.—His Theology and Exegesis.
Chrysostom belonged to the Antiochian school of
theology and exegesis, and is its soundest and most popular
representative. It was founded by his teacher Diodor of Tarsus (d. 393), developed by himself and his fellow-student Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429), and followed by Theodoret and the Syrian and Nestorian divines. Theodore was the exegete, Chrysostom the homilist, Theodoret the annotator. The school was afterwards condemned for its alleged connection with the Nestorian heresy; but that connection was accidental, not necessary. Chrysostom’s mind was not given to dogmatizing, and too well balanced to run into heresy.
The Antiochian school agreed with the Alexandrian
school founded by Origen, in maintaining the divine inspiration and
authority of the Scriptures, but differed from it in the method of
interpretation, and in a sharper distinction between the Old and
the New Testaments, and the divine and human elements in the
same.
To Origen belongs the great merit of having
opened the path of biblical science and criticism, but he gave the
widest scope to the allegorizing and mystical method by which the
Bible may be made to say anything that is pious and edifying. Philo of Alexandria had used that method for introducing the Platonic philosophy into the Mosaic writings. Origen was likewise a Platonist, but his chief object was to remove all that was offensive in the literal sense. The allegorical method is imposition rather than exposition. Christ sanctions parabolic teaching and typical, but not allegorical, interpretation. Paul uses it once or twice, but only incidentally, when arguing from the rabbinical standpoint.
The Antiochian school seeks to explain the obvious
grammatical and historical sense, which is rich enough for all
purposes of instruction and edification. It takes out of the Word
what is actually in it, instead of putting into it all sorts of
foreign notions and fancies.
Chrysostom recognizes allegorizing in theory, but
seldom uses it in practice, and then more by way of rhetorical
ornament and in deference to custom. He was generally guided by
sound common sense and practical wisdom. He was more free from
arbitrary and absurd interpretations than almost any other
patristic commentator. He pays proper attention to the connection, and puts himself into the psychological state and historical situation of the writer. In one word, he comes very near to what we now call the grammatico-historical exegesis. This is the only solid and sound foundation for any legitimate use of the Scriptures. The sacred writers had one definite object in view; they wished to convey one particular sense by the ordinary use of language, and to be clearly understood by their readers. At the same time the truths of revelation are so deep and so rich that they can be indefinitely expanded and applied to all circumstances and conditions. Interpretation is one thing, application is another thing. Chrysostom knew as well as any allegorist how to derive spiritual nourishment from the Scriptures and to make them “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.” As to the text of the Greek Testament, he is the chief witness of the Syro-Constantinopolitan recension, which was followed by the later Greek Fathers. He accepts the Syrian canon of the Peshito, which includes the Old Testament with the Apocrypha, but omits from the New Testament the Apocalypse and four Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude); at least in the Synopsis Veteris et novi Testamenti which is found in his works, those five books are wanting, but this does not prove that he did not know them.