For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
All Commentaries on John 6:38 Go To John 6
Cyril of Alexandria
AD 444
CHAPTER I. That in nothing is the Son inferior to God the Father, because He is of Him by Nature, although He be said by some to be subject.
This passage will seem hard to a person who considers it superficially, and not far removed from offence regarding the faith, so that they even expect us hence to fall into difficulties hard to be overcome, which come from our opponents. But there is nothing at all hard herein, for all things are plain to them that understand, as it is written, and right to them that find knowledge, that is to those who piously study to interpret and understand the mysteries contained in the Divine Scriptures. In these words then Christ gives us a kind of proof and manifest assurance that he that cometh to Him shall not be cast out. For for this cause (saith He) I came down from Heaven, that is, I became Man according to the good pleasure of God the Father, and refused not to be employed in all but undesired works, until I should attain for them that believe on Me eternal life and the resurrection from the dead, having destroyed the power of death. What then was this that Christ both, willed and willed not 1? Dishonour from the Jews, revilings, insults, contumelies, scourgings, spitings, and yet more, false witnesses, and last of all, the death of the Body. These things for our sakes Christ willingly underwent, but if He could without suffering them have accomplished His Desire for us, He would not have willed to suffer. But since the Jews were surely and inevitably going to adventure the things done against Him, He accepts the Suffering, He makes what He willed not His Will, for the value sake of His Passion, God the Father agreeing with Him, and co-approving that He should readily undergo all things for the salvation of all. Herein specially do we see the boundless goodness of the Divine Nature, in that It refuseth not to make that which is spurned, Its choice for our sakes. But that the suffering on the Cross was unwilled by our Saviour Christ, yet willed for our sakes and the Good Pleasure of God the Father, you will hence understand. For when He was about to ascend thereunto, He made His addresses to God, saying, that is, in the form of prayer, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as THOU. For that in that He is God the Word, Immortal and Incorruptible, and Life Itself by Nature, He could not shudder at death, I think is most clear to all: yet made in Flesh He suffers the Flesh to undergo things proper to it, and permits it to shudder at death when now at its doors, that He may be shewn to be in truth Man; therefore He says, If it be possible, let this Cup pass from Me. If it may be (He says) Father, that I, without suffering death, may gain life for them that have fallen thereinto if death may die without My dying, in the Flesh that is, let this cup (He says) pass from Me; but since it will not take place (He says) otherwise, not as I will, but as THOU. Thou seest how powerless human nature is found, even in Christ Himself, as far as it is concerned: but it is brought |385 back through the Word united with it unto God-befitting undauntedness and is re-trained to noble purpose, so as not to commit itself to what seems good to its own will, but rather to follow the Divine Aim, and readily to run to whatever the Law of its Creator calls us. That we say these things truly, you may learn from that too which is subjoined, For the spirit indeed (He saith) is willing, but the flesh is weak. For Christ was not ignorant that it is very far beneath God-befitting Dignity, to seem to be overcome by death, and to feel the dread of it: therefore He subjoined to what He had said the strongest defence, saying that the flesh was weak, by reason of what befits it and belongs to it by nature; but that the spirit was willing, knowing that it suffered nought that could harm. Seest thou how death was unwilled by Christ, by reason of the Flesh, and the inglory of suffering: yet willed, until He should have brought unto its destined consummation for the whole world the Good Pleasure of the Father, that is, the salvation and life of all? For doth He not truly and indeed signify something of this kind, when He says that this is the Will of the Father, that of those who were brought to Him He should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day? For as we taught before, God the Father in His Love to man brings to Christ as to Life and the Saviour, him that lacketh life and salvation.
But I perceive that I am saying what pleases not the enemy of the truth. For he will by no means agree to the things which we have just said: but will cry out loudly, and will come with his shrill cry, Whither are you leading astray (you sir) our line of thought and are devising intricate inroads of ideas and drawing away the passage from the truth? You blush I suppose (says he) to confess the involuntary subjection of the Son. For is it not hereby also evident to us, that He will never command and bear rule in the management of affairs, but is subject rather to |386 the Will of the Father? For He is conscious of so coming short of Equality with Him, that He is constrained in some sort to make what He wills not His Will, and to do not altogether as seems good to Him, but rather what pleases the Father. And do not tell me (says he) dragging the expression into the Incarnation, It is as Man that He is subject. For lo, as thou seest, He being yet God and bare Word and unentangled with Flesh, came down from Heaven, and before He was at all clothed with the form of a servant, was subject to the Father, i. e., as His Superior and Ruler.
With dread words, good sir, as you surely deem, and swift-coursing exceedingly do you overrun us, yet are they words that go not straight forward but are scared out of the Kings beaten highway; and having left (as the Greek proverb hath it) the carriage-way, you are pressing forward upon precipices and rocks. For vainly do ye maintain against us that the Son obeys the Father, ever speaking as though any of them who deem aright thought that one ought to hold the contrary, and were not rather determined to agree with you herein. For we do not conceive of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity as ever divided against Itself, or cleft into diverse opinions, or that the Father (may be) or the Son or the Holy Ghost are severed unto what seems good to each individually, but They agree in all things, since of One Godhead, it is clear, One and the Same Will ever existeth, in the Whole Holy Trinity. Away then with a long argument with us hereon, still be the spirit that would wrangle where it least of all should, for since none is indignant thereat, it is superfluous still to press it.
But since ye, accustomed to think and to hold most perverse things, term the Son's agreement with the Will of the Father, subjection of necessity, on this matter we will discuss with you what is right. For if this statement were put forth by you in simplicity, we too would with reason hold our peace, and not too strictly test the agreement of language. But since we see that it is put forth in deep malice, we shall of necessity oppose you, trusting in the Power of the Holy Ghost, and not to our own words. For not absolutely, nor simply as His rule of conduct, nor yet for every action did. the Son affirm that He did not wholly and entirely hold by His Own Will, but He says that He kept His Father's Will in one definite act, on account of thy wresting of words (as I conceive) providing as God for our security. But He endured what He would not, and for our sakes made it His Will; I mean His Suffering upon the Cross, since so it was well-pleasing unto His Father, as we have said before. And one may see the proof straightway laid down, and the principle evidently set before us, on which (as Himself says) He left His Own Will, and fulfils the Father's. For this (He saith) is the Will of the Father that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up at the last day. And that the Suffering on the Cross was really unwilled alike and willed by the Only Begotten, hath been clearly stated before. But we shall state it again hereafter with more accurate proofs, simplifying the truth to our readers. But I will proceed first to the examination of the subjection alleged by you, it being previously laid down and unhesitatingly confessed by you, that the Wills of the Holy Trinity ever coincide into one Will and Purpose. Let those subtle disputers tell us then, whether in the name and fact of subjection the Being of the Son consists, and this is His Nature, in the same way for instance as humanity belongs to a man, or whether He, existing before in His Own Proper Mode, is subject to the Father, as one might conceive of an angel for instance, or any other reasonable power. For these things, being and existing, are recipient of the mode of subjection.
If then ye say that the Being of the Son consists in His being subject to the Father, He will be a subjection rather and not a Son. How then (tell me) will ye not be manifest triflers? for how can this subjection be conceived to exist of itself without having its being in any of the things that are? For such things are usually the accidents of the |388 necessarily pre-existing subjects wherein they are wont to be, and not otherwise: and are viewed as belonging to substances, or befalling them, rather than having any existence in themselves. And as lust for instance, which calls and impels us to any thing, has no existence in itself, but is conceived rather in him who is recipient thereof: so subjection pointing at some sway of the will to the duty of subjection to any, will not be conceived of in its own nature, but will rather be as passion, or will, or desire, in some one of the things that are. Besides the name and fact of subjection spoken absolutely will not be conceived of as properly predicated of any one, nor will one know whether it be good or bad, unless it be added to whom the subjection is: for a man is subject to God, but also to the devil. And as the name wise is a mean term (for some are wise to do evil, and again the wise shall inherit glory, having clearly their wisdom in good things), so too subjection is a kind of mean term, and not a truth definitely expressed, for it is quite uncertain to whom the subjection is. Hence also, the Nature of the Son is left in uncertainty, if It be conceived of as (according to you) a subjection. For a subjection to what, if no one were brought forward, one could not say without falsehood. But that the subjection will not exist of itself, in its own mode of being, we bringing forward some grosser and more obvious reasoning in regard to things already made, shall see: and do thou accept a demonstration besides. For if we grant that the being of a man (for example) consists in his being subject, we shall consider that his not existing consists in his not being subject. How then was it said by the Psalmist to some one, as being indeed and existing, but not yet subjected, Submit thee to the Lord, and entreat Him? Seest thou then how utterly foolish it is to suppose that subjection has any existence in itself? One must then of necessity confess that the Son was and existed previously in His Own Nature, and so say that He was subject to the Father. What then (tell me) is there to constrain that He Who is of the Essence of His Father, the Exact Impress of His Nature, should fall from His Equality with Him, on account of His being obedient? For WE who think and speak rightly, know that He is con-substantial with the Father, and give Him Equal Honour in all respects, and consider that in nought does He come short of God-befitting Divinity: but do THOU see in what manner thou canst thrust away from Equal honour with the Father on account of the alleged subjection Him who enjoys equal goods by reason of Identity of Essence.
But this very thing (says he) will make for our side of the argument, namely that the Son is obedient to the Father, and doth not overmuch consider His Own Will, but yields rather to that of the Father, as above Him and greater than He.
But this very thing according to your own word sir, which you think will aid your argument, you will find to be nothing but the fruit of your own unlearning. For if we were disputing, which was superior in dignity, and had the greater glory, your ever-repeated argument would even then scarce seem to have any seasonable ground. But since the mode of consubstantiality is being examined into, how shall ye not be caught in no slight folly attributing to God the Father superiority therein over His own offspring? For the terms 'greater' or 'less' or the like, we do not allow to be strictly essences (as we said of subjection) but they are something external, and qualities of essences. For that which already pre-existed and is, will be recipient (it may be) of 'greater' or ' less ' by comparison with another thing: but if there is nought before it or pre-existent, in respect to which such things would happen, how will they exist by themselves, albeit conceived of and defined under the class of accidents? Hence in telling us of greater or less ye do not touch the Essence of the Only-Begotten, nor yet That of the Father, but only with external excellences or short-comings, embellish (as ye suppose) the Father and revile the Son, although ye hear Him openly crying aloud, He that honoureth not the Son neither doth he honour the Father, and that all men ought to honour the Son even as they honour the Father. For that things which can no way be severed into foreign alieniety, but have one and the same essence must be endowed with equal glory, Christ most excellently teaches in that He accepteth not to receive testimony to Himself from men, as Himself said, but came forward as Himself unto Himself a witness credible and more worthy than all that are. And He being by Nature Truth will surely say true, as one may prove from the very quality of things. For you will probably grant that the 'greater' or 'less' belong not to the very essence of ought but to the things in respect of their essence. For instance, a man will not be greater or less than another man, in respect of his being conceived of and called a man: for neither is man less than man qua man, neither is he greater than man, qua man: for the count of nature is seen to be equal in all. And the same method of reasoning will hold, of angels too, or any thing else that is made and enrolled among creation. Therefore such things are found to be utterly without place in regard to the essences themselves, but are the accidents of the essences, or of what belongs to the essences, as we have delivered above. How then will the Father be greater than the Son, God by Nature than God by Nature? For the Son having been begotten of Him, will surely compel you, even against your own will, to grant Him Con-substantiality with Him.
It having been premised then, and unhesitatingly admitted that the Son is by Nature God, let us consider if you please, whether by paying Him equal Honour with Him of Whom He is, we shall confer honour upon the Begetter, or shall do the reverse, by insulting with less and inferior honour the Begotten, as is really and more truly the case. For it is the glory of the Father to have begotten one, such as Himself is by Nature. But the exact contrary will befall (for it is not meet to utter it), if the Son retain not the natural condition befitting Him, having inferiority either in glory or in ought else that should belong to Him, in order to be through all things manifested |391 the All-Perfect and Very God. If then He, being thus by Nature, honour the Father, mock not thereat, O man, nor be found guilty of ignorantly finding fault, where there is least occasion for it. For it were meet (I suppose) to admire Him for this too that He honours and loves His Father: for every species of virtue has, as its source and root, the Essence that is above all; in It first good things have their rise, and flow down to us, who are made after Its Image. Wherefore us too the Lawgiver bade to honour, as was due, father and mother, yea and annexed the most noble rewards thereto (for he knew, I suppose, that it was a thing most great, and so far removed from all reproach, as to be even the giver of long-enduring life). As then WE by being subject to and obeying our parents, are not rendered other in nature than they, but being as they are men of men, and having and keeping the definition of manhood perfect, we practise obedience as an excellent virtue; so conceive in respect of the Father and the Son. For He being what He is, God of God, Perfect of Perfect, Exact Impress of the Essence of His Father, thinketh nought else than He too thinketh, Whose both counsel and Word He is; and will wholly will the same as the Father, compelled by the same laws (so to say) of consubstantiality, to co-will all good things together with the Father.
Be no wise offended then, O man, when thou hearest Him say, I have come down from Heaven, not to do Mine own Will, but the Will of Him that sent Me. For what we said at the beginning, this we will say again. Christ said this of a definite and plain matter. For He saith these words, teaching that He willed to die for all because the Divine Nature had so counselled, but willed it not by reason of the Sufferings on the Cross, and as far as pertained to the flesh which deprecates death. And we have already expended many words: but it is convenient that we should see from the very nature of things that the suffering on the Cross was unwilled by Christ, in that He was Man. We say then that it was a work of Jewish folly, that Christ should be crucified at all, and this was immediately to |392 happen from them, who were not unpractised in boldness hereunto by means of what they had already done both to the holy Prophets, and the saints who were at that time. But since no otherwise was it possible to raise again unto life that which had fallen into death, unless the Only Begotten Word of God became Man, and it was wholly needful that made Man, He should suffer; He made what He willed not, His Will, the Divine Nature having permitted this from Love to us.
For the Artificer of all things, Wisdom, i. e., the Son, made that which was a machination of devilish perversity, I mean His Death in the Flesh;----this He made a way of salvation to us and a door of life, and the devil's hopes were overturned, and he learned at last by experience, that hard is it for him to fight against God. The Divine Psalmist too seems to agree with what I have said of these things, and to hint at something of this sort, when he says, as of Christ and the devil, in his net shall he humble him. For the devil laid death as a net for Christ, but in his own net itself has he been humbled. For in the Death of Christ was death undone, and the tyrant who thought not to fall was brought to nought. And it were not hard to add much more to these things: but what is before us, that will we say. If the Death of Christ were not really and truly the work of Jewish wills, and the fruit of their unholy daring, but the Divine Judgment were (as some deem) the sole leading spring thereto: how needed it not that that which was determined upon should of necessity be accomplished and surely by the hands of men, and not otherwise? How then (tell me) would they who subserved the irrevocable decrees of God be yet justly punished? and how would that miserable man, through whom Christ was betrayed, have been in better case, if he had not been born? For if the Passion be conceived of as willed by the Saviour, and not unwilled in any other sense, what penalty would he reasonably pay, who was set forth minister of his Lord's Will, and of things which should surely come to pass? will it not be evident to all, that the things which seem good unto the Divine and Ineffable Nature, must surely come to pass, and be done by some? From these things and many more one may see that since the Son of Man hath come down from Heaven to undergo death for all men, willing alike was He and unwilling, in order that He might raise up all at the last day, since so it pleased the Father Himself for the good of all: but He will not on these accounts that He be conceived of, as by any means of a different nature or in ought inferior to Him who begat Him.
I suppose then that our opponent will at length blush, and not gainsay our words on this point: but if he again oppose and have settled that it is fit to wrangle yet more, I say thus, If the Son hath come down from heaven not to fulfil His Own Will, as Himself says, but the Will of the Father; and our words on the just concluded consideration thereof, haply please thee not: must not one say that Their Wills are in opposition, and that Their Counsel is divided contrarily? But this is clear to all. For if there were no hindrance, the Will in Both would be perforce wholly One: but if He put forward His Will as it were diverse from the Will of the Father, and fulfil that, how is it not foolish to say that they are One, and not other in respect of other?
Let us see then wherein is the Will of the Father; for so shall we discern the other also, whereto it tends. The Will of the Father then, as the Saviour Himself hath said, is that of all which He hath given Him He should lose nothing but should raise it up at the last Day. And that it is good and loving none will gainsay: but transferring our considerations to the opposing will of the Son, we shall find it neither loving nor good at all, but savouring of what is wholly contrary to the Father, and willing neither to save us, nor yet to raise us up from death. How then is He yet the Good Shepherd, how gave He us a token of the Loving-kindness that is in Him, in giving His Life for us? For if He hath come down from heaven to accomplish this of voluntary Purpose, how doth He fulfil not His Own Will in not destroying that which, is brought to Him, but in raising it up at the last Day? But if this was not His Will, but He subserves rather the Will of the Father, both in raising up and saving, i. e., those who were lost and overmastered of death, how shall we not be true in asserting that the Son is neither Good nor in any way Loving to man? Let the Christ-opposer then have done: his doubt being convicted on all sides of blasphemy, and let him not bay at us concerning these things with his bitter words.
