The appropriation of Pauline sexualities in the homilies of John Chrysostom

Abstract

Throughout the ages historical text criticism has been used to study texts of ancient authors of Christian ethical values. Two such persons were Paul the apostle and John Chrysostom. This study shows that text historical criticism is not without problems. The problem lays not so much in the idea of historical text criticism, but how it was and is still being applied today, it is never without bias.

This use of the texts of Paul and Chrysostom who were both very outspoken on the subject of sexuality has caused great amounts of emotional and in cases also physical pain to people who misapplied historical text criticism and as Martin and others have effectively shown, any such interpretation of text that has a intention to hurt people cannot be the right method.

Ancient sexuality worked and was constructed completely different from the sexuality of modernity. The way gender was appropriated in ancient times, the way sexuality was construed and applied were set against a wholly different context and set of rules than that of the current day. This becomes clear in Roman and Hellenistic sexuality that is discussed in detail in this study. Unlike modern times, the ancients did not have a simplistic two-sex model that was based on biological sex, in their world, one’s actions determined one’s sex. Both Paul and Chrysostom were very well educated people, they were aware of philosophic thought in their day and took these thoughts into account whilst saying and writing what they did.

Paul was at heart a dedicated Pharisee who only later turned toward Christianity. He was well acquainted with Jewish sexual ethics; he had an absolute repulsion towards any form of desire, which he believed led to many other sins. His writings available to us should not be seen as biographies but as letters intended to be arguments with very good rhetoric and diatribe, written with the goal of achieving to convince the receiver or listener. He was extremely conservative in his viewpoint on sex, if he could have had his way, no sexual contact between any person would have existed, but he realised that not everybody had the same gifts he had. This point of view was mostly because of his eschatological worldview, for Paul when you became a

Christian you became a slave of God and you were no longer a slave of any passions, so much the more, the passions of the flesh.

Chrysostom, who lived almost four hundred years later, had a great veneration for Paul. He basically shared all Paul’s views on sexuality, although not always for the same reasons. Chrysostom was however, in his way also eschatological. His life, like that of Paul was caught up in many confrontations, which had an influence on the way he thought and the things he had opinions on. Chrysostom, like Paul preferred the ascetic lifestyle not only for himself but for everyone, he believed that marriage accompanied death–both spiritual and physical in the end. He so much clang to the ideas of Paul, that a sort of “Paulism” developed. Chrysostom, however noble his sayings might come across did not always have the purest of motive, some of the things he did or say was to achieve a certain political goal, even if it was just to gain more power for the church. This is one aspect that should be kept in mind when studying his texts.

Unfortunately, for many people, many misinterpretations, be it willingly/intentionally, many mistranslations of key words on the Bible (like the word malakos) have been made. What so ever the intention–be it to propagate popular social sexual propaganda, or whatever–this is and was not right. Like mentioned many people has experience hurt because of this. Rhetorical text analysis is being set forward as an alternative to historical text criticism in a slight but hopeful effort to overcome this problem and enable the churches of today to welcome many more Christians into their families.