HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

Introduction

A person and his/her thoughts or an institution is not an isolated entity. They are

formed and developed in particular contexts. An adequate understanding of their

background is essential for an objective and substantial evaluation with clarity. It helps

the researcher to see the reason and relevance of the particular response generated by

the personality or the institution under study. Hence, it is desirable to look into the

historical setting of the fourth century that moulded St. John Chrysostom and

perpetuated the institution of coenobetic monasticism.

John Chrysostom

Even though the exact date of birth is not determined, scholars agree that he was

born between 344 and 347. He was born in a noble family of Antioch in Syria-Coele. His

father Secundus was a high official in the military service (magister militum) in the

imperial army of Syria. He died during the early age of John without professing

Christianity. His mother Anthusa was a devoted Christian and became a widow in her

twenties. She gave John admirable education. He studied rhetoric and philosophy. He

carried out his literary training under Libanius and prepared himself in practising law.

But he started reflecting on the restlessness and various dubious ways employed by

those who devoted their lives to the practice of forensic courts. He became convinced of

the unjust practices and hence he resolved to adopt a more tranquil mode of life.

He entered into the class of catechumens. After three years of instruction and

probation, he was baptised by Bishop Meletius at the age of twenty-three. He studied

theology under Diodore of Tarsus, the leader of the Antiochene School. During this time

he intended to adopt monastic life. But his mother insisted on him to stay with her in

their house till her death. Unable to negate her plea, he remained with he till she lived.

After her death, he left his home and took up rigorous ascetic life. Basil was instrumental

in calling him to join ascetic life.1 Maximius and Theodore of Mopseustia2 joined him in

ascetic life. Ascetic life made Chrysostom very weak in his body. After six years of

rigorous ascetic life he returned to Antioch. To him monasticism was a profitable school

of spiritual exercise and self-government. He provides us with the bright side of the

monastic life. He was an admirer of active and useful monasticism and warned against

dangers of idle contemplation. In 373 Arian Emperor Valens though a decree compelled

the monks to discharge their duties to the state through serving in military or civil service.

1 He himself attests in his treatise on Priesthood.2 They were his fellow students under Libanius. But Theodore fell in love with a young lady

Hermoine and decided to marry her. This gave rise to John’s earliest treatise an exhortation to Theodore in two letters. They combine in them his oratorical art of sad sympathy, tender entreaty, bitter reproach, terrible warning etc. The intention was to persuade his friend from deserting ascetic life. He says ‘to sin is human, but to persist in sin is devilish’. Theodore resumed monastic life.

1

On that Chrysostom wrote three books against the Opponents of Monasticism. He

regarded emperor’s act as a sacrilege and worst kind of persecution.

Meletius foresaw in him future greatness. He ordained John as a deacon in

381.3 Not much later Flavian ordained him as a presbyter. He appointed him to devote

special attention to preaching ministry. In this he was excellent.4 Because of his

eloquence he attained fame throughout the Greek speaking Church. His sermons

provide us character of the people and the conditions of the Church and society. He

identifies the chief vices prevailing during that time as avarice, longing for luxury, desire

for accumulation, sensuality and excessive love of circus and theatre, injustice,

exploitation of the poor by rich and powerful etc.

In 397, the bishopric of Constantinople became vacant.5 Because of his fame of

eloquence and his reputation as a simple person, John was spotted and the emperor

ordered that John be taken to the royal city and be consecrated. He was forcibly taken

and was consecrated bishop in 398. Once he assumed the office, he started taking it

very seriously. In the midst of luxury and comforts, he started reformation. He

commenced the cleansing process right from the top. He made enemies through his

denunciations of vices and follies among clergy and aristocracy. He introduced strict

ascetic habits and reduced luxurious households of his predecessors to strict simplicity.

He devoted large portion of income to benevolence, refused invitations to banquets, and

gave no dinners. He disciplined vicious clergy and opposed perilous and immoral habit

of unmarried priests living under the same roof with spiritual sisters. The combination of

honesty, ascetic ideals and tactlessness was evident in his actions and attitudes. He

was a strong critic of the systems of inequality and oppression found in the society and

their intrusion into the Church. He was a spokesperson of the poor, criticised the

affluent of their attitude towards the poor, and rebuked the rich for oppressing the

downtrodden in order to accumulate wealth. He was not afraid of the repercussions in

exposing his convictions.

He vehemently condemned the injustices of empress Eudoxia and even

addressed her as Jezebel. For that he had to pay a very heavy price. Jointly with

Theophilus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, she drove him to exile. But people besieged the

palace and demanded the restoration of their bishop and he was subsequently recalled.

He was received with rejoicing. For some time everything seemed to go well. However,

following the erection of a silver statue of Eudoxia for public adoration in September 403

before the Church of St. Sophia, John vehemently criticised empress on this. This

outraged her, but he was not willing to compromise. Instead, he added fuel to her

indignation through his famous discourse on the commemoration day of the martyrdom

of John the Baptist, starting, “Herodia is again enraged; again she dances; again she

demands the head of john in a basin”.6 This accusation was far personal and was

3 He served under Bishop Flavian of Antioch.4 Between 386 and 398 he gave a series of Homilies on St. Matthew, John, Romans, Galatians,

Ephesians, Timothy and Titus. These established him as the greatest expositor of that time.5 Following the death of Bishop Nectarius the successor of Gregory of Nazianzen.6 Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History Comprising a History of the Church for A. D. 324 – 440

(London: Henry G. Bohn. 1855), 391

2

reported to Eudoxia. She persuaded Arcadius to remove Chrysostom. The imperial

force forcibly removed him from the baptismal ceremony of the catechumens and he

was thrown into the prison. Finally on June 5, 404 Arcadius signed the edict of

banishment and he was sent on exile to Armenia. He received the banishment calmly

and after final prayer in cathedral with some of his faithful bishops left the city. On 14

September 407, he died on a journey to a remote frontier form Armenia on foot. Though

the powerful and the elites of his society and the dissidents of the Church persecuted

him, the common folks and the future generations all around the world held him in

honour. Attributing him with the most appropriate surname Chrysostom applauds this

fact.

Political Situation

Fourth century was a very significant period in the history of Christian Church. It

was the transition period in the history of both the Byzantine Empire as well as the

Christian Church. In the third century foreign enemies, plagues, economic exhaustion

exacerbated by constant changes of regimes as successful generals overthrew their

predecessors, the Roman Empire was afflicted with various difficulties7. But the rise of

Diocletian and his decentralised and balanced Tetrarchy power stabilised the political

power. Tetrarchy included Constantius and Maximian as in the West and Diocletian as

and Galerius as in the East. In 305 this set up changed.8 Constantine who spent his

younger days in the court of Diocletian as a favourite of the emperor joined Constantius.

Following the death of Constantius, Constantine was made emperor9 by the troops.10 He

became the ruler of Britain, Gaul and Spain. Maxentius captured Italy and Africa with

the support of his father. Following the victory of Constantine over Maxentius in 312 the

whole western region came into the hands of Constantine. Constantine entered into an

alliance with Licinius, the tetrarch who held power in the Balkan region. He entered into

a marital relationship with Licinius by giving his sister Constantia.11 Further in 313

Constantine and Licinius agreed upon providing religious liberty to Christians at Milan.12

Constantine and Licinius ruled side by side for ten years.13 Then they became opposed 7 Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. London: SPCK. 1991, p. 112 (Hereafter

will be referred DPEC only)8 Diocletian and Maximian retired, under pressure from Galerius. A new Tetrarchy was formed, with

Constantius and Galerius promoted to Augustus, and two new Caesars, Severus and Maximin (surnamed Daza), both Galerius cronies; the sons of Maximian and Coanstantius, that is Maxentius and Constantine were passed over(DPEC, p. 115)

9 Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Book 1, chapter 2 says about this incident and dates it to 25 July of the two hundred and seventy first Olympiad which corresponds to 305 or 306 A. D. “The Ecclesiastical History”, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Vol. 2. Second Series. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Eds.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eedermans. 1957 p. 1 (Here after will only be referred Socrates, EH)

10 In terms of the setting of Tetrarchy this was an act of rebellion. This resulted in the conflict between the other tetrarchs.

11 Socrates. EH, p. 2 12 This is known as the famous Edict of Milan. 13 J. W. C. Wand, A History of the Early Church to A. D. 500. Strand: Methuen & Co. 1953, p. 129

(Hereafter will be referred AHEC only)

3

to one another. With their enmity Licinius turned against Christians suspecting them of

supporting Constantine. In the battle of Chrysopolis Constantine totally defeated

Licinius. “Constantine thus became possessed of the sole dominion and was accordingly

proclaimed sovereign Autocrat… ”14 With that the Byzantine Empire began to take

shape. He once again created a single and centralised Empire in which all territories

were subjected to one peaceable sceptre. He consolidated his political power and ruled

for thirty-one years before he died at the age of sixty-five in the year 337 A. D.15

Following the death of Constantine the monarchy came to a temporary halt. The

empire was divided among his three sons. Constantine II occupied the West, Constans

at the centre and Constantius at the East. The accession was more in the pattern of

Turkish despotism. “It trod upon the corpses of the numerous kindred of their father,

excepting two nephews, Gallus and Julian.”16 Around 340 contest between the brothers

for sole supremacy started. Constantine II attacked his brother Constans and was slain

by Constans army17 and the western division of the empire was solely under Constans.18

Magnentius, a field officer, killed Constans in 350. But after the defeat and suicide of

Magnentius, Constantius became the sole emperor.

Constntius appointed Julian19 as the governor of Gaul. He was an able general

and successfully suppressed the troublesome German tribes. This raised his popularity

among the army. Constantius with a view to detach Julian from his army, summoned

Julian's legions to join his campaign against Persia. Realising the plot, they refused and

proclaimed Julian as Augustus. Constantius set out to meet the situation but before the

armies met he succumbed to death. Thus Julian became the sole ruler of the Empire.

Julian’s reign was for a short period only. Jovian succeeded him. After a brief reign of

eight months he died at the age of thirty-three. Valentinian I succeeded him. He

occupied the throne till 375.

In the latter half of the century, Theodosius I became the emperor20. John

Chrysostom was contemporary to him. After the death of Theodosius I, the empire

again fell into two parts. His sons Acadius in the east and Honarius in the west occupied

the thrones. After much political intrigue, Acadius married Eudoxia, a pretty Frankish

girl, in 395. She imparted considerable impact on the life of John Chrysostom. It was

the conflict between Chrysostom and the queen, led to his exile.

Religious Policies

The first three centuries show continued dislike for Christianity. Two main

chronological divisions of persecution could be identified. Initial one lasted for the first

two and a half centuries. But the second one commenced roughly around the middle of

14 Socrates. EH, p. 615 Socrates. EH, p. 3516 Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eedermans.

1953, p. 38 (Hereafter will only be referred Schaff. HCC 3)17 Socrates. EH, p. 3718 Socrates. EH, p. 4219 Julian was the son of Dalmatius, the half brother of Constantine the Great. 20 He reigned from 379-395

4

the third century and ended with the triumph of Constantine. The former one was largely

sporadic and local, while the latter one was more vigorous, organised, and patronised by

the state. “The last of the persecutions of this stormy epoch was by Licinius, who on the

division of the Empire between himself and Constantine ruled the East from 313 to his

defeat by the latter in 323.”21 This could probably be based on suspicion on Christians

on complicity with Constantine. This long experience of violent persecution and quite

large number of martyrs left a permanent mark on the life of the Church. It led to the

exaltation of the passive martyrdom and of the martyrs. Martyrdom got recognised as

unparalleled sign of Christian commitment.

Decisive turning point of relationship between Church and the empire was the

reign of Constantine. With him the situation was greatly changed. Except for a brief

period under Julian, Christianity got the support of the government. “It became a state

religion and eventually the only official cult of the Roman Empire.”22 The motive behind

Constantine’s favour for the Church is a matter of debate. Political considerations might

have been the uppermost factor. Constantine maintained freedom of conscience. Yet in

many areas he emphatically favoured Christianity. But Constantine’s sons abandoned

this relative toleration.23

By the fourth century the idea of neutrality to the Church became totally foreign to

the autocracy. Emperors took lively interest in the contemporary problems of the

Church. They provided various benefits to Christianity. Properties of those Christians

who had been slain or confiscated were transferred to the next of kin and in the case of

default of heirs were awarded to the church belonging to that locality.24 The state also

repaired those churches of sufficient magnitude, brilliantly restored some with additional

length and breadth. New churches were built in places where there existed no

churches. In general, “the prosperity of religion kept pace with the increased prosperity

of the empire.”25 More over, various other privileges were provided for the clergy also.

They were exempted from public duty26 and from taxation.27 The emperor raised the

Christian episcopate to the status of judge in cases involving private law.28 Yet the

emperors held the key. They enjoyed the right to call synods29 and were unquestioned

21 Kenneth, Scott Latuorette. A History of the Expansion of Christianity Vol. 1: The First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan. 1970, p. 157. (Hereafter will only be referred AEC only)

Eusebius in his book “ Life of Constantine” Book I, Chapters 49-56 gives an account of this. Refer A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of Christian Church Vol. 1. (Second Series) Philip Schaff & Henry Wace (Eds.) Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eedermans. 1961, pp. 496-498

22 AEC, p. 17223 Constantine’s sons abandoned this relative toleration, when at the end of 341, after a temporary

mildness, sharpened the pressure on the pagans by two laws of 356, which ordered the closing of the temples, forbade all sacrifices, and aimed to punish violations with the death penalty and confiscation of property. (Karl, Baus. et. al. The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages. Anslem Biggs Trans. London. Burns and Oates. 1980, p. 217)

24 Sozomen. EH, p. 244 and also Eusebius. “Life of Constantine”, pp. 508-51025 Sozomen. EH, p. 24526 Eusebius. HE, pp. 432-43327 Coleman, P. R. & Norton. Eds. Roman State & Christian Church Vol. 1. London. SPCK. 1966, pp.

79-81 (Hereafter will only be referred Coleman. RSCC 1)28 Coleman. RSCC 1, p. 7429 Socrates. EH, p. 118

5

on that. Fundamentally they were placed over the bishops. Constantine in his address

in the Council of Nicaea claims this position as a God given one.30

Various schisms and conflicts in the Church gave the emperors a free hand to

exert their power. Emperors not only banished the bishops but also exerted their say in

the election to episcopacy.31 Ultimately, the emperors became the stalwarts who

decided the management of the church and even the faith of the church. Arian

controversy was the major one that rocked the church and the empire of the fourth

century. In the context of the controversy, Constantine convened a synod at Nicea. It

decreed the faith in homoousion and deposed Arius. Post Nicene developments moved

in to the direction of deporting Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria and the famous

proponent of catholic faith. In 356 while he had to flee from the ‘Church of Theonas’ he

took refuge among the monks of Egypt. His biography on Anthony the monk gave much

influence for increased concern for monasticism among the people. Orthodoxy spread

with the help of monasteries and vigilant propagation by the monks. This is evident

when the Arians persecuted the monks. Socrates documents the incident in vivid

words.32 Yet fortunes shifted their allegiance with Arian party or the orthodox according

to the personal liking of the emperors.

A brief period during the reign of Julian saw a reversal of religious policy. He

supported paganism.33 During his time many had taken wives from the cluster of the holy

virgins, either by force or through guile.34 Jovian’s accession following the death of

Julian shows the reversal of the policies once again. When the troops proposed him to

become the emperor, he declined to take up the post saying that he is a Christian. To

satisfy him the whole troops embraced Christianity.35

Reign of Theodosius I became a supportive one for the ‘Orthodox Party’. He

enacted that the title “Catholic Church’ should only be applicable to those who confess

the Trinitarian faith and all others should be treated as heretics and delivered over to

punishment.36 He also ordered that entrances to all temples should be closed. This

action forced the pagans to frequent to the Church fearing the penalty of death and

confiscation of property.37

30 … in addition to all his other benefits, he has granted me a blessing higher than all the rest, in permitting me to see you not only all assembled together, but all united in a common harmony of sentiment. (Eusebius. “Life of Constantine the Great”. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Vol. 1. (Second Series) Philip Schaff & Henry Wace (Eds.) Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eedermans. 1961, p. 523. Hereafter will only be referred Eusebius. “Life of Constantine”)

31 Coleman. RSCC 1, pp. 164-167 (Constantine’s letters that object the promotion designated for Eusebius from bishop of Caesarea to that of Antioch)

32 The emperor Valens having issued an edict commanding that the orthodox should be persecuted both in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt… Lucian the Arian, attended by the commander-in-chief of the army with a considerable body of troops, immediately proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt, where the general person assailed the assemblage of holy men with greater fury even than the ruthless soldiery. (Socrates. EH, p. 109)

33 Probable reason behind this apostate could be the memories of the killing of his father and others during the accession of the three sons of Constantine.

34 Sozomen. EH, p. 34835 Socrates. EH, p. 9136 Sozomen. EH, p. 37837 Sozomen. EH, p. 391

6

Socio-Historical Situation

Constantinian period marked tremendous nation building. Consolidation of

political dominance and establishment of comparative peace provided general

prosperity. Emperor was diligent in rebuilding cities and converting many villages into

cities. 38 He erected beautiful and splendid Churches in every place, particularly in

metropolises like Nicomedia, Antioch and Byzantium.39 He renamed many to

commemorate the names of his dear ones.40 Previous Tetrarchy had capitals at cities of

moderate types41. “Constantine determined to have a capital worthy of a great

monarchy. He would not go back to Rome; that was too far from the frontiers and the

real centre of interest.”42 So he gave Byzantium his own name43 and made it the seat of

his throne. As a result, Constantinople became the centre of socio-political, cultural and

economic activities of the Byzantine Empire.

General public life was rooted in chase of pleasure and luxury. This resulted in

abounding loose morals. When Chrysostom complains that people immediately after

attending the service go after to listen harlots saying shameful things and acting more

shameful ones, he resounds this nature of the society.44

1. Constantinople

It was a new comer among the great cities of the Christian world. On

account of its eminence as the seat of the throne, “it soon became great, rich

and splendid adorned with notable buildings”.45 Trade and commerce swept into

the city from all around the world. Its sudden exaltation in status attracted a

strong influx of nobles and other pleasure loving people into the newly built

capital city. Socio-political, economic and cultural importance coined with the

migration of dignitaries made Constantinople the centre of extravagant comforts

and elaborate luxury. It became the seat of great palaces, luxurious mansions,

elaborate churches and such other constructions. Historian Socrates endorsed

38 Socrates. EH, p. 2239 Sozomen. “The Ecclesiastical History: Comprising a History of the Church from AD 323 to AD 425”,

A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Vol. II. Second Series. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Eds.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eedermans. 1957 (Hereafter will only be referred Sozomen. EH)

40 He renamed the city in Palestine as Constantia, his sister’s name and Drepanum with his mother’s name as Helanopolis.

41 Cities like Nicomedia, Milan, Sirmium, Treves etc.42 AHEC, p. 13043 Socrates. EH, p. 7644 John Chrysostom. “Homily 1 on St. John”. Fathers of the Church Vol. 33. New York. Fathers of the

Church. 1957, pp. 10-1145 Stephen Neill. Chrysostom and his message. London. Lutterworth. 1962, p. 9

7

this fact.46 Sozomen also portrays vividly the development of the city. 47

Along with that the council of Constantinople decreed that the city “should

rank next in point of precedence to the bishop of Rome, as occupying the see of

New Rome.”48 The city was already enjoying many privileges like, having a

senate of its own, its own magistrate, law and immunities in equal degree to that

of Rome and division of its citizens into ranks etc. 49 This pomp and luxury in the

city came under the sharp criticism of John Chrysostom in his discussions on

the epistle to Philippians.50 From the commencement onwards, Constantinople

became splendidly rich because of trade. Commerce flourished there from all

parts of the world. In common with all the societies with established structures

of that time, wealth and power got accumulated in the hands of a chosen few.

Emperors lavishly distributed wealth in money and gold to their favourites. As

Sozomen in the passage cited above pointed out, the common people were

exploited and even looted to satisfy this end. Such exploitation came under

sharp criticism from John Chrysostom. The conflict between Chrysostom and

Empress Eudoxia is a classic example for that.

The climax came when Chrysostom openly called Eudoxia a “Jezebel”

who had robbed poor people of their lands as Ahab had robbed Naboth.

Chrysostom raised this accusation after Eudoxia unjustly deprived a poor widow

of a piece of land. This incident in general portrays the condition of the city. The

richness and splendour also took various other forms of expression. Erecting of

statues formed one among them. It became a very common phenomenon.

Historian Sozomen presents an ideal example of the implanting of a statue. 51 In

the midst of splendid luxury Constantinople also represented abject poverty. People

46 [A]fter the public celebration of his Vicenalia (i.e. the completion of the twentieth year of his reign), he immediately devoted himself to the reparation of the churches. This carried into effect in other cities as well as in the city named after him, which being previously called Byzantium, he enlarged, surrounded with massive walls and adorned with various edifies; and having rendered it equal to imperial Rome, he named it Constantinople, establishing by law it should be designated New Rome. (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History: A Survey of the Church in Seven Books. London. Samuel Bagster & Sons. 1844, p. 62)

47 [E]rected magnificent dwelling houses southward through the regions. Since he was aware that the former population insufficient for so great a city, he peopled it with men of rank and their households, whom he summoned hither from the elder Rome and from other countries. He imposed taxes to cover the expenses of building and adorning the city, and of supplying its inhabitants with food, and providing the city with all the other requisites. He adorned it sumptuously with a hippodrome, fountains, porticoes, and other structures. (Sozomen. EH, p. 260)

48 Sozomen. EH, p. 38149 Sozomen. EH, p. 38150 Again, how is it when we erect splendid and spacious mansions, decorated with columns, marbles,

porticoes, arcades and in every possible way, setting images and statues every where? Many indeed even call demons out of these, but let us omit the examination of those points. What too is the meaning of the gilded ceiling? Does it not supply the same need as to him, whose is on a moderate scale. (John Chrysostom. “Homily 10 on Philippians”, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Translated by Members of the English Church. Oxford. John Henry Parker. 1843, p. 123)

51 [T]he silver statue of the empress, which is still to be seen to the south of the church opposite the grand council-chamber, was placed upon a column of porphyry on a high platform, and the event was celebrated there with applause and popular spectacles of dances and mimes, as was then customary on the erection of the statues of the emperors. (Sozomen. EH, p. 412)

8

infected with hunger and wrapped in rags moved around the city looking for shelter

under the huge columns and porticoes of great baths and other public places. Slaves,

labourers and other workers brought to build the city were left neglected. The powerful

and the wealthy further exploited the destitute masses. The gulf between the rich and

the poor became obvious all around. “In this city of appalling poverty on the one hand

and grandiose luxury on the other, quite naturally, moral degradation, in all its starkness,

stared at one’s face.”52

2. Antioch

The general conditions of Antioch53, the second city of the Empire made no

difference. Antioch had all ideal conditions for the flourishing of art and culture. It was

the second residential city of the Roman Empire for a long time. As a result, building

activities and commerce flourished in and around Antioch. Elaborate and highly

beautified palaces adorned the city. Splendid mansions, great bathes, spectacular

theatres and other places of amusement mushroomed all around the city. Thus Antioch

sparkled with royal splendour and brilliance. Free trade flourished in the city. Hence it

developed a very strong economic network. But as we have discussed in the case of

Constantinople, all these factors contributed to making the city a centre of luxury. Large

influx of money coined with the abundant centres of pleasure escalated crime. At the

same time it had a negative impact on morality. Chrysostom was exposed to this

pageant of wealth and power coupled with crime and loose morality that paraded itself

before his eyes.54 It forced him to evaluate and react to that situation from an ethical

perspective.

Similar to that of Constantinople, Antioch also reflected the wide gap between the

rich and the poor. While one section of the populace was enjoying the resources and

were lavishly immersed in exuberant luxury, the other section was literally starving and

fighting for survival. Antioch had a number of wealthy families including many Christian

ones. They possessed posh houses with guild roof and owned large number of servants

and slaves. Many of them had vast estates and huge palaces. Their houses were

beautified with various decorative works. They used expensive materials quite

luxuriously for furnishing. Thus they utilised ivory, gold, silver etc to make beds and

chairs. Their spouses used expensive silk costumes, high fragrant perfumes and

ornaments made from pearls, jewels and gold. Men also made themselves up with

jewels and gold ornaments. Quite often these families hosted exclusive banquets. At

the same time the city exhibited poor people lying in the open ground on rough surfaces

without any materials to protect them from scorching sun or from severe cold. Since

they did not have a place of their own, they tried to shelter themselves under the

columnades of the public bathes or temples. There they stiffed with cold and were

52 Sunni E. Mathew, “Christian Response to Wealth in the Teachings of John Chrysostom and its Contemporary Relevance” Thesis Unpublished. Bangalore. The United Theological College. 1991, p. 12

53 John Chrysostom was born and brought up here.54 Chrysostomis Baur. John Chrysostom and His Time Vol. 1. London. Sands & Co. 1959, p. 36

9

tortured by hunger. This sharp contrast between the have’s and the havenot’s naturally

ignited anger in Chrysostom.55

In general these metropolises reflected luxury and amusement side by side with

utter poverty. All most all other cities of the empire also exhibited identical situations,

though they did not correspond to the same level as that of these primary metropolises.

Chrysostom in his discourses continually reprehended the existing social disparity

common in the empire. This is well evident in his homily 11on 1 Corinthians.56

One could easily observe the same resentment and anger echoing in discussions on

various other occasions also. This context of extreme disparity between the wealthy and

the totally dispossessed exerted tremendous influence on the development of the

character of Chrysostom and made him a vigorous critique of the social system.

State of Christianity

Fourth century also presents a radical change in the outlook of the Church and

its position in the society. Till the Constantine period Christianity was considered as

religia illicita. Following the edict of Milan Church got transformed from the state of an

illegal and oppressed mass-movement to a legally patronised imperial religion. Church

not only got the usual rights of a legal corporation but also certain peculiar privileges.

She acquired these rights and privileges through special laws or tacit concessions of the

emperors.57 Historical developments elevated the status of Christianity. It became very

honoured in the society. Most often the reason behind such actions were not religious

conviction but political or social compulsion. Sozomen’s account of the accession of

55 Donald Attwatter identifies the influence exerted by this miserable situation on Chrysostom as, [I]n the wealthy city of Antioch there were many who were destitute, needy, poverty-stricken, or

with no security of a bare sufficiency of food, clothes and shelter. “Wealthy city” – that was what excited Chrysostom’s indignation: this unholy poverty was not due to circumstances uncontrollable by men but to human selfishness and sin, primarily to the rapacity of many of the rich, who had it in their power to remedy the distress. Chrysostom was as much an attacker of the rich as defender of the poor – not as a doctrinaire demagogue but as a Christian teacher outraged at so much injustice and uncharity.Donald Attwater. St. John Chrysostom: Pastor and Preacher. London. Harvill Press. 1959, p.63

56 For how is he to sleep after all, with pangs of the belly, restless famine besetting him, and that often while it is freezing, and the rain coming down on him? And while thou, having washed, returnest home from the bath, in a glow with soft raiment, merry of heart and rejoicing, and hastening unto a banquet prepared and costly: he, driven every where about the market place by cold and hunger, takes his round, stooping low and stretching out his hands; nor hath he even spirit without trembling to make his suit for his necessary food, to one so full fed, and so bent on taking his ease; nay, often he has to retire with insult. When therefore thou hast returned home, when thou liest down on thy couch, when the lights round thine house shine bright, when the table is prepared and plentiful, at that time call to remembrance that poor miserable man wandering about, like the dogs in the alleys, in darkness and in mire; except indeed when, as is often the case, he has to depart thence, not unto house, nor wife, nor bed, but unto a pallet of straw; even as we see the dogs baying all through the night. (John Chrysostom, “Homily 11 on 1 Corinthians”, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church . Translated by Members of the English Church. Oxford. John Henry Parker. 1842, pp. 144-145)

57 Schaff. HCC 3, p. 95

10

Jovian to the throne is a pointer to this aspect.58 Socrates also provides the example of

Ecebolis, a sophist for the sake of acquiring benefits for his self by pleasing the

emperors changed his religion according to that of the emperors convictions.59 In

general as Christianity acquired social acceptance and imperial favour, it became

fashionable to choose Christianity and much less a matter of conviction.

Ecclesiastical Context

In the early period of persecution Church triumphed. As Philip Schaff says,

“victory won by the Church was ethical rather than intellectual.”60 But the favoured

condition and the influx of pleasure loving and opportunists into the Church resulted in

the lowering of ethical quality of the Church. It came to be placed on a par with the

society and its values. Chrysostom voices his concern over this inculturation as we read

in Homily 64 on St. John.61

By the closing decades of the fourth century the Church came under the total

patronage of the imperial throne. Rulers themselves erected massive church buildings

in a very posh manner.62 They honoured the bishops and super added donations of

monies.63 In fact church glorified itself in worldly splendour accepting from aristocracy as

well as rich and powerful gold and silver cups and other articles of luxury. Chrysostom

constantly and vehemently attacked this practice. He called forth the church to flee from

that gulf offering for the Table a gold and jewelled cup after stripping widows and

orphans.64 He further complains that in spite of the repeated exhortations and request,

they still continue to exist and get worst. It is indicative of the degree to which opulence

had permeated the life of the Church.

Even though the underlying intention behind the attitude of Constantine towards the

58 When the army was about to proclaim him emperor, he announced himself to be a Christian and refused the sovereignty, nor would he receive the symbols of empire; but when the soldiers discovered the cause of his refusal, they loudly proclaimed that they were themselves Christians. (Sozomen. EH, p. 347)

59 Socrates. EH, p. 8560 Philip Schaff. “Introduction”. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. 10. New

York. The Christian Literature Company. 1888, p. xviii61 As I have said, envy is a terrible thing and reeks with pretense. It has filled the world with

innumerable evils. Because of this disease the law courts are thronged with cases. From it comes vainglory and avarice. From it comes ambition and pride. Because of it, the roads are beset by brutal robbers, and the sea is infested with pirates. Inspired by it, murders are committed throughout the world. By its influence our race is torn apart. Whatever you see that is evil you will find comes from this.

It has penetrated even the Church. From the start it has brought about terrible results without number. It has been a mother to avarice, a plague which has turned things upside down and has corrupted justice. … Avarice makes us slaves instead of free men; we talk about it every day, yet accomplish no good.

We become worse than wild beasts; we rob orphans; we fleece widows; we are unjust to the poor; we pile up woe upon woe. (John Chrysostom. “Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, Homilies 48-88.” Translated by Sister Thomas Aquinas Goggin. Fathers of the Church Vol. 41. New York. Fathers of the Church. 1960, pp. 203-204)

62 Socrates. EH, p. 2163 Eusebius. EH, p. 40564 John Chrysostom. “Homily 50 on St. Matthew”. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church.

Translated by Members of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford. John Henry Parker. 1843, p. 684

11

Church is a matter of dispute, the subsequent development suggests that the Church

came under the directorship of the imperial power.65 Schisms and other theological

controversies that rocked the Church gave ample room for the emperors to exert their

authority.66 As in the case of any institutionalised religion, the Church also

incorporated into itself the systems and patterns of the fourth century society. Reactions

in and through monasticism as well as thoughts and activities of John Chrysostom have

to be understood against this context of profligacy and wealth of the Church.

Office of the Priest

Monetary benefits67 along with immunity to taxation and participation in public

duties provided for clergy tempted many wealthy and pleasure-loving people to opt

clerical office. Enacting of laws prohibiting rich plebeians and bankers into clericate68

suggests gravity of their intrusion into the Church. The favourable conditions bestowed

upon the Church and its clergy in a way were instrumental of the moral and spiritual

degeneration of the office of the priesthood. Many abused their position as clergy and

bishop for the sake of pleasure and wealth.69 Many of them misused church’s money in

order to meet their personal benefits and merriment. Allegations were even raised of

utilising their spiritual sisters for their bodily pleasure. This in other words points to the

declination of the office of priesthood as well as the order of ‘holy virgins’. Love of

praise, desire for honour and the thirst for money was prevalent among the clergy. As a

result they resorted to preaching only that pleases the audience and employed greater

degree of flattery. They ignored the plight of the poor and closed their eyes to the

injustices committed by the rich. Chrysostom very rightly observes these in his writing

on ‘Priesthood’.70 These condemnations do not apply indiscriminately and universally.

65 Socrates observes the following,We have continually included the emperors in these historical details; because from the time they

began to profess the Christian religion, the affairs of the Church have depended on them, so that even the greatest Synods have been, and still are convened by their appointment. (Socrates. EH, p. 118)

66 Socrates. EH, Book 1, chapters 23-35, (pp. 26-36) provides enough evidences for the emperors exerting weight in matters pertaining to the Church that even leads to the convening of synods, expulsion of bishops etc.

67 A sufficient portion of the taxes raised upon every city was utilised for the support of the clergy everywhere. Sozomen. EH, p. 329

68 Valentinian I and Valens instituted these edicts. Coleman. RCC 1, pp. 304 & 30669 Sozomen writes about this situation in the Church when John assumed bishopric of

Constantinople. John having been informed that the churches in Asia and the neighbourhood were governed by unworthy persons, and that they bartered the priesthood for incomes and gifts received, or bestowed that dignity as a matter of private favor, repaired to Ephesus and deposed thirteen bishops of Lycia, Phrygia and others in Asia itself, and appointed others in their stead. (Sozomen. EH, p. 403)

70 Anger, despondency, envy, contention, calumnies, accusations, lies, hypocrisy, intrigue, despising those who have in no way injured us, taking pleasure in the faults of our companions in the ministry, sorrow at their good fortune, love of praise, desire of honour (which more than anything else derives the human soul to destruction), preaching only what men wish to hear, servile adulation, ignoble flattery, contempt of the poor, favours not without danger either to those who give or to those who receive them, servile fear befitting only the meanest slaves, the cessation of being able to speak one’s mind, the appearance of great humility without reality, suppression of the ability to reprove and admonish, or more accurately, untempered

12

Exceptions abound. But a very large section compromised with worldly standards in

order to enjoy luxurious life.

Able preachers used to visit various congregations and entertain them with their

eloquence. They were paid rich tributes. This resulted in some wanting to visit only

those particular congregations that paid them the most. In this process they even

neglected canonical injunctions and violated another bishop’s jurisdiction. Since their

intentions were to amass money and other valuable objects they preached those

sermons that pleased the rich.71 In general the clerical office saw a leniency towards

luxury and wealth. This resulted in compromising with the rich at the expense of

neglecting the poor. Chrysostom vehemently attacked this seeking of pleasure at the

cost of spiritual cause.72 In a way he was pointing out that the clergy lost their ethical

fervour. They were far removed from the ideal. In fact the distinction between the

society and the Church as well as the demarcation between the clergy and the pagan

became less noticeable.

Monasticism

The latter half of the third century saw the emergence of Christian monasticism.

It exerted tremendous influence on the Church of the time and later period also. It

developed as a reaction against the vast scale of luxurious and corrupt style of living,

which became the normal life pattern of the Church. By the middle of the fourth century

monastic movement in the form of community (coenobetic) became highly influential.

Gonzalez observes:

How was one to be a true Christian in such circumstances? When the church

joins the powers of the world, when luxury and ostentation take hold of Christian

altars, when the whole society is intent on turning the narrow path into a wide

avenue, how is one to resist the enormous temptations of the times? How is one

to witness to the Crucified Lord, to the One who had nowhere to lay his head, at

a time when many leaders of the church live in costly homes, and when the

ultimate witness of martyrdom is no longer possible? … Many found answer in

severity toward the poor while not daring to open one’s mouth against the rich. (John Chrysostom. The Priesthood. Translated by W.A.Jurgens. New York. Macmillan. 1955, pp. 37-38)

71 Sozomen makes a record of this:It appears that Antiochus was the first to visit Constantinople; he gained great applause

by his discourses, amassed some property, and then returned to his own city. Severian followed his example, and went to Constantinople. … He was in honour, and became well-known to many of those in power, and to the emperor and empress. … Severian, however, thought only of gratifying his auditors, and of pleasing the people by his discourses. (Sozomen. EH, p. 405)

The same idea is highlighted in Socrates. EH, p. 14672 He voiced:

Does he proudly clear his way through the forum with a troop of followers? Is he borne along on horseback? Does he build houses, having where to dwell? If he acts so, I too accuse him, and spare him not, but declare that he is unworthy of the priesthood. For how can he exhort others not to spend all their time on these superfluities, who cannot advise himself? (John Chrysostom. “Homily 9 on Philippians”, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Translated by Members of the English Church. Oxford. John Henry Parker. 1843, p. 110)

13

the monastic life…73

They chose a very simple way of life rooted in voluntary poverty and egalitarian way of

distribution. For these monasteries negating worldly way of life did not represent

abandoning responsibilities for the world. It was not total self-exclusion. Instead there

were conscious efforts on their part to engage themselves constructively in the society.

Chrysostom presents evidence for this creative involvement. 74 Monasticism created

considerable on the society and the Church. It is in the context of affluence, luxury and

loose morals and the emergence and development of the counter-culture in and through

monasticism John Chrysostom and his emphasis on voluntary poverty as well as his

attack on the wealthy have to be understood.

Summary

Fourth century was the transition period in the life of Christian Church. Political

conflict for supremacy within Roman Tetrarchy was instrumental in the transformation of

Christianity from religia illicita to a patronised religion. Constantine acknowledged

Christianity more from political compulsion rather than religious convictions, for

Christians had become a strong section in the society. In order to consolidate his stand

Constantine bestowed upon the Church various liberties and honours. This became a

turning point in the relation between Church and empire. Emperors took active interest

in the life of the Church. They awarded many benefits to the Church and confiscated

properties were restored. Churches of sufficient magnitudes and brilliance were built.

Clergy were awarded various rights and were exempted from public duties and taxation.

Emperor also raised episcopate to the status of judge. In spite of all the privileges

provided, emperors were place fundamentally over the bishops and they exerted

tremendous pressure in the running of the Church. Allegiance of the emperor became

the norm of the religion of the populace. As a result, life of the Church got degraded.

The value system of the society and the general practices of the Church came in par

with each other.

Principal cities marked tremendous building activities and affluence. Life rooted

in pleasure and luxury abounded on one side while abject poverty and misery created

havoc on the other. The favoured conditions of the Church resulted in the influx of the

pleasure loving and opportunist lot into the Church. Even the office of the clergy

became infected with such people. Many opted to become priests in order to guard their

wealth from taxation. In general fourth century situation reflected both in the society and

73 Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity Vol.1. San Francisco. Harper and Row. 1984, pp. 136-137

74 Our city was in danger of being entirely swept away; and no man among the rich, or eminent, or illustrious, dared to appear in public, but all fled, and got out of the way. But they who feared God, the men who passed their time in monasteries, hastened down with much boldness, and set all free from this terror; and the terrible events that had taken place, and the threats which had been expected to be put into execution, were so far from causing them to fear, or from throwing them into anxiety, that when they were place far off from the calamity, and had no share in it, they cast themselves willingly into the midst of the fire, and rescued all … (John Chrysostom. “Homily 18 on Statues”. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Translated by Members of the English Church. Oxford. John Henry Parker. 1842, p. 304)

14

in the Church the dichotomy of accumulated wealth and its associated extravagance on

one side and poverty and its miseries on the other side. But it also saw the emergence

of reactions countering this unethical situation of disparity. Monastic movement and

vehement criticism on accumulation and genuine call for sharing by Fathers of the

Church are the best examples of the emerging counter-culture.

Rev. Sunni E. Mathew

Mar Thoma Syrian Theological Seminary

Kottayam

15