Is Chrysostom contradicting himself in his commentaries

[E_CT]

Chrysostom, in his commentary on romans 8:19-21 seems to say that creation became corruptible when man sinned, “when this became corruptible that became corruptible.” Meanwhile throughout his homily 10 on the statues he says that creation was made both beautiful and vast and corruptible and perishable. I think somewhere he says this was the case because God foresaw man sinning so creation was made in this state. At the end of the homily he examines romans 8:19-21 and he seems to conclude that the passage says that creation was made corruptible because it was to nurture a corruptible humanity. One seems to say it will be made incorruptible again while one does not claim it was previously incorruptible. Does anyone know how to reconcile these apparent contradictions. Is he saying the same thing in both, just one makes it clear that it was done in anticipation of the fall but how does that fit with “just as when this became corruptible, that became corruptible also” and “made incorruptible again” or am I looking too into his thought. Here are links to the homilies Chapter 8 - Patristic Bible Commentary
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 10 on the Statues (Chrysostom)

 

[Vico]

“The world He has made corruptible for us, and again for us incorruptible.”

“Again” meaning He has made the world anew, incorruptible.

 

[E_CT]

Ok when I saw that I didn’t think of it that way. Thank you, I think you posted on my other thread. I am just trying to understand his thought, I am very interested in studying the church fathers and their view on the fall and creation. Chrysostom is one that confuses me, I sometimes look to into the wording. Like again threw me off. Also when he says when this became corruptible that became corruptible how does that fit with everything else I mentioned in my post.

 

[Vico]

Ok when I saw that I didn’t think of it that way. Thank you, I think you posted on my other thread. I am just trying to understand his thought, I am very interested in studying the church fathers and their view on the fall and creation. Chrysostom is one that confuses me, I sometimes look to into the wording. Like again threw me off. Also when he says when this became corruptible that became corruptible how does that fit with everything else I mentioned in my post.

Regarding this and that: “On account of you, O man. For since you have taken a body mortal and liable to suffering, the earth too has received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles.”

 

[Genesis315]

Here is my understanding:

Anything that is not God is is subject to the possibility of corruption. It’s corruptibility is how we know that neither the cosmos, nor anything in it, is God. Idolatry and pantheism (atheism being just a species of pantheism) are clearly irrational simply by looking at the corruptible world. Rather, God must be a distinct substance not subject to corruptibility for the cosmos to exist.

However, before the fall, God sustained creation in such a way that it not be corrupted, but He removed this supernatural help when man sinned.

 

[E_CT]

Interesting I did not think about him going back to that. He just seemed to mention the curse on the ground then that was it regarding that pry of the homily. I assumed it had to deal with the overall nature of creation which he seems to have said was made corruptible because he foresaw the fall.

 

[E_CT]

Just making sure are you saying that’s your take on the passage or what you think Chrysostom is saying because my post is to understand the thought of Chrysostom, not to discuss what we think the passage means I think that’s a different topic. Chrysostom in the two homilies I mentioned seem to contradict each other with what he says. One seems to say God made nature corruptible because there was the possibility man then the other says that creation was incorruptible before the fall then became corruptible and will be incorruptible again.

 

[E_CT]

I also forgot to mention he uses again by saying “It was evil intreated for your sake, and became corruptible; yet it has had no wrong done it. For incorruptible will it be for your sake again.” It looks like he is saying it will be incorruptible again, but is it that he is actually saying for it was corruptible for our sake and it will be incorruptible also for our sake.

 

[Vico]

I also forgot to mention he uses again by saying “It was evil intreated for your sake, and became corruptible; yet it has had no wrong done it. For incorruptible will it be for your sake again.” It looks like he is saying it will be incorruptible again, but is it that he is actually saying for it was corruptible for our sake and it will be incorruptible also for our sake.

I think you can read it in the archaic sense: “It was evil delt with for your sake, and became corruptible; yet it [creation] has had no wrong done it.”

 

[E_CT]

I see, the word evil in that sentence likely does not mean evil but the punishment for mans sin on it. Also what is the word again in the following sentence referring to, that it will be incorruptible again or it will be again for your sake. There really are not a lot of translations on these homilies and I don’t know much of the original language it was written in. I know you referred to a later sentence where it means anew or renew, but what is it referring to here and does that word apply here.

 

[Vico]

I see, the word evil in that sentence likely does not mean evil but the punishment for mans sin on it. Also what is the word again in the following sentence referring to, that it will be incorruptible again or it will be again for your sake. There really are not a lot of translations on these homilies and I don’t know much of the original language it was written in. I know you referred to a later sentence where it means anew or renew, but what is it referring to here and does that word apply here.

Creation will be incorruptible for your sake, as it was before.

 

[E_CT]

Ok thank you, I couldn’t tell what it was saying because not just the wording but in his homily 10 on statues he says creation was made corruptible. It’s also interesting because his beliefs regarding this are unique because most church fathers and Aquinas believed that creation was made corruptible so it’s interesting seeing this departure from the others. Similar to how irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch were the only ones who believed animals were vegetarian before the fall.

 

[Vico]

Ok thank you, I couldn’t tell what it was saying because not just the wording but in his homily 10 on statues he says creation was made corruptible. It’s also interesting because his beliefs regarding this are unique because most church fathers and Aquinas believed that creation was made corruptible so it’s interesting seeing this departure from the others. Similar to how irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch were the only ones who believed animals were vegetarian before the fall.

Made corruptible initially, or at some time later?

 

[E_CT]

Made corruptible initially because man did not make the choice of sinning or not sinning. St Augustine, a contemporary of Chrysostom, for example said that if man did not sin then he would have became glorified and that nature was not changed woman’s sin just that it could harm him now. Irenaeus said man was made imperfect and was to develop towards perfection, which was delayed when he sinned. Aquinas says that nature was always corruptible, but it will change when man is glorified. So nature was not incorruptible yet in case man was to sin. Chrysostom seems to say that in his homily 10 on the statues, but says the opposite in his romans 8 homily.

 

[Vico]

Made corruptible initially because man did not make the choice of sinning or not sinning. St Augustine, a contemporary of Chrysostom, for example said that if man did not sin then he would have became glorified and that nature was not changed woman’s sin just that it could harm him now. Irenaeus said man was made imperfect and was to develop towards perfection, which was delayed when he sinned. Aquinas says that nature was always corruptible, but it will change when man is glorified. So nature was not incorruptible yet in case man was to sin. Chrysostom seems to say that in his homily 10 on the statues, but says the opposite in his romans 8 homily.

I did not see a conflict:

Homily 10, No. 7 “On this account He made the world not only wonderful and vast, but also corruptible and perishable”

Romans 8, Verse 27 “The world He has made corruptible for us, and again for us incorruptible.”

 

[E_CT]

Where I saw the conflict was

Homily 10 no. 7: For God foreseeing these things of old, destroyed, in His wisdom, this plea of theirs. On this account he made the world not only wonderful and vast, but also corruptible and perishable.

Romans 8:20: “For incorruptible will it be for your sake again.” And Romans 8:21: “but shall go along with the beauty given to your body; just as when this became corruptible, that became corruptible also“

Those two quotes from Romans 8 to me contradict what he said in the previous quote

 

[Vico]

Where I saw the conflict was

Homily 10 no. 7: For God foreseeing these things of old, destroyed, in His wisdom, this plea of theirs. On this account he made the world not only wonderful and vast, but also corruptible and perishable.

Romans 8:20: “For incorruptible will it be for your sake again.” And Romans 8:21: “but shall go along with the beauty given to your body; just as when this became corruptible, that became corruptible also“

Those two quotes from Romans 8 to me contradict what he said in the previous quote

I see no conflict. See my prior comments on these.

 

[E_CT]

Ok to summarize what you said, basically creation was made corruptible because God foresaw the fall. The two times creation is mentioned to be made incorruptible again means it will be “anewed” incorruptible. In his examination of Romans 8:21 “When this became corruptible, that became corruptible” refers back to his comment on 8:20 where he says that man became mortal and able to suffer the earth received the curse (which in his homily on genesis says that it affected the productivity which made only those things that are harmful to us, thorns, be what they produce) as the “corruption” the earth (ground) received.

 

[Vico]

…

In your first post you said: “one does not claim it was previously incorruptible.”

Sequence: incorruptible, now corruptible, incorruptible.

Remembering that death entered the world through sin, that the bodies of Adam and Eve would have been incorruptible forever, had they kept the commandment. They were potentially incorruptible, but they did not eat of the tree of life.

Homily 10
No. 7: God, foreseeing, “also corruptible and perishable”.
No. 10: “the whole creation is now in bondage to corruption; and why it is thus in bondage,”

Romans 8
Creation will be incorruptible for your sake again [as it was incorruptible before].