John Chrysostom of Antioch: A Brief Examination of His Hermeneutics (Methods for Interpreting the Bible)

John Chrysostom (347-407) was raised by a Christian widow in Antioch. Although he studied as a lawyer under the famous pagan orator Libanius, he later became a monk, and lived out his days as a monk. After his mother died, he went to the mountains to practice monasticism, returning to the city over six years later. In 381 he was ordained as a deacon, and ordained as an elder in 386. He was given the task of being the preaching elder; and by the sixth century he became known as "Chrysostomos" (golden mouthed). Although he played no part in any major controversy, he was the most popular and most orthodox of the Antiochene fathers.[1] Concerning hermeneutics, instead of favoring the allegorical or mystical interpretation of Origen, he favored the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Origen argued that the Apostle Paul contradicted himself, but John Chrysostom found no such contradictions. Instead, he examined the text as possessing authority from God as written, acknowledging and submitting to the literary make-up. Concerning Romans 7:14, Chrysostom writes,

"If then sin hath no more dominion over us, why does he lay so great a charge upon them as he does in the words, "Let not sin reign in your mortal body," and, "yield not ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin?" What does that here said mean then? He is sowing a kind of seed in this statement, which he means to develop afterwards, and to cultivate in a powerful argument. What then is this statement? It is this; that our body, before Christ's coming, was an easy prey to the assaults of sin. For after death a great swarm of passions entered also. And for this cause it was not lightsome for running the race of virtue. For there was no Spirit present to assist, nor any baptism of power to mortify. (John vii. 39.) But as some horse (Plato Phædr. §74) that answereth not the rein, it ran indeed, but made frequent slips, the Law meanwhile announcing what was to be done and what not, yet not conveying into those in the race anything over and above exhortation by means of words. But when Christ had come, the effort became afterwards more easy, and therefore we had a more distant goal (μείζονα τὰ σκάμματα) set us, in that the assistance we had given us was greater. Wherefore also Christ saith, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matt. v. 20.) But this he says more clearly in the sequel. But at present he alludes here briefly to it, to show that unless we stoop down very low to it, sin will not get the better of us. For it is not the Law only that exhorteth us, but grace too which also remitted our former sins, and secures us against future ones. For it promised them crowns after toils, but this (i.e. grace) crowned them first, and then led them to the contest. Now it seems to me that he is not signifying here the whole life of a believer, but instituting a comparison between the Baptism and the Law. And this he says in another passage also; "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. iii. 6.) For the Law convinceth of transgression, but grace undoes transgression. As then the former by convincing establisheth sin so the latter by forgiving suffereth us not to be under sin. And so thou art in two ways set free from this thraldom; both in thy not being under the Law, and in thy enjoying grace.[2]"

Unlike Origen, Chrysostom finds comfort in explaining and understanding the plain meaning of the text. Although this writer does not agree with all of his conclusions, at least his argument springs forth from the text instead of eisogetically falling from his imagination down into the text.

Origen also believed that Jesus' cleansing of the temple in John's Gospel needed to be spiritualized for it could not be understood as true otherwise because of its chronological difficulties and its difficult dialogue. Chrysostom admits no such symbolism, arguing for the plain meaning of the text yet again:

"Ver. 16. ("Make not My Father's house) an house of merchandise." They do not in this contradict each other, but show that he did this a second time, and that both these expressions were not used on the same occasion, but that He acted thus once at the beginning of His ministry, and again when He had come to the very time of His Passion. Therefore, (on the latter occasion,) employing more strong expressions, He spoke of it as (being made) "a den of thieves," but here at the commencement of His miracles He does not so, but uses a more gentle rebuke; from which it is probable that this took place a second time. "And wherefore," says one, "did Christ do this same, and use such severity against these men, a thing which He is nowhere else seen to do, even when insulted and reviled, and called by them 'Samaritan' and 'demoniac'? for He was not even satisfied with words only, but took a scourge, and so cast them out." Yes, but it was when others were receiving benefit, that the Jews accused and raged against Him; when it was probable that they would have been made savage by His rebukes, they showed no such disposition towards Him, for they neither accused nor reviled Him. What say they? Ver. 18. "What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?" Seest thou their excessive malice, and how the benefits done to others incensed them more (than reproofs)? At one time then He said, that the Temple was made by them "a den of thieves," showing that what they sold was gotten by theft, and rapine, and covetousness, and that they were rich through other men's calamities; at another, "a house of merchandise," pointing to their shameless traffickings. "But wherefore did He this?" Since he was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many such things which were thought by them transgressions of the Law, in order that He might not seem to do this as though He had come to be some rival God and opponent of His Father, He takes occasion hence to correct any such suspicion of theirs. For One who had exhibited so much zeal for the House was not likely to oppose Him who was Lord of the House, and who was worshiped in it. No doubt even the former years during which He lived according to the Law, were sufficient to show His reverence for the Legislator, and that He came not to give contrary laws; yet since it was likely that those years were forgotten through lapse of time, as not having been known to all because He was brought up in a poor and mean dwelling, He afterwards does this in the presence of all, (for many were present because the feast was nigh at hand,) and at great risk. For he did not merely "cast them out," but also "overturned the tables," and "poured out the money," giving them by this to understand, that He who threw Himself into danger for the good order of the House could never despise his Master. Had He acted as He did from hypocrisy, He should only have advised them; but to place Himself in danger was very daring. For it was no light thing to offer Himself to the anger of so many market-folk, to excite against Himself a most brutal mob of petty dealers by His reproaches and His blows, this was not the action of a pretender, but of one choosing to suffer everything for the order of the House. And therefore not by His actions only, but by His words, He shows his agreement with the Father; for He saith not "the Holy House," but "My Father's House." See, He even calls Him, "Father," and they are not wroth; they thought He spoke in a general way: but when He went on and spoke more plainly, so as to set before them the idea of His Equality, then they become angry. And what say they? "What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?" Alas for their utter madness! Was there need of a sign before they could cease their evil doings, and free the house of God from such dishonor? And was it not the greatest sign of His Excellence that He had gotten such zeal for that House? In fact, the well-disposed were distinguished by this very thing, for "They," His disciples, it says, Ver. 17. "Remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." But the Jews did not remember the Prophecy, and said, "What sign showest Thou unto us?" (Ps. Lxix. 9 ), both grieving that their shameful traffic was cut off, and expecting by these means to stop Him, and also desiring to challenge Him to a miracle, and to find fault with what He was doing. Wherefore He will not give them a sign; and before, when they came and asked Him, He made them the same answer, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." ( Matt. Xvi. 4.) Only then the answer was clear, now it is more ambiguous. This He doth on account of their extreme insensibility; for He who prevented them without their asking, and gave them signs, would never when they asked have turned away from them, had He not seen that their minds were wicked and false, and their intention treacherous. Think how full of wickedness the question itself was at the outset. When they ought to have applauded Him for His earnestness and zeal, when they ought to have been astonished that He cared so greatly for the House, they reproach Him, saying, that it was lawful to traffic, and unlawful for any to stop their traffic, except he should show them a sign.[3]"

Chrysostom's entire interpretation is literal. His focus is on what the text says, not on spiritualizing or speculating about what is not present. To witness Christ's concern for His Father's glory is compelling, confronting, and convicting to all that call Him Lord. In this detailed exposition of the Lord's cleansing of His Father's temple, His concern for His Father's glory is revealed; and it actually fits better with what the text literally says than what Origen argues in his spiritualizing. The Bible in and of itself is a masterpiece incomparable to any other work of literature that has ever existed. There is no need to spiritualize what does not need spiritualizing. Finally, the plain meaning of the text, whether literal or spiritual, is powerful enough to accomplish the purpose God intended when He wrote it.

[1] Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 246.

[2] Phillip Scaff, ed. NPNF1-11Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, 1889, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002, 657-658, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.html.

[3] Phillip Scaff, ed. NPNF1-14. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1889, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002, 144-146, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.html,