VII. Chrysostom-Rome the Restrainer of Universal Antichrist
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 347-407), patriarch of Constantinople and most famous teacher of the Greek church—called Chrysostom “the golden-mouthed” because of his eloquence—was born in Antioch, the capital of Syria. His father, a distinguished military officer, and his mother, one of the outstandingly pious women of the time, gave him an admirable classical education. He received his literary training from the rhetorician Libanius, and the philosopher Andragathius, and became a rhetorician and an advocate. Dissatisfied with such a life, he placed himself for three years under Christian instruction, and was baptized at twenty-three by Bishop Meletius.PFF1 425.1
After his mother’s death he retired to monastic solitude. But excessive self-mortification undermined his health, and he returned to Antioch about 380. He was ordained a deacon in 381, and a priest in 386. It was during the subsequent years at Antioch that his sermons provided the greater part of iiis Homilies, which, with his commentaries, totaled some six hundred. In 398 he was chosen patriarch of Constantinople at the insistence of the Emperor Arcadius’ prime minister. But his unsparing sermons attempting to reform the clergy aroused the anger of the Empress Eudoxia, and gave his rival, the ambitious Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, an opportunity to secure his banishment from the capital in 403. Soon recalled, he was banished again in 404 to Cucusus, a village on the borders of Cilicia and Armenia, and nearly all his extant letters date from this exile. They range from advice to his distant flock to encouragement of the missions in Persia and Scythia. He died while in banishment in 407, having reached the “threescore” mark.PFF1 425.2
Chrysostom was involved in the Origenistic controversy. Of an unspeculative turn of mind, he did not share Origen’s mystical expositions. He held to the simple, sober, grammatico—historical interpretation of Scripture in opposition to the arbitrary allegorizing and mystification of the Alexandrian school. He also remained free from rationalizing tendencies. Chrysostom declared Scripture prophecy to be more potent than miracles, and also said that prophecy was to indicate things present as well as to declare future events. We now turn to his interpretation of prophecy.PFF1 426.1
1. ANGELS CATCH UP RESURRECTED SAINTS
Discussing 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17-the coming of Christ at the last trump to raise the dead and translate the living—Chrysostom teaches plainly the literal resurrection of the dead and their gathering by the angels at the advent.PFF1 426.2
“Those who are dead are raised first, and thus the meeting [with the living] takes place together. Abel who died before all shall then meet Him together with those who are alive. So that they in this respect will have no advantage, but he who is corrupted, and has been so many years in the earth, shall meet Him with them, and so all the others. For if they awaited us, that we might be crowned, as elsewhere he says in an Epistle, ‘God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect’ (Hebrews 11:40), much more shall we also await them; or rather, they indeed awaited, but we not at all. For the Resurrection takes place ‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.’” PFF1 426.3
2. ANTICHRIST’S APPEARANCE SIGN OF ADVENT
Touching upon the suddenness of the coming of the day of the Lord, and how unexpectedly it will come upon an unprepared world—”as travail upon a woman with child” (1 Thessalonians 5:3)—Chrysostom presents the antecedent appearance of Antichrist and Elijah as a sign of the coming Christ.PFF1 426.4
“It may be worth while to ask, If Antichrist comes, and Elias comes, how is it ‘when they say Peace and safety,’ that then a sudden destruction comes upon them? For these things do not permit the day to come upon them unawares, being signs of its coming. But he does not mean this to be the time of Antichrist, and the whole day, because that will be a sign of the coming of Christ, but Himself will not have a sign, but will come suddenly and unexpectedly.” PFF1 427.1
Progressing to Second Thessalonians, Paul’s classic passage concerning the Antichrist, Chrysostom considers more particularly this appearance of the Antichrist as the outstanding “sign of the time,” next to the preaching of the gospel to all nations before the advent, and along with the coming of Elias. PFF1 427.2
3. ANTICHRIST WILL APPEAR IN SELF-EXALTATION
Alluding to the common conception concerning the Antichrist, Chrysostom declares he will appear in exaltation, not in humiliation. PFF1 427.3
4. ANTICHRIST TO APPEAR IN EVERY CHURCH
Coming to the important passage in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4-concerning the revelation of the “Man of Sin” in the “temple of God” (as the Christian church, not only the Jewish temple), setting himself forth as God-Chrysostom denominates Antichrist as “the apostasy.” And particular note should be taken of Chrysostom’s declaration that this Christian apostasy will appear not only in Jerusalem, as some had thought, “but also in every church” as an opponent of God.PFF1 427.4
“Here [2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4] he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is ‘the falling away? [Footnote: “The Greek word translated ‘falling away’ is that which we borrow as apostasy.- J.A.B.”] He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, he says, the very Elect should be offended. (From Matthew 24:24.) And he calls him ‘the man of sin.’ For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him ‘the son of perdition, because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man, ‘And exalteth himself against all that is called God or is worshiped.’ For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. ‘Setting himself forth/ he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.” PFF1 427.5
5. DANIEL’S FOUR-EMPIRE OUTLINE INCLUDES ANTICHRIST
Even more significant is Chrysostom’s declaration that the succession in Daniel’s prophetic outline of the four world powers—with Rome as the restraining fourth—progresses next to Antichrist’s kingdom, and then finally to Christ’s kingdom. This, he declares, was disclosed by the prophet “with great clearness.”PFF1 428.1
” ‘Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way/ that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness PFF1 428.2
6. ROMAN EMPIRE THE RESTRAINING POWER
Next, Chrysostom passes to the identity of Rome as the restraining power that had thus far prevented Antichrist’s revelation, and the expedient reason for the apostle’s not openly naming the empire.PFF1 428.3
“One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. [2 Thessalonians 2:6-9.] What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end.” PFF1 428.4
Nero is set forth, incidentally, as a type of the coming Antichrist. PFF1 429.1
7. FEARFULNESS ABOUT NAMING ROME
From its inception Christianity had come into apparent conflict with the interests of the Roman state. Pilate found it impossible to befriend Christ and yet continue as Caesar’s friend. The same feeling hurried the Jews on to their last great act of apostasy. Men kept largely silent about the Roman name, in reference to prophecy. Thus Chrysostom says:PFF1 429.2
“And the fourth [kingdom] he [Daniel] says, that of the Romans. But he mentions no names and Why? Because, had he made the account too plain, many would have destroyed the Bible.” PFF1 429.3
The same reserve was maintained by the early rabbinical writers, who merely called the Romans the “wicked kingdom.” And the pre-Constantinian writers were equally discreet, lowering the voice when speaking of the empire, lest it hear. After Constantine the reserve was less necessary, and so was laid aside. Yet, as late as the fifth century Jerome’s remarks on the clay mixed with the iron were regarded as a treasonable reference to Stilicho, Rome’s Vandal general, but the latter’s death saved Jerome from being called to account for it. Hence the caution.PFF1 429.4
Jerome thus explains the fear of speaking against the perpetuity of the state. He does not choose to foretell openly the destruction of the Roman Empire, which its rulers think to be eternal. Thus did Christianity clash with the imperial creed of Rome.PFF1 429.5
So Chrysostom’s testimony deals chiefly with the resurrection and Antichrist as factors bearing upon the advent, though the latter is in inseparable relation to Rome in the outline prophecies. He is virtually silent relative to the millennium-significant in the light of contemporary developments.PFF1 430.1