ISSN: 0860-9411 V O X PAT R U M 8 5 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 9 1 - 1 0 4

eISSN: 2719-3586 DOI: 10.31743/vp.14459

John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature

of God’ – The Simpler Way of Presenting Complex
Theological and Philosophical Issues

Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska1

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to indicate how, that is, with the help of which
means, Chrysostom in his five homilies On the Incomprehensible Nature of God introduc-
es his community in Antioch to the intricacies of the dispute with the Anomoeans, as far
as the possibility of knowing God and his essence are concerned. The main differences
between those texts and other fundamental polemical sources with Eunomius will also be
taken under consideration. John uses both biblical and philosophical terms to underline the
negative aspect of theology and his five homilies are not so theologically and philosophi-
cally sophisticated as Basil’s or Gregory’s texts, unlike even Gregory of Nazianzus, whose
Orations, have a similar overall message. John uses methods adequate to accomplish his
goal, which is to preserve the orthodox concept and unify the Antiochian Church.

Keywords: John Chrysostom; Anomoeans; incomprehensibility of God; Eunomius

The homilies analysed in this article came to light due to specific po-
lemical circumstances with the Anomoeans, an important element being the
dispute about the possibility of knowing God and his essence. As part of this
dispute, five important orthodox texts have survived through to our times2,
of which these homilies are the least known3. This is quite surprising, as

1
Dr hab. Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Adjunct at the Interdisciplinary Re-
search Centre of the University of Warsaw „Identity – Dialogue – Security”, University of
Warsaw, Poland; email: [email protected]; ORCID: 0000-0002-4510-6111.
2
These are: Basilius Caesariensis, Adversus Eunomium, Gregorius Nyssenus,
Contra Eunomium, Gregorius Nyssenus, Refutatio confessionis Eunomii, Gregorius Na-
zianzenus, Orationes, Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura.
3
This is evidenced by the number of bibliographic items related to the individual
works of these authors.
92 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

John’s nickname, Chrysostom, indicates that he was familiar for his wonder-
ful speeches and preaching; his pastoral zeal was also famous.
The purpose of this paper is to indicate how, or, by the help of what
means, Chrysostom introduced his community in Antioch to the intricacies
of the dispute with the Anomoeans in addition to, how and why this text
differs from other sources on the same theme.

1. Polemic with the Anomoeans

The first writing of the Anomoeans was Aetius’ Syntagmation but the most
important of these texts was Eunomius’ Apology (Liber apologeticus). Basil
responded to it with his Against Eunomium (Adversus Eunomium), to which
Eunomius’ Apologia apologiae was a response and, in turn, Gregory of Nyssa
wrote his Against Eunomium (Contra Eunomium)4 which was the core of the
polemic. In addition to the above-mentioned works, we have the Expositio fidei,
which is the explanation of the confession of faith of Eunomius and, the Refu-
tatio Confessionis Eunomii, which is the rejection of this confession by Greg-
ory of Nyssa. Of the writings mentioned here, only the Apologia apologiae of
Eunomium has not survived, but we are aware of it from long passages quoted
faithfully, it seems, by Gregory of Nyssa in his Contra Eunomium.
Other Church Fathers that joined the polemics with Eunomius were,
Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote Adversus Eunomianos (Orat. 27 that is
First Theological Speech) and, John Chrysostom with his De incomprehen-
sibili dei natura (Contra Anomoeos homiliae 1-5). There were also other
polemical works by Apollinarius, Didymus the Blind, Theodore of Mop-
suestia and Theodoret of Cyrus but they have not survived.
The key topics of this discussion were, on the one hand, the Trini-
tarian debate in which orthodox authors tried to defend the equality of
three divine persons5 and, the problem of the possibility of knowing

4
More about the history of the controversy: M. Przyszychowska, Historia sporu
eunomiańskiego, in: Eunomiusz i jego adwersarze, v. 1, ed. K. Kochańczyk-Bonińska –
M. Przyszychowska – T. Stępień, Warszawa 2021, p. 15-49; T.A. Kopecek, A history of
neo-arianism, Cambridge 1979.
5
These issues have already been extensively researched and described by such ex-
cellent researchers as e.g. R.P. Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution,
Oxford 2000; S.M. Hildebrand, A Reconsideration of the Development of Basil’s Trinitarian
Theology. The Dating of Ep. 9 and Contra Eunomium, VigCh 59 (2004) p. 393-406; G. Mas-
pero, Trinity and Man. Gregory of Nyssa “Ad Ablabium”, Leiden – Boston 2007; A. Mer-
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 93

God6, initiated by Eunomius. The second one grew into a separate con-
cern and was not only deeply rooted in various philosophical traditions,
but also surrounded by side themes, for example, the issue of the nature
of language7 and God’s simplicity8. The polemic with the Anomoeans
was the most important, the key stage of the Trinitarian dispute, the result
of which was the final defence, and clarification of, the Nicene creed.
The Anomoeans doctrine occurred after AD 350, when Aetius and Euno-
mius began to play an important role in the life of the Church, and lost
its importance after the death of Eunomius around 394: over these forty
years, as Marta Przyszychowska underlines, a debate took place on an
unprecedented, substantive level, conducted using proven philosophical
methods9. Eunomius in his Apology, in order to demonstrate the inequal-
ity of the Father and the Son, proposed two ways/methods of acquiring
knowledge about God: first from the substance to the activity; and, the
second, from the activity to the substance. Following Aetius, he believed
that the names given to the Father (‘unbegotten’ – ἀγέννητος) and the Son
(‘begotten’ – γέννημα) expressed their substance10 and, from this assump-
tion he derives the inequality of the divine persons. The defence of the

edith, Studies in the Contra Eunomium of Gregory or Nyssa, Oxford 1972; Ch.A. Beeley,
Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God. In Your Light We Shall See
Light, Oxford 2008; J. Zachhuber, The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient
Metaphysic. Patristic Philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus, Ox-
ford 2020, p. 32-71; J.T. Lienhard, Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and
the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’, in: The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the
Trinity, ed. S.T. Davis et al., Oxford 2000, p. 99-121; J.C. Larchet, La théologie des énergies
divines. Des origines à saint Jean Damascène, Paris 2010.
6
For more detailed studies on the topic, see e.g.: T. Stępień – K. Kochańczyk-Bonińska,
Unknown God, Known in His Activities. Incomprehensibility of God during the Trinitarian
Controversy of the 4th Century, Berlin 2018; D. Carabine, The Unknown God. Negative
Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena, Eugene 1995.
7
Publications devoted to these issues are, for example: M. Del Cogliano, Basil
of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names, Leiden – Boston 2010; D.G. Robertson,
A Patristic Theory of Proper Names, “Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie” 84 (2002)
p. 1-19; M.R. Barnes, The Background and Use of Eunomius’ Causal Language, in: Ari-
anism after Arius, ed. M.R. Barnes – D.H. Williams, Edinburgh 1993, p. 217–236; D. Bir-
jukov, Strategies of Naming in the Polemic between Eunomius and Basil of Cesarea in the
Context of the Philosophical Tradition of Antiquity, “Scrinium” 4 (2008) p. 104-121.
8
For an excellent publication on this subject, see: A. Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Ce-
sarea, Gregory of Nyssa and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity, Oxford 2009.
9
Cf. Przyszychowska, Historia sporu eunomiańskiego, p.19.
10
Cf. Eunomius, Liber Apologeticus 12, 7-9.
94 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

incomprehensibility of God’s substance was therefore not only a matter

of proper epistemology, but also an apology for orthodox trinitology. As
a consequence, the incomprehensibility of God was strong and a clear
sign of being Orthodox at John’s times.

2. The Historical Background of the Homilies

John Chrysostom wrote twelve homilies against the Anomoeans11,

which can be divided into two series. The first five, which deal with God’s
incomprehensibility (and are our subject), were preached when he was
a priest in Antioch 386-38712 when the local community was divided. These
homilies are very early as John became a priest in 386. In 379, Bishop Me-
letius managed to overcome schism and made an agreement with Paulinus,
who supported the Anomoeans, although it was broken two years later af-
ter his death by the consecration of Bishop Flavian (381). The conflicts
were vital to the Antioch community and in the same church, protagonists
of both fractions could be found. It was in this permanent conflict, John
preached one of his first homilies and the heretics were not only present in
the church but also challenged him to do battle with them13. In fact, at that
time, Antioch was really a cosmopolitan centre, in which pluralism was
much stronger than the two Christian groups (heterodox and orthodox):
there were also active Pagan and Jewish communities. Both of the latter
also claimed Chrystostom’s attention14.

3. The purpose and the topic of the homilies

John says explicitly that the purpose of his homilies is apologetic. His
aim is the defence of true faith against the erroneous teachings of heretics,
which in this case, concerns the possibility of knowing God’s substance.

11
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura (I-V), ed. A.-M. Ma-
lingrey, SCh 28 bis, Paris 1970; (VI-XII), PG 48, 747-812, tr. P.W. Harkins, St. John
Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Washington 1984, p. 51-307.
12
J. Daniélou, Introduction, in: Jean Chrysostome sur l’incomprehensibilite de
Dieu, ed. A.-M. Malingrey, SCh 28 bis, Paris 1970, p. 9.
13
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 340-345.
14
Cf. P.W. Harkins, Introduction, in: St. John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensi-
ble Nature of God, tr. P.W. Harkins, Washington 1984, p. 22.
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 95

“The time I spend on these arguments will both increase your knowledge
about the Anomoeans and will make my prize of victory over those her-
etics a brighter one”15. The teaching presented by John is consistent with
the main theses of other orthodox authors, especially those who also op-
posed the views of Eunomius. These are: the belief that the divine essence
is incomprehensible16 not only for people but also for angels and biblical
heroes17; furthermore, not only divine essence but also divine economy, is
inaccessible for people18, the same is with the essence of created world19.
Like others, John claims that pretending that somebody knows God’s es-
sence is madness and blasphemy20 and has to deal with accusations of wor-
shiping God that he does not know21. Undoubtedly, the key to all orthodox
writers is to defend the thesis that God’s substance is completely unknow-
able. After all, no one has ever seen God22.

Paul said this because on the one hand he knows that God exists, whereas, on
the other, he does not know what God is in his essence. He knows that God is
wise but he does not know how great his wisdom is. He knows that God is great
but he does not know how or what his greatness is. He also knows that God is
everywhere present but he does not know how this is so. He knows that God
provides for all things and that he preserves and governs them to perfection.
But he does not know the way in which God does all these things. Therefore, he
said: ‘Our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect’23.

15
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura IV 8-10, tr. Harkins, p. 115.
16
Cf. e.g. Basilius Caesariensis, Adversus Eunomium I 14; Gregorius Nazianzenus,
De filio, Oratio 30, 17; Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V
251‑275; IV 302-309; III 53-59.
17
Cf. e.g. Gregorius Nazianzenus, De theologia, Oratio 28, 17-20; Joannes
Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura IV 302-309; III 53-59.
18
Cf. e.g. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Adversus Eunomianos, Oratio 27, 3; Joannes
Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 280-281.
19
Cf. e.g. Basilius Caesariensis, Adversus Eunomium III 6; Joannes Chrysostomos,
De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 473-480; III 194-196.
20
Cf. Gregorius Nazianzenus, De dogmate et constitutione Episcoporum, Oratio
20, 11; Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 371-373.
21
Cf. e.g. Basilius Caesariensis, Epistula 235, 2; Gregorius Nyssenus, Contra Eu-
nomium III 1, 103-105.
22
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura IV 159-233; Jo-
annes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 393-394.
23
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 290-301, tr. Har-
kins, p. 65.
96 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

Here John follows the arguments of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, based
on the distinction between substance and activity in God24. It is through
God’s action in the world that we are able to know Him but, His substance
remains inaccessible and unknowable. John’s argumentation is therefore
very simplified compared to the in-depth analysis of Gregory, who denies
the possibility of knowing the substance of God from his activities25.
He also indicates that the belief that it is impossible to know God’s
substance, is common to Christians and Greek philosophers:

But why do I speak of the divine Scriptures when the absurdity of the
Anomoeans is so obvious and their iniquity is so excessive that not even the
pagans, who had wandered so far from the truth, ever tried to say anything
like this? For no pagan ever dared to set down a definition of the divine essen-
ce or to encompass it with a name. And why do I speak of the divine essence?
In their speculations on the nature of incorporeal beings, the Greeks did not
set down a complete definition of this nature but gave an obscure statement
and description rather than a definition26.

John does not go into details or analyses the views of individual schools,
although it is clearly visible that it is inspired by scepticism in this matter:

So it is that all the fraud of the Anomoeans is refuted from these texts. When
we do not know the essence itself, not that it is but what it is, it would be the
height of folly to give it a name. Besides, even if it were clear and known, it
would not be safe for us, of ourselves and by ourselves, to give a name or title
to the essence of the master27.

In these words, we can hear Pyrrho’s views, who, according to Aristo-

cles, not only denied the possibility of knowing anything but, also advised
against speaking about things we do not know28.

24
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 119-142.
25
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 174-193.
26
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 357-365, tr. Har-
kins, p. 153.
27
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 334-339, tr. Har-
kins, p. 152.
28
Cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 14, 18, 1-5.
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 97

Moreover, for Chrysostom, God is unknowable not only to man but

also to prophets and angels29:

Let us call upon him, then, as the ineffable God who is beyond our intelligen-
ce, invisible, incomprehensible, who transcends the power of mortal words.
Let us call on him as the God who is inscrutable to the angels, unseen by the
Seraphim, inconceivable to the Cherubim, invisible to the principalities, to
the powers, and to the virtues, in fact, to all creatures without qualification,
because he is known only by the Son and the Spirit30.

Although the angels do not know the essence of God, they are inter-
mediators between transcendent God and human beings (like in Judaism31)
and emphasise the incomprehensibility of the Creator32. According to
Chrysostom, God wants to be known by His creation but everything that
was revealed to us about Him is very distant from the true knowledge about
His nature33.
Moreover, like the other authors, he points to limitations in human cog-
nition that also apply to the terrestrial reality34. Human beings are unable to
know even the material word35 and their own soul36, so how can they com-
prehend angels37 or, the reality that is above him38. In John’s view, we can
observe the lack of trust in human cognition, typical of authors from the
latter half of the 4th century39, which is, according to J. Daniélou, a com-
mon place between pagan and Christian philosophy in the late Antiquity40.

29
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 302-327.
30
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 53-59, tr. Harkins, p. 97.
31
John also tried to provide pastoral care to the followers of Judaism living in the
city. Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II, 9-20.
32
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 276-283;
III 338-342.
33
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 224.
34
Cf. e.g. Basilius Caesariensis, Adversus Eunomium I 14, 1-3; Gregorius Nys-
senus, Contra Eunomium II 138, 2-11; Gregorius Nazianzenus, De filio, Oratio 30, 17.
35
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 473-480.
36
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 259-283.
37
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 194-196.
38
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 249-266.
39
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 220.
40
Cf. J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, Paris 1953, p 131.
98 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

4. How Chrysostom protects the faithful of Antioch

from the error of the Anomoeans?

In order to achieve the assumed goal, John uses homiletic methods.

First of all, he refers to biblical examples and characters, as well as biblical
metaphors because the Holy Scriptures are a common authority, for here-
tics and orthodox, who listen to his speeches.
Thus, the first in the series of homilies begins with an outline of the
situation of the community. Referring to the evangelical image of the
good shepherd, he distributes roles in the community. The heretic is called
a wolf; the community, sheep; and, the bishop is presented as the shepherd.
John introduces himself as a dog fighting a wolf to protect the flock. He
purposely quotes St. Paul to indicate that the key to Christianity is not full
knowledge but great love41 and, he calls this apostle to reassure his listeners
that even this saint did not know the divine substance, which he himself
confessed with the words: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I am fully known”42. Among the other biblical figures mentioned
by Chrysostom in his preaching are Adam43 and Zachariah44.
In his teaching, John Chrysostom tries to use simple examples and re-
fer to experiences common to people such as the limitations of cognition
which are natural for humans45. He points out that everyone is aware of
this, so those who think that they have all the knowledge should be consid-
ered madmen, not someone better46 for it is nothing but madness to believe
that you can know the substance of God47. Such madness, or even blasphe-
my, does not harm God but its author48. In order for ordinary listeners to
understand the absurdity of heretical views49, he uses simple models:

How great is the distance between the knowledge which is going to be given
to us and the knowledge which we now have? How great is the distance be-

41
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 32-57.
42
1 Cor. 13:12.
43
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 22; IX 5.
44
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura VI 32.
45
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 155-157.
46
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 168-170.
47
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 188-190.
48
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 32-41.
49
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 190-195.
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 99

tween a complete and perfect man and an infant at the breast? For that is the
degree of superiority of the knowledge to come in comparison to our present
knowledge50.

Chrysostom deliberately uses pictorial language to provide better re-

ception, for example, he writes at the beginning of his fifth speech about
day and night and, as the editor of the English translation points out, night
and sleep, which keep individuals from going beyond the measure of their
strength, are used in other Chrysostom’s treatises51. The preacher’s words
seem to reach everyone, even the simplest of minds:

[…] for the distance between God and man is as great as the distance between
the potter and the clay. Rather the distance is not merely as great but much
greater. The potter and the clay are of one and the same substance. It is just as
Job said: ‘I admit it as for those who dwell in houses of clay because we are
ourselves formed from the same clay’52.

Other times John uses, common to everybody, the sensual experience

of perceiving light in order to make his thesis more convincing:

Yet they did not see the pure light itself nor the pure essence itself. What they
saw was a condescension accommodated to their nature. What is this conde-
scension? God condescends whenever He is not seen as He is, but in the way
one incapable of beholding Him is able to look upon Him. In this way God
reveals Himself by accommodating what reveals to the weakness of vision of
those who behold Him53.

It can also be observed that in the following speeches, John grades

the difficulty and introduces more complicated issues, as if making the
audience familiar with the topic. He addresses the most important objection
of the Anomoeans that Christians do not know the One they worship54, an-

50
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 120-123, tr. Har-
kins, p. 56.
51
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 20-24.
52
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 336-341, tr. Har-
kins, p. 85.
53
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 162-166, tr. Har-
kins, p. 101.
54
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 366-429.
100 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

swering it only in the fifth speech. He describes God as a spirit and returns
to the biblical arguments quoted in previous homilies. He clearly grades the
difficulty by leading the audience by the hand.
John is not afraid of various expressions of negation55, referring to
terms used both by Neoplatonists56 and those found in the Bible57; he also
takes care to explain the meaning of the words used:

He did not say: ‘Who dwells in incomprehensible light, (ἀκατάλητος)’ but:

‘an unapproachable (ἀπρόσιτος) light’, and this is much stronger than ‘in-
comprehensible’. A thing is said to be incomprehensible when those who
seek after it fail to comprehend it, even after they have searched and sought
to understand it. A thing is unapproachable which, from the start, cannot be
investigated nor can anyone come near to it. We call the sea incomprehensible
because, even when divers lower themselves into its waters and go down to
a great depth, they cannot find the bottom. We call that thing unapproachable
which, from the start, cannot be searched out or investigated58.

The catalogue of terms used by him, created mainly with the use of
alpha privativum, is wide and, their origin and context of use should be
analyzed in a separate, dedicated paper. Chrysostom uses both biblical and
philosophical terms (form Philo and Clement of Alexandia) to underline
the negative aspect in theology but, although he does use the language of
negative theology, he doesn’t formulate his own theory of names. Contrary
to Basil and Gregory, he fights with the Anomoeans arguments without re-
sorting to a complicated theory of language that would be too sophisticated
for homiletic usage59. Of course, as befits Chrysostom, the text is written in
a beautiful language, using direct phrases to listeners and rhetorical figures
like oxymorons, for example, when he calls, stupidity for God (in the eyes
of the world), “the most rational madness”60.

55
Cf. Daniélou, Introduction, p. 18.
56
Cf. Daniélou, Introduction, p. 19.
57
Cf. Daniélou, Introduction, p. 18-20.
58
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 124-133, tr. Har-
kins, p. 100.
59
Cf. Del Cogliano, Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names,
p. 153-260.
60
Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 66.
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 101

5. The uniqueness of John’s homily compared to other

anti-Eunomian texts

Although the content of John’s homily is in line with the rest of the
texts against the Anomoeans heresies of this epoch, as has been men-
tioned above, several differences can be identified, starting with the ques-
tion of form. All these texts are apologetical but have different recipients.
The listeners present at the Antiochian church were supporters of both
Christian factions and this is already peculiar to John’s work compared
to other polemical writings because they addressed both the Heterodox
and the Orthodox hence why they are more balanced. He does not speak
out against specific people and tries to be moderate, even mild61, con-
demning erroneous teaching and deeds, not the people themselves, how-
ever, in practice, his message is not always so delicate: he calls the Ano-
moeans unbelieving and infidel and explains later that he is referring to
their deeds62. He treats them like the sick in need of healing63. On the one
hand, he accuses the Anomoeans of contradictions and lack of modesty,
and these come from the devil64, and on the other, at the end of the first
homily, he calls for peace65.
John prepared homilies in which he identifies the problems of his
community and tries to solve it in order to protect his flock from the
heresy of the Anomoeans, that is, the one particular aspect which is their
belief that they have knowledge of God’s essence. For comparison, Basil
and Gregory formulate treatises in which they analyse, point after point,
every Eunomian thesis, even quoting them: these are refutatio like Con-
tra Celsum. The closest, in terms of form, are the Theological Orations
of Gregory of Nazians although they are also more theologically sophis-
ticated and, the accent is slightly different because, as far as the incom-
prehensibility of God is concerned for Gregory, the moral aspect is the
key to getting to know God – a virtuous life is a necessary condition for
practising theology66.
We have already indicated some differences in the scope of the mat-
ters raised which concern the choice of only one issue (the unknowable

61
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 351.
62
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 1-2.
63
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura III 338-352.
64
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura V 483-487.
65
Cf. Joannes Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura I 424-428.
66
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 213.
102 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

of God). The defence of orthodoxy in this regard is done mainly through

references to the Bible and simple examples, not through theological and
philosophical subtleties. John uses clear metaphors and explanations; un-
equivocal borders between what is orthodox and, what is vain knowledge
of the Anomoeans. What should be also mentioned, although these are
apologetical homilies, are that they have a conciliatory and encouraging
character. John presents a more pastoral attitude but it does not mean that
Chrysostom was not aware of all the nuances of the controversy. Despite
those differences in form, J. Daniélou points out that John Chrysostom
most likely knew the Adversus Eunomium of Basil the Great67. On the
contrary, we find much proof that he deliberately simplified his teach-
ing, for example, omitting philosophical background68. Additionally,
John Chrysostom implements not only the thoughts of Gregory and Basil
(main opponents of Eunomius), but includes his own interpretations as
well69.

6. Conclusions

As I have shown, John Chrysostom concentrated his polemic with

the Anomoeans on one of the key problems of the theological debate –
the incomprehensibility of God. John addressed his apologetical hom-
ilies to the community which was composed of both the orthodox and
the Anomoeans. His aim is to preserve the orthodox concept and unify
the Antiochian church. He uses the common source, that is, the Bible,
both from the Old and New Testament, as well as universal experience,
to underline that both people and angels cannot get knowledge about the
essence of God but, they do not need it to love and worship Him. Con-
trary to Basil and Gregory, he fights the Anomoeans arguments without
a complicated theory of language that would be too sophisticated for
homiletic usage. He establishes clear borders between what is orthodox
and what is vain knowledge of the Anomoeans. In his five homilies he
guides the audience from simpler to more complicated issues, as if by
the hand.

67
Cf. Daniélou, Introduction, p. 16.
68
Cf. Stępień – Kochańczyk-Bonińska, Unknown God, p. 219.
69
Daniélou, Introduction, p. 25.
 John Chrysostom ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’ 103

Bibliography

Sources

Basilius Caesariensis, Adversus Eunomium, ed. B. Sesboüé, SCh 299, 305, Paris 1982-1983.
Eunomius, Liber apologeticus, ed. R.P. Vaggione, Eunomius. The extant works, Oxford
1987, p. 34-74.
Eunomius, Expositio fidei, ed. R.P. Vaggione, Eunomius. The extant works, Oxford
1987, p. 150-158.
Eunomius, Fragmenta, ed. R.P. Vaggione, Eunomius. The extant works, Oxford 1987,
p. 176-178.
Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, ed. K. Mras, Eusebius Werke, v. 8: Die Praepara-
tio evangelica, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 43/1-2, Berlin 1954,
p. 3-613; 3-426.
Gregorius Nazianzenus, Adversus Eunomianos (orat. 27), ed. J. Barbel, Gregor von
Nazianz. Die fünf theologischen Reden, Düsseldorf 1963, p. 38-60.
Gregorius Nazianzenus, De dogmate et constitutione Episcoporum (orat. 20), PG 35,
1065-1080.
Gregorius Nazianzenus, De filio (orat. 30), ed. J. Barbel, Gregor von Nazianz. Die fünf
theologischen Reden, Düsseldorf 1963, p. 170-216.
Gregorius Nazianzenus, De theologia (orat. 28), ed. J. Barbel, Gregor von Nazianz. Die
fünf theologischen Reden, Düsseldorf 1963, p. 62-126.
Gregorius Nyssenus, Contra Eunomium, ed. W. Jaeger, in: Gregorii Nysseni opera,
v. 1/1 and 2/2, Leiden 1960, p. 3-409; 3-311.
Gregorius Nyssenus, Refutatio confessionis Eunomii, ed. W. Jaeger, in: Gregorii Nysse-
ni opera, v. 2/2, Leiden 1960, p. 312-410.
Joannas Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura (I-V), ed. A.-M. Malingrey,
SCh 28 bis, Paris 1970, tr. P.W. Harkins, St. John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehen-
sible Nature of God, Washington 1984, p. 51-163.
Joannas Chrysostomos, De incomprehensibili Dei natura (VI-XII), PG 48, 747-812;
tr. P.W. Harkins, St. John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God,
Washington 1984, p. 164-307.
Studies

Barnes M.R., The Background and Use of Eunomius’ Causal Language, in: Arianism
after Arius, ed. M.R. Barnes – D.H. Williams, Edinburgh 1993, p. 217-236.
Beeley Ch.A., Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God. In Your
Light We Shall See Light, Oxford 2008.
Birjukov D., Strategies of Naming in the Polemic between Eunomius and Basil of
Cesarea in the Context of the Philosophical Tradition of Antiquity, “Scrinium” 4
(2008) p. 104-121.
104 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska

Carabine D., The Unknown God. Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to
Eriugena, Eugene 1995.
Daniélou J., Introduction, in: Jean Chrysostome, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu,
SCh 28 bis, Paris 1970, p. 9-89.
Daniélou J., Platonism et théologie mystique, Paris 1953.
Del Cogliano M., Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names, Leiden – Bos-
ton 2010.
Hanson R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy,
318–381, Grand Rapids 2005.
Harkins P.W., Introduction, in: St. John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of
God, Washington 1984, p. 3-47.
Hildebrand S.M., A Reconsideration of the Development of Basil’s Trinitarian Theology.
The Dating of ‘Ep. 9’ and ‘Contra Eunomium’, “Vigiliae Christianae” 59 (2004)
p. 393-406.
Kopecek T.A, A history of neo-arianism, Cambridge 1979.
Lienhard T.J, Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of
‘One Hypostasis’, in: The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity,
ed. S.T. Davis et al., Oxford, 2000, p. 99-121.
Maspero G., Trinity and Man. Gregory of Nyssa “Ad Ablabium”, Leiden – Boston 2007.
Meredith A., Studies in the Contra Eunomium of Gregory or Nyssa, Oxford 1972.
Przyszychowska M., Historia sporu eunomiańskiego, in: Eunomiusz i jego adwersarze,
v. 1, ed. K. Kochańczyk-Bonińska – M. Przyszychowska – T. Stępień, v. 1, Warsza-
wa 2021, p. 15-49.
Radde-Gallwitz A., Basil of Cesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and the Transformation of Di-
vine Simplicity, Oxford 2009.
Robertson D.G., A Patristic Theory of Proper Names, “Archiv für Geschichte der
Philosophie” 84 (2002) p. 1-19.
Stępień T. – Kochańczyk-Bonińska K., Unknown God, Known in His Activities Incompre-
hensibility of God during the Trinitarian Controversy of the 4th Century, Berlin 2018.
Vaggione R.P., General Introduction, in: Eunomius, The extant works, Oxford, 1987,
p. XII-XVII.
Zachhuber J., The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysic. Patris-
tic Philosophy from the Cappadocian Fathers to John of Damascus, Oxford 2020.