Skip to main content

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition.

John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons.[1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology.[2]

On the Incomprehensible Nature of God[3] (De incomp.) will be the focus of exposition. As mentioned, Chrysostom did not have an affinity for speculative theology. But it will be interesting to observe how he goes about formulating his thought on such a topic. De incomp. is a polemical and apologetical work aimed at a new uprising of Arian followers. This new crop of extremists were known as the Anomoeans. They maintained that God is simple and one; unbegotten and not produced. No being, therefore, could be begotten or produced, thus no being could be of the same substance (homoousios), of similar substance (homoiousios) nor like (homoios) God; but it must be dissimilar and unlike (anomoios) God—hence the name Anomoeans.[4] 

 

While man cannot know the essence of God, the Anomoeans call the divine essence agennetos, “ungendered.” The Anomoeans argued that if we do not know God’s essence, then we do not know what we are adoring. But Chrysostom responds that we are not required to know what God is just that he is. We can know who he is without needing to know what his essence is; thus speculation of his essence is not expected of us.[5] De incomp. is divided up into twelve homilies, with the first five dealing with the incomprehensible nature of God, the sixth is an interruption of sorts, with seven through twelve focused on the Son’s substance being the same (homoousios) as the Father. Chrysostom does not write with the theological depth as we find in Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, or Gregory of Nazianzus. His audience is made up of laymen, orthodox and heterodox, who he is trying to edify and sway from error.[6]

In Homily 1, Chrysostom begins with a confession of his own (humble) ignorance, regarding his knowledge about God but lacks the ability to explain it. He writes, 

 

I know that God is everywhere, and I know that he is everywhere in his whole being. But I do not know how he is everywhere. I know that he is eternal and has no beginning. But I do not know how. My reason fails to grasp how it is possible for an essence to exist when that essence has received its existence neither from itself nor from another. I know that he begot a Son. But I do not know how. I know that the Spirit is from him. But I do not know how the Spirit is from him. (De incomp. 1.19)


His point is to direct his opponents away from “meddling” with the essence of God. He sees that such inquisitiveness is the very height of folly, pointing out how the inspired prophets of Scripture were unable to grasp the vastness of his wisdom, which comes from his essence, so how foolish and mad it is that the Anomoeans think “that they could make his very essence subject to their power and processes of reasoning” (De incomp. 1.23). Chrysostom quotes the prophet of grace, David, who, in speaking of God’s omnipresence, is dumbfounded at the realization that whether he goes up to heaven or down to hell, God is there (Ps 139:8). And while God has revealed secret and hidden things to David, he says God’s wisdom is inaccessible and incomprehensible, having no limit (Ps. 147:5). Again, Chrysostom is rebuking and exhorting the Anomoeans to let go of their arrogant assertions, thinking they can limit his essence and greatness (De incomp. 1.26).

Chrysostom addresses the Anomoean’s interpretation of First Corinthians 13:12, which says, “My knowledge is imperfect now; then I shall know even as I was known.” For some strange reason, the Anomoeans state Paul is talking about God’s governance of the universe. Chrysostom replies that Paul is saying his “present knowledge of God is imperfect and in part.” And then we see Chrysostom invoke the normative assumption about God’s essence. He continues, “Paul did not say ‘imperfect’ because he knows one part of God’s essence and does not know another part—for God is simple and has no parts” (De incomp. 1.32). God’s essence is unknown to us; therefore, though we know he exists, is wise, is great, is omnipresent, provides and cares for his creation, we do not know the extent of these attributes nor how he does all the things in the governance of his creation (De incomp. 1.33). Notice Chrysostom’s presumptive statement: “God is simple and has no parts.” What is fascinating about Chrysostom’s reference to the simplicity of God is that Modern theology sees simplicity as a speculative doctrine. Chrysostom, who deliberately avoids speculative theologizing, refers to simplicity as a standard article of theology proper. God’s simplicity is taken for granted.

The reason why divine simplicity is seen as an abstruse doctrine is due to the common (Modern) mistake of assuming that divine simplicity describes something about God. Rather, properly understood, simplicity is a negative statement; it tells us what God is not. In a sense, it is intended to be abstruse because of its function in theological-metaphysical discourse. With that said, we do use negative statements (i.e., infinite, immutable, impassible, eternal, etc.) in a positive way—to good effect; but we do so, to say what he is not. And that is the intention in apophatic qualifiers.

God, as Chrysostom states, does not have parts. He is what he is through himself, thus his true essence, his divine constitution, is simple (as the human constitution is composite). And while he aims to confine his doctrinal formulations to the biblical text (not in a Biblicist fashion, however), he employs the specific nomenclature of divine simplicity in his theology. Why does Chrysostom take simplicity for granted? Because of the implications derived from the biblical revelation of God. Chrysostom sees that the God of the Bible is transcendent, thus incomprehensible, and apophatic language provides an appropriate framework to speak about the God we cannot comprehend.

If you continue reading the rest of my exposition, you will see that Chrysostom is a theologian who reads Scripture with the utmost attention to developing theology from the biblical text. He seeks to be theologically responsible, avoiding, as much as possible, any speculative discourse. He carefully and patiently argues his position with stunningly rich exegesis, well-grounded in revelation, with a fully systematic scope of vision. Interestingly, as it pertains to a key theme of investigation in this book (i.e., my book project), Chrysostom assumes the doctrine of divine simplicity as normative in the Christian doctrine of God. It is telling about the immensely important role of metaphysics, notably the Trinitarian classical metaphysic that proports divine simplicity, in that one such as Chrysostom adopts it as properly basic to his doctrine of God.

~ Romans 11:36

_________________________
[1] Micah Wierenga, “John Chrysostom,” in Lexham Bible Dictionary.
[2] D. F. Wright, “Chrysostom, John,” in New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
[3] Saint John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1984). De incomprehensibili Dei natura homilae 1–12.
[4] “Introduction,” in Ibid., 18.
[5] “Introduction,” in Ibid., 26.
[6] “Introduction,” in Ibid., 28.

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

    John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus   One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’.   Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway...   I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop right i

“A New Heaven and New Earth” ~ A (Partial) Preterist Reading of Isaiah 65:17–25

When God says he will create a new heaven and a new earth, what will this new heaven and earth be like? Is it describing an obliteration of the material world, with a new material heaven and earth to follow? Early Church Father Jerome did not see a destruction of the elements; instead, he saw newness , a change into something better. Commenting on this passage, he writes, “The Apostle Paul said, ‘for the form of this world is perishing’ [1Co 7:31]. Notice that he said ‘form,’ not ‘substance.’”[1] Thomas Aquinas sees the new heavens and earth to be “the restoration of goods, for behold I create a new heavens , with new help from heaven, and a new earth , new benefits from the earth; this refers to the day of judgment, when the world will be renewed to the glory of the saints: the former things have passed away (Re 21:4).”[2] Closer to the immediate historical context, another understanding sees this as “a hyperbolic expression of the future restoration of the people of Judah after the