By Fr. George Florovsky
I. Life.
Chrysostom's life was neither calm nor easy. He was an
ascetic and a martyr. It was not in the desert that his feats were accomplished
but in the chaos of the world, in the pulpit of the preacher, and on the
episcopal throne. His martyrdom was bloodless. He was tormented not by external
enemies but by his brothers who proved false to him, and he ended his life in
chains, in exile, under interdiction, and persecuted by Christians for his
faith in Christ and the Gospel, which he preached as a revelation and the law
of life.
Chrysostom was primarily an evangelist and a preacher
of the good news of the Gospel. He was also a teacher who had a lively interest
in contemporary issues, and the true significance of his teaching can be fully
understood only in its historical context. He condemned the Christians of the
fourth century who claimed to be living according to the precepts of the Gospel
and warned them that they had relaxed their efforts prematurely. This prophet
of universal love frequently spoke harshly and severely because it seemed to
him that he was preaching and bearing witness before men who were dead. For him
the injustice and the absence of love in the Christian world assumed
catastrophic, almost apocalyptic significance. "We have extinguished our
fervor and the body of Christ has died." The light yoke of love seemed an
unbearable burden for the indifferent world. This explains Chrysostom's
ultimately bitter fate, for he was driven out for the sake of the truth which
he preached. "For this the world will hate you."
Chrysostom was a native of Antioch, and he remained a
typical Antiochene in his spiritual temperament and in his religious outlook.
The exact year of his birth is unknown but it was probably sometime between 344
and 354. Chrysostom came from a wealthy and prominent Christian family. Both by
birth and education he belonged to the intellectual Hellenistic circles of the
society of his aristocratic gentility. Chrysostom did not renounce his cultural
heritage even when he rejected the world and everything in it.
Chrysostom was a true Hellenist. He studied with the
famous Libanius and received a broad and brilliant education. He was not a
thinker or a philosopher, and in the classical sense he is best defined as an
orator and a rhetorician. The classical rhetorician was a teacher, moralist,
and preacher, and Chrysostom was just such a man. Chrysostom's Hellenism is
most apparent in his language and style. As an orator and stylist, he can be
compared with Demosthenes and even Xenophon and Plato, for the brilliance of
the classical Athenians is revived in his writing. Even his contemporaries
recognized him as an Atticist. It is incorrect to consider that his Hellenism is
purely external or formal because it has penetrated all aspects of his style.
It is true that Chrysostom was apparently never stirred by the philosophical
problems of Hellenism and he was never forced to reconcile the Hellenist in
himself with his Christianity. This, however, was characteristic of the
intellectual outlook of the Antiochenes and of the "historical"
culture of Asia Minor, which was always more "philological" than
"philosophical."
Chrysostom always remained a Hellenist and this is
especially evident in his moralism. In a sense moralism was the natural truth
of the classical world. This explains and justifies the acceptance and
transformation of Stoicism by Christian ethics, in which natural truth is
elevated to new heights through Divine grace. In Chrysostom the transformed
elements of Stoicism are particularly apparent. He constantly tried to teach
moral wisdom and nobility, and moral judgments and evaluations are present
everywhere in his writing. However, he saw the full realization of natural
truth only in the ideal that is revealed in the Gospel.
None of this implies that Chrysostom was not a mystic.
"Moralism" does not exclude "mysticism." It is true,
however, that his mysticism had a moral significance. It is a mysticism of
conscience, of goodness, of good works and virtue. Ethical considerations are
less clearly expressed in Chrysostom. He considered beauty more as an ethical
than an aesthetic phenomenon, and he saw beauty primarily in active goodness.
For him the Gospel is most significant as a book about the beauty of virtue as
revealed in the image of the God-man, and this determined the course of his own
life. Chrysostom's moral character was formed very early in his youth. The
example of his mother was reinforced and strengthened by the lessons of his
devout mentors, including Meletius of Antioch, Diodore, and the ascetic
Carteria.
Chrysostom was not satisfied by any secular vocation,
and even before he was able to withdraw from the world he began to practice
ascetic discipline in the home of his parents. Only after the death of his
mother in 374 or 375 did it become possible for him to retire to a monastery
not far from Antioch and became a friend of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He spent
two years there, followed by two years in the desert. His novitiate was of
short duration, however, and he returned to the world in order to continue his
austerities amid the world. Chrysostom always considered asceticism more as a
spiritual orientation than as a specifically regulated form of daily life. And
this state could be achieved primarily through renunciation, through internal
freedom and independence from the external circumstances and conditions of fife
in the world. In this sense Chrysostom remained an ascetic throughout his life.
Chrysostom returned to the world to preach the
necessity of ascetic renunciation. It was not his intention to exhort men to
make an external withdrawal from the world by leaving their cities. "I
frequently prayed," Chrysostom wrote in these years, that the need for
monasteries would pass away, and that I would be able to find even in cities
such goodness and such order that no one would ever again have to flee to the
desert." Chrysostom wanted to transform life in the cities and towns so
that it would accord with the principles of the Gospel and with the spirit of
"the higher philosophy." To this end he became a pastor and preacher.
Chrysostom was made deacon in 381 by Meletius of
Antioch, and he was ordained priest by his successor Flavian in 386. Chrysostom
discusses his new vocation in his famous six books On the Priesthood [De
sacerdotio] (which actually deal with episcopal duties). The exact dates of
these works are unknown but they were probably written before his ordination.
Chrysostom takes the ideas of Gregory the Theologian as the point of departure
for his own exposition, which has two main emphases. In the first place, he
describes the highest goal of the holy calling as the performance of the
sacraments. "Sacred service takes place on this earth but it also has a
place among the heavenly powers." This is because the priesthood has been
established by the Spirit of the Comforter Himself. How can it be that we
remain on earth when we see the Lord Whose body is offered to us, and when we
become incarnadined with His blood? The priest participates at the sacrificial
table, which stands in the heavens. He is given the heavenly power of the keys
which has not been received even by the angels.
In the second place, Chrysostom sees the priest as a
teacher, mentor, preacher, and pastor of souls. He devotes most of his
attention to the teaching responsibilities of the priesthood, and in this
respect he places the priest even higher than the monk. There is more love in
pastoral work than in monastic isolation, and the pastor's service to his
neighbors is a service of active love. "The whole universe would be upset
if we were to think that only monks need severity and discipline in their
lives, while the rest of us can live freely," he writes.
As a priest and pastor Chrysostom himself was first of
all a preacher. It is difficult to enumerate all of the themes with which he dealt.
From among the homilies delivered in Antioch particular mention should be made
of the Homilies on the Statues [Homiliae 21 de statuis] and also of a long
series of exegetical homilies on Matthew and John, on the epistles to the
Corinthians, Galatians, Titus, possibly Ephesians and Romans, and probably also
on Genesis. The orations against the Jews and against the Anomoeans were
written at this same time. Chrysostom never concerned himself with abstract
themes. His homilies are lively and based on actual experience because they are
intended for living people, and the presence of the audience and the preacher
himself can be sensed in them. Chrysostom usually concludes his homilies with
appeals to the wills of his listeners and with practical exhortations. His
primary goal is to teach love but he also tries to encourage integrity and
responsibility. Chrysostom spoke with authority, but this authority was based
on the convictions of his faith. He emphasizes that personal transformation can
be achieved through the strength of the spirit and even more through the
strength of love. It was love which kept Chrysostom in the world with his
flock.
In 398 Chrysostom was elevated to the see of
Constantinople. The clergy, the court, and the laity were all united in summoning
him for his recognized ability as a pastor and teacher. Chrysostom continued to
preach in Constantinople, and Sozomen remarks that it was his habit to take a
place among the congregation at the reader's ambo so that his listeners could
sit closely around him. His sermons were more like conversations than speeches.
During this period Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles,
the Psalms, and many of the epistles of Paul. A large number of his homilies
were recorded by stenographers as they were being delivered, and these records
preserve the liveliness of the spoken word. At this time Chrysostom saw his
main task in the reformation of the morals of lay society. It was his
impression that he was preaching to people for whom Christianity had become no
more than a fashionable garment. "From among so many thousands," he
said, "it is impossible to find more than one hundred who are truly saving
their souls, and I am not even sure that there are that many."
Chrysostom was troubled by the very fact that there
was such a large number of "Christians": "This is all the more
fuel for the fire." He spoke with bitterness about their prosperity:
"In matters of piety, freedom from oppression is the worst form of
persecution. It is worse than any other persecution. No one understands or
senses this danger because safety gives birth to carelessness. It weakens the
soul and lulls it to sleep, and the devil destroys sleeping men." The
preacher's voice became harsh and severe because around himself he saw only
chaff fit for the fire. Chrysostom was deeply concerned with the immorality of
his society. He was troubled not only by debauchery, but even more by the tacit
lowering of standards and ideals which he saw in the laity and in the clergy.
Chrysostom fought with both words of denunciation and acts of love. "No
one would remain a pagan if we were true Christians," he said. He spent a
great deal of time in charitable work and organized hospitals and refuges for
the homeless. He demanded practical activity from everyone and this caused
dissatisfaction and opposition not only in Constantinople but in other dioceses
as well.
The hostility against Chrysostom manifested itself on
several occasions, and his altercation with the empress Eudoxia was only the
final pretext for the ultimate outburst. Chrysostom had enemies everywhere,
especially among the clergy and in particular among the wandering monks. He
also had opponents in the wealthy society of the court. The shameful history of
Chrysostom's deposition and condemnation at the "Synod of the Oak" is
too complicated to be recounted here. Traitors were found even among the
bishops, who were led by Theophilus of Alexandria, and others who were actively
hostile included Acacius of Beroea, Severian of Gabala, and Antiochus of
Ptolemais, all of whom at some time had been insulted by Chrysostom. The
accusations against Chrysostom were many, and he was also charged with
Origenism. He was deposed and his sentence was confirmed by the emperor. His
exile was of short duration and at his return he was greeted by popular
rejoicing. However, the hostility against him had not died down. The very fact
that he had returned without obtaining a revocation of the synod's decree was
used against him because, according to the fourth canon of the Antiochene
council, this made him liable to be deprived of his rights, even if his
sentence was unjust. Chrysostom recognized neither the legitimacy of the synod
which condemned him (and in this he was not alone) nor the legitimacy of the
Antiochene canon, and he demanded the convocation of a new council so that he
could exonerate himself. The bishops condemned him for a second time. He
carried on with the duties of his office but the unrest continued to grow. In
June of 404 he was again exiled and sent first to Cucusus in Lower Armenia and
then to Pityus, a wild area on the eastern end of the Black Sea. Chrysostom did
not survive the hardships of his journey and died while traveling on September
14, 407.
The injustice of Chrysostom's condemnation soon became
evident, and in 417 Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, readmitted his name to
the Church diptychs, claiming that this was the will of the people. Cyril of
Alexandria protested violently: "If you include John among the bishops,
why not include Judas among the apostles? And if there is a place for Judas,
then where is Matthew?" By 419, however, Chrysostom was rehabilitated even
in Alexandria. In 438 his remains were brought to Constantinople and interred
in the Church of the Apostles. The sentence of the "Synod of the Oak"
was revoked by the general testimony of the Church.
II. Works.
The literary heritage of Chrysostom is enormous. It is
difficult to determine its exact extent because with time Chrysostom's
reputation became so great that the homilies and orations of other writers were
ascribed to him. Some writings can be unquestionably identified as the work of
Chrysostom, and some writings clearly do not belong to him, but there are still
many compositions which are doubtful, especially those which cannot be
definitely attributed to another author.
The majority of Chrysostom's writings are sermons,
homilies, and orations. Among these his exegetical works are of particular
importance. The remainder are on a variety of different themes, but mention
should be made of the homilies for feasts and saints' days, all of which were
intended for oral delivery. Another category of Chrysostom's writings consists
of exhortations and instructions which were intended for private reading.
Particularly significant are his compositions on ascetic themes and his books
on the priesthood, which were written in his younger days. About 236 to 240 of
his letters have been preserved, all of which date from the period of his
second exile. They provide important material for an understanding of
Chrysostom's personality and religious attitudes.
The problem of Chrysostom's liturgy is extremely
complex. The oldest copy, which is contained in the eighth century Barberini
euchologion, does not mention his name, but there is a reference to his liturgy
which dates from the sixth century. It is difficult to determine exactly what
should be ascribed to Chrysostom from the later liturgy known by his name. In
this respect comparison with the liturgical material contained in his homilies,
especially the earliest, is helpful. In any event there is no doubt that he was
deeply concerned with the regulation of the divine service, and particularly
with the rite of the Eucharist.
Chrysostom's influence was enormous. He became the
"universal teacher and prelate" in actuality even before he was
distinguished by this title. He was called Chrysostom, "Golden
Mouth," as early as the sixth century, and by the eighth century this
epithet was generally accepted. Chrysostom's exegetical works in particular
have been considered exemplary and authoritative. Almost all of the later
Byzantine commentators, especially Theophylact of Bulgaria, were greatly
influenced by them. The history of Chrysostom's influence is one of the
brightest chapters in the history of Church literature and patristic tradition.
III. Thought.
Chrysostom as Teacher.
Chrysostom was a gifted writer with a lively and
authoritative style. He had the temperament of an orator, and this is the
secret of his power of persuasion. He loved to preach: "I have commanded
my soul to undertake the duties of a preacher and to fulfill the commandments
for as long as I continue to have breath and God sees fit to extend my life,
whether there is anyone to listen to me or not." Chrysostom understood
pastoral work primarily as a service of teaching and persuading. A pastor is an
authority, but his jurisdiction is realized through words which attempt to
convince, and this is the basic difference between spiritual power and secular
power. "The emperor forces; the priest convinces. One acts by command; the
other by persuasion."
The Importance of Spiritual Freedom.
A pastor must focus his attention on the free will of
the individual. "We have been commanded to bring salvation to people by
the strength of the word, by gentleness, and by persuasion," Chrysostom
said. He saw the greatest meaning of the life of a Christian in freedom, which
expresses itself in good works and ascetic discipline. The individual's freedom
and self-motivation are constant themes in his homilies, for it is in free will
that he sees man's "nobility" and the image of God which he has been
given. Chrysostom was a consistent voluntarist and considered morality a matter
of will. He identified the source of sin as the movement of the will, which was
also the source of virtue. It was his opinion that Christ "came not to
destroy nature, but to correct our wills." Each action of God's grace in
man takes place "in such a way that it brings no harm to our power over
our selves." In other words, God Himself acts not through compulsion, but
through persuasion. "He comforts, advises, and warns us away from possible
evil but does not force us to do anything." A pastor should follow the
Divine example.
His Opposition to Any Form of Coercion.
By temperament Chrysostom was a maximalist and on
occasion he could be harsh and severe. However, he was always an opponent of
force and coercion in any form, even in the fight against heresy. He was
against the use of civic measures and political pressure in matters of faith
and morality. "It has been specifically forbidden for Christians to
correct those who have fallen into sin by force," he said. "We are
not fighting to bring death to the living but to bring the dead back to life,
and in our struggle we must be meek and humble . . . I persecute not by deeds,
but by words, and I want to cast out not heretics, but heresy . . . I am
accustomed to endure oppression, but not to oppress, and to bear persecution,
but not to persecute. Christ was victorious in being crucified and not in
crucifying others. He did not strike out, but He accepted blows."
Chrysostom endured the condemnation of those who did not think as he did, and
in this respect his oration On Imprecation and Anathema is a typical expression
of his attitude. He saw the true power of Christianity in meekness and
endurance, not in force. It is himself with whom each man should be severe, and
not with others.
His Moral Ideals Drawn From Dogma.
Chrysostom’s sermons were mostly written on moral
themes but there is no reason to overemphasize this or to call him a teacher of
morality and not of faith. On the contrary, he frequently dealt with doctrinal
problems, especially in his early years in Antioch, and even more importantly,
it was from his dogma that he drew his moral ideals. This is clearly evident in
his exegetical homilies, and especially in his commentary on the epistles of
Paul. Chrysostom had several favorite dogmatic themes which he continually
returned to. In the first place, his teaching about the Church is inseparably
connected with his doctrine of redemption as the sacrifice of Christ the High
Priest, Who ascended to heaven through the Cross. From this he developed the
teaching of the Church as a source of new being, not just as new life. Chrysostom
also spoke frequently of the Eucharist as both a sacrament and a sacrifice, and
for this reason he has been called the "teacher of the Eucharist."
Chrysostom never elaborated a system of theology, and
there is no point in looking for dogmatic or theological formulations in his
writings. His Christology and Mariology in particular are not entirely free
from the ambiguity and one-sidedness which characterize the language of
Antiochene theology. Chrysostom was a witness of the faith, and this explains why
his works were so significant in ancient times, especially in the West. His
writings are filled with the voice of Church tradition.
Chrysostom set himself a specific task. His activity
was aimed not at overcoming unorthodox opinions, but at making people who
professed themselves to be Christians understand that the truths of faith are
the truths and commandments of life, and that these must be put into actual
practice by the individual. At that time too many people had forgotten this.
Chrysostom demanded that men live according to their beliefs, and he assumed
that the truths of faith were known to his audience. There was no point in
trying to go further if men's hearts were indifferent and if the seeds of faith
had not yet been implanted in their souls. It is true that Chrysostom himself
had no particular interest in speculative theology, but by no means was he
exclusively a moralist without any interest in dogma. His own theological
beliefs were primarily based on the writings of the apostle Paul, whose
teaching centered on Christ and salvation, not morality. Even Chrysostom's
"evangelism" had a doctrinal significance because for him all life
was connected with the image of Christ not only as a prophet but more
importantly as the High Priest and the Lamb. This is related to his mystical
attitude towards the sacraments.
It should be added that for Chrysostom it is only a
pure life which testifies to pure faith. Moreover, it is only through a pure
life that true faith is possible at all, for an impure life usually gives rise
to false teaching. Faith is realized and fulfilled only in love, and without
love it is impossible to attain faith, or contemplation, or knowledge of the
mysteries. Without love, rational theology is no more than an endless
labyrinth.
Chrysostom saw before him men who were struggling but
who had not yet fully awakened, and he wanted to rouse them to spiritual live
and love. In this sense he was an individualist. He had little feeling for
worldly intercourse or society but always focused on individual persons, who
for him were united only in the Church. This individualism is the reason for
Chrysostom's sensitivity and perceptiveness. He never resorts to commonplaces
or abstractions but is always concrete and graphic, teaching through examples
and applying his material to specific instances. He uses few conventional
rhetorical devices, surpassing in this respect even Gregory the Theologian. He
never forgets that he is a spiritual pastor, not an orator, and that his goal
is not to expound or develop a particular objective theme, but to touch men's
hearts and to influence their wills and intellects. For this reason the logical
and formal structure of his homilies is of secondary importance but they are
held together by an internal integrity. Chrysostom's homilies are a unique
dialogue with a silent interlocutor about whom the preacher occasionally gives
some information. They are never monologues and they are always directed at an
audience.
On Poverty and Wealth.
Chrysostom frequently spoke about poverty and wealth,
themes which were set for him by life in the large, noisy city. For him, these
and all other social themes had primarily a moral significance, and he dealt
with them in relation to the rules of Christian behavior. He judged the life
around him on the basis of its morality. Everywhere he saw injustice, cruelty,
suffering, and misery, and he understood that this was caused by the spirit of
greed and by social inequality. He warned against idle luxury and also against
wealth as a source of temptation, since money threatens to corrupt the man who
possesses it. Wealth by itself has no value but is only a theatrical mask which
covers the true image of man. However, the wealthy man comes to value his
riches. He begins to deceive himself and he becomes attached to something which
is good in appearance only. In Chrysostom's opinion there is danger not only in
wealth which has been acquired by dishonest means but in all forms of personal
property. These are not harmful in themselves but they may stimulate the will
to desire things which are perishable and transient. "The love for wealth
is an unnatural passion," Chrysostom writes. "The desire for wealth
is neither natural nor necessary. It is superfluous." This movement of the
will is dangerous and riches are a dangerous burden. "Wealth is harmful
for you not because it arms thieves against you, nor because it completely
darkens your mind but because it makes you the captives of soulless possessions
and distracts you from the service of God."
The possession of wealth involves an unavoidable
contradiction. By the spirit of greed men are attached to material things, but
God teaches us to despise things and to renounce them. "There is harm not
only in trying to gain wealth but also in excessive concern with even the most
necessary things," Chrysostom writes. "Christ has demonstrated what
kind of harm can come from the passion for money but His commandment goes even
beyond this. Not only does He order us to scorn wealth, but he forbids us to be
concerned that the food we eat is the best we can possibly get: 'Do not worry
your soul about what you eat'." This does not exhaust the subject.
"It is not enough to despise wealth," Chrysostom writes, "but
you must also feed the poor and, more importantly, you must follow
Christ." Thus another contradiction is revealed: the worldly drive of
greed and the desire for the accumulation and preservation of material goods is
opposed to the command of the Gospels to "give all you have to the
poor." Against this background we see with greater clarity the injustice
of the social inequality in the world. In the face of poverty and misery, all
wealth is an unjust and dead thing. It testifies to hard-heartedness and the
absence of love.
It is from this point of view that Chrysostom
disapproves of the magnificent decoration of churches. "A church is not a
place in which to melt gold or forge silver," he writes. "It is a
triumphant assembly of the angels. Therefore it is souls which we demand as an
offering because it is for the sake of souls that God accepts our other
offerings. It was not at a silver table and it was not from a golden vessel
that Christ offered His blood to His disciples to drink but nevertheless
everything there was precious and called forth reverence, for it was filled
with the Spirit. Do you want to honor the body of Christ? Do not scorn to see
Christ naked. What good does it do you if here you honor His silken coverlings
while outside the Church you continue to tolerate the coldness and nakedness of
others? What good does it do you if the altar of Christ is covered with golden
vessels, while Christ Himself suffers hunger? You make a golden goblet but you
offer no cooling water to go with ft. Christ as a homeless pilgrim wanders and
asks for shelter, but you, instead of accepting Him, adorn your floors, your
walls, and the tops of your pillars, and you put silver harnesses on your
horses. But Christ remains bound in the dungeon and you do not even want to
look at Him."
It seemed to Chrysostom that each thing that one man
puts aside is taken away from someone else who needs it, for there cannot be a
man who is rich without another man being poor because of it. "The source
and root of wealth must definitely be hidden in some act of injustice," he
writes. Chrysostom did not consider that poverty as such was a virtue. Poverty
attracted his attention as a form of need and suffering, and he considered that
Christ is present among the poor, since He comes to us in the image of a beggar
and not in the guise of a wealthy man. Furthermore, when poverty is voluntarily
chosen for the sake of God and accepted with joy, it can be a path to virtue.
This is primarily because a man without possessions is freer than a wealthy man
and has fewer attachments and worries. It is easier for him to live and to
strive to perfect himself.
Chrysostom knew also that poverty could be a heavy
burden not only in terms of external and material things, but internally, as a
source of envy, spite, and despair. For this reason he tried to fight against
poverty, but his attention was always occupied with its moral implications. In
this respect he functioned as a spiritual pastor, not as a social reformer.
Although it is true that he did have an ideal vision of society, this ideal was
primarily moral. It was the ideal of equality because inequality makes true
love impossible.
The basic premise of Chrysostom's thought is that
strictly speaking there can be no such thing as "personal property"
because everything belongs to God and to Him only. All things are given by Him
as a gift in the form of a loan. Everything is God's, and all that man can
claim as truly his own are his good works. Everything God gives is intended for
common ownership. "If the good things we enjoy belong to the Master of all
of us, then they all belong equally to our fellow slaves. That which belongs to
the Master belongs to everyone in common. Do we not see a similar arrangement
in great houses?"
"The possessions of the Emperor, the city, the
squares, and the streets, belong to all men, and we all use them in an equal
degree. Look at the economy that God has arranged. He has created some things
that are for everyone, including the air, sun, water, earth, heaven, sea,
light, and stars, and He has divided them equally among all men, as if they
were brothers. This, if nothing else, should shame the human race. The Emperor
has made other things common to all, including the baths, cities, squares, and
streets. There is not the slightest disagreement over this common property but
everything is accomplished peacefully. If someone tries to take something and
claim it as his own personal possession, then quarrels arise. It is as if the
very forces of natures were complaining, and as if at that time when God was
gathering them from everywhere they were trying with all their might to
separate among themselves, to isolate them selves from each other, and to
distinguish their own individual property by coldly saying that 'this is yours
but that is mine'. If this were true, quarrels and bitterness would arise, but
where there is nothing of this sort neither quarrels nor disagreements occur.
In this way we see that for us as well a common and not an individual ownership
of things has been ordained, and that this is according to nature itself. Is not
the reason that no one ever goes to court about the ownership of a public
square the fact that this square belongs to all?"
It seems to Chrysostom that in this respect even the
animals are better than men. "They hold everything in common, the earth,
and springs, and pastures, and mountains, and forests, and not one of them has
more than the others. But you, O man, the most gentle of animals, have become
more fierce than the beasts. In a single one of your houses you store up enough
to feed thousands and even many thousands of the poor. How can this be, when we
have one common nature, and much else in common besides this? We share a common
heaven, sun, moon, choir of stars, air, sea, fire, water, earth, life, death,
youth, old age, sickness, health, and the need for food and clothing. Our
spiritual goods are also common to all: our holy altar, the body of our Lord,
His sacred blood, the promised Kingdom, the bath of renewal, the purification
of sins, truth, sanctity, redemption, and ineffable bliss. Is it therefore not
madness for those who share so much in common, their nature, grace, covenant,
and laws, to have such a passion for wealth that it causes them to forget their
equality and to exceed the savageness of beasts? This is all the worse since
they must of necessity soon leave these things behind them."
Chrysostom sees the source of inequality in man's free
will and desire for personal property. Free will determines how an individual
will manage the gifts he had been given, and Chrysostom considers that this is
the heart of the problem. He does not recommend poverty for all men and,
although he denounces superfluous luxury, it is primarily inequality to which
he is opposed. Chrysostom demands equality and justice. Material goods are
given by God and for this reason there can be no cause to abominate them.
However, they must not be used to the personal advantage of one man in such a
way that another man suffers for lack of them. Chrysostom believes that the
problem can be solved by love because "love seeks nothing for
itself." It seems to him that this solution was realized by the earliest
members of the Church in the manner described in the Acts of the Apostles.
"They renounced property and rejoiced greatly because in this way they
gained blessings that were even greater. The cold words 'mine and yours' did
not exist, and there was joy at the altar . . . The expression 'mine and
yours', which is so harsh and has caused so many wars in the world, was driven
out of that holy Church, and men on earth lived like angels in heaven. The poor
did not envy the rich, for there were no rich, and the rich did not despise the
poor, for there were no poor. At that time things were not the way they are
now. Now those who have property give to the poor, but at that time it was not
so . . . All of them were equal and all wealth was shared among them."
This example has been frequently cited by the supporters of communal
monasticism who absolutely reject the right to personal property.
Chrysostom wanted to realize the example provided by
monastic communities in the world, having in mind a comparatively small society
in Antioch or Constantinople. In his homilies he tried to demonstrate how the
voluntary renunciation of property and its equal distribution could provide for
the needs of all. This is the way in which the property of the Church was
organized at that time. It was held in common and was distributed by the
bishop. Part of it was devoted to upkeep of churches and to the support of the
clergy, but most of it was the "property of the poor." Chrysostom
emphasized that such a socialization of property could be truly effective only
if it was voluntary and if it was the expression of true self-renunciation and
love.
All of this would presuppose a high degree of moral
development and perfection. It would be the ultimate and ideal expression of
Christian charity. However, Chrysostom was content to limit his demands to
generous almsgiving and works of charity. His conception of charity was very
broad, extending from material contributions to consolation and comfort.
"Is it not also an act of great charity when a soul, which is overwhelmed
by grief, threatened by extreme danger, and held in thrall by the flames (of
passion), is freed by someone from this affliction?"
Charity Essential for Christian Life.
For Chrysostom it was unanimity, the feeling of
belonging to a community and of common responsibility and concern, that were
vital. For this reason he considered that works of charity were indispensable
and essential for Christian life. "If someone does not show charity, he
remains outside the wedding feast and he will perish. It is not by lifting up
your hands that you will be heard. Stretch out your hands not to heaven, but to
the hands of the poor." In commenting on the Savior's words about the Last
Judgment Chrysostom writes: "There is no other virtue that He mentioned
except the performance of works of charity, for charity comes from love, and
love is the goal and meaning of Christianity."
Chrysostom's homilies on Christian charity reach the
heights of true mysticism. "Do you wish to see the sacrificial altar of
the All-Merciful? It has been built by God Himself, not out of stone, but out
of a material which is lighter than heaven: out of rational souls . . . This
altar was created from the very members of Christ, and the Body of the Master
Himself serves as your altar. Worship before it, for you make your sacrifice on
the Body of the Master. This altar is more awesome than both the new and the
ancient altars . . . But at the same time you honor that altar because it
receives the Body of Christ. You fail to pay attention to it when it is
threatened by destruction. That kind of altar you can find anywhere, both on
the streets and on the public squares, and you can make your sacrifices on it
at all times because it is here that the sacrifice is sanctified.
On Civil Authority.
Chrysostom's writings on civil authority also deserve
attention, since it was frequently necessary for him to speak about this
subject, especially in Constantinople. In his conception authority entails
inequality and is a form of enslavement. It has been established by God, but
only as a result of sin. In paradise there was no authority because there was
no inequality and man was free, but sin has made authority indispensable for
the regulation of life in society, and without it there would be no order or peace.
However, those who are in power are sinful just like everyone else, and for
this reason authority often becomes harsh and unjust. This does not detract
from the legitimacy of this authority, and everyone must remain obedient to it.
It is only in the Church that secular authority has any limitations, for it
cannot enter the Church's confines. Those who serve the Church are summoned to
console the injured and the sorrowful. "Courts instill fear, so let
priests give comfort. The authorities act by threats, so let the Church give
encouragement," Chrysostom writes. "God has arranged for our
salvation by means of both one and the other. He has armed the authorities so
that they can instill fear in those who are audacious and He has consecrated priests
so that they can comfort those who grieve."
At the same time it is also the duty of the priesthood
to enlighten those in authority and, when necessary, to denounce them for their
abuses. "The ultimate authority of the priest is higher than that of the
emperor," Chrysostom writes. "Therefore even the emperor bows his
head under the hand of the priest. In the Old Testament it was the priests who
anointed the emperors. However, the priest has been given only the right to
speak out fearlessly, and he is not allowed to use force. In Chrysostom's eyes
civil authority always remains inviolable, but he considers that it is
nevertheless under the higher jurisdiction of the Church. In this respect his
remarkable orations On the Statues and also his intercession on behalf of
Eutropius, are typical. He himself considered this incident a "brilliant
victory" for the Church and a "most glorious monument."
Hostility and hatred were dissipated at the very threshold of the Church and
violence was averted.
On Slavery.
Chrysostom had no definite scheme for the external
reformation of society. He recognized and accepted the existing order and
wanted not to rebuild society but to transform men. He believed in the
triumphant strength of the spirit, and this explains his attitude towards
slavery. He recognized it as an unnatural state but did not reject it or demand
its abolition. This was not because such a demand would not have been
fulfilled: on the contrary, Chrysostom frequently, especially in his severe
standards of moral behavior, called for things that were not possible to
realize. However, he saw a faster and more direct route to the overcoming of
slavery in his advocacy of meekness, concern, and love. He reminded slaveowners
of the dignity of man and of the equality of all people before Christ. He
called slaves to a higher freedom and exhorted them to submit for the sake of
Christ, as this would mitigate their earthly dependence. Chrysostom believed
that every blow received in life on earth should be seen in relation to the life
of the spirit. No external conditions can effect life in Christ and with
Christ, and this is the source of eternal joy and bliss.
Chrysostom as an Exegete.
Scripture as the Indispensable Source for Doctrinal
and Moral Instruction.
Chrysostom's work as both teacher and homilist is
primarily based on Biblical exegesis. He insists that Scripture is the basic,
indispensable, and completely adequate source for both doctrinal and moral
instruction. "He who is in agreement with Scripture is a Christian,"
he writes, "and whoever is not in agreement with it is far from the
truth." Chrysostom constantly exhorts each and every man to read the Bible
with attention. "Do not wait for another teacher . . . You have been given
the word of God, and no one will teach you as this will." Laymen in
particular need to read the sacred books. "Monks who are removed from the
cities are in a safer position but we who live amidst the sea of sinful desires
and temptations need this divine medicine so that we can heal ourselves from the
sores which afflict us and guard ourselves from further harm. With Scripture we
can destroy the fiery arrows of Satan."
Everything contained in Scripture offers us
instruction and healing, "and in one short passage in Divine Scripture we
can find great strength and an ineffable wealth of ideas." A man who reads
the Bible diligently will constantly discover new depths, and he will hear the
voice of God which speaks with authority in every human soul. "The sight
of the Gospels alone makes us more able to abstain from sin," Chrysostom
writes, "and if we supplement this with attentive reading, then it is as
if the soul enters into a mysterious and holy place. It is purified and becomes
better, for through these writings it enters converse with God." The holy
books are a message which has been written for men by God for all eternity, and
this explains the effect that can be gained by reading the Bible. When the
all-loving Master sees how eager we are to understand the depths of His
Divinity, He enlightens and illuminates our minds and reveals the truth to our
souls.
Chrysostom's understanding of Divinely inspired
Scripture, including its list of names, salutations, and dates, is almost
literal. Scripture contains nothing that is superfluous or has no definite purpose,
not even a single iota or a single word, and frequently the addition of even
one letter can alter its meaning, as is demonstrated by the renaming of
Abraham. Chrysostom considers that the human weakness of the authors of
Scripture is a sign of God's lenience towards men and His accommodation for
them. He tries to discover the Divine significance of even mistakes and
discrepancies, since in his conception the "differences among the
Evangelists" are an intentional part of God's plan. "If they were in
complete harmony about everything, in relation to the time and the place and
the words which were spoken, then none of their enemies would believe that they
did not write without consulting among themselves and reaching an agreement
beforehand, or that their agreement is true and genuine. Now the very fact that
the Gospels contain discrepancies in minor details should allay all suspicion
and should triumphantly justify our faith in those who wrote them."
The sacred writers wrote and spoke "in the
Spirit" or the Spirit spoke in them, but Chrysostom carefully
distinguishes the inspiration of the Spirit from possession by It. Inspiration
is a form of enlightenment. The consciousness and intellect remain clear and
that which is revealed is fully understood. This is the essential difference
between prophecy and mantic divination and this is why the sacred writers never
lose their own identities. Chrysostom emphasizes the individual personality of
each writer and the circumstances of the composition of the individual books.
The image of Paul in particular is clearly present before him. The entire Bible
forms a single whole because it is all from God. The individual writers are
only the implements of a single great author.
His Scriptural Studies with Diodore of Tarsus.
Chrysostom in his youth studied not only with Libanius
but also with Diodore, and it was in his school that his understanding of the
Bible and his exegetical style were formed. Chrysostom always spoke about
Diodore of Tarsus with great feeling and gratitude. "He led an apostolic
life of poverty, prayer, and the service of the word." "His tongue
flowed with honey and milk," and he was a trumpet and a lyre. Chrysostom
as an exegete was not an innovator, but followed within a firmly established
tradition.
There is much in the history of Antiochene theology
which remains unclear. Antioch became a center of Christianity very early but
we can distinguish only unconnected links within its uninterrupted chain of
tradition. Mention should first be made of Theophilus of Antioch, who was
significant as both a writer and a thinker. Later we meet the name of the
presbyter Malchion, who headed the Hellenic school and was one of the chief
denouncers of Paul of Samosata. This is approximately the period in which the renowned
teacher Lucian was active. At this time the presbyter Dorotheus was also
teaching in Antioch. Eusebius, who heard his interpretation of Scripture in
Church, described him as a learned man and a specialist in the Hebrew language,
who had read Hebrew books and also received a Hellenistic education. Thus it is
evident that even in the third century Antioch was a major center of Biblical
study and that its unique exegetical style had already been formed. The
Antiochenes were characterized by a cautious and frequently hostile attitude
toward allegorism in exegesis. This is especially true of Eustathius of
Antioch, who entered the struggle against the Arian disciples of Lucian.
In general, it was the polemical need to oppose false
doctrines that was responsible for the formation of the fourth century school
of Antiochene theology best represented by Diodore of Tarsus. He was connected
with Lucian through his disciple Eusebius of Emesa, who had also studied in
Edessa. Diodore was an ascetic and a defender or orthodoxy, first against the
Arians and later against the Apollinarians. He wrote on a variety of themes but
was primarily an exegete. From the Old Testament he commented on the
Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the books of Samuel, and also on difficult passages
from Chronicles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the prophets.
From the New Testament he wrote on the Gospels, the Acts, and the first letter
of John. Only a few fragments of these writings have been preserved. We also
have his short tract On Contemplation and Allegory, in which he sets forth the
principles of his exegesis.
Diodore distinguishes among history, contemplation,
and allegory. In his conception the Bible is neither an allegory nor a parable.
Biblical narratives and pronouncements are always realistic and relate
immediately to what is being described. For this reason Biblical commentary
should be "historical" and a "pure exposition about that which
took place." Allegorical interpretation, on the other hand, is removed
from the direct meaning of the narration and "changes the subject"
because it assumes that what is meant is not the same as what is said. Allegory
must be distinguished from "contemplation," which reveals the higher
meaning within history itself. Contemplation does not abrogate historical
realism but presupposes it. This is the method that the apostle Paul used in
his explanation of Biblical texts.
Apparently Diodore was interested in defending the
realism of the Bible as a means of opposing the "Hellenism" he saw
latent in allegorical interpretation. At the same time he also refused to
acknowledge "Judaism" or strictly literal commentary, which in his
view penetrates no further than the individual words. Many things are expressed
in the Bible through hyperbole. Its narrations and locutions clearly exceed the
measure of time, and this indicates the presence of a secondary meaning which
is most frequently prophetic and foretells something else. What Diodore means
by "contemplation" is primarily a type of exegetical divination, the
discovery of prototypes. He is far from literal rationalism because for him the
Bible is a sacred book which reveals a single Divine grace in many forms.
It is difficult to determine how Diodore applied these
principles. The historical and literal method of interpretation was ultimately
no more reliable than allegorism. On this subject Bolotov has aptly remarked
that "the Alexandrian school was in danger of creating its own Scripture,
but the Antiochene school, in remaining very close to the letter of Scripture,
forgot that there Should be a 'theory' to follow the 'history'."
The Additional Influence of Eusebius of Emesa and the
Cappadocians on Chrysostom's Exegesis.
This danger was realized in the work of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, who was a pupil of Diodore. Chrysostom, apparently, avoided
Theodore's excesses and was closer to Diodore.
