The library · Edition and sources
Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures
Edwin Hamilton Gifford; NPNF2-07 (1894) · Edition commentary
Reading appearance
Accessibility options
Saved in this browser and shared between texts. Labels and line patterns remain in every theme.
About this reading layout
Source wording, punctuation, paragraph boundaries and supplied line breaks are retained. Long prose also has editorial reading breaks at sentence boundaries. Substantial passages already enclosed in double quotation marks are set apart; this does not identify their source or establish a connection.
These added breaks are reading aids, not claims about the original manuscript’s layout. Poetry is lineated only where the downloaded text supplies line breaks. References and edition notes remain with their text.
Translator and historical edition notes (part 15)
Dan. vii. 24: and he shall put down three kings (R.V.).
The Jerusalem Editor quotes as from Hippolytus a similar description of Antichrist (§ 23): ”In his first steps he will be gentle, loveable, quiet, pious, pacific, hating injustice, detesting gifts, not allowing idolatry, &c.” But the treatise is a forgery of unknown date, apparently much later than Cyril.
Iren. V. 28, § 2: “Since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray.”
Iren. V. 25, § 4: “He shall remove his kingdom into that city (Jerusalem), and shall sit in the Temple of God, leading astray those who worship him as if he were Christ.” According to the genuine treatise of Hippolytus Antichrist was to restore the kingdom of the Jews (De Antichristo, § 25), to collect the Jews out of every country of the Dispersion, making them his own, as though they were his own children, and promising to restore their country, and establish again their kingdom and nation, in order that he may be worshipped by them as God (§ 54), and he will lead them on to persecute the saints, i.e. the Christians (§ 56). Compare the elaborate description of Antichrist and his cruelty in Lactantius, Div. Inst. vii. 17; Epit. § 71.
2 Thess ii. 8. Cf. Iren. V. 25, § 3: Hippol. § 64.
ἐκκλησιαζομένων. Cf. Cat. iv. 35, 36, where Cyril distinguishes the Scriptures ἃς καὶ ἐν ᾽Εκκλησίᾳ μετὰ παρρησίας ἀναγινώσκομεν from ὅσα ἐν ᾽Εκκλησίαις μὴ ἀναγινώσκεται.
Dan. vii. 23: (R.V.) shall be diverse from all the kingdoms.
Irenæus (V. 26) identifies the fourth kingdom with “the empire which now rules.” Hippolytus, de Antichristo, § 25: “A fourth beast dreadful and terrible: it had iron teeth and claws of brass. And who are these but the Romans?”
Dan. vii. 24.
Dan. v. 25. Dean Church compares Rev. xvii. 11: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. See also Iren. V. 26, § 1.
2 Thess. ii. 9. Lactantius (a.d. 300 circ.), Div. Inst. vii. 17:
“that king.…will also be a prophet of lies; and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God; and power will be given him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him.”
Cf. Epitome, lxxi.
“Vid. Iren. Hær V. 26, 2” (R.W.C.). The passage is quoted by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iv. 18), from a lost work of Justin M. Against Marcion:
“Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God, as not yet knowing his own condemnation, because it was started by the prophets in parables and allegories. But after our Lord’s advent having learnt plainly from His words and those of the Apostles that everlasting fire is prepared for him,.…he by means of such men as these blasphemes the Lord who brings the judgment upon him, as being already condemned.”
S. Cyril seems to expect that Antichrist will be an incarnation of Satan, as did Hippolytus (de Antichr. § 6): “The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man.”
φαντασιοκοπεῖ. See above, § 10, note 9, and the equivalent phrase in § 17: σημείων καὶ τεράτων φαντασίας ἐδείκνυον.
2 Thess. ii. 4.
See § 12, notes 3, 4, and Hippolytus, ubi supra: “The Saviour raised up and shewed His holy flesh like a temple; and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem.” “Cyril wrote this before Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple” (R.W.C.).
Matt. xxiv. 2. Cyril refers the whole prophecy to the time of Christ’s second coming at the end of the world, not regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Titus as fulfilling any part of the prediction.
Dan. vii. 21. Here again Cyril follows Hippolytus, § 25: “And under this (horn) was signified none other than Antichrist.
Ib. xii. 1.
Matt. xxiv. 16.
Rom. viii. 35.
Matt. xxiv. 21.
Ib. v. 22.
Dan. vii. 25. By “apocryphal” books Cyril probably means all such as were not allowed to be read in the public service of the Church: see Cat. iv. 33, note 3; and Bp. Westcott’s note on the various meanings of the word ἀπόκρυφος, Hist. of the Canon, P. III. c. 1. That the Apocalypse of St. John is included under this term by Cyril, appears probable from the following reasons suggested by the Benedictine Editor. (1) It is not mentioned in the list of the Canonical Scriptures in iv. 36. (2) The earlier writers whom Cyril follows in this Lecture, Irenæus, Hær. V., 26, § 1, and Hippolytus, De Antichristo, § 34, combine the testimony of the Apocalypse with that of Daniel. The omission in Cyril therefore cannot have been accidental.
Dan. xii. 7.
Ib. v. 11.
Ib. v. 12.
Matt. x. 23.
αὐτοπροσώπως . See above, § 14, note 2. Some mss. read ἀντιπροσώπως, “face to face,” as in xii. 32, ἀντιπρόσωπος.
See above, § 14, note 3.
Matt. xxiv. 24.
2 Thess. ii. 11, 12: (R.V.) That they all might be judged. Cyril has κατακριθῶσι
Dan. xii. 1, 2: (R.V.) they that turn many to righteousness. Cyril follows the rendering of the Septuagint, ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν, which gives no proper construction.
Compare 1 Cor. iv. 15: I begat you through the gospel. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. c. 15: τῷ διὰ τῆς ἀληθοῦς κατηχήσεως γεννήσαντι κεῖταί τις μισθός.
2 Thess. ii. 7.
See above, §§ 6, 7.
1 Thes. iv. 16.
Ib. vv. 16, 17.
Eccles. xi. 9. The Preacher’s description of old age and death is interpreted by Cyril of the end of the world, as it had been a century before by Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his paraphrase of the book.
Ib. v. 10: (R.V.) sorrow. Marg. Or, vexation, Or, provocation.
Ib. xii. 1.
Ib. v. 2.
Ib. v. 3.
Ib. v. 6. According to the usual interpretation death is here represented by the breaking of a chain and the lamp which hangs from it. Cf. Delitzsch, and Speaker’s Commentary, in loc. for other interpretations. τὸ ἀνθέμιον τοῦ χρυσιόυ (Sept.), by which Cyril understood camomile (ἀνθεμίς), more probably meant a pattern of flowers embossed on the vessel of gold: vid. Xenoph. Anab. V. 4, § 32: ἐστιγμένους ἀνθέμια, “damasked with flowers.”
Eccles. xii. 5. Cyril means rightly that the aged shrink from a giddy height, and from imaginary dangers of the road. For the voice of the sparrow, see below, § 21, note 4.
Matt. xxiv. 30; Zech. xii. 12.
Eccles. xii. 5.
“Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 319) says of the almond tree, “It is the type of old age, whose hair is white” (Speaker’s Commentary).
The step, once as active as a grasshopper, or locust, shall grow heavy and slow. For other interpretations see Delitzsch.
The caper-berry (κάππαρις) shall fail, i.e. no longer stimulate appetite. But διασχεδασθήσεται (Sept. Cyril) means that the old man shall be like a caper-berry which when fully ripe bursts it husks and scatters its seeds: so R.V. (Margin); The caper-berry shall burst. Greg. Thaumat. Metaphr. Eccles. “The transgressors are cast out of the way, like a black and despicable caper-plant.”
1 Thes. ii. 16.
Compare the spurious Apocalypse of John: “And at the voice of the bird every plant shall arise; that is, At the voice of the Archangel all the human race shall arise” (English Trs. Ante-Nic. Libr. p. 496). According to the Talmud the meaning is, “Even a bird awakes him” (Delitzsch).
Ps. l. 3.
Dan. vii. 13, 10.
1 Cor. iii. 12, 13. On ἀνυπόστατον, see Index. On δοκιμαστικόν, compare The Teaching of the Apostles, § 16: “Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing (δοκιμασίας), and many shall be offended and perish.”
Dan. vii. 9.
Is. i. 18.
Matt. xxiv. 30.
Ib.
Cat. xiii. 4. In the letter to Constantius, three or four years later than this Lecture, Cyril treats the appearance at that time of a luminous Cross in the sky as a fulfilment of Matt. xxiv. 30: but he there adds (Ep. ad Constantium, § 6) that our Lord’s prediction “was both fulfilled at that present time, and shall again be fulfilled more largely.” On the opinion that “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven” should be the Cross, see Suicer, Thesaurus, Σταυρός. It is not improbable that the earliest trace of this interpretation is found in The Teaching of the Apostles, § 16: “Then shall appear the signs of the Truth: the first the sign of a (cross) spreading out (ἐκπετάσεως) in heaven.”
Zech. xii. 12.
Cf. Barnab. Epist. c. vii.:
“For they shall see Him in that day wearing the long scarlet robes about His flesh, and shall say, Is not this He, whom once we crucified, and set at nought, and spat upon (al. and pierced, and mocked)?”
Matt. xxiv. 31.
Ib. xxv. 34.
Is. xi. 3: (R.V.) He shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, nor reprove after the hearing of his ears.
Phil. ii. 7.
Luke xvii. 34.
Ib. v. 35.
The Jerusalem ms. (A) alone has the true reading πέδας, which is confirmed by πεπεδημένους in the quotation following, instead of παῖδας, which is quite inappropriate, and evidently an itacism.
Ex. xi. 5.
᾽Εγκράτεια. “Id est viduitas” (Ben. Ed.). This special reference of the word to widowhood is to some extent confirmed by 1 Cor. vii. 9: εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, and is rendered highly probable by Cyril’s separate mention of marriage and virginity.
Matt. xxv. 31.
Matt. xviii. 12; Luke xv. 4. Ambrose, Expos. in Luc. VII. 210:
“Rich is that shepherd of whose flock we are but the one hundredth part. Of Angels and Archangels, of Dominions, Powers, Thrones, and others He hath countless flocks, whom He hath left upon the mountains.”
Cf. Gregor, Nyss. Contra Eunom. Or. xii.
There is much variation in the reading and punctuation of this passage. I have followed the text adopted by the Jerusalem Editor with Codd. A. Roe. Casaub. and Grodecq, in preference to the Benedictine text, with which the Editor himself is dissatisfied.
Dan. vii. 10.
Rom. ii. 15, 16.
John v. 22.
νεύματι. Cat. xi. 22.
Matt. xxv. 32.
Phil. ii. 10.
Cant. V. 3. Compare Cat. iii. 7; xx. (Mystag. ii.) 2.
Matt. xxv. 35.
Matt. v. 16.
The prayer for the Catechumens in the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 6, contains a petition that God would “vouchsafe to them the laver of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true life.”
προσθεῖναι. Cf. Acts ii. 41: προσετέθησαν . According to some mss. the sentence would run thus: “Hast thou been entrusted with the word of teaching? Be a good steward of thy hearers’ souls. Hast thou power to rule (προστῆναι)? Do this diligently.”
Rom. xiv. 9.
Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and his pupil Photinus, are anathematized in the Creed called Μακρόστιχος as holding that Christ first became
“Son of God when He took our flesh from the Virgin.…For they will have it that then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the judgment. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus of Galatian Ancyra, &c.”
See Newman on Athanasius, de Synodis, § 26, (5), notes a and b. Compare the description of Marcellus in the Letter of the Oriental Bishops who had withdrawn from the Council of Sardica to Philippopolis (a.d. 344).
“There has arisen in our days a certain Marcellus of Galatia, the most execrable pest of all heretics, who with sacrilegious mind, and impious mouth, and wicked argument seeks to set bounds to the perpetual, eternal, and timeless kingdom of our Lord Christ, saying that He began to reign four hundred years since, and shall end at the dissolution of the present world”
(Hilar. Pictav. Ex Opere Hist. Fragm. iii.).
“The person meant by Cyril, though he withholds the name, is Marcellus of Ancyra; who having written a book against the Arian Sophist Asterius to explain the Apostle’s statement concerning the subjection of the Son to the Father, was thought to be renewing the heresy of Paul of Samosata. On this account he was reproved by the Bishops at the Council of Jerusalem, a.d. 335, for holding false opinions, and being ordered to recant his opinions promised to burn his book. Afterwards he applied to Constantine, by whom he was remitted to the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 336, and deposed by the Bishops.
As however he was acquitted by the Councils of Rome, a.d. 342, and of Sardica, a.d. 347, it became a matter of dispute whether he was really heretical.…From the fragments of his books transcribed by Eusebius, you may possibly acquit him of the Sabellian heresy and the confusion of the Father and the Son, but certainly not of the heresy concerning the end of Christ’s kingdom, and the abandonment by the Word of the human nature which He assumed for our sake; so express are his words recorded by Eusebius in the beginning of the 2nd Book Contra Marcellum, pp. 50, 51.”
(Ben. Ed.) Cf. Dict. Chr. Biogr. “Eusebius of Cæsarea,” p. 341; and note 3 on § 9 above.
John viii. 25.
Luke i. 33.
τὴν παροῦσαν.
Dan. vii. 13, 14.
Ib. ii. 45; Rom. ix. 5.
Ps. xlv. 6.
Ib. cii. 25–27.
Heb. i. 10–12.
1 Cor. xv. 25.
1 Cor. xv. 28. Theodoret Comment. in Epist. i. ad Cor. xv. 28: “This passage the followers of Arius and Eunomius carry continually on their tongue, thinking in this way to disparage the dignity of the Only-begotten.”