Our father among the saints John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, was a notable Christian bishop and preacher from the fourth and fifth centuries in Syria and Constantinople. He is famous for eloquence in public speaking and his denunciation of abuse of authority in the Church and in the Roman Empire of the time. His banishments demonstrated that secular powers had strong influence in the eastern Church at this period in history.

Let us spiritually extol the grace of the Holy Spirit in spiritual hymns, since spiritual grace has on this day shown upon us from heaven. Though our words are too weak to express adequately the greatness of this grace, we shall praise its power and activity to the extent of our abilities; for the Holy Spirit probes all things, even the depths of divinity.

We are celebrating the day of Pentecost, the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the day of the hope of perfection, the end of expectation, the longing for salvation, the fulfillment of prayer and the image of patience. Today the Spirit Who acted to scatter the nations in the time of Heber has formed tongues of fire among the Apostles. His action of old led to the confusion of the nations, in order to restrain the will of man from its brazenness and consequent chastisement; on this occasion, however, amidst fiery tongues, the deeds wrought by the activity of the Holy Spirit served to preserve us as recipients of preaching, in fulfillment of the will of God.

In the beginning the Spirit of God moved over the water, and later, in the time of Christ, the same Holy Spirit of God rested upon him . Then He moved, and now He rested, as being one in essence, equal in honor, ever-existent and unoriginate together with the Father and the Son.

He Who by the flight of a dove over the waters of the Flood heralded fair weather to Noah, the same Holy Spirit, by the sight of a dove at the waters of the Jordan, showed the world the Sonship of Him Who was baptized. Moreover, the Lord had a terrifying answer for those who dared to utter blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

“Whoever speaks  blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

David, declaring his desire for this Holy Spirit, prayed to God, saying: “Cast me not away from Thy presence, O Lord; and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.”

As is well known, where He is absent, every sort of corruption sets in. Thus, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit entered into him, wherefore David said,

“Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.”

This same Holy Spirit sanctified the prophets, instructed the apostles and empowered the mar­tyrs. This same Holy Spirit consecrated Isaiah, taught Ezekiel and revealed the resurrection of the dead. As he says,

“The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord.”

This same Holy Spirit chose Jeremiah from his mother’s womb, and raised up Daniel to deliver Susanna. As it is written,

“God raised up by the Holy Spirit a young youth, whose name was Daniel.”

David so loved the presence of this same Holy Spirit that he prayed to God, saving,

“Thy Holy Spirit shall lead me in the land of uprightness.”

This same Holy Spirit of God came to dwell in the holy Virgin Mary, embracing her with the communion of the Divine Word at the good pleasure of the Father, and making her the Theotokos. Elizabeth, being filled with this same Holy Spirit, understood that the Lord had come to her by means of the Virgin; wherefore she said,

“And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Zachariah, the father of John, was filled with the same Holy Spirit, whereby he declared that the son born to him would be the prophet and forerunner of the King Who was to come. John himself was also filled with the same Holy Spirit; the eyes of his intellect were given light, and he beheld the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit hovering over Him Who was being bap­tized, Him Who baptized with the Spirit and fire.

By the action of the same Holy Spirit, the Lord Himself, when He was giving His Apostles His teaching in detail and strength­ening their minds for the time of His Passion, said to them:

“If I go not away, the Com­forter will not come unto you.”

Moreover, revealing to them the Spirit’s consubstantial power, He said:

“When the Holy Spirit is come, Which proceedeth from the Father, He will guide you into all truth.”

The holy Apostles waited expectantly for the coming of the power of this same Holy Spirit; they waited together to be clothed with power from on high, according to the commandment of the Lord, Who had said:

“Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high; for, behold, I shall send the promise of My Father upon you.”

And, as it is written,

“when the day of Pentecost was fully come, all the holy Apostles were assembled with one accord in one place, and the Paraclete was sent to them under the appearance of tongues of fire.”

Having received the abundant promise of the Father and the Holy Spirit, they were strengthened, and they manifested Him Who was sent to them, His grace and His power. The martyr and protodeacon Stephen, filled with the same Holy Spirit, Whom he received by the laying-on of hands of the Apostles, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Being full of the Holy Spirit, he saw the doors of heaven opened and the Only-begotten Son and Word of God standing in the flesh at the right hand of the power of God. Filled with this same Holy Spirit, Paul became the preacher of divine mysteries. As Ananias said to him:

“The Lord, even the Savior, hath sent me to thee, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

And Paul afterwards said with assurance:

“And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.”

The same Holy Spirit came to Cornelius and those that were to be baptized with him, and each of them spoke in his own tongue and magnified God. This same Holy Spirit came upon the Ethiopian eunuch after he went down into the water [of baptism], and he was filled with joy, and he went on his way rejoicing.

This is the same Holy Spirit Who preached by the prophets, Who gave understanding to the apostles, Who spoke to men. He was given to them by the Lord, and all their adversaries were not able to gainsay or resist Him. For, as the Lord said,

“It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father Which speaketh in you.”

This Holy Spirit also or­dains priests, consecrates churches, purifies altars, perfects sacrifices and cleanses people of their sins. This Holy Spirit abides with the godly, refines the righteous and guides kings. This same Holy Spirit preserved the soul of Simeon, lengthening the time of his life and re­versing the rules of death, until the day when he beheld Him Who is the Redeemer of life and death; for it had been promised unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

It was the same Holy Spirit Who gave strength to Elijah, and Whose power Elisha desired when he asked of Elijah:

“Let there be, I pray thee, a double portion of thy spirit upon me.”

This Holy Spirit enlightens souls and sanctifies bodies. It was the same Holy Spirit Who descended upon the Apostles and filled them with divine wisdom. Having received His gifts, they were all filled with the knowledge of God; not only were they given divine knowledge, but also spiritual gifts.

Simon Magus, being a stranger to the Holy Spirit, fell to his perdition. As Peter said to Simon:

“Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast desired to purchase the priceless grace of the Holy Spirit with money.”

Therefore, beloved, let us strive to keep our bodies uncorrupted; for one who has acquired a new body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit, has become a true victor over the devil. What the Spirit of God has said, may it be done unto me.

Moreover, Joseph, strength­ened by this same Holy Spirit, desired not that his body be defiled by the vile deeds of this life; for he knew that the Spirit does not abide in a body that has commerce with sin; there­fore, he attained a royal rank. This Spirit enlightened Bezaleel, so that he fashioned the tabernacle with all beauty and skill. Joshua the son of Nun, possessing the same Spirit, be­came a faithful heir to Moses and obtained the inheritance of the Promised Land for his people. As God said to Moses:

“Take to thyself Joshua the son of Nun, a man who has the Spirit of God in him.”

This is the Spirit of Whom the Lord, when He breathed upon His disciples after His Resurrection from the dead on the third day, said:

“Receive ye the Holy Spirit.”

And again, it is the same Spirit Who has vouchsafed to give eternal life to the faithful after the general resurrection from the dead. As it is written:

“Thou wilt send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created; and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.”

Many are the gifts of the Holy Spirit; many and all-powerful are His gifts.

As it says in a certain place: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them by the Spirit of His mouth. And Isaiah says:

“The Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness.”

And Paul adds,

“The Spirit of adoption and of grace.”

He Who is equally ever-existent, and equally unoriginate, and Who shares the throne and the honor of God, His Son and Word, called this Spirit the Spirit Who is our Comforter. David calls Him the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is sent by holiness; the governing Spirit, since He has dominion over all, be­cause all things came from Him and are kept in existence by Him; and the good Spirit, since salvation and all kinds of goodness are from Him.

And what does Isaiah call Him? The Spirit of God, because He proceeds from God the Father; thus does God Himself speak of the Spirit of God as proceeding, in the words, Which proceedeth from the Father. Isaiah further calls Him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, because all wisdom and good understanding have been given through Him; and the Spirit of counsel and strength, because He is able to bring to pass that which is desired; and also the Spirit of knowledge and godliness. Ezekiel, a man of the spirit, says:

“And I will give you a new heart and a new Spirit.”

He is one in essence, one in principle and one in counsel with the Father and the Son. Wouldst thou believe? Listen to what the Scriptures say of Him:

“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”

The prophet further says:

“The Lord, and His Spirit hath sent me.”

Lest anyone think, from what was said, that this new Spirit would come from any creatures living or yet to come, or from any other person, He says:

“And I will put My Spirit in you;”

inasmuch as He said,

“A new Spirit.”

In the Acts of the holy Apostles, this was ex­pressed in commandments:

“The Holy Spirit said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.’”

And again,

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us;”

even as it had been said,

“I will put My Spirit in you.”

Would you demonstrate that this was indeed His coming, as was foretold in parables, and that it was His grace acting upon the holy Apostles? Will you believe what was said? Listen to St. John the Evangelist, who says:

“The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Paul called this Spirit the Spirit of adoption and the Spirit of grace, inasmuch as in the waters of the baptismal font men are born again of water and the Spirit, and we receive the adoption of sons. In the same way, the Lord said to Nicodemus:

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Thus, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of sonship and the Spirit of grace; for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, for those who have been born by the power of God.

Moreover, the Spirit is called the Comforter, because He is also our advocate with the Father. And not only is He with the Father, but He is always with us also as a gift.

“And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever,”

comforting your hearts and making them steadfast in divine patience and trust in Christ. Whereas the holy Apostles re­ceived this testament after Christ’s holy Rising from the dead, and were sent forth to teach and to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and whereas we have already been vouchsafed this true washing by the Holy Spirit, let us strive to keep our souls and our bodies undefiled as we glorify the Most holy and consubstantial Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

© 2010, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

This is part two of a two part article by Prof. Steenberg is based on a talk originally given in November 2007 at Ampleforth Abbey, Yorkshire, United Kingdom, as part of a day conference on St John Chrysostom during the year commemorating the 1,600th anniversary of the saint’s repose.

The homily, the Word, and the Spirit

The particular connection to be made in the above, in terms of understanding St John Chrysostom as homilist, is that of the homily as the means of bringing about communion—of opening up the heart, in the Spirit, to the eternal Word of the Father—with the Eucharistic celebration as the mystery of this communion perfected. That at which the homily aims, is experienced fully in the Eucharist.

To this end, the relationship of the homily to the communion feast is of the most intimate sort. The sermon is not an extra component or a ‘learning segment’ in an otherwise liturgical act: it is itself intrinsically liturgical, inasmuch as it constitutes an ascetical tool bringing the faithful to the encounter at the chalice. This may be overtly obvious in St John’s Paschal homily (‘The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously […] receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness’), but it is no less true in his homiletic works taken as a whole. The homily, rightly employed in the ministry of the Church, is a means of ascesis, of conditioning, that prepares the heart to receive the Word in the sacrament.

To accomplish this, the homily seeks to draw out from the scriptural text those points of relevance and interest that make the heart receptive to the Spirit—since it is the Spirit who makes ready the person for union with God the Father in Christ. In his homily 47 on John 6, Chrysostom focuses on Christ’s words to his disciples, It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing:

His meaning is, ‘Ye must hear spiritually what relates to me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor does he gain any advantage.’ […] And what is ‘understanding carnally’? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is to see spiritually. St John may be a ‘literalist’, but it is his conviction that the Spirit renders spiritual what otherwise might be read as carnal—‘looking merely to what is before our eyes’—that grounds his charge for deepened perception. It would be wisest of all to say that this gives good challenge to what we mean—or think we mean—in referring to ‘literal’ versus ‘allegorical’ readings of scripture.  But to the point of his understanding of the homily, this comment reveals the degree to which St John considers the work of the homilist as evoking the advent of such spiritual perception. It may understandably have been the case that the faithful standing in the stalls of the cathedral at Constantinople (though there is evidence they sat on the floor during his sermons) would hear the word of the text ‘only for what is before the eyes’. Enthusiastic hearers are not necessarily the same thing as detailed exegetes.

The role of the priest in the homily, then, is to move them more deeply into the scriptures’ meaning—to discover the written Word and the Spirit, to be led in due course to full communion with this Word in the Eucharist. The Eucharistic communion thus becomes the focus and perfection of the homily’s work.

The homily in the Liturgy – siting the sermon

As much as St John was a homilist, he was also a liturgist. His name is, of course, attached to what is generally considered the ‘standard Liturgy’ of the Orthodox Church, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom; and while it is clear that the liturgical rite as a whole was not authored by him, it is generally accepted that the central prayers of the anaphora, together with perhaps the prayers of the antiphons, are his compositions.  He was a theologian and bishop deeply concerned with the liturgical life of his diocese, and through it, the whole of the Orthodox Church.

When one engages with the texts of St John’s homilies, then, one must do so in cognisance of their delivery in this liturgical milieu of the worshipping Church. This is not to say that all homilies come in the context of the Divine Liturgy itself; some of St John’s make clear a delivery at vesperal or evening services, others at commemorative occasions, etc.

Nevertheless, it is in the framework of the Eucharistic celebration that the homily finds its natural home (part of the reason that the authority to preach is bound up in the same priestly office as the authority to officiate at the Mysteries; deacons, who otherwise concelebrate, traditionally do not preach at Liturgy except with a particular blessing). St John’s theology of the homily, its focus as an ascetical tool fostering Eucharistic communion, is dramatically reinforced by this liturgical character.

It is worth at this point calling in a caveat, to address the placement of the homily in the shape of the Divine Liturgy. In widespread Orthodox practice today, the homily tends to be delivered in one of two places: either directly after the reading of the Gospel, before the ‘Great Entrance’ of the gifts into the altar; or at the end of the Liturgy, either just before or just after the final blessing. In the broadest terms (and therefore ripe with exceptions), the former practice tends to be favoured amongst Russian and Slavic Orthodox traditions, while the latter is most often found in Greek contexts; but this pattern is so varied as to make any generalised characterisation difficult. Suffice it to say that the two patterns exist, and are fairly widespread. The text of the Divine Liturgy itself gives no specific instruction as to the location of the homily, and while some editions contain rubrics offering guidance on the subject, the core text gives no explicit direction that a sermon be preached at all (and the Liturgy without a homily is common practice on, for example, lesser feasts, at daily services, in monastic contexts, etc.).

The two potential locations for the delivery of the homily represent two ways of understanding how it interacts with, and relates to, the rest of the liturgical celebration. Preaching the sermon directly after the Gospel makes its connection to the scriptural text— as an exposition on the readings—clear, and gives it a certain eminence of place in the service. Preaching at the end of the Liturgy, on the other hand, is often understood as minimising interruption to the Eucharistic movements of the service, removing the sermon to its conclusion. This practice separates the homily from the Gospel reading by at least an hour, thus lessening its implicit linkage to the biblical text—a removal that can be seen, positively, as allowing it to focus more broadly on themes of the whole service or outside it.

It is not bound explicitly to the text of the Gospel pericope. Additionally, the homily delivered at the end of the service tends to link the Eucharistic celebration with the ‘going forth in peace’: the exit from the temple into the world, given message and meaning in the sermon.

The positive aspects of this pattern of a late homily notwithstanding, evidence of early practice suggests a normative pattern of the homily following the readings.15 Special prayers were included in some practices for the blessing of the homily by the bishop, and these are found at the end of the first segment of the service, oftentimes called the ‘Liturgy of the Word’—equating to that part of the service prior to the transition into the ‘Liturgy of the Faithful’ at the expulsion of the catechumens.

This is the pattern that appears to be indicated in the prayers surrounding the reading of the Gospel in the Divine Liturgy itself. Whether these particular prayers (which are found

in identical form in the Liturgy of St Basil) are the work of St John, or the stock of the received liturgical rite of his day, they clearly reflect the theology of scripture by which we have characterised the saint himself. The mystikos prayer of the priest, said as the censing of the church is taking place during the singing of the post-epistle Alleluia,16 indicates this focus:

O Master, who lovest mankind, make the pure light of Thy divine knowledge shine in our hearts, and open the eyes of our mind to perceive the message of Thy Gospel. Implant in us, also, the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that, trampling down all desires of the flesh, we may follow a way of life that is spiritual, both thinking and doing all those things that are well-pleasing to Thee. For Thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and to Thee we give glory, together with Thy Father who is without beginning, and Thine all-holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

The engagement with scripture is to come about through an opening of ‘the eyes of our mind’ to its right perception; and the prayer specifically petitions that this may result in a hearing that leads away from the carnal, to ‘a way of life that is spiritual’. This seems a fairly convincing parallel to John’s comments on spiritual understanding in his homilies on Matthew, discussed above. The positioning of the sermon immediately following the Gospel reading, allows this ‘opening of the eyes of our mind’ to be aided by the homiletic charism of the priest, which St John indicates is his duty and mission. Further, the prayer uttered before the Gospel sets out the context for the larger work ahead: the Gospel, and its exposition, point toward the ‘illumination of our souls and bodies’—the Eucharistic encounter that enables the people to proclaim, in due course, ‘We have seen the true light’.18 The written Word becomes the spoken Word, and this spoken and proclaimed Word conditions its hearer to receive the Word embodied in the Eucharistic Body and Blood.

This focus resonates through the prayers of the entry and anaphora, more securely attributed to St John himself. The priest’s prayers during the Hymn of the Cherubim are directly connected to the prayers of the Gospel:

No one who is bound by the desires and pleasures of the flesh is worthy to approach or draw near or minister to Thee, O King of glory; for to serve Thee is great and awesome even for the heavenly powers. […] Look down upon me, Thy sinful and unprofitable servant, and cleanse my soul and heart from an evil conscience. And, by the power of Thy Holy Spirit, enable me who am clothed with the grace of the priesthood to stand before this, Thy Holy Table, and celebrate the mystery of Thy holy and most pure Body and Thy precious Blood.

Carnal is transformed to spiritual, by the Spirit Himself. The petitions of the prayer at the Gospel—that hearing the Word in the Spirit will cause the carnal to be trampled down and a spiritual life realised—are here related directly to the Eucharistic mystery. It is to the end of drawing near to God at the altar that this ‘trampling down of the flesh’ is sought. It is by the Holy Spirit, whom St John notes in his homilies is the One to whose presence the person is opened by hearing and reflecting on the inscribed Word, that this transformation is wrought; and it is wrought to bring one to the altar, to celebrate the mystery of liturgical communion. The central prayers at the anaphora encapsulate this vision. The narrative of Christ’s words at the mystical supper in Jerusalem (‘Take, eat…’) follows a summation of the divine economy from its outset (‘Thou it was who didst bring us from nothing into being…’). The inscribed Word of the Gospels is brought into the very heart of the Liturgy; and its place there is explicitly ascetical. The Word is recalled in order to provoke and promote Eucharistic action. This action is realised in one of the chief moments of the divine service: the elevation of the gifts that immediately follows. This is accompanied by the priest’s proclamation:

Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things that have come to pass for us: the Cross, the tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming, offering Thee Thine own of Thine own, on behalf of all and for all, We praise thee…

The recollection (‘remembering, therefore…’), the Word heard, leads to action: the Word elevated, the Word received. This lies at heart of St John’s whole approach, which is fundamentally pastoral. Hearing the Word, preaching the Word—everything leads ultimately to the receiving of the Word in the Eucharist, in which the Good Pastor, the Lord Himself, heals the broken sinner and restores him to life. The pastoral dimension of St John’s preaching resides in this Eucharistic focus, and the Eucharist thereby becomes the fruit of the homily that effectively unites the faithful in the common receipt of the one Christ.

Theology and message

St John received the distinction ‘Golden-mouthed’ not simply for the eloquence of his homilies, but because, for the saint, the homily was an integrated aspect of the ascetical project of the Christian Church, grounded and centred in the Eucharist. What was ‘golden’ in his words was an ability, through this focus, to make the ‘inscribed Word’ lead poignantly to a change of life that brought about communion, in the Spirit, with the embodied Word— the incarnate Christ met in the Eucharistic chalice. So his words, his homilies, would be called ‘divine’, inasmuch as their fruit was divine union.

This was a characteristic for which he was appreciated in his own day. When he reposed in the town of Comana, his successor at Constantinople, Proclus, spoke of him in an impassioned eulogy:

Oh, hierarch whose memory is like a fragrant breeze! Oh, namesake of grace, whose deeds were truly divine! Oh, golden mouth declaring the word of God! Oh, tongue which spoke of mysteries loftier than the heavens! Oh, teacher proclaiming the Gospel more loudly than thunder! Verily like unto John the Forerunner, the preacher of repentance, was this John. One was a herald, the other a trumpet. One was unshakable, the other invincible.

The ancient Church knew how to speak well of the departed. But while modern commentators may not always turn to St John’s works for precisely these reasons, it is perhaps the same liturgical grounding of his theology of the homily, which evoked such praise in the ancient world, that makes him so relevant still to the modern. The sermon remains a cornerstone of Christian worship, both in the context of the Divine Liturgy in which St John himself knew and practiced it, and in a host of other Christian contexts that have emerged since. And so long as the task of the priestly office remains, as he put it, ‘to sow every day’ the Word of God, the emphasis of St John in the ascetical spirit of the homily remains a potent example of its integration in the fullness of Eucharistic Christian life.

It is perhaps fitting to end with an example of this practice ‘in action’. In his Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians, St John addresses the text of chapter 10, verses 13-23 of St Paul’s famous epistle. The Apostle speaks there of the goodness of God in providing for the defeat of temptations, together with the union and unity that comes in communion with Christ. The worship of idols, the sacrifices ‘of the devils’, as St Paul calls them, ought have no stock amongst the Christians; and while eating of food offered to idols may be possible, not all things are profitable. Christ has given His own body, out of intense love—this ought to be sufficient.

St John thrusts his address of St Paul’s words into the context of the future Kingdom:

And why speak I of the world to come? Since here this mystery makes earth become, for you, a heaven. Open only for once the gates of heaven and look in; nay, rather not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens; then you will behold what I have been speaking of. For what is there most precious of all, this will I show you lying upon the earth. For as in royal palaces, that which is most glorious of all is not the walls, nor golden roofs, but the person of the king sitting on the throne; so likewise in heaven it is the Body of the King. And this you are now permitted to see upon earth. For it is not angels, nor archangels, nor heavens and heavens of heavens that I show you, but the very Lord and owner of these. Do you perceive how that which is more precious than all things, is seen by you on earth? And not seen only, but also touched? And not only touched, but likewise eaten—and after receiving it you go home? Make your soul clean then, prepare your mind for the reception of these mysteries.

St Paul’s comments on temptations, on idols, on power, on demons—all point, for St John, to the Eucharistic Body and the future Kingdom. The ‘inscribed Word’, here found in the epistles as it is in the Gospels proper, is disclosed in the Spirit as pointing towards that fuller communion. The immediate ascetical aims of the Word—to move from ‘carnal’ to ‘spiritual’ hearing and living—feed into the larger ascetical goal of true communion with the risen Christ. And so St John is direct: the end of the homily is the deeper entrance into that Eucharistic motion.

‘Make your soul clean, then; prepare your mind for the reception of these mysteries.’

There is, indeed, something ‘golden’ in this approach to Word and homily. Modern homilists have something perhaps to learn. The sermon which studies the text, which offers a moral or even a spiritual lesson, nonetheless falls short of its task if it does not, in the end, point to the chalice. This is the true power of the inscribed Word. Christ draws creation to Himself. The spiritual work of the homily is to rouse the stirrings of the Spirit in the hearer, as St John is so famed for having done; and then the Word of the Father is united to man, in the sermon as in the chalice.

As an apothegm of St John goes:

I hear no one boast that he has a knowledge of the scriptures, but rather that he owns a bible written in golden characters. And tell me then, of what profit is this? The holy scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts.

The Rev. Dr. Dcn. M.C. Steenberg is a deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain (Diocese of Sourozh). A patristics scholar, and formerly a Fellow in Theology at Greyfriars, Oxford, he is currently chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Leeds Trinity & All Saints. He serves in the parish of St Nicholas the Wonderworker, Oxford, and is to be heard in the weekly ‘A Word From the Holy Fathers’ broadcasts of Ancient Faith Radio and Monachos.net.

© 2010, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

At the request of some of our readers, we are again making this article, which links the importance of the Sermon with the Holy Eucharist, available at Preachers Institute. This two part article by Prof. Steenberg is based on a talk originally given in November 2007 at Ampleforth Abbey, Yorkshire, United Kingdom, as part of a day conference on St John Chrysostom during the year commemorating the 1,600th anniversary of the saint’s repose.

St John Chrysostom on receiving the Word of God

In undoubtedly his most well-known homily, read in every Orthodox church at the matins of Pascha, St John Chrysostom proclaims:

Enter ye all into the joy of your Lord;

Receive your reward,

Both the first, and likewise the second.

You rich and poor together, hold high festival!

You sober and you heedless, honour the day!

Rejoice today, both you who have fasted

And you who have disregarded the fast.

The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously.

The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:

Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.

It is an exuberant text, a capstone of Paschal reflection, and a shining example of patristic homiletics. If St John is known, as his very name, ‘Golden-mouthed’ would have it, as the great preacher, this is known as one of his great sermons. Yet it would be careless to attempt a reading of his theology of the sermon from this text alone: it is unique, in tone and in form, and unrepeatable in character, even among the corpus of his other works (even if we accept that, given its long liturgical incorporation and traditional character, it is a text about which a lively discussion regarding the specifics of its Johannine authorship might certainly be had ). Amongst the vast library that makes up the corpus of St John’s received and extant works, some 700 homilies have come down to us; yet many will know only this single one.

Still, the sentiment in this exuberant Paschal cry reflects the wider vision of the sermon that inspired the other 699 —and if the final form as we have it may not be St John’s, it is certainly wholly in keeping this is homiletic style. The text is scriptural, rooted in biblical themes and imagery (the portion I have quoted above, though under a single paragraph in length, alludes to no less than eight distinct scriptural scenes). It is also Eucharistic: it calls its hearer from the world of biblical narrative into the present moment of sacramental encounter. ‘The table is full-laden’ points from the Gospel image of the feast provided for the prodigal son (see Luke 15.23, 24) to the resurrectional feast laid upon the Holy Table of the altar. The words of the Gospel call the hearer to receipt of the Word in the chalice.

It is this interrelation of sermon and chalice, of preaching the Word and receiving the Word, that I would like to focus on today. I should like to begin with a few words on the saint as preacher, and the ascetical nature of St John’s homilies; then proceed with an exploration of the relationship of Word and Spirit in his theology of the sermon. Thirdly and finally, I would like to explore the relationship of the homily to the liturgical celebration itself, focusing on the relationship of the Word heard, and the Word encountered in the chalice.

St John as preacher

St John’s cognomen, Chrysostomos, ‘Golden-mouthed’, betrays his reputation. He is known above all as a preacher, famed for his attention to textual minutiae on the one hand, yet an ability to captivate his hearers on the other (we can be only too aware that intense textual criticism holds less popular appeal today than it did in his century). Bouts of laughter, even bursts of applause, were known to accompany his homilies—a response that appears to have annoyed him, yet which he more than once uses to rhetorical effect. Speaking of this tendency, he questioned his hearers during a homily on St Matthew’s Gospel:

Do you give praise to what has been said? Alas, I do not want not applause, nor tumults, nor noise. One thing only do I wish: that quietly and intelligently listening, you should do what is said. This is the applause, this the panegyric for me. But if you praise what I say, but fail to do the things for which you give applause, greater is the punishment, more aggravated the accusation! And to me it is shame and ridicule.

At another point he notes, with rather more evident frustration, that though the gathered faithful may applaud his words in church, they quickly leave it to attend the horse races, offering there an applause that echoes yet more loudly.

St John’s popularity as a preacher is not hard to understand. While at once a fierce adherent to detailed textual exploration—a flagship proponent of the ‘literal’ interpretative style favoured in and around Antioch, where he had served as deacon and priest—his ability to take even the most adjunct detail of a passage and relate it to the common living-out of the Gospel message, made the texts come alive to his hearers. This, and he was not afraid of bringing the scriptures to bear directly on the heated political and social issues of the day. His homily on Matthew 26.19, Jesus’ petition Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me…, is, for example, a focused attack on the remnant followers of Marcion and Mani—groups with legacies still disruptive to the Christian community, so many decades and centuries after their origins. The concerns of the ecclesiastical world were known to St John as preacher, and formed the grist of more than one enthusiastic sermon.

Yet his focus on themes of the day was supremely rooted in the biblical word. St John’s attentiveness to the text of scripture, to unfolding its meaning, reveals not only the degree of his education, but also something of his understanding of priestly ministry. As much as it is the privilege and duty of the priest to stand at the altar in the celebration of the holy Mysteries, so is it his responsibility to bring the faithful to those mysteries through the Word. So he writes:

It is necessary for the teacher to sow every day, so to speak, in order that by its frequency at least, the word of doctrine may be able to be grasped by those who hear.

This ‘every day’ we can take literally; at least during Great Lent, St John’s often lengthy homilies must have been daily affairs. But it is the ‘sowing’ of ‘the word of doctrine’ that is of special interest. The priest, part of whose particular vocation it is to preach at the liturgical services, is allegorised to the sower (perhaps in reference to 2 Corinthians 9.10: Now may he who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness). In the homily, the priest sows—tends to, waters, fosters—the Word found in the scriptures, which thus becomes a living doctrine grasped by its hearers.

St John is convinced, like others before him, that the Word in the scriptures is the inscribed presence of the eternal Word, Son of the Father and God consubstantial with him. It was Origen of Alexandria, much maligned in the centuries following John’s life for perversions of doctrine (on some counts, rightly so—particularly on speculations regarding the eternity of souls, a problematic trinitarian articulation and a peculiar sense of incarnational becoming in Christ), though who had not yet come under conciliar censure in St John’s day, who referred to scripture famously as the ‘permanent incarnation of the Word’. Chrysostom does not echo this precisely, but the sense is certainly present in many of his works; as, too, is Origen’s emphasis on the Spirit as the revealer of scripture’s deepest meaning, and, in turn, the one whom those scriptures also reveal. In his first homily on the Gospel of Matthew, St John writes:

It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course.

The Word encountered in the written text may effect the transformation into the grace of the Spirit that obedience and piety should produce naturally. This is followed up in an important comment on the need for the textual Word:

Reflect then how great an evil it is for us, who ought to live so purely as not even to need written words, but to yield up our hearts, as books, to the Spirit; now that we have lost that honour, and are come to have need of these, to fail again in duly employing even this second remedy. For if it be a blame to stand in need of written words, and not to have brought down on ourselves the grace of the Spirit; consider how heavy the charge of not choosing to profit even after this assistance, but rather treating what is written with neglect, as if it were cast forth without purpose, and at random, and so bringing down upon ourselves our punishment with increase.

The human heart may, in the perfection that is open to man as a creature of the redeeming God, become a ‘book to the Spirit’ in which the written Word is no longer needed, since the Spirit will himself bring communion with the Word eternal, inscribing him in the heart. But since ‘we have utterly put away from us this grace’, the written Word is a ‘remedy’; and more than this, it is a remedy met out in ordered fashion, for a specific purpose. St John refers to the neglect of considering the Word ‘as if it were cast forth without purpose’—a clear reference to the prophetic utterance in Isaias: So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it (Isaias 55.11). The Word works a purpose. The written Word, more specifically, works the purpose of human communion with the divine, and it is this that the priest is charged to sow. The homily, then, becomes the trowel, the tool, for this sowing.

Part Two will be published tomorrow.

The Rev. Dr. Dcn. M.C. Steenberg is a deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain (Diocese of Sourozh). A patristics scholar, and formerly a Fellow in Theology at Greyfriars, Oxford, he is currently chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Leeds Trinity & All Saints. He serves in the parish of St Nicholas the Wonderworker, Oxford, and is to be heard in the weekly ‘A Word From the Holy Fathers’ broadcasts of Ancient Faith Radio and Monachos.net.

© 2010, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

By St. John Chrysostom

The mighty preacher, St. John, Archbishop of Constantinople, provides an excellent example of his homiletic prowess in this sermon – as poignant today as it was then in the 4th century. It is easy to see why St. John is the patron saint of preachers.

Against those who say that demons govern human affairs, and who are displeased at the chastisement of God, and are offended by the prosperity of the wicked and the hardships of the Just.

I indeed was hoping, that from the continuance of my discourse, you would have had a surfeit of my words: but I see that the contrary is happening: that no surfeit is taking place from this continuance, but that your desire is increased, that an addition is made not to your satiety but to your pleasure, that the same thing is happening which the wine drinkers at heathen drinking-bouts experience; for they, the more they pour down unmixed wine, so much the rather they kindle their thirst, and in your case the more teaching we inculcate, so much the rather do we kindle your desire, we make your longing greater, your love for it the stronger.

On this account, although I am conscious of extreme poverty, I do not cease to imitate the ostentatious among entertainers, both setting before you my table continuously, and placing on it the cup of my teaching, filled full: for I see that after having drunk it all, you retire again thirsting. And this indeed has become evident during the whole time, but especially since the last Lord’s Day: For that ye partake of the divine oracles insatiably, that day particularly shewed: whereon I discoursed about the unlawfulness of speaking ill one of another, when I furnished you with a sure subject for self accusation, suggesting that you should speak ill of your own sins, but should not busy yourselves about those of other people: when I brought forward the Saints as accusing themselves indeed, but sparing others:

• Paul saying I am the chief of sinners, and that God had compassion on him who was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, and calling himself one born out of due time, and not even thinking himself worthy of the title of Apostle:
• Peter saying “Depart from me because I am a sinful man:”
• Matthew styling himself a publican even in the days of his Apostleship:
• David crying out and saying “My iniquities have gone over my head, and as a heavy burden have been burdensome to me:”
• Isaiah lamenting and bewailing “I am unclean, and have unclean lips:”
• The three children in the furnace of fire, confessing and saying that they have sinned and transgressed, and have not kept the commandments of God.
• Daniel again makes the same lamentation.

When after the enumeration of these Saints, I called their accusers flies, and introduced the right reason for the comparison, saying, that just as they fasten themselves upon the wounds of others, so also the accusers bite at other people’s sins, collecting disease therefrom for their acquaintance, and those who do the opposite, I designated bees, not gathering together diseases, but building honeycombs with the greatest devotion, and so flying to the meadow of the virtue of the Saint: Then accordingly–then ye shewed your insatiable longing. For when my discourse was extended to some length, yea to an interminable length, such as never was, many indeed expected that your eagerness would be quenched by the abundance of what was said. But the contrary happened. For your heart was the rather warmed, your desire was the rather kindled: and whence was this evident? The acclamations at least which took place at the end were greater, and the shouts more clear, and the same thing took place as at the forge. For as there at the beginning indeed the light of the fire is not very clear, but when the flame has caught the whole of the wood that is laid upon it, it is raised to a great height; so also accordingly this happened on the occasion of that day. At the beginning indeed, this assembly was not vehemently stirred by me. But when the discourse was extended to some length, and gradually took hold of all the subjects and the teaching spread more widely, then accordingly, then the desire of listening was kindled in you, and the applause broke forth, more vehemently. On this account, although I had been prepared to say less than was spoken, I then exceeded the measure, nay rather I never exceeded the measure. For I am wont to measure the amount of the teaching not by the multitude of the words spoken, but by the disposition of the audience. For he who meets with a disgusted audience, even if he abridge his teaching, seems to be vexatious, but he who meets with eager, and wide- awake, and attentive hearers, though he extend his discourse to some length, not even thus fulfils their desire.

But since it happens that there are in so great a congregation, certain weak ones, unable to follow the length of the discourse, I wish to suggest this to them, that they should hear and receive, as much as they can, and having received enough should retire: There is no one who forbids, or compels them to remain beyond their natural strength. Let them not however necessitate the abridgement of the discourse before the time and the proper hours. Thou art replete, but thy brother still hungers. Thou art drunk with the multitude of the things spoken, but thy brother is still thirsty. Let him then not distress thy weakness, compelling thee to receive more than thine own power allows: nor do thou vex his zeal by preventing him from receiving all that he can take in.

This also happens at secular feasts. Some indeed are more quickly satisfied, some more tardily, and neither do these blame those, nor do they condemn these. But there indeed to withdraw more quickly is praiseworthy, but here to withdraw more quickly is not praiseworthy, but excusable. There to leave off more slowly, is culpable and faulty, here to withdraw more tardily, brings the greatest commendation, and good report. Pray why is this? Because there indeed the tardiness arises from greediness, but here the endurance, and patience are made up of spiritual desire and divine longing.

But enough of preamble. And we will proceed hereupon to that business which remained over to us from that day. What then was that which was then spoken? that all men had one speech, just as also they had one nature, and no one was different in speech, or in tongue. Whence then comes so great a distinction in speech? From the carelessness of those who received the gift–of both of which matters we then spoke, shewing both the lovingkindness of the Master through this unity of speech, and the senselessness of the servants through their distinction of speech. For he indeed foreseeing that we should waste the gift nevertheless gave it: and they to whom it was entrusted, waxed evil over their charge This is then one way of explanation, not that God wrested the gift from us but that we wasted what had been given. Then next after that, that we received afterwards gifts greater than those lost. In place of temporal toil he honored us with eternal life. In place of thorns and thistles he prepared the fruit of the Spirit to grow in our souls. Nothing was more insignificant than man, and nothing became more honored than man. He was the last item of the reasonable creation. But the feet became the head, and by means of the first-fruits, were raised to the royal throne.

For just as some generous and opulent man who has seen some one escape from shipwreck and only able to save his bare body from the waves, cradles him in his hands, and casts about him a bright garment, and conducts him to the highest honors; so also God has done in the case of our nature. Man cast aside all that he had, his fight to speak freely, his communion with God, his sojourn in Paradise, his unclouded life, and as from a shipwreck, went forth bare. But God received him and straightway clothed him, and taking him by the hand gradually conducted him to heaven. And yet the shipwreck was quite unpardonable. For this tempest was due entirely not to the force of the winds, but to the carelessness of the sailor.

And yet God did not look at this, but had compassion for the magnitude of the calamity, and him who had suffered shipwreck in harbor, he received as lovingly as if he had undergone this in the midst of the open sea. For to fall in Paradise is to undergo shipwreck in harbor. Why so? Because when no sadness, or care, or labors, or toil, or countless waves of desire assaulted our nature, it was upset and it fell. And as the miscreants who sail the sea, often bore through the ship with a small iron tool, and let in the whole sea to the ship from below; so accordingly then, when the Devil saw the ship of Adam, that is his soul, full of many good things, he came and bored it through with his mere voice, as with some small iron tool, and emptied him of all his wealth and sank the ship itself. But God made the gain greater than the loss, and brought our nature to the royal throne. Wherefore Paul cries out and says, “He raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him, on his right hand in the heavenly places, that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness towards us.”

What dost thou say? the thing has already happened and has an end, and dost thou say “in order that he might shew to the ages to come?” Has he not shewn? He has already shewn, but not to all men, but to me who am faithful, but the unbelieving has not yet seen the wonder. But then, in that day the whole nature of man will come forward, and will wonder at that which has been done, but especially will it be more manifest to us. For we believe even now; but hearing and sight do not put a wonder before us in the same way, but just as in the case of kings when we hear of the purple robe, and the diadem, and the golden raiment, and the royal throne, we wonder indeed, but experience this in greater degree when the curtains are drawn aside and we see him seated on the lofty judgment seat. So also in the case of the Only-Begotten, when we see the curtains of heaven drawn aside, and the King of angels descending thence, and with his bodyguard of the heavenly hosts, then we perceive the wonder to be greater from our sight of it. For consider with me what it is to see our nature borne upon the Cherubim, and the whole angelic force surrounding it.

But look, with me, too, at the wisdom of Paul, how many expressions he seeks for, so as to present to us the lovingkindness of God. For he did not speak merely the word grace, nor riches, but what did he say? “The exceeding riches of his grace in kindness.”  But notwithstanding even so, he is below the mark; and even as the slippery bodies when grasped by countless hands, escape our hold, and slip through easily; so also are we unable to get hold of the lovingkindness of God in whatever expressions we may try to grasp it, but the exceeding magnitude of it baffles the feebleness of our utterances. And Paul there–fore experiencing this, and seeing the force of words defeated by its magnitude, desists after saying  one word: and what is this? “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift.” For neither speech, nor any mind is able to set forth the tender care of God. On this account he then says that it is past finding out, and elsewhere “The peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts.”

But, as I was saying, these two ways of explanation are found in the meantime: one indeed that God has not wrested the gift that we have lost; and next, that the good things which have been given to us are even greater than those which we have lost. And I wish also to mention a third too. What then is the third? That even if he had not given the things after these, which were greater than those we had lost, but had only taken away what had been given to us, as we furnished the reason why, (for let this be added);  even this is enough of itself to shew his tender care towards us. For not only to give, but also to take away what was given, is a mark of the greatest loving-kindness, and, if you will, let us lay bare the matter, in the case of Paradise. He gave Paradise. This of his own tender care. We were seen to be unworthy of the gift.

This of our own senselessness. He took away the gift from those who became unworthy of it. This came of his own goodness. And what kind of goodness is it, says one, to take away the gift? Wait, and you shall fully hear. For think, what Cain would have been, dwelling in Paradise after his bloodguiltiness.

For if, when he was expelled from that abode, if when condemned to toil and labor, and beholding the threat of death hanging over his head, if seeing the calamity of his father before his eyes, and holding the traces of the wrath of God still in his hands, and encompassed with so great horrors, he lashed out into such great wickedness, as to ignore nature, and to forget one born from the same birth pangs, and to slay him who had done him no wrong, to lay hold on his brother’s person, and to dye his right hand with blood, and when God wanted him to be still, to refuse submission and to affront his maker, to dishonor his parents; if this man had continued to dwell in Paradise–look, into how great evil he would have rushed. For if when so many restraints were laid upon him, he leaped with fatal leaps; and if these walls were set at naught, whither would he not have precipitated himself?

Would you learn too from the mother of this man, what a good result the expulsion from the life of Paradise had, compare what Eve was before this, and what she became afterwards. Before this indeed, she considered that deceiving Devil, that wicked Demon to be more worth believing than the commandments of God, and at the mere sight of the tree, she trampled under foot the law which had been laid down by Him. But when the expulsion from Paradise came, consider how much better and wiser she grew. For when she bare a son, she says “I have gotten a man through the Lord.”

She straightway flew to the master. who before this had despised the master, and she neither ascribes the matter to nature, nor puts the birth down to the laws of marriage, but she recognizes the Lord of Nature, and acknowledges thanks to Him for the birth of the little child. And she who before this deceived her husband, afterwards even trained the little child, and gave him a name which of itself was able to bring the gift of God to her remembrance: and again when she bare another, she says “God hath raised up seed to me in place of Abel whom Cain slew.”

The woman remembers her calamity, and does not become impatient but she gives thanks to God, and calls the little child after his gift, furnishing it with constant material for instruction. Thus even in his very deprivation God conferred greater benefit. The woman suffered expulsion from Paradise, but by means of her ejection she was led to a knowledge of God, so that she found a greater thing than she lost. And if it were profitable, says one, to suffer expulsion from Paradise, for what cause did God give Paradise at the beginning? This turned out profitably to man, on account of our carelessness, since, if at least, they had taken heed to themselves, and had acknowledged their master, and had known how to be self-restrained, and to keep within bounds, they would have remained in honor. But when they treated the gifts which had been given them with insolence, then it became profitable, that they should be ejected.

For what cause then did God give at first? In order that he might shew forth his own lovingkindness, and because He himself was prepared to bring us even to greater honor. But we were the cause of chastisement and punishment on all sides, ejecting ourselves through our indifference to goods which were given to us. Just as therefore an affectionate father, at first indeed, suffers his own son to dwell in his home, and to enjoy all his father’s goods, but when he sees that he has become worthless of the honor, he leads him away from his table, and puts him far from his own sight, and often casts him forth from his paternal home, in order that he, suffering expulsion, and becoming better by this slight and this dishonor, may again shew himself worthy of restoration, and may succeed to his father’s inheritance: So has God done.

He gave Paradise to man. He cast him out when he appeared unworthy, in order that by his dwelling outside, and through his dishonor, he might become better, and more self-restrained, and might appear worthy again of restoration. Since after those things he did become better, he brings him back again and says “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Dost thou see that not the gift of Paradise but even the ejection from Paradise was a token of the greatest tender care? For had he not suffered expulsion from Paradise, he would not again have appeared worthy of Paradise.

This argument therefore let us maintain throughout, and let us apply it to the case of the subject lying before us. God gave a speech common to all. This is part of his loving kindness to men. They did not use the gift rightly, but they lapsed to utter folly. He took away again that which had been given. For if when they had one speech, they fell into so great folly, as to wish to build a tower to heaven: had they not immediately been chastised would they not have desired to lay hold on the height of heaven itself? For why? If indeed that were impossible for them, yet notwithstanding their impious thoughts are made out from their plan. All which things God foresaw, and since they did not use their oneness of speech rightly, he rightly divided them by difference of speech. And see with me, his lovingkindness. “Behold,” saith he “they all have one speech, and this they have begun to do.”

For what reason did he not at once proceed to the division of tongues, but first of all defend himself, as if about to be judged in a court of law?

And yet at least no one can say to him why hast thou thus done? Yea he is at liberty to do all things as he wills. But still as one about to give account, he thus sets up a defense, teaching us to be gentle and loving. For if the master defends himself to his servants, even when they have done him this wrong; much more ought we to defend ourselves to one another, even if we are wronged to the highest degree.

See at least how he defends himself. “Behold they have all one mouth and one speech” saith he, “and this they have begun to do,” as if he said let no one accuse me of this when he sees the division of tongues. Let no one consider that this difference of speech was made over to men from the beginning. “Behold they all have one mouth, and one speech.” But they did not use the gift aright. And in order that you may understand that he does not chastise for what has taken place so much as he provides for improvement in the future, hear the sequel “and now none of all the things will fail them, which they set on foot to do.”

Now what he says, is of such a kind as this. If they do not pay the penalty now, and be restrained from the very root of their sins, they will never cease from wickedness. For this is what “none of the things will fail them which they set on foot to do means, as if he said, and they will add other deeds yet more monstrous. For such a thing is wickedness; if when it has taken a start it be not hindered, as fire catching wood, so it rises to an unspeakable height. Dost thou see that the deprivation of oneness of speech was a work of much lovingkindness? He inflicted difference of speech upon them, in order that they might not fall into greater wickedness. Hold fast this argument then with me, and let it ever be fixed and immoveable in your minds, that not only when he confers benefits but even when he chastises God is good and loving. For even his chastisements and his punishments are the greatest part of his beneficence, the greatest form of his providence.

Whenever therefore you see that famines have taken place, and pestilences, and drought and immoderate rains, and irregularities in the atmosphere, or any other of the things which chasten human nature, be not distressed, nor be despondent, but worship Him who caused them, marvel at Him for His tender care. For He who does these things is such that He even chastens the body that the soul may become sound. Then does God these things saith one? God does these things, and even if the whole city, nay even if the whole universe were here I will not shrink from saying this. Would that my voice were clearer than a trumpet, and that it were possible to stand in a lofty place, and to cry aloud to all men, and to testify that God does these things. I do not say these things in arrogance but I have the prophet standing at my side, crying and saying, “There is no evil in the city which the Lord hath not done”–now evil is an ambiguous term; and I wish that you shall learn the exact meaning of each expression, in order that on account of ambiguity you may not confound the nature of the things, and fall into blasphemy.

There is then evil, which is really evil; fornication, adultery, covetousness, and the countless dreadful things, which are worthy of the utmost reproach and punishment. Again there is evil, which rather is not evil, but is called so, famine, pestilence, death, disease, and others of a like kind. For these would not be evils. On this account I said they are called so only. Why then? Because, were they evils, they would not have become the sources of good to us, chastening our pride, goading our sloth, and leading us on to zeal, making us more attentive. “For when,” saith one, “he slew them, then they sought him, and they returned, and came early to God.”  He calls this evil therefore which chastens them, which makes them purer, which renders them more zealous, which leads them on to love of wisdom; not that which comes under suspicion and is worthy of reproach; for that is not a work of God, but an invention of our own will, but this is or the destruction of the other. He calls then by the name of evil the affliction, which arises from our punishment; thus naming it not in regard to its own nature, but according to that view which men take of it.

For since we are accustomed to call by the name of evil, not only thefts and adulteries, but also calamities; so he has called the matter, according to the estimate of mankind. This then is that which the prophet saith “There is no evil in the city which the Lord hath not done.” This too by means of Isaiah God has made clear saying “I am God who makes peace and creates evil,”  again naming calamities evils. This evil also Christ hints at, thus saying to the disciples, “sufficient for the day is the evil thereof,”  that is to say the affliction, the misery. It is manifest then on all sides, that he here calls punishment evil; and himself brings these upon us, affording us the greatest view of his providence.

For the physician is not only to be commended when he leads forth the patient into gardens and meadows, nor even into baths and pools of water, nor yet when he sets before him a well furnished table, but when he orders him to remain without food, when he oppresses him with hunger and lays him low with thirst, confines him to his bed, both making his house a prison, and depriving him of the very light, and shadowing his room on all sides with curtains, and when he cuts, and when he cauterizes, and when he brings his bitter medicines, he is equally a physician.

How is it not then preposterous to call him a physician who does so many evil things, but to blaspheme God, if at any time He does one of these things, if He bring on either famine or death, and to reject his providence over all? And yet He is the only true physician both of souls and bodies. On this account He often seizes this nature of ours wantoning in prosperity, and travailing with a fever of sins, and by want, and hunger, and death and other calamities and the rest of the medicines of which He knows, frees us from diseases. But the poor alone feel hunger, says one. But He does not chasten with hunger alone, but with countless other things. Him who is in poverty He has often corrected with hunger, but the rich and him who enjoys prosperity, with dangers, diseases, untimely deaths. For He is full of resources, and the medicines which He has for our salvation are manifold.

Thus too the judges do. They do not honor, or crown those only who dwell in cities, nor do they provide gifts alone, but they also often correct. On this account both the sword is sharpened by them, and tortures are prepared; both the wheel and the stocks, and the executioners, and countless other forms of chastisement. That which the executioner is to the judges, famine is to God–as an executioner correcting us and leading us away from vice. This too, it is possible to see in the case of the husbandmen: They do not then, only protect the root of the vine, nor hedge it round but prune it, and lop off many of the branches; on this account not only have they a hoe, but a sickle too, suitable for cutting: yet notwithstanding we do not find fault with them, but then above all we admire them, when we see them cutting off much that is unserviceable, so as through the rejection of what is superfluous to afford great security to that which remains.

How is it not then preposterous, that we should thus approve of a father indeed and a physician and a judge, and a husbandman, and should neither blame nor censure him who casts his son out of his house nor the physician who puts his patient to torture nor the judge who corrects, nor the husbandman who prunes: but that we should blame and smite with countless accusations God, if he would at any time raise us up, when we are as it were, besotted through the great drunkenness which comes of wickedness? How great madness would it not be, not even to allow God a share of the same self-justification, of which we allow our fellow servants a share?

Fearing these things for them who reproach God, I speak now, in order that they may not kick against the pricks, and cover their own feet with blood, that they may not throw stones to heaven; and receive wounds on their own head. But I have somewhat else far beyond this to say. For omitting to ask (I say this by way of concession) if God took from us to our profit, I only say this; that if He took what had been given, not even thus, could anyone be able to reproach Him. For He was Lord of his own.

Among men indeed, when they entrust us with money, and lend us silver, we give them our thanks for the time during which they lent it, we are not indignant at the time at which they take back their own. And shall we reproach God who wishes to take back his own? Indeed now is this not the extreme of folly? yea the great and noble Job did not act thus. For not only when he received, but even when he was deprived, he gives the greatest thanks to God saying.”

The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away; may the name of the Lord be blessed for ever.”  But if it is right to give thanks for both these even separately, and deprivation is not the less serviceable than bestowal; what excuse should we have, tell me, in recompensing in a contrary spirit, and being impatient with Him when we ought to worship, who is so gentle, and loving and careful, who is wiser than every Physician, and more full of affection than any father, juster than any judge, and more anxious than any husbandman, in healing these souls of ours? What then could be more insane and senseless than they who in the midst of so great good order, say that we are deprived of the providence of God? For just as if some one were to contend that the soul was murky and cold, he would produce an example of extreme insanity, by his opinion; so if any one doubts about the providence of God, much rather is he liable to charges of madness.

Not so manifest is the Sun, as the providence of God is clear. But nevertheless some dare to say that Demons administer our affairs. What can I do? Thou hast a loving Master. He chooses rather to be blasphemed by you through these words, than to commit thine affairs to the Demons and persuade thee by the reality how Demons administer. For then you would know their wickedness well by the experience of it. But rather indeed now it is possible to set it before you as it were by a certain small example. Certain men possessed of Demons coming forth out of the tombs met Christ, and the Demons kept beseeching him to suffer them to enter the herd of swine. And he suffered them, and they went away, and straightway precipitated them all headlong.

Thus do Demons govern; and yet to them the swine were of no particular account, but with thee there is ever a warfare without a truce, and an implacable fight, and undying hatred. And if in the case of those with whom they had nothing in common they did not even endure that they should be allowed a brief breathing space of time: if they had gotten unto their power us their enemies who are perpetually stinging them what would they not have done? and what incurable mischief would they not have accomplished? For for this reason God let them fall upon the herd of swine, in order that in the case of the bodies of irrational animals you may learn their wickedness, and that they would have done to the possessed the things which they did to the swine, had not the demoniacs in their very madness experienced the providence of God, is evident to all: and now therefore when you see a man excited by a Demon, worship the Master. Learn the wickedness of the Demons.

For it is possible to see both things in the case of these Demons, the lovingkindness of God, and the evil of the Demons.

The evil of the Demons when they harass and disturb the soul of the demented: and the lovingkindness of God whenever he restrains and hinders so savage a Demon, who has taken up his abode within, and desires to hurl the man headlong, and does not allow him to use his own power to the full, but suffers him to exhibit just so much strength, as both to bring the man to his senses, and make his own wickedness apparent. Dost thou wish to form another example to see once more how a Demon arranges matters when God allows him to use his own power? Consider the herds, the flocks of Job, how in one instant of time he annihilated all, consider the pitiable death of the children, the blow that was dealt to his body: and thou shalt see the savage and inhuman and unsparing character of the wickedness of the Demons, and from these things thou shall know clearly that if God had. entrusted the whole of this world to their authority, they would have confused and disturbed everything, and would have assigned to us their treatment of the swine, and of those herds, since not even for a little breathing space of time could they have endured to spare us our salvation.

If Demons were to arrange affairs, we should be in no better condition than possessed men, yea rather we should be worse than they. For God did not give them over entirely to the tyranny of the Demons, otherwise they would suffer far worse things than these which they now suffer. And I would ask this of those who say these things, what kind of disorder they behold in the present, that they set down all our affairs to the arrangement of Demons?

And yet we behold the sun for so many years proceeding day by day in regular order, a manifold band of stars keeping their own order, the courses of the moon unimpeded, an invariable succession of night and day, all things, both above and below, as it were in a certain fitting harmony, yea rather even far more, and more accurately each keeping his own place, and not departing from the order which God who made them ordained from the beginning.

And what is the use of all this, says one, when the heaven indeed, and sun, and moon, and the band of stars, and all the rest keep much good order, but our affairs are full of confusion and disorder. What kind of confusion, O man, and disorder?

A certain one, says he, is rich, and overbearing, He is rapacious and covetous, he drains the substance of the poor day by day, and suffers no terrible affliction. Another lives in forbearance, self-restraint, and uprightness, and is adorned with all other good qualities, and is chastened with poverty and disease, and extremely terrible afflictions. Are these then the matters which offend you? Yes, these, says he. If then you see both of the rapacious, many chastened, and of those living virtuously, yea some even enjoying countless goods, why dost thou not abandon thine opinion, and be content with the Almighty? Because it is this very thing which offends me more.

For why when there are two evil men, is one chastened, and another gets off, and escapes; and when there are two good men, one is honored, and the other continues under punishment? And this very thing is a very great work of God’s providence. For if he were to chasten all the evil men, here; and were to honor here all the good men, a day of judgment were superfluous. Again if he were to chasten no wicked man, nor were to honor any of the good, then the base would become baser and worse, as being more careless than the excellent, and they who were minded to blaspheme would accuse God all the more, and say that our affairs were altogether deprived of his providence.

For if when certain evil men are chastened, and certain good men punished, they likewise say that human affairs are subject to no providence; if even this did not happen what would they not say? and what words would they not send forth? On this account some of the wicked he chastens, and some he does not chasten and some of the good he honors and some he does not honor. He does not chasten all, in order that he may persuade thee, that there is a Resurrection. But he chastens some in order that he may make the more careless, through fear by means of the punishment of the others, more in earnest. Again he honors certain of the good, in order that he may lead on others by his honors to emulate their virtue. But he does not honor all, in order that you may learn that there is another season for rendering to all their recompense.

For if indeed all were to receive their deserts here, they would disbelieve the account of the Resurrection. But if no one were to receive his desert here, the majority would become more careless. On this account some he chastens, and others he does not chasten, profiling both those who are chastened, and those who are not chastened. For he separates their wickedness from those, and he makes the others by their punishment, more self-restrained.

And this is manifest from what Christ himself said. For when they announced to him that a tower had been brought to the ground, and had buried certain men, he says to them “What think you? that these men were sinners only? I say to you nay, but if you do not repent you also shall suffer the same thing.”

Dost thou see how those perished on account of their sin, and the rest did not escape on account of their righteousness, but in order that they might become better by the punishment of the others? Were not then the chastened unjustly dealt with says one? For they could without being chastened themselves become better by the punishment of others. But if He had known that they would become better from penitence God would not have chastened them. For if when he foresaw that many would profit nothing from his longsuffering, he nevertheless bears with them, with much tolerance, fulfilling his own part, and affording them an opportunity of coming out of their own senselessness to their sober senses one day; how could he deprive those who were about to become better from the punishment of others, of the benefit of repentance? So that they are in no way unjustly treated, both their evil being cut off by their punishment, and their chastening is to be lighter there, because they suffered here beforehand.

Again, they who were not chastened are in no way unjustly treated; for it was possible for them, had they wished, to have used the longsuffering of God, to accomplish a most excellent change, and wondering at his tolerance, to have become ashamed at his exceeding forbearance, and one day to have gone over to virtue, and to have gained their own salvation by the punishment of others. But if they remain in wickedness, God is not to blame, who on this account was longsuffering, that he might recover them, but they are unworthy of pardon, who did not rightly use the longsuffering of God: and it is not only possible to use this argument as a reason why all the wicked are not chastened here, but another also not less than this. Of what kind then is this? That if God brought upon all, the chastenings which their sins deserved, our race would have been carried off, and would have failed to come down to posterity. And in order that you may learn that this is true, hear the prophet saying “If Thou observes iniquity  O Lord, who shall stand?”

And if it seems good to thee to investigate this saying, leaving the accurate inquiry into the life of each, alone: (For it is not possible even to know all that has been accomplished by each man) let us bring forward those sins which all, without contradiction, commit: and from these it will be plain and manifest to us, that if we were chastened for each of our sins, we should long ago have perished. He who has called his brother fool, “is liable to the hell of fire” saith Heft Is there then any one of us who has never sinned this sin? What then? ought he to be straightway carried off? Therefore we should have been all carried off and would have disappeared, long ago, indeed very long ago.

Again he who swears, saith he, even if he fulfills his oath, does the works of the wicked one.

Who is there then, who has not sworn? Yea rather who is there who has never sworn falsely? He who looks on a woman, says he, with unchaste eyes,  is wholly an adulterer, and of this sin any one would find many guilty. When then these acknowledged sins are such and so insufferable, and each of these of itself brings upon us inevitable chastisement, if we were to reckon up the secret sins committed by us, then we shall see especially that the providence of God does not bring upon us punishment for each sin. So that when you see anyone rapacious, covetous, and not chastened, then unfold your own conscience; reckon up your own life, go over the sins which have been committed and you shall learn rightly that in your own case first, it is not expedient to be chastened for each of your sins: for on this account the majority make reckless utterances, since they do not look on their own case before that of others, but we all leaving our own alone, examine that of the rest. But let us no longer do this, but the reverse, and if you see any righteous man chastened, remember Job: for if any one be righteous, he will not be more righteous than that man, nor within a small distance of approaching him.

And if he suffer countless ills, he has not yet suffered so much, as that man.

Taking this then into thy mind, cease charging the master; learning that it is not by way of deserting him does God let such an one suffer ill, but through desire to crown him, and make him more distinguished. And if you see a sinner punished, remember the paralytic who passed thirty eight years on his bed. For that that man was delivered over then to that disease through sin, hear Christ saying “Behold you are made whole; sin no more lest a worse thing happen to you.”

For either when we are chastened, we pay the penalty of our sins, or else we receive the occasion of crowning if, when we live in rectitude, we suffer ill. So that whether we live in righteousness, or in sins, chastening is a useful thing for us, sometimes making us more distinguished, sometimes rendering us more self- controlled, and lightening our punishment to come for us.

For that it is possible that one chastened here, and bearing it thankfully should experience milder punishment there hear St. Paul saying “For this reason many are weak and sickly, and some sleep. For if we judged ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged we are corrected by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”  Knowing all these things therefore, Let us both moralize in this way on the providence of God, and stop the mouths of the gainsayers.

And if any of the events which happen pass our understanding, let us not from this consider that our affairs are not governed by providence, but perceiving His providence in part, in things incomprehensible let us yield to the unsearchable character of His wisdom. For if it is not possible for one not conversant with it to understand a man’s art, much rather is it impossible for the human understanding to comprehend the infinity of the providence of God. “For his judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out”  But nevertheless from small portions we gain a clear and manifest faith about the whole, we give thanks to him for all that happens.

For there is even another consideration that cannot be contradicted, for those who wish to moralize about the providence of God For we would ask the gainsayers, is there then a God? and if they should say there is not, let us not answer them. For just as it is worthless to answer madmen, so too those who say there is no God. For if a ship having few sailors, and passengers, would not be conducted safely for one mile even, without the hand which guides it, much more, such a world as this, having so many persons in it, composed of different elements, would not have continued so long a time, were there not a certain providence presiding over it, both governing, and continually maintaining this whole fabric, and if in shame, through the common opinion of all men, and the experience of affairs, they confess that there is a God, let us say this to them.

If there is a God, as indeed there is, it follows that He is just, for if He is not just neither is He God, and if He is just He recompenses to each according to their desert. But we do not see all here receiving according to their desert. Therefore it is necessary to hope for some other requital awaiting us, in order that by each one receiving according to his desert, the justice of God may be made manifest. For this consideration does not only contribute to our wisdom aboutprovidence alone, but about the Resurrection; and let us teach others, and let us do all diligence to shut the mouths of them who rave against themaster, and let us ourselves glorify him in all things.

For thus shall we win more of his care, and enjoy much of his influence, and thus shall we be able to escape from real evil, and obtain future good, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, By whom and with whom be glory to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, now and always, for ever and ever. Amen.

© 2009, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.

The one who practices or studies homiletics is called a homilist.

Homiletics (Greek homiletikos, from homilos, to assemble together), is one of those disciplines which is easy to do, but difficult to do well.  The terms homily and sermon are often used interchangeably (see the glossary for an exacting definition).  The art of homiletics is not to be undertaken lightly or casually, but with much prayer, and not a little fasting.

The crafting of the homily is a lot like writing a song. There are millions of songs out there, and more being written every day, but few being sung. Few touch a chord within the listener. Few get inside, so to speak. The turn of the phrase is not extemporaneous, but exacting. The measure of language, inflection, delivery and even diction should be prayerfully considered.  It is an awesome and fearful thing to stand in the fire.

How much more to deliver it?

For the sake of integrity, with few exceptions, the homilist for the sake of improving his own homilies, should immediately cease from preaching someone else’s sermon. In reality, this should be a matter of integrity. I feel that this commitment to the art and craft of homiletics itself is not only as an important intellectual bridge to cross; it is an important bridge to burn.

The commitment to preparing and preaching one’s own sermons should assure the homilist of the conviction to complete the creation of the sermon;  for the preaching of the Gospel in the context of the Gospel reading, the festal occasion, or the particular congregation or audience.  Biblical preaching then often takes on a genuine pastoral and apologetic quality.

Concerning not preaching someone else’s homilies, notable exceptions would be;

1. The Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom (as delivered on Pascha)
2. The Festal Encyclicals of the Diocesan Hierarch (as provided and instructed),
3. Occasional festal homilies, (On the Nativity of Christ by St. Leo the Great, On the Dormition of the Theotokos by St. Gregory Palamas, etc.)
4. Occasional accounts of the lives of saints.

The lives of saints often provide the most profound experience of  how to live the Gospel, and should not be discounted as an excellent, though infrequent, instructional tool.

In every other circumstance, the prayerful reflection on the Gospel, organization and composition of a defined message to the listener(s) on a particular day or occasion should bring a clearer mind, a sharper eye and a more visceral response to the commandment of the Lord, which it is the duty of the homilist to heed:

“Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people.”

Isaiah 40:1

As stated at the beginning of this article, homiletics is one of those disciplines which is easy to do, but difficult to do well.

It is incumbent upon the Orthodox homilist to commit himself with humility and painstaking effort to original homiletic compositions for the sake of his listeners, and his own soul.   The expression of the Gospel is a discipline which requires diligence and study, and the willingness to receive correction and guidance. This is the purpose of the Preachers Institute as well, that the Orthodox homilist may find help, aid, inspiration, guidance, and constructive critique of his most important oral and intellectual work. The practice of homiletic creation becomes itself an exercise in regular interior self-examination.

This is an excellent practice, and, after all, practice doesn’t make perfect.

Practice makes permanent.

© 2009, Preachers Institute. All rights reserved.