St. John was a native of Antioch, and in his spiritual makeup, in his religious worldview, he was a typical Antiochian. The year of his birth is not known exactly, approximately in the forties of the 4th century, between 344 and 354. Saint John came from a rich and noble Christian family, and by birth and upbringing he belonged to the Hellenistic cultural circles of Asia Minor society. This explains his high personal culture, the aristocratic nobility of his appearance, and the certain worldliness of his treatment. Chrysostom did not renounce culture even when he renounced the world and everything that is in the world. Chrysostom can be spoken of as a true Greek. He received a brilliant and broad education. He studied under the famous Livania. Chrysostom was not a thinker or philosopher. In the categories of the ancient world, he can be defined as an orator or rhetorician. An ancient rhetorician is a teacher, a moralist, a preacher. Chrysostom was such a teacher. Chrysostom's Hellenism is manifested primarily in his language and style. As an orator and stylist, he can be compared with Demosthenes and even with Xenophon and Plato, in the style of Chrysostom the power and brilliance of classical Athens come to life again. His contemporaries also saw him as an Atticist. It cannot be said that Chrysostom's Hellenism was only formal and external – it is not only a form, but a style... It is true that Chrysostom was never apparently agitated by the inner and philosophical problems of Hellenism, and he never had to reconcile the Hellenic and the Christian in himself. But this is characteristic of the entire Antiochian cultural type, of the "historical" culture of Asia Minor, it was more of a "philological" than a "philosophical" culture... In any case, Chrysostom always remained a Hellenic... This is already felt in his moralism. Moralism was, as it were, the natural truth of the ancient world. This explains and justifies the transforming reception of Stoicism by Christian ethics, the sublimation of natural truth to grace-filled heights. And in Chrysostom the features of such a transfigured Stoicism are very vivid. He always taught about moral wisdom, about moral nobility. He always thought in terms of moral evaluation. But he saw the fulfillment of natural truth only in the frank Gospel ideal. It is wrong to think that Chrysostom was not a mystic. "Moralism" does not exclude "mysticism." And Chrysostom's mysticism itself had primarily a moral meaning. This is the mysticism of conscience, the mysticism of good, the mysticism of good deeds and virtue... Chrysostom's aesthetic motifs are much less expressed. And beauty was more of an ethical than an aesthetic category for him. He saw beauty first of all in active goodness. For him, the Gospel was a book about the beauty of good, manifested in the image of the God-Man. This determined the theme of his life... Chrysostom's moral character was formed very early, already in his youth. The example and lessons of his mother were strengthened and strengthened by the lessons of his sacred teachers – Meletius of Antioch, Diodorus, the ascetic Carterius... The secular vocation did not satisfy Chrysostom. And before he can leave the world, he indulges in ascetic feats in his parents' very home. Only after the death of his mother, in the year 374 or 375, did St. John receive the opportunity to retire to a monastery near Antioch and spend four years there, and then two more years in the wilderness... This was a temporary temptation for Chrysostom. He returns to the world to struggle in the midst of the world. Asceticism for Chrysostom meant a spiritual attitude rather than certain external and everyday forms. Asceticism for Chrysostom meant, first of all, renunciation, i.e. inner freedom and independence from the world, from the external environment and conditions of life. In this sense, he remained an ascetic for the rest of his life. He returned to the world as a preacher of asceticism. Not in order to call for external withdrawal from the world, from the cities, he saw in this departure only a temporary measure... "I often prayed," says Chrysostom in these years, "that the need for monasteries would pass, and that such good order would come to the cities that no one would ever have to flee into the wilderness." Chrysostom also strove to transform the life of the cities on the principles of the Gospel, in the spirit of "higher philosophy", for this he became a pastor and preacher.

St. John received the deacon's ordination in the year 381 from Meletius of Antioch, and the presbyter from his successor Flavian in the year 386. Chrysostom spoke about his new vocation in the famous books "On the Priesthood" (in fact, about the episcopal ministry). It is difficult to say when he wrote them, but not later than his presbyter ordination. He proceeded from the ideas of St. Gregory the Theologian. Chrysostom emphasized two main motifs. First of all, he spoke about the height of the sacred calling, as a call to the secret action. "Sacred service takes place on this earth, but it occupies a place among the heavenly authorities." For the priesthood is established by the Comforter Himself. And do we remain on earth when we see the Lord again being offered and dead, and as if we are crimson with His blood? And the priest stands at the sacrificial meal... The priest's throne is set in heaven. He was given the heavenly power of the keys, which is not given even to the angels... Secondly, Chrysostom sees in the priest, first of all, a teacher, a mentor, a preacher, a shepherd of souls. And he speaks most of all about the teaching ministry of the priesthood. In this respect, he places the priest above the monk – there is more love in pastoral service than in monastic solitude, and pastoral care is a service of active love, service to neighbors... "It is precisely this that has perverted the whole universe, that we think that only monastics need greater austerity of life, while others can live carelessly," Chrysostom remarked... It is difficult to enumerate the topics that he touched upon. Of the Antiochian sermons, special mention should be made of the famous discourses "on statues" and then a long series of exegetical discourses on Matthew and John, on the Epistle to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to Titus, perhaps to the Ephesians and to the Romans, and probably also on Genesis. To the same time belong the words against the Jews, against the Anomies... Chrysostom never spoke on abstract topics. His conversations are always vital and lively, he always speaks to living people. From his conversations one can observe his listeners and the preacher himself. His speech always leads to volitional conclusions, to practical appeals, and above all teaches love. At the same time, he always demands integrity, calls for responsibility. Chrysostom spoke with authority, but it was the power of faith and conviction. And he himself emphasized that this is a transforming power, a strength of spirit. But most of all, it was the power of love. And love connected Chrysostom with his flock.

In 398, Chrysostom was summoned to the Constantinople cathedra. And he was called precisely as a recognized pastor and teacher. Such was the will of the clergy, the church people, and the court. In Constantinople, Chrysostom continued to preach. Sozomen notes that Chrysostom used to sit among the people on the reader's ambo, and the listeners crowded around him. These were conversations rather than speeches... Chrysostom's commentaries on the Acts, on the Psalms, on many Epistles of the Apostle Paul belong to this time. Many of his conversations were stenographically recorded after him, which preserved all the vividness of the spoken word. The task of the moral re-education of society and the people arose before Chrysostom at this time with special force. He had the impression that he was preaching to people for whom Christianity had become only fashionable clothes. "Out of so many thousands," he said, "it is impossible to find more than a hundred saved, and I doubt it." The very multitude of Christians confused him, "the more food for the fire." And with bitterness he spoke of the well-being that had come: "Security is the greatest of the persecutions against godliness, worse than any persecution. No one understands, no one feels danger – security breeds carelessness, weakens and puts souls to sleep, and the devil kills those who sleep. And the preacher's voice became harsh and accusatory — all around him he saw hay fit only for fire... Chrysostom was embarrassed by moral decay – not only depravity, but most of all the silent lowering of requirements and ideals not only among the laity, but also among the clergy... Chrysostom fought not only with the word of denunciation, but also with deeds, with deeds of love... "No one would remain a pagan if we were real Christians," he said... He took care of charity, established hospitals and shelters. He tried to attract all forces to creative work, demanded a feat from everyone. This caused opposition and discontent not only in Constantinople, but also in other dioceses. Enmity towards St. John broke out more than once. And the clash with the Empress Eudoxia was only the last reason for the explosion. Chrysostom had enemies everywhere. First of all, among the clergy, especially among wandering monks. Then at court and among the rich. It is too difficult to tell the whole gloomy story of the deposition and condemnation of Chrysostom at the shameful council "under the Oak". Traitors were found among the episcopate, headed by Theophilus of Alexandria. Among others, Acacius of Berea, Severian of Gabala, and Antiochus of Ptolemais, who were insulted by Chrysostom, were actively at war. There were many accusations against Chrysostom, among them the suspicion of Origenism. Chrysostom was deposed, and the emperor confirmed the sentence. Chrysostom's exile was short-lived. Very soon he was returned and greeted by the people with rejoicing. However, the enmity did not subside. And the very fact of his return without the annulment of the conciliar sentence was turned against Chrysostom. For this, according to the fourth canon of the Council of Antioch, there follows the deprivation of rights, even if the sentence were unjust. Chrysostom did not recognize the council that judged him as legitimate, nor did he recognize (nor was he the only one) the Antiochian canon, but demanded a council for justification. The bishops condemned Chrysostom for the second time. He continued his ministry. The excitement grew. And in June 404, Chrysostom was expelled for the second time and sent first to Kukuz in Lesser Armenia, then to Pitsiunt. He could not bear the burden of the journey and on the road he reposed on September 14, 407. Very soon all the untruth of Chrysostom's condemnation was revealed. In 417, the Bishop of Constantinople Atticus restored his name in the diptychs, referring to the voice of the people. Cyril of Alexandria protested sharply: "If John is in the episcopacy, why is Judas not with the apostles? And if there's a place for Judas, where is Matthew." In 419, they also lost in Alexandria. And in the year 438 the remains of Chrysostom were transferred to Constantinople and placed in the church of the Holy Apostles. The verdict of the council "under the Oak" was canceled by the general testimony of the church.

Chrysostom's literary heritage is enormous. It is not easy to determine its exact volume. Over time, the name of Chrysostom became so glorious that other people's conversations and words were inscribed with it. It is possible to single out the indisputable works of Chrysostom, others obviously do not belong to him, but many remain in question, especially when it is not possible to establish exactly another author. Most of Chrysostom's works are discourses or words, homilies. Among them, exegetical ones are especially important. The rest of the conversations have a wide variety of content. Special mention should be made of the words for feast days and in memory of saints. All these are spoken words. Another category of Chrysostom's works is instructions intended for reading. Of particular note are the writings on ascetic themes and books on the priesthood relating to the early years. In addition, about 240 letters have been preserved, all from the second exile. They are very important as material for characterizing the holy personality of Chrysostom. The question of the Liturgy of Chrysostom is very complicated. In the oldest list, in the Barberine Euchologia (VIII century), his name is not mentioned, although there is already a mention of the Liturgy of Chrysostom in the VI century. And it is not easy to single out what exactly can be assimilated by Chrysostom in the later rite associated with his name. In this respect, it is very instructive to compare the liturgical data from his discourses, especially the early ones. But this does not give a solution to the problem either. However, the very fact of his concern for the ordering of the divine services, in particular the Eucharistic one, cannot be disputed. Chrysostom's influence was enormous. He very soon became a "universal teacher and saint," in fact earlier than in name. From the VI century he is called Chrysostom, in the VIII this name becomes generally accepted. Especially in exegesis, Chrysostom became forever a model and authority. He was followed by almost all the later Byzantine interpreters, especially Theophylact of Bulgaria. The history of Chrysostom's literary influence is one of the most striking chapters in the history of Christian writing and patristic tradition.

II. Chrysostom as a teacher.

Chrysostom was given the gift of speech, the gift of a living and authoritative word. He had the temperament of an orator, and this is the key to his conquering power. He loved to preach: "I have persuaded my soul to fulfill the ministry of a preacher and to fulfill the commandments, as long as I breathe, and it will please God to prolong this life of mine, whether anyone will listen to me or not." Chrysostom understood pastoral service primarily as a teaching service, as a ministry of the word. Pastoral care is power, but the power of words and persuasion, and this is the fundamental difference between spiritual and worldly power. "The Tsar coerces, the priest convinces. One acts by command, the other by advice." A pastor must turn to freedom and to the will of man, "we are commanded to work out the salvation of people by word, meekness and persuasion," said Chrysostom. For the whole meaning of the Christian life for Chrysostom was that it was a life in freedom, and therefore in podvigs and deeds. He spoke and constantly reminded of freedom and self-activity of man. It was in freedom that he saw the "nobility" of man, the image of God given to him. For Chrysostom, the moral realm is primarily the realm of will and volition. In this respect, Chrysostom was a consistent voluntarist. In the movements of the will he saw both the beginning and support of sin, as well as the beginning and path of virtue. And, in his opinion, Christ "did not come to destroy nature, but to correct volition." Every action of God's grace in man is performed in such a way "so as not to injure our autocracy." In other words, God Himself acts by persuasion, not by compulsion, "He exhorts, advises, warns against evil beginnings, but does not coerce." And the pastor must imitate this Divine example... Chrysostom was a maximalist in temperament, he was harsh and strict. But he was always against any coercion and coercion, even in the struggle against heretics. Chrysostom was always an opponent of external and temporal measures of struggle in matters of faith and morals. "Christians are especially forbidden to correct those who fall into sin by violence," he said, "our war does not make the living dead, but the dead alive, for it is full of meekness and humility... I persecute not by deed, but by word, and I persecute not heretics, but heresy... I am accustomed to endure persecution rather than persecute, to be persecuted rather than persecute. In the same way, Christ conquered the crucified, and not crucifying, not striking, but taking the blows." And, moreover, Chrysostom also restrained the hasty condemnation of dissidents, in this respect his famous sermon "On Damnation and Anathema" is characteristic. He saw the power of Christianity in meekness and patience, not in power, and everyone should be harsh to himself, not to others...

Chrysostom was first and foremost a moral preacher. But it would be wrong to emphasize this too much and say that he was a teacher of morality, and not of faith. And not only because he often, especially in the early Antiochian years, touched upon direct dogmatic topics, but above all because he derived his moral ideal from dogmatic premises. This is especially evident in his exegetical discourses, in particular in his commentaries on Paul's Epistles. Chrysostom had his own favorite dogmatic themes, to which he constantly returned. First, the teaching about the Church, which for him is inseparably linked with the teaching about redemption, as the High Priestly sacrifice of Christ, who ascended to heaven through the Cross. From this the teaching about the Church as a new being, not only a new life, is revealed. And, secondly, the teaching about the Eucharist as a sacrament and sacrifice – Chrysostom is rightly called a "Eucharistic teacher". Chrysostom did not have a theological system. It would be in vain to look for dogmatic and theological formulas in him, in particular, in Christology and in Mariology, he is not always free from the inaccuracy and one-sidedness of the usual Antiochian theological language... Chrysostom was a witness to the faith, which explains why his judgments were given so much importance in antiquity, especially in the West. The voice of Church Tradition was heard in him... Chrysostom faced special tasks: he was zealous not for the refutation of wrong opinions, but first of all for the fact that the Christians who were named to understand that the truths of faith are the truths of life, the commandments of life, which must be revealed in personal life. Too many people forgot about this then. Chrysostom demanded a life of faith and assumed that the truths of faith were known to his listeners. It would be premature to go further, until the heart is careless and even the beginnings of faith are not quickened in the souls. Of course, it remains true that Chrysostom himself did not have a vocation for speculative theology. But he was least of all an adogmatic moralist. In his theological confession he proceeded first of all from the Apostle Paul, and it was a sermon about Christ and salvation, not a sermon of morality. And the very "evangelism" of Chrysostom has a dogmatic meaning, for him his whole life is connected with the image of Christ not only as a prophet, but primarily as the High Priest and Lamb. The whole sacramental mysticism of Chrysostom is connected with this. To this must be added that for Chrysostom only the purity of life testifies to the purity of faith. Moreover, it is only through purity of life that purity of faith is attained for the first time, and an impure life usually gives rise to wrong teachings. For faith is realized and fulfilled only in love, without love right faith is simply impossible – neither faith, nor contemplation, nor knowledge of mysteries... And without love, intellectual theology turns out to be a hopeless labyrinth... Chrysostom saw before him restless and sleeping human hearts. He wanted to awaken them to spiritual life and love. This is connected with the well-known individualism of Chrysostom. He has little sense of the reality of worldly society and communication, there are always individual people in front of him. They are united for him only in the Church. In this individualism is the root of Chrysostom's sensitivity. He never strays into common places. It is always concrete and visual, teaches in examples, and applies to particular cases. He has the least conventional rhetorical schemes, in this he surpasses even Gregory the Theologian. He never forgot that he was a shepherd of souls, not an orator, and that his task was not to reveal or develop to the end this or that objective theme, but to touch the living heart, to incline the will and reason. The logical and formal harmony of his speeches was disrupted by this. But they acquired an internal range. This is a kind of dialogue with a silent interlocutor, about whom the preacher sometimes says something. But it's never a monologue without an audience.

It seems that Chrysostom spoke most often about wealth and poverty. For this, life itself constantly gave reasons - the life of large and noisy cities... It should be emphasized that for Chrysostom these were moral questions, social topics have for him primarily a moral meaning. He speaks first of all about the right behavior of a Christian... And from a moral point of view, he judges the life around him. He sees around him too much untruth, hardness of heart, suffering, grief. And he understands well how much this is connected with the spirit of acquisitiveness, with social inequality. He grieves not only for barren luxury, but also for wealth as a temptation. Wealth seduces first of all the possessor. Wealth in itself is not a value; it is only a theatrical mask that hides the true image of a person. And at the same time, the possessor is accustomed to involuntarily cherish it, falls into dangerous self-deception, and becomes attached to imaginary goods. Not only wealth, unrighteously and dishonestly acquired, is dangerous, but also all possessions... However, not in itself, but as a stimulus for the will, as a reason to cherish the perishable and imaginary. "Love of wealth is an unnatural passion," says Chrysostom, "the desire for wealth is not natural, not necessary, but superfluous"... This deviation of the will is dangerous, wealth is a dangerous burden... "Wealth is harmful to you not because it arms robbers against you and completely darkens your mind," said Chrysostom, "but most of all because it makes you prisoners of soulless possessions, removes you from the service of God"... Here a contradiction is revealed: the spirit of acquisitiveness binds to things, and God teaches to despise them and renounce them. "Not only is concern for the acquisition of wealth harmful, but also excessive concern for the most necessary things," Chrysostom reminds. "Christ, having shown all the harm from addiction to wealth, extends His command further. And not only does it command us to despise wealth, but it also forbids us to take care of the best food: do not worry in your soul about what you eat"... This is not the end of the question: "It is not enough to despise riches," says Chrysostom, "but it is necessary to feed the poor, and most importantly, to follow Christ"... Thus a new contradiction is revealed: the worldly pathos of acquisitiveness, accumulation, the pathos of the preservation of material goods is opposed by the Gospel commandment: give to the poor... In this regard, the untruth of the world, the untruth of social inequality, is revealed with particular vividness: in the face of poverty and sorrow, all wealth is unjust and dead, as a testimony to the inertia of the heart, to the lack of love... From this point of view, Chrysostom does not approve of the splendor in churches. "The Church is not in order to smelt gold in it, to forge silver," he said, "it is a triumphant assembly of angels. That is why we demand souls as a gift, because God accepts other gifts for the sake of souls. At that time the table was not silver, and Christ did not give drink from a golden vessel, but His blood to His disciples. Yet everything there was precious and awe-inspiring, for it was filled with the Spirit. Do you want to honor the body of Christ? Do not despise when you see Christ naked... And what good is it if you honor Him here with silk coverings, and leave outside the temple to endure cold and nakedness... What is the use if Christ's table is full of golden vessels, and Christ Himself is tormented by hunger... You make a golden cup, but you do not serve cold water in the cup... Christ, like a homeless wanderer, walks around and asks for shelter, and you, instead of accepting him, decorate the floor, walls, tops of pillars, tie silver chains to horses — and you do not even want to look at Christ bound in prison"... It seemed to Chrysostom that every saved thing was taken away from the needy, for one cannot be rich without the other being poor because of it. "The beginning and root of wealth must necessarily lie in some injustice," he thought. Chrysostom did not consider poverty to be a virtue at all. On the one hand, poverty attracted him as need, as suffering, and to that extent Christ was among the poor. And He comes to us in the form of a beggar, and not in the guise of a rich man... Poverty, on the other hand, when it is chosen voluntarily for God's sake, or accepted with joy, is the way of virtue. First of all, because the have-nots are freer than the haves, they have fewer attachments, less worries... It is easier for him to live, it is easier to asceticize. Chrysostom knew, of course, that poverty can also be a heavy burden, not only external, but also internal, as a source of envy and malice or despair... Therefore, he tried to fight poverty. His attention is always occupied with the moral side of the matter. He was not a social reformer at all, but only a shepherd of souls. This does not mean that he did not have a social ideal. But his social ideal was first and foremost a moral ideal. It was, first of all, the ideal of equality. For inequality is excluded by true love... Chrysostom proceeds from the idea that in the strict sense of the word there is no property and cannot be. For everything belongs to God Himself, and to Him alone, and from Him it is given as a gift, as if borrowed. Everything is God's, and only a good deed can be a person's own... And at the same time, God gives everything into common possession... "If our goods belong to the common Lord, then they equally constitute the property of our fellow servants: what belongs to the Lord belongs to everyone in general. Do we not see such a device in large houses... And all that is royal belongs to all: cities, squares, streets belong to all; we all use them equally. Look at the building of God. He created certain things common to all, in order to shame the human race, such as: air, sun, water, earth, sky, sea, light, stars He divided among all equally, as if between brothers... And He made other things common, such as: baths, cities, squares, streets. And note that there is not the slightest contention about what belongs to all, but everything is done peacefully. But if someone tries to take something away and turn it into his own property, then strife arises, as if due to the fact that nature herself is indignant that at a time when God gathers us from everywhere, we try with special diligence to separate from each other, to separate ourselves from each other, forming a private domain, and to say these cold words: "This is yours, and this is mine." Then there are disputes, then upsets. And where there is nothing of the kind, there are no disputes or strife. Therefore the common rather than the separate possession of things is destined for us, and it is more in accord with nature itself. That is why no one ever starts litigation about the possession of the square. Is it not because it belongs to everyone?" … And it seems to Chrysostom that even animals are better... "They have everything in common—the land, the springs, the pastures, the mountains, the forests, and none of them has more than the other. And you, man, the meekest animal, become more ferocious than the beast, enclosing in one house the food of thousands and even many thousands of the poor, while we have one common nature and many other things besides nature: the common sky, the sun, the moon, the chorus of stars, the air, the sea, fire, water, earth, life, death, youth, old age, sickness, health, the need for food and clothing. So are the general and spiritual blessings: the sacred table, the body of the Lord, His precious blood, the promise of the Kingdom, the bath of regeneration, the cleansing of sins, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, unspeakable blessings... Therefore, is it not madness for those who have so much in common with each other – nature, grace, promises, and laws – to be so addicted to riches, not to observe equality in this either, but to surpass the ferocity of the beasts, and moreover, when it is necessary to abandon all this soon"... Chrysostom sees the source of inequality in human will and freedom, in the will to property. It depends on the free will of a person how to dispose of the gifts given to him, in this disposition, according to Chrysostom, the essence of the question. It does not demand universal poverty or misery at all. He denounces luxury and excess, only unjust inequality. He seeks justice. Material goods are given from God, you cannot disdain them. It is not impossible to find them for the selfish benefit of some, to the detriment of others. Chrysostom saw the solution to the problem in love, because "love does not seek its own" (1 Cor. 12:5). It seemed to him that the matter had been settled in the early church, as told in the book of Acts. "They renounced their possessions and rejoiced, and great was the joy because the goods they had acquired were greater... There was no cold word: mine and yours, so there was joy at the meal... This cruel and innumerable wars in the universe will be cut out: mine and yours were expelled from that holy Church, and they lived on earth as angels in heaven: neither did the poor envy the rich, because there were no rich, nor did the rich despise the poor, because there were no poor... It was not the same then, as it is now. Now those who have property give to the poor, but then it was not so... In everything they had equality and all the riches mixed together"... Characteristically, it was this example that was always referred to first of all by the ideologists of the monastic community, who completely rejected the right to private property. Chrysostom would like to repeat the monastic example in the world. He had in mind a relatively small community in Antioch or in Constantinople. And in his conversations he counted on how, in case of voluntary renunciation of property and with its fair distribution, everyone would be secured. This is how church property was organized at that time, it was common, it was distributed by the bishop. In part, it was spent on the needs of the church, the clergy lived at its expense, but above all it was "the property of the poor." However, Chrysostom emphasized that such socialization of estates can be useful only when it is voluntary, when it is an expression of loving self-denial and love, and therefore it presupposes a high degree of moral success and perfection. In other words: this is the ultimate or ideal case of Christian charity. That is why Chrysostom confines himself to demanding generous alms. He understands alms very broadly – there is material almsgiving, but there is also alms by advice... "Will not almsgiving be great," he asks, "if a soul seized with despondency, in extreme danger, possessed by the flame (of passion), who can be freed from this disease"?.. For Chrysostom, unanimity, a sense of community, a sense of common responsibility and care are most important. That is why he considered almsgiving to be a necessary and essential aspect of Christian life: "If someone does not give alms, he will remain outside the bridal chamber," said Chrysostom, "and will certainly perish. Not for the lifting up of hands can one be heard, stretch out your hands not to heaven, but to the hands of the poor"... Explaining the eschatological discourse of the Saviour, Chrysostom remarks: "He does not mention any other virtue except works of almsgiving," for alms are from love, and love is the concentration and meaning of the Christian life... In his preaching of mercy, Chrysostom rises to genuine mystical heights: "Do you want to see the altar of the Merciful? It was not Bezalel who built it, nor anyone else, but God Himself. Not of stones, but of matter lighter than the sky, of rational souls... This altar is made of the very members of Christ. And the body of the Lord Himself serves you as an altar. Revere him: on the Lord's Body you perform a sacrifice. This altar is more terrible than the new, and not only the ancient altar... And yet you venerate that altar, because it receives the Body of Christ, and you humiliate this altar, which is the Very Body of Christ, and do not pay attention when it is destroyed. You can see such an altar everywhere – both in the streets and in the squares – you can offer sacrifice on it every hour, because here too the sacrifice is sanctified"...

Chrysostom's thoughts on the civil system deserve attention. He was more than once forced to talk about power, especially in Constantinople. Power, in his understanding, is a kind of enslavement and presupposes inequality, it is established by God, but as a result of sin. In paradise there was no power, for there was no inequality, and man was free. Sinfulness makes power necessary, as a kind of bond of social life, without power a general struggle would begin... However, the same sinful people rule, and therefore too often the government is cruel and unjust. At the same time, it does not become illegitimate, and all authority must be obeyed. Its power has its limit only in the Church, secular power does not extend beyond the church fence. And the servants of the Church are called to console the offended and the grieving. "Judges frighten, so let the priests console... The rulers threaten, so let the Church encourage them," said Chrysostom... "By means of both, God arranges our salvation. He also armed the commanders to frighten the impudent. He also ordained priests to comfort the sorrowful"... Secondly, the priesthood is called to admonish and rebuke those in power. "The last authority of the priest is higher than that of the king," said Chrysostom, "for this reason the king bows his head under the hands of the priest, and in the Old Testament the priests anointed kings." However, the priest is given only the right to speak and boldness, and he is not allowed to use force. In the eyes of Chrysostom, power remains inviolable, but it is subject to the judgment of ecclesiastical reason and conscience. In this respect, Chrysostom's famous speeches "On Statues" are especially characteristic. Equally characteristic is his intercession for Eutropius. He himself considered this incident a "brilliant victory" of the Church, "the most glorious trophy," at the threshold of the Church enmity and hatred were shattered, power stopped... Chrysostom had no plans for external social reconstruction. He recognized and accepted the existing order and strove not to transform society, but to transform people. He believed in the victorious strength of the spirit. This explains his attitude towards slavery. He sees all its unnaturalness, but does not deny it, does not demand its abolition. And not only because such a demand was unfulfillable, but Chrysostom often demanded things that could not be fulfilled, and his strict moral appeals were no easier. But he saw a more direct and faster way to overcome slavery in his unrighteousness – a sermon of meekness, attention and love... He reminds slaveholders of the dignity of man, of the universal equality of people before Christ. And he calls slaves to the highest freedom, to obedience for Christ's sake, in which all worldly dependence is eased... Here again Chrysostom's characteristic transfer of emphasis from marine life to spiritual life is reflected. No external conditions can prevent life in Christ and with Christ, and in it, eternal joy and bliss.

III. Златоуст, как экзегет.

Как проповедник и как учитель, Златоуст был прежде всего экзегетом. И с какой-то резкостью указывал всегда на Писание, как на основной, достаточный и обязательный источник и вероучения, и нравственного назидания. «Кто согласен с Писаниями, тот христианин, — говорил он, — а кто с ними не согласен, тот далек от истины»… Всех и каждого Златоуст постоянно и настойчиво призывает к прилежному чтению Библии. «Не ожидай другого учителя… Есть у тебя Слово Божие — никто не научит тебя, как оно»… И в особенности мирские люди нуждаются в чтении священных книг. «Ибо монахи вдали от городов пользуются большей безопасностью. Но мы, живущие среди моря греховных пожеланий и искушений, мы нуждаемся в Божественном лечении, чтобы исцелиться от обременяющих нас язв и предохранить себя от будущих ранений, чтобы уничтожить Писанием огненные стрелы сатаны»… В Священном Писании все назидательно и целебно, «и в кратком изречении Божественного Писания можно найти великую силу и несказанное богатство мыслей»… И для ревностного читателя в Писании открываются все новые и новые глубины. И слышится голос Божий, властно говорящий к каждой человеческой душе. «Даже один вид Евангелия делает нас более воздержанными от греха, — замечал Златоуст, — а если присоединится и внимательное чтение, то душа, как бы вступая в таинственное святилище, очищается и делается лучше, ибо с нею чрез эти Писания беседует Бог»… Священные книги — это некoe послание, писанное Богом из вечности в людям. Отсюда такая сила в чтении Библии. Когда человеколюбивый Владыка видит, как ревнуем мы о постижении Его Божественных слов, Он просвещает и озаряет наш ум и открывает истину нашей душе… Златоуст был близок к буквальному пониманию богодухновенности Писания. И распространял ее на весь текст Священных книг, будет ли то перечисление имен, приветствие или даты. В Писании нет ничего лишнего и напрасного — ни единой йоты, ни единого слога, — и часто прибавление одной буквы меняет смысл, как то показывает переименование Авраама… В самой человеческой слабости священных писателей Златоуст видит только знак Божественного снисхождения или приспособления. И даже в обмолвках или разногласиях старается вскрыть Божественный смысл. Он считает как бы преднамеренными «разногласия евангелистов»… «Ибо если бы они во всем были до точности согласны, и относительно времени, и относительно места, и относительно самих слов, то никто из врагов не поверил бы, что они писали не согласившись и не сговорившись между собою и что согласие их искренно. Теперь же тот самый факт, что в Евангелиях замечаются несогласия в малых вещах, должен отклонить всякое подозрение и торжественно оправдать доверие к написавшим». Священные писатели писали и говорили «в Духе», — или говорил в них Дух. Однако это наитие Духа Златоуст решительно отличает от одержимости: сознание и ум остается ясным и уразумевает внушаемое. Это скорее озарение. И в этом существенное отличие профетизма от мантики. Поэтому священные писатели не теряют лица. И Златоуст всегда останавливается на личности писателя, на обстоятельствах написания отдельных книг. В частности образ апостола Павла всегда ярко вычерчивался перед ним, и он оставил в похвалу великого апостола языков семь особых слов. И все же Библия едина, ибо все в ней от Бога. А писатели только трость книжника скорописца.

В молодости Златоуст учился не только у Ливания, но еще и у Диодора. И в школе Диодора сложилось его библейское мировоззрение, определился его экзегетический стиль. О Диодоре Тарсском Златоуст вспоминал впоследствии с большим чувством и признанием, «он проводил жизнь апостольскую в нестяжании, в молитве и в служении слова», «это язык, текущий медом и млеком», труба и лира… Златоуст не быль новатором как экзегет, он продолжал уже сложившуюся традицию. — В истории Антиохийского богословия очень многое остается неясным. Несомненно, очень рано Антиохия стала крупным христианским центром. Мы можем отметить только разрозненные звенья непрерывной традиции. Прежде всего нужно вспомнить о Феофиле Антиохийском — не только писателе, но и мыслителе. Позже мы встречаемся с именем пресвитера Малxиона, стоящего во главе эллинской школы, он был одним из главных обличителей Павла Самосатского. Приблизительно к тому же времени относится учительная деятельность знаменитого, известного Лукиана. Одновременно с Лукианом учил в Антиохии пресвитер Дорофей, — Евсевий, который слышал его толкование на Писание в церкви, характеризует, его, как ученого мужа, знатока еврейского языка, читавшего еврейские книги, но не чуждого и эллинского образования. Таким образом, уже в III веке Aнтиохия была очагом библейской работы. И уже тогда определяется своеобразие экзегетического стиля. Для антиохийцев становится характерно сдержанное и часто враждебное отношение к экзегетическому аллегоризму. В этом отношении очень ярок образ св. Евстафия Антиохийского, пришедшего со стороны и боровшегося с арианствующими лукианистами… Вообще полемика и противопоставление были одним из главных факторов в сложении того антиохийского богословского типа IV века. Самым ярким представителем был Диодор Тарсский. С Лукианом он был связан чрез посредство его ученика Евсевия Емесского, который учился и в Едессе. Диодор был ревностным аскетом и борцом за Православие, — сперва против apиaн, позже против аполлинаристов. Он очень много писал и на самые разнообразные темы. Но прежде всего он был экзегетом, он объяснил из Ветхого Завета Пятокнижие, Псалмы, Книги Царств, трудные места из Параллипоменон, Притчи, Екклезиаст, Песнь Песней, пророков, из Нового — Евангелия, Деяния, 1 Иоанна. Обо всем этом мы можем судить только по скудным отрывкам. Впрочем, сохранилось его небольшое рассуждение «О созерцании и иносказании», в котором он кратко излагает свои основные экзегетические предпосылки. Диодор различает: историю, созерцание и иносказание, — ιστορια, θεορια, αλληγορια. — Οξ μνενθώ Δθξδξπΰ, β Οθρΰνθθ νες θνξρκΰηΰνθι, — θνΰχε ρκΰηΰςό, Οθρΰνθε νε ερςό οπθςχΰ… Αθαλειρκθε πΰρρκΰηϋ θ πεχενθ βρεγδΰ πεΰλθρςθχνϋ, οπμξ ξςνξρςρ κ ςξμσ, ξ χεμ θδες πεχό. Οξύςξμσ αθαλειρκξε ςξλκξβΰνθε δξλζνξ αϋςό «θρςξπθχνξ», δξλζνξ αϋςό «χθρςϋμ θηλξζενθεμ ξ αϋβψεμ». Νΰοπξςθβ, ΰλλεγξπθημ ξςπϋβΰεςρ ξς οπμξγξ ρμϋρλΰ, «μενες οξδλεζΰωεε», δλ ΰλλεγξπθημΰ ξα ξδνξμ γξβξπθςρ, νξ δπσγξε οξδπΰησμεβΰεςρ. Ξς θνξρκΰηΰνθ νσζνξ ξςλθχΰςό «ρξηεπφΰνθε». Ρξηεπφΰνθε β ρΰμξι θρςξπθθ ξςκπϋβΰες βϋρψθι ρμϋρλ, —θρςξπθχερκθι πεΰλθημ ύςθμ νε ξςπθφΰεςρ, νξ οπεδοξλΰγΰεςρ. ΰκ θμεννξ ξαϊρνλ αθαλειρκθε μερςΰ ΰοξρςξλ Οΰβελ. Δθξδξπ, ρςΰλξ αϋςό, οπεζδε βρεγξ ξαπΰωΰεςρ νΰ ηΰωθςσ αθαλειρκξγξ πεΰλθημΰ οπξςθβ «ύλλθνθημΰ», κξςξπϋι ξν βθδθς β ΰλλεγξπθχερκθυ ςξλκξβΰνθυ. Νξ βμερςε ρ ςεμ ξν ξςμεζεβϋβΰεςρ θ ξς «θσδΰθημΰ», ξς γπσαξγξ βεπαΰλθημΰ, νε οπξνθκΰώωεγξ δΰλόψε ρλξβ. Ξχενό μνξγξε β Αθαλθθ γξβξπθςρ γθοεπαξλθχερκθ, — πΰρρκΰη θ βϋπΰζενθε βνξ οπεβϋψΰώωεε μεπσ βπεμενθ. έςξ ρνξ σκΰηϋβΰες νΰ δπσγξι, νΰ βςξπθχνϋι ρμϋρλ, βρεγξ χΰωε ύςξ ρμϋρλ οπξτεςθχερκθι θλθ οπξξαπΰηξβΰςελόνϋι. «Ρξηεπφΰνθε», ξ κξςξπξμ γξβξπθς Δθξδξπ, ερςό οπεζδε βρεγξ ύκηεγεςθχερκΰ δθβθνΰφθ, πΰρκπϋβΰώωΰ οπξξαπΰηϋ. Δθξδξπ αϋλ δΰλεκ ξς βεπαΰλθρςθχερκξγξ πΰφθξνΰλθημΰ. Αθαλθ αϋλΰ δλ νεγξ ρβωεννξι κνθγξι. Θ Αξζερςβεννξι αλΰγξδΰςθ ρξξαπΰηνξ ξςκπϋβΰςόρ μνξγξβθδνξ… πσδνξ ρσδθςό, κΰκ Δθξδξπ οπθμενλ ρβξθ ξρνξβνϋε οπΰβθλΰ νΰ δελε. Βξ βρκξμ ρλσχΰε, β θρςξπθκξ-γπΰμμΰςθχερκξμ μεςξδε ςξλκξβΰνθ αϋλθ ρβξθ ξοΰρνξρςθ, νε μενόψθε, χεμ β ΰλλεγξπθημε. «ΐλεκρΰνδπθιρκξι ψκξλε μξγλΰ σγπξζΰςό ξοΰρνξρςό ρξχθνθςό ρβξε Ρβ. Οθρΰνθε, — ξρςπξ ηΰμεχΰες Αξλξςξβ, — ΰνςθξυθιρκξι — ξρςΰνξβθςόρ ξχενό αλθηκξ κ ασκβε, οξηΰαϋςό, χςξ ηΰ «θρςξπθει» δξλζνΰ ρλεδξβΰςό «ςεξπθ». Β ύκηεγεςθκε Τεξδξπΰ Μξορσεςθιρκξγξ», σχενθκΰ Δθξδξπΰ, ύςΰ ξοΰρνξρςό ξρσωερςβθλΰρό. Ηλΰςξσρς ξς κπΰινξρςει Τεξδξπΰ αϋλ δΰλεκ. Οξ βθδθμξμσ, ξν αλθζε ρςξλ κ Δθξδξπσ. Μξζνξ δσμΰςό, χςξ ςξλκξβΰνθμθ ρβξεγξ σχθςελ ξν οξλόηξβΰλρ β ρβξθυ ύκηεγεςθχερκθυ ξοϋςΰυ. Νερξμνεννξ, χςξ ξν οξλόηξβΰλρ ςξλκξβΰνθμθ Εβρεβθ Εμερρκξγξ. Νξ, ρ δπσγξι ρςξπξνϋ, ξν οξλόηξβΰλρ θ ςβξπενθμθ κΰοοΰδξκθιφεβ, κξςξπϋυ ρκξπεε μξζνξ ραλθζΰςό ρ ΰλεκρΰνδπθιρκξι ςπΰδθφθει. Β ξαωεμ νσζνξ ρκΰηΰςό, Ηλΰςξσρς ξρςΰεςρ β ρβξθυ ςξλκξβΰνθυ βρεγδΰ πεΰλθρςξμ. Νξ ρΰμϋε ρξαϋςθ οξσχΰώς θλθ οπξπξχερςβσώς — β ύςξμ ξαξρνξβΰνθε «ςθοξλξγθχερκθυ» ξαϊρνενθι, οξ ρσωερςβσ ξςλθχνϋυ ξς θνξρκΰηΰνθ. Β σχενθθ ξ «ςθοΰυ», ς.ε. ξαπΰηΰυ, θ ηΰκλώχΰεςρ ρσωερςβξ ύκηεγεςθχερκθυ βξηηπενθι Ηλΰςξσρςΰ. έςξ ρβηΰνξ οπεζδε βρεγξ ρ βξοπξρξμ ξ πελθγθξηνξμ ηνΰχενθθ ρβωεννϋυ κνθγ δλ κΰζδξγξ βεπσώωεγξ, ς.ε. δλ μνξζερςβΰ χθςΰςελει, θ οπθ ςξμ δλ μνξζερςβΰ νεξοπεδελεννξγξ, νε ξγπΰνθχεννξγξ νθ βπεμενεμ, νθ μερςξμ. έςξμσ δξλζνΰ ρξξςβεςρςβξβΰςό μνξζερςβεννξρςό ρμϋρλΰ ρΰμξγξ Οθρΰνθ. Β χΰρςνξρςθ, ξρξασώ ξρςπξςσ οξλσχΰες ύςξς βξοπξρ οπθ ςξλκξβΰλθ Βεςυξγξ Ηΰβεςΰ. Ηδερό χθρςϋι «θρςξπθημ» νεθηαεζνξ ξκΰηϋβΰώςρ «θσδΰθημξμ». Θ θμεννξ ηδερό «ςθοξλξγθ» οξλσχΰες ξρξασώ βΰζνξρςό. Νξ οξδλθννϋι «ςθοξλξγθημ» βξημξζεν ςξλόκξ νΰ πεΰλθρςθχερκξι ξρνξβε. Νε σδθβθςελόνξ, χςξ θμεννξ β ΰνςθξυθιρκξι ύκηεγεςθκε σχενθε ξ οπξξαπΰηΰυ θ οπξξαπΰηξβΰνθυ οξλσχθλξ οξλνξε πΰρκπϋςθε. Σ Ηλΰςξσρςΰ ύςξ ρβηΰνξ ρ εγξ αλθηξρςόώ κ αξγξρλξβθώ ΰοξρςξλΰ Οΰβλΰ. Νξ θ βρε ΰνςθξυθιρκξε ύκηεγεςθχερκξε αξγξρλξβθε αϋλξ β θηβερςνξμ ρμϋρλε «οΰβλθνθημξμ».

В Писании, как в слове Божием, есть некая трехмерность, есть глубина… И потому толкователь должен проникать далее поверхностного слоя, далее иди глубже буквы. Это основное правило, основной прием Златоуста. Прежде всего, это связано с известной неполнотою или даже темнотой библейской буквы. Бог говорил к человеку, стало быть, — замечает Златоуст, — «приспособительно к слабости слушающих»… Так он объясняет библейские антропоморфизмы и антропопатизмы, — «Отец не взирает на свое достоинство, когда лепечет вместе с детьми». Так объясняет он недосказанность и в Новом Завете, Спаситель не сказал Никодиму о Своем Божественном достоинстве, «потому что для слушателя это было еще недоступно и преждевременно»… И апостолы по этой же причине часто говорили о Христе, как о человеке, не открывая прежде времени большего… Поэтому становится необходимым распространительное и применительное толкование подобных мест. Особенно это относится к Ветхому Завету. Однако, не только потому, что тогда не настало еще время для полного откровения, впрочем, Златоуст может быть и чрезмерно подчеркивал дидактическую «темноту» Ветхого Завета. Главная причина этой темноты в том, что Ветхий Завет обращен к грядущему, есть некое единое пророчество… Златоуст предпочитает говорить: образ, τυπος. И замечает: «Не ищи в образе полной действительности, смотри только на сходство образа с действительностью и на превосходство действительного пред его образом»… Ветхий Завет исполнился в Новом, поэтому только исходя из Нового Завета мы можем распознать «истину» или смысл Ветхого. «Образ, — объясняет Златоуст, — не должен быть совершенно отличен от истины, иначе он не был бы образом. И не должен быть совершенно равен истине, ибо тогда бы он был самою истиной. Он должен заключаться в своих пределах, не заключая в себе всей истины и не удаляясь от нее вполне. Ибо если бы он имел все, то был бы самою истиною. А если бы не имел ничего (от истины), то не мог бы быть образом. Нечто он должен иметь в себе, и нечто оставлять истине»… Предображение иди прообразование состоит в том, что отдельные события указывают на некоторые другие события будущего. От иносказания «типология» отлична в том, что объясняет события, а не слова. Аллегорическое понимание видит в библейских рассказах только притчи, только чистые символы, различает не два плана действительности, но два понимания одного и того же символа. Ветхий и Новый Завет для аллегориста суть две системы толкования, два мировоззрения, но не два этапа домостроительной истории. В этом и заключается ирреализм аллегорического метода. Исторический реализм не превращает Библию в мирскую историю. Даже Феодора Мопсуестийского не следует принимать за историка-позитивиста. И для него Библия в целом есть христологическая, мессианская книга, — события Ветхого Завета прообразуют грядущее, пророчествуют. Библия полна намеков и предчувствий. Еще более это для Златоуста. В известном смысле аллегорический мотив включается в типологическое толкование. Однако символичны не слова, но факты. Так жертвоприношение Исаака означает и Крест… Так агнец ветхозаветный прообразует и Христа… Так переселение в Египет и исход оттуда предуказуют бегство Иосифа в Египет с Младенцем и возвращение в Палестину… Легко понять, что при этом остается та же условность и произвол в толковании, что и у аллегористов… Другой ряд прообразов Златоуст усматривает в самих словах, в образе выражения, особенно в речах пророческих. Пророки говорили образным языком, здесь область символизма в собственном смысле. Однако самые предсказания многозначны, относятся к ряду свершений, раскрывающих одно другое. При этом часто сюда относится уже и бывшее, прошедшее, так Моисей пророчествовал, когда повествовал о небе и земле… Иаков пророчествовал о Иуде, но в то же время и о Христе. Псалмы имеют двоякий смысл». То же относится и к Новому Завету. Евангелия и историчны, но вместе с тем самые евангельские события как бы прообразуют будущую судьбу и путь верующих душ, приходящих ко Христу. К тому же Спаситель часто говорит в притчах. Именно этим оправдывается нравственное приложение евангельских текстов. Из сказанного объясняется религиозный смысл «историко-граматической» экзегетики. Это не было рассудочное, эмпирическое толкование Писания. Не следует преувеличивать и «научности» антиохийских толкований. Эрудиция антиохийских экзегетов не была больше и не была строже, чем у александрийцев. Во всяком случае Златоуст не знал еврейского языка, как не знал его и Феодор Мопсуестийский. Поэтому оба они следовали греческому тексту, которому и придавали решающее значение, и вопросы о разногласии еврейского и греческого текстов оставались неразрешенными. Не была достаточно широкой и та историческая перспектива, в которой Златоуст развертывал свои библейские объяснения. Он ограничивался краткими справками о писателе книги, об обстоятельствах ее писания, о целях писателя, — и затем следил за планом, за движением мысли. Толкования Златоуста на Новый Завет принадлежат к лучшим среди его творений, как то отмечали уже в древности. Это зависит от той зоркости, с какой он схватывает малейшие оттенки греческой речи… Филолог чувствуется в Златоусте, когда он ставит вопросы: кто говорит, к кому говорит, что и о чем говорит… Он раскрывает оттенки синонимов, равновозможных оборотов речи… Смысл Писания он всегда старается вывести из самого Писания, сравнительно мало и редко ссылаясь на Предание. Для него Библия была как бы самодостаточною. В этом Златоуст близок к Оригену. И александрийцы, и антиохийцы равно стремились схватить и вскрыть «внутренний» или «духовный» смысл Писания, — и расходились только в методах, а не в постановке задачи. Это методологическое расхождение отчасти связано с различием тех античных филологических традиций, к которым они примыкали, ибо различие и даже борьба «аллегорического» и «историко-грамматического» методов восходит уже к античной экзегетике классических текстов. Но, прежде всего, оно связано с различием в религиозном восприятии истории. Недаром Диодор Тарсский обвинял александрийских аллегористов в непонимании истории… Это было, однако, различие тенденций, скорее нежели решений. И основной задачей всегда оставалось объяснение, раскрытие смысла, — все равно, слов или событий… В плане нравственных приложений александрийцы и антиохийцы очень близко подходили друг к другу. Всего дальше от александрийцев ушел Феодор Мопсуестийский, но у него библейская экзегетика почти теряла свой религиозный смысл. Это было связано с его общим богословским уклоном, с его своеобразным гуманизмом… В этих своих крайностях антиохийское направление было осуждено. Но была удержана правда антиохийского экзегетического реализма: отношение к Писанию, как к истории, а не как к притче… Именно в этом была и сила Златоуста.

Учители Крайнего Востока.