John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople, and the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers. 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]
His work, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God (De incomp.),[3] is a polemical and apologetical treatise, which was originally a series of homilies presented to laymen, orthodox and heterodox, who he was trying to edify and sway from error, particularly a new uprising of Arian followers, the Anomoeans. While the Arians erroneously claimed that the Son was of similar substance (homoiousios) with the Father, the Anomoeans held that Christ must be dissimilar and unlike (anomoios) God, hence the name Anomoeans. Chrysostom issues a solid defense of the Nicene tradition, leveling every argument from the Anomoeans. Ultimately, the Anomoeans (as well as the heretics before them) miss the mark because they fail to interpret the Scriptures in manner that understands the meaning of the words.
In Homily VIII, Chrysostom issues this inciteful statement to his audience: “Today I warn and advise you not to go merely to what is written but to search out the meaning of what is said. If a person should busy himself with nothing more than what has been written, he will fall into many errors” (De incomp. 8.4). The many errors to which he is referring stems from a rigid anthropomorphism. For example, Psalm 17:8 says, “You will protect me in the shadow of your wings.” Chrysostom asks are we to assume that God’s “spiritual and indestructible essence” (De incomp. 8.4) has wings like a bird, a duck, or a flying squirrel? No, rather, the metaphor provides a composite view of that which is incorporeal to communicate to us a true, metaphysically and/or moral statement about God.
Chrysostom looks at other texts, where one passage says God sleeps (Ps 43:24, LXX)[4]and another says he does not (Je 14:9, LXX).[5] To interpret rightly, Chrysostom emphasizes the importance of reason when “searching into the treasure house of the divine Scriptures.” And he reiterates his warning: “If we listen to words only, if we do not think but take the words as they come, not only will those absurdities follow but many a conflict will be seen in what has been said” (De incomp. 8.5). By not taking the words as they come, Chrysostom gives us a reasoned interpretation. He writes, “One man says that God sleeps, and another says that he does not sleep. Yet both statements are true if you understand the words in the proper way. The man who says that God is sleeping is pointing out God’s forbearance and patience; the one who says he is not sleeping makes clear that God’s nature is pure and undefiled. (De incomp. 8.6). But what guides this reasoned approach? More on that in a moment.
In Homily IX, Chrysostom addresses objections from Jews of Antioch (Messianic Jews who have joined the Anomoeans), who deny the divinity of Christ. He easily refutes their arguments, showing their incompetence in interpreting the biblical text. For example, one evidence the Jews give to show that Jesus cannot be God is from John 11:34, where Jesus does not know where dead Lazarus lay. In mocking fashion, the Jews say: “Do you see that he did not know? Do you see his weakness? Is this man God? He did not even know the place!” (De incomp. 9.4).
Now, a beginner or novice in biblical interpretation might be stumped by such an argument. But Chrysostom is a master. He says, if Jesus’ not knowing where Lazarus was buried means that he cannot be God, then we must strip the Father of his deity, since he too failed to know where Adam was hiding in the garden (Ge 3:9). Did not God say, “Adam, where are you?” Or, when God asks Cain where his brother is (Ge 4:9), should we infer that God is ignorant of Abel’s whereabouts?
Another example Chrysostom gives is Genesis 18:20-1, where God tells Abraham of the cries he hears against Sodom and Gomorrah, such that he must go down to see if their actions measure up to the outcry against them. Chrysostom asks, Did God really have to “go down” to Sodom and Gomorra? As the Omniscient one, did he not know? Chrysostom writes, “The one who knows all things before they come to pass, the God who searches hearts and minds, he who knows the thoughts of men is the one and only one who has said: ‘Therefore, I shall go down and see whether or not their actions match the outcry against them which comes to me, so that I may know’” (De incomp. 9.6, 7). A reasoned approach sees that if one were to “take the words as they come,” one would have to untangle two contradictory inspired statements, which is untenable.
These heretics have fallen into error because, as Chrysostom warned earlier, they are making theological judgments based on “what is written” not from the “meaning of what is said.” They are taking the words as they come and are quickly drawing conclusions without giving attention to whether their conclusions are canonically consistent regarding the being of God. It is a failure to understand the literary modes employed in Scripture, looking at the meaning being conveyed in the mode of expression. This is key: The mode, not the meaning, is guiding their theological assumptions. Chrysostom’s interpretation of Genesis 18:20–1 demonstrates an acuity to the corpus of the Bible, notably the nature and character of God. Chrysostom writes, “What the Father is saying is this:
‘A report came to me. But I wish again to test this rumor more exactly in the light of the facts. I do not do this because I do not know. I do it because I wish to teach men not to heed words alone nor to believe them recklessly if someone speaks them against another.’ Men must believe what they hear only after they have first made an exact search and considered well the proof in the light of the facts. And this is why God said in another Scriptural passage: “Believe not every word” [Sirach 19:15] For nothing is so destructive of men’s lives as for a person to give quick credence to whatever people say. The prophet David was proclaiming a divine revelation when he said: “Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him have I banished and pursued” [Ps 101:5]. (De incomp. 9.8)
Chrysostom interprets this passage (Genesis 18:20–1) from a canonical approach, in that he understands the essence and character of God as revealed in Scripture (and in general revelation). When he comes to a passage that presents a conflict with what Scripture teaches about the being of God, he gives it priority. What is this mode we see in Chrysostom’s interpretive methodology?
The last paragraph hinted at it a bit for us, but more technically, what we see guiding Chrysostom’s interpretation is the theologia–ekonomia distinction. This distinction recognizes scriptural texts that speak of the divine essence of God, the theologia, and those that pertain to the redemptive revelation of God in time and space, the ekonomia.[6] The early church Fathers deployed this mode of approach, providing doctrinal consistency as they moved from ad intra texts to ad extra texts.[7]
Chrysostom’s metaphysical understanding of the essence and attributes of God is the axiom driving his interpretation. Why is that? Because otherwise we lose continuity in the will and decree of God. If God claims to judge men by the secrets and intentions of their hearts (Rom 2:16), then he must have perfect, complete knowledge of the secrets and intentions of every human being—past, present, and future. If he cannot, then Solomon’s closing statement of Ecclesiastes loses its thrust to instill fear of the Lord but also provide comfort and hope: “For God will bring every act to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil” (12:14).
In Chrysostom’s reading of Genesis 18:20–1, if he “takes the words as they come,” interpreting them “off the cuff,” and concludes that the being of God must “go down” to “see” and “learn” about the wickedness in Sodom and Gomorrah, his interpretation would conflict with Psalm 139:7–8, which teaches us that the divine essence is omnipresent. David writes, “Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to heaven, you are there. If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.” Or, in Jeremiah 23:23–4, God, condemning the false prophets who think their deception will go unnoticed, says, “‘Am I a God who is only near’—this is the Lord’s declaration—‘and not a God who is far away? Can a person hide in secret places where I cannot see him?’—the Lord’s declaration. ‘Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’—the Lord’s declaration.” But why should those passages have priority? For the text from Ecclesiastes to be true, it is necessary for Psalm 139:7–8 and Jeremiah 23:23–4 to be true.
These passages tell us about the manner in which the divine essence subsists—everywhere present, all at once. For God to bring every act to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil, his essence must be everywhere present all at once, as Proverbs 15:3, employing anthropomorphic language, tells us: his “eyes are everywhere observing the wicked and the good” (Pr 15:3). Therefore, these passages must have priority; in fact, they must guide our interpretive decisions as we formulate theological judgments about the Triune God.
Conclusion
Chrysostom strived to avoid speculative (metaphysical) theology in his exegesis. However, he understood the essence of God is the axiomatic starting point of interpretation. It is understanding and consistently applying the Creator–creature distinction in our interpretation of Scripture, realizing that words lead us to know God. The Anomoeans’ misstep was seeing only the words, not the meaning behind the words. All is metaphor when we are discoursing about the incomprehensible 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).
[4] “Awake! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Rise up, and do not reject us in the end!”
[5] “You will not be like a sleeping person or like a man who is unable to save. And you are among us, O Lord, and your name has been called upon us. Do forget not us!”
[6] For more on this distinction, see http://www.readreflectwrite.com/2021/04/st-basil-identity-of-language-ekonomia.html
[7] Ad intra, or opera Dei ad intra, refer to the inward or internal works or activity of God, which are the essential or personal attributes of God, such as immutability and aseity (that which is inside himself). Ad extra, or opera Dei ad extra, refer to the outward or external works of God, such as God’s work of creation, sustaining, and relating to finite things (things outside himself). See, Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Baker Academic, 2017), 244.
Comments