the deeper
meanings have a clear and definite relation to one another.3
This last example introduces us to a new and more important
feature in Cyril's spiritual interpretation of the Gospel. It is more
than just a symbolic or allegorical interpretation of an isolated detail
within the Gospel record; it represents the recognition of a symbolism
within the Gospel of a much broader and more comprehensive kind.
There are two great themes of God's dealings with men, which
Cyril believes to underlie many of the stories and much of the
activity of the Gospel.
The first theme is the inadequacy of the law, which is only a type
finding its fulfilment in Christ. The deeper meaning of the miracle of
the water into wine is the superiority of the Gospel over the letter
of the Mosaic law, which is inadequate to meet the requirements of
men. There is certainly much to be said for this interpretation.
Cyril, however, is inclined to press the detail of the story in an
arbitrary allegorical manner. The third day is the fulness of time,
and the ruler of the feast is the Christian priest, who is first partaker
of the fruits.4 Also he finds the same fundamental meaning in other
1
Cyr. in John xix. 41 (m, 105-6). Cf. p. 26 above.
2
Cyr. in John xx. 26 (in, 144, 5-145, 20).
3
Cyr. in John vi. 1 (1, 398-403); in John vii. 1 (1, 579-82); in John x. 40 (11,
262-3).
4
Cyr. in John ii. 11 (1, 203-5).
34
places, where it is far less likely to be the correct interpretation. Thus

the fruitless night fishing of the seven disciples in John xxi is a picture
of the same ineffectiveness of the Mosaic law to complete the work
of capturing men wholly for the service of God. The superiority
of the command of Christ is symbolised by the right-hand side of the
boat, where the catch is finally made.1 However much the theme of
the law's inadequacy may be present in the real thought of the
Gospel, it seems hardly likely that it is the true meaning of this
particular story.
But the Gospel is not the conclusion of God's economy, of God's
dealings with men. The stories of the Gospel are therefore not only
the antitype completing the foreshadowing of the Old Testament
law. They can themselves also be types, with a forward-looking
reference. Thus, the second great theme that Cyril develops is the
way in which the activity of Jesus foreshadows the Gentile mission.
Here, as we have seen, the deeper meaning is normally related to the
closely allied historical fact of actual withdrawals from Jewish
opposition.2 This idea is not original to Cyril, but had already been
suggested by Origen with reference to the same historical context.3
Cyril, however, develops the idea very considerably. As with the
concept of the inadequacy of the law, this development takes the
twofold form of the elaboration of historical detail within the setting
of this wider symbolism and the discovery of the same symbolism
in other less plausible contexts. The first form of elaboration is well
illustrated by Cyril's whole treatment of the narrative of chapter vi.
The opening verse, as we have seen, symbolised for him the in-
auguration of the Gentile mission. He attempts therefore to interpret
the succeeding narrative consistently within the same historical
perspective. Christ's withdrawal alone to the mountain is therefore
interpreted of the ascension; his coming to the disciples on the lake
pictures his second coming at night, when he will have the world,
pictured by the sea, beneath his feet and will bring the boat of the
Church speedily and safely to heaven; and those who came to him
the next day with fine words but inadequate faith are a type of those
who in the day of judgment will say to him, 'Lord, Lord', but who
1
Cyr. in John xxi. 1-6 (in, 156-60).
2 3
Cf. p. 34 above. Comm. Matt. 10, 23 (John vi. 15).
35 3"2
will be rejected.1 There is a real attempt here to provide a unified,

spiritual exegesis, but the greater the elaboration of the pattern the
less likely appears the interpretation. The second form of the
development is the discovery of the symbolism in a wide range of
contexts. It is present, for example, even in the interpretation
of the first miracle at Cana, which is primarily interpreted in terms of
the inadequacy of the law. The setting of the marriage feast to which
Jesus was invited in Galilee of the Gentiles is a picture of the Gentile
Church to be, replacing the Jewish synagogue, which rejected the
heavenly bridegroom.2 More striking still is the interpretation of
the healing of the man born blind as a picture of Christ's mission to
the Gentiles, a people who unlike Israel have never enjoyed the gift
of light.3 This interpretation is no chance allegorisation of one detail
in the opening verse of the story. Whether valid or not, it is for
Cyril an important element in the total meaning of the sign, to
which he constantly returns in the course of his exposition.4
Thus the two outstanding features of Cyril's spiritual exegesis are
the broad comprehensiveness of its conception and the specifically
Christian character of the content of meaning disclosed by this
method.5
It is in this sphere of spiritual exegesis that we most naturally
expect to find a striking difference between the exegesis of Cyril and
of Theodore. Such a difference is indeed present, but it does not
mean that Theodore is bound solely and completely to a purely
literal manner of interpretation. This can be most simply illustrated
from his interpretation of the words, ' Arise, let us go hence', in
1
Cyr. in John vi. 15 (1, 425, 9-27); in John vi. 18-21 (1, 430, 8-432, 13); in John
vi. 26 (1, 436, 16-438, 5).
2
Cyr. in John ii. 11 (1, 204, 15-22).
3
Cyr. in John ix. 1 (11, 134-5). This had also been suggested earlier by Origen
(Is. Horn. 6, 3).
4
Cyr. in John ix. 6—7 (11, 156, 10—16); in John ix. 28 (11, 185); in John ix. 38
(11, 202, 3-203, 13).
5
The one example to be found in Pusey's edition of Cyril's commentary of
a piece of exegesis in the truly Philonic, psychological tradition is an interpretation
of Lazarus, Martha and Mary in terms of vous, creeps and y\Jyj\ (Cyr. in John xi. 44;
11, 292, 15-23). But the passage is a fragment of very doubtful authenticity and
ought almost certainly to be rejected. Origen's interpretation is in terms of the
lapsed Christian, the practical life and the contemplative life respectively. (O.
Frag. 80.)
36
John xiv. 31. In view of the fact that the discourse continues in the
next two chapters, he cannot accept the words in their most literal
sense of ordinary physical departure from the upper room. To that
extent he is less literal at this point in his exegesis than many other
commentators both ancient and modern.1 On the other hand
he does not go to the length of a fully fledged spiritual interpretation
of the kind which is suggested by Cyril, who finds in the words
reference to a spiritual transition from the love of the world to
choosing the will of God, from slavery to sonship, from the earth
to the heavenly city, from sin to righteousness, from uncleanness
to sanctification.2 Theodore's interpretation is not purely literal,
but it remains within the historical sphere. The meaning which he
finds in the words is an expression of a readiness to go and meet his
murderers without regret or fear of death. It is thus a fitting climax
to the disclosure of God's purpose for the future given in the pre-
ceding verses.3
Theodore is perfectly capable of recognising deeper meanings
and symbolic allusions in the Gospel. He sees that the reference to
the resurrection in John ii. 19 shows that the cleansing of the Temple
really depicts the abolition of the whole sacrificial system.4 He
recognises and develops a theological allusion to the creation
story in the insufflation after the resurrection.5 No doubt these are
commonplaces of interpretation, but they show that Theodore was
alive to symbolic and theological meanings in the Gospel.
He does not normally indulge, as Cyril does, in spiritual interpre-
tations of the factual details of the historical narrative.6 He does,
however, frequently take individual words or concepts which are
of a deliberately metaphorical character and draw out detailed
symbolic significance from them. In some cases, he is simply
developing more fully the intention of the metaphorical usage. In
1
E.g. Chr. 76, 1; Westcott, vol. 11, p. 187; Temple, p. 249.
2
Cyr. in John xiv. 31 (11, 531—3). A similar spiritual interpretation in terms of
transition from worldly to heavenly thoughts is attributed to Gregory Nazianzen
3
(Cramer, p. 353). T. 200, 21-7.
4
T. 43, 27-9. 5 T. 253, 36-254, 9 (John xx. 22).
The only exception is the interpretation of the clay used in healing the man born
blind as a symbol of the creator. This is a very early exegesis which appears in
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 15, 2 (vol. 11, p. 365) (John ix. 6). Cf. p. 55 below.
37
others, his interpretation seems quite extraneous to the real meaning

of the phrase and of the passage. Just as it was a lifeless serpent that
saved the Israelites from death, so it is through his apparent mor-
tality and his death that Christ brings life.1 When John the Baptist
speaks of himself as the friend of the bridegroom and Jesus as the
one who has the bride this is because Jesus is the bridegroom who
takes the Church as his bride.2 When in turn Jesus describes John
the Baptist as a Xvyyos, the word is well chosen because a lamp is no
longer needed once the sun is risen.3 The description of Jesus
himself as 960s has an especial appropriateness, because like Jesus the
sun dies and rises again through the power of its own inherent
nature.4 The image of the pangs of travail to describe the temporary
sorrow of the disciples at the time of the crucifixion was well chosen
because through the resurrection there came to birth a new man,
a new humanity born for immortality.5 Once again, it is true that
many of these interpretations can be found paralleled in earlier
writers.6 None the less, when taken together they reveal clearly the
kind of symbolism that is most characteristic of Theodore's exegesis
of the Gospel.
Theodore therefore does not eschew symbolic interpretations
altogether, but the practical and literal bent of his exegesis does
detract at times from the value of his comments. The particular
nature of his approach to Scripture is less suited to the interpretation
of this Gospel than of almost any other book of the Bible. This
weakness shows itself primarily in his failure to grasp and give full
expression to the realised eschatology of the Gospel, the sense of
present spiritual achievement in the person of Jesus. In John i. 51
Jesus promises to Nathanael the vision of the angels of God ascending
and descending on the Son of Man. Theodore interprets this as the
literal angelic visitations at the temptation, in Gethsemane, at the
1
T. 51, 13-18 (John iii. 14-15).
2
T. 55-8 (John iii. 29). 3 x . 88, 1-10 (John v. 35).
4 5
T. 175, 26—36 (John xii. 35-6). T. 215, 13-21 (John xvi. 21).
6
For the serpent, cf. Epistle of Barnabas xii. 7. This is not strictly a comment on
the Gospel, but the point emphasised is the same as that emphasised by Theodore—
OCOTOS oov veKpos SuvccToa gcooTTOifjcjca. Chrysostom also develops the imagery of the
serpent, but in a different way—the venomless nature of the brazen serpent suggests
the sinlessness of Christ (Chr. 27, 1). That there is a reference to the church as the
38
time of the resurrection and of the ascension.1 Cyril has a reference

to the ministry of the angels at the time of the temptation, but his
primary interpretation is in wider terms of the angelic ministry as
a whole carried out at Christ's command for the salvation of men.2
In John v. 25 Jesus declares that 'the hour.. .now is when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live'.
Theodore refers simply to the widow of Nain's son, to Jairus'
daughter and to Lazarus.3 Again Cyril does refer to the case of
Lazarus, but his main interpretation is of the change from spiritual
death to spiritual life already at work in those who have faith in
Christ.4 Both exegetes recognise that the saying of Jesus in John xiii.
31, * Now is the Son of Man glorified', refers to the passion. But for
Theodore the glory is to be seen in the portents which accompanied
the crucifixion, whereas for Cyril the cross itself is the glory.5 When
in John xiv. 18 and xiv. 28 Jesus promises to his disciples that he
will come to them, Theodore finds its fulfilment in the historical
happenings of the post-resurrection appearances.6 For Cyril the
reference is to his coming in the person of the Holy Spirit.7
These examples are of a fairly diverse character, and yet they have
something significant in common. In every case Theodore's horizon
of thought seems to be limited to the field of individual historical
occurrences. Cyril seems to rise closer to the theological meaning
of the Gospel. On occasions Theodore's characteristic approach
enables him to make some minor point of possible value, which
Cyril overlooks. Thus while Cyril gives only a spiritual interpreta-
tion of the command to * Lift up your eyes and look on the fields
bride of Christ in John iii. 29 is generally assumed (cf. O. Frag. 45; Chr. 29, 3).
For the development of the distinction between Auxvos and cpcos, cf. Chr. 40, 2 where
Chrysostom makes a similar but slightly different point. The light of the sun is
intrinsic; that of a Auxvos is not. For the association of the man born after travail
with the new man brought into being at the resurrection, cf. Chrysostom (Chr. 79, 1)
and a Catena fragment attributed to Apollinarius and Theodore of Heraclea (Cramer,
p. 366).
1 2
T. 38, 17-25. Cf. Chr. 21, 1. Cyr. in John i. 51 (1, 200).
3 T. 84, 20-3.
4
Cyr. in John v. 25 (1, 344-6).
5 T. 186, 31-187, 3; Cyr. in John xiii. 31 (11, 377, 5-378, 9) (cf. pp. 83-4 below).
6
T. 196, 3-9; 199, 1-5.
7
Cyr. in John xiv. 18 (11, 470—3); in John xiv. 28 (11, 511—12).
39
that they are white already to harvest', Theodore suggests a more

historical reference to the approaching Samaritans, ready for the
harvesting of conversion.1 Theodore's comment here may well be
a true one, though the matter is clearly open to doubt.2 What is not
in doubt is that Theodore's natural tendency to favour this kind of
more literal interpretation is a serious handicap to his discovering
the deeper meaning of the gospel as a whole. Sometimes it even
betrays him into comments which show a complete misunderstanding
of the text. Thus he cannot accept any reference to the wind in
John iii. 8, because we do know where the wind comes from and goes
to and moreover the wind has no will to blow where it lists.3 This
is an extreme instance of a pedantic literalism. It is not typical in
itself, but it is a striking example of what is his besetting weakness.
1
Cyr. in John iv. 35 (1, 295—6); T. 66, 37—8. Chrysostom makes the same point
as Theodore (Chr. 34,2). Origen pours scorn on a literal interpretation of this passage
by Heracleon. He does not quote it in full, but it appears to have been similar in
purport to that of Theodore (O. 13, 41).
2
Amongst modern commentators it has the support of Westcott (vol. 1, p. 166),
Bernard (vol. 1, p. 157), Macgregor (p. i n ) and Hoskyns (p. 247).
3
T. 48, 35-49? 6.
CHAPTER IV
THE SIGNS
The first half of the Gospel is built up almost entirely of a series of
signs and interpretative discourses. Theodore recognises the
existence of this structure, but fails to do justice to its organic and
theological character. He declares simply that it was Jesus' custom
to follow his miracles with doctrinal instruction, because the great-
ness of his actions would serve as confirmation of his words.1 He
shows no special understanding of or interest in the actual concept
of the sign. This finds most adequate treatment in Origen's com-
mentary. The word 'sign' is used of things which are indicative of
something beyond the mere fact of their occurrence. Therefore
a sign need not be miraculous, as Biblical usage bears out. In fact
every Biblical miracle is also a sign, but this is an empirical and not
a logical fact. The phrase * signs and wonders' is not a mere tautology,
because one can distinguish in thought between the symbolic and
the marvellous aspect of any miracle. It is the fact that the miracles
of the Fourth Gospel are so carefully and explicitly referred to as
signs that shows unquestionably that they require a deeper,
spiritual interpretation.*
Two other passages from outside the commentary include relevant
comments on the nature of a sign. In one passage Origen explains
the words of Christ in John ii. 4 that his hour had not yet come to
mean that the appropriate hour for his signs had not yet arrived.
This, says Origen, is because signs are for unbelief, and unbelief can
only be said to be present where there has already been preaching—
a ministry on which Christ had not yet started at that time. This
shows a recognition of a connection between the miracles and teach-
ing of Jesus, but at no deeper theological level than that described
1
T. 138, 30—2. Theodore's comment on the future witnessing of the Spirit and
of the disciples promised in John xv. 26-7 provides an interesting parallel. The
Spirit will provide the miracles in confirmation of the words spoken by the disciples
(T. 206, 17-25).
2
O. 13, 64.
41
by Theodore.1 In another passage, Origen asserts that every sign

in the Old Testament looks forward to something in the New,
whereas the signs of the New Testament refer either to something
in the age to come or to some historical occurrence subsequent to
the time of the sign itself.* This is not a very satisfactory description
of Origen's own method of interpreting the signs. The reference to
later historical occurrences does occur in his work and is of impor-
tance in view of the use made of it by later exegesis and particularly
by Cyril,3 but the eschatological reference is certainly more charac-
teristic of him. The ultimate significance for Origen is always to be
found beyond history.4
In this chapter we shall take each of the main signs in the Gospel
in turn and inquire how the earliest commentators understood their
symbolic meaning.
I . J O H N i i . I—II. THE TURNING OF THE WATER INTO WINE
The story is naturally referred to in teaching about marriage, but

it is never suggested that this is the essential meaning of the sign.5
Three main types of interpretation are to be found.
(a) Christ shows himself to be one with the Creator. This inter-
pretation is found in Irenaeus, in whose writings this theme receives
repeated emphasis.6 It appears also in Origen,? Athanasius8 and
Chrysostom.9
(b) The marriage feast is a symbol of joy. This is the main
interpretation given to the sign in Origen's commentary. Christ
1
In Ps. cxliv (cxlv). 15 (J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra, vol. ill, p. 356).
3 3
Comm. Matt. 12, 3. Cf. p. 35 above.
4
O . IO, l 8 OU y d p VOUIOT6OV TCC tCTTOplKOC tOTOpiKCOV ElVOCl TUTTOUS, KCcl TOC
(7COUOCTIKCC CTCOUOCTIKCOV, OcAAoC TOCCTCOUOCTIKOCTTV6UUCCTIKCOV KOCl TOC lOTOplKCC VOTJTCOV.

5
Tertullian (De Monogamia, 8, 7) even argues that the singleness of the occasion
was deliberately intended to teach against second marriage. Cyril develops the signi-
ficance of the reference to marriage in two ways. Christ is undoing the curse on
childbirth of Gen. iii. 16 and he is declaring the blessing that he brings to be also
for the generations yet unborn. But both these remain subsidiary to his main
interpretation of the sign (Cyr. in John ii. 1-4; 1, 201, 3-24).
6
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 11, 5 (vol. 11, pp. 43-4).
7
O. Frag. 30 (O. Frag. 28 links the idea of creatorhood with the presence at
a marriage, instead of with the creation of the wine).
8 9
Athanasius, De Incarnatione, 18. Chr. 22, 1-2.
42
THE SIGNS
is the bringer of joy to his companions.1 This is in line with a common

idea in Origen that while bread is the basic source of strength,
wine is essentially the source of joy.2 In the early Gnostic writers it
is particularly the picture of the ultimate heavenly joy.3 A similar
idea reappears in Cyril, when he sees the sign as depicting future
participation in the heavenly banquet.4 In his case, however, it is
not the main emphasis which he gives in interpreting the story.
(c) Christ transforms the water of Judaism into the new wine of
Christianity.
This is especially an Alexandrian tradition of interpretation,
though there is considerable variety in the detail of its understanding.
It occurs first in 3 difficult passage of Clement, where the watery
element of the law receives the addition of Christ's blood, the two
together constituting a TTOTOV &Ar|0eias.5 In Origen, the law is not
the water but the old wine that has failed and which is replaced by
the good wine of the Gospel. The location of the sign in Cana of
Galilee shows that the effective realisation of the sign is to be found
in the calling of the Gentiles.6 It is in a very similar form, as we have
seen, that the interpretation reappears in Cyril.? Cyprian's inter-
pretation is on the same lines, though it is expressed in terms of the
failure of the Jews rather than of the law, and it adds the further
idea that the calling of the Gentiles is to the marriage of Christ and
his Church.8 Chrysostom gives a spiritual interpretation which
is allied to these, but which is far more general in its reference and
lacks the historical perspective. There are those who are as weak as
water, but if they are brought to the Lord, he can transform their
wills into the stronger consistency of wine.9
1 2
O. 10, 12; 13, 57; 13, 62. E.g. O. 1, 30.
3
Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 65 (cf. W. von Loewenich, Das Johannes—Ver-
stdndnis im %weiten Jahrhundert, p. 99). Heracleon also asserts that the eating of the
Passover referred to in John ii. 13 signifies f| dcvdiTOCuais f\ EV ydjico. We have not got
his interpretation of John ii. 1-11, but it must almost certainly have been along these
4
same lines. Cyr. in John ii. 14 (1, 207, 19-208, 6).
5
Clement, Paidagogos, 2, 2, 29.
6
O. Frag. 74. But contrast O. 13, 62, where within a general interpretation in
terms of joy Origen says * Before Jesus the Scripture was indeed water, but after
Jesus it has become wine for us*.
7
Cyr. in John ii. 11 (1, 203-5). Cf. pp. 34—6 above.
8 9
Cyprian, Ep. 63, 12. Chr. 22, 3.
43
In more than one of the passages discussed, the idea of the

Eucharistic sacrament is clearly present in the context. It is not,
however, suggested that the sign itself has a direct sacramental
significance, except in one passage of Irenaeus, where the anxiety
of Mary to induce Jesus to perform the miracle is ascribed to a desire
to taste the Eucharistic cup before the time.1 Theodore discusses the
details of the miracle at some length, but makes no attempt to give
any spiritual interpretation of the sign as a whole.2
2. JOHNii. 13-22. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
The earliest interpretation of this passage is that of Heracleon. His

interpretation of the particular incident is set within an allegorical
understanding of the movements of Jesus in the chapter as a whole.
Capernaum, where Jesus is not recorded to have acted at all, is the
abode of the UAIKOI, Jerusalem of the vpuxiKoi, and the Temple itself,
which he identifies with the holy of holies, of the TrveujjicxTiKoi.
In the forecourt of the Temple are to be found those yuxiKoi who
are outside the Pleroma but not altogether outside salvation. Jesus'
purging of the Temple with a scourge of cords is an image of the
purifying power of the Holy Spirit. This understanding of the
passage is elaborated with appropriate allegorical interpretations
of the third day and the forty-six years.3
Origen, who devotes almost the whole of his tenth book to this
story, offers a variety of interpretations of it. He sees in it a picture
of the ever necessary work of Christ in purging his Church.4
Alternatively he suggests that it may represent the entry of Jesus in
triumph into the Jerusalem that is above and his freeing it of the
presence of the so-called 'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places' which had residence there before his ascent.5
Primarily, however, he interprets it in terms of the coming of the
word of God to the individual human soul.6 It is in terms of this
interpretation that he is thinking when he suggests that the different
details of the records of the four Evangelists may be designed to
1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 16, 7 (vol. 11, p. 88). * T. 39-42.
3 4
O. 10, 11; 33; 37-8. O. 10, 23.
6
5 O. 10, 29. O. 10, 28.
44
THE SIGNS
correspond to the varied conditions of different human souls and the

consequent variety of the action of the word of God upon them.1
But in addition to these fully spiritualised lines of interpretation,
he insists that as a sign it symbolises the end of the Jewish sacrificial
system. It is more than a prophetic protest against abuses; it marks
the abolition of the whole system of literal observance of the law.2
This interpretation finds further confirmation in his recognition
that the promised sign of the raising of the temple of Christs' body
refers not only to the resurrection but also to the founding of the
Church.3
This symbolic sense is that given by most later commentators.
We find it in Isidore, who says that the command to take hence the
sacrificial animals is on the ground that they are no longer needed,
because the law of the letter is giving place to the law of the spirit.4
Cyril, rather surprisingly, does not develop the idea in terms of his
favourite theme of the abolition of the law, but in the wider terms
of a judgment upon unfaithful Israel, set in deliberate proximity to
the call of a Gentile church typified by the immediately preceding
miracle at Cana of Galilee.^ As we have already seen, even Theodore
gives expression to the basic understanding of the sign as signifying
the abolition of the sacrificial system.6
3. JOHNiv. I-42. THE WOMAN AT THE WELL OF SAMARIA
The gift of water, which is the heart of this sign, is interpreted in

two main ways—either as teaching or as the Holy Spirit. Cyprian
interprets the sign of the unrepeatability of baptism, but as he
expressly states that baptism is intended by every mention of water
in the Scriptures, no great importance can be attached to his inter-
pretation here.7
1
0.10,31. * O. 10, 24.
3 4
O. 10, 35. Corderius, p. 78.
5
Cyr. in John ii. 14 (1, 208, 7-23).
6
T. 43, 22-29 (cf. p. 37 above).
7
Cyprian, Ep. 63, 8. In practice Tertullian does not lag far behind in the accep-
tance of such a principle. It enables him to find baptismal allusion even in such an
unlikely passage as John ii. 1—11 (De Baptismo, 9,4). (See also Gaudentius of Brescia,
Tract. 8 and 9; C.S.E.L. 68, pp. 73 and 89.)
45
(a) The Interpretation as Teaching

This general heading covers a fairly wide range of interpretations
with considerable variation in the detail of their exegesis. It occurs
in its simplest form in Eusebius.1 It also represents the main line of
Origen's understanding of the story, though his interpretation of
the passage is not uniform. He does interpret it, as we would
expect, in a straightforward way of the contrast of the law and the
Gospel, of a literal and spiritual understanding of Scripture.2 This,
however, is not the interpretation given in his commentary. Hera-
cleon had interpreted the passage in this way, and had deduced from
it the conception of the absolute supersession of the old by the new.
Origen criticises him for failing to recognise the positive typological
value of the old.3 It is probably in order to bring out unmistakably
the difference between his own understanding of the passage and that
of Heracleon that he avoids the simple contrast of old and new,
which he employs elsewhere. Instead he draws a contrast between
the teaching of Scripture (whether understood spiritually as when
drunk by Jacob and his sons, or at a lower level as when drunk by
his cattle, or even misunderstood altogether as when drunk by the
Samaritan woman before her conversion) on the one hand and the
interior teaching of Christ, which goes beyond what either is or can
be recorded in writing, on the other.4
Heracleon's interpretation is not just an isolated piece of allegoris-
ing. Although we have only fragments of his interpretation handed
on by Origen, we can see that he was attempting to interpret the
sign as a whole. The woman's previous husbands (six in number
according to Heracleon) are all forms of false entanglement with
matter, while the husband she is to bring is her Pleroma in conjunc-
tion with which, through the agency of the Saviour, her goal will
1
Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 6,18, 48-9. It also appears in O. Frag. 54, but R. Devreesse
('Notes sur les Chaines Grecques de Saint Jean', p. 208) has shown that this should
be attributed to Photius and not to Origen.
2 3
Gen. Horn. 7, 5; O. Frag. 56. O. 13, 10.
4
O. 13, 5-6. This clearly has a certain affinity with the second type of interpreta-
tion in terms of the Holy Spirit. In elaboration of the meaning of this interior well
Origen cites 1 Cor. ii. 16 ('We have the mind of Christ'), but he does not identify
it with the Holy Spirit.
46
THE SIGNS
be achieved.1 The promise of the new worship in spirit and in truth

is clear evidence of the falsity of the old, whether it be heathen
worship of the devil as symbolised by the worship on Mt Gerizim
or the Jewish worship of the creator God as symbolised by the
worship at Jerusalem.2 The whole passage is understood to be
a picture of God's dealing with those of a TTvsuiiocTiKos nature,3 and,
in the conclusion of the story, Christ reaches out through the woman
representing the TrveujaaTiKos Church to achieve the salvation of the
people of the city, who are yuxiKoi living more deeply embedded in
the ordinary life of the world.4
Origen's interpretation of the husbands is not radically different.
He interprets them of the five senses which rule the soul before its
coming to faith in Christ.^ Elsewhere, presumably in conjunction
with a more simple contrast of law and Gospel, they are interpreted
of the five books of the law, which alone the Samaritans accepted.6
In the interpretation of the worship in spirit and in truth, he is once
more in direct conflict with Heracleon. The relevant opposite to
truth for Origen here is not falsehood but type. The new worship is
spiritual reality as contrasted with bodily type.? The worship of
Mt Gerizim is the misguided worship of heretics and the worship
of Jerusalem is the pedestrian worship of the ordinary Church
member.8 Those who ultimately leave the city and come to Christ are
those won from heterodoxy to an acceptance of the true teaching.?
(fj) The Interpretation as the Holy Spirit

Little requires to be said of this interpretation. It is adopted by
Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodore and Cyril.10 In no case is the
interpretation elaborated. The contrast is understood simply to be
between the physical water of Jacob's well literally understood, and
the gift of the Spirit.11
1 3
O. 13, 11. * O. 13, 16; 19. O. 13, 10; 16.
5 6
4 0.13,51. 0.13,9. O . Frag. 57.
8
7 O. 13, 13; 18. O. 13, 16. 9 o . 13, 51.
10
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 17, 2 (vol. 11, p. 93); Chr. 32, 1; T. 63, 18—23; Cyr.
in John iv. 14 (1, 271, 26-272, 6).
" Augustine, who follows this same line of interpretation, does go in for consider-
able elaboration. For example, the first water is interpreted as the water of pleasure
drawn up in the vessel of lust (Tract. Joh. 15, 16).
47
There is thus a clear tendency for later exegesis to move towards

a more standardised and a more specifically theological interpretation
of the passage.
The interpretation of the promise of living water in vii. 37-9 goes
hand in hand with the interpretation of this passage. Cyprian and
writers associated with him interpret it of baptism;1 Origen and
Eusebius of divine knowledge.2 In view of v. 39, these interpretations
are linked with the idea of the Spirit. Baptism of course is the means
by which the Holy Spirit is received.3 Origen, after setting out the
Holy Spirit and instruction as two possible alternative interpreta-
tions, goes on to draw the two together on the strength of the
fundamental association of each with the practice of baptism.4 Here
also later exegesis shows a shift of emphasis. The imagery is con-
ceived of as bearing a more direct reference to the Holy Spirit.
Theodore still insists that the reference is to the grace and operation
of the Spirit rather than the actual person and nature of the Spirit
himself.5 But this is for purely theological rather than exegetical
reasons. The water now symbolises the Spirit rather than baptism or
teaching, though the old associations are not completely forgotten.
Cyril, who interprets the passage of the Spirit's gifts, sees in it an
especial reference to the gift of teaching.6 Elsewhere Cyril goes
further and asserts that water is frequently used in Scripture to
signify sanctification through the Spirit or even the Holy Spirit
himself.7 He also recognises that the practice of the feast provides
an acted background to the saying, though he regards it as an Old
1
Cyprian, Ep. 63, 8; 73, 11; ps-Cyprian, De Rebaptismatey 14; DeMontibus Sinai
et Sion, 9.
* Origen, Sel. in Ps. cxxxv (cxxxvi). 6 (P.G. 12, 1656CD); Eusebius, Dem. Ev.
6, 18, 49; in Ps. xcn (XCIII). 2-3 (P.G. 23, 1189 A).
3
Cyprian. Ep. 63, 8; ps-Cyprian, De Rebaptismate, 14.
4
O. Frag. 36.
5
T. 115, 30-2. Cf. Theodore, Cat. Horn. 10, 9; Chr. 32, 1.
6
Cyr. in John vii. 38 (1, 688-9).
7
Cyr. in John iv. 10 (1, 269, 20-3); in John vi. 35 (1, 475, 20-3). Here, as so often,
what is primarily a later emphasis is already present in one strand of the teaching of
Origen. In giving his interpretation of 'being born of water and the Spirit* in John
iii. 5, he goes so far as to suggest that water ^rnvoioc liovn, &AA' oux UTTO-
OT&CTecos Stoccpopav §xei *n"p6s TO TTV6U|Jia, and cites this passage in evidence (O.
Frag. 36).
48
THE SIGNS
Testament type rather than as having a function equivalent to the
miracles of Jesus in the other discourses.1
4. JOHN iv. 46-54. THE HEALING OF THE NOBLEMAN'S SON

This story seems to have had a particular importance for the early
Gnostics. The same general line of interpretation is attributed by
Irenaeus to the Valentinians and by Origen to Heracleon. The
nobleman is the demiurge, who, with his servants the angels, welcomes
the coming of Christ to heal the creation of its sin. In the case of the
Valentinians, this is in fact given by Irenaeus as their interpretation
of the healing of the centurion's servant in Matthew and Luke.2
However, elsewhere Irenaeus speaks of the healing of the centurion's
son as occurring in St John's Gospel. This may be a mistake rather
than a conscious identification of the two stories, but it shows at
least that the two stories were not clearly distinct in his mind.3
Heracleon's interpretation is woven into his total pattern of interpret-
ing the Gospel. The detailed record of the location of the nobleman's
son at Capernaum shows him to be in an intermediate position near
the sea, that is, bordering on matter, and the geographical movements
of Jesus are also given a spiritual interpretation which links them
with the activity and movements of Jesus already interpreted in
chapter ii.4 The reference to signs and wonders as necessary to
promote belief is appropriate to those of yuxiKos nature. This gives
the miracle a certain topical connection with the preceding sign, in
which a woman of TrveunocTiKos nature has been shown as responsive
to the word alone without the additional evidence of miracle.5
The starting-point of Origen's interpretation is the recognition
of the fact that the story is meant to be understood as a pair with the
first miracle at Cana. The first miracle had been interpreted by him
in terms of Christ's gift of joy to his companions at the feast. The
1
Cyr. in John vii. 37 (1, 685-8). For the variant punctuations and consequent
differences of detailed exegesis of this text, see C. H. Turner, ' The Punctuation of
John vii. 37—8', and Hoskyns, pp. 320—3.
2
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1, 7, 4 (vol. I, p. 64).
3
Ibid. 2, 22, 3 (vol. 1, p. 328). Origen explicitly distinguishes the two incidents in
O. 13, 62.
4 O. 13, 60. 5 O. 13, 61.
4 49 WSG
second miracle is clearly one of healing. This is hardly the natural

sequence, but Origen accepts it and gives his interpretation in two
forms, one historical of God's dealings with the world and one psy-
chological of God's dealings with the individual soul. The healing
of the nobleman's son is therefore a picture either of the Saviour's
second coming to the world for the final redemption of Israel after
the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, or else it is the Logos'
second visitation of the soul to purge it of the residuum of sin.1
He does not find it easy to interpret the detail of the story in con-
formity with his general outline. He has to admit that it is by no
means certain that the nobleman was a Jew, and yet he symbolises
Abraham seeking the Saviour's help for his sinful child, the Jewish
people.2
He does also suggest another quite different interpretation which
has close affinities with that of the Gnostics. The nobleman is one
of the angelic powers referred to as 'the rulers of this world', and his
son that section of the world's population that comes under his
authority. Some of these powers were converted by the coming
of Christ, and their conversion is reflected in the conversion of
whole cities or nations.3
Cyril also attempts to interpret the link between this story and
the earlier miracle at Cana, but he does so at a purely historical level.
The people at Cana have been prepared by the former miracle and
are therefore of a disposition which can be helped by Christ.4 In
effect, both he and Theodore interpret the sign as a simple story of
the birth of faith. In Cyril's words, it is the story of a double healing
—the nobleman as well as the child.5 Theodore emphasises particu-
larly that the belief of v. 50 is merely the acceptance of Christ's
word; complete belief is reached only in the climax of v. 53.6
1
0.13,57. * 0.13,58.
3 o . 13,59.
4
Cyr. in John iv. 46 (1, 301, 7-13).
5
Cyr. in John iv. 50-1 (i, 303, 6-16).
6
T. 68-9 (cf. p. 90 below). Cf. also Chr. 35, 2.
THE SIGNS
5. JOHN V. I-l6. THE HEALING OF THE M A N

AT THE POOL OF BETHESDA
There is no clear or uniform tradition of the interpretation of this
miracle. That which recurs most frequently is an understanding of
it in terms of baptism. This occurs first, as is to be expected, in
Tertullian and Cyprian. Tertullian is concerned primarily with the
typological significance of the angel at the pool as a feature of the
pre-Christian dispensation, and does not refer directly to Christ's
act of healing.1 Cyprian's interest is in the injunction of v. 14 ' Sin
no more, lest a worse thing befall thee', which he applies to the need
of perseverance after baptism as an essential for salvation.* But these
clearly presume an understanding of the healing itself as a symbol
of baptism. The same basic idea is present in Chrysostom, who
points out that paralysis is especially common as a picture of sin.3
Cyril works the miracle into his scheme of interpretation based
on the movements of Jesus. After the passover of chapter ii, which
figured the death of Christ, Jesus exercised his ministry among
the Samaritans and in Galilee of the Gentiles. His return to Jerusalem
therefore depicts a second visitation of Christ for the salvation of
Israel after the fulness of the Gentiles has been gathered in. This is
almost at the end of time, after a long period of weakness, symbolised
by the thirty-eight years of paralysis—thirty-eight being just short
of forty, the number symbolic of completeness.4 This has some
striking similarities with Origen's interpretation of the healing of
the nobleman's son. Unfortunately we have not got Origen's
interpretation of this passage. It may be that Cyril is drawing upon
him, but if so he has certainly succeeded in giving a more satisfactory
schematic interpretation of the sequence of miracles as a whole.
Other commentators more naturally see in it the healing offered
to Christ's people at his first coming. For Apollinarius the significance
of the number thirty-eight is that it falls just short of forty, the
1
De Baptismo, 5; Adversus Judaeos, 13, 26.
2
Testimonia, 3, 27; Ep. 13, 2.
3
Chr. 38, 1-2. Chrysostom does not develop the baptismal significance of the
healing at all fully in his homilies on the Gospel. He treats the whole incident much
more fully in his twelfth homily against theAnomaeans(see especially P.G. 48, 804).
4
Cyr. in John v, 1-9 (1, 304-9).
51 4-2
number indicative of punishment (for example, forty years in the

wilderness, forty days of flood, forty stripes). So the miracle pictures
Christ's coming when the world's time is nearly complete and
by his work of grace cutting short the punishment of the law.1
Augustine sees in it the offer of healing to a people living under the
five arches of the Pentateuch suffering from its imperfections as
again represented by the thirty-eight years of the paralysis.2
Theodore does not attempt to give the miracle any symbolic
interpretation.3 For him it is a miracle deliberately demonstrative
of Christ's divine authority. Only one man is healed, because that is
sufficient for the act of revelation; more would have appeared like
deliberate self-glorification.4 The healing of the man is far from
spiritually perfect, because his informing the Jews about Jesus was
an act of treachery. Theodore pours scorn upon any interpretation
which attributes the man's action to good motives.5
6. JOHN vi. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND

AND THE WALKING ON THE WATER
The Eucharistic interpretation of this passage is so familiar to us that

it comes as something of a surprise tofindthat it takes a comparatively
subordinate place in the earliest exegesis, especially from Alexandria.
Clement on one occasion speaks at length of the eating of Christ's
flesh and the drinking of his blood commanded in this chapter as
the assimilation by faith of Christ the Word.6 Elsewhere in a difficult
1 2
Cramer, p. 229. Tract. Joh. 17, 2—7.
3
In this he has the support of Hoskyns among modern commentators—one who
is not usually slow to find symbolic significances. 'The story is an episode; and the
Evangelist turns it neither into an allegory, nor into a symbol, nor into a myth'
(Hoskyns, p. 253). With this, however, contrast the judgment of J. Danielou,
Bible et Liturgie, pp. 282-3: * La tradition chretienne est simplement Pexpression du
Nouveau Testament lui-meme. Dans Tfivangile de saint Jean, en effet, P episode a un
sens baptismal.'
4
T. 69, 32-4. Augustine by contrast interprets the selection of one man only to
be healed as symbolic of the unity of Christ's healing work {Tract. Joh. 17, 1).
5
T. 72, 15—73,9. This condemnation includes Cyril (in John v. 15; I, 311, 25—
312, 4) and Chrysostom (Chr. 38, 2), who both point out that the man told the Jews
who it was who had healed him and not who it was who had commanded him to
break the Sabbath.
6
Clement, Paidagogos, 1, 6, 38—47.
52
THE SIGNS
section of the Excerpta ex Theodoto he suggests that the passage con-

tains an allusion to the Eucharist or (and he seems to regard this as the
more valuable line of interpretation) to Christ's body, the Church.1
Similarly Origen comments on vv. 53 and 55 as follows: 'We are
said to drink Christ's blood, not only in the sacramental rite but also
when we receive his words, in which life consists, as he himself says
"The words which I speak unto you they are spirit and they are
life".'* In a more general discussion of the passage as a whole,
Origen points out that Christ speaks of bread both as something
other than himself and as something referring directly to himself.
For him the latter is the more fundamental idea. The central theme
of the passage is the soul's reception of Christ the Word.3 This
could be effected through the Eucharist or through the acceptance
of Christ's words or teaching as the quotation from the Homily on
Numbers clearly shows. There seems little room for doubt, however,
that it is the latter sense which is emphasised in Origen's interpreta-
tion of the symbolism of the chapter and to which he attaches the
greater value.4 Some of the fourth-century Catena fragments continue
to show the same broad line of interpretation. Didymus interprets
the eating of the life of practical goodness, and the drinking of con-
templation.5 Theodore of Heraclea finds the deeper meaning of
v. 54 in the AoyiKcos feeding upon the flesh and blood of Christ,
which comes through accepting and feeding upon the dogma of
the incarnation.6
1
Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto•, 13.
2
Num. Horn. 16, 9.
3
De Oratione, 27, 2-4.
4
Cf. O. 32, 24; Matt. Comm. Ser. 85; Lev. Horn. 7, 5; Comm. Matt. 11, 14. On
the whole question of Origen's evaluation of the Sacrament, see J. Danielou, Origene,
pp. 74-9 (E.T. pp. 61-8) and H. de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit, pp. 355-73. The
strength of Danielou's account is his clear recognition that bread is basically for
Origen 'a figure not of the Eucharist but of the Logos himself (E.T. p. 65). De
Lubac is inclined to overstate Origen's interest in the physical sacrament, just as he
does Origen's acceptance of the literal meaning of Scripture.
5
Cramer, pp. 255-6. This interpretation of the imagery derives from Origen
(cf. O. 1, 30).
6
Corderius, p. 193. On this whole early tradition of exegesis, cf. Hoskyns,
p. 306: 'The Patristic exegesis of the sixth chapter or references to its teaching. . .do
not refer it either to teaching or to sacrament. They choose to emphasise now one
aspect of the symbolism, now another, as it is convenient to them at the moment.'
53
In this early period the western Cyprian is the most explicitly

Eucharistic in his interpretation of the passage.1 The fifth century
shows a general development towards this more specifically
Eucharistic interpretation. Cyril gives a fuller and more developed
Eucharistic interpretation than his Alexandrian predecessors.2
The main burden of Theodore's and of Augustine's exegesis is
similarly Eucharistic in character, though with Theodore the
emphasis is much less marked.3 There is thus a close parallel in the
general development of the understanding of this passage and that
of the water imagery in Chapters iv and vii.4
Two other points are worthy of note in the development of the
symbolism of the whole passage. The multiplication of the loaves is,
like the turning of the water into wine, understood as a sign of
Christ's oneness with the Creator.5 He did not need any initial
loaves or fishes to make his miraculous provision possible. This is
clearly evident from his post-resurrection provision of a meal by
the lakeside without any fish at all to start with. His purpose,
therefore, must have been to disprove any heretical disparagement
of matter.6
Secondly, the Moses typology, which is clearly present in the
later comparison with the manna, is also found in earlier details of
the story. At the outset of the whole occurrence, Jesus crosses the
Sea of Tiberias to get away from his persecutors as Moses crossed
the Red Sea in escaping from the pursuing Egyptians.? When Jesus
feeds the multitudes there is not just sufficient as with Moses or
Elijah, but enough and to spare.8 The same superiority is shown by
the walking on the water. Moses prayed and the sea was driven
back. Christ acted in his own power and the sea carried its master
on its back.9
1
Cyprian, De Dominica Oratione, 18.
a
Cyr. in John vi. 53 (1, 529-32).
3
T. 97-9; 105-6; Augustine, Tract. Joh. 26.
4
Cf. p. 48 above.
5
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 11, 5 (vol. 11, p. 44); Chr. 42, 2.
6
Chr. 42, 3; 87, 2.
7
Cyr. in John vi. 1 (1, 402, 19-403, 24).
8
T . 94, 32-96, 3.
9
Didymus in John vi. 25 (P.G. 39, 1648 AB).
54
THE SIGNS
7. JOHNix. I - 4 I . THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND

As with the miracles of the turning of the water into wine and of the
feeding of the five thousand, Irenaeus emphasises the way in which
the miracle displays the oneness of Jesus with the Creator. He links
this particularly with the use of the clay, which recalls the manner
of man's creation in Genesis ii. 7.1 This allusion, and the significance
attached to it, was universally adopted, and, as we have seen,
reappears regularly even in the most unlikely authors.2
The pattern of the exegesis of the sign as a whole is best seen by
the comparison of three contrasting interpretations.
(a) Theodore's interpretation is at a simple historical level. The
Jews were blinded by their own lack of faith, and evil will.3 This is
revealed not only by the conclusion of the teaching of ix, but also
by their failure to take Jesus at the end of viii, which is to be explained
as due to some form of divine blinding.4 The miracle has thus a most
appropriate historical setting, in which the gift of sight is con-
trasted with the blindness of the Pharisees. No further symbolism
(apart from the significance of the clay) is developed. Siloam means
' Sent', but it signifies no more than the literal sending of the man to
the pool with the practical purpose of ensuring that a large crowd
would be able to witness the greatness of the miracle.5
(J?) Cyril sees in the miracle a picture of Christ's mission to the
Gentiles.6 This is the work he must work, while it is day, that is to
say during the time of his incarnation.? It is also on the Sabbath,
because the incarnation came at the end of the age, as the Sabbath
is at the end of the week.8 Healing is to be found in the water of
baptism, but the interpretation of Siloam as 'Sent' shows that its
1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 15, 2 (vol. 11, p. 365).
2
Cyr. in John ix. 6 (11, 157, 5-8); T. 133, 31-134, 5; Chr. 56, 2. Athanasius
(De Incarnatione, 18) also uses this miracle as evidence of Christ's creatorship, but
does not link the idea specifically with the use of the clay.
3 T 4 T I2
- 139, 9-J3- - 9, !- 1 2 -
5 T. 134, 5-23. Cf. Chr. 57, 1.
6
Cf. p. 36 above.
7
Cyr. in John ix. 4 (11, 153, 23-4). This is the natural understanding of the text
and is given also by Theodore (T. 132, 33-133, 10).
8
Cyr. in John ix. 6 (11, 156, 16-22).
55
healing power derives from the incarnation, from the fact of the
sending of the only-begotten Son into the world.1
(c) Augustine's interpretation is more elaborate in the detail of
its exegesis and still wider in its scope. The man born blind is not
merely the Gentile world, but humanity itself blinded by original
sin.2 The day of Christ's working is not simply the period of the
incarnation, but the whole period before the final judgment.3 Two
stages of the healing can be distinguished. First the catechumen is
anointed with the teaching of the incarnation, depicted by the spittle.
Then he must go on to the second stage of baptism into Christ, the
one signified by the explanatory title 'Sent'. 4
8. JOHN xi. I-44. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS
This miracle receives so full a treatment and interpretation within

the Gospel itself that little room is left for doubt about its funda-
mental meaning. It is recognised all along that it is concerned not
merely with the problem of physical death, but with the closely
allied problem of sin. This understanding is found as early as
Irenaeus, who, like others after him, sees a picture of the bands of
sin in the bandages with which Lazarus is still bound as he comes
out from the tomb.5 The other gospels contain two records of
raisings from the dead, and often the three stories are mentioned
together as of similar import. Yet the raising of Lazarus has clearly
1
Cyr. in John ix. 7 (11, 157, 11-158, 4). The understanding of the washing in
terms of baptism appears in Irenaeus {Adv. Haer. 5, 15, 3) (vol. 11, p. 366) and in
Tertullian {De Baptismoy 1), but surprisingly not in Cyprian. It receives more
widespread acceptance than the baptismal interpretations of the references to water
in iv and vii, and even that in v. The interpretation of' Sent' as referring to the sending
of Christ as the Son of God is found in Origen (O. Frag. 63) and Eusebius {Dem. Ev.
7, 1, 115). Origen also interprets it in terms of the apostles {Is. Horn. 6, 3), but in
the light of John xx. 21 this may be regarded as a complementary rather than a
contradictory interpretation.
2
Tract. Joh. 44, 1. This interpretation is already present in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.
5, 15, 3 (vol. 11, p. 366).
3
Tract. Joh. 44, 5. This interpretation is to be found in Origen, Jer. Horn, 12, 10;
Ps. xxxvi (xxxvii) Horn. 3, 10 {P.G. 12, 1346 AB).
4
Tract. Joh. 44, 2. This interpretation of the spittle is to be found in O. Frag. 63.
5
Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. 5, 13, 1 (vol. 11, p. 355). Cf. O. 28, 7; Cyr. in John xi. 44
(11, 292, 3-6).
56
THE SIGNS
much the greatest emphasis laid upon it. Origen sees in the resur-
rection of the one whom Jesus loved the restoration of one who has
enjoyed the friendship (<piAicc) of Jesus and then fallen into sin, of
one who has received knowledge of the truth, been enlightened,
tasted of the heavenly gift, been made partaker of the Holy Ghost,
tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and
then apostatised and gone back to his old way of life.1 Augustine
explicitly differentiates it from the Synoptic raisings by suggesting
that Lazarus, who was four days dead, depicts the person who is
rooted and settled in sin.2
Considerable emphasis is placed on the relationship of Christ to
the Father in the performance of the miracle, but this is in a form
which bears more directly on questions of Christology than of the
understanding of the sign itself. Origen, with his usual love of subtle
distinctions, suggests that the work of resurrection was strictly the
work of the Father, while that of Christ was literally to awaken with
his loud cry the reunited body and soul. But he admits that those
who ignore the distinction and think more simply of the work of
resurrection as the common work of Father and Son can claim that
the miracle is thereby integrated into the thought of the Gospel as
a whole.3 As with so many other of the miracles, the action of
Christ is seen to show a unity of action with the work of creation.4
Another writer specifically links the loud cry with which Lazarus
is called out from the tomb with the voice of command at the
creation.5 Cyril gives it a forward-looking reference as a prefigure-
ment of the loud shout of the trumpet at the final resurrection.6 He
1
O. 28, 6—7. It is no doubt this same description of Lazarus as the one whom
Jesus loved which prompts the comment of Apollinarius that only the friends (91X01)
of God will enjoy resurrection. The comment is actually associated with v. 43 and
the calling of Lazarus by name (Corderius, p. 295).
2
Tract, Joh. 49, 3.
3
O. 28, 9 (Origen refers to John xi. 25 and v. 21).
4
Origen, Comm. Matt. 12, 2.
5
Ps-Hippolytus, On the Raising of Lazarus, p. 226, 32-6. This comes from the
part of the work surviving in Greek and could possibly be a genuine work of Hippo-
lytus himself, but the attribution is very doubtful (C. Martin, * Note sur l'homelie
els TOV T£Tpocr|U6pov Adjapov attribute a saint Hyppolyte de Rome').
6
Cyr. in John xi. 43 (11, 290, 6-24). Cyril uses the argument that the loud cry
must have some deeper meaning because it contradicts the normal principle that
57
further brings out the general meaning of the sign by suggesting

that the tears of Jesus are not so much for Lazarus as for the general
fact of human sin and mortality typified by him.1
9. JOHN xiii. I - I 7 . THE WASHING OF THE DISCIPLES* FEET

Three main lines of interpretation of this sign are employed, which
are in no way exclusive of one another.
(cz) The sign is explicitly stated in the Gospel to be a deliberate
illustration of humility. No interpreter of the Gospel would wish
to question the validity of this interpretation. A few writers,
particularly in the Antiochene tradition, appear to suggest that it is
the complete meaning of Christ's action. This is true both of
Chrysostom and of Theodore.2 Theodore in fact asserts that Peter
misunderstood the saying of Jesus in v. 8 as a reference to baptism,
and had to have this misunderstanding removed by the further
saying of Jesus in v. 10.3 The mysterious saying in v. 7 that they will
understand the meaning of his action later is simply a reference to
the immediately ensuing explanation in vv. 12-15 that it is intended
as an example of humility.4 It is far more surprising to find that
Cyril of Alexandria falls also within this category. His treatment
of the sign is more satisfactory than that of Theodore. Where
Theodore emphasises that the feet-washing is the action of Domini
nostri homo (albeit, as v. 2 suggests, conscious of the destiny in
store for him), Cyril shows that the essence of the humility lies in its
being the action of one who is fully and consciously Lord of all.
He even interprets the coming forth from God of which Jesus was
conscious in the undertaking of the action not of his incarnation
but of his eternal generation.5 Cyril does admit a reference to
'he shall not strive nor cry aloud'. Theodore, who does little to develop the deeper
meaning of the sign, has an interpretation of the cry similar to that of Origen (T. 163,
22-5).
1
Cyr. in John xi. 36 (11, 282, 13-18). Cf. Cyril's comment that, in meeting the
sorrows of Mary, the risen Christ is meeting the sorrows of womankind as a whole
(Cyr. in John xx. 15; 111, 115, 4-23; in John xx. 17; 111, 120, 12-15).
2
Chr. 70, 2; T. 181-4. 3 T . 183, 17-20.
4
T. 184, 1-10. This understanding of v. 7 does not necessarily go along with a
restriction of the sign to the role of a lesson in humility (cf. Tract. Joh. 58, 2).
5
T. 182, 16—24; Cyr. in John xiii. 2-5 (11, 345, 29-346, 9).
58
THE SIGNS
baptism in v. 8. But this is not the meaning of the sign being enacted.
It is merely that Jesus, while engaged in this sign whose intention
and meaning is the lesson of humility, has characteristically seized
the opportunity to enlarge the range of his teaching for the general
benefit so as to include also at this point the theme of baptism.1
(b) The Gospel gives no other explicit interpretation of the sign,
but the water symbolism, and especially the being clean in v. 10,
seems to suggest that the lesson in humility does not exhaust its
meaning. Our earliest reference to the story in Irenaeus sees in it
a picture of the cleansing brought by the New Man to undo the
bondage of death inherited from the first Adam.* It is not explicitly
identified with baptism, though this would be a natural implication
of his words. Tertullian uses the story in the De Baptismo, but in
such a way as to rule out a baptismal interpretation of it. The words
of Jesus in v. 10 are an assertion of the unrepeatability of baptism.
As the disciples have received John's baptism, the action of Jesus
is not baptismal.3 He does not go on to give any positive interpreta-
tion of the meaning of the sign. His reasoning against a baptismal
interpretation was very influential. Cyprian, for all his claim that
water is everywhere a symbol of baptism, in practice only uses the
story as an illustration of humility.4 Both Origen and Augustine,
who see in the story a symbol of cleansing, regard it as referring not
to baptism itself but to subsequent post-baptismal cleansing.5
Origen argues that the action of Jesus must have some deeper
meaning of this kind; otherwise Peter's refusal in v. 8 would have
been right and reverent.6 In his commentary he gives two interpre-
tations. The primary understanding of the passage is that the
Christian, after his initial cleansing, needs the regular cleansing of
those elements within him which have closest contact with the
defiling world. Thus the feet are the appropriate part for cleansing.7
Even with the disciples this cleansing was not completed at the
supper. Peter's later denial is clear evidence that he needed yet
1
Cyr. in John xiii. 8 (n, 347, 24-348, 8).
2
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 22, 1 (vol. n, p. 228).
3
Tertullian, De Baptismo, 12.
4
Cyprian, Testimonial, 3, 29; Ep. 14, 2.
6
5 O. 32, 2; Tract. Joh. 56, 4. O. 32, 8.
7
O. 32, 2. Cf. also Augustine, Tract. Joh. 56, 4.
59
further cleansing. This is implicit in the Evangelist's careful state-

ment that Jesus began to wash the disciples' feet.1 The second inter-
pretation depends upon the shorter text of v. 10 which omits ei \xr\
TOUS TTOSOCS. In this interpretation, Origen suggests that the disciples
really were clean, and for that very reason, on the principle that 'to
every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance',
they are given the further cleansing of Jesus. Without this further
cleansing, even the most perfect of men cannot be reckoned as clean
in the fullest sense of the word.2 Elsewhere Origen interprets the
cleansing water as the dew of the grace of the Holy Spirit and as the
word of teaching.3 This interpretation is suggested in the first place
by John xv. 3 where the cleansing of the disciples is attributed to
the word of Jesus. It is in line with his interpretations of the water
symbolism in iv and vii. 37~9«4 Finally it provides the most
satisfactory meaning to the command to the disciples to imitate the
action of their Master within the life of the Church.
(c) The third line of interpretation is also found in Origen and
is characteristic of Alexandria. In this interpretation the cleansing
of the disciples' feet is their preparation for the work of the spread
of the gospel. It is the fulfilment of the prophecy ' How beautiful
are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!'. This
could be regarded as a special case of the second interpretation, but
the emphasis now lies not on the cleansing as forgiveness but as
preparation for the work of evangelism. It occurs in Clement,^
in Origen6 and in a Catena fragment ascribed to Theodore of
Heraclea and Apollinarius.7
IO. JOHN xix. 17-42. THE CROSS
The cross is more than a sign; it is also the thing signified. Never-
theless it retains many of the characteristics of the sign. Early writers
were not slow to interpret the details of the story as having not only
historical significance, but also symbolic meaning.8 Such symbolic
1 2
O. 32, 4 . 0.32, 7.
3 4
Jud. Horn, 8, 5. Cf. p. 48 above.
5 6
Clement, Paidagogosy 2, 8, 63. O. 32, 7-8.
7
Cramer, p. 339.
8
See especially Origen, Con. Cel. 2, 69.
60
THE SIGNS
interpretations not infrequently lapse into the more arbitrary form

of allegory, but many of them are closely related to the total meaning
of the cross. In this section the attempt is made to present a brief
summary of such symbolic interpretations of the detail of the story
as appear to bear some real association with the understanding of
the cross as a whole.
(a) xix. 17. Christ's carrying of his own cross is frequently
understood as a fulfilment of the type of Isaac.1 More unusually it is
understood as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa. ix. 6—Christ
carries his ocpxri upon his shoulder.% This interpretation is presumably
associated with the notion of Christ's reigning from the tree. It is
therefore closely similar to the interpretation of Chrysostom in
terms of Christ bearing the symbol of his own victory, as con-
querors bear their own trophies.3
(b) xix. 18. Cyril interprets the two thieves as Jew and Greek.
The element of arbitrariness in many of these interpretations is,
however, well illustrated by the fact that he is uncertain whether
they represent the nations as unrepentant and therefore receiving
just condemnation, or as redeemed through being 'crucified with
Christ'.4
(c) xix. 20. Cyril's second interpretation of the two thieves is in
line with his understanding of the threefold language of the title as
proclaiming the future universal rule of Christ.^ This line of thought
appears also in a slightly different form in Isidore who sees in it
a picture of the foretold function of the cross in drawing all men
to Christ.6 Cyril also makes a somewhat unsatisfactory attempt to
identify the title with the handwriting against us which was nailed
to the cross according to Colossians ii. 14.7 Augustine interprets
the words of the title as referring to his Kingship of the true Israel
of God, the circumcised in heart.8
1
Melito, Frag, in Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. I, p. 122; Chr. 85, 1.
2 3
Apollinarius in Corderius, p. 437. Chr. 85, 1.
4 2
Cyr. in John xix. 18 (in, 82, 28-83, 7)*
5
Cyr. in John xix. 20 (in, 85—6).
6
Isidore in Corderius, p. 439.
7
Cyr. in John xix. 19 (in, 83-5). For a similar modern interpretation, cf. E.
Stauffer, New Testament Theology (E.T.), p. 144.
8
Tract. Joh. 117, 5.
61
(d) xix. 23-4. Mention has already been made of the varied
interpretations of Christ's seamless robe.1 None of these interpreta-
tions, however, appears to be very closely related to the meaning of
the cross, and therefore they do not require to be developed here.*
(e) xix. 30. The phrase 'gave up His spirit' is almost universally
interpreted of the essentially voluntary nature of his death—an idea
clearly expressed earlier in the Gospel in x. 18.3 Origen sees a similar
meaning in the bowing of his head, 'as if making it rest on the bosom
of his Father'.4
(f) xix. 34. This verse is the one which most clearly demands
some kind of symbolic interpretation, as was universally recognised.5
There are two main interpretations of the water and the blood. One
sees in them the two baptisms of water and of martyrdom,6 the other
the two sacraments of baptism and of eucharist.? The importance
of their coming out from the side of the dead Christ is that the life-
giving sacraments receive their efficacy from Christ and particularly
from his death.8 A further symbolism is found in a parallel with the
coming of Eve from the side of Adam. As the source of sin and
death came from the side of the sleeping Adam, so the source of
1
Cf. p. 25 above.
2
But with this judgment contrast the judgment of Hoskyns (p. 529). In view of
the close association of the robe with the Body of Christ, he claims that' the ancient
and modern interpretation of the robe as the Church may. . . rightly penetrate the
author's meaning'.
3
O. 19, 16; Tertullian, Apologeticus, 21, 19; T. 241, 35-242, 1.
4
Matt. Comtn. Ser. 138. For further comment on this verse, see p. 67 below.
5
The patristic interpretation of this verse has received special attention. For full
accounts see Westcott, * Additional note on chapter 19' (vol. 11, pp. 328-33);
Hoskyns, pp. 534—5.
6
Tertullian, DePudicitia, 22,10; De Baptismo, 16; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses,
3, 10; Jerome, Ep. 69, 6; Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. 23 (Rufinus gives an alternative
interpretation in which the blood is to condemn the faithless, who had said 'His
blood be upon us and on our children').
7
T. 242, 21-3 (this is the only point in which Theodore gives any symbolic
meaning to the facts of the passion; even here he merely identifies the symbols
without any development of the idea); Chr. 85, 3; Cyr. in John xix. 34 (in, 103,
14-20); Augustine, Tract. Joh. 120, 2.
8
See the references in the previous note to Chrysostom, Cyril and Augustine.
This point is made also by Origen (Ex. Horn. 11, 2), though in accordance with his
general pattern of exegesis it is for him not specifically the sacraments which flow
from the side of Christ, but more generally the thirst-quenching waters of the
word of God.
62
THE SIGNS
healing came from the side of Christ in the sleep of death.1 The
parallelism is sometimes extended to include the conception that
just as it was Adam's bride, Eve, who came out from his side, so it
was Christ's bride the Church, constituted by the sacraments, which
came from the side of Christ.2
(g) xix. 41. Origen links the newness of Christ's tomb with the
ability of his corpse to give out streams of water and blood like
a living body. He is a new kind of dead man and so ought to have
a new tomb. In the light of his purity, it is appropriate to his death
as the virgin's womb was to his birth.3 Elsewhere he associates it
rather with the newness of life to which the Christian who is buried
with Christ is initiated.4 This line of thought is developed by Cyril
who sees in the fact of the new tomb set in a garden the renewing
work of a second Adam.5
These interpretations are so varied that it has been more con-
venient to set them out in chronological sequence through the
Gospel, rather than under subject headings. Nevertheless three main
thoughts about the meaning of the cross seem to be represented.
(1) The cross is seen as a work of recapitulation, a work of the
second Adam. Surprisingly there is no evidence of Irenaeus using
the Johannine passion story in this way.
(2) The cross is the source of newness of life, to be found pre-
eminently in the sacramental life of the Church. These two lines of
thought are combined with particular aptness by Augustine.
(3) The cross is that which universalises the saving work of
Christ.
1
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 13, 21; ps-Athanasius, De Passione et Cruce
Domini, 25; Apollinarius in Corderius, p. 444 (Apollinarius also accounts for the
fact that Jesus' first appearance was to a woman, i.e. Mary Magdalene, on the ground
that he was undoing the work of a woman's evil counsel: ibid. p. 447; cf. also Cyr. in
John xx. 15; in, 115); Antiochus of Ptolemais in Cramer, p. 395 (Antiochus adds
a rather more forced parallelism between the soldier's spear and the sword at the
door of paradise).
* Tertullian, De Anima, 43, 10. Cf. Augustine, Tract. Joh. 120, 2; De Civ. Dei,
22, 17.
3 4
Origen, Con. Cel. 2, 69. Origen, Comm. Rom. 5, 8.
5
Cyr. in John xix. 41 (111, 105, 27-106, 25).
I I . JOHNXxi. I-14. THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES

This sign from the epilogue to the Gospel receives less notice than
the pre-resurrection signs. It is generally understood as signifying
the work of being fishers of men to which the disciples had been
called at the first.1 Cyril, as we have seen, develops this idea in
terms of the contrasted efficacy of Law and Gospel in bringing men
to the service of God.2 Augustine contrasts it with the similar
miracle of Luke v. That, he says, symbolises the present work of the
Church, whereas this, with its reference to the dragging of the net
to the shore reminiscent of the Matthaean parable of the drag-net,
symbolises thefinalharvest of souls.3 Their suggested interpretations
of the number of the fish are in harmony with their understanding
of the incident as a whole. For Cyril, the hundred represents the
fulness of the Gentiles, the fifty the remnant of Israel and the three
the Holy Trinity, to whose glory the whole work is done.4
Augustine gives two interpretations. According to the first 153 is
shown to be the sum of all the numbers up to seventeen. This
signifies the total number of believers saved by the divine grace
working through the medium of law (ten) and Spirit (seven). His
second interpretation in terms of the Trinity bears a rather less
direct relation to his general interpretation.5
1
Theodore of Heraclea in Corderius, p. 467.
2
Cyr. in John xxi. 1-6 (in, 156-60). Cf. p. 35 above.
3
Tract. Joh. 122, 6—7.
4
Cyr. in John xxi. 11 (111, 162, 2-9).
5 Tract. Joh. 122, 8. According to Isho'dad an interpretation in terms of the
Trinity goes back to Origen (The Commentaries of Isho'dad of Mervy ed. M. D.
Gibson, vol. 1, p. 287).
CHAPTER V
LEADING IDEAS OF THE GOSPEL

Professor Dodd devotes the whole of the second part of his Inter-
pretation of the Fourth Gospel to a study of the leading religious
concepts in the Gospel, in the attempt to define as closely as possible
the dominant ideas with which the Evangelist operates.1 No such
systematic treatment of these leading ideas is to be found in the
general run of patristic commentaries. As with many modern
commentaries, it is normally the introductory concept of the Logos
which captures the attention and alone receives any thorough
discussion or treatment. The one notable exception is the commentary
of Origen. Origen objects that too many would-be exponents of the
Christian faith concentrate their whole attention upon the idea of
Christ as the Logos to the virtual exclusion of the many other titles
ascribed to him. Yet these other titles are essential to a proper
understanding of the significance of the title Logos.2 He also insists
that the title Logos must always be considered, not as an isolated
phrase, but in the light of the specific assertions of the immediate
Johannine context.3 As a corrective therefore to this common but
misleading approach, Origen deals in his very first book with many
of the most important Christological titles used in the Gospel. He
discusses the ideas of Christ as light,4 as resurrection, as the way, the
truth, and the life,5 as Christ and king,6 as teacher and Lord, as Son,7
and as true vine and living bread.8 The titles of door and good
shepherd are also mentioned but not interpreted.? Origen, therefore,
does give us in the form of this Christological inquiry a considered
treatment of many of the leading notions of the Gospel at the start
1 a
See especially the Preface and p. 133. O. 1, 21.
4
3 O. 1, 36. O. 1, 25, 26.
6
5 O. 1, 27. O. 1, 28.
7 8
O. 1, 29. O. 1, 30.
9
O. 1, 21. Origen in fact extends his discussion (O. 1, 31-6) to take in a consider-
able number of other Christological titles outside the scope of the Fourth Gospel
itself.
5 65 WSG
of his commentary. Nor is this the sum of his contribution in this

field. He is far more inclined than other commentators to indulge,
at the appropriate point in the course of the commentary itself, in
a full consideration of the significance of some particular word or
idea of especial importance. In this chapter we shall attempt to see
how some of these leading ideas of the Gospel were understood by
the early commentators. In almost every case Origen will provide
our starting-point, and it is in his writing alone that any thorough
treatment will be found.
I. SPIRIT
The great majority of the occurrences of the word 7rveO|ioc are
regarded without question as being references to the Holy Spirit,
the third person of the Trinity. Thus both Theodore and Cyril have
no doubt that when Nicodemus is taught the necessity of a birth of
water and the Spirit, it is of the work of the Holy Spirit in baptism
that Jesus is speaking.1 Theodore, as we have seen, even disallows
the basic meaning of wind in John iii. 8 altogether, and Cyril finds
evidence in the passage of the eternal relation of the Holy Spirit
to the Father.2
John xi. 33 and xiii. 21 speak of Jesus groaning and being troubled
in spirit. We have not got Origen's comments on xi. 33, but he
interprets spirit in xiii. 21 of the human spirit which Jesus assumed
in taking on himself the fulness of human nature. Origen points
out that in scriptural usage the soul is morally neutral, capable of
good or bad, but the human spirit is always (with the one exception
of Deut. ii. 20) used in a good sense.3 Both Theodore and Cyril,
however, interpret both these passages as referring not to Christ's
human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus is troubled by the
Spirit in xiii. 21, according to Theodore because it is the Spirit
in him who gives him knowledge of Judas' future betrayal, or,
1
T. 46-9; Cyr. in John iii. 3-5 (1, 217-19).
2
T. 48, 35-49, 6 (cf. p. 40 above); Cyr. in John iii. 3 (1, 217) (cf. p. 79 below).
We have not got Origen's commentary at this point. O. Frag. 37 deduces from the
text that the Spirit is no mere Ivspyetoc of God but a distinct ouaia with his own
t8iOTT|s Cnr&pêcos, but the relevant section of the fragment is of doubtful attribution
and the language strongly suggests a later hand.
3 O. 32, 18.
66
THE LEADING IDEAS
according to Cyril, because troubled is the least inadequate human

term to express the Spirit's hatred of evil.1 In view of these interpre-
tations, it is surprising to find that irveuiJia is never interpreted of the
Holy Spirit in John xix. 30.2
Two important occurrences of the word remain in which an
interpretation in terms of the Holy Spirit was hardly possible. The
first is vi. 63. 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and
they are life.' Again we have not got Origen's comment, but there
appears to be a generally accepted understanding of the passage
in which TTveOiioc is identified with Christ's divine nature.3 Cyril, in
fact, is concerned to insist that the statement that' the flesh profiteth
nothing' is not literally true of Christ. His flesh, though not life-
giving in its own right, becomes life-giving by virtue of its associa-
tion with the life-giving Word.
Finally, and most distinctively, we have in iv. 24 the words * God
is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in
truth'. Origen fully recognises the importance of this text. It has,
he says, every appearance of being a definition of the ouata of God.
But if we were to take it as such we would be committing ourselves
to the view that God is CTGOHOC. In its literal sense TrveuiJa is as physical
a word as fire or light. Its use is therefore just as metaphorical
in this case as in the others. The significance of the metaphor is this.
Just as the literal Trveujjia around us provides the essential breath
of physical life, so God is called TtveOiJia because it is he who leads
men to real (&Ar|0iv6s) life.4 So for Origen the assertion that God
is TTveOncc is not a straightforward assertion of the incorporeal nature
of God. Rather God is incorporeal, in spite of the fact that he is
called TTV£U|JOC.5 In the second half of the text he does allow that
the appropriate contrast with worship in the spirit is bodily or
1
T. 185, 17-26: Cyr. in John xiii. 21 (11, 363, 17-20). Cf. also Cyr. in John xi. 33
(11, 279, 19-20).
a
Cf. p. 62 above. This interpretation is mentioned and regarded as at least an
attractive possibility by many modern commentators, e.g. Hoskyns (p. 532), Dodd
(p. 428), Barrett (p. 460) and Lightfoot (p. 319).
3
Tertullian, De Resurrectione Mortuorum, 37; T. 108-9; Cyr. in John vi. 63
(i> 55i- 2 )-
4 5
O. 13, 21-3. Origen, Con. Cel. 6, 70.
67 5-2
fleshly worship, but this is based more on the total context and on
the conjunction with worship in the truth than on the inherent
meaning of the word Trvsuiia itself.1
Tertullian agrees with Origen in asserting a physical element
in the literal meaning of -rrvsCâ. He writes ' Who will deny that
God is a body, although " God is a Spirit"? For Spirit is body of its
own kind, in its own form.'2 The conclusion is the exact opposite
of that of Origen, but the premises are identical. The later writers,
however, all regard the assertion that' God is Spirit' as intended to
convey simply and directly the incorporeal nature of his being.3
2. TRUTH
The most frequent understanding of the term dArjOeia in Origen's

interpretation of St John is in the sense of spiritual reality as con-
trasted with the type or shadow of the Old Testament Law. This is
naturally his interpretation of John i. 17, where the explicit contrast
in the Gospel is with the Law.4 It is also his standard interpretation
of the worship in spirit and in truth of John iv. 24.^ In one passage
he interprets in the same way the reference to 'all the truth' in John
xvi. 13, to which the disciples are to be led by the Spirit of truth.6
But elsewhere he interprets it of the doctrine of the Trinity as the
crown of Christian truth.?
The title is ascribed directly to Jesus in John xiv. 6, and Origen
therefore includes it among the Christological titles which he
discusses in hisfirstbook. Here his interpretation is not in accordance
with his most usual sense of spiritual reality but along more ordinary,
intellectualist lines as suggested by the alternative exegesis of John
xvi. 13. The description of Jesus as the truth asserts his complete
omniscience, which he shares with his Father.8
1
Origen, De Principiis, i, i, 4; Con. Cel. 6, 70.
2
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 7, 8.
3
T. 64-5; Chr. 33, 2; Cyr. in John iv. 24 (1, 284, 25-6); Responsiones ad Tiberium>
2 (Pusey, in, 577); ibid. 10 (Pusey, ill, 593); Ep. ad Calosyrium (Pusey, in, 604).
4
O. 6, 3. 5 O. 1, 6; 13, 13.
6
Con. Cel. 2, 2.
7
De Principiis, 2, 7, y,Jes. Nav. Horn. 3, 2.
8
O. 1, 27.
68
THE LEADING IDEAS
A corresponding fluctuation of meaning is to be found in the
understanding of the adjectival form CCATIOIVOS. Christ is called the
&Ar|0iv6s light in contradistinction not to any false light but to
the sensible (aia0r|T6s) light of the sun.1 The interpretation of the
dAr|0iv6s vine, which follows only a few chapters later in the same
book, is, however, conceived rather differently. The vine is called
&Ar|0iv6s because its stem contains the truth, and its branches, the
disciples, in imitation of the stem bear the truth as their fruit. Here
the reference seems to be to Christ as the truth in the more intel-
lectualist sense.2 Even where, as in the case of the &Arj0iv6s light,
he does interpret the word of spiritual reality, he is hesitant to allow
it the full sense of ultimate reality. In one passage, where he admits
that the dcAr|0iv6s light has appeared on the earth in the person of
Jesus, he adds that God the Father is greater than truth and superior
to the &Ar|0iv6s light.3 He cannot, therefore, be giving to the terms
&Af|0sia and &Ar|0iv6$ the full sense of ultimate reality. He makes
the same point (although with a diametrically opposite exegesis of
the term &Ar|0iv6s) by insisting elsewhere in his commentary that the
opposite of dAr|0iv6s is shadow, type or image, and that as when the
word became flesh it involved itself in these things the fully &Ar|0iv6s
Aoyos can exist only in heaven, and not in incarnate form. Here his
Greek background appears to have got the better of his Christian
exegesis, but it is interesting to note that, although this passage occurs
in the commentary on the Gospel, the immediate passage under
discussion is one from the Apocalypse and not the Gospel.4
The variety of interpretation which is characteristic of Origen's
understanding of &Af|0eia continues in the later exegetes with a
growing emphasis on the intellectualist side, which is inclined to
identify dAf|0eioc with orthodoxy. This is most marked in Theodore.
The contrast with type or figure remains only in the prologue,
where the Gospel contrast with law in i. 17 almost necessitated such
an interpretation.5 Christ is called the truth because his teaching is
the source of true knowledge and the truth into which the disciples
1
O. 1, 26 (John i. 9). Yet in O. 20, 28 when discussing John viii. 44 he develops
the Gospel contrast between dAf|d£ioc and vys05os and relates it to the definition
of Christ as dAr|6eia in John xiv. 6.
2 3 4
O. 1, 30 (John xv. 1). O. 2, 23. O. 2, 6.
5 T. 26, 35-6 (John i. 17); T. 24, 14-25 (John i. 14).
69
will later be led by the Spirit of truth is the whole range of Trini-
tarian and Christological doctrine.1 He gives no treatment of the
corresponding form &Ar|0iv6s apart from the somewhat inadequate
definition of the &Ar|0iv6s light as implying its continuance to the
end of the world.2
Cyril provides something of a synthesis. The age in which he
lived tends to suggest to him an interpretation in terms of orthodox
Christian truth, but his Alexandrian background makes him less
likely to overlook the meaning of spiritual reality in contrast to
type or shadow. Sometimes one idea is dominant, sometimes the
other, but there are signs of a fusion of the two. In commenting on
John i. 17 the contrast with type is naturally the sense given, but
this interpretation occurs also in less obvious contexts, as in the
explanation of the words ' Ye shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free'.3 On the other hand the opposite sense is
dominant when Christ's identification as the truth is interpreted
in terms of his being the measure of a correct understanding of the
nature of God.4 Yet the two can come together. The true worshipper
of John iv. 24 is one who has moved over from type to reality and
whose worship is offered in strict accord with the divine teaching.5
&Af)0eioc is the reality which replaced the preparatory shadows of the
Old Testament Law and which finds expression in the truths of
Christian orthodoxy.
In his treatment of the term &Ar|0iv6s, wefindthe usual Alexandrian
contrasts. The dAr|0iv6s vine is contrasted with the sensible (oci<T0r)-
TOS).6 The &Ar|0iv6s bread is contrasted with the type of the manna.?
The dAr|0iv6s light receives a fuller and more positive definition. It
is that which is intrinsic light, which contains within its own nature
1
T. 190, 36-191, 1 (John xiv. 6); T. 210-11 (John xvi. 13).
a
T. 21, 36-8 (John i. 9).
3
Cyr. in John i. 17 (1, 152); in John viii. 32 (11, 60, 12-17).
4
Cyr. in John xiv. 6 (11, 409, 19-27).
5
Cyr. in John iv. 24 (1, 284-5). Cf. also Cyr. in John xvi. 13 (11, 626-8).
Chrysostom similarly uses both senses in his interpretation of * sanctification in the
truth*. It is a 'real* sanctification by sacrifice in contrast to the Old Testament
sanctification by sacrifice, which was only a type. But it is also said to be effected by
the gift of the Holy Spirit and by right dogmas (Chr. 82, 1: John xvii. 17 and 19).
6
Cyr. in John xv. 1 (11, 544, 15-21).
7
Cyr. in John vi. 32 (1, 458, 6-9; 467, 15-18).
70
THE LEADING IDEAS
the power to be and to give light. It must therefore be uncreated
and clearly distinct from the realm of creation.1 The long discussion
of the term, which Cyril goes on to give, is concerned rather with
the theological implications of this definition than with the narrower
field of precise exegesis.
Thus the main lines of the interpretation of &Af|0eioc are in terms
either of ultimate reality or of true knowledge or of a synthesis of
the two. One interesting exception is worthy of mention. In
a Catena fragment on John xiv. 6, Apollinarius gives a moral empha-
sis to the term. Jesus, he says, calls himself the truth because he is
the perfection of
3. L I F E
The life, which Christ came to impart to men, was something more
than mere physical existence. Origen expresses the distinction in
a number of ways. There is an dSi&cpopos scof|, which is enjoyed
even by the impious and by irrational animals, but there is a Si&cpopos
3cof) which is enjoyed through identification with the risen Christ.3
Elsewhere he speaks with similar intent of f) Kvpicos KocAoujjiEvri
jcofi or of TO &Ar|0iv6v ;§fjv.4
The distinction is essentially a qualitative or even a moral one.
The 8i&<popos jcofj is necessarily good in contrast to the &8i&(popos 3001*)
which is amoral in character.5 A life of sin can only be described
paradoxically as a living death.6 Only the good life is really life at
all, and therefore the Gospel deliberately speaks of the commandment
of God and of the knowledge of God not as conveying life, but as
actually being oricovios 3cof|.7 In the same way, Christ is spoken of
directly as being the life.8 Thus Origen is quite clear that ^corj,
whether qualified as cclcovios or not, is intended to be a present
qualitative experience of the Christian, conveyed to him by Christ.
Yet here again, as we have already seen in our study of the term
&Ar|0iv6s, his subordinationist tendencies give him pause. If Christ
is cxicovtos 3corj, does this mean that he is qualitatively identifiable
1 2
Cyr. in John i. 9 (1, 96-7). Corderius, p. 356.
3 4
O. 20, 39. O. 1, 27.
5 6
O. 20, 39. O. 2, 16 (John i. 4).
7 8
O. Frag. 95 (John xii. 50). O. 13, 3.
71
with the Father? Cyril draws the conclusion with alacrity and with
emphasis. For him the Gospel shows clearly that Christ is jcof] EK
^cofjs.1 But Origen insists on the superiority of the Father. This he does
in two ways. The first is really inconsistent with his main exegesis
of the Gospel, when in one passage he suggests that only to God
can TO Kupicos ^fjv be attributed, and that in their fullest sense the
words cannot be used of Christ, who tasted death for every man.2
His second way maintains the formal consistency of his exegesis,
but involves the introduction of a difficult new idea. Christ is ;§cor|,
but the Father is greater than scor); Christ is aicovios 3cof), but the
Father is something above and beyond (vnrep) aicovios 3cofj.3
The source of life is linked with the two ideas of TrvsOjja and of
Aoyos. As we have already seen, irveujjia in its literal sense was
for Origen the source of ordinary life; the description of God as
TtvsuiJia metaphorically understood is therefore intended to present
him as the source of aAr|0ivn jcof).4 Alternatively, &8i&cpopos scofj is
that which is shared even by the dAoyoi, and therefore Si&cpopos jcori
is logically linked to the Aoyos as its source, whether that be under-
stood of the pre-existent Aoyos or of its embodiment in the words of
the incarnate Christ.5
Neither Theodore nor Cyril approaches the same level of under-
standing of the Johannine conception of jcofj or of 3C0T] aicovios which
is apparent in Origen. Theodore's treatment of the idea is both
scanty and unsatisfactory. The statement of John i. 4 that 'In Him
was life' is not a statement about the nature of the Aoyos, but simply
of his function as the giver of life to all creation.6 The aicovios 3cof|
of which the Gospel speaks is always conceived simply as a future
gift. His comment on the closing words of John x. 10 ('that they
may have it abundantly') will serve as an example.' These words', he
writes, 'are intended as an allusion to the resurrection which He
will give to men.'?
Cyril differs from Theodore in insisting that John i. 4 is an
assertion about the nature of the Aoyos, and this insistence is of
1
Cyr. in John vi. 57 (1, 544). Cf. also Cyr. in John i. 4 (1, 74-9).
2 3 4
O. 2, 17. O. 13, 3. O. 13, 23 (John iv. 24).
5 6
O. 20, 39 (John viii. 51). T. 19, 15-25.
7
T. 143, 32-4. Cf. also his comments on John iii. 36, iv. 14 and viii. 51 in T. 59,
63 and 127.
72
THE LEADING IDEAS
importance for his exegesis of the theme of jcofi throughout the

Gospel.1 Like Theodore, he normally assumes that the reference
of atcovios 3cof| is to a future life.2 But in two respects his comments
go deeper than those of Theodore. Having insisted that the Aoyos is
in the fullest possible sense 3001*1 by nature, he recognises that the
gift of life comes through Christ's giving of Himself. As a result,
he does acknowledge the present possession of the gift of life, but
the idea comes in rather as a corollary than as the fundamental
exegesis.3 Secondly he does recognise that there is a frequent use of
the term jcofi in the Gospel, which is qualitative in character, and
which is to be distinguished from another and simpler usage of the
word. But the distinction has reference to the future and not to the
present experience of life. All men, good and bad alike, will be
restored to life, but for some that restoration will mean only the
beginning of eternal punishment, which is more properly called death
than life. The gospel promise of life is, therefore, the promise not
merely of the fact of resurrection, but of real life which is a future un-
ending experience of bliss.4
4. L I G H T
Origen has two substantial discussions of the concept of light, both

at a comparatively early stage in his commentary. In each case he
begins with a classification of the most important uses of the term;
in the first instance he lists 'light of the world', 'the light of men',
'the true light' and 'light of the Gentiles',5 and in the second 'light
of men', 'light' without further qualification and 'true light'.6
These terms he says are clearly parallel and some would go so far
as to regard them as identical, but it is a matter that requires careful
investigation.?
1
Cyr. in John i. 4 (1, 74, 1-7).
2
E.g. Cyr. in John v. 24 (1, 344, 17-18). John v. 24 reads 6 Tncrreucov...
Ix^t 3COTIV cdcbviov. Cyril writes TOOS Se ye TrioreuovTccs, ou UETOXOUS eaeoOai
uovov Tfjs atcoviou ^cofjs, ocAAa KCCI TOV EK TTJS Kpiaecos 6ic«peufecrOai KIVSVVOV . . . .
3
Cyr. in John iii. 36 (1, 259, 7-11); in John vi. 47 (1, 513, 4-6).
4
Cyr. in John viii. 51 (11, 115, 14-29); in John x. 10 (11, 220); in John xi. 25-6
(11, 274-5). Cf. P- J5<> below.
5
O. 1, 25. The last term in this list is of course drawn from outside the
Johannine record.
6 7
O. 2, 23 (John i. 4; i. 5; viii. 12). O. 1, 25.
73
The first point that needs to be made in such an investigation is

that all these instances have to do with light not in its most literal
sense, but in a metaphorical or spiritual one.1 The sun is the light
of the alcrOriTos Koajjios, Christ is the light of the vor|Tos Koapos.z
This is the significance of the title 'true light', dAr|0iv6s being here
intended as the opposite of aiaOriTos.3 True light has not, therefore,
a sense which is distinct from the other usages with which it is listed,
but merely makes explicit what is implicit in them all.
Having made this point clear, Origen does proceed to draw
a distinction between 'light of the world5 and 'light of men'. In
both cases the reference must be to the intellectual enlightenment
of reason and of will, but as Origen did not believe that men were
the only rational beings in the universe, the term 'light of the
world' is for him necessarily a wider and more inclusive term. He
does, however, recognise that this distinction is based on a belief
of a somewhat tentative character, and he is therefore not prepared
to quarrel with the alternative exegesis which would equate the two
terms completely.4 In fact, in his second discussion of the terms he
comes near to accepting this equation himself.
In this second discussion, he brings in the term 'light' without
further qualification, which had not entered into his previous treat-
ment. This suggests a different problem to his mind. God the Father
is also spoken of as 'light', and this might lead the unwary to believe
that there is no differentiation in oucria between Father and Son. 5
This Origen avoids by insisting that a light in which there is no
darkness at all is different from a light which shines in the darkness
and is pursued though not overcome by it. When, therefore, he
goes on to equate 'the true light', 'the light of men' and 'the light
1
O. 13, 23.
2 3
O. 1, 25. O. 1, 26 (cf. p. 69 above).
4
O. 1, 26. Cf. also Con. Cel. 5, 10.
5
As in the case of 3001*1, Cyril very readily draws such conclusions. The Gospel use
of 9C0S shows clearly that Christ is 900s. . • £K 9COTOS (Cyr. in John i. 9:1, 96—7; in
John viii. 12: 1, 711, 23—6), or that Father and Son have a common 9UCTIS (Cyr.
in John xii. 36; 11, 326, 10-12). Basilides had drawn exactly the opposite conclusion;
the Prologue has clear affinities with the opening chapter of Genesis, and the * light
which lighteth every man coming into the world' ought therefore to be identified
with the light which came into being by the command of God according to Gen. i. 3
(Hippolytus, Elenchos, 7, 22, 4).
74
THE LEADING IDEAS
of the world', he presumably intends to imply not that they are all
identical in connotation, but simply that they are identical in denota-
tion as all referring to the Son rather than to the Father.
Finally in the same passage he discusses the relation between the
terms 'life5 and 'the light of men'. Here again his tentative con-
clusion is that there is identity of denotation, but a difference of
connotation. The two always go together, but there is a logical
priority in the idea of 'life' which provides a kind of substratum,
upon which the enlightening process can operate.1
Theodore and Cyril do not indulge in such full treatments of the
concept, but in this case they do recognise as fully as Origen its
metaphorical and spiritual character. Theodore is more conscious
of the sense of 960s as the sun, which underlies the metaphor, but
this does not detract from his handling of the term as a properly
metaphorical concept.2 Both he and Cyril show their fundamental
understanding by the way in which they distinguish it from the
concept of' life' with which it is so closely associated in the prologue.
Cyril punctuates the passage 'What was made, in it was life' and
interprets 'life' in this context as the power of the creation to come
into being and to continue in existence.3 Theodore pours scorn on
this interpretation; to him it seems absurd to speak of the existence
of the inanimate creation as 'life'. 4 He, therefore, prefers to take
the phrase 'which was made' with the preceding clause, and to
interpret the words 'in Him was life' of the physical life of the ani-
mate creation.5 So far their interpretations are in direct conflict.
But both are in agreement that the reference to 'light' represents
a narrowing of the field to the especially important gift of the light
of reason to the rational creation.6
Both therefore give to 'the light of men' a wide and general
interpretation. Origen had regarded 'the light of the world' as
a term requiring in all probability an even wider interpretation. But
here both Theodore and Cyril dissent. For them the term is one
of historical rather than cosmological significance, and refers to the
1
O. 2, 23.
2
T. 133 (John ix. 5); T. 175 (John xii. 35-6). Cf. p. 38 above.
3 Cyr. in John i. 4 (1, 75). * T. 17, 28-38.
5 T. 19, 15-25 (John i. 4).
6
T. 19, 26-20, 2; Cyr. in John i. 5 (1, 81, 2-6).
75
range of Christ's mission being to the Gentiles and not only to the
Jews.1 Cyril does acknowledge the fact that Christ's power as cpcos
VOT|TOV extends beyond the range of this world, but such power would
have to be described as u-nepKocriiios and is not the intended meaning
of the words spoken in the Gospel.2 The difference here, therefore,
is neither one of dogmatic belief nor one of the interpretation of the
term cpcos, but arises from a conflicting understanding of the term
KoaiJios. To the interpretation of that term and of its correlatives we
must now turn.
5. WORLD
Origen, as we have just seen, interprets the world of which Christ is

the light as the vor|Tos Koajaos, the unseen world accessible only to the
enlightened mind of man. This, however, appears to be the only
occasion on which he gives this interpretation to the word KOCTÔS
in the Gospel. He certainly believes the idea to be an important one
in the thought of the Gospel, but reference to it is given obliquely
by the implied contrast to this world. Origen's main discussion of
the word and the ideas associated with it is by way of comment on
John viii. 23. This verse includes two contrasted pairs of ideas—
'from below' and 'from above', and 'of this world' and 'not of this
world'. To these he adds also 'of the earth' and 'from heaven' from
John iii. 31. These phrases, he suggests, have differing connotations
although they are identical in denotation. 'Below' and 'above' are
used metaphorically of the nature of a man's beliefs; the contrast in
terms of Koajios is between the visible and invisible worlds. He
finds additional corroboration of the fact that this world is coter-
minous with the realm of the below in the use of the word K0CTapoAf|
of the creation in John xvii. 24. He differentiates his position sharply
from that of the Gnostics by his insistence that men can be changed
from below to above, from being of this world to being no longer
of this world. This in fact was the very purpose of Christ's coming.
The nature of the VOT|T6S Koaiios itself is not made explicit, because
the Gospel reference to it is indirect and negative. Origen, however,
makes certain bold suggestions. The goal of man is the vision of
1
T. 117, 18-30; Cyr. in John viii. 12 (1, 711, 27-712, 27).
* Cyr. in John ix. 5 (11, 155, 14-20).
76
THE LEADING IDEAS
this invisible world; but this hope may also be expressed in terms
of the vision of God. He does not explicitly identify the two, but he
is very near to it. He does suggest that in one sense at least the
vor|Tos Koaiios may be identified with the Son. This world is a KOCTHOS
by virtue of the Aoyos and the wisdom by which its basic material is
ordered. The VOT|TOS Koajaos is the identical concept apart from matter.
Yet Christ, the first-born of all creation, is the Aoyos and the wisdom
by which all things were made. In this sense, therefore, he may be
identified with the VOTJTOS KOCTIJIOS.1 In commenting on the same text
in the De Principiis, he is careful to distinguish between the vor|Tos
Koajios of Christian belief and that of the Platonic scheme. The
latter, he declares, is an imaginary world and lacks the essential
quality of reality. The world, which is Christ's true home, cannot
be a purely phenomenological one, dependent for its existence on
human thought. But beyond that it is neither possible nor desirable
to speak with any definiteness. Origen's own conjecture on this
occasion is that while of infinitely superior quality it should be
conceived as contained within the limits of this world. His difficulty
appears to be that despite his insistence on the non-physical nature
of this other world, he still wishes to give it some spatial reference
so as to make clear that it is not purely of an imaginary character.2
Important though this contrast is, it is not the one which is
uppermost in the mind of Origen as he approaches the great majority
of the gospel references to KOCJIJIOS. There is a second contrast between
the meaning of the word as the whole frame of heaven and earth on
the one hand and the inhabited earth on the other. This second
sense, he declares, is especially characteristic of Johannine usage.3
Elsewhere, in listing examples of this second use, he draws almost
all his considerable series of examples from St John's Gospel and
particularly from the seventeenth chapter. Some of these references
are interpreted of the physical world itself and others of the men, or
even of the sinful men, who live in it; in one case, he even suggests
that 'the powers' specially linked with the inhabited world ought
possibly to be included in the meaning of the phrase. These, however,
1 2
O. 19, 20-2. De Principiis, 2, 3, 6.
3
Con. Cel. 6, 59. Cf. the definition of KoajJios in O . 2, 29 as 6 irepiyEios TOTTOS
IvOa eiaiv oi dvOpcoiroi.
77
are not regarded as different usages, but as all being illustrations of

the one meaning—the inhabited world as distinct from the whole
frame of heaven and earth.1
Theodore's commentary contains no particular discussion of the
term. In commenting on John iii. 31 he asserts that the words ' from
above' and 'from heaven' are not to be taken as literal statements
about places but as descriptions of the eminence of Christ's nature.2
In general he interprets the distinction between being of the world
and not of the world in straightforward Christian terms of that
spiritual rebirth, whereby men are translated from being members
of Adam into members of Christ.3
Cyril has one important discussion of the issue in his commentary
on John viii. 23, the same verse which had attracted the main
surviving discussion in Origen's commentary. His conclusion is
radically different from that of his Alexandrian predecessor. The
phrases 'below' and 'of this world' are identical in meaning, as are
also the contrasted pair—'above' and 'not of this world'. The
contrast is not one of place, but expresses the complete contrast
between the divine nature and derivative being (TOC yevr|T&). But
Cyril has then to meet an objection. The phrase ' I am not of this
world' is likely to suggest to 'the enemy of the truth' (as indeed
it had to Origen) that there is another world, to wit the Koaôs
VOT|T6S, from which Christ can be said to be. But this Cyril is not
prepared to allow at any price. To say that Christ is from any sort
of KOCTHOS, however exalted, is to place him on the wrong side of the
great divide between the divine and the created world, and thus
undermines the heart of Christian faith. The word 'this' does not
necessarily imply a contrast with some 'other'. The contrast here is
not between two different KOCJIJIOI, but is a metaphorical description
of the difference between created and divine nature. 'The word
Koajios in this context signifies the nature of created things as a
whole.'4
1
Comm. Matt. 13, 20. Cf. also Sel. in Ps. cxviii (cxix). 161 (P.G. 12, 1624B).
2
T . 58, 29-30.
3
E.g. T. 204 (John xv. 19); T. 227 (John xvii. 16).
4
Cyr. in John viii. 23 (11, 12-18, especially 18, 4-5). Cf. also Cyr. in John iii. 31
(1, 240-6); in John xiv. 11 (11, 435, 24-436, 2). The reason for the anxiety of Cyril
on this score may be well illustrated by the use made of the notion of Christ as light
78
THE LEADING IDEAS
The difference in exegesis arises from a difference of belief about

the nature of the KOCTIJOS vor|TOs. For Cyril the only possible contrast
with the created world is the divine ouaicc itself. Thus for him the
terms 'from above' and 'not of this world' always carry with them
this full theological meaning. One example of the influence of this
upon his exegesis will suffice. When Jesus speaks to Nicodemus
of being born avcoOev, this is a reference to the fact that rebirth is
effected by the Holy Spirit and 'shows clearly that the Spirit is of the
ouaia of God and the Father'.1 This is Cyril's primary understanding
of the word, but he recognises that, in view of the involvement of
created nature as a whole in the way of sin, KOOVOS is also used in
a pejorative sense to mean the opponents of the gospel of God.2
6. JUDGMENT
The portions of the Gospel on which Origen's commentary has
come down to us do not include any of the principal passages which
deal with the theme of judgment. We have, therefore, no full
treatment of the idea in his commentary, and must rely largely upon
the fragments for our knowledge of his understanding of the term.
He recognises that judgment in the obvious sense of the word
was not the primary purpose of Christ's coming. His primary
purpose was the salvation of the world. The work of judgment can
be explained in two ways. It may be understood as a self-imposed
judgment, which follows automatically upon failure to believe, and
which is in that sense a result of Christ's coming. But Origen gives
of the world by Asterius, who had written ' The Son is the first of derivative beings
(TCOV yevnTCOv), and is one of the intellectual natures (TCOV VOT|TCOV cpucrecov); and as
the sun is one of the objects of vision, but also gives light to all the world by the
decree of its maker, so the Son is one of the vor|Tol cpuaeis, but also Himself gives
light to all those in the VOT|T6S Koajios' (Athanasius, De Synodis, 19: printed as
Fragment 3 of Asterius in G. Bardy, Recherches sur St Lucien d'Antioche et son £cole,
P- 343)-
1
Cyr. in John iii. 3 (1, 217). Origen points out the two different possible meanings
of the word. He himself appears to prefer the sense * from above' in that this meaning
is clearly the right one elsewhere in the Gospel (O. Frag. 35; 0.19, 21). Chrysostom
states that opinion was divided on the issue in his day (Chr. 24, 2). Cf. Westcott,
Additional Note on John iii. 3 (vol. 1, p. 136).
3
Cyr. in John xvii. 25 (m, 11, 1-2).
79
an alternative explanation, which derives more from his own peculiar

views on the nature of God's punitive activity than from the evidence
of the Gospel itself. He suggests that the work of judgment may
be God's preliminary activity, whose sole purpose, as in the case of
the infliction of pain by the doctor, is to make possible the sub-
sequent saving activity.1
Origen sees clearly that the idea of judgment is closely related to
the cross. The emphatic 'now' of the moment of judgment in
John xii. 31 refers to the immediate proximity of the passion. He
appears to give three closely allied explanations of this link. First,
the cross is the crucial factor in determining the judgment of every
living being. Secondly, it is the occasion of the overcoming of
the principalities and powers, and even of the destruction of their
leader. Thirdly, it is the cross which cleanses the elect and thereby
prepares them for their destined role as judges of the world.2
It is Theodore who points with the greatest clarity to the surface
contradiction to be found within the Gospel itself on the subject of
judgment and its relation to the purpose of Christ's coming. He
sets out his explanation also with great clarity; the one set of
sayings are concerned with the purpose, the other with the result
of his coming.3
The same point is made by Cyril,4 but both he and Theodore
find it difficult to do full justice to the idea of the judgment as a
present fact. If the unbeliever is condemned already, it is because
his refusal of the offered way of salvation is a kind of advance vote
against himself as deserving punishment.^ If Jesus says that he
judges no man, it is because he is reserving his activity as judge to
another occasion.6 Most striking of all, the insistence that now is
the moment of the world's judgment seems to Cyril to be clearly
1
O. Frag. 41 (John iii. 18-19; *x* 39)* For the first interpretation see Philocalia,
27, 10; for the second see Con. Cel. 7. 39. Another excellent early exposition of this
theme along the lines of the first and more natural interpretation is to be found in
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 27, 2 (vol. 11, p. 399) (John iii. 18 and 21).
2
O. Frag. 89 and 90.
3
T. 138, 36-139, 2 (John ix. 39; iii. 17); T. 179, 8-29 (John xii. 47; v. 22; ix. 39).
4
Cyr. in John ix. 39 (11, 204, 1-6).
5 Cyr. in John iii. 18 (1, 230, 3—6).
6
Cyr. in John viii. 15 (1, 720, 13-15).
80
THE LEADING IDEAS
false. It is only Satan who is being judged, in the sense of being

condemned, now; the present judgment of the world is not a con-
demnation at all but a vindication for the wrong done to it by
Satan in the past.1
The two writers who do most justice to the concept of judgment
as a present fact in their interpretation of the Gospel are Chrysostom
and Didymus, though even so neither of them is entirely at home with
the idea. Chrysostom gives two alternative interpretations of the
idea. We may think of the sentence having been passed in advance,
while the actual punishment awaits Christ's future coming. This
interpretation is very close to those of Theodore and Cyril. Or
alternatively (and Chrysostom gives this alternative as his first
suggestion) we may regard unbelief as being itself the punishment,
on the ground that no punishment could be greater than the exclusion
from the light, which is already involved in unbelief.2 Didymus
appears to have accepted the idea of the present judgment of un-
believers so completely that, when the Gospel speaks later of a two-
fold resurrection to life and judgment, he insists that the resurrection
to judgment cannot refer to unbelievers, who have already been
judged, but must refer to believers who have sinned after believing.3
Augustine gives a different solution to the apparent conflict of
ideas within the Gospel on the question of judgment. There is a good
sense to the word judgment, according to which it means simply
discrimination; in this sense judgment was a part of the purpose of
Christ's coming, but it must be carefully distinguished from the
sense of punishment or condemnation, which is also present in other
statements in the Gospel.4
7. GLORY
In the course of commenting on John xiii. 31 Origen gives a full

investigation of the meaning of this term. Its normal Greek meaning
is the praise of the many, but there is also a distinct Biblical meaning
of the word which is far more important for the understanding of its
1
Cyr. in John xii. 31 (11, 322-3).
2
Chr. 28, 1 (John iii. 18).
3
Didymus in John v. 29 {P.G. 39, 1645 c); in Ps. i. 5 (P.G. 39, II6OB).
4
Tract. Joh. 22, 5; 44, 17 (John ix. 39).
6 8l WSG
significance in the Gospel. In the Bible the word is frequently-

associated with a physical brightness, whose deeper meaning is
that knowledge or vision of God which transforms man into the
likeness of God.1 This provides the key to an understanding of
the difficult conception of the mutual glorifying of the Father and
the Son. Origen develops four distinguishable ideas:
(a) The glorification of the Son. The Son is glorified by the
mere fact of his perfect knowledge of the Father.
(b) The glorification of God in himself. (This idea does not
receive direct expression in the Gospel, but is the implied contrast to
God's glorification in the Son.) This refers to something utterly
beyond the range with which human language is equipped to deal.
It refers to the inexpressible joy of God's perfect self-knowledge
and self-contemplation.
(c) The glorification of God in the Son. This is the fruit of the
incarnation. Jesus in his sinless perfection is the perfect image of
God, and reveals him to men. Therefore those who truly know or
see Jesus are being enabled to know or see God. Thus, in the deep
Biblical sense of the word, God is glorified in the world in Jesus.
(d) The glorification of the Son in God. As the Son has glorified
God, God repays him with an even greater kind of glory—the glory
that he has in himself, which must of necessity be greater, as the
Father is greater than the Son. Here again we are being taken up
into a realm where human language is hopelessly inadequate. This
glory is spoken of in the Gospel in the future tense (John xiii. 32).*
Origen thus believes that the Gospel speaks of two kinds of glory
in relation to the Son. Hefindsthis clearly expressed in John xii. 28.3
There is a * humble glory' which is to be seen even in Christ's death
as John xiii. 31 and xvii. 1 emphatically show.4 The term * glory' is
applied to the cross because of its central place in achieving the glory
of man's salvation.5 In addition there is a 'glorious glory' which is
added to the other at the resurrection.6 This final glory is, as we
have seen, one which in Origen's estimation far outpasses the power
1
O. 32, 26-7. * O. 32, 28-9.
3
Sel. in Ps. xx (xxi). 6 (P.G. 12, 1249 c).
4
Ex. Horn. 6, 1; O. 32, 25.
5
In Can. Can. bk. 3 (P.G. 13, 163 D: G.C.S. ed. Baehrens, p. 196).
6
Ex. Horn. 6, 1; Sel. in Ps. xx (xxi). 6 {P.G. 12, 1249 c).
82
THE LEADING IDEAS
of human telling. In so far as he does attempt any analysis of it, he

claims that it must refer to the human element in Jesus, which after
its utter obedience to the point of death is glorified in God by the
final completion of its identification with the Logos. His exegetical
ground for such an interpretation lies in the fact that according to
John xiii. 31 this glorification is specifically predicated of the Son
of Man.1
For Theodore the glorifying of Jesus is centred in his resurrection
and ascension. It consists in the removal of the limitation of his
human life, and the recognition by mankind of his true nature, so
that he is no longer judged only by appearance as no more than an
example of suffering humanity. As with Origen the use of the title
'Son of Man5 in this context suggests that for the human element
in Jesus the universal adoration is newly attained through the
process of resurrection and ascension.2 The connection between
glory and the cross is reduced almost to a minimum. The reference
of John xiii. 31 to the cross is admitted but the element of glory is
found only in the attendant portents.3 In John xvii. 1 a rather closer
link between the two is recognised. The prayer that the Father will
glorify the Son is a prayer that, at the time of his passion, God will
make plain to all 'through what will happen on the cross' both the
greatness of his true honour and the voluntary nature of his death.
But even here the similarity of the language used to that used in the
comment on John xiii. 31 suggests that the glory is really associated
with the attendant circumstances rather than with the cross itself.4
For Cyril the essence of Christ's glory is the fact of his being
ojioouaios with the Father.5 As this is an eternal truth, the main
problem for him is the implication of the Gospel that there are
special moments of glorification and any enhancement of God's
glory. The problem is met by insisting that both the newness and
the 'nowness' of glorification refer to the effective revelation of that
glory to mankind.6 It is primarily in this sense that the cross may be
1
O. 32, 25.
2
T. 171 (John xii. 23); T. 222, 1-20 (John xvii. 5). Cf. Chr. 80, 2.
3 4
T. 186-7 (cf. p. 39 above). T. 220, 2-12.
5
Cyr. in John xvii. 1 (11. 661, 23-662, 7).
6
John xvii. 5 remains a difficult verse for Cyril and he has to admit that the in-
carnation, while not diminishing the Son's divine glory, did involve the assumption
83 6-2
said to be the glory. The cross (or rather the cross and resurrection
together, for Cyril sees them essentially as one action) are the
starting-point of the true glorification of God throughout the
world.1 In one passage, however, Cyril does suggest an even closer
link between the glory and the cross; by this interpretation the
cross is the glory of God because it shows the extent of Christ's
voluntary suffering for others, and in that very fact shows forth the
true character of God.2
Chrysostom is the writer who most clearly emphasises the Gospel's
direct identification of the cross itself as glory. It is true that, like
Theodore, he finds a reference in John xiii. 31 to the accompanying
portents.3 It is true also that, like Cyril, he recognises the existence
of a greater glory which is natural to Christ's heavenly existence.4
Yet he insists frequently and firmly that, within the sphere of earth,
the cross for all its seeming shame is in reality the glory. It deserves
that title because it is not only an act of love, but an act of death-
destroying power.5
8. KNOWLEDGE
For Origen, as we have just seen, the idea of glory was closely bound
up with the idea of the knowledge of God. And just as he insists on
the importance of the Biblical rather than the ordinary Greek
meaning of the word glory, so also in the case of knowledge there
is a distinctive Biblical usage. The fact that Jesus can speak of know-
ing those whom he has chosen shows that the word is being used
not with its ordinary meaning but with its special Biblical force.6
Failure to recognise this is one reason for the misinterpretation of
Scripture by the heretics. Origen, therefore, in commenting on
of an &8O£6TOCTOV crcouoc (Cyr. in John xvii. 5; 11, 677, 3-8). For the insistence that
the glorifying of the Son refers entirely to human estimation, cf. Apollinarius in
John xii. 28 (Corderius, p. 314); Didymus in John xvii. 2 (P.G. 39, 1653B).
1
Cyr. in John. xii. 23 (11, 311, 13-24); in John xii. 28 (11, 319, 13-15); in John xii.
16 (11, 306-7).
2
Cyr. in John xiii. 31 (11, 378-9). Cf. Cyril's penetrating comment on John iii. 16
that unless the Son is fully of the essence of the Father, then the giving of the Son
for us does not display any remarkable love on the part of the Father (1, 227, 6-228, 2).
3 4
Chr. 72, 2. Chr. 80, 2 (John xvii. 4).
5 Chr. 12, 3 (John i. 14); 51, 2 (John vii. 39); 77, 4.
6
O. 32, 14 (John xiii. 18).
84
THE LEADING IDEAS
John viii. 19 gives a careful account of the Biblical meaning of the

term. Four points emerge from his analysis:
(a) The scriptural usage of the term has a specifically moral
connotation. In the Old Testament, it is a regular description of
the sinner that he does not know the Lord.
(b) The word is not identical in meaning with belief, but repre-
sents a distinct and more advanced stage.1
(c) Knowledge is used in the Old Testament of sexual inter-
course and implies the closest possible kind of union with the object
of knowledge. Knowledge of God, therefore, implies a participation
in his divinity.
(d) Knowledge of God as Father is distinct from knowledge of
him simply as God. This is implied by the words of Jesus to Mary
Magdalene in John xx. 17. It is also the germ of truth which gives
rise to the heretical error of distinguishing between the Father and
the Creator. It was the same God whom the men of the Old Testa-
ment dispensation knew, but they did not know him as Father. The
only possible exception to this statement would be any pre-incarnate
visitation (VOTITT] einSriuia) of Christ to them, which could reveal
God as Father, but the exception may be ignored as any such
revelation would have remained unproclaimed and unrecorded.2
Theodore gives no special attention to the idea. He recognises
that in John x. 14-15 the word must bear the meaning of intimate
relationship,3 but he does not carry this meaning over into other
occurrences of the word in the Gospel and in general his interpreta-
tion of the term remains at the intellectualist level. The most notable
example of this is his interpretation of John xvii. 3 as teaching that
eternal life will be awarded on the basis of an accurate and un-
erring knowledge of the divine nature.4
Cyril is far more alive to the depth of meaning implicit in the
term. Clearly the word at its lowest level is intended to imply more
than a mere knowledge of the existence of God, but carries with it also
1
This point is developed in the next section on Faith—see p. 87 below. Augustine
claims that knowledge is used in two different senses in the Gospel. In one (which
is eschatological in reference) it is a stage beyond faith (e.g. John xiv. 20; xvii. 23);
in the other it is identical with faith (e.g. John xvii. 8). (Augustine, Tract. Joh. 75, 4;
110,4.)
2 3 4
O. 19, 3-5. T. 145, i-2. T. 220-1.
85
the idea of the adoption of an attitude of mind appropriate to that

knowledge. This meaning would also serve when Jesus goes on
to speak of his own knowledge of the Father, if he is here speaking
in his human capacity. But Cyril suspects that the idea may go
deeper and imply a unique knowledge of God's essence, which could
only conceivably be asserted of the Son, because he alone (with the
Spirit) is of the Father's essence and therefore quite literally 'knows'
it from firsthand experience.1
The main difficulty for Cyril about this interpretation is that there
are other passages of the Gospel which are clearly of a similar
character and yet where this interpretation will not serve. John x.
14-15 speaks in similar vein of the Son's knowledge of the Father,
and goes on to assert that this same knowledge can be mediated to
us. This knowledge therefore cannot be an understanding of the
essential nature of God. Cyril therefore, like Theodore, here defines
knowledge as intimate relationship, and states that this is in accord
with general Biblical usage. This intimate relationship is so close
that when mediated to us it constitutes us partakers of the divine
nature.2
Yet another important idea enters into his discussion of the term
in John xvii. 3. If the word, he says, carried no more meaning than
its everyday intellectualist sense, the definition of 'eternal life' as
being the knowledge of God and of Christ would be plainly false.
The saying is only true because the word 'knowledge' has a greater
existential depth. But here that greater depth is defined as the
' inclusion in itself of the whole power of the mystery and a participa-
tion in the mystic blessing, whereby we are united to the living and
life-giving word'. Here, therefore, it is clearly implied that the
word has a specifically sacramental significance.3
1
Cyr. in John viii. 55 (11, 124-9). The words on which Cyril is commenting are
* I know Him and keep His word'. He supports his interpretation of the first half of
the phrase by interpreting Aoyos in the second half as equivalent to opos, and trans-
lating it as * I contain within myself the limit of his essence \
2
Cyr. in John x. 14-15 (11, 230, 1-233, 3)-
3
Cyr. in John xvii. 3 (n, 668, 21-669, 27).
86
THE LEADING IDEAS
9. FAITH
Origen returns at frequent intervals to a consideration of the funda-
mental concept of faith. Two main points receive emphasis in his
treatment of it. The first (which we have already noticed) is the
inferiority of faith to knowledge. The second is the existence of
differing grades within the concept of faith itself.
The inferiority of faith to knowledge is supported by a variety
of Biblical evidence. His support for this distinction within the
Johannine record is John viii. 31, 32, where it is said to those who
believe Jesus that if they abide in his word, then they shall know
the truth.1 The same point is repeated in a fragment on John xii. 44,
when the superiority not only of the knowledge of God but also
of the vision of God is asserted.2 Other passages suggest that it is
possible to regard the concept of hearing the words of God as a kind
of middle term between faith and knowledge. Those who only
believe remain at the stage of being the servants of God, and include
the yuxtKoi who may later fall away. Those who hear the words of
God are those who have a real understanding and clear-sighted grasp
of the divine message. They are described in the Gospel as being
' of God', and enjoy the status of children. Knowledge, on the other
hand, implies a measure of assent that goes beyond the level simply
of the understanding.3 It would be a mistake, however, to regard
this as afixedhierarchical scheme. Origen's thought is fluid, and he
makes such distinctions as seem necessary for the elucidation of the
particular text which he is being called upon to interpret. What
however is quite clear is that faith is the term used to represent the
lowest conceivable level of positive response to God or to Christ.
Three passages of the Gospel provide Origen with firm ground
for the drawing of distinctions within the concept of faith itself.
(a) John ii. 23-4. Here the Evangelist declares that 'many
believed on His name beholding His signs which He did, but Jesus
did not trust Himself unto them'. Origen argues that this belief on
1
0.19, 3. Cf. also Origen, Frag, in Ps. iv. 4 (Pitra, Analecta Sacra, vol. 11, p. 453);
in Ps. cxviii (cxix). 75 (ibid, vol. in, p. 280).
* O. Frag. 93.
3
O. 20, 33 (John viii. 47); O. 20, 20 (John viii. 43).
87
the name of Jesus must be inferior to that full belief in his person
of which it is said that 'He that believeth on Him is not judged'.
After all the person himself is obviously greater than his name.
Those who believe on the name are however to be numbered among
the saved and will find their place in one of the many mansions in
the Kingdom of Heaven.1 The distinction appears to be a valid
deduction from the passage, although elsewhere the Evangelist uses
faith in the name of Jesus to express the full range of faith, thus
invalidating the detail of Origen's exegesis.2 In a fragment dealing
with the same passage, Origen writes: 'They believed not on Him,
but on His name. They had no firm or complete knowledge.'3 This
statement appears to equate the higher sense of faith with knowledge,
and thus renders his first distinction between faith and knowledge
logically unnecessary.
(b) John viii. 31 and 45. John viii. 31 is the one text which
provided Origen with an exegetical ground in the Gospel itself for
his distinction between faith and knowledge; as he also uses it for
drawing a distinction between faith and faith, we have further evi-
dence that it is the lower kind of faith that is to be distinguished from
knowledge. The distinction between faith and faith here arises from
the fact that, in the course of conversation with people who are
described as 'those Jews which had believed Him', Jesus says
* Because I say the truth, ye believe me not'. Origen therefore asserts
that we are forced to choose between admitting that the Evangelist
has overlooked a gross contradiction on the one hand and allowing
that there are differences of faith, even though the identical phrase is
used, on the other. Origen declares that it is clearly possible to
believe in one respect and not in another. We might believe in Jesus
as being crucified under Pontius Pilate, but not as being born of the
Virgin Mary; we might believe in him as a worker of miracles, but
not as Son of the Creator of heaven and earth. Similarly we might
believe in God as the Father of Jesus Christ, but not as the Creator of
all that is or vice versa. Here he suggests that the relevant distinction
1
0.10, 44.
a
John i. 12; iii. 18. Origen does, however, apply his principle to the exegesis
of John i. 12. Belief in the name gives the EÔUCTIOC or 5uvanis to become children of
God; further progress may lead to belief in him which gives the ivepysioc to become
3
children of God (O. Frag. 7). Cf. also O. 20, 33. O. Frag. 33.
88
THE LEADING IDEAS
is between faith in Jesus as a worker of visible miracles and disbelief

in him as a purveyor of deeper truth.1
Elsewhere he gives a comparable though different analysis of
faith in Christ. Christ is righteousness, wisdom, Logos, peace, the
power of God, hope and strength. Faith in him therefore involves
a complete disassociation from the opposites of these various attri-
butes. This analysis is not in fact used to illustrate the possibility
of degrees of faith (though clearly it might well have been so used),
but to show how faith in Christ is a logical and not a mere arbitrary
requirement for salvation from the death of sin.2
(c) Johnxiii. 19. Here, at the very end of his ministry, Jesus says
to his disciples that he has warned them of what will happen so that,
'when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He'. Yet it seems
impossible to assert that the disciples at this point had no faith in
Jesus. Clearly faith, like any other virtue, is a continuously develop-
ing thing. By a permissible but not strictly accurate use of language,
we employ the name of the virtue without qualification to describe
its presence even in a still incomplete state.3 Elsewhere the Gospel
speaks of the disciples believing the Scripture and the word of Jesus
after his resurrection. This serves to show that completeness of faith
will be attained only at the final resurrection of the whole body of
Christ. Here once again faith is treated on an exact parallel with
knowledge; that also is at present partial and awaits a future
perfection.4
Theodore also finds evidence in the Gospel that the idea of'faith'
is used to represent differing degrees of faith. The author, he says,
' frequently uses faith in place of confirmation'.5 This appears most
1
O. 20, 30 (cf. also O. 32, 16).
2
O. 19, 23 (John viii. 24). Elsewhere this same analysis is applied to the thought
of St Paul to suggest that the ideas of being in Christ and of Christ indwelling the
believer are ones which are capable only of a gradual fulfilment, and which may
therefore be true in varying degrees {Comm. Rom. 6. 11; De Princtpiisy 4, 4, 2).
For Origen's insistence on the logical necessity of faith cf. his treatment of John viii.
51, where it is stated that if a man keeps Christ's word, he will never see death.
Christ's word is the pre-existent Logos, in which was life. Keeping Christ's word
therefore logically excludes the presence of death (O. 20, 39).
3 4
O. 32, 15. O. 10, 43 (John ii. 22). Cf. also O. 10, 37.
5
T. 41, 22-3. The same point is made by Origen in commenting on the same
text (O. Frag. 30).
clearly in cases where it is stated that the purpose or result of

Christ's action was the faith of the disciples, when in fact they already
had some measure of faith.1 The nobleman passes through a pre-
liminary stage of the trusting acceptance of Christ's word on the
road to a full faith.2 The reserve of Jesus towards those who are
said to have believed on his name can only be explained on the
ground that their faith consisted merely of admiration for him as
a wonder-worker, and did not amount to accepting him as an un-
doubted teacher of the truth, which is the measure of true faith.3
Cyril, however, makes little use of the idea of partial faith. The
reserve that Christ shows in some instances towards those who have
faith in him is not because their faith is partial, but because a new-
found faith has always an element of instability about it. The faith
of those described in John ii. 23 was a full faith in his essential
divinity, and the reserve of Jesus is a valuable warning to the ecclesi-
astical administrator of the danger of promoting neophytes too
rapidly.4
As Cyril's comment on John ii. 23 suggests, for him the essence
of faith is the recognition of Christ's substantial divinity. This
interpretation of faith is in line with Cyril's understanding of the
purpose of the Gospel as a whole, and has a firm exegetical basis in
the text of the Gospel itself. It is the faith to which Thomas
ultimately attains, and it is the reason which enables Jesus to equate
faith in himself with faith in the Father who sent him.5 It is also
regularly understood to be the implicit meaning of the concept of
faith, even though it may not be absolutely demanded by the
immediate context.6
1
T. 41, 20-3 (John ii. n ) ; T. 158, 26-33 ( J o n n x*- I5)«
2
T. 68-9 (John iv. 46-53).
3
T. 45, 19-29 (John ii. 23-4). Theodore regards Nicodemus as an example of
this kind of faith, and Jesus refuses to trust himself to such people. The story of
iii thus illustrates the principle asserted at the end of ii (T. 46, 1-8).
4
Cyr. in John ii. 23—4 (1, 213—14).
5
Cyr. in John xx. 28 (in, 151, 11-152, 12); in John xii. 44 (11, 329-30).
6
E.g. Cyr. in John viii. 24 (11, 19, 25-20, 1); in John viii. 45 (11, 101, 23-30);
in John xiv. 1 (11, 400-2). It is interesting to note that, although it would admirably
have suited his purpose, Cyril does not interpret the words * Unless ye believe that
I am* in John viii. 24 as involving a claim to the divine name of Exod. iii. 14, but
simply as the assertion of fulfilling in his person a variety of Old Testament prophecies.
90
THE LEADING IDEAS
One other passage included in Pusey's edition of Cyril's com-
mentary draws a distinction between two kinds of faith. The primary
sense is the 'dogmatic' and involves the assent of the soul; it is
necessary for salvation and is the normal meaning of the word in the
Gospel. The second is a particular gift, of which St Paul speaks in
his epistles, and which makes possible the working of super-human
achievements. This is the faith which is demanded as Martha's part
in bringing about the raising of Lazarus. The attribution of the
passage is, however, doubtful and in view of the uncharacteristic
nature of its contents it is unlikely that it is a genuine part of the
commentary.1
IO. VISION OF GOD
The vision of God clearly involves a figurative use of the notion of
seeing. The distinction between the literal and the metaphorical
meanings is clearly enunciated by Origen. There are two senses of
the word—the OUO-0TITIK6S and the VOT|TIK6S—the first of which is
applicable to bodily substances, the second to the non-physical
realm.2 The proper sense of the word refers to the illumination of
the eyes of the mind or of the soul.3 This deeper sense of the word,
as we have already seen, is, like the knowledge of God, one with
a fuller content than the range of faith.4 The two concepts of know-
ledge and vision are exact equivalents for Origen, although the
term which he normally uses to express the idea of vision in less
metaphorical language is neither siSsvai nor yivcoaKeiv but voeiv.5
Celsus regards this double sense to the concept of seeing as
something of Greek origin, but Origen declares that it is a funda-
mental Biblical notion and has its roots in Old Testament usage.6
1
Cyr. in John xi. 40 (11, 284, 15-285, 14).
3
O. Frag. 13 (John i. 18).
3
O. Frag. 73 (John ix. 37; xiv. 9).
4
O. Frag. 93 (John xii. 45; xiv. 9); O. 13, 53 (John iv. 42).
5
O. 19, 6 (John viii. 19; xiv. 9); O. 6, 4 (John xiv. 9). Origen, however, is not
altogether happy that the idea of vision is entirely free of material associations. He
insists that it is the less material word * knowledge' which is the most characteristi-
cally Biblical word for describing the interrelations of the Trinity (De Pri/idpus,
i, 1, 8; 2, 4, 3).
6
Con. CeL 7, 39. With the judgment of Celsus cf. Dodd, p. 167, * This identification
of knowing with seeing is. . .characteristically Greek'.
91
Both the literal and the metaphorical uses are to be found in the
Gospel, and the sense may require moving from one to the other
within a single saying.1
In the literal physical sense one cannot see God at all, and this is
not a mere empirical truth, but follows logically from the fact of
God's incorporeal nature.2 Men could and did see Christ in the
literal sense without thereby doing so in % deeper sense.3 In the
case of the healing of the man born blind, however, there is a double
gift both of physical and of spiritual vision.4
To see Christ in this deeper sense is to see or to know God,
because Christ is the image of God.5 In two passages this mediating
role of the vision of Christ is subjected to a more detailed analysis.
In the first, Christ's role as the image is explained in terms of
identity of will, though this does not detract from the assertion that
there is a divinity in Christ, which is the image of the ultimate
6
(&ATI0IV6S) divinity. The analysis in the second passage is similar to
that given of faith in commenting upon John viii. 24.? Christ is
Logos, wisdom and truth. The vision of these things is the essential
preliminary to the actual vision of the oucrioc of God or of the power
or nature of God which goes beyond classification as ouaia. Thus it
must logically be Christ who is the way to the vision of God and
never the other way round.8
As long as we remain within this temporal finite existence, this
vision of God remains imperfect. Origen suggests that the TTCOTTOTS
in John i. 18 is to be interpreted as meaning that no one sees God
as long as his mind remains embroiled in this material life.9 Else-
where he suggests that in the final consummation the image will
1
E.g. Origen's peculiar views about judgment require him to interpret John ix. 39
(' For judgment came I into the world, that those who do not see may see and that
those who see may become blind') as referring to the eyes of the soul in its first clause
and to the eyes of the senses in its second {Con. Cel. 7, 39). Both Theodore and Cyril,
approaching the text without Origen's presuppositions about judgment, are able
to give a more satisfactory exegesis which recognises a double meaning throughout
rather than an alternation of meanings (T. 139, 7-13; Cyr. in John ix. 39; 11, 203-5).
2 3
O. Frag. 13 (John i. 18). O. Frag. 73; Con. Cel. 7, 43.
4 5
O. Frag. 73 (John ix. 38). Con. Cel. 7, 43; 8, 12 (John xiv. 9).
6
O. 13, 36 (John iv. 34; v. 19-20; xii. 45).
7
Cf. p. 89 above.
8 9
O. 19, 6 (John viii. 19; xiv. 9). O. Frag. 13.
92
THE LEADING IDEAS
be no longer needed; then there will be open to man the same

direct vision of the Father which is already enjoyed by the Son.1
Theodore gives no special treatment of the theme. Cyril treats
it in a way closely parallel to his treatment of the idea of knowledge.
The Son's vision of the Father is something which human language
cannot possibly describe, but it is a knowledge of the divine nature,
which is open to the Son only because of that interpenetration of
essence which exists between them.2 He can mediate to us the vision
of God, because he is the image of God and fully of his essence.3
The vision that is mediated to us is, however, less direct or complete
than that enjoyed by the Son—it is the most complete conceivable
for man, but it remains of his glory rather than of his essence.4
At one point he suggests a distinction between the ideas of know-
ledge and of vision, but it is related to their source rather than to
their essential character. The source of the one is to be found in the
words of Christ, the source of the other in his works. But both have
led to a common goal, the recognition of the Son's divinity.5
I I . LOGOS
In deference to Origen's methodological principle, we come last to
the term with which the Gospel begins—Logos, word or reason.
The advantage of this procedure, according to Origen, is that we
are then less likely to make the mistake of treating it as if it were
a literal non-figurative title.6 We need, he says, to treat it strictly on
the analogy of the other titles, such as light and life. Christ is called
1
O. 20, 7 (John viii. 38).
2
Cyr. in John i. 18 (1, 155, 26-156, 4); in John vi. 46 (1, 510-12); in John viii. 38
(11, 75, 15-18).
3
Cyr. in John v. 37 (1, 383, 12—19); in John xiv. 7 (11, 412, 14—413, 17); in John
xiv. 11 (11, 437, 9-16; 455, 11-25); in John xvii. 6-8 (11, 682, 29-683, 2).
4
Cyr. in John xiii. 23 (11, 366, 17—367, 12).
5 Cyr. in John xiv. 7 (11, 416, 15—30).
6
O. 1, 21. Hippolytus (Con. Noet. 15) gives evidence of a contemporary tendency
in exegesis diametrically opposed to that here attacked by Origen. He quotes a hypo-
thetical objector saying: 'You are importing an idea which is strange to me in calling
the Logos Son. John indeed speaks of the Logos, but he is merely allegorising.'
Thus while Origen opposes those who took the term so literally as to regard it as
a more or less literal description of the Son, Hippolytus opposes those who took it so
figuratively as to deny its applicability as a title to the Son at all.
93
light and life because he gives light and life to men. Similarly he is
called Aoyos because he makes men Aoy IKOS, or in other words because
he is the principle of rationality in men. In fact there are claims
made by Jesus within the body of the Gospel which are only true
on this understanding of his person.1 Thus Origen's primary under-
standing of the word is in terms of reason, but he also acknowledges
its meaning as word. As in human experience a word is the expres-
sion of the hidden content of the mind, so Christ is the perfect
revelation of the Father.2
He does not distinguish it from Christ's other titles as one more
properly descriptive of his own intrinsic nature. He does draw
a distinction between those titles which would have been true of
Christ even if man had never sinned, and those which he has come
to possess on account of human sin. But this is a distinction between
revelatory and redemptive titles rather than between intrinsic and
revelatory ones. And Logos does not stand alone in the more
permanent class; wisdom, truth and life fall within the same category.3
Origen's interpretation of the term, therefore, is essentially
revelatory. He pours scorn on any purely literal understanding of
the concept as if the Logos were a syllabic utterance of the Father
without substantial existence of its own, and he regards that as
a sufficient safeguard against the drawing of any derogatory con-
clusions about the nature of the Son from the title.4 But later ortho-
doxy was not satisfied with such safeguards. Theodore's comments
provide an illuminating contrast to those of Origen.
Theodore is a writer with whom we might expect to find the
revelatory significance of the term well to the fore, but in fact he
most studiously avoids it. He disobeys the injunction of Origen in
that this is the one term in the Gospel to which he devotes any
thorough or extended investigation. None the less he remains fully
aware of the analogical character of the title. But its significance is
emphatically not revelatory. If we say that the Son is called Logos
1
O. i, 37. Origen's primary examples of this are John xv. 22 and John x. 8 (for
the latter, see p. 102 below). It might also be added that this understanding of the
idea of Logos is also essential to a full appreciation of the irony of some of the sayings
in the main body of the Gospel—cf. Theodore of Heraclea in John vii. 15 (Corderius,
p. 207).
3 4
* O. 1, 38. O. 1, 20. O. 1, 24.
94
THE LEADING IDEAS
because he is the perfect expression in word and act of the will of

God, such an interpretation fails to differentiate him in any way from
the angels. The Evangelist has been careful to call him Logos
absolutely and without such qualification as 'word of God', or
' word of the Lord'; those phrases have a lesser revelatory meaning as
terms to describe the Kfjpuyjjia. ' Word5 is used in two ways—either
of the word spoken or of the word in the mind, which is distinguish-
able from the mind though inseparable from it. It is this second
concept which lies behind the use of the term Logos, and its purpose
is to express the timeless relation of unity between the Father and
the Son.1 The sounder exegetical approach of Origen had to give
way before the requirements of a more developed doctrinal approach.
Between the two stand the doctrinal controversies of the fourth
century.2
1
T. n-14.
2
For the use of the text John i. 1, and discussions of the significance of the concept
of the Logos in the controversies of the fourth century, see G. Bardy, Recherches sur
Saint Lucien d'Antioche et son Ecole, pp. 288—92.
95
CHAPTER VI
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND

THE GNOSTICS
Our earliest commentary on the Gospel comes, as we have seen,
from the pen of Heracleon, a Valentinian Gnostic. This is no
accident. At first the Gospel appears to have received a wider
circulation amongst the Gnostics than amongst the orthodox.1
Before long, however, despite slight misgivings it was receiving
an equally general acceptance among the orthodox as the final strand
of the fourfold Gospel. It was, therefore, a natural battle ground for
the struggle between Gnosticism and orthodoxy. Both sides
accepted its authority, but interpreted it differently. An essential
element, therefore, in the struggle with Gnosticism was the question
of the right exegesis of the Gospel.2
In this struggle Irenaeus was the principal contestant on the side
of orthodoxy. A good deal of so-called Gnostic exegesis could be
dismissed with comparative ease as not really exegesis at all.
Irenaeus recounts Ptolemaeus' interpretation of the prologue as
demonstrating the first Ogdoad in the Valentinian system—Pater,
Charis, Monogenes, and Aletheia, Logos, Zoe, Anthropos and
Ecclesia. To this Irenaeus can reply quite simply that if it were the
author's intention to indicate this Ogdoad, he has set about it in
a very surprising manner. The terms do not appear in anything like
the order that they are supposed to hold in the Valentinian system,
and in fact one of them, Ecclesia, does not figure in the passage at all.
Moreover the interpretation appears to involve giving the word
'Logos' in y. i a different reference from that given to the same
word in v. 14.3 In fact, the interpretation can be summarily dismissed
1
J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, pp. 47-66.
2
W. von Loewenich, Das Johannes—Verstdndnis im ^weiten Jahrhundert, p. 4.
3
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1, 9, 1-2 (vol. 1, pp. 80-3); cf. Loewenich, op. cit. p. 78.
This second point is not quite so impossible exegetically as the first. The idea of the
two 'Logoi' seems to have had fairly wide currency in the second century (see
96
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE GNOSTICS
as not being an example of exegesis at all, but rather of eisegesis.

As Loewenich suggests, Ptolemaeus has probably not derived his
Ogdoad from the prologue at all in the first instance, but merely
made some minor modifications to an already existing Ogdoad so as
to bring it more or less into line with the language of the prologue.1
But not all Gnostic exegesis of the Gospel could be dismissed so
lightly. It was not sheer chance which prompted the early popularity
of the Gospel in Gnostic circles, nor was it sheer irrationality which
moved the Alogoi to attribute its authorship to Cerinthus. There is
a certain affinity between the thought of the Gospel and that of
Gnosticism, which lends some plausibility to a Gnostic interpreta-
tion of it. The newly published' Gospel of Truth' may be cited by way
of example as an early Gnostic work which appears to incorporate
amongst other features a real grasp of some of the central themes
of the Gospel.2 For the author the essence of sin is ignorance of the
Father;3 the darkness of this ignorance is enlightened by Jesus.4
This process may also be described as the Father's revealing of his
bosom, that hidden part of him which was his Son,5 or as the
appearance of the Word, not merely as a sound but as having a body.6
As the root of sin was ignorance of the Father, it is automatically
dispelled by this act of revelation.7 The same is true if we use the
imagery of light or life.8 Those in error were translated into know-
ledge; those who claimed to be wise were shown to be meaningless.9
This was the judgment which came.10 The saved become what Christ
is—* beings from on high'; 11 'they are themselves the Truth, and
the Father is in them and they are in the Father, being perfect and
R. P. Casey, * Clement and the Two Divine Logoi'; Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto,
19, 4). Excerpta ex Theodoto, 7, 3 quotes the difference between uovoysvns in John *•
18 and <bs uovoyevris in John i. 14 as exegetical ground for this kind of distinction.
1
Loewenich, op. cit. p. 80.
2
Evangelium Veritatis, ed. M. Malinine, H. C. Puech and G. Quispel. The work
is clearly of Valentinian origin and to be dated before A.D. 180 (Introduction,
p. xii).
3
Ibid. p. 18, 8-9 (cf. John xvi. 3).
4
Ibid. p. 18, 16-17 (cf. John i. 5; viii. 12; xii. 35; xii. 46).
5
Ibid. p. 24, 9-14; 27, 7-8 (cf. John i. 18).
6 7
Ibid. p. 26, 4-8 (cf. John i. 14). Ibid. p. 24, 28-25, 3*
8 9
Ibid. p. 25, 17-19. Ibid. p. 19, 21-5.
10
Ibid. p. 25, 36 (cf. John iii. 19).
11
Ibid. p. 22, 2-3 (cf. John iii. 13; viii. 23).
7 97 WSG
inseparable from that truly good Being.'1 It is true that there are
other elements in the 'Gospel of Truth' which are far less akin to
the Fourth Gospel, but there is sufficient community of ideas
between them to suggest that one source at least of the ' Gospel of
Truth' is a serious attempt to understand the meaning of the Fourth
Gospel.
In particular there are four important respects in which the
Gnostic could find grounds within the Gospel itself appearing to
support an intepretation along lines characteristic of his own peculiar
way of thought. These four issues are of interest not only for the
immediate struggle between Gnosticism and orthodoxy around the
close of the second century, but are of permanent significance in
determining a true exegesis of the gospel.
I. THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROLOGUE
We have already seen that much Gnostic use of the prologue was
obviously invalid as exegesis. Gnostic interpreters claimed to find
their developed systems of Aeons there, when in fact they were
simply imposing their systems upon the text. Nevertheless the
term Logos was an established philosophical term and the passage
as a whole appears to have a broad cosmological reference. It is
therefore possible to assert that the passage does demand a philo-
sophical and cosmological interpretation, far more restrained than
the fully developed Gnostic systems but not altogether different in
kind from them.
The earliest use of the Gospel in orthodox circles in the second
century certainly appears to suggest this kind of interpretation of its
thought. Thus Loewenich declares that Justin knew St John's
Gospel and treated it as a fully philosophical Gospel, developing the
concept of the Logos along markedly philosophical lines; Tatian,
he says, gives an anthropological interpretation of the prologue,
in which the relationship between darkness and light is understood
of the soul and spirit of man; Theophilus definitely bases his Logos
speculation on St John's prologue.2 But this account is somewhat
1
Evangelium Veritatis, p . 42, 25—30 (cf. John xiv. 10—11; xvii. 22).
2
Loewenich, op. cit. pp. 50-4.
misleading. Justin's knowledge of St John's Gospel may be

accepted as at least highly probable,1 yet that only makes it the more
significant that in the development of his Logos theology there are
no direct allusions to the Gospel prologue. It seems probable that
his thought about the Logos is of independent origin and not derived
from the Gospel.2 Both Tatian and Theophilus do make explicit
reference to the prologue, but even so we need to beware of thinking
of them as setting out to interpret the Gospel. Once again it is more
probable that the real derivation of their thought is independent,
and that they were simply attempting to link up their own concep-
tions with similar ideas in the Fourth Gospel, whose prestige and
recognition as an authoritative scripture was steadily growing.
With Irenaeus the case is different. There is no question but that
his purpose is to expound the prologue of the Gospel. He has no
desire to deny the cosmological significance of the prologue; it is
concerned with the Word of God, 'who in an invisible manner
contains all things created, and is inherent in the entire creation' and
who 'governs and arranges all things'. 3 The concept, in fact, is one
of which Irenaeus makes considerable use in the development of his
own theology. What he emphasises against the Gnostics is that the
passage is concerned only with one being, not a number of aeons,
and that this one being became fully incarnate in the historic person
of Jesus of Nazareth.4 The difference between Irenaeus and the
Gnostics is not the difference between a soteriological and cosmo-
logical concern; both these concerns are common to both sides. The
real difference is between an approach which is under the strict
control of historical fact and one which allows free rein to the
speculative imagination.5
We may therefore conclude that while we ought not to regard
every form of 'Logos' theology as a definite interpretation of the
Gospel prologue, yet even the most anti-Gnostic writers do not
doubt that the prologue has a philosophical and cosmological
character. But within such a general measure of agreement amongst
1
Barrett, p. 94.
2
J. N. Sanders, op. cit. pp. 20-7; Barrett, p. 54.
3
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 18, 2-3 (vol. 11, p. 374).
4
Ibid. 1, 9, 3; 5, 18, 3 (vol. 1, p. 84; vol. 11, p. 374).
5
Loewenich, op. cit. p. 120.
99 7-2
orthodox interpreters there was still room for considerable variation

of interpretation. It was possible for some writers to find the
primary meaning of the passage in its philosophical significance,
while others placed the main emphasis on the incarnational reference.
This contrast can clearly be seen in a comparison of the interpreta-
tions of Cyril and of Theodore, as representatives respectively of
the more philosophical school of Alexandria and of the more historical
school of Antioch. According to Cyril, the light that shines in the
darkness is the light of rationality shining in the darkness which is
characteristic of created nature as such.1 In John i. 9 the words
'coming into the world' are to be taken with 'man' and not with
'light'. This exegesis is supported by the fact that if they were taken
with' light', they would represent a contradiction of the immediately
succeeding words that the light was in the world. This verse also,
therefore, is speaking of the universal activity of the divine gift of
reason.2 In continuation of this line of interpretation, he has to
minimise the force of the words that 'the world knew him not'.
The world in its blindness fails to benefit as it should from the gift
of God, but not completely so. For to some degree at least the
God-given gift of reason has been preserved in our ordinary human
nature.3 So far, therefore, Cyril's interpretation of the prologue is
a philosophical account of God's dealings with man as a whole. It
is at John i. 11, so he declares, that the Evangelist moves on to
the subject of the incarnation.4
Theodore is equally clear that there is a point of transition from
the theme of the Son's eternal relationship with the Father and his
part in the creation and general endowment of nature and of man,
on to the theme of his redemptive incarnation. But this transition
he finds at v. 5.5 In v. 9 he takes 'coming into the world' with
'light' rather than with 'man', thus interpreting this verse also as
1
Cyr. in John i. 5 (1, 87-9).
* Cyr. in John i. 9 (1, 112, 15-113, 23). The ambiguity of the Greek is recognised
by Origen (O. Frag. 3). It is clear from Jer. Horn. 14, 10 that his own preference is to
take the words with 'man' and interpret them in the same way as Cyril.
3
Cyr. in John i. 10 (1, 129, 13—16).
4
Cyr. in John i. 11 (1, 130, 9—17).
5 T. 20, 22—9. Cf. Chr. 5, 3 where the incarnational reference of this verse is
made still more emphatic by interpreting it specifically of the preaching of Christ.
IOO
a specific reference to the incarnation. For the sake of this interpreta-

tion, he in his turn has to minimise the natural force of the Evangelist's
words. When John asserts that he enlightens every man by his coming
into the world, this must not be taken to imply a universal salva-
tion. ' Every' must be interpreted to mean everyone who is willing.1
2. DUALISM
Gnosticism is essentially a dualistic system. The Fourth Gospel
also has its radical antitheses which lend themselves to a dualistic
interpretation. Gnostic writers, therefore, did not have far to seek
to find ground for interpreting the Gospel in terms of a radical
cosmological dualism. John xv. 19, which speaks of Christ's salva-
tion as choosing people out of the world, was used to suggest that
he must be in opposition to the creator God.2 This distinction
between the demiurge and the Father of Jesus led also to a historical
dualism, in which the Old Testament was associated entirely with
the demiurge and the New was regarded as in radical opposition to
it. This dualism is a less plausible interpretation of the Gospel than
the cosmological one, but none the less evidence was found there
to support it also. The most striking example is the interpretation
of the words of Jesus 'All that came before me are thieves and
robbers' as referring to the Law and the prophets.3 Similarly
Heracleon, as we have already seen, could find in the story of the
woman at the well of Samaria two illustrations of this radical contrast
in the two kinds of water and in the two kinds of worship.4
In all these cases the orthodox were ready to offer an alternative
exegesis which does not involve any such ultimate dualism. The
disparaging references to this world can be interpreted without
recourse to the concept of an inferior creator God.5 The Law is
described in the Gospel as 'given through Moses', and thus leaves
room for the assertion that its ultimate source is the Father or the
Word and therefore identical with the source of the succeeding
1
T. 21, 22-9 (John i. 9). Cf. Chr. 8, 1.
%
Adamantius, Dialogos, 2, 20.
3
Hippolytus, Elenchos, 6, 35, 1.
4 5
Cf. pp. 46—7 above. Cf. pp. 76—9 above.
IOI
grace and truth.1 The truth which came through Jesus Christ is to
be contrasted with the Law, not as falsehood but as type.2 John x. 8
was more of a problem. It is normally employed by the second- and
third-century writers to describe the schismatics or false teachers
of their own day, but this is clearly of no value as an alternative
exegesis.3 Clement of Alexandria, in conscious opposition to a more
literal exegesis which would include the prophets, interprets the
saying of the Greek philosophers, who, according to his theory, had
'stolen' their ideas from Hebrew prophecy.4 While this is not ruled
out immediately as exegesis on the ground that as such it would be
pure anachronism, yet it is perfectly clear that as exegesis it cannot
possibly stand. Origen solves the problem by interpreting the
saying not of the incarnation at all, but of the complete coming of
the Logos to the fully mature human soul.5 Theodore of Heraclea
interprets it of false prophets, emphasising that it is stated that they
'came' and not that they were sent.6 Chrysostom applies it to such
figures as Theudas and Judas, leaders who supported a policy of
political rebellion.?
But this was not the principal means by which such a dualist
interpretation of the Gospel was met. More important was the
demonstration of positive teaching in the Gospel, which showed
Jesus to be utterly at one both with the God of creation and with the
God of the Old Testament. In this task it was the prologue which
provided the most important evidence. John i. 3 declared of the
Logos that' all things were made through Him and without Him was
1
Clement, Paidagogos, i, 7, 60; O. 6, 6. Clement emphasises the use of the word
81& as showing the subordinate role of Moses; Origen points to the contrast of the
use of the word e860r| of the law and eyeveTO of grace and truth. Origen is not afraid
of pressing the subordinate role implied by the preposition 610c even in relation to
John i. 3 (f) 810c irp68£ais TO UTrrjpsTiKOV EiJupcdvei: Frag, in Eph. i. 1, J.T.S. vol. in,
1902, p. 234). He protests that Heracleon is guilty of a gross abuse of language when
he interprets John i. 3 of the Logos as the ultimate source of creation and says that the
demiurge is the immediate agent (O. 2, 14).
2
Cf. pp. 68-9 above.
3
E.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 4, 1 (vol. n, p. 15); ps-Cyprian, Ep. ad Nov. 2;
Origen, Sel. in Jer. xxiii. 30.
4
Clement, Stromateis, 1, 17, 81.
5
O. 1, 37 (cf. p. 94 above).
6
Corderius, p. 265.
7 Chr. 59, 3.
IO2
not anything made5. Orthodox writers emphasised the full meaning

of the word ' all'. The majority of Gnostics interpreted it as referring
only to the supra-cosmic Pleroma and denied any reference to our
created world. Against them Irenaeus insists with great force that
'all things' must include this world of ours.1 Heracleon, on the
other hand, allowed the reference to be to the created world, but
excluded the Aeons from its scope.* Here again the orthodox insisted
that the text gave no justification whatever for such an exception,
and in fact the words of St Paul in Col. i. 16 expressly include such
supra-human spiritual powers.3 The strength of the orthodox case,
therefore, lay in insisting on the fullest possible meaning for the word
'all'. This Origen is prepared to do fearlessly. He avoids having to
include evil and sin in that which was created through the Logos
by claiming that evil has no substantial existence; it is neither an
original nor a permanent element in the creation and, in contra-
distinction to the good, it is to be classed among 'the things that
are not'; it is therefore by definition excluded from the category of
'all things'. 4 He does, however, include the Holy Spirit amongst the
'all things' created through the Logos.5 This assertion is regularly
refuted by later writers. The horror of any suggestion of such an
interpretation seems to have been largely influential in determining
the punctuation finally adopted in the text of the Gospel itself.6
'Without Him was not anything made that was made' seemed a
better safeguard against such interpretations than the more un-
qualified assertion. It made clear that the passage was concerned
with all created things and not with all things absolutely. Later
orthodoxy is, therefore, inclined to emphasise the limitation of the
1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2, 2, 5; 3, 11, 1; 5, 18, 2 (vol. I, p. 256; vol. 11, p. 41;
2
ibid. p. 374). O. 2, 14.
3
O. 2, 14; De Principiis, 1, 7, 1. Cf. also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1, 22, 1; 3, 8,
3 (vol. 1, pp. 188-9; v °l # n> P« 29)'
4
O. 2, 13. 5 O. 2, 10.
6
Both Chrysostom (Chr. 5, 1—2) and Epiphanius (Ancoratus, 75) discuss the
punctuation of the passage with direct relation to the question of heresy. For a full
discussion of the evidence, see Westcott, Additional Note on ch. 1 (vol. 1, pp. 59-63).
This explanation of the change in punctuation is accepted by Hoskyns (pp. 142-3),
but surprisingly rejected by Barrett (pp. 130-1). See also J. Mehlmann, 'A note on
John i. 3', for evidence suggesting that it was early Gnostic rather than Arian mis-
understanding of the passage that prompted the change.
103
term 'all things', where earlier orthodoxy had needed to stress its
all-inclusiveness.1
John i. 3, then, provided a sound basis for the rejection of all
Gnostic interpretations which dissociated Christ from the God of
the creation. Subsidiary evidence was found in Christ's use of
material things in the performance of his signs,2 but John i. 3
remained the primary plank in the orthodox case. It was capable of
further extension to counter the historical form of the dualist
argument also. The 'all things' created through the Logos must
include the Law and prophets,3 yet in this case it was an incidental
rather than a primary form of the answer. Other texts could easily
be found which related more specifically to the theme of the Old
Testament, such as the fact that Jesus was greeted as King of Israel4
or his declaration that Moses wrote of him.5 But the main text on
which the orthodox relied is once again to be found in the prologue;
at first sight it appears to be a rather surprising choice, but it is not
without considerable force. Embedded in the very heart of the
prologue stands an assertion about John the Baptist and his function
as witness to Christ. Yet John the Baptist comes in the spirit and
power of Elijah, and is a typical representative of the Old Testament
prophetic tradition. He is, therefore, an effective witness to the
identity of the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus,
which undermines the whole Gnostic position on this score.6
One last example may be given in which Origen finds evidence
in the Gospel which refutes with precision the exact form in which
the Gnostic duality of gods was commonly presented. On the one
hand stood the benevolent God, unknown to the world but Father
of Jesus; on the other hand stood the just God, known to the world
1
The comment of Theodore (T. 18,1-14) is of especial interest. In arguing that
scriptural custom does not always require the fullest interpretation of the word 'all',
he uses as his illustration John x. 8, where, he says, the 'all' who came before Jesus
and were thieves and robbers cannot include Moses, Samuel and the prophets. This,
as we have seen, is a point of exegetical importance which belongs to the same area
z
of discussion. Cf. pp. 42, 54 above.
3
Origen, from bk. 3 in Ep. ad CoL, quoted in Pamphilus, Apologia, 5
(p. 6, 17, 589B).
4
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 11, 6 (vol. 11, p. 44) (John i. 49).
5
Ibid. 4, 2, 3 (vol. 11, p. 148) (John v. 46).
6
Ibid. 3, 11,4 (vol. 11, p. 43) (John i. 6-7). Cf. also O. 2, 34.
IO4
because he is its creator and proclaimed by the Law and the prophets.
Yet Jesus addresses God in his prayer with the words:' O Righteous
Father, the world hath not known thee.' The righteous God is
clearly identical with the Father of Jesus, whom the world has not
fully known.1
3. DOCETISM
When Gnostic dualist ideas were applied to the concept of the person
of Christ, they gave rise either to a docetic view of his person,
according to which he was an appearance rather than an incarnation,
or else to a dualist view in which the divine Christ was rigidly
differentiated from the human Jesus. The basis of such views was
dogmatic rather than exegetical. They were desperate expedients
to square the Gospel story with a belief that matter is inherently evil.
It was open therefore to the orthodox to fall back once more upon
the evidence of John i. 3, and to undermine the belief which prompted
such theories by insisting that 'flesh' must be included in the 'all
things' created through the Logos.2 But a still clearer answer to
such theories was to be found in yet another verse of the prologue—
'The word was made flesh'—and it is upon this assertion that the
orthodox case is mainly based.3 In addition Irenaeus could even
insist that the express purpose of the Gospel—'that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God'—was to counteract all
dualistic interpretations of Christ's person.4 Moreover there are
several individual touches in the Gospel, such as his weariness at the
well of Sychar, his weeping at the tomb of Lazarus, or the issue of
blood and water from his side, which show conclusively that this
one Son of God was no mere appearance, but had a fully human,
in fact a fully fleshly, existence.^
Exegetical support for the docetic or dualist view of the person of
Christ seems to have been found mainly in a combination of the
fact that the Gospel has no explicit reference to Christ's birth and
1
De Principiis, 2, 5, 4 (John xvii. 25).
2
Tertullian, De Resurrectione Afortuorum, 5, 6.
3
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 11, 3; 3, 16, 8 (vol. 11, p. 42; ibid. p. 90) (John i. 14).
4
Ibid. 3, 16, 5 (vol. 11, p. 86) (John xx. 31).
5
Ibid. 3, 22, 2; 4, 33, 2 (vol. 11, p. 122; ibid. p. 258) (John iv. 6; xi. 35; xix. 34).
105
the manner in which Christ speaks of his being 'sent' and 'coming
from heaven'.1 Once again the orthodox controversialists have
looked to the prologue to supply this lack of any clear reference to
Christ's birth. Irenaeus and Tertullian find their answer in John i. 13.
Irenaeus appears to know the verse in its singular form and regularly
interprets it of the birth of Christ.* Tertullian not merely accepts the
reading 'who was born', making the verse apply directly to Jesus,
but explains the plural form as due to a Gnostic tampering with the
text.3 Nevertheless it is more probable that it is the singular reading
which has been evolved in orthodox circles in the search for a clear
answer to this particular Gnostic argument. Some modern com-
mentators have suggested that, even though the plural form must
be accepted as the original, it was probably intended to convey an
allusion to the birth of Christ.4 This does not seem very likely. In
any case the allusion, if it be there at all, is of such a kind that it is of
very little value as evidence with which to oppose a Gnostic
Christology.5 Origen, who, like all the Greeks, has the plural form
of the text, expressly differentiates the Christian birth of which it
speaks from that of Christ himself.6 He does see an allusion to
Christ's virgin birth in John viii. 41, but does not find any particular
controversial significance in it.7
1
Hegemonius, Acta Archelaii, 54 (47).
2
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 16, 2; 3, 19, 2 (vol. 11, p. 83; ibid. p. 103).
3
Tertullian, De Came Christi, 19, 1; 24, 2.
4
Hoskyns, pp. 165-6; Barrett, pp. 137-8. For recent statements of the case for
the originality of the singular text, see F. M. Braun,' Qui ex Deo natus est', and M. E.
Boismard, * Critique Textuelle et Citations Patristiques'.
5
Cf. the argument of Braun (op. cit. p. 17) in favour of Irenaeus' knowledge of
the singular reading, * S i . . . Irenee s'etait permis d'appliquer au Christ ce qui de fait
etait affirme de tous les croyants, ses arguments auraient croule par la base; il se
serait expose aux pires malentendus'.
6
Pamphilus, Apologia, 5, quoting from the lostfifthbook of Origen's commentary
on St John (A. E. Brooke, vol. 11, p. 311). The comparison is between the spiritual
birth of Christians as sons of God and the eternal begetting of the only Son rather
than the virgin-birth of Jesus. Nevertheless it clearly suggests that Origen believed
these words to apply only to Christians and not at all to Christ himself.
7
O. 20, 16.
IO6
4. DETERMINISM
If the Gnostics did not always find it easy to derive their docetism
from the text of the Gospel, their position with regard to the concept
of determinism was a very much stronger one. Gnostic determinism
involved a belief in fixed times when certain events must happen, and
in fixed natures according to which particular people are created
either good or bad, either capable or incapable of spiritual response.
There is much within the Gospel that appears to reinforce Gnostic
beliefs on both these scores, and it was possible to make out a strong
case for the claim that the Gospel requires an interpretation along
determinist lines.
The Gospel speaks frequently of Christ's hour. The fact that * His
hour was not yet come' is given as a reason determining both the
actions of Christ himself and also the failure of his enemies to arrest
him. This expression comes not only in the explanations of the
Evangelist but also from the lips of Christ. Basilides therefore
claims that Jesus himself is witness to the truth of the conception
of fixed times for particular events.1 The orthodox reply is that the
language of Christ's hour is to be interpreted not in terms of fatalism,
but in terms of foreknowledge and fittingness. Christ always acted
at the appropriate moment, in complete conformity with the Father's
will; and, in view of the omniscience of God, such actions were also
in exact concordance with the Father's complete foreknowledge.2
The main passage in the Gospel lending itself to an interpretation
in terms of fixed natures is the discussion between Jesus and the
Jews on the subject of the fatherhood of Abraham, of the devil and
of God (John viii. 33-47). We have Origen's commentary on the
greater part of this section, and in it he makes frequent references to
the interpretation of Heracleon. Heracleon's view is not an extreme
example of the fixed-nature theory. He believed that there were
three types of people—the x° lK °i ? the vyu)(iKoi and the
1
Hippolytus, Elenchos, 7, 27, 5 (John ii. 4).
2
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 16, 7 (vol. 11, p. 88) (John ii. 4; vii. 30). The 'hour* in
John ii. 4 is normally assumed to refer to the hour of his death (e.g. Origen, Matt.
Comm. Ser. 97). Elsewhere, however, Origen (cf. p. 41 above) and also Apollinarius
(Corderius, p. 70) interpret it as meaning the hour appropriate for beginning his signs.
107
While the first and last groups are completely fixed in nature by
their parentage, the middle group can become by adoption either
children of the devil or children of God. This factor complicates the
whole discussion considerably. At one point he apparently asserts
that Jesus is addressing the yUXIKOI and not the XOIKOI,1 but for the
most part his interpretation requires that the Jews are to be under-
stood as xo'iKoi. Certainly it is this conception of people as XOIKOI,
fixed irrevocably by their created nature in the ways of evil, that
Origen is primarily concerned to refute. The issue at stake is whether
or not the concept of sonship implies derivation from the ouaia of
the father, that is to say the permanent inheritance of the father's
essential nature.2 Origen, as we would expect, argues with great
emphasis that sonship is always a matter of a freely chosen pattern
of behaviour. The wording of John viii. 44, ' When one speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own', is even said to imply that every lying
spirit acts so not by virtue of his already fixed nature but by his
deliberate choice of the way of lying.3 Even the devil himself cannot
be of a fixed evil nature (in spite of what the reference to his desires
rather than his will in v. 44 might suggest), or else he would deserve
to be pitied rather than to be blamed.4 In countering the interpreta-
tion of Heracleon, Origen is forced back on some rather doubtful
exegesis. In John viii. 37, 38 his whole argument turns on the
questionable assertion that 'the Father' in the second half of v. 38
refers to God and not to the devil.5 In John viii. 47 he has to claim
that being 'of God' is a kind of intermediate stage between being
'not of God' and being a 'son of God'. 6 He is on stronger ground
when he claims that the positive assertions of the Gospel elsewhere
show that the possibility of moving from one class to the other is
1
O. 20, 24. The Valentinians, whom Hippolytus describes, certainly appear to
have identified the children of Abraham of whom this passage speaks as the ÛXIKOI
(Elenchos, 6, 34, 4).
2
The whole argument in a simpler, compressed form can be found also in
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 41, 2 (vol. 11, pp. 304-5).
3
O. 20, 29.
4
O. 20, 24, 28.
5
O. 20, 8, 9. But cf. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greeks vol. I,
p. 85, who prefers the rendering 'the Father' to that of 'your father*.
6
O. 20, 33.
108
absolutely esssential to the whole purpose of the Gospel.1 Irenaeus

uses John iii. 36, with its reference to the crucial significance of
belief, as evidence of this same point, but as it contains no direct
reference to the possibility of transition it is not as good an illustra-
tion as those adduced by Origen.2
One other passage is of particular difficulty for a non-determinist
interpretation of the Gospel. John xii. 39-40 accounts for the failure
of the Jews to believe on the ground that they were inflicted with
spiritual blindness. Origen readily accepts this statement, inter-
preting it of the activity of the devil. But he goes on to assert, on the
analogy of the physical healings of the Gospel, that all blindness is
capable of being cured by Christ. The blindness of the Jews, there-
fore, is a fair explanation of the fact that they could not then and
there believe. But it does not amount to an assertion of an absolute
impossibility of belief for them. They could have been healed of their
blindness by Christ, and then belief would have been open to them.3
Both forms of determinism—the belief in fixed times and the belief
in fixed natures—converge in the enigma of the person of Judas.
His treachery had been foretold and he, if anybody, was a son of
the devil by very nature. Origen vigorously refutes the necessity
of a determinist interpretation on either score. He is entirely con-
vinced that the kind of foreknowledge implied by prophecy is
compatible with freedom of the will.4 Jesus also could foretell Judas'
act at an early stage of the Ministry, because ' He knew what was in
man'; and this means that Jesus could read perfectly the state of his
mind, and not, as the Naassenes appear to have interpreted it, that he
knew the fixed nature of each person.^ Origen finds further specific
signs that Judas was not wholly and irrevocably evil in certain
details of the text. It is implied by the very form of the prophecies
of his treachery themselves, when they speak of him as 'man of
1
Ibid. (John i. 12). See also O. 19, 20 (John xv. 19; cf. p. 76 above); O. 28, 21
(John xi. 51). Origen's objection to Heracleon's interpretation of the woman of
Samaria as an example of Christ's dealings with a TTVEUiiocriKOS rests on the same
principle. The story is a conversion story. She had been an adulteress. She cannot
therefore have been always TrveuucnriKos (O. 13, n ) .
2 3
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 37, 5 (vol. 11, p. 289). O. Frag. 92.
4
Origen, De Oratione, 6, 3; Comm. Rom. 7, 9.
5
Origen, Con. Cel. 2, 20; Hippolytus, Elenchos, 5, 8, 12 (John ii. 25).
109
peace in whom I hoped' and 'my equal, companion and familiar

friend'. Nor would Judas have been entrusted with the money-bag
if he had been a thief from the start; that in itself is evidence that he
was at one stage a man worthy of trust.1 Judas is, therefore, entirely
responsible for his own sin. This does not imply any denial of the
agency of the devil in prompting the act of treachery. The responsi-
bility of Judas lies in his unpreparedness to resist the assault of the
devil.2 Elsewhere, in fact, Origen declares that the belief, common
among the learned, that sin arises simply from man's own evil
thoughts and not from the external assault of evil spirits is in direct
contradiction to the teaching of Scripture as a whole.3
These themes continue to recur in the later commentators, who
could not but recognise that there were a number of texts in the
Gospel which demanded careful exegesis if they were to be reconciled
with the prevailing belief in the freedom of man's will.4 Cyril finds
it necessary to include a considerable excursus attacking heretical
notions of the power of hours, days and seasons over the affairs of
human life.5 Theodore with his usual brevity asserts simply but
firmly that if men cannot hear the word of Jesus, the cause lies in
their will and not in their nature.6 Chrysostom insists that when the
Gospel speaks of the Father giving men to Christ or of the necessity
of being drawn by him to Christ, this does not deny the doctrine of
free will. It only shows our need of divine help; faith results from
the meeting of divine revelation and a soul ready to receive it. Both
are equally essential.7 All three repeat the regular assurance that
1
O. 32, 14, 19 (John xiii. 18). But contrast the interpretation of Apollinarius,
who says that it was not a sign of special trust, but a lower form of ministry as shown
by the record of the appointment of the deacons in Acts vi (Cramer, p. 324). Augus-
tine has no hesitation in insisting that the Gospel presents Judas as a faithless apostle
throughout (Tract. Joh. 50, 10).
2
O. 32, 2 (John xiii. 2). See also Origen, Frag, in Eph. iv. 27 (J.T.S. vol. in,
1902, pp. 554-5); O. 10, 45 (John xiii. 27).
3
O. 20, 40. See also De Principiis, 3, 2, 4 (John xiii. 2).
4
Numerous examples are to be found in the Catena fragments, e.g. Isidore in
John x. 29 (Corderius, p. 272); Theodore of Heraclea, Apollinarius and Ammonius
in John xii. 39 (Corderius, pp. 321-3). The concepts of free will and of merit seem
to be especially prominent in the fragments attributed to Theodore of Heraclea (cf. in
John viii. 37, xiv. 2 and xv. 4; Corderius, pp. 235, 354 and 378).
5
Cyr. in John vii. 30 (1, 663—72). T. 126, 5—10 (John viii. 43).
7 Chr. 45, 3; 46, 1 (John vi. 37; vi. 44).
IIO
prophecy does not destroy free will.1 It is here, however, that we do

find one surprising new development. Although his general views
on prophecy and foreknowledge do not demand it, Theodore denies
that the so-called prophecy about Judas in John xiii. 18 is really
a prophecy at all. He regards the quotation from the Psalm simply as
an instance of words of Scripture being applied to Judas because
the outcome of events had shown their appropriateness.*
1
Cyr. in John xii. 38-40 (11, 327); in John xiii. 18 (11, 357-60); T. 176, 27-177, 2
(John xii. 37-8); Chr. 81, 2 (John xvii. 13).
2
T. 184, 21-30. Theodore gives a similar non-prophetic explanation of the quo-
tation from Ps. lxix in John ii. 17 (T. 42); but in the case of John xix. 28, where the
reference is to the same Psalm, he is content to accept the obvious meaning of
the Gospel and explain the words of Jesus as deliberately designed to fulfil an out-
standing prophecy (T. 242, 1—2). R. Devreesse points out that there is a develop-
ment in Theodore's outlook on this issue; he is more inclined to accept the traditional
straightforward interpretation of prophecy in his later works, such as the
commentary on St John, than he is in his earlier writings (Essai sur Theodore de
Mopsueste, p. 279, n. 1).
Ill
CHAPTER VII
CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN
THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES
The struggle with Gnosticism, as we have seen, involved a con-
sideration of the right exegesis of the Fourth Gospel over a broad
front. Subsequent heresies, and particularly the Arian controversy,
involved a similar consideration of the right exegesis of the Gospel
on the narrower front of Christological interpretation. This issue had
been one important feature in the arguments with the Gnostics.
Irenaeus had even declared the refutation of a dualist Christology
to be the very purpose of the writing of the Gospel.1 But in fact at
that stage it was only a single strand among many. In the centuries
that followed it became the issue of all-absorbing importance.
The Valentinian Christology (in so far as the very limited and
sketchy evidence allows us to judge) had been built up on a one-
sided application of such texts as John x. 30 and John xiv. 6.* The
orthodox had replied with an insistence on those texts which
emphasised his real humanity.3 But they had also to meet the theories
of men like Theodotus, who could point to such a text as John viii.
40 and claim that it proved Jesus to be a mere man and no more.4
Origen clearly recognised that the fundamental fault in both these
types of heresy was the arbitrary exclusion of a part of the evidence
in the interests of an apparently more consistent picture of Christ,
either as straightforwardly divine or entirely if superlatively human.5
It was evident that what was needed was a more careful statement of
the divine and human elements in the person of Christ.
1
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 16, 5 (vol. 11, p. 86) (cf. p. 105 above).
2
Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 61, i (Loewenich, op. cit. pp. 99—100).
3
See p. 105 above.
4
This at least is what the orthodox accused him of saying (Epiphanius, Pan. Haer.
54; ps-Tertullian, Adversus Omnes Haereses, 8). It is more probable that his true
belief, while stressing the humanity of Jesus, was not quite so straightforward
a psilanthropism (cf. Bethune-Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 98, n. 2).
5 O. 10, 6.
112
CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
The necessary principle is clearly enunciated by Origen in his

commentary. Origen is faced with the apparent conflict between
the statements of Jesus in John vii. 28 and John viii. 19. 'Ye both
know me and ye know whence I am.. . but He that sent me is true,
whom ye know not.' ' If ye knew me, ye would know my Father
also.' This is to be explained in the light of the general principle that
the Saviour sometimes speaks of himself as man, and sometimes as
a more divine nature and united to the uncreated nature of the Father.
He illustrates this principle from the very texts which we know were
used by the heretical teaching on each side. In John viii. 40, when
he is speaking of their attempts to kill him, he is obviously speaking
of himself as man;1 in John x. 30, xiv. 6, xi. 25 and such like texts,
it is not the man whom they were trying to kill about whom he is
teaching, but the divine element in him. Finally the whole sur-
rounding contexts of the two sayings, vii. 28 and viii. 19, show that
he is speaking of his humanity in the one instance and of his divinity
in the other.*
The principle is frequently employed by Origen and other writers
of the period in exegetical work. The variety of Christ's actions was
intended to make both aspects of his nature clear. So on one occasion
he sends his disciples to buy bread, while on another he multiplies
loaves in the wilderness.3 His opponents cannot take him before the
time because of his divinity; nevertheless he withdraws from them,
lest his continued immunity from arrest should destroy the proper
balance of his human station.4 Moreover this twofold character can
be seen in the different aspects of a single action. He performs the
miracle of the loaves that he may be acknowledged as God; he says
grace as he does so that he may be acknowledged as man.5 There is a
difference between the human life which is laid down and taken again,
and the divinity which does the laying down and the taking again.6
1
Cf. also the use of the word 'man' in John xi. 50, on which Origen comments
that it is the man who dies for the people and not the Divine Word, who as image of
the invisible God and first-born of all creation is incapable of death (O. 28, 18).
2
O. 19, 1-2. Cf. also Con. CeL 1, 66; 2, 25; 7, 16-17.
3 4
O. Frag. 53 (John iv. 8). O. Frag. 75 (John x. 39).
5
Origen, Possinus' Catena in Matt. xiv. 19 (John vi. 11).
6
Dionysius of Alexandria, * Exegetical Fragments', p. 242 (cf. Origen, De
Principiis, 4, 4, 4; John x. 18). One even earlier example of a similar piece of exegesis
8 II^ WSG
The same principle had already been expressed by Tertullian in

the course of his more explicitly doctrinal work. The terms which
he uses to describe the two aspects of Christ's nature are Spirit and
Flesh; the former is responsible for the miracles, the latter is seen
in his hunger, thirst, weeping, anxiety and death. These two natures
correspond to the two titles Son of God and Son of Man.1
This last point—the identification of the title Son of Man with the
human aspect of Christ's nature—was a natural one to make, and one
that must have flowed with particular ease from the pen of Tertullian
with his love of balanced phrases and antitheses. Nor does Tertullian
stand alone. Precisely the same point is made by Origen when he
explicitly identifies the significance of the title 'Son of Man' with
that of'man' in John viii. 40.* Yet it was one fraught with difficulty
and with consequences of extreme importance for the whole pattern
of later exegesis. Hippolytus is clearly aware of the difficulty in his
quotation of John iii. 13, which speaks of * He that came down from
heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in heaven'. For him this is
a curious example of imprecise usage, for which he has no specific
explanation to give.3 Despite an occasional protest that the real
significance of the title ought to be seen not in its assertion of
humanity but as a title for the heavenly eschatological judge,4 the
is to be found in Heracleon's interpretation of the words of John i. 29 * The lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (O. 6, 60). 'The lamb of God*
is the declaration of John as a prophet and must refer to Christ's body because a
lamb is an orreAris example of the genus sheep. 'Which taketh away the sin of the
world' is the declaration of one who is more than a prophet and refers to him who
indwells the body. This is scornfully dismissed by Origen, no doubt because it was
developed too much in the interests of a fully dualist Christology, but in the principle
of its reasoning it is exactly akin to the orthodox two-nature exegesis of the third
century.
1
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 27.
2
O. 32, 25 (John xiii. 31). Cf. also Origen, Comm. Matt. 15, 24.
3
Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 4.
4
E.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 10,4. The relation of the function of judgment
to the title Son of Man in John v. 27 presented a problem to the orthodox commenta-
tors. The ante-Nicene writers regularly take the words 'because he is the Son of
Man' with the preceding statement about judgment (e.g. Tertullian, Adv. Prax.
21, i 2 ; O . 1,35). Chrysostom, however, takes the words with the phrase following
and attacks the other rendering as untrue and characteristic of Paul of Samosata
(Chr. 39, 3). Cyril accepts the ancient and natural phrasing but insists that the title
Son of Man is used not in relation to the function of judging but to the language of
114
underlying principle remained generally unquestioned. Son of

Man was clearly a title appropriate to Christ's humanity, and if it
was sometimes used in apparently inappropriate contexts, some good
reason for that fact must be found. Origen suggests a reason which
was to be greatly developed at a later period.1 He was fully con-
scious that Scripture spoke frequently of the dying of the Son of God
and of the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father. This,
he says, is expressive of the indissoluble unity between the divine
Word and the human soul or flesh.2 This answer turned an apparent
difficulty, which might have seemed to obscure the difference of the
two natures, into valuable positive evidence for the unity of Christ's
person.
As yet, however, this issue was not the important one. At this
stage the orthodox were concerned for the most part simply to assert
that human and divine must both be predicated of the one Christ
Jesus. The nature of their union in the one person was a problem
that lay still in the future. And so the third-century writers are
concerned simply to show that both elements stand there in-
escapably side by side. In this task St John's Gospel, with its exalted
teaching on the one hand and its picture of Christ accepting the
ordinary privations of human life on the other, was an invaluable
instrument. But it could well be argued that the Gospel does not
really maintain what Origen calls ' the proper balance of his human
station'. It was the docetic or modalist heresies that had turned
most naturally to the Fourth Gospel for their support. While
Theodotus could quote John viii. 40 in the argument of his case, yet
he, and those who thought like him, clearly found their true spiritual
home rather in the Synoptic records. Whatever be the implications
of the incidents recorded about Christ in the Gospel, there can be no
question that the specifically Christological teaching of the Gospel
being given authority (Cyr. in John v. 27; 1, 347, 19—21). Theodore follows Chrysos-
tom's punctuation (T. 85, 4-5), although elsewhere he emphatically relates the
function of judging to Christ's humanity, on the ground that the judge should be
visible (T. 82, 33-5; John v. 22).
1
See pp. 134-6 below.
2
De Principiis, 2, 6, 3. He does not appear to appeal to this precise principle in
his commentary on St John, though O. 1, 28 contains a strong assertion of the unity
of the person of Christ in a similar context.
IK 8-2
is heavily weighted on the side of his divinity. This fact requires

some explanation. Novatian affirms that the apparent disproportion
is due to the fact that the Jews fully recognised his humanity; there
was, therefore, no need for Christ to speak about it. He needed to
lead them on to a belief also in his divinity, and it was therefore
appropriate for him to speak of his divinity alone.1 This principle
also, in a somewhat modified and developed form, came to play an
important part in later exegesis.*
Thus the principle was clearly laid down that the statements of
Jesus in the Gospel cannot be given a simple, uniform and all-
embracing interpretation. In the doctrinal controversies of the early
fourth century this principle was once again of service on both fronts.
On the one hand, Marcellus argued that the great titles used of
Christ in the Fourth Gospel—life, way, resurrection, door and bread
—were all (with the one exception of the title Logos) used of him
after the incarnation. All such titles were therefore to be applied
not to the eternal nature of the Logos but to the incarnate Christ.
Apart from the incarnation they were without reference or signifi-
cance.3 In order to undermine the exegetical ground of such teaching
it was necessary to insist that some of the sayings about the incarnate
Christ in his ministry do in fact refer exclusively to his eternal
divine nature, while others refer only to his human nature.
Arianism on the other hand, which Basil described as a heresy
diametrically opposed to that of Marcellus, emphasised the most
human sayings about Jesus in the Gospels and insisted that these
did apply to the pre-existent Christ, who could not therefore be
absolutely one in essence with the Father.4 Despite the radical
difference between this argument and that of Marcellus, the same
basic exegetical method was required for its refutation also. Atha-
nasius repeatedly insists that such sayings are applicable only to
Christ's human nature or to Christ 'as wearing a body'. 5 The two-
nature exegesis was thus an essential feature in the whole case of
Athanasius against the Arians. He is, however, extremely careful in
1
Novatian, De Trinitate, 15.
2
See pp. 140—1 below.
3
G. Bardy, Recherches sur St Lucien d'Antioche et son £cole, p. 126 n. 3.
4
Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 26 (John xi. 34; xii. 27-8; xiii. 21).
5
Ibid. 31—2; 54—6.
116
his use of it to insist that it must not be understood to imply two

distinct sets of actions or experiences. Every act is the act of the one
divine Lord, acting sometimes in his purely divine capacity, some-
times in accordance with his adopted human status. In fact the two
cannot possibly be rigidly separated in practice when even such an
exalted utterance as 'I and my Father are one' (John x. 30) has to be
uttered with a human tongue.1
The third century thus saw a growing emphasis on the twofold
nature of Christ and an insistence that this fact must be fully
recognised as a methodological principle in the interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel. One of the reasons that had made this insistence
particularly necessary was that the emphasis of the Gospel teaching
on the side of Christ's divinity could easily result in the neglect of
his real humanity. This same characteristic of the Gospel gave rise
also to the teaching of Praxeas and Noetus, who identified the divine
element in Christ with the Father. This challenge could be met in
two ways. In the first place, it was necessary to show that the Gospel
makes a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the
Son. And secondly, it was necessary to give an alternative exegesis
of those texts on which Praxeas and Noetus had sought to base their
case. Both tasks involved a more precise definition of the pattern
of Christological interpretation demanded by the Fourth Gospel.
The first task was not an unduly difficult one. Tertullian culls
a vast array of Johannine texts with which to crush the monstrosity
of Praxean heresy.2 Not all of them hit the mark, but cumulatively
they represent a valid case. The Gospel depicts Christ's coming as
an act of revelation rather than as an act of direct self-revelation
(John i. 14-18). Christ speaks frequently of his having been sent,
and expressly differentiates himself and his Father. He and his
Father are the two witnesses required by the Law (John viii. 16-19);
he on earth prays to the Father in heaven, and the Father speaks from
heaven to him on earth. In fact when Jesus describes the voice from
heaven as coming * not for my sake but for your sakes' (John xii. 30),
Tertullian interprets this to mean in order that you 'may believe
both in the Father and in the Son, severally, in their own names and
persons and positions'. In some at least of these instances, it would
1 %
Ep. ad Serap. 4, 14. Adv. Prax. 21-5.
U7
have been open to Praxeas to reply by the application of the principle

of the two natures of Christ and the necessity of applying some texts
to the one nature and some to the other. Thus Tertullian includes
among his evidence John vii. 28, the very verse which provided
Origen in his commentary with a starting-point for distinguishing
sayings applicable only to the human element in Christ.1 Later
writers, with their anxiety to avoid any kind of apparent derogation
of the Son's dignity, would have classed many more of the sayings
which concern the sending of the Son or his doing of the Father's
will in the same category.* Nevertheless, however far such a
criticism can be carried, it cannot account for the whole range of
Tertullian's evidence. It is obviously inapplicable to such texts as
John i. 1, with its assertion that 'the Word was with God'. Tertul-
lian's case, if overstated, is clearly a sound one.
Praxeas apparently based his case on a selection of texts, including
especially three assertions of Jesus recorded in St John's Gospel—
'I and my Father are one': 'He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father': 'I am in the Father and the Father in me.'3 The orthodox
needed to give an account of these texts which did not involve the
assertion of a personal identity of Father and Son. Their first line of
answer, as so frequently in dealing with heresy, was the assertion that
however reasonable such an interpretation might be of those three
texts in isolation, it could not be accepted in the light of the far greater
weight of evidence in the Gospel which clearly contradicted such a
belief. The few must be interpreted in the light of the many, not the
many in the light of the few.4 But they were prepared to go further
than that, and to assert that such an interpretation could not even
stand as a valid exegesis of those texts alone. The plural form of the
verb and neuter form of the word 'one' in John x. 30 was clear
evidence that the saying could not imply personal identity; such
a meaning would require a singular verb and a masculine predicate.5
What then was the nature of the unity that the words are intended
to assert? Of this they give different definitions. For Tertullian it is
1 %
See p. 113 above. See pp. 121—4 below.
3
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 20.
4
Ibid.
5
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 22, 10; Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 7; Novatian, De Trinitate,
27.
a 'unity of substance, not singularity of number'; for Hippolytus

it is a 'unity of power rather than of substance'; for Novatian it
intimates 'social concord, not personal unity'. 1 The conflict between
these statements is apparent rather than real. When they come to
expand their more epigrammatic expressions of the contrast, we
find them using essentially the same language—Tertullian speaks
ofc unitas, similitudo, conjunctio, dilectio Patris qui Filium diligit et
obsequium Filii qui voluntati Patris obsequitur'; Hippolytus of
*f) Suvajiis KOCI f) Si&Osais TTJS 6jiO9povias'; Novatian of 'concordia,
eadem sententia, et ipsa caritatis societas' or 'concordia, amoret
dilectio'.2 It is clear that the unity in each case is understood in
terms of a perfection of moral and purposive harmony. In this they
are at one with Origen, their Greek contemporary, who defines the
unity of which the text speaks as one of mental unity, agreement
and identity of will.3
John xiv. 9 was to be interpreted in terms of Christ as the image
of God. He is the visible expression, through whom the invisible
God becomes known. This gives an interpretation of the text in line
with the main conception of the Gospel, and not involving any
identification of Father and Son.4 Novatian uses the concept of the
image, but suggests that we have here, as frequently in prophetic
usage, a past tense with future meaning. Those who have seen Christ
in the sense of becoming his followers will receive the ultimate
reward of being able to see the Father. This makes no difference to
the significance of the text in anti-monarchian apologetic, but clearly
makes a radical difference to its significance for the meaning of the
Gospel as a whole.5
John xiv. I I does not receive the same measure of attention.
Tertullian insists that to support the contention of Praxeas the text
1
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 25, 1 (' substantiae unitas non numeri singularitas');
Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 7 ('Suvccnts and not OUCTIOC'); Novatian, De Trinitate, 27
('societatis concordia non unitas personae').
2
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 22,11; Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 7; Novatian, De Trinitate, 27.
3
Con. Cel. 8, 12 (iv Se TTJ 6|iovoioc KOCI TTJ ovijupcovia KCCI TTJ TauTOTT|Ti TOU (3OU-
AI*1HOCTOS). Cf. also O. 13, 36; Prologue In Can. Can. (P.G. 13, 69A-B: G.C.S. ed.
Baehrens, p. 69).
4
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 24; Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 7.
5
Novatian, De Trinitate, 28. For Origen's interpretation of the text, see
pp. 91—3 above.
would need to read 'that I am the Father'. The real text suggests
an indwelling of the Father only in the sense that the Father makes
himself known by the mighty works and words of Jesus. Tertullian
is clearly on strong ground against an extreme monarchian exegesis,
which would identify the Father and the Son altogether. It is less
certain that his jibe carries weight against the more refined form of
the doctrine which appears to have been held by Callistus, and
probably by Praxeas also, according to which it is the divine element
in Christ which is to be identified with the Father.1
Origen says that the assertion of Christ in John ii. 19 that he
would raise up his own body in three days, when compared with
other Scriptures which attributed this work explicitly to the Father,
has misled some into believing that there was no difference even in
number between the Father and the Son. Origen meets the argument
by appealing to John v. 19 with its assertion that every activity of
the Son derives from a similar activity of the Father.*
Thus in addition to its emphasis on the two natures of Christ,
the third century laid equal emphasis on the distinction of persons
between the Father and the Son. This too, it was shown, is some-
thing to be borne constantly in mind in the interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel. The unity of Father and Son, of which the Gospel
also speaks, was certainly recognised but did not receive the same
measure of emphasis. Its nature was not expounded with precision,
but rather negatively over against excessive assertions of it. The
needs of the Arian controversy, however, soon served to reverse this
emphasis completely in a way that had important repercussions on
the exegesis of the Gospel.
In controversy with Arianism there was no need to emphasise
the difference between the first two persons of the Godhead. John
xvii. 3 had been interpreted by Origen as evidence of Christ's
divinity against those who regarded him as mere man, but still more
importantly as evidence of a clear distinction within the Godhead
between him and 'the only true God' to be used against those who
denied the separate identity of the Son.3 In the light of Arian usage
1
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 24, 8. For Callistus' use of the text, see Hippolytus,
Elenchos, 9, 12, 17.
3
* O. 10, 37. O. 2, 2.
I2O
of the text this latter emphasis was forgotten, and Athanasius insists
that it is Christ's oneness with God, not his radical difference, that
the text indicates.1 John i. 18 had been included in Tertullian's
catena of passages against Praxeas to emphasise the difference be-
tween the revealer and the one revealed; but in the hands of
Asterius this difference was so radically drawn that he could even
be accused of falsifying the text to suit his purpose, although the
reading which he employed was the one which had been regularly
known in earlier centuries to Irenaeus, Clement and Origen.2
It would be a mistake to regard Arianism as based on nothing
more than the forced interpretation of a few isolated texts. It had
a far broader exegetical basis than any of the earlier heresies. Its
appeal to the Fourth Gospel was a considerable and not unreasonable
one. In large measure it built upon the foundation of the anti-
monarchian writers of the previous century. Tertullian had appealed
to those texts which spoke of the Father's giving of authority to the
Son as evidence of the Son's distinct existence; these same texts were
used by the Arians to illustrate his inferiority to the Father.3
Tertullian had put to the same use those texts which spoke of his
being sent by the Father; these too were turned to the Arian purpose.4
To these arguments Athanasius replied that the Gospel itself requires
us to understand such texts in a way which does not involve any
inferiority but rather an absolute equality between Father and Son.
His primary exegetical ground for this assertion was John v. 26 'As
the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to
1
Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 9.
2
G. Bardy, Recherches. . . p. 330. The originality of the reading Oeos rather than
u!6s is defended by Westcott, Additional Note on John i. 18 (vol. 1, pp. 66-8) and
by Hort (Two Dissertations, pp. 1-72). Although vios is preferred by Hoskyns
(p. 154), by Barrett (p. 141), and by Lightfoot (p. 90) on the ground of its greater
suitability to the context, yet the combination of the early evidence for 0e6s and a
strong doctrinal reason for the change away from it represent a very strong case in
favour of that reading and it ought probably to be accepted. Barrett {Exp. T.
(March 1957), pp. 174-7) points out that it has recently acquired the additional
support of ^366, and thinks that this ought perhaps to sway the balance of judgment
in favour of the reading. In any event the usage of Irenaeus, Clement and Origen
is in itself sufficient refutation of the charge against Asterius.
3
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 21; Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 26 (John iii. 35; v. 19;
v. 22; vi. 37).
4
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 21; Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 7 (John v. 23; vi. 38).
121
have life in himself. If the 'as' and the 'so' are given their proper
force, they rule out any idea of inferiority or difference of essence.
The language of 'receiving', however, is not altogether without
purpose. It is intended (as Tertullian had seen) as a safeguard against
any identification of Father and Son—a safeguard still needed in the
light of Sabellian teaching.1 More positively, it is congruent with
the whole redemptive purpose of the incarnation that Christ should
be said to receive God's gifts not as needing them himself, or for
his own sake, but for the sake of mankind.2
The most obvious text, however, for emphasising the inferiority
of the Son is the saying of Jesus in John xiv. 28, * My Father is
greater than I'. The third-century writers interpreted it in a straight-
forward manner. It was one of the verses that Tertullian used against
Praxeas, and his comment is that' the Father is the whole substance,
the Son an outflow and portion of the whole'. 3 Origen went even
further. For him it is evidence that the Son is subordinate;4 he is
transcended by the Father to the same degree or to an even greater
one than that by which he and the Holy Spirit transcend all created
beings.5 Such a text was an obvious weapon in the Arian armoury.
It does not, however, appear to have played a very prominent part
in the earlier stages of the controversy. Its use is ascribed to Arius
himself and also to Athanasius of Anazarbus; but Athanasius of
Alexandria does not appear to have found it necessary to give the
text any thorough discussion in his discourses against the Arians.6
It is with the emergence of a more radical Arianism about the middle
of the century, which was determined to stress to the full the difference
1
Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 35—6.
2
Ibid. 37-40. Cf. the Catena fragment on John vii. 39 attributed to Athanasius
(Corderius, p. 219). For the very important development of this notion in the
writings of Cyril, see chapter ix below.
3
Adv. Prax. 9, 2.
4
Con. Cel. 8, 15. The word used is CnroSsEOTEpov.
5
O. 13, 25. This judgment is modified in Comm. Matt. 15, 10 where he says that
the transcendence of the Father over his image, the Saviour, is less than the trans-
cendence of the Saviour over all lesser things (see also O. 32, 29; De Principiis,49
4,8).
6
G. Bardy, Recherches. . . pp. 208-10, 281-3. For Arius, see Praedestinatusy
3, 13-14 (P.L. 53, 652 B). For Athanasius of Anazarbus, see P.L. 13, 621 A-B. For
Athanasius of Alexandria, see Or. Con. Ar. 1, 58 and 3, 7.
122
between the Father and the Son, that the text begins to play a more
prominent role. It is one of the key texts to which appeal is made in
the extreme Arian creed of the second council of Sirmium in 357.1
Constant reference is made to it by way of reply by the orthodox
writers of the second half of the century. Two main traditions are to
be found. The one tradition interprets the saying of the sole existing
distinction between the Father and the Son, that is to say as ascribing
a pre-eminence within the Godhead to the Father as ingenerate.2
The other, which gradually gains precedence over the first, employs
the old principle of the two-nature exegesis and refers the saying en-
tirely to the incarnate status of the Son.3 In general the first exegesis
is preferred by the earlier writers, who regarded the second not as
false but as inadequate.4 The second is preferred by the later writers,
who regarded the term 'greater' as inadmissible in reference to the
distinctions within the Godhead.5 It is this second line of interpreta-
tion which is adopted by Theodore and Cyril in their commentaries;
they both claim that the context clearly supports the reference to
Christ's incarnate status.6
There is thus a gradual but complete change in the main tradition
of the exegesis of this and all the other principal texts of an obviously
1
G. Bardy, Recherches. . . p. 209 (see Hilary, De Synodis 11: P.L. 10, 489 A).
2
It is with this interpretation in particular that Eunomius was concerned. He
argued that the terms * greater' and 'less' cannot properly be used of two things
which are of the same essence and that therefore the Son could not be of the same
essence as the Father. To this the orthodox reply was that the possibility of compari-
son was in fact positive evidence of consubstantiality (Evagrius, in the work printed
as Basil, Ep. 8, 5: P.G. 32, 253B, c; Isidore, Epp. bk. 1, no. 422: P.G. 78, 417A, B;
Cyril Alex., Thesaurus xi: P.G. 75,140c and 144B, c). If the second type of interpre-
tation is adopted, Eunomius' argument falls to the ground automatically.
3
For a full account of the patristic exegesis of the text, see Westcott, Additional
Note on John xiv. 28 (vol. 11, pp. 191-6).
4
Thus Gregory Nazianzen includes a reference to the text in his comprehensive
list of examples in Theol. Or. 3, 17-18, to which the two-nature exegesis is to be
applied as the answer to heretical misinterpretation; but when dealing with the
particular text in more detail in Theol. Or. 4, 7, he shows a definite preference for
the first interpretation.
5
For a clear statement of this case, see Didymus in John xiv. 28 (P.G. 39,
1652C-1653A).
6
T. 199, 11-26; Cyr. in John xiv. 28 (11, 513-27). In Thesaurus xi, where Cyril
discusses the problems raised by this text at length, he does at times countenance the
first type of explanation, but even there his preference for the second is evident.
123
subordinationist character. In the third century they are freely and

without apparent embarrassment interpreted of a distinction of rank
within the Godhead. Eusebius of Caesarea, standing firmly within
the Origenist tradition on this point, goes so far as to complain that
the reference of such texts to Christ's except or human nature is an
obviously invalid expedient which Marcellus might wish to adopt
but would hardly dare to do. It is obviously invalid, because if we
apply the words of John vi. 38 ('I came down not to do mine own
will but the will of Him that sent me') to Christ's human nature,
then we necessarily imply the absurdity that Christ's o"ap£ has
descended from heaven.1 Athanasius, as we have seen, also applies
such texts though with more caution to the derivative nature of
Christ's Godhead.2 The second half of the fourth century reveals
a gradual process of change. The rapidly developing doctrine of the
Trinity did not leave room for the admission of any distinction of
operation between the Father and the Son as touching the sphere of
their Godhead. So we find Apollinarius insisting that any distinction
between the activities of the Father and the Son, even if it depicts
a complete parallelism between them, must qua distinction be related
to the incarnation. This principle he applies not only to texts such as
John v. 19, which have a subordinationist air about the manner of
their expression, but also to texts such as John v. 17 and v. 21, which
lay direct claim to the divine offices of creation and of life-giving.3 So
also Cyril not only prefers an interpretation in terms of the incarna-
tion for all those texts with possible subordinationist implications,
but explicitly states the argument of Eusebius against its application
to John vi. 38 and dismisses it as the crooked reasoning of 'the
enemy of the truth'. 4
But the Arians were not content to base their case simply on those
texts which had an obvious subordinationist ring about them or
which had been somewhat unwisely used in anti-monarchian polemic.
They were prepared to use the very texts on which Praxeas had
1
De EccL Theol. 2, 7 (John vi. 38; v. 30; v. 37; xiv. 28).
2
Cf. pp. 121—2 above.
3
H . Lietzmann, Apollinaris von JLaodicea und seine Schule, Frag. 131, p . 239;
Frag. 59, p. 217; Frag. 60, p. 218. Cf. also H. de Riedmatten, 'Some Neglected
Aspects of Apollinarist Christology', p. 253.
4
Cyr. in John vi. 38 (1, 488, 26-489, 6).
124
based his case as positive evidence for their teaching. Thus Arius
appears to have classed John x. 30 and John xiv. 11 together with
the more obvious John xiv. 28 as words of the Lord on which his
belief was firmly based.1 Asterius explains the mutual indwelling
of John xiv. 11 as a means whereby Christ intended to refer the
authority of his words and the power of his works to the Father and
not to himself; similarly he describes the unity of John x. 30 as
implying 'an exact harmony in all words and works' between the
Father and the Son.* This argument was further developed by
insisting that the unity among men for which Jesus prays in John
xvii. 20-3 is to be 'as' the unity of Father and Son. Clearly the unity
amongst men is to be one of harmony not of essence; the unity
between Father and Son must therefore be of the same character.3
In all this they are clearly continuing the tradition of third-century
exegesis, cjujjupcovicc was the word that Origen himself had used in
expansion of the meaning of John x. 30; Hippolytus had already
made use of John xvii to determine the sense of the unity intended
by John x. 30.4 These texts received far more thorough treatment
from Athanasius than John xiv. 28. The essence of his answer
is twofold. The Arian exegesis does not show Christ as making
any unique claim; it does not reveal any essential difference between
the Son and the angels, or even the apostles and patriarchs. More-
over the appeal to John xvii is ruled out of court on the ground
that the unity of the Godhead is being held up simply as an example
for, and not as being identical with, the unity which men ought to
achieve.5 The oneness of which the text speaks must be applied to
the essence of the Son.6 This became the regular interpretation of the
orthodox writers of the fourth century, and finds clear expression
in Cyril's commentary, where once again the consciously anti-Arian
exegesis claims the support of the context; in the Gospel the Jews
clearly understand it as a claim to equality with the Father and Jesus
1
Bardy, Recherches. . . p. 281 (Praedestinatus, 3, 13-14: P.L. 53, 652B).
%
Bardy, Recherches. . . pp. 346 and 353. (Fragments of Asterius, nos. 13, 14 and
32.) T h e original wording is 6id TTJV kv iracriv Aoyois T6 KOCI ipyois &Kpi|3fj
3
ovijupcoviav. Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 17.
4
Origen, Con. Cel. 8, 12; Hippolytus, Con. Noet. 7. Cf. p. 119 above.
5
Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 2 ; 3, 10; 3, 18-25.
6
Ibid.-}, 11.
125
does not contradict them.1 Theodore discusses the arguments of
those who would minimise the sense of unity by reference to John
xvii; he argues that unity clearly has different meanings in different
contexts and that therefore each case must be settled not by appeal
to other examples but in terms of its own context. He claims that
the context supplied by vv. 28 and 29 shows that the reference in
this instance is to a unity of power.*
The main tradition of Arian exegesis, therefore, clearly insisted on
a unity of will between Father and Son, although it stopped short of
affirming an absolute unity of essence. There were however those,
especially in the later stages of the controversy, who went very
much further and pointed to a difference of will between Father and
Son. This line of argument also was based in part upon those
Johannine texts which speak of Jesus doing not his own will but the
Father's. The point is made forcefully in two fragments preserved
by Anastasius of Sinaita and attributed to Arius himself.3 The
genuineness of the fragments is open to doubt,4 but they show clearly
the use to which the Gospel could be put in the service of the more
radical Arian cause. Even here a certain parallel is to be found in the
exegesis of Origen, though his emphasis is clearly different. Origen,
as we have seen, interpreted John x. 30 in terms of an absolute
harmony of will between the Father and the Son, but elsewhere,
when commenting on a passage of similar character to that used in
the fragments preserved by Anastasius, he speaks of that absolute
harmony as something that is achieved in the practical obedience of
the ministry.5 Exegetically they are agreed in suggesting that the
Gospel's contrast between the will of the Father and that of the Son
points to some difference of will between them, but Origen's
emphasis remains not on the difference but on the harmony. The
later orthodox rejoinder was to claim that such words of Jesus were
1
Cyr. in John x. 30 (11, 254, 7-255, 2).
2
T. 152, 10-153, 25. Chrysostom gives a similar exposition in Chr. 61, 2; the
word there used is 8uva|iis.
3
Anastasius, Contra Monophysitas (P.G. 89, 1180c). The crucial words of
comment are ou irAvTrj £96710 lievov KCCICTWOCIVOOVTOSTTJ Trarpudjj povArj TOU
8eAr)|JocTos TOU utou. The Johannine texts are John v. 30 and vi. 38.
4
G. Bardy, Recherches. . . pp. 292-5.
5
O. 13, 36 (John iv. 34).
126
deliberately chosen to allay the anxieties of the Jews who thought

that he was acting in opposition to God the Father.1
One further issue came to hold a place of crucial importance in
the Christological controversies of the latter part of the fourth
century—the question of Jesus' possession of a human soul. Origen
had spoken freely of Christ's human soul, and Pamphilus, who
appears to feel that this presents a more reasonable ground for
offence than most of the accusations levelled against Origen, defends
him on the ground that Scripture does the same.2 The existence of
a human soul in Christ does not seem to have been central to the
thought of any of the writers of the early part of the fourth century.
The basic pattern of their thought about the incarnation was in
terms of a union of Aoyos and crdp^; yet Scripture spoke of
Christ's soul, and so they were prepared to do so when referring
to the appropriate Scriptures.3 But the issue was not at that stage
one of central importance, and it seems unlikely that the insertion of
the words 'and was made man' in the creed adopted at Nicaea was
deliberately intended to insist upon the fact of Christ's assumption
of a human soul.4 With the coming of Apollinarius the whole
question was raised to a new level of theological importance.
Once again the issue was in part a matter of the correct exegesis of
Johannine texts. Epiphanius has recorded the basic pattern of
argumentation between the heretics and the orthodox on this issue.
The heretics insisted that the great Johannine formula for the incar-
nation was that the Word became flesh, not that it becamefleshand
soul. When the orthodox argued that John x. 17 and xii. 27 spoke
1
This argument is found in another fragment in the same collection of Anastasius
(P.G. 89, 1181c, D), attributed to Eustathius of Antioch and described as coming
from his avorrpoTrfi TOO KEACTOO EK TOU Aoyou TOU KOTOC 'Icoavvnv. The fragment is
printed as no. 82 in M. Spanneut, Recherches sur les ecrits d'Eustathe d'Antiochey but
is almost certainly not genuine (ibid. p. 82). The argument is used with reference to
the same two Johannine texts by Theodore (T. 85, 30-86, 34; 103, 7-12). See also
Chr. 39, 4 (John v. 30). For the wider application of this argument, cf. pp. 139—41
below.
2
Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene, 5 {P.G. 17, 590A, B) (John x. 18 and xii. 27).
3
See H. de Riedmatten, Les actes du proces de Paul de Samosate, pp. 72-80 on
Eusebius of Caesarea (note especially p. 78 n. 75 with references to John x. 11, x. 17 and
xii. 27). See A. Grillmeier, DasKonîl von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 77-102 on Athanasius.
4
A. Grillmeier, op. cit. pp. 72-3.
127
of Christ's soul, they replied that the words of Isa. xlii. i, spoken
at Christ's baptism, referred similarly to the 'soul' of the Father.
If the words were to be understood TpomKcoTEpov when spoken of
the Father, as would be agreed by all, then there was no reason why
they should not be understood in the same way when spoken of the
Son.1 Such exegetical arguments however were not central to the
determination of the issues of Apollinarianism, which were fought
out rather on wider psychological and soteriological grounds. Yet
the repercussions of the controversy on Johannine exegesis can be
seen in the work of Theodore and of Cyril, as when both insist with
care in the course of their comparatively brief remarks on John i. 14
that Biblical usage shows clearly that 'flesh' may be used to signify
human nature as a whole.2
1
Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 35. Epiphanius attributes these arguments to the Arians,
but in this he is almost certainly mistaken (cf. H. de Riedmatten, op. cit. p. 113).
Cf. the use of the same argument with reference to John i. 14 in Fragment no. 2 of
Apollinarius in H. Lietzmann, op. cit. p. 204.
* T. 23, 14-15; Cyr. in John i. 14 (1, 138, 4-17). Theodore appeals to Ps. lxiv. 2
and Cyril to Joel ii. 28.
128
CHAPTER VIII
THE CHRISTOLOGICAL EXEGESIS OF

THEODORE AND CYRIL
The commentator at the beginning of the fifth century had therefore
a long tradition behind him, especially in the interpretation of the
great Christological texts of the Gospel. The primary feature of that
tradition was the clear differentiation between those things which
referred to Christ's manhood and those which referred to his God-
head. In the third century, it was the demonstration of the existence
of these two sets of sayings which had provided an answer to the
psilanthropist on the one hand and the docetist on the other, both
of whose cases had been founded on an incomplete selection of the
relevant evidence. In the fourth century, it was the drawing of a
clear distinction between the two sets of sayings which had provided
an answer to the Arian, who had combined them in such a way as to
produce the picture of one who was neither fully God nor fully
man. By the beginning of the fifth century, however, Arianism
was no longer the primary issue. It was sufficiently recent, and no
doubt also still sufficiently common in popular belief, to ensure that
there would be no wholesale abandonment of those techniques which
had proved of most importance in countering it.1 But a new issue
had arisen to fill the immediate horizon—namely the manner of the
combination of the divine and human in the one Christ.
This also was an issue for which the interpretation of the Fourth
Gospel was of especial significance. Long before, Irenaeus had
1
Thus the essence of the Antiochene objection to Cyril's fourth anathema is that
it would remove the one effective barrier to Arian and Eunomian exegesis of the
great Johannine texts (Cyril, Ap. pro XII Cap. contra Orientates, P.G. 76, 333 B;
Ap. contra Theod. pro XII Cap., P.G. 76, 409 B, c and 414 A). Cf. also F. A. Sullivan,
The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 200, with reference to Theodore's
Commentary on St John: 'It seems clear that the basic reason for this preoccupation
(sc. his care to distinguish between what is said of the Word, and what of " Christus in
carne ") is the need to safeguard the divinity of the Word against the Arian dialectic of
such exegetes as Asterius.'
9 129 WSG
claimed that the Gospel was deliberately designed to refute the

blasphemous teachings of those who divided the Lord. But the kind
of division with which Irenaeus was concerned was of so blatant
a character that it had long since been dismissed to the realm of
palpably unchristian interpretation. Lip-service to the fact of the
unity of Christ's person was paid by all without question or demur,
but the difficult question of the manner of that unity was not raised
as a matter of great moment until towards the close of the fourth
century. In the ensuing controversy the central figure was none other
than Cyril himself. Two actions of Cyril in the course of that contro-
versy are of particular significance for our purpose. In the first
place, the fourth anathema in his ultimatum to Nestorius reads as
follows: 'If anyone distributes between two persons or hypostases
the terms used in the evangelical and apostolic writings, whether
spoken of Christ by the saints or by him about himself, and attaches
some to a man thought of separately from the Word of God, and
others as befitting God to the Word of God the Father alone, let him
be anathema.' Secondly, at a later stage in the controversy, he ex-
tended the range of his attacks from the living Nestorius to his dead
predecessors, Diodore and Theodore, as being the sources from
which Nestorius had derived his heretical views. This combination
of an attack upon the exegetical methods of his opponents and upon
the writings of Theodore himself might well lead us to expect
a striking difference of method in the Christological exegesis of their
two commentaries.
Three further considerations, however, may well serve to modify
such expectations. In the first place, both commentaries were
written before the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy. And
while the differences of approach, to which the controversy gave
such violent expression, no doubt go back well before the time of the
outbreak itself, we will not expect to find such a clear-cut conflict of
exegetical method before the opposition between the two schools in
this particular had become fully conscious. In the second place,
Cyril seems to have adopted his fourth anathema in large measure as
a purely controversial weapon. At any rate, only a year later, once
the elimination of Nestorius had been effectively achieved, he was
prepared to sign his name to a confession of faith which comes near
130
EXEGESIS OF THEODORE AND CYRIL
to a contradiction of it, to the effect that 'of the expressions of evan-

gelists and apostles concerning the Lord, we know that theologians
apply some generally as referring to one person, and discriminate
others as referring to two natures; and those which are of a divine
character they refer to the Godhead of Christ, and those that are
lowly to his manhood'.1 In the third place, it seems probable that
the extension of the dispute to include an attack upon Theodore
was not desired by Cyril himself. He appears to have engaged in
the attack himself partly to satisfy his own more extreme supporters,
partly in reaction to the extreme veneration accorded to Theodore
by the Antiochenes and partly through fear that the name and
writings of Theodore were being used as a means of reintroducing
by the back door the teachings of the officially condemned
Nestorius.2 The course of the Nestorian controversy, therefore,
would remain fully explicable even if a comparison of the com-
mentaries of Cyril and Theodore should fail to reveal any radical
divergence in the pattern of their Christological exegesis.
Certainly the first impression that emerges from such a com-
parison is one of similarity rather than of difference. Both writers
approach the problem with certain important presuppositions in
common. There are certain things which cannot on any account be
ascribed to divinity. Basically it is any kind of change which is in-
applicable to the divine.3 So general a principle has, of course, many
and varied implications. Two examples of particular importance will
1
See H. Chadwick, 'Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy',
p. 147 (text in A.C.O. 11, 1, 1, p. 109, 6-9). In writing to Acacius to justify his
reconciliation with the Antiochenes, Cyril divides the words of Scripture concerning
Christ into three categories, at JJLEV y a p eiai TCOV 9COVCOV 6TI lidAiaxa OsoTTpSTrels *
at SE OUTGO TrdAiv dvOpcoTroTrpETTEis* at SE OTI n&Aiara \xicrr\v Tivd TOCÎV ETTEXOVCTIV,
âviôi/crai T6V ulov 0s6v ovxa Kai dvOpcoirov, 6|iou TE Kai bo Tauxco. It is
significant that the examples of the first two categories which spring most readily to
his mind are from St John's Gospel (John xiv. 8-9 and x. 30 on the one hand, and
viii. 39-40 on the other), but as examples of the third category he turns to Heb. xiii.
8,1 Cor. viii. 5-6 and Rom. ix. 3-5 (Cyril, Ep. 40; P.G. JJ, 196 B-D).
2
H. Chadwick, op. cit. p. 148. See Cyril, Epp. 69, 70 and 71.
3
Non enim natura Dei Verbi recipiebat tormentum crucis, neque mox post
passionem adveniet ei aliquid novum, quod consolatione repleret corda discipulorum
(T. 199, 23-6; John xiv. 28). Treirriye ydp 6VTCOS f) OeTa cpuais £<p' eauTrj, TT|V £<p'
?T6p6v TI TrapaTpoTrfiv OUK dvExonEvn Tra0Etv, j-xouaa ê liSAAov cbaauTCOs del,
Kai EV TOIS iSiois Eorcdaa TrAeoveKTfiiJiaaiv (Cyr. in John i. 14; 1, 142, 12-15).
131 9-2
suffice at this stage. It renders illegitimate the ascription to divinity

of any form of suffering1 or of any movement or limitation either in
space or time.2 These underlying principles, it will be seen, are
expressed in very similar language by both writers, and are regarded
by both as absolutely axiomatic. On one occasion Theodore applies
this principle where Cyril does not find it necessary to do so. The
humble action of the feet-washing, according to Theodore, should
be ascribed t o ' Domini nostri homo'; whereas, according to Cyril, it
is of the essence of the meaning of the sign that it is the act of one who
is Lord of all.3 But this is the exception. It may be allowed to suggest
that these presuppositions were held by Theodore in a more rigid
form and one which made it more difficult for him to do full justice
to the message of the Gospel. But it remains true that any such
difference is far smaller than the underlying unity of thought upon
the matter.
Two other similar principles are common to both authors. The
corollary of our first and basic principle is the inapplicability of
such clearly divine characteristics as pre-existence to human nature
or to theflesh.4This is regarded as equally axiomatic with the first
principle, but is not of such importance or extensive application in
the interpretation of the Gospel. The third principle is the in-
admissibility of applying to the Word of God anything that would
1
Quamvis sit evidens, divinitatem pati non posse;. . . ( T . 51, 27-8; John iii. 16).
6TI uev y a p 0e6s fjv 6 A6yos dOdvocTos TE KOCI &5i&90opos, KCCI OCUTO KOTOC cpucnv
3001*1, K0CTcnrTr)C7(TSiv OUK f|8et T6V O&VCCTOV, -rracnv ofuca TrpoBrjAoTOCTOv (Cyr. in
John vi. 38; 1, 487, 4-7).
* Si quis enim de divinitate dicta esse velit haec 'ascendit' et 'descendit', indicium
foret magnae stultitiae. Qualis nempe ascensus et descensus erit ei, qui semper est in
caelo et in terra? ( T . 50, 7—10; John iii. 13). §AT|AV0£VO:I yenfjv eis TOVSS TOV K6CTUOV
i, UETaxcopEiv 8E aO TrdAiv £K TOU Kdauov irpds TOV TraTepa, OVTE TOU iraTp6s
6T8 y£yovev dv0pcoTros, OVTE \xi\v TCOV ETT1 TT\S yfft STE [XBTCX aapKos
irpos TOV Trccrepa. 0e6s y d p §oriv dA^0iv6s dpfjriTcp Suvdnei Td TrdvTa
irAripcov, Kal ou8ev6s TCOV 6VTCOV d-rroAiiJiTravoiievos (Cyr. in John xvi. 28; 11, 652,
3
14—19). Cf. p. 58 above.
4
T. 108, 25-7 (John vi. 62); Cyr. in John vi. 38 (1, 489, 2-6). This principle
would not of course have been accepted by Origen. Origen sees in John i. 30 with
its explicit reference to dvr)p clear evidence of the pre-existence of 6 dv0pcoTros TOO
utou TOO 0eoO (O. 1, 32). Theodore and Cyril both admit that this verse and John
i. 15 refer to Christ's humanity, but are forced to adopt the somewhat strained
exegesis that the words refer to men's estimation of him (T. 25, 31—26, 9; 30, 22-36;
Cyr. in John i. 15; 1, 145-8; in John i. 30; 1, 171, 17-25) (cf. also Chr. 13, 3).
132
imply an inferiority to the Father.1 This principle is not regarded as

axiomatic in quite the same sense as the other two, though it is of
considerable importance and extensive application. It does not
follow obviously from the universally recognised definition of the
concept of divinity. It follows rather from an acceptance of the fully
developed Nicene faith, with its insistence on Christ's nature as in
every possible respect ojjiooucrios with the Father. For both authors
this is the unquestioned standpoint of Christian faith from which the
commentaries are written. This principle also, therefore, is common
to them both.
It is clear that as long as these principles remain unquestioned, no
radical escape from the traditional two-nature exegesis is possible.
The interpreter's room for manoeuvre is strictly circumscribed. It is
possible therefore that an apparent similarity of conclusion may yet
conceal a significant difference of approach. Widely differing con-
clusions are ruled out from the start by these accepted principles.
We must be prepared, therefore, to look for evidence of the
differences between them not so much in their final conclusions, as
in the presence or absence of a desire to manoeuvre, even though
that desire be necessarily thwarted in expression.
How then do Theodore and Cyril tackle the various problems
that inevitably arise in attempting to expound the Christological
teaching of the Gospel? In the first place both are agreed that some
of the problems that appear to arise are not real problems at all.
Language that appears at a superficial reading to be derogatory in
some way or another is on a more careful reading seen not to carry
any such unfortunate implications. Thus when Jesus speaks of his
being unable to do anything apart from his Father, this appears to
suggest weakness in the Son, but in reality it does not imply that at
all; rather it is expressive of the complete unanimity of their wills.2
But not all the difficulties can be solved as easily as this, and the
two-nature exegesis has to be called into play. This is regularly
employed by Theodore in a neat and systematic way. One set of
statements are said to refer to Christ's divine nature,3 while those of
1
T. 80, 8-11 (John v. 20); Cyr. in John v. 19 (1, 319, n-21).
2
T. 78, 20-34 (John v. 19); Cyr. in John v. 30 (1, 353, 2-354, 5).
3
E.g. T. 80, 15-18 (John v. 17); T. 108, 25 (John vi. 62).
133
an opposite character are said to refer to his human nature.1 This

alternation of reference can take place within the context of a single
verse or saying. The Gospel itself does not usually make explicit the
reference to a particular nature. Everything is attributed to the one
person (thus making clear the unity of the two natures in one
person), but the variety of phrasing in the Gospel text bears indirect
yet equally clear witness to the difference of the natures.2
Theodore's treatment of one particular verse may usefully be
given in more detail to illustrate the thorough, and even harsh,
application of these principles to the text of the Gospel. According
to John xvi. 28, Jesus says to his disciples 'I came out from the
Father and am come into the world; again I leave the world and go
unto the Father'. None of this can be applied literally to Christ's
divine nature, because movement is inapplicable to divinity. But
the first half cannot be applied at all to Christ's human nature which
has no original or natural communion with the Father. It must
therefore refer to his divine nature in a non-literal sense. The second
half, however, cannot refer to the divine nature, even in a meta-
phorical sense, because it implies progress towards God. It must
refer to the taking up into the Godhead of Christ's human nature.
The two halves of the one saying, therefore, must refer to the two
different natures. They can be thus combined, because of the unity
existing between those two natures. It is in this conception of the
union of Christ's human nature with the Father through its union
with the Word that the religious significance of the saying is said to
consist.3
In two cases Theodore has to admit that the wording of the Gospel
appears to conflict with his scheme. John iii. 16 appears to associate
suffering with the divine nature, by asserting it of the only-begotten
Son. This, he claims, is strictly a false attribution, but is allowable,
1
E.g. T. 30, 29 (John i. 30); T. 33, 6 (John i. 34); T. 80, 3-8 (John v. 20); T. 86,
24-5 (John v. 30); T. 145, 13 (John x. 15); T. 163, 10 (John xi. 42); T. 199, 20-1
(John xiv. 28).
2
T. 193, 36-194, 7; T. 119, 34-120, 2 (John viii. 16). Cf. Theodore, Cat. Horn.
8, 11-12 (John vi. 62; iii. 13). For the exact form in which Theodore describes this
attribution of differing characteristics to the one person, see F. A. Sullivan, op. cit.
pp. 262-3.
3
T. 217 (cf. also T. 50 on John iii. 13).
because of the unity existing between the two natures, as a means of

stressing the great significance of the passion.1 John vi. 33 speaks of
the 'bread of God, which comes down from heaven', thus appearing
to assert the heavenly pre-existence of Christ's body. This, he claims,
again, cannot be literally true, but is an example of a tendency for
Christ to apply to his human nature what strictly belongs to his
divinity. This also is allowable because of the fact that his human
nature has always been intimately associated with the indwelling
divinity. That he is still uneasy about this interpretation, however,
is suggested by the fact that he makes the alternative suggestion that
Christ may here be referring to his second advent. He appears
conscious that this does not really fit the context at all, but remains
tempted by the fact that it would provide a much simpler solution
of the Christological difficulty.2
Such cases, it must be stressed, are for Theodore the exception.
In the great majority of cases, he applies the principles of a two-
nature exegesis simply and directly. He explains the apparently
exceptional cases, and even finds positive religious significance in
them. None the less, it seems clear that he still regards them as some-
what unfortunate exceptions, and would have preferred to have been
able to apply his system in its simplest form and without any
qualification throughout.
Cyril's pattern of exegesis is similar in outline, but significantly
different in emphasis. He too makes regular use of a two-nature
exegesis, some sayings being applied to Christ in his divine capacity
and others to him as man. But he seldom applies it with the neatness
or precision of Theodore. He recognises, as Theodore does, that
assertions are regularly made by Christ, or about him as a person,
which are strictly applicable only to one nature. Jesus declares that
he is the light of the world, not that the light of the world dwells in
him;3 he tells his disciples that he will soon leave them, not that his
flesh or human presence is to be removed;4 the Evangelist declares
1
T. 51-2.
2
T. 101, 25-102, 7. Chrysostom carefully distinguishes the reference to the
bread of life in this verse, which refers to Christ's divinity, and that in v. 52, which
refers to his body (Chr. 45, 2).
3
Cyr. in John viii. 12 (1, 712, 28-713, 3).
4
Cyr. in John xiii. 33 (11, 381, 19-29).
135
that Jesus is tired, not that his flesh or his body is tired.1 Sometimes,
as Theodore again also recognises, there appears to be an attribution
to the wrong nature, as when the Son of Man is said to have descended
from heaven or to ascend where he was before.2 Theodore had ac-
cepted and explained in a similar way these same phenomena, but
for him they were exceptional cases to be explained away. For Cyril
they are not really exceptions at all; this element of intermingling and
apparent confusion is of the essence of the system. While the two
natures may (and indeed must) be distinguished in thought, the
unity of the person of Christ is the more fundamental reality. In all
the instances just quoted he insists most forcefully that here is in-
controvertible evidence against those who would divide Christ into
two sons.
Both writers are attempting to interpret the Gospel from within
a strait-jacket of presuppositions to which the message of the
Gospel will not succumb. Theodore applies those presuppositions
with the greater rigour, and his interpretation has therefore the
greater logical consistency. But this is a doubtful advantage when
the logic is an imperfect and not fully applicable human logic. It is
significant that Cyril declares himself aware of the inadequacy of
human language for describing the wholeness of divine truth, where
Theodore makes no such explicit admission.3 While Cyril does not
break free from the limitations which his presuppositions impose on
him, the application of them in a looser and more varied manner
enables him to do more justice to the Gospel of divine condescension
and gives to his interpretation a greater theological potency than
that of Theodore.
A similar contrast between the two interpreters may be seen in the
language which they use to describe the divine and human elements
within the one Christ. Here also we shall find that Theodore is the
more systematic, but less satisfying of the two. Theodore has two
main pairs of contrasted expressions. The most frequent is the con-
trast between 'Divina natura' or 'Divinitas' on the one hand and
1
Cyr. in John iv. 6 (i, 265-6).
2
Cyr. in John iii. 13 (1, 224); in John vi. 62 (1, 550, 21-551, 13).
3
Cyr. in John i. 9 (1,114,23-7); in John iv. 34 (1, 294, 19-26). Cf. also Apollinarius
in John xv. 15 (Corderius, p. 384).
136
' Humana naturaJ on the other.1 But he also uses the contrast between
'Deus Verbum' and 'Homo 5 or 'Homo assumptus'.2 This second
set of terms is clearly the kind of language which is in danger of
suggesting the idea of two persons acting together rather than
a single person with a twofold nature. Although, as we have seen,
he recognises that it is the custom of Scripture to attribute things,
whether they be of a divine or human character, simply to the one
Christ, he does not always follow a like practice himself. In his own
discussions one element of the Christ can be described as the agent
of a particular action. Thus it is the 'homo, qui assumptus est', who
will come from heaven and will judge all men.3 It is the ' Domini
nostri homo' who performs the feet-washing.4 While it is true that
elsewhere Theodore insists firmly upon the unity of Christ's person,
these particular expressions are unfortunate and do appear to imply
the action of one element in the Christ in independence of the
other. As such they deserve the strictures of Cyril's fourth anathema
and the protest contained in his commentary against the use of the
phrase, 6 ocvOpcoTros TOU xpioroO.5
Cyril uses a far more varied set of terms. A selection of the most
frequent and characteristic may be given. On the divine side, we
1
T. 30, 29; 33, 5-6; 50, 7-22; 80,1-8; 82, 24-9; 86, 23-5; 98,15-20; 101, 34-102,
3; 108, 22-5; 119, 13-19; 120,10-12.
2
T. 83, 25-9; 148, 10-14; 163, 9-12; 182, 19-24; 199, 18-26; 217, 27; 251, 6-10.
F. A. Sullivan examines carefully these two sets of contrasted terms and concludes
that they are interchangeable and do not correspond to any distinction in the thought
of Theodore (op. cit. pp. 206—23).
3
T. 83, 8-9 (John v. 22). Cf. also T. 176, 2-4.
4
T. 182, 19-24 (John xiii. 1-15).
5
Cyr. in John ix. 37 (11, 201, 11-13). The phrase is to be found regularly in the
fragments of Eustathius (M. Spanneut, op. cit. Frags. 33, 53, 60, 61, 62 and 63).
One of these fragments (no. 63) is directly concerned with the exegesis of St John's
Gospel. In John xiv. 6, Eustathius distinguishes between 'the way' as signifying
Tf|v KCCTOC dvOpcoTTOv 7rept(3oAf|v and 'the life and the truth' "rrjv TOU Trorrpos <pu<7iv
(op. cit. pp. 112—13). A similar exegesis occurs in the Expositio Fidei (Section 4)
attributed to Athanasius. But it is possible that this too is really the work of
Eustathius as suggested by E. Schwartz (see H. Opitz, Untersuchungen ûr Oberlieferung
der Schriften des Athanasius, p. 178). In Frag. 24 (M. Spanneut, op. cit. pp. 102-3)
Eustathius says of John xx. 17 that the words 'I am not yet ascended to my Father'
oux 6 Aoyos 69OCCTK6 . . . &AA' combs 6 . . . 6cv0pco7ros. F. A. Sullivan, op. cit. pp. 165-9,
argues that this way of speaking appears only in Eustathius' specifically anti-Arian
writings and is a direct outcome of his part in the Arian controversy.
137
find cos teos,1 Oelcc cpucrts or 06OTTIS,2 and such expressions as f] [xev
fern Aoyos KCCI 0e6s3 or KaOoirsp earl Aoyos Kai 0e6s.4 On the human
side, we find cos cxv0pcoTros,5 cos ocvOpcoiros crximocTiêTai,6 oiKovoiii-
KCOSJ7 cos av0pcoTTos OIKOVOHIKCOS8 and such expressions as rj 8e ysyovev
av0pcoTros,9 KOC06 yeyovev dvOpcoiros,10 OTS yeyovsv avOpcoTros11 or
Ka0oTT£p f\v dv0pcoTTos.12 These lists are far from exhaustive, but are
sufficiently representative to show the main features of Cyril's
manner of expression. At first sight it seems open to a charge of
docetism. The regular use of the phrase cos dv0pco7ros, and more
particularly the fuller phrase cos dv0pcoTros crxTllJl0CT*36Tai> could easily
suggest that the whole human life of Jesus was a pretence, that he was
continually acting as if he were man. But this is a false impression.
Jesus acts cos 0e6s as well as cos av0pcoTros. He acts in his capacity
as man, not as if he were man. The use of the word o-xrmaTijeTai is
drawn from the use of the word oxnua * n Phil. ii. 7, a passage which
Cyril is continually quoting and in which it occurs linked with the
phrase cos dv0pcoTros. W e cannot easily accuse Cyril of docetism on
the score of such language alone without involving St Paul also in
the charge. crxTmaTijeTai need not imply any pretence, but simply the
acceptance of the limitations of human form. The actions of Christ are
never the actions of the divine or human element alone. They are
always the actions of the one Christ, sometimes in the light of
1
Cyr. in John i. 38 (i, 193, 13); in John viii. 29 (11, 50, 26); in John xi. 38 (11, 283,
10); in John xvii. 2 (11, 665, 24); in John xvii. 6 (11, 679, 18; 684, 9); in John xvii.
9 (11, 689, 12); in John xx. 17 (ill, 124, 17).
2
Cyr. in John vi. 37 (1, 478, 29); in John xi. 41-2 (n, 286, 9); in John xiv. 16-17
(11, 467, 2-3).
3
Cyr. in John v. 22 (1, 331, 16-17).
4
Cyr. in John xvi. 24 (11, 505, 11).
5
Cyr. in John i. 32 (1, 185, 12; 187, 21); in John iii. 35 (1, 257, 11); in John iv. 22
(1, 276, 6; 283, 21); in John vi. 37 (1, 479, 1); in John vii. 39 (i, 697, 25); in John
viii. 40 (11, 80, 10-11); in John xi. 41 (11, 286, 8); in John xii. 27 (11, 318, 18); in
John xiv. 16 (11, 467, 2); in John xx. 17 (m, 124, 18).
6
Cyr. in John vi. 11 (1, 416, 13-14); in John viii. 29 (11, 50, 27).
7
Cyr. in John i. 33 (1, 190, 3); in John iii. 16 (1, 226, 20); in John v. 36 (1, 373, 25);
in John x. 25 (11, 251, 19).
8
Cyr. in John v. 22 (1, 331, 14-15)-
9/^.(1,331,18).
10
Cyr. in John vii. 39 (1, 692, 18); in John xii. 24 (11, 313, 6).
11
Cyr. in John xv. 9 (11, 570, 13).
M
Cyr. in John vii. 39 (1, 692, 27).
138
his eternal divinity, sometimes in the light of his newly adopted in-
carnate status.
The application of this two-nature exegesis is never regarded
merely as a necessary activity of later theological reflection. It is
regarded as a means of making clear the actual intentions of Jesus as
he spoke. The alternation from one mode of speaking to the other
is frequently shown to have been motivated by the historical situation
of the Gospel setting. This kind of argument is employed both by
Theodore and by Cyril, though more frequently by the latter. It is
also much used in the homilies of Chrysostom.1
Jesus is both God and man with a perfect right to speak as either.
The precise form of his speech is therefore determined by the needs
of particular occasions.2 This need is essentially a pedagogic need.
Believers need to be given a clear conception alike of the Lord's
divinity and of his incarnation.3 Unbelievers who have failed to
accept one approach must be offered some different aspect of the
truth.4 In both cases this involves Jesus as a good teacher in com-
bining the human and divine elements in his teaching and moving
frequently from one to the other.
This principle may be illustrated from the treatment of two
passages. All three commentators are agreed in applying this principle
to the controversy between Jesus and the Jews which followed on
the sabbath healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda. Jesus
justifies himself by an assertion of his oneness with the Father
(John v. 17). When this rouses the fury of the Jews, Jesus rewords
his assertion in language which at least appears to give him a humbler
relation to the Father and which refers to his human nature (John
v. 19, 20).5 He then goes on to lay claim to the two divine functions
1
Examples of the application of this principle in Catena fragments of fourth- and
fifth-century writers show it to have been a widely established principle at the time
of Theodore and of Cyril—e.g. Didymus explains the reference of the Son of Man's
authority to the sealing of the Father in John vi. 27 as designed to win credibility
from the Jews (P.G. 39, 1649 A, B). Isidore explains the apparently subordinationist
language of John v. 19 as designed at least in part to allay the suspicions of the
Jews who thought that he was acting against the Father (Corderius, pp. 151-2).
2
Cyr. in John xvii. 8 (11, 687, 4-8).
3
Cyr. in John xvii. 4 (11, 671); T. 192, 29-32; T. 198, 18-24.
4
Cyr. in John v. 19 (1, 317).
5 Cyr. ibid.; T. 80.
139
of raising the dead and judging the world, but finally redresses
the balance once more and clips the wings of their anger by asserting
that the ability to do these things is given to him as Son of Man by
the Father (John v. 26, 27).1
The second passage is John x. 28-38. Here Jesus begins by claim-
ing that he can give eternal life and that no one can pluck his sheep
out of his hand. Then seeing that the Jews ridicule such a claim on
the part of one whom they regard as a mere man, he goes on to
attribute this safety in a more acceptable manner to the keeping
power of the Father, who is greater than all. Finally, in the interests
of ensuring true belief, he comes back to the exalted claim of unity
with his Father.2 Chrysostom continues this idea of alternation still
further. The rather strange comparison of himself with the 'gods' of
old time to whom the word of the Lord came is designed to mitigate
the fury of the Jews caused by the claim to equality and evidenced
by the desire to stone him. Once this aim has been achieved, Jesus
returns to the great claims of vv. 37 and 38.3
The particular difficulty experienced by the Jews was that of
conceiving Jesus, whom they could clearly see to be a man, as being
also more than man. Jesus' task in teaching was therefore to lead
them on from an existing belief in his humanity to a belief also in
his divinity. This could only be done gradually. Chrysostom there-
fore asserts that it was Jesus' practice to speak frequently of the
humbler aspects of his mission, which were comparatively acceptable
to his hearers, but only rarely of the more exalted aspects, and even
then in an indirect and hidden manner.4 For the same reason Jesus
sometimes begins a discourse with a reference to his humanity so
as to forestall an immediate onrush of opposition. He does this
even when the reference to his humanity is not strictly apposite,
as when, at the beginning of the discourse following the feeding of
1
Cyr. in John v. 26—7 (1, 347). For Chrysostom's treatment of the passage, see
Chr. 38, 3-4; 39, 1-2.
%
Cyr. in John x. 29-30 (11, 253-4); T. 152, 1-10 (cf. also Theodore, Cat, Horn.
4, 14)-
3
Chr. 61, 2. For another striking example of the assertion and application of this
principle, see Chrysostom on John xii. 34-7 (Chr. 68, 1-2).
4
Chr. 27, 1; 64, 1. See p. 116 above for Novatian's assertion of this principle and
the exactly contradictory conclusion that he draws from it.
140
the five thousand, he attributes the gift of the bread that abides to
eternal life to the Son of Man.1 Most frequently of all, it is his regular
custom to attribute to the power of his Father things which might
have been asserted directly of his own divine nature, in order to
avoid giving offence to the Jews.2 This he does not only in contro-
versial discussion with the still utterly unbelieving Jews, but also,
because of their weakness and blindness, in the course of teaching
the disciples.3
Chrysostom declares that while there can only be one reason for the
exalted claims of Jesus, namely their truth, his humbler sayings may
have a variety of causes. Of these he lists five—to show that he is
not unbegotten, to show that he is not in opposition to God, the fact
of the incarnation, the weakness of his hearers, and to teach the
lesson of humility.4 Moreover the Gospel shows that as a teaching
method it was at least partially successful. When we read that' as He
spake these things, many believed on Him5, the things which he had
just been speaking were typically lowly sayings ascribing the source
and goal of his actions to the Father. The success, however, was only
partial. Such humble sayings can only lead to a partial and incom-
plete faith, and the subsequent context shows that the faith here
spoken of was of such a partial and incomplete kind.5
Here then is a radical and by no means altogether unsuccessful
attempt to present the two-nature exegesis as something rooted in
the historical situation of Jesus' own day. There are, however, three
particular types of context to which this kind of exegesis was
applied and in which it was not so easy to maintain the note of
historical realism. These passages of particular difficulty are ones
concerning the ignorance, the prayers and the emotions of Jesus.
Each of these problems must be considered in turn.
1
Cyr. in John vi. 27 (1, 441, 16-18).
2
Cyr. in John vi. 37 (1, 478, 27-479, 3); in John vi. 57 (1, 538, 22-5); in John
vii. 16 (1, 604, 15-21); in John viii. 28 (11, 37 and 45); in John x. 18 (11, 244-6); in
John x. 25 (11, 251). The principle finds its clearest enunciation in Chrysostom in
relation to the words of the Baptist about Jesus (Chr. 30, 1-2; John iii. 31-2).
3
T. 216, 29-31 (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26-7); Cyr. in John xiv. 16 (11, 466, 9-467, 5);
in John xvii. 12 (11, 700-1).
4 5
Chr. 49, 2 (John vii. 18). Chr. 53, 2 (John viii. 30).
141
I. THE IGNORANCE OF JESUS

This is not a problem which is raised by the Fourth Gospel in
a particularly acute form. There are no passages comparable to the
saying of Jesus in Mark xiii. 32, where he expressly denies knowledge
of the time of the Parousia. The issue arises primarily out of two
questions of Christ. The first question is that to Andrew and his
companion 'What seek ye?3. Both Theodore and Cyril insist that
this was not asked in ignorance, but to provide the occasion for the
beginning of useful conversation.1 We do in fact use questions in
that kind of way, and no great problem arises. The second question
is that asking the whereabouts of the tomb of Lazarus. This is not
quite so easily or satisfactorily dealt with. Both again explicitly
rule out the motive of ignorance. Theodore declares that it was to
show that the ensuing miracle was not done with a motive of
ostentation. Cyril suggests the positive purpose of getting a good
number of people to go in front and show him what he was looking
for, thereby attracting a large number to the site of the miracle.* So
far the arguments used give the questions of Jesus an explanation
that can be understood fully in terms of historical realism. In social
intercourse questions are used not only for their primary purpose
of gaining previously unknown information, but also for other
subsidiary purposes. The questions of Jesus are of this latter
kind, and have one of these subsidiary purposes in view.3 But Cyril
(who takes the whole matter much further than Theodore) does not
press the argument home in this way. For him a question necessarily
implies ignorance, and therefore Jesus in asking a question oxn-
[iaTi36Toci to be ignorant as man of what he knows as God.4 The
1
T. 34, 8-9; Cyr in. John i. 38 (1, 193, 12-14). A similar explanation is given by
both Theodore and Cyril of Jesus' question to the sick man * Wouldst thou be made
whole?'; but in that case it is the apparent futility of the question rather than the
apparent ignorance of Jesus that they are anxious to disprove (T. 70, 25-31; Cyr. in
John v. 7; 1, 307, 4-12).
2
T. 162, 6-10; Cyr. in John xi. 34 (11, 280, 21-281, 5). This second question
concerning the tomb of Lazarus unfortunately occurs in the part of the commentary
occurring only in fragmentary form and some of the fragments given by Pusey are of
doubtful attribution. Cyril's basic approach to the problem of Christ's ignorance,
however, is clear from passages elsewhere in the commentary.
3
Cf. the phrase ohcovoucov TI XP1*!0"1^0^ with reference to the question in John
4
xi. 34 (Cyr. in John viii. 29; 11, 51, 8). Cyr. in John viii. 29 (11, 50, 26-7).
142
word axrmaTijeTai, as we have already argued, does not necessarily

imply a pretence, though it is not easy to see how else it is to be
translated here.1 In the course of the discussion, he employs two
other synonyms for it—ayvoiccv <7o<pi3£Tca, UTreirAdTTeTO TT^V
epcoTricriv.2 This has given rise to considerable debate as to whether
or not Christ's ignorance according to Cyril is to be regarded as
real.3 This is not a question which should be treated in isolation
from the other aspects of Christ's humanity. Ignorance is a part
of the human oxnua which Christ had adopted in his incarnation; in
that sense it must be regarded as real. But this ignorance co-exists
in the same person with a divine omniscience. The relationship
between them can only be expressed in the same kind of paradox
with which Cyril speaks of the Logos suffering impassibly.4
It is interesting to notice that Cyril uses another argument of
a very different kind. He points out that the Old Testament
attributes to the Father the question 'Adam, where art thou?',
which is of a nature very similar to that asked by Jesus in John xi. 34.$
In the case of Genesis iii. 9, there is no question of an incarnation. If
therefore a question can legitimately be attributed to the Father on
the grounds of the necessarily anthropomorphic use of language
about God, it can be accounted for on the lips of Jesus in a similar
way. If he had pressed home this argument, Cyril could have avoided
the whole question of Christ's ignorance as an incarnational problem
in the course of actual exegesis of the Fourth Gospel. But his con-
cern in the commentary is not merely exegetical but doctrinal, and
within that wider sphere the problem is inescapable.
Finally both Cyril and Theodore make one further point of
1
See p. 138 above.
2
Cyr. in John xi. 34 (11, 281, 9); in John viii. 29 (11, 51, 8).
3
See J. Liebaert, La Doctrine Christologique de Saint Cyrille a1'Alexandrie avant
la Querelle Nestorienne, pp. 87-100.
4
See H. Du Manoir de Juaye, Dogme et Spiritualite che% Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie,
p. 162; R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, p. 88 n. 8.
5
Cyr. in John xi. 34 (11, 281, 6-12). The authenticity of the Cyrilline passage is
uncertain, but the same point is made by Severian of Gabala, Homily 2, ed. Aucher,
p. 29 (= ps-Hippolytus, On the Raising of Lazarus, p. 221). In Tertullian we find
the converse of Cyril and Severian's argument. The asking of a question in Gen. iii.
9 is evidence of a pre-incarnational assumption of human affections on the part of
the Son (Adv. Prax. 16, 4).
143
importance. It would be absurd, they say, to ascribe ignorance of

the whereabouts of Lazarus' tomb to one who knew about the fact
of his death from a distance.1 Thus a denial of ignorance on the part
of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel need not be based on alien Greek
categories of omniscience, but on the overall picture of the Johannine
Christ presented by the Gospel itself.
2. THE PRAYERS OF JESUS
If there is no evidence of ignorance on the part of the Johannine

Christ, there are clear examples of him as one who prayed to his
Father. Three passages may be considered.
In John iv. 22 Jesus identifies himself with the Jews and declares
' We worship what we know'. Here, says Cyril, he must be speaking
as man because as God he does not worship but is worshipped. This
is a part of his axfliia Ta-rreivcbcrscos, and is intended for our imitation.2
Chrysostom, always much concerned with the original historical
setting, claims that his words are deliberately framed to conform
with the Samaritan woman's partial belief in him as a Jewish prophet.3
In John vi. 11 Jesus gives thanks to his Father before performing
the miracle of the loaves and fishes. All three commentators agree
that he intended to provide us with an example of the importance
of grace at meals. Cyril and Chrysostom also add the customary
explanation that in consideration for the weakness of his hearers he
wishes to play down his own divine honour and show clearly that
he is not setting himself up in opposition to the Father.4
But the issue arises most acutely with chapter xvii. Theodore
insists repeatedly that this is not ordinary prayer, but prophecy
under the form of prayer; it is the substance and not the form that
is to be regarded. The form is a kind of parable, not to be taken
1
T. 162, 7—8; Cyr. in John viii. 29 (11, 51, 2-7); in John xi. 34 (11, 280, 19-21).
The second of the Cyrilline passages is a fragment of doubtful attribution; it is very
similar in wording to the passage in Theodore and should probably be attributed to
him. In any event the point is certainly made by both authors and in fact goes back
to Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 37.
* Cyr. in John iv. 22 (1, 276-7).
3 Chr. 3 3 , 1.
4
T. 94, 28-32; Cyr. in John vi. 11 (1, 416); Chr. 42, 2, 3.
144
literally. The reason for this form of prayer is to help the disciples.
While their faith in him was so weak that they might not have much
faith in the words of encouragement that he had spoken to them in
the upper room, yet they would hardly be able to doubt that God
would hear his prayers.1 Chrysostom also insists that it is not really
a prayer, but a conversation held for the encouragement of the
disciples. When the Evangelist begins the next chapter with the
words 'When Jesus had spoken these w o r d s . . . ' , he is deliberately
referring to the so-called prayer as a conversation with the disciples.2
In addition to this immediate historical purpose, Jesus was de-
liberately giving instruction by example on how to pray.3 Cyril also
starts with a reference to the concept of the prayer as an example,4
but he is conscious even in this context that the concept of example
is only a small part of the significance of Christ's actions.^ Because
he does not separate Christ's humanity so rigidly from his divinity,
he is in less danger of isolating the concept of example from the
deeper ideas of redemption and of the divine transformation of
human nature. Once again we find language used to describe his
praying similar to that used with reference to his ignorance, TO TT\S
It seems undeniable that in all such discussions a sense of the reality

of Christ's prayers has been lost. But one important point needs to
be made in defence of the commentators. In two of the passages
quoted explicit reference is made to John xi. 42.? There Jesus declares
that his prayer of thanks to his father is strictly superfluous, but has
been uttered 'because of the multitude which standeth around. . .
1
T. 219, i—11; 222, 20-3; 228, 23-8; 229, 34-230, 13. The phrase used is crxfjua
Trpocreuxfis (T. Frag. 406, 15-16), involving the use of the same word which plays so
large a part in the writings of Cyril. But the fact that Theodore has here to introduce
a special word of qualification, which does not figure in his normal assertions about
the actions of Christ's humanity, seems to imply that there was for him a special
degree of unreality attaching to the prayers of Jesus.
%
Chr. 83, 1 (John xviii. 1).
3
Chr. 80, 1 (John xvii. 1).
4
Cyr. in John xvii. 1 (11, 685, 15-16).
5
Cyr. in John xvii. 4 (11, 671-2); in John xvii. 14 (11, 709, 13-710, 18).
6
Cyr. in John xvii. 5 (11, 677, 1-2). Cf. also in John vi. 11 (1, 416, 13-14) and in
John xi. 42 (11, 286-7).
7
Cyr. in John vi. 11 (1, 416); Chr. 80, 1.
that they may believe that thou didst send me'. If the commentators'
interpretation of the prayers of Jesus is to be charged with in-
troducing an element of unreality or even of docetism, can the
Evangelist himself escape the same charge?
3. THE EMOTIONS OF JESUS

As Chrysostom points out, it is the fourth Evangelist with his
description of the tears of Jesus and his perturbation of spirit who
provides the most striking examples of Christ's full humanity out-
side the passion story.1 There are four references to the perturbation
of Jesus, two during the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 33 and 38), one
at the prospect of the passion (John xii. 27), and one at the disclosure
of the traitor (John xiii. 21). Theodore finds no special difficulty in
these texts. John xii. 27 contains an explicit reference to the soul,
that is, the human soul, of Jesus. The others are an expression of
his anger at the faithlessness of the Jews or the treachery of Judas.
The reference to the spirit in xi. 33 and xiii. 21 is a reference to the
supernatural source of foreknowledge about the attitude of the Jews
and the action of Judas, which is the cause of his anger.2 The tears
of Jesus are not allowed so natural an explanation. Tears of ordinary
human grief would clearly be superfluous when he was just about
to raise Lazarus to life again. They must, therefore, be intended as
an example for us of the appropriate extent of human grief.3
Cyril agrees that the tears of Jesus have an exemplary purpose.
To show that mourning should not be overdone, Christ allows his
iSicc crap5 to weep a little, although being &5ccKpus ocrov sis !5iccv cpucnv-4
This is just the kind of explanation that we would expect. Of the
four passages that speak of Christ's perturbation he gives a much
more distinctive interpretation which appears to involve the idea
of conflict between the divine and human elements in Christ. The
perturbation of John xiii. 21 arises from the Spirit's hatred of evil,
but its particular form probably arises from the difficulties of the
1 %
Chr. 63, 2 (John xi. 35 and 38). T. 162, 3-6; 172, 27-9; 185, 17-26.
3
T. 162, 11-14 (John xi. 35). Cf. Isidore: sS&Kpucrev cbs qnAoaoqnas dyaApia 6
Xpicrrds 8TT1 Aa3&pou (Cramer, p. 318).
4
Cyr. in John xi. 36 (n, 282, 3—10). Similar language about Christ allowing his
body to weep and to hunger is to be found in Athanasius, Or. Con. Ar. 3, 55.
146
flesh in having to carry so violent an emotion.1 In John xi. 33 it is

rather a question of the Spirit putting a stern check upon the natural
grief of the flesh—a treatment which the flesh does not find it easy
to bear.2 Christ is said to be acting <£>s Oeos iraiSaycoyiKcos.3 If the
educative significance were intended to be simply by way of example,
we would expect it to be a matter of action as man rather than as
God.4 In any event the idea of example, if present at all, is soon left
behind. It is rather a divine conquest of fear and cowardice by the
second Adam, which once achieved in him can become available to
all. Just as Christ's death was necessary for the conquest of death,
so his grief and fear were necessary if man was to be freed from them.5
If some of these interpretations, which speak of Christ's actions
as unnecessary to him but enacted as examples to us, seem at times
to destroy the reality of his human nature, they have also their
positive value. Even the exemplarist explanations, and still more
the deeper level of explanation given at times by Cyril, are a recogni-
tion of the truth that the most important fact about Christ's life is
its redemptive significance. The concern about Christology was
not a barren intellectual concern; it was intimately connected with
a concern about soteriology.6 If there seems at times to be a dispro-
portionate emphasis upon the exact nature of the belief that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, which the Gospel desires to inculcate,
it is because the exact form of that belief was felt to be all-important
for the ensuing reception of life in his name. The Gospel was seen
to be not merely a handbook of intellectual orthodoxy, but a gospel
of salvation. To that aspect of its interpretation we must now turn.
1
Cyr. in John xiii. 21 (11, 363, 17-29).
2 3
Cyr. in John xi. 33 (11, 279-80). Cyr. in John xi. 38 (11, 283, 10).
4
Cf. the comment of Chrysostom on John xii. 27, when he insists that it must
refer to the oiKovouioc rather than the OSOTTJS; otherwise it would be of no value
to us as an example (Chr. 67, 1).
5
Cyr. in John xii. 27 (11, 315-16; 320, 13-23). Unfortunately these last three
texts occur in the section of the Gospel where Cyril's commentary survives only in
fragmentary form. J. Liebaert (op. cit. pp. 131-7) has shown good ground for not
attributing 11, 317, 7—318, 10 to Cyril. But there seems no reason for doubting the
authenticity of the passages on which our interpretation is based. This line of inter-
pretation is not original with Cyril, though it is very considerably developed by him.
The germ of the idea is to be found in Athanasius (Or. Con. Ar. 3, 57). Cf. also
Chr. 63, 1 (John xi. 33).
6
Cf. H. Chadwick, op, cit. pp. 152-3.
147 10-2
CHAPTER IX
THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION

The dominant conception of salvation in the whole tradition of early
Greek theology is the bridging of the gap between the human and
the divine, the mortal and the immortal, in the person of the God-
man Christ Jesus. The nature of the union of human and divine in
his person is thus directly related to the nature of the salvation that
he brought. In this basic presupposition Theodore and Cyril are at
one. Moreover, if there is any one major strand of New Testament
thought from which this whole tradition springs it is the thought
of the Fourth Gospel. Therefore a comparison of their exegesis
of this aspect of the Gospel's thought provides a useful medium
for the comparison of their fundamental religious ideas and of the
extent of their rooting in the Biblical tradition.
Theodore's exposition of this redemptive function of the in-
carnation is, as we would expect, the simpler but not necessarily the
more profound. God-the-word is by nature united to the Father.
The ' homo assumptus' is similarly united by nature to us. God-the-
word has through the mediation of the Spirit taken this 'man' into
the closest 'conjunctio' or 'familiaritas' with himself. What Christ's
'man' or human nature has first received, we receive in our turn, in
so far as it is possible for us to do so. We are linked through our
oneness with Christ's human nature in the first place to the Word,
and thereby are brought to the ultimate goal of 'familiaritas' with
the Father.1
The main emphasis here is on the idea that the taking of Christ's
humanity into 'familiaritas' with the Father makes that same course
possible for us. The similarity between our progress and his2 is very
close indeed. As Theodore conceives of the union between God-
1
T. 225, 36-226, 15 (John xvii. 11). Comparison with the surviving Greek
fragments (esp. T. Frag. 406,7-14) shows that' conjunctio' and * familiaritas' normally
correspond to C7W&9EIOC and oiKeicoais in the original.
* In exposition of Theodore's thought, it becomes necessary to use the personal
pronoun with reference to Christ's humanity.
148
the-word and the 'homo assumptus' as effected by the mediation of

the Spirit, the parallelism can be fully developed.1 When Jesus
declares that he must go away before the Paraclete can come, he is
implying that the Spirit must first complete the work of leading him
to glory and can then be given to the disciples in prospect of the
same goal.2 The climactic moment in this process of raising mortal
human nature to the realm of immortality was the resurrection. It
was the Spirit who effected the resurrection of the ' Christus in
carne', and it is the Spirit who will effect the same for us.3
It is clear that in such a scheme it is Christ's oneness as man
with us that is of primary importance, and it is upon this that
Theodore lays most stress. The taking up of that humanity into
full' familiaritas' with the Father is conceived, in some sense at least,
as a process culminating in the resurrection and ascension.4 Such
a view inevitably wears something of an adoptionist air. It is,
however, clearly not adoptionist in the fullest sense of the word.
Although he speaks of the mediating role of the Spirit in the Word's
assumption of the 'man', the crucial moment of this union is still
the moment of conception and not of baptism.5 The relationship of
the Word to the Father has its role to play in this scheme, but it is
a less important one. Theodore is entirely orthodox and holds firmly
to the Nicene view that the Word is 6|iooucnos with the Father, but
the idea is not greatly stressed in expositions of the message of
salvation.
In Cyril, Christ's oneness with us as man and his oneness with
the Father as God receive a more equal emphasis. The completeness
of his identification with man on the one hand and with God on the
other are of equal importance in order that he may provide the link
1
T. 26, 18-22 (John i. 16); T. 33, 5-21 (John i. 33-4); T. 59, 20-6 (John iii. 34);
T. 201, 10-23 ( J o n n x v - *—5)> T. 212, 15-213, 3; T. 225, 17-19.
2
T. 209, 14-22 (John xvi. 7).
3
T. 224, 37-225, 10.
4
T. 195, 9-10: 'Ego post resurrectionem adhaesionem perfectam cum Patre
recipiam.' Cf. Sullivan, op, cit. p. 253: 'It is only in heaven that this union (sc.
between the Word and the man) reaches its ultimate perfection/
5
Theodore, De Incarnatione, vn (H. B. Swete: Appendix A, Fragments of the
Dogmatic Works of Theodore, p. 296,19-20). It is true, however, that Cyril shows
himself very much more concerned about the question—cf. his extensive refutation
of any such idea in John i. 32-3 (1, 174-90).
149
between the two.1 That he is onooucrios with the Father and by nature
God in the fullest sense of the word receives emphatic and repeated
affirmation. In the voluntary self-humiliation of his incarnation he
has become as truly one with us. This act of self-emptying is regu-
larly described as being on our account (81' f\\xas) and so is every
aspect of it.* It is on our account that he receives the Spirit at his
baptism;3 it is in order that the good effect may be passed on to us
that at the tomb of Lazarus he controls and conquers that weakness
of human flesh through which we are so easily overwhelmed by
grief;4 it was 81' Tinas Kai Cnrrep f\\xcbv that he bore the indignities of
wrongful scourging and of mockery ;5 it was on our account and not
on his own that he sanctified himself, that is to say his own flesh;6
it was 5i* r\\xas KCCI unip f\\x&v that he died and rose again, and finally
entered into his glory, thus achieving the first appearance of man in
the courts of heaven.7 It is clear that the idea of the progressive
advancement of the human nature of Christ, which is so marked
a feature of Theodore's scheme, is to be found here also. In fact, in
the striking treatment of the overcoming of the human emotions it
receives perhaps its most surprising and extreme manifestation.8 It is
clear also that the phrase Si* f)jias has a very wide range of meaning
—he receives the Spirit for us in a very different sense from that in
1
Cyr. in John i. 13 (1, 136, 4-9); in John v. 46 (1, 393, 11-15); in John vi. 42
(1, 503, 8-14); in John x. 14-15 (11, 232, 21-233, 3); in John xiv. 3 (11, 404, 17-25);
in John xiv. 6 (11, 410, 23-31); in John xiv. 20 (11, 486, 11-15); in John xvi. 7 (11,
619, 13-27); in John xvii. 22-3 (111, 1-4).
* Cyr. in John xvii. 11 (n, 695, 5-6); in John xx. 17 (HI, 124, 13—14).
3
Cyr. in John i. 32-3 (1, 185, 9-10).
4
Cyr. in John xi. 33 (11, 280, 12—14).
5
Cyr. in John xix. 1-3 (in, 61, 6-13).
6
Cyr. in John xvii. 19 (11, 724, 20-5); frag, in John x. 36 (J. Reuss, Biblicay vol.
xxv, 1944, p. 208). The same point is made by Origen in Num. Horn. 11,8, where he
ingeniously upholds the unity of Christ's person by the quotation of Heb. ii. 11.
Apollinarius, who emphasises that the whole incarnation is the process of sanctifica-
tion, also insists that the unity of Christ's person is the reason for his speaking of
'sanctifying himself rather than more specifically of sanctifying his flesh (De Unione
10-11; Lietzmann, op. cit. pp. 189-90).
7
Cyr. in John i. 29 (1, 170-1); in John xiv. 3 (11, 403-4). Cf. the interesting com-
ment of Apollinarius on John xvi. 10. The Spirit will convict the world of 6tKoao<7\/VT|
after Christ's ascension, because our justification is rooted in the ascension whereby
<7ap£ k% fjucov Kai eT8os dvOpdbirivov are on the throne (Corderius, p. 392).
8
See pp. 146-7 above.
150
which he receives scourging and mockery for us; his death is on our
behalf in a different sense from that in which his resurrection is.
Yet all these affect us for the same fundamental reason—namely
our oneness with him as man. TT&VTES yap r\[\zv ev OCUTCO KOCOO yeyovev
avOpcoTTos.1 The culmination of this unity with him as man is that
he raises us to his status. We receive a change of nature so that we
are no longer ordinary men but heavenly men,2 sons of God,3
and even to be described as 0eoi,4 though all these titles require
due and careful qualification. Our sonship is different from his in
being an adoptive one; our divinity is KOCTOC x^P lv a n ^ n o t
It is clear that these schemes of thought bear a real relation to the

Gospel's conception of salvation mediated through the person of
Christ. It is not so clear to what extent they can be regarded as
strict exegesis of the ideas of the Gospel. According to the Gospel,
certain relationships with Christ are open to us because as man
he is one with us. But because he is also God, these relationships
(of faith, knowledge or vision) are in reality relationships with the
Father.6 In the seventeenth chapter, these ideas are brought to
a climax in the notion of union. Our union with Christ is determina-
tive both of a union with one another and a union with Father and
Son, which are analogous to (KOC6COS) the union of mutual indwelling
that exists between the Father and the Son.7 It is this great notion
of man's goal as a full participation in the life of God, mediated to
1
Cyr. in John i. 32-3 (1, 185, 7-8). Cf. also in John i. 14 (1, 141, 6); in John i. 29
(1, 171, 2-3); in John xiv. 20 (11, 486, 19); in John xvi. 33 (11, 657, 20-1); in John
xvii. 22-3 (in, 4, 15-16).
2
Cyr. in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 737, 19-23).
3
Cyr. in John i. 12 (1, 133, 15-134, 11); in John xiv. 3 (11, 404, 28-9). See also
the references in the next note; the title OEOI always occurs coupled with that of uioi
O r TEKVOC.
4
Cyr. in John i. 13 (1, 136, 27-31); in John i. 14 (1, 141, 27); in John i. 18 (1, 156,
27); in John vi. 15 (1, 423, 29); in John xv. 9-10 (11, 571, 13); in John xvii. 11 (11,
695, 10); in John xx. 17 (in, 122, 23).
5
Cyr. in John i. 12 (1, 133, 25-6: 6 UEV y&p ECTTIV \Ab% EK TTcnpos Crrrapxcov
dArjOivos, OETOI 5E f|usls); in John i. 18 (1, 156, 25-7: si yap OVTCOS Oeos «7Ti
JJlOVOyEvf)S> TTCOS OUK E O T l KCCT& <pU(JlV ETEpOS & S TTpOS EKEIVOUS, OlTTEp ElCTl KOCTOC
Oecrtv 0EOI Kai uioi;); in John vi. 15 (1, 423, 26-424, 1); in John viii. 42 (11, 84,
17-20).
6 7
John xii. 44; John viii. 19; John xiv. 9. John xvii. 21.
him by Christ, which lies at the heart of the soteriology both of

Theodore and of Cyril.1 Yet it was not easy for exegetes who were
so self-consciously aware of the difference between the human and
the divine to do full justice to the idea of man entering into that very
union of Father and Son, which lies at the centre of the life of the
Godhead. Can our ultimate union with the Father really be * even
as' that which exists eternally between him and the Son? Chrysostom
is quite explicit that it cannot. Four times in the course of his com-
paratively brief comments on the closing verses of the seventeenth
chapter he repeats his insistence that, in view of the radical difference
between divine and human nature, the word KCCOCOS cannot be under-
stood to imply an exact parallelism or equality.* The same point is
made with great clarity and emphasis by Apollinarius in the surviving
Catena fragments on the relevant portions of the Gospel.3
The starting-point of Theodore's thought is that in Christ there
are two separable natures co-existing in perfect harmony. So the
essence of the problem of salvation is the raising of our human nature
1
This notion had also played an important part in the thought of Origen. See
especially De Principiis, 3, 6, i where Origen claims that the idea of union is an
advance on the idea of likeness, and that it rules out as an absurdity the idea that our
future existence could be a bodily one. Cf. also De Princ. 1, 6, 2; Comm. Rom. 4, 9.
2
Chr. 82, 1 and 2 (John xvii. 14-26). Essentially the same point is made with
equal insistence by Chrysostom in Chr. 75, 2. He there insists that, in the text ' I am
in the Father and you in me and I in you' (John xiv. 20), the word ' i n ' is being used
in two different senses. ETTI uev ouv TOU Trarpos, oucrias £crriv. £TTI 8e CCUTCOV,
6novoias KOU por|6eiocs Tfjs Trapa TOU 0eou TO 6!pr|u£vov. Similarly in John xx. 21,
'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you', the KOCOCOS and the repetition of
the same word &TTOOT£AACO must not be understood to imply an absolute identity
between the two sendings. Cf. the comment of Augustine that the 'as' of John
xvii. 18 and 23 both signify cause and not equality {Tract. Joh. n o , 5).
3
The general point is most clearly put in his comment on John xiv. 12. <5cp-n
UEV T-TJV cpvaiK'nv EvoTnroc ECO/TOO irpos T6V TrocTEpoc 8is£r|Ei, cpepst Se eq>e§rjs KOCI Trjv
KOCT& X^P lv ^carrov Trpos TOVS caTocnroAous evcocnv. TOUTO y a p 6uoicona EKeivou,
KCCI uilikens TOU Kara cpuo-iv TO KOCTCX X^P lv (Corderius, pp. 360-1). On John xv.
10 ('If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept
my Father's commandments and abide in his love') he points out three differences
between Christ and us. (1) Christ's obedience was KCCTCC (pvcriv and without effort,
stress or training. (2) Our obedience is in hope of reward. (3) Christ's love is
directed to the Father, ours to Christ (ibid. pp. 381-2). On John xvii. 16 ('They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world') he says that while Christ is
not of the world Konra (pvatv and KCCT* dAiÔsiocv, the disciples are only so KOCO*
oiiolcocnv (ibid. p. 414).
152
to enjoy the same kind of perfect harmony with God. In effect there
are four rather than three terms in his mediatorial sequence. We are
related to Christ's human nature; that is perfectly joined to the
divine Word, which in turn is consubstantial with the Father.
Through its conjunction with the divine Word, Christ's human
nature is brought into perfect harmony (' familiaritas') with the
Father, and our human nature can be brought to the same goal. And
since what is true of Christ's human nature may in the Gospel be
applied simply to Christ without qualification, Theodore can say
that we are brought into the same union with the Father as Christ
(that is, Christ's 'homo' or human nature) enjoys. He is enabled to
give full force to the Ka0cos by applying the relevant saying to Christ's
human nature alone.1
Cyril's starting-point is the concept of the one Christ, who is
both God and man, and for him the goal is rather the transformation
of the human into the divine. We are linked to Christ as man, and
the same Christ as God is consubstantial with the Father. If, there-
fore, Cyril were to give the KOCOCOS of chapter xvii its fullest force, he
would have to say that we are brought by Christ into a relation of
consubstantiality with the Father. He goes a long way in that direc-
tion, but is reluctant to press the point home. Our goal is a participa-
tion in the divine nature, which justifies, as we have seen, an ascrip-
tion of the title 0eoi. This can be described as involving our being
changed into another nature,2 but the divinity that we receive is
imparted and therefore clearly to be distinguished from the intrinsic
divinity of the Son. Our relationship to the Father is thus not
exactly the same as that of Christ.3 This qualification of the complete
identity of the mediated relationship with its archetype is justified
in two ways. One line of argument is to say that Christ's (j&p^ itself,
in ascending to an unconfused union with the Logos and through the
Logos to the Father, is brought only into a moral and not a'natural'
1
T. 226, 12-15 (J°hn xvii. 11); cf. Theodore, Cat. Horn. 10, 18 (John xvii.
20-1).
z
Cyr. in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 737, 15-23). Cf. also in John i. 29 (1, 170,19-20)
when Christ is described as being dva|Jop9<jbcT6co5 Tffc eis Oedv CrmSOsais.
3
The same difficulty, which is here being dealt with in its most radical form in
terms of union with God, also occurs in Cyril's treatment of Christ's role as mediator
of the knowledge and vision of God (cf. pp. 86 and 93 above).
153
relationship with the Father.1 But this is not the main line of argu-
ment used, and, despite Cyril's protestations that it does not destroy
the unity of the Christ, it is an argument which fits rather with
Theodore's than with Cyril's interpretation of the person of Christ.
The main line of argument is to point out that the union of Christ
with the Father is used as an analogy not only of our ultimate
relationship with God, but also of the unity of the Church. This unity
is clearly a moral one and no more, and it follows, therefore, that the
antitype cannot be intended to resemble its archetype in every
detail.2 But in using this argument Cyril is primarily concerned to
provide a safeguard, not against an overstatement of the ultimate
unity of man and God, but against an understatement of the unity
of the Godhead. He does not show any serious anxiety that men
will so overpress the analogy of the consubstantial unity of the
Godhead as to assert a strictly parallel unity between redeemed
mankind and the Father; he is extremely anxious to denounce the
reverse argument, which had been used by the anti-modalist writers
of the third century and taken up by the Arians, which claimed that
the relationship of unity within the Godhead must correspond
exactly to the unity of the Church, and can therefore be no more
than a unity of social concord.3 His emphasis, therefore, always
rests upon the unqualified nature of the unity within the Godhead,
and the unity, which is man's goal, is described in language which
approaches, though it never quite reaches, the same level of unity.
The believer's union with Christ is described as being exactly parallel
to that existing between Christ and the Father—namely a 'natural'
union as contrasted with a purely 'moral' union of mutual love.4
Concerning the nature of our ultimate union with God he is more
guarded, but with careful qualification he does go so far as to declare
1
Cyr. in John xvii. 22-3 (111, 2, 2-21). T h e crucial words are CJXSTIKCOS 5T)AOV6TI
KOCI ou <pv(7iKcos.
2
Cyr. in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 731, 23-732, 11). It is interesting to contrast the
comment of Barrett on the same passage:' The unity of the Church is strictly analogous
to the unity of the Father and the Son' (Barrett, p. 427).
3
Cyr. in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 732, 12-733, 27)? in J o n n x i y - 2 O (n? 476-9)- For
the use of John xvii in this way in the third century, see especially Hippolytus,
Con. Noet. 7. Cf. p. 125 above.
4
Cyr. in John xiv. 20 (11, 481, 7-11).
154
that men are brought by the mediation of the Son into 'some sort
of natural liaison' with God himself.1
These accounts of the soteriological ideas of Theodore and of
Cyril have been designed to bring out as clearly as possible the main
character of their thought as centring on the mediatorial significance
of the conjunction of divine and human in the person of Christ.
In order to achieve this, some abstraction from the wholeness of their
thought has been necessary. If we were to regard the accounts
given as a comprehensive statement of their soteriologies, we would
be guilty of serious falsification in two respects. In the first place,
both give (as any scheme of thought with Biblical roots must do) far
more importance to the fact of Christ's death than we have yet done
justice to. Secondly, nothing has been said of the means by which
our unity with Christ as man is made the effective medium of our
receiving the benefits that stem from him. Something must now be
said on these two questions.
The death of Christ is not normally treated as a separate or isolated
phenomenon, but in the closest conjunction with the whole move-
ment of the incarnation. As we have seen, it was for Cyril one of
those things which Christ did effectively for us.z Similarly Theodore
insists that it was particularly by his death that he dealt with the
interrelated problems of death and sin.3 But where these ideas are
taken further and developed in greater detail, it is usually done in
traditional terms, which bear no close exegetical relation to the
particular text of the Gospel which may have given rise to the dis-
cussion. This is perhaps the inevitable outcome of the fact that the
Gospel itself does not seem to have any full or clearly developed
interpretation of its own of the significance of the cross. The one
particular line of interpretation in the Gospel which receives the
most interesting development in the commentaries is that of the
cross as a judgment upon Satan. Theodore and Chrysostom develop
this idea in very much the same way. Because of sin, Satan has the
right to inflict men with death. Christ, as sinless, could follow Elijah
1
Cyril, Dialogue I, P.G. 75, 693D-696A. (cpucriKOV coorrep TIVOC TOV TTJS CTUV-
CC96IOCS Aaxoucra TpOTrov) (John xvii. 21-3); Cyr. in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 734, 8-10).
2
See. p. 150 above.
3
T. 29, 20-8 (John i. 29).
155
and Enoch and simply leave the world without dying. But this would
benefit no-one but himself. He allows himself, therefore, to be killed.
But Satan in killing him acts unjustly, and will be condemned for
it by the judgment of God. Christ will then be released from the
death unjustly imposed on him, and will be able to free also those who
are joined to him.1
This leads naturally to the second question. Who are those who
are joined to him and how are they so joined? Cyril, as we have seen,
insists that the principle of union is that we are joined to him, or
more accurately we are incorporated in him on the basis of our shared
humanity. This, as he clearly recognises, is bound to suggest the
somewhat surprising conclusion that all men share automatically in
his benefits. This conclusion he does not hesitate to draw. What
Christ did, he did for the whole human race, and the whole human
race will share in the basic fruit of his work—namely enabling our
mortality to rise again out of death. But for some this participation
in Christ's resurrection will be of doubtful benefit. They will rise
again only to hear their sentence of dismissal to the eternal punish-
ments of hell. Thus the sharing in Christ's resurrection is something
common to every member of the human race, but for the entry into
life in its fullest sense some differentiating principle is required. This
is variously given as faith in Christ, living the good life or partaking
of the life-giving flesh.2 It is this last idea which receives the most
detailed and significant development. Cyril accepts the general
principle that 'the flesh profiteth nothing'. But Christ's flesh is
different. Because it is the body not of any ordinary person but of
the Word of God, which is Life itself by its very nature, it also
receives by virtue of the closeness of the union the property of being
able to give life, which is inherent in the Word.3 This endowment
of the flesh is the fruit of Christ's sanctifying of himself, that is his
1
T. 174, 10-175, 2? Chr. 67, 2 (John xii. 31). Cf. Theodore, Cat. Horn. 5, 18
(John xiv. 30; xii. 31-2). Cyril also has the idea that Satan expects the cross to be
his victory, not recognising the true nature of his victim. But he appears to be think-
ing more in antagonistic than judicial terms (Cyr. in John xiii. 27-8; 11, 373).
2
Cyr. in John x. 10 (11, 220-1), where this distinction is given an exegetical basis
in the idea of abundant life; in John x. 14-15 (11, 233); in John vi. 51 (1, 520-1).
3
Cyr. in John vi. 63 (1, 551-2). Cf. Apollinarius in John vi. 53-5 (Corderius,
p. 192).
156
body,1 and it is illustrated by the way that he used his body as a kind
of assistant in two of the miracles of resurrection, where it might
have been expected that he would work simply by the divine word
of command.2 Christ's body is therefore life-giving, and it can be
quite literally mixed with our bodies.3 This enables the more stubborn
element of our earthly bodies to be prepared for immortality, just
as our souls are endowed with newness of life by the direct action
of the Holy Spirit.4 It provides a union with Christ which is not
merely TTV£U|icrriK6s b u t also aco[jaTiK6s.5
Theodore's answer to the question is markedly different. For him
our natural birth as men only succeeds in uniting us to Adam and
the way of death. It does link us with Christ's human nature, but
if that link is to achieve its end of bringing us into true relationship
with his divine nature, there must be the affinity not only of natural
birth but also of spiritual birth. This is effected in the rebirth of
baptism, which corresponds both to Christ's baptism, at which
the Spirit descended and which was a type of his resurrection, and
also to his resurrection itself. So our baptism is the point of the
effective operation of the Spirit upon us and a type of our ultimate
resurrection. It is thus the essential link which grafts us into the way
first marked out by Christ, whereby human nature can be raised to
fellowship with God.6 Theodore does admit a general Eucharistic
reference in chapter vi, but he does not develop it in detail, and clearly
does not regard it as fundamental to the soteriological thought of the
Gospel. Thus both authors regard a sacramental means of union
with Christ as an essential element in the Gospel's scheme of
salvation, but it is upon different sacraments that they place the
primary emphasis.
1
Cyr. in John xvii. 12—13 (n> 7°6~7)*
%
Cyr. in John vi. 53 (1, 530, 8-13).
3 Cyr. in John vi. 35 (1, 475, 23-5).
4
Cyr. in John vi. 53 (1, 531, 12-16).
5 Cyr. in John xv. 1 (11, 543, 1-544, 14); in John xvii. 20-1 (11, 734, 19-736, 21);
in John xvii. 22-3 (ill, 2, 27-31).
6
T. 55-8. Cf. also T. 33, 5-21 (John i. 33-4); T. 46-7 (John iii. 3-5); T. 196,
25-6 (John xiv. 20); T. 201, 13-15 (John xv. 1-5); T. 212-13; T. 229.
157
EPILOGUE
AN ASSESSMENT
There is no title that the Fathers would have coveted more for them-
selves than that of Biblical theologians. Later scholars may point
with justice to the influence of Greek metaphysical thought upon
their writings and their understanding of the Gospel, but in
conscious aim and intention their overriding purpose was to interpret
the message of the Bible. We have studied some of their greatest
representatives consciously engaged in executing that work of
interpretation upon what they and the consensus of opinion in the
Church after them have normally regarded as the greatest of the
books of Scripture. How are we to assess and to evaluate their work
as commentators?
First of all, the acuteness of observation and attention to detail,
which is a general characteristic of all their work, must be quoted
as a valuable mark of all the commentaries. In almost every dis-
cussion of the commentaries with which we have been concerned,
this point is noted as a meritorious feature of the work in question.1
With so carefully constructed a writing as St John's Gospel, this
is an indispensable characteristic of the good commentator.2
Nevertheless there are other even more important elements in the
equipment of the good commentator, and these are not so universally
present in the work of the Fathers. Of prime importance is a certain
breadth of spiritual discernment, which can appreciate the deep
theological character of the author's thought and which recognises
that he is seeking to express ultimate truths about the divine dealing
1
With reference to Heracleon's commentary, see G. Salmon in D.C.B. vol. n,
pp. 898-9; Loewenich, op. cit. p. 93; H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian
Truth, p. 184 n. 1; for Origen's commentary, see H. Smith, Ante-Nicene Exegesis
of the Gospels, p. 60; for Theodore, see H. B. Swete in D.C.B. vol. iv, p. 947. In
each case examples are given of the use of small details in the actual work of exegesis,
on which the author's favourable judgment is based.
2
Cf. Lightfoot, p. 349: * Anyone who studies St John's Gospel for long is likely
to be impressed. . . by the extreme care with which it is written, a care extending to
the smallest details.'
158
AN ASSESSMENT
with the world, which are not and cannot be perfectly amenable to
any one system of human logic. It is here that the greatness of
Origen's work lies. His exposition of the fundamental theological
concepts of the Gospel is an achievement of great and lasting value.
It is precisely here also that the weakness of Theodore's work is to
be found. For all the honesty of his approach, the directness and
practical good sense of many of his comments, his commentary as
a whole is a disappointing book. He has attempted to expound the
meaning of the Gospel too narrowly within the confines of his own
way of thought. To borrow a phrase from Origen, it is as if he has
never lain upon the Evangelist's breast; his mind has never found
spiritual communion with the mind of St John, and therefore he
cannot reveal the Gospel's most precious secrets to us. His work never
does full justice to the whole range and depth of the theological
meaning of the Gospel. Chrysostom, writing for the pulpit rather
than the study, lacks something of the precision of Theodore, and
also thereby something of the rigidity of his thought. But as a work
of interpretation, his homilies suffer from the same fundamental
weakness as the work of his fellow-Antiochene—in the words of
Westcott there is 'a lack of spontaneous sympathy for the more
mysterious parts of the Gospel'.1
But alongside this all-important characteristic of spiritual affinity
and theological discernment, there is need for the more pedestrian
virtue of good sense, of the ability to distinguish between the higher
ranges of a bold but profound theological thought and the wild
flights of fancy. Much of the thought of the second and third cen-
turies lacked the control of this practical virtue. In particular, it is
the absence of this virtue which vitiates the work of Origen as a
commentator. Side by side with examples of profound theological
exposition stand passages of allegorical interpretation, which are
entirely arbitrary in method and utterly unrelated in content to
the meaning of the Gospel.
The fragments of Heracleon are hardly sufficient to allow the
passing of a firm judgment upon his work, but it is evident that it is
open to the same kind of criticism. It was no doubt his allegorical
interpretations that particularly attracted Origen's interest, and the
1
Westcott, vol. i, Introduction, p. cxc.
proportion of allegory in the fragments may therefore well be

greater than the proportion in his work as a whole. Origen indeed
criticises him not only for unjustifiable allegorising, but also on
occasions for failure to allegorise, and it is certainly evident that his
whole approach is less arbitrarily allegorical than that of the majority
of Gnostic exegetes. In fact, he does not appear to be any more
arbitrary in method than Origen. The real difference between them
is not one of method but of theological concern. The heart of
Heracleon's theological interest was a celestial drama of salvation,
of which the events on this earth were a kind of shadow. In this he
stands further from St John than Origen does. The content of his
allegorical interpretations therefore tends to be further removed from
the true meaning of the Gospel.1
Cyril, writing two centuries after Origen, represents the maturity,
as opposed to the infancy or adolescence, of the Alexandrian school.
This difference is clearly marked in the difference of their com-
mentaries. Something of the freshness, the vigour, the theological
penetration of Origen has gone; but a sense of balance and good
sense has come to check the excesses of the earlier scholar. Cyril's
commentary is a profound work of theological interpretation, sus-
tained throughout with a high level of consistency. It goes beyond
the range of simple exegesis. His openly avowed concern for a
8oy|jcrnKcoT£pcc e^riyncris and his passionate advocacy of the ways of
orthodoxy have led him to blur the distinction between exegesis of
the author's meaning on the one hand and the full development of
a theological system, which, though not the direct teaching of the
Gospel, seems to be the only adequate outcome of reflection on its
message, on the other. From the narrower standpoint of the strict
work of commentary, this is a weakness; but it is not unmitigated
loss. There is perhaps something about the theological nature of the
Gospel which makes the maintenance of such a distinction incom-
patible with a fully satisfying treatment of its message. Certainly
the Gospel lives under Cyril's hand. For him the central theme of
Christian faith was the work of Christ as mediator between the
1
Cf. Loewenich, op. ctt. pp. 92-5. See also J. Danielou, Origene, pp. 190-5
(E.T. pp. 191—6) for the influence of this aspect of Heracleon's exegesis on Origen
himself.
160
AN ASSESSMENT
sinful finite life of earth and the perfect eternal life of heaven. The
foundation stone of that faith was the Fourth Gospel. For him,
therefore, there is no difference between the meaning of the Fourth
Gospel and the full body of Christian faith. In expounding the
meaning of the Gospel, he is expounding the heart of his own
religious faith.
161
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL
(1) Ancient
Origen, ed. A. E. Brooke, Cambridge, 1896. (Paragraph numbers are identical
with those of the edition of E. Preuschen in G.C.S.)
John Chrysostom, P.G. 59.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium:
Scriptores Syri, Series 4, Tomus 111, interpretatus est J. M. Voste, Louvain,
1940. Greek fragments in R. Devreesse, Essai sur Theodore de Mopsueste,
pp. 305-419, Vatican, 1948.
Cyril of Alexandria, ed. P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872. (Volume, page and line
reference to Pusey's edition are given in brackets.)
Augustine, Corpus Chris tianorum, Series Latina 36, Turnhout, 1954.
Corderius, Catena Patrum Graecorum in S. Johannem, Antwerp, 1630.
Cramer, Catena in Evangelia SS. Lucae et Johannis, Oxford, 1841.
In the case of Cyril's commentary, the verse of the Gospel on which comment
is being made is included in the basic reference; in all other cases it is given in
brackets after the reference if it is not already obvious from the context and if
the comment is of interest as exegesis of the particular text.
(2) Modern
C. K. Barrett, Gospel according to St John, London, 1955.
J. H. Bernard, I.C.C. (2 vols.), Edinburgh, 1928.
C. H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953.
E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed., London, 1947.
R. H. Lightfoot, St Johns Gospel, Oxford, 1956.
G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (Moffatt Commentary), London, 1928.
W. Temple, Readings in St Johns Gospel, London, 1947.
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St John (2 vols.), London, 1908.
B. PRINCIPAL OTHER WORKS CONSULTED
(1) Ancient
Adamantius, Dialogos, G.C.S., ed. W. Bakhuyzen, Leipzig, 1901.
Anastasius Sinaita, Contra Monophysitas, P.G. 89.
Apollinarius, Works and Fragments in: H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea
und seine Schule, Tubingen, 1904.
162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asterius, Fragments in: G. Bardy, Recherches sur Saint Lucien d'Antioche et son
jScole, Paris, 1936.
Athanasius of Alexandria, De Incarnatione, P.G. 25.
Orationes Contra Arianos, 1—3, P.G. 26.
ps-Athanasius, Expositio Fidei, P.G. 25.
Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum, C.S.E.L. 43.
Chrysostom, Opera, P.G. 47-64.
Clement of Alexandria, Paidagogos and Stromateis, G.C.S., ed. O. Stahlin,
Leipzig, 1905-9.
Excerpta ex Theodoto, ed. F. M. M. Sagnard, Paris, 1948.
Cyprian, Opera, C.S.E.L. 3.
Cyril of Alexandria, Opera, P.G. 68-77.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, P.G. 33.
Didymus, Opera, P.G. 39.
Dionysius of Alexandria, Letters and Other Remains, ed. C. L. Feltoe,
Cambridge, 1904.
Epiphanius, Ancoratus and Panarion, G.C.S., ed. K. Holl, Leipzig, 1915-33.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Marcellum and De Ecclesiastica Theologia, G.C.S.,
ed. E. Klostermann, Leipzig, 1906.
Demonstratio Evangelica, G.C.S., ed. I. Heikel, Leipzig, 1913, referred
to as Dem. Ev.
Historia Ecclesiastica, G.C.S., ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1903-9, referred
to as H.E.
Quaestiones Evangelicae, P.G. 22.
Eustathius of Antioch, Fragments in: M. Spanneut, Recherches sur les ecrits
d'Eustathe d'Antioche, Lille, 1948.
Gregory Nazianzen, The Five Theological Orations, ed. A. J. Mason, Cambridge,
1899, cited as Theol. Or.
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, G.C.S., ed. H. Beesan, Leipzig, 1906.
Heracleon, Fragments, ed. A. E. Brooke, Cambridge, 1891.
Hippolytus, Elenchos, G.C.S., ed. P. Wendland, Leipzig, 1916.
Contra Noetum, ed. E. Schwartz, in: Zwei Predigten Hippolyti, Munich,
ps-Hippolytus, On the Raising of Laiarus, G.C.S., ed. H. Achelis, Leipzig, 1897.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, P.G. 7 (volume and page of the edition of
W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1857, are also given in brackets).
Isidore, Epistles, P.G. 78.
Jerome, Epistles, ed. J. Labourt, vols. 1-5, Paris, 1949-55.
Novatian, De Trinitate, ed. W. Yorke Fausset, Cambridge, 1909.
Origen, Contra Celsum and De Oratione, G.C.S., ed. P. Koetschau, Leipzig,
1899.
De principiis, G.C.S., ed. P. Koetschau, Leipzig, 1913.
Exegetical Works, editions in G.C.S. when available: otherwise P.G.
12—14.
163
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fragments on the Psalms, in: J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra, vols. 2 and 3,
Paris, 1884 and 1883.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Ephesians, J. A. F. Gregg, in: J.T.S.
vol. in, 1901—2.
Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene, P.G. 17.
Tertullian, Opera, Corpus Chris tianorum, Series Latina,voh. 1,2. Turnhout, 1954.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, ed. R. Tonneau, StudieTesti 145,
Vatican, 1949.
Dogmatic Fragments, ed. H. B. Swete, Appendix to vol. 11 of Theodore
of Mopsuestia! s Commentaries on the Minor Epistles ofSt Paul, Cambridge,
1882.
(PValentinus), Evangelium Veritatis, ed. M. Malinine, H. C. Puech and
G. Quispel, Zurich, 1956.
(2) Modern
B. Altaner, Patrologie, Freibourg, 1951.
G. Bardy, Commentaires Patristiques de la Bible, Supplement au Dictionnaire
de la Bible, vol. 11, pp. 73-103, Paris, 1934.
Exegese Patristique, Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. iv,
pp. 569-91,'Paris, 1949.
Recherches sur Saint Lucien d'Antioche et son £cole, Paris, 1936.
H. N. Bate, 'Some Technical Terms of Greek Exegesis', J.T.S. vol. xxiv
(1922), pp. 59-66.
J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine,
8th ed., London, 1949.
C. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1913.
M. E. Boismard, 'Critique Textuelle et Citations Patristiques', R.B. vol. LVII
(1950), pp. 388-408.
F. M. Braun, 'Qui ex Deo natus est', Aux sources de la tradition Chretienne:
melanges offerts a M. Maurice Goguel, pp. n—31, Neuchatel, 1950.
A. E. Brooke, 'The Extant Fragments of Heracleon', Texts and Studies, vol. 1,
no. 4, 1891.
R. P. Casey, 'Clement and the Two Divine Logoi', J.T.S. vol. xxv (1923),
pp. 43-5 6.
H. Chadwick, 'Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy',
J.T.S. new ser. vol. 11 (1951), pp. 145-64.
J. Danielou, Bible et Liturgie, Paris, 1951.
Origene, Paris, 1948. (E.T. by W. Mitchell, London and New York,
I955-)
R. Devreesse, Essaisur Theodore de Mopsueste, Studi e Testi 141, Vatican, 1948.
'La Methode Exegetique de Theodore de Mopsueste', R.B. vol. LIII
(1946), pp. 207-41.
'Notes sur les Chaines Grecques de Saint Jean', R.B. vol. xxxvi (1927),
pp. 192-215.
164
BIBLIOGRAPHY
H. Du Manoir de Juaye, Dogme et Spiritualite che% St Cyrille d* Alexandrie,
Paris, 1944.
A. Grillmeier, 'Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der christo-
logischen Formel von Chalkedon', in: Das Kon(il von Chalkedon, vol. 1,
pp. 5-202, Wurzburg, 1951.
J. Guillet, 'Les Exegeses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioche: Conflit ou Malentendu?',
R.S.R. vol. xxxiv (1947), pp. 257-302.
R. Hanson, Origens Doctrine of Tradition, London, 1954.
A. Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des
Origenes, Leipzig, 1919.
A. Kerrigan, St Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament, Rome,
1952.
J. Liebaert, La Doctrine Christologique de Saint Cyrille d*Alexandrie avant la
Querelle Nestorienne, Lille, 1951.
H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Tubingen, 1904.
W. von Loewenich, Das Johannes—Verstdndnis im ^weiten Jahrhundert, Giessen,
1932.
H. de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit: VIntelligence de V£criture d'apres Origine,
Paris, 1950.
Introduction to Origene: Homilies sur la Genese, Paris, 1944.
'Typologie et Allegorisme', R.S.R. vol. xxxiv (1947), pp. 180-226.
M. Malinine, H. C. Puech and G. Quispel, Evangelium Veritatis, Zurich, 1956.
C. Martin, 'Note sur l'homelie sis TOV TSTpocf)[i£pov Adâpov attribute a
saint Hippolyte de Rome', R.H.E. vol. xxn (1926), pp. 68-70.
J. Mehlmann, ' A note on John i. 3 ', Exp. T., Aug. 1956, pp. 340-1.
L. Pirot, L?ce.uvre exegetique de Theodore de Mopsueste, Rome, 1913.
G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 2nd ed., London, 1952.
J. Quasten, Patrology, vols. 1 and 11 (Utrecht, 1950-3).
C. E. Raven, Apollinarianism, Cambridge, 1923.
J. Reuss, 'Cyril von Alexandrien und sein Kommentar zum Johannes-Evan-
gelium', Biblica, vol. xxv (1944), pp. 207-9.
H. de Riedmatten, Les Actes du Proces de Paul de Samosate, Friebourg en
Suisse, 1952.
'Some Neglected Aspects of Apollinarist Christology', Dominican Studies,
vol. 1 (1948), pp. 239-60.
G. Salmon, Art. 'Heracleon' in Smith and Wace, D.C.B. vol. 11, pp. 897-901.
J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, Cambridge, 1943.
R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, London, 1953.
Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the Early History of Christian
Doctrine, Cambridge, 1928.
Two Ancient Christologies, London, 1940.
H. Smith, Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels, 6 vols., London, 1925.
M. Spanneut, Recherches sur les ecrits d'Eustathe d'Antioche, Lille, 1948.
F. A. Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Rome, 1956.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
H. B. Swete, Art. * Theodorus of Mopsuestia' in Smith and Wace, D.CB. vol. iv,
pp. 934-48.
C. H. Turner, 'The Early Greek Commentators on the Gospel according to
St Matthew', J.T.S. vol. xn (1911), pp. 99-112.
'Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles', Hastings,
Dictionary of the Bible, extra volume, pp. 484—531.
'The Punctuation of John vii. 37-8', J.T.S. vol. xxiv (1922), pp. 66-70.
H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth, London, 1954.
J. M. Voste, 'Le Commentaire de Theodore de Mopsueste sur Saint Jean,
d'apres la Version Syriaque', R.B. vol. xxxn (1923), pp. 522-51.
'La Chronologie de l'activite litteraire de Theodore de Mopsueste',
R.B. vol. xxxiv (1925), pp. 54-81.
166
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
Abraham, 50, 107-8 Dionysius of Alexandria, 113
Adam, 62-3 Dodd, C. H., 1, 65, 67, 91
Adamantius, 101 Du Manoir de Juaye, H., 143
d'Ales, A., 4
Alogoi, 8, 13, 97 Elijah, 54, 104
Ammonius, 5, n o Elisha, 30
Anastasius of Sinaita, 126-7 Ephrem Syrus, 8
Anti-Marcionite prologue, 7 Epiphanius, 8, 13, 14, 103, 112, 128
Antiochus of Ptolemais, 63 Eunomius, 6, 123
Apollinarius, 5, 33, 39, 51-2, 57, 60, 61, Eusebius, 8, 14, 17, 31, 46, 48, 56, 124,
63, 7i, 84,107,110,124, 127, 128,136, 127
150, 152, 156 Eustathius, 127, 137
Arius, 122, 125, 126 Evagrius, 123
Asterius, 4, 6, 79, 121, 125 Evangelium Veritatis, 97-8
Athanasius of Anazarbus, 122
Gaudentius of Brescia, 45
Bardy, G., 4, 79, 95, 116, 121, 122, 123, Goguel, M., 8
125, 126 Gregory Nazianzen, 37, 123
Barnabas, Epistle of, 38 Grillmeier, A., 127
Barrett, C. K., 1, 13, 67, 99, 103, 106, Guillet, J., 2, 23
121, 154
Basil, 6, 116, 123 Hanson, R., 24
Basilides, 74, 107 Harnack, A., 13
Bate, H. N., 23 Hegemonius, 106
Bernard, J. H., 40 Heracleon, 3, 7, 20, 22-3, 40, 43, 44,
Bethune-Baker, J. F., 112 46-7? 49> 96, IOI> IO2> IO 7~8, 109,
Boismard, M. E., 106 114, 158, 159-60
Braun, F. M., 106 Hilary, 123
Brooke, A. E., 3 Hort, F. J. A., 121
Hoskyns, E. C., 40, 49, 52, 53, 62, 67,
Callistus, 120 103, 106, 121
Casey, R. P., 97
Cerinthus, 8, 97 Isho'dad of Merv, 64
Chadwick, H., 6, 131, 147 Isidore, 45, 61, n o , 123, 139, 146
Cyprian, 25, 43, 45, 48, 51, 54, 59
ps-Cyprian, 48, 102 Jerome, 4, 5, 62
Cyril of Jerusalem, 62, 63, 114 John the Baptist, 7, 15, 26, 29, 32, 38,
104
Danielou, J., 1, 52, 53, 160 John, son of Zebedee, 7-10, 17-18
Devreesse, R., 5, 31, 46, i n Judas, 23, 32, 109-11, 146
Didymus, 5, 53, 54, 81, 84, 123, Justin Martyr, 8, 98-9
139
Diodore, 130 Kerrigan, A., 2, 33
167
I N D E X OF P R O P E R NAMES
Lazarus, 25, 26, 29, 36, 39, 56-8, 91,105, Praxeas, 117-20, 124
142, 146 Ptolemaeus, 7, 96—7
Liebaert, J., 6, 143, 147
Lightfoot, R. H., 1, 67, 121, 158 Reuss, J., 150
von Loewenich, W., 43, 96-9, 112, 158, de Riedmatten, H., 124, 127
160 Rufinus, 62
de Lubac, H., 22-3, 53
Luke, 11, 17 Salmon, G., 3, 158
Sanders, J. N., 7, 8, 96, 99
Macgregor, G. H. C , 40 Sellers, R. V., 143
Malchus, 33 Severian of Gabala, 143
Marcellus, 116, 124 Simon of Cyrene, 18
Mark, 11, 17-19 Sirmium, Council of, 123
Martha, 29-30, 36, 91 Smith, H., 24, 158
Martin, C , 57 Spanneut, M., 127, 137
Mary Magdalene, 31, 58, 63, 85 Stauffer, E., 61
Mary, sister of Martha, 36 Sullivan, F. A., 5, 129, 137, 149
Matthew, 11, 17-18 Swete, H. B., 158
Mehlmann, J., 103
Melito of Sardis, 61 Tatian, 98-9
Moses, 54, 101-2, 104 Temple, W., 16, 37
Moulton, J. H., 108 Theodore of Heraclea, 4, 27, 39, 53, 60,
Muratorian Canon, 7, 9, 13 64, 94, n o
Theodoret, 4
Nathanael, 29-30, 38 Theodotus, 112
Nestorius, 130-1 Theophilus, 7, 98—9
Nicaea, Council of, 127 Thomas, 29-31
Nicodemus, 24, 66, 79 Trajan, 8
Noetus, 117 Turner, C. H., 4, 5, 49
Novatian, 116, 118, 119, 140 Turner, H. E. W., 158
Pamphilus, 104, 106, 127 Voste, J. M., 2, 5

Papias, 7
Paul of Samosata, 114 Westcott, B. F., 9, 37, 40, 62, 79, 103,
Peter, 15, 17-18, 30, 58-60 121, 123, 159
Photius, 46 Wutz, H., 33
Polycrates, 8
168
INDEX OF TEXTS
(a) BIBLICAL
GENESIS JOHN (cont.)
i- 3 74 i- 5 73, 75, 97, 100
ii. 7 55 i. 6-7 104
iii. 9 M3 i. 9 69-71, 74, 100-1
iii. i6 42 i. 10 100
i. 11 100
EXODUS i. 12 88, 109
iii. 14 90 i. 13 106
i. 14 9, 69, 84, 96, 97, 105, 131
DEUTERONOMY i. 14-18 117
ii. 20 66 i. 15 132
i. 17 68-70, 101-2
PSALMS i. 18 9I~3> 97, 121
iii 2 i. 27 16, 23
xxiii. 2 32 i. 28 25
lxiv. 2 128 i. 29 114, 150, 155
lxix in i. 30 132, 134
i. 31 26
ISAIAH i. 32-3 149, 150
ix. 6 61 i- 33-4 149, 157
xlii. 1 127-8 i. 34 29, 134
i- 35 16
JOEL i.38 142
ii. 28 128 i- 39 33
i. 49 30, 104
MATTHEW i. 51 38-9
x. 5 20 ii 16
xv. 24 20 ii. 1 16
ii. 1—11 34, 42-4, 45
MARK ii. 4 41, 107
xiii. 32 142 ii. 6-7 26
ii. 11 17, 36, 90
LUKE ii. 12 17, 20
I
ii. 52 J
9 ii. 13 3 > 43
V 64 ii. 13-22 44-5
x. 15 21 ii. 17 in
ii. 19 37, 120
JOHN ii. 22 89
i 5 ii. 23-4 87-8, 90
i. 1 95,96, 118 ii. 25 109
IO
i-3 102-4, 5 iii 16
i. 4 7i-3, 75 iii. 1 24
169
INDEX OF TEXTS
J O H N (cont.) J O H N (cont.)
iii. 3 79, 157 v. 23 121
iii. 5 48, 66, 157 v. 24 73
iii. 8 40, 66 v. 25 39
iii. II 28 v. 26 121—2, 140
iii. 13 97, 114, *32> 134, J 3 6 v. 27 114-15, 140
iii. 14—15 38 v. 29 81
iii. 16 84, 132, 134 v. 30 124, 126, 127, 133, 134
iii. 17 80 v. 35 38
iii. 18 80-1, 88 v. 37 124
iii. 19 97 v. 46 104
iii. 21 80 vi 52-4
iii. 23 32 vi. 1 34, 54
iii. 24 16 vi. 4 J
3
iii. 29 38-9 vi. 9 33
iii. 31 76-8 vi. 10 26,32
iii. 31-2 141 vi. 11 113, 144
iii. 34 149 vi. 15 35,36
iii. 35 121 vi. 18-21 17, 3 6
iii. 36 72, 109 vi. 25 54
iv. 1-42 45-9, 60 vi. 26 36
iv. 4 20 vi. 27 139, 141
iv. 6 26, 105, 136 vi. 32 70
iv. 7 24 vi. 33 J
35
iv. 8 113 vi. 35 157
iv. 10 24 vi. 37 no, 121, 141
iv. 14 72 vi. 38 121, 124, 126, 132
iv. 22 144 vi. 44 no
iv. 24 67-70, 72 vi. 46 93
iv. 32 3 vi. 51 156
iv. 34 92, 126 vi. 52 135
iv. 35 24, 39-40 vi. 53 53, 157
iv. 42 91 vi. 53-5 156
iv. 44 21 vi. 54 53
iv. 46-54 49-50, 90 vi. 55 53
iv. 50 50 vi. 57 72, 141
vi. 59 2
iv. 53 5° 5
v. 1 J vi. 62 132-4, 136
3
v. 1-16 51-2 vi. 63 53, 6 7 , 156
v. 7 142 vii. 1 34
v. 8 27 vii. 8—10 27
v. 14 51 vii. 15 94
v. 17 124, 133, 139 vii. 16 141
v. 19 I2O, 121, 124, I33, I39 vii. 18 141
v. 19-20 92 vii. 28 113, 118
v. 20 i33> 134, 139 vii. 30 107
V. 21 57, 124 vii. 37-9 48-9, 60
V. 22 80, 115, 121, 137 vii. 39 84, 122
170
INDEX OF TEXTS
JOHN (cont.) JOHN (cont.)
viii. 12 73-6, 97, 135 x. 39 "3
viii. 15 80 x. 40 34
viii. 16 134 xi. 1-44 56-8
viii. 16—19 117 xi. 11 29
viii. 19 30, 85, 91-2, 113, 151 xi. 15 90
viii. 23 76-8, 97 xi. 17 26
viii. 24 89, 90, 92 xi. 25 57, 113
viii. 28 141 xi. 27 30
viii. 30 141 xi. 33 66, 146-7, 150
viii. 31 87-9 xi. 34 116, 142—4
viii. 32 70,87 xi. 35 105, 146
viii. 33-47 107 xi. 36 58, 146
viii. 37 108, no xi. 38 146
viii. 38 93, I o 8 xi. 40 91
viii. 40 112-15, 131 xi. 42 134, 145-6
viii. 41 106 xi. 43 57
viii. 43 87, no xi. 44 56
viii. 44 69, 108 xi. 50 113
viii. 45 88-9 xi. 51 109
viii. 47 87, 108 xii. 1-8 16, 18
viii. 51 72,89 xii. 16 30
viii. 55 86 xii. 21—2 20
viii. 57 13 xii. 23 83-4
ix. 1 36 xii. 27 127-8, 146-7
ix. 1—41 55-6 xii. 27-8 116
ix. 4 55 xii. 28 82
ix. 5 75 xii. 30 117
ix. 6 37, 55 xii. 31 81, 156
ix. 7 27, 56 xii. 34-7 140
ix. 37 91 xii. 35 97
ix. 38 92 xii. 35-6 38,75
ix. 39 24, 80-1, 92 xii. 36 25,27
x. 1-6 28 xii. 37-8 in
x. 6 29 xii. 39—40 109-11
x. 8 94, 102, 104 xii. 44 87,90, 151
x. 10 72, 156 xii. 45 91-2
X. II 127 xii. 46 97
x. 14-15 85-6 xii. 47 80
x. 15 134 xii. 50
x. 17 127-8 xiii 3
x. 18 113, 127, 141 xiii. 1 13
x. 23 26 xiii. 1-17 58-60, 137
x. 25 141 xiii. 2 58, n o
x. 28 126 xiii. 7 58
x. 28-38 140 xiii. 8 58-9
x. 29 no, 126 xiii. 10 58-60
x. 30 112-13,117,118-19,125—6,131 xiii. 18 84, no—11
171 12-2
INDEX OF TEXTS
JOHN (cont,) JOHN (cont.)
xiii. 19 89 xvii. 8 85
xiii. 21 66-7, 116, 146-7 xvii. 11 148, 153
xiii. 23 10 xvii. 12 141
xiii. 27 no xvii. 13 in
xiii. 30 23,32 xvii. 14—26 152
xiii. 31 39, 81-4, 114 xvii. 16 78, 152
xiii. 32 82 xvii. 17 70
xiii. 33 J xvii. 18 152
35
xiv. 2 no xvii. 19 70, 150
xiv. 3 150 xvii. 20-3 125-6, 153-5, 157
xiv. 6 68-71, 112-13, J 37 xvii. 21 151
xiv. 7 3°, 3 1 , 93 xvii. 22 98
xiv. 9 30, 91-2, 118-19, 151 xvii. 23 85, 152
xiv. I O - I I 98 xvii. 24 76
xiv. 11 93, 118-20, 125 xvii. 25 79, I O 5
xiv. 12 152 xviii. 1 M5
xiv. 16 141 xviii. 10 33
xiv. 18 39 xviii. 15 9
xiv. 20 85, 152, 154, 157 xix. 1-3 150
xiv. 28 39, 122-5, 131 xix. 14
xiv. 30 156 xix. 17 18,61
xiv. 31 37 xix. 18 61
XV. I 69-70, 157 xix. 20 61
xv. 1—5 149, 157 xix. 23—4 25,62
xv. 3 60 xix. 28 in
xv. 4 no xix. 29 19
XV. IO 152 xix. 30 62,67
xv. 15 23 xix. 34 62, 105
xv. 19 78, 101, 109 xix. 35 9
XV. 22 94 xix. 41 26, 34, 63
xv. 26-7 41 xx. 17 31, 85, 137
xvi. 3 97 XX. 21 56, 152
xvi. 7 149 XX. 22 3i,37
xvi. 10 150 xx. 23 6
xvi. 12-13 30 xx. 26 26, 34
xvi. 13 68-70 xx. 27 3i
xvi. 21 38 xx. 28 30, 31, 90
xvi. 24 30 xx. 31 11, 105
xvi. 25 30 xxi. 1—6 32,35
xvi. 26-7 141 xxi. 1-14 64
xvi. 28 132, 134 xxi. 11 64
xvii 144-5 xxi. 24 9
xvii. 1 82-3
xvii. 3 85, 86, 120-1 ACTS
xvii. 4 84 iv. 13 10
xvii. 5 83 vi no
xvii. 6-8 93
172
INDEX OF TEXTS
ROMANS COLOSSIANS
ix. 3-5 131 i. 16 103
ii. 14 61
I CORINTHIANS
ii. 16 46 HEBREWS
viii. 5-6 131 ii. 11 150
xiii. 8
PHILIPPIANS
ii. 7 138
<J>) PATRISTIC
In this index only those authors whose works have been most frequently quoted
are included; authors whose works have been less extensively used are included
in the index of proper names.
ATHANASIUS 127 AUGUSTINE (cont.)
Orationes contra Arianos 22, 5 81
1,58 122 26 54
3,2 125 44, 1, 2, 5 56
3,7 121, 122 44, 17 81
3,9 121 49,3 57

3, I O 125 50, 10 no
3, 18-25 125 56,4 59
3,26 Il6, 121 58,2 58
3, 3 1 " 2 Il6 75,4 85
3, 35-6 122 110,4 85
3,37 144 no, 5 152
3, 37-4O 122 117, 5 61
3, 54-6 Il6 120, 2 62,63
3, 55 I46 122, 6-8 64
3,57 147 De Civhate Dei
De Incarnatione 22, 17 63
18 42, 55
De Synodis CHRYSOSTOM
19 79 Homilies on St John
Ep. ad Serapionem 2, 1 10
4, 14 117 4, 1 14
5, 1-2 103
PS-ATHANASIUS 5, 3 100
De Passione et Cruce Domini 8,1 IOI
25 63 12, 3 84
Expositio Fidei J
3, 3 132
4 137 17, 1 17
21, 1 3°, 39
AUGUSTINE 22, 1-2 26,42
Tractates on St John 22,3 43
15, 16 47 23,2 17
17, 1-7 52 24,2 79
173
INDEX OF TEXTS
CHRYSOSTOM (cont.) CHRYSOSTOM (cont.)
27, 1 38, I4O 82,1 7O, 1 5 2
28, 1 8i 82,2 152
2 83,1
9, 3 39 145
30, 1-2 141 83,2 9
31, 4 20 85,1 61
32, 1 47 , 4 8 85, 1-2 25
33, 1 144 85,3 9, 6 2
2 68 26
33, 85,4
34, 2 40 86,3 31
35, 1-2 21 87,2 54
35,2 5° 88, 2 10
36,1 32 Adversus Anomaeos
38, 1-2 51 12 51
38,2 52
38, 3-4 140 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 8
39, ! - 2 140 Excerpta ex Theodoto
39>3 114 7, 3 97
39,4 127 13 53
40, 1 27 19,4 97
40, 2 39 61,1 112
42, 2-3 54, 144 65 43
43, J 17 Paidagogos
45,2 135 1, 6, 38-47 52
45,3 no 1, 7, 60 102
46, 1 no 2, 2, 29 43
49, 2 141 2, 8, 63 60
51,2 84 Stromateis
53,2 141 1, 17, 81 102
56,2 55
57, 1 55 CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA ][-2, }'-6,
59,3 102 160-1
61,2 126, 1 4 0 Commentary on St John
63,1 147 Preface 6
63, 2 1 2 , 146 Bk. 1 Preface 11 , 14
64, 1 140 in John i. 1 11
67, 1 147 i. 4 72, 73,75
67, 2 156 i- 5 75, 1 0 0
68, 1-2 140 i- 9 7i, 74, 100, 136
70,2 58 i. 10 100
72, 2 84 i. 11 100
75, 2 152 i. 12 151
76,1 37 i. 13 150, 1 5 1
77,4 84 i. 14 20, 128, 151
79, 1 39 i. 15 132
80, 1 145 i. 17 70
80, 2 83 , 8 4 i. 18 93, 151
81,2 in i. 28 25
174
INDEX OF TEXTS
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA {cont.) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (cont.)
i. 29 150, 151, 153 v. 46 150
i. 3 0 132 vi. 1 34, 54
i. 3 2 138 vi. 9 33
i. 32-3 149, 150, 151 vi. 10 32
i- 33 138 vi. 11 138, 144, 145
2 vi. 15 36, 151
i. 34 9
i.38 138, 142 vi. 18-21 36
i- 39 33 vi. 26 36
i- 49 3° vi. 27 141
i. 51 39 vi. 32 70
ii. 1—4 42 vi. 35 48, 157
ii. 11 34, 36, 43 vi. 37 138, 141
ii. 14 43,45 vi. 38 124, 132
ii. 23-4 9° vi. 42 150
iii. 3 66,79 vi. 43 27
iii. 1 3 136 vi. 46 93
iii. 1 6 84, 138 vi. 47 73
iii. 1 8 80 vi. 51 156
iii. 2 3 32 vi. 53 54, 157
iii. 3 1 78 vi. 57 72, 141
vi. 59 2
iii. 35 138 5
vi. 60-2 2
iii. 36 73 9
iv. 4 20 vi. 62 136
iv. 6 26, 136 vi. 63 67, 156
iv. 10 48 vii. 1 34
iv. 14 47 vii. 16 141
iv. 22 138, 144 vii. 3 0 no
iv. 24 68,70 vii. 37 49
iv. 31 32 vii. 38 48
iv. 34 136 vii. 39 138
iv. 35 40 viii. 12 74, 76, 135
iv. 44 21 viii. 15 80
iv. 46 50 viii. 23 78
iv. 50—1 50 viii. 2 4 90
v. 1-9 51 viii. 28 141
v. 7 142 viii. 29 138, 142, 143, 144
v. 15 52 viii. 32 70
v. 19 J33, 139 viii. 38 93
V. 22 138 viii. 4 0 138
v. 24 73 viii. 4 2 151
viii. 4 3 2
v. 25 39 7
v. 26—7 140 viii. 4 5 90
v. 27 "5 viii. 5 1 73
v. 30 133 viii. 55 86
v. 36 138 ix. 1 36
ix. 4 2
v. 37 93 , 55
v. 37-8 27 ix. 5 76
175
INDEX OF TEXTS
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (cont.) CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (cont.)
ix. 6 55 xiii. 27-8 156
ix. 6-7 36 xiii. 30 32
ix. 7 56 xiii. 31 39, 84
ix. 28 36 xiii. 33 135
ix. 37 137 xiv. 1 90
ix. 38 36 xiv. 3 150, 151
ix. 39 80, 92 xiv. 6 70, 150
x. 6 29 xiv. 7 3°, 93
x. 10 73> J 5 6 xiv. 11 78,93
x. 14-15 86, 150, 156 xiv. 16 138, 141
x. 18 141 xiv. 16-17 138
x. 23 26 xiv. 18 39
x. 25 138, 141 xiv. 20 150, 151, 154
x. 29-30 140 xiv. 28 39, 123
x. 30 126 xiv. 31 37
x. 40 34 XV. I 70, 157
2
xi. 11 9 xv. 9 138
xi. 17 26 xv. 9—10 J
5i
xi. 25-6 73 xvi. 7 150
xi. 27 30 xvi. 13 70
xi. 31 2 xvi. 24 138
5
xi. 33 67, 147, 15° xvi. 28 132
xi. 34 142, 143, 144 xvi. 33 151
xi. 36 58, 146 xvii. 1 83? M5
xi. 38 138, 147 xvii. 2 138
xi. 40 91 xvii. 3 86
xi. 41—2 138 xvii. 4 *39> J 4 5
xi. 42 145 xvii. 5 84, 145
xi. 43 57 xvii. 6 138
xi. 44 36, 56 xvii. 6-8 93
xii. 14—15 19 xvii. 8 *39
xii. 16 84 xvii. 9 138
xii. 21-2 20 xvii. 11 150, 151
xii. 23 84 xvii. 12 141
xii. 24 138 xvii. 12-13 157
xii. 27 138, 147 xvii. 14 145
xii. 28 84 xvii. 19 150
xii. 31 81 xvii. 20-1 151, 153, 154,
xii. 36 74 i55 ? 157
xii. 38-40 in xvii. 22-3 150, 151, 154,
xii. 44 90 157
xii. 49—50 27 xvii. 25 79
xiii. 2-5 58 xviii. 10 33
xiii. 8 59 xviii. 15 9
xiii. 18 in xix. 1—3 150
xiii. 21 67? 147 xix. 18-20 61
xiii. 23 10,93 xix. 23 2
5
176
INDEX OF TEXTS
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (COM.) IRENEAUS (COM.)
xix. 29 J
9 h 9,3 99
xix. 34 62 I,22, 1 103
xix. 41 26, 34,63 2, 2, 5 103
xx. 15 58,63 2, 22,3 13,49
xx. 17 31, 58, 138, 150, 151 2 , 22,6 13
xx. 22—3 31 3, 1, 1 8
xx. 26 34 3, 4, 1 102
xx. 27 3i 3, 5, 1 9
xx. 28 30, 90 3, 8,3 103
xxi. 1-6 32, 35,64 3, 11, 1 103
xxi. 11 64 3, n , 3 105
xxi. 24 9 3, 11,4 104
Fragment in John x. 36 150 3, " , 5 42, 54
Glaph. in Gen. 3, 11,6 104
Bk. 4 2 3, 16,2 106
Responswnes ad Tiberium 3, 16,5 11, 105, 112
2, 10 68 3, 16,7 44
Ep. ad Calosyrium 68 3, 16, 8 105
Thesaurus 3, 17,2 47
11 123 3, 19, 2 106
Apologia pro xii Cap. 129 3, 22, 2 105
Epistles 4, 2,3 104
40, 69, 70, 71 131 4, 22, 1 59
Dialogue 4, 33,2 105
1 *55 4, 37, 5 109
4, 41,2 108
HlPPOLYTUS 4 5, 13, 1 56
Elenchos 5, 15, 2 37, 55
5, 8, 12 109 J
5, 5, 3 56
6, 34, 4 108 5, 18, 2 99, 103
6, 35, 1 IOI 5, 18, 3 99
7, 22, 4 74 5, 27, 2 80
7, 27, 5 107
9, 12, 17 120 ORIGEN 1-3, 159-60
Contra Noetum Commentary on St John
4 114 1, 6 11, 68
7 118, 119, 125, 154 1, 2 0 94
15 93 1, 2 1 65,93
1, 2 4 94
PS-HlPPOLYTUS 1, 25 65, 73, 74
On the Raising of Lazarus 57, 143 i, 26 65, 69, 74
1, 2 7 65, 68, 71
IRENAEUS 4 1, 2 8 65, 115
Adversus Haereses i, 29 65
1,7,4 49 I, 30 43, 53, 65, 69
1,8,5 7 1, 31-6 65
1, 9, 1-2 96 I, 32 132
177
INDEX OF TEXTS
ORIGEN (cont.) ORIGEN (cont.)
114 13, 16 47
94, 102 13, 18-19 47
1,38 94 13, 21-3 67
2, 2 120 13,23 72,74
2,6 69 13, 25 122
2, 10 103 13, 30 23,31
2, 13 103 13,36 92, 119, 126
2, 14 102, 103 13,39 24
2,16 71 13, 41 40
2, 17 72 J
3, 51 47
2,23 69, 73, 75 13, 52 20
2,29 77 13, 53 91
2,33 23 13, 54 10
2,34 104 13, 57 43, 5o
2,36 33 13, 58-9 5°
6,3 7,68 13, 60-1 49
6,4 91 13, 62 43,49
6,6 102 13,64 4i
6, 24 16 19, 1-2 113
6, 34 13, 16 87
19,3
6,35
23 19, 3-5 85
6,39 22 19, 6 91,92
6,55 19, 16 62
31
6, 60 114 19, 19 22
10, 3-6 19,20 109
15
10, 6 112 19, 20-2 77
10, 8 19, 21
15 79
10, 11 19, 23
21,44 89
10, 12
43 20,7 93
10, 18
42 20, 8-9 108
10, 20-2 20, 16 106
15
10, 23 20, 20
44 23,87
10, 24
45 20,24 108
10, 28-9 20, 28-9 108
44
10, 31
45 20, 30 89
10, 33
44 20,33 87, 88, 108
io,35 45 20, 36 32
10, 37 89, 120 20,39 71, 72, 89
10, 37-8 44 20,40 no
10,43 89 28,6-7 57
10,44 88 28,7 56
10,45 no 28,9 57
71,72 28, 18 113
13, 9 23,47 28, 21 109
13, 10 47 32,2 15, 59, n o
13, 11 47, 109 32,4 23, 60
47,68 32, 7-8 60
178
INDEX OF TEXTS
ORIGEN (cont.) ORIGEN (cont.)

32,8 59 5, 10 74
32, 14 84, no 5,56 16
32, 15-16 89 6,59 77
32, 18 66 6,70 67,68
32, 19 no 7, 16-17 113
32,20 10 7, 39 80, 91, 92
2
32,24 3 , 33, 53 7,43 92
32,25 82,83, 114 7, 5i 31
32, 26-9 82 8,12 92, 119, I 2 5
32,29 122 8, 15 122
De Principiis
Fragments h 1,4 68
3 100 1, 1,8 91
7 88 1,6,2 152
13 91-2 i,7, 1 103
15 10 2, 3, 6 77
20 22 2,4, 3 91
21 15 2, 5,4 105
28 42 2, 6, 3 "5
29 26 2,7, 3 68
3O 42,89 3, 2,4 no
33 88 3, 6 , 1 152
34 24 4, i , 7 10
35 79 4,4, 2 89
36 48 4,4,4 113
37 66 4, 4, 8 122
4i 80 De Oratione
53 113 6,3 109
54 46 27, 2-4 53
56 46 Gen. Horn.
57 47 7, 5 46
63 56 Ex. Horn.
73 91-2 6,1 82
74 15, 22,43 11, 2 62
75 113 Lev. Horn.
80 36 7, 5 53
89 80 Num. Horn.
90 80 11, 8 150
92 109 16,9 53
93 87,91 y^j-. Nav. Horn.
95 7i 3,2 68
Contra Celsum yW. Horn.
1,66 "3 8,5 60
2,2 68 //* Psalmos (ed. J. B. Pitra)
2,20 109 Ps. iv. 4 87
2,25 113 Ps. cxviii (cxix). 75 87
2,69 60,63 Ps. cxliv (cxlv). 15 42
179
INDEX OF TEXTS
ORIGEN (COM.) ORIGEN (cont.)
Sel. in Psalmos (ed. J. P. Migne) Eph. iv. 27 no
Ps. xx (xxi). 6 82 Philocalia
Ps. cxviii (cxix). 161 78 27, 10 80
Ps. cxxxv (cxxxvi). 6 48
Ps. xxxvi (xxxvii) Horn. TERTULLIAN
3, io 56 Adversus Praxeam
In Can. Can. 7 68
Prologue 119 9 122
Bk. i 10 16 J
43
Bk. 3 82 20 118
Is. Horn. 21 114, 121
6,3 36, 56 21-5 117
Jer. Horn. 22 118, 119
12, IO 56 24 119, 1 2 0
14, 10 2 119
100 5
Sel. in Jer. 27 114
Jer. xxiii. 30 102 De Baptismo
Comm. Matt. 1 56
10,23 35 5 5i
11, 2 33 9 45
11, 14 53 12 59
12,2 57 16 62
I2 42 De Resurrectione Mortuorum
, 3
13, 20 78 5 105
15, 10 122 37 67
15,24 114 De Monogamia
Matt. Comm. Ser. 8 42
77 16 Adversus Judaeos
85 53 13 51
92 14 Apologeticus
97 107 21 62
IOI 33 De Pudicitia
126 14 22 62
128 25 De Anima
138 62 43 63
From Possinus* Catena De Carne Christi
In Matt. xiv. 19 "3 19, 24 106
Luc. Horn.
29 14 PS-TERTULLIAN
Comm. Rom. Adversus Omnes Haereses
3,7 24 8 112
4,9 152
5,8 63 THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA
6,11 89 2, 5-6, 159
7,9 109 Commentary on St John
Frag, in Eph. 2 4,6
Eph. i. 1 102 3-4 11
180
INDEX OF TEXTS
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA {cont.) THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (cont.)
4 14 82 " 5 , 137
5 16 83 137
11-14 95 84 39
17 75 85 115
18 104 85-6 127
J 86
9 72,75 134, 137
20 100 88 38
21 70, 101 94 26, 144
23 128 94-6 54
24 69 97-9 54
25-6 132 98 137
26 69, 149 101-2 135, 137
29 155 103 127
3° 132, 134, 137 105-6 54
31 26 106 28
33 16, 29, 134, 137, 149, 157 108 132, 133, 137
34 142 108-9 67
37 3° in 27
38 39 ii5 28,48
39 16 117 76
39-42 44 119 *37
40 26 119-20 134
89,90 J
41 120 37
42 17, in 126 no
43 17, 37, 45 127 72
45 14,90 129 55
46 90 133 55,75
46-7 157 134 27, 55
46-9 66 138 41
49 28, 40, 66 138-9 80
50 132, 134, 137 139 55,92
5i 38, 132 141 28
51-2 135 143 72
J
53 17 45 85, 134
55-8 38, 157 146 28
58 78 148 137
59 72, 149 152 140
63 47,72 152-3 126
64-5 68 156 25
66 40 158 90
J 30
68-9 50,90 59
69 52 161 3°
7O 142 162 142, 144, 146
72-3 52 163 58, 134, 137
J 168 18
78 33
80 133, 134, 137, 139 169-70 30
81 28 171 20,83
181
INDEX OF TEXTS
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (com.) THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (com.)

172 146 220-1 85
174 156 222 83
175 38,75 225 149
176 i n , 137 226 148, 153
179 80 227 78
180 25 228 145
181-4 58 229 157
182 58, 137 229—30 M5
183 58 233 9
184 58, i n 238-9 17
185 67, 146 239 18, 19
186 39 240 18
186-7 83 241 25,62
189 18 242 9,62, i n
190—1 70 243 26
191 31 244 17, 18
192 30, 139 244-5 17, 22
193-4 134 245 18
195 149 246 19
196 39, 157 251 137
198 139 251-2 *9
199 39, 123, i*.JI, 134, 137 252 18
200 37 253-4 37
201 149, 157 254-5 31
203 23 256 31
204 78 Frag. 406 145, 148
206 41 Catechetical Homilies
209 149 4, 14 140
210-11 70 5, 18 156
212-13 149, 157 8,3 30
215 38 8, 11-12 134
216 141 10,9 48
217 134, 137 10, 18 153
219 145 De Incarnatione
220 83 7 149

The Spiritual Gospel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Spiritual Gospel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Spiritual Gospel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

Cambridge University Press

www. Cambridge. org

© Cambridge University Press 1960

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

First published 1960

A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN-13 978-0-521-06802-4 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-67328-0 paperback

INTRODUCTION Commentaries and commentators i

I The authorship and purpose of the Gospel 7

VI The Fourth Gospel and the Gnostics 96

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES l6j

INDEX OF TEXTS 169

The following additional abbreviations have been used in references to

O. Origen, ed. A. E. Brooke (Cambridge, 1896)

See the Bibliography for fuller details of articles

COMMENTARIES AND COMMENTATORS

mentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the most renowned of her

to the commentary, Theodore not only refers to the earlier work of

THE AUTHORSHIP AND PURPOSE

For all the later commentators, therefore, it is an accepted fact

used. The extreme doctrinal importance of the verse naturally

position is reflected in the unique and exalted character of his

reasonable doubt the doctrinal truth of Christ's divinity. Although

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE

of Origen and of Theodore as commentators, that they alone are

Logos. He does not, however, develop the argument in detail then

the start of the ministry described by the Synoptics.1 In all probability

of the other evangelists, but it would not be a matter of any great

ground that in the Synoptic Gospels Capernaum is the scene of

HISTORICITY AND SYMBOLISM

One of the bewildering features of modern Johannine studies is the

Theodore, on the other hand, has, as we have seen, an especial

a clear sign of his passionate concern for absolute accuracy, even in

their original historical setting. This is a problem of which all the

and not such as ought to be a matter of surprise. Not so with Cyril.

uniqueness and divinity of Christ. He finds support for this view

exclamation of Thomas is an exclamation of gratitude to God for

is no difference between them. The difference derives from Theo-

2. THE PRESENCE OF SYMBOLISM

God does nothing in vain, and therefore every detail of Scripture,

accomplishing, yet he also adds as a subsidiary comment that which

places, where it is far less likely to be the correct interpretation. Thus

will be rejected.1 There is a real attempt here to provide a unified,

others, his interpretation seems quite extraneous to the real meaning

time of the resurrection and of the ascension.1 Cyril has a reference

that they are white already to harvest', Theodore suggests a more

by Theodore.1 In another passage, Origen asserts that every sign

I . J O H N i i . I—II. THE TURNING OF THE WATER INTO WINE

The story is naturally referred to in teaching about marriage, but

(7COUOCTIKCC CTCOUOCTIKCOV, OcAAoC TOCCTCOUOCTIKOCTTV6UUCCTIKCOV KOCl TOC lOTOplKCC VOTJTCOV.

is the bringer of joy to his companions.1 This is in line with a common

In more than one of the passages discussed, the idea of the

2. JOHNii. 13-22. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

The earliest interpretation of this passage is that of Heracleon. His

correspond to the varied conditions of different human souls and the