John Chrysostom on the Incomprehensible God (Antioch, 386/87)
Gregory's advice and bitter. experience were perhaps not lost on Nectarius, an eastern senator and Constantinople's urban prefect when he was appointed orthodox bishop in 381.[96] Nectarius' episcopate lasted considerably longer than Gregory's, ending with his death in 397. It is attractive to imagine that his longevity had to do with his much maligned "mediocrity": having said and done nothing worthy of note, he thus occasioned no controversy.
His successor John Chrysostom was not a man of few words, nor one to adopt a stance of silent neutrality. Nicknamed "the golden mouth," he had delivered sermons on the subject of the incomprehensibility of God, twelve of which are extant.[97] He had already aired some of his views on the mystical transcendence of the divine essence prior to his
[94] Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep . 91 (P. Gallay, ed., St. Grégoire de Nazianze: Lettres [Paris, 1964], 1:112). Gregory wrote on behalf of his friend Pancratius; on the network of patronage, see R. Van Dam, "Emperors, Bishops, and Friends."
[96] On Nectarius, see Hauser-Meury, Prosopographie , 126-28, s.v. "Nectarius"; and PLRE 1:621, s.v. "Nectarius 2."
[97] The sermons De incomprehensibili natura Dei are in PG 48:701-812. For the first five Antiochene sermons (PG 48:701-48), I refer to J. Daniélou et al., eds., Jean Chrysostome: Sur l'Incompréhensibilité de Dieu . Discussions of these sermons can be found in Kopecek, History of Neo-Arianism , 2:529-39; E. Amand de Mendieta, "L'incompréhensibilité de l'essence divine d'après Jean Chrysostome," in S YMP OS ION: Studies on St. John Chrysostom, Analekta Vlatadon 18 (Thessaloniki, 1973), 23-40; J. Daniélou, "L'incompréhensibilité de Dieu," 176-94; M. A. Schatkin, "John Chrysostom as Apologist: With Special Reference to the De Incomprehensibili, Quod nemo laeditur, Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt , and Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae " (Th.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1982). On the Nachleben of these sermons in the east, see F. Graffin and A.-M. Malingrey, "La tradition syriaque des homélies de Jean Chrysostome sur l'incompréhensibilité de Dieu," in J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser, eds., Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris, 1972), 603-9.
stay in Constantinople, having done so while still a priest in Antioch (he was ordained in 386). It is likely that a number of his sermons on the incomprehensibility of the divine essence were preached in the small local churches of Antioch in 386 and 387, only a few years after Gregory of Nazianzus had delivered his so-called "Theological Orations" in Constantinople.[98] Other sermons by Chrysostom on the same topic have been associated with the time of his eventful tenure as patriarch of Constantinople eleven years later.[99] It is the former, Antiochene corpus that I examine in this chapter because there the basic patterns of arguments were established.
At the beginning of the first sermon addressing the topic of divine mystery, the priest Chrysostom commended his audience repeatedly for their fine, orderly behavior (
) while their bishop was away.[100] Yet immediately after the abundant praise in the proem, he directed his address to those who speculated too freely about God's ousia . These individuals considered themselves in possession of complete gnosis ,[101] believing that they knew the divine ousia with precise exactitude (
).[102] In response, Chrysostom argued that human beings possess knowledge only in part (
).[103] Even the ancient prophets did not know God's essence meta akribeias .[104] In other words, Chrysostom urged his audience to adhere to a via media , steering dear of the extremes of complete ignorance and perfect gnosis .[105]
To whom was Chrysostom directing this diatribe? He rarely made reference in his sermons to adversaries except in rhetorical fashion: "What do you have to say? (
)"[106] If he believed the pre-
[98] See w. E. Eltester, "Die Kirchen Antiochias in IV Jahrhundert," Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 36 (1945): 251-86, esp. 272ff.; see also C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time , M. Gonzaga, trans. (London, 1959), 31. The dates of the sermons are inferred from the Jewish feasts (PG 48:844D) that Chrysostom referred to in his sermons against the Anomoeans; see R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley, Calif., 1983), 34-35. In 386, Rosh Hashanah fell on 9-10 September.
[99] Untitled sermon "against the Anomoeans" delivered in Constantinople (PG 48: 795-802); In paralyticum et de Christi divinitate, contra Anomaeos (PG 48:801-12). See F. Van Ommeslaeghe, "Jean Chrysostome et le peuple de Constantinople," AB 99 (1981): 329-49.
[100] De incomprehens . 1.1, 9-10, 13 (Daniélou et al., eds., 92-95).
[102] See De incomprehens . 2.471, 2.487, 4.222.
[103] De incomprehens . 1.110 (Daniélou et al., eds., 106-7).
[104] See De incomprehens . 1.195-96 (Daniélou et al., eds., 116-17).
[105] See Daniélou et al., eds., 27-29.
[106] De incomprehens . 1.272 (Daniélou et al., eds., 124-25).
sumptuous individuals to be exclusively Anomoean, he was reticent to say so.[107]
Chrysostom was not addressing strangers. He revealed that those who claimed gnosis regularly attended his services because they enjoyed the oratory.[108] This flattering fact may have inclined Chrysostom to moderate his criticisms. He also said that if he were harsher and more pointed in his remarks, those whom he wished to persuade would simply stay away from church.[109] He thus avoided directly condemning them, instead underscoring the fact that he meant to inflict no harm but to heal their sick, diseased minds.[110]
Chrysostom exhorted the whole audience to exercise restraint in its dealings with the questioners, whom he proposed ought to be treated with care as if afflicted patients.[111] Right-thinking Christians might even attempt to approach their sick peers for conversation, with a view to saving them from the disease of error, like wise and competent physicians (
) who proceed with gentleness and forbearance rather than in disdain.[112] Yet Chrysostom cautioned that this exhortation applied only to those confirmed in the faith and therefore immune to contagion.[113]
The virtue of headlong flight was a constant refrain of Chrysostom's. Christians were to flee the craze of disputing: "
."[114] A Christian who was weaker (
) in his faith was to flee (
) the company of sick Christians lest he himself come to harm.[115] He must avoid any occasion for discussion with others and
[107] Only in De incomprehens . 2.1, 2.13, 2.141, 3.10, 3.18. Kopecek again argues that Chrysostom's adversaries belonged to a distinct religious group; see History of Neo-Arianism , 2: 529-31.
[108] De incomprehens . 1.334-38 (Daniélou et al., eds., 180-81). On the relationship between the preacher and his audience, see also Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 5.1-8; J. Bernardi, La prédication des pères Cappadociens: Le prédicateur et son auditoire (Paris, 1969), ch. 4.
[109] De incomprehens . 1.345-50 (Daniélou et al., eds., 132-33).
[110] De incomprehens . 1.336-37 (Daniélou et al., eds., 130-31). On the use of the metaphor of sickness for "heresy," see Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica preface. On danger, pollution, and the social order, see M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London, 1966), 94-113.
[111] De incomprehens . 2.490-508, 3.346-50 (Daniélou et al., eds., 182-83, 214-17). The Anomoeans were associated with the sick because they were regarded as demonically possessed. See F. Van de Paverd, "Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen das Endes des vierten Jahrhunderts: Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes Chrysostomos," OCA 187 (1970): 179-83.
[112] De incomprehens . 2.497-508 (Daniélou et al., eds., 182-83).
[113] De incomprehens . 2.509-11 (Daniélou et al., eds., 182-85).
[114] De incomprehens . 1.189 (Daniélou et al., eds., 116-17).
[115] De incomprehens . 2.511-13, 522-25 (Daniélou et al., eds., 184-85).
must call upon God's mercy[116] rather than yield to the temptation of defending his beliefs. He must run away—"
, 
"[117] —even from established friendship (
).[118]
Meddling versus Faith
Like Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom expressed deep concern about a widespread tendency to meddle (
) in forbidden knowledge of the divine nature.[119] For Chrysostom, pistis alone protected against such prying curiosity because it set boundaries without which an investigation could easily degenerate into an infinite regress of questions and responses:[120]
For they invent and meddle (
) in everything so that
is excluded from the understanding (
) of their listeners. . . . [W]henever God reveals something, it is necessary to accept what is said in faith (
), not to pry impetuously (
).[121]
Elsewhere, Chrysostom repeated these themes:
While (
) you would find few people anxious (
) about faith (
) and political constitution (
), most of them instead (
) are meddling (
) and investigating (
) into questions which one cannot discover and which vex God.[122]
Such unchecked curiosity angered God and brought down chastisement (
) in the same way that the disbelief of Zachariah was punished by the affliction of blindness.[123] The asking of how and why—like the use of sophistic devices, syllogistic reasoning, and the posing of zeteseis —was not conducive to advancement in the faith but rather obscured the anagogical path.[124]
Yet to advocate strict adherence to the words in the pistis was to risk the mistaken notion that merely grasping a credal formula, whether
[117] De incomprehens . 1.379-80 (Daniélou et al., eds., 134-35).
[119] See index in Daniélou et al., eds., 354-55.
[120] See Chrysostom, In Acta apostolorum 23.4 (PG 60:183).
[121] De incomprehens . 2.75-80 (Daniélou et al., eds., 148-49).
[122] De sacerdotio 4.5; A.-M. Malingrey, ed., Jean Chrysostome: Sur le Sacerdoce (dialogue et homélie ), SC 272 (Paris 1980), 260-63.
[123] See esp. De incomprehens . 2.141-48 (Daniélou et al., eds., 154-55). This issue is the main theme of the second sermon.
[124] Hom. in Epistulam ad Ephesios 24.2 (PG 62:171). On Chrysostom's view on "curiosity," see his Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt (PG 52:479-528).
orthodox or not, made one a Christian.[125] Chrysostom faulted the questioners for paying too little attention to correct living, which he thought ought to accompany the profession of the correct pistis .[126] Virtue was to be pursued by the performance of deeds (
), not by arguing:[127] exercise of reason wrought social fractiousness, whereas charity fostered harmony.[128] Chrysostom urged Christians to become "fools for the sake of Christ" (I Corinthians 4:10): "Restrain our own reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning, in order to provide a mind swept dean for the reception of the divine words."[129]
At another place, Chrysostom explained why pistis provided a safe haven: "
."[130] Here, as in Gregory of Nazianzus' orations and elsewhere, the multivalence of the word pistis as either an attitude of holy submission or a professed creed must be kept in mind.
Chrysostom, again like Gregory of Nazianzus, was keenly aware that the value of his exhortations rested on events that were to take place beyond the walls of the church, where his listeners faced challenging questions in the course of their daily lives.[131] He too provided solutions to a number of especially popular conundrums in phrases conducive to easy memorization. And he too apologized for arguing back, explaining that the verbal weapons he provided were hurtful only to those who refused to demonstrate goodwill and were already inclined to contentiousness.[132]
The Incomprehensible God and Liturgical Worship
The priest Chrysostom tried every available means to combat rampant theological discussion. He elaborated the idea that knowledge of the
[125] See De incomprehens . 11.7 (PG 48:797).
[126] See De incomprehens . 10.57 (PG 48.793).
[128] Hom. in Epistulam ad Colossenes 5.3 (PG 62:335). On the importance of both faith and works for Chrysostom, see Hom. in Matthaeum 64.4 (PG 58:614-15); Hom. in Iohann . 63.3 (PG 59:352).
[129] See De incomprehens . 2.70-75. See also Chrysostom, Homilia in illud, vidi dominum sedentem in solio excelso 4.3 (PG 56:123) on Peter the apostle as a simple man who silenced sophisticated Greek philosophers with divine help.
[131] See Chrysostom, Hom. in Iohann . 23.1 (PG 59:137-38).>
[132] De incomprehens . 2.6-7. On the value of logos for checking "specious reasonings," see Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 4.3-5; Baur, John Chrysostom , 1:334.
mysterious divine essence was beyond the limits of human cognition.[133] Only the Son knew the Father; other divine beings (
), including angels, did not have complete knowledge of God's ousia .[134] In this present context, this statement can only be read as an attempt to deflect curiosity from the subject and to deny competence from people who might otherwise be tempted to discuss and debate the issues.[135]
Chrysostom presented a paradox to strengthen his case: while angels and other divine beings superior to human beings collectively glorified and worshiped God with fear and trembling, men below impiously tried to pry into the secrets of the divine.[136] Chrysostom painted a striking, hyperbolic contrast:
Did you see how great is the holy dread in heaven and how great the arrogant presumption (
) here below? The angels in heaven give him glory; these on earth carry on meddlesome investigations (
). In heaven they honor and praise him; on earth we find curious busybodies (
). In heaven they veil their eyes; on earth the busybodies are obstinate (
) and shamelessly try to hold their eyes fixed on his ineffable glory. Who would not groan, who would not weep for them because of this ultimate madness and folly of theirs?[137]
For Chrysostom, the only proper attitude to assume when approaching the divine presence was humility to the point of fear and trembling.[138] At a minimum, he expected an appropriate spirit of deference before God's superior holiness and wisdom.
A significant aspect of this viewpoint was the implicit comparison between the clergy and the mediating angels,[139] whose exalted status insulated them from the criticism of those below.[140] Priests, like angels,
[133] See, e.g., J. C. McLelland, God the Anonymous: A Study in Alexandrian Philosophical Theology , Patristic Monograph Series 4 (Philadelphia, 1976), 149, on John Chrysostom's emphasis on the inability of human language to capture God's essence: "Apophatic theology is used here as a weapon against the Arian revival of Eunomius."
[134] See De incomprehens . 1.302ff.
[135] See De incomprehens . 1.308-27; see 3-4 passim.
[136] See De incomprehens . 1.308-12 (Daniélou et al., eds., 126-29). The angelic imagery is also present in his homily against the Judaizers; see Adversus Judaeos 1.1. Using angelic analogy to justify Christian conduct was a common ploy of Chrysostom's. In PG 56:99., he invoked the angelic hosts to argue against people who frequently attended theatrical plays and dances; see J. Dumortier, "Une assemblée chrétienne au IV siècle," MSR 29 (1972): 15-22.
[137] De incomprehens . 1.321-27 (Daniélou et al., eds., 128-29), trans. P. Harkins, ed., St. John Chrysostom On the Incomprehensible Nature of God (Washington, D.C., 1982), 66.
[138] See De incomprehens . 3.338-52.
[139] On priests as angelic mediators, see Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 3.4-6.
[140] Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 5.5. See H. Chadwick on the silent bishop as an emulator of the Deity in "The Silence of Bishops in Ignatius," HTR 43 (1950): 169-72.
mediated between God and ordinary mortals, making possible the spiritual ascent by stages of the faithful.[141]
The dread inspired by the numinous presence was a commonplace in Chrysostom's sermons.[142] Along with other fourth-century leaders such as Cyril of Jerusalem, he gave this theme—rooted in speculation about the heavenly temple in the Jewish tradition—decisive impetus in Christian eucharistic services.[143]
In the face of the overwhelmingly unknowable divine presence, human beings were not entirely bereft of response. They could react most fittingly through common worship. Chrysostom stressed the importance of group prayer and worship, which angels and divine beings continually rendered to God, and which moreover beautifully exemplified. communal harmony. The edifying image of humble, united worship was a potent antidote to arrogant, individual questioning.