Search

150 verses for “John Chrysostom” · first 100 shown

The Canons 9:17Council of Laodicea3. The homilies of St. John Chrysostom.The Canons 9:18Council of LaodiceaSt. John Chrysostom often quotes lines of thought and even prayers taken from the liturgy. Bingham was the first to have the idea of gathering together and putting in order these scattered references. This work has been recently taken in hand afresh by Mr. Hammond. From this one can find much interesting corroborative evidence, but the orator does not give anywhere a systematic description of the liturgy, in the order of its rites and prayers.The Canons 12:10Council of LaodiceaBut such is not the case elsewhere. Towards the end of the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia forbade inferior classes, subdeacons, readers, etc., to usurp the orarium. St. Isidore of Pelusium knew it as somewhat analogous to the episcopal pallium, except that it was of linen, while the pallium was of wool. The sermon on the Prodigal Son, sometimes attributed to St. John Chrysostom [Migne's Ed., vol. viij., 520], uses the same term, o0qo/nh ; it adds that this piece of dress was worn over the left shoulder, and that as it swung back and forth it called to mind the wings of the angels.Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature 3:3Basil of Caesarea13. to_n pi/qon po_ti\ ta_n spa&rton a1gontaj . Maloney notes that St. Gregory Nazianzen cites this proverb in Letter xxxviii, and St. John Chrysostom in Homily xxv.Against the Donatists · Book 2 19:25Optatus of Milevis177. If St. Optatus had lived after the Semi-Pelagian heresy, he would have expressed himself in a more guarded manner (cf. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, ii, 282). But we may be sure that he did not forget Philippians ii, 13: 'For it is God, who works in you both to will, and to make perfect.' St. John Chrysostom, who of course had never heard of Pelagianism, but was much concerned with the defence of free will against Manichaeism, uses such expressions as: 'We must first choose what is right and then God will do His part' (cf. Hom. in Matt. lxix, 2; et in Matt. xxxix, 4)----a phrase which St. Augustine would have repudiated at once.Sermons on the Gospel of Matthew - Prologue 1:23Chromatius of Aquileia1. The Latin text used is that of R.É TAIX and J. L EMAIRE , CCSL 9A (1974). Tractatus lxi in euangelium Matthei , (CPL 218), also in PL 20, cl. 327. This is the author's prologue to a series of sermons which were mainly transmitted in the manuscripts under the name of John Chrysostom. Their correction attribution was recovered by Étaix and Lemaire in the 1960's. This prologue has been seen as having interesting parallels to the Muratorian canon.Against the Jews · Homily 1 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 1 Against the Jews · Homily 2 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 2 Against the Jews · Homily 2 (missing portion) 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos; Oratio 2 (lost section) (2010)Against the Jews · Homily 2 (missing portion) 1:2John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos Oratio 2 [previously unpublished section filling in the lacuna in Or. 2.2 (PG 48: 860)]Against the Jews · Homily 3 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 3 Against the Jews · Homily 4 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 4 Against the Jews · Homily 5 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 5 Against the Jews · Homily 6 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 6 Against the Jews · Homily 7 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 7 Against the Jews · Homily 8 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 8 Against the Jews · Preface to the online edition 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Preface to the online edition.Against the Jews · Preface to the online edition 1:2John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom preached 8 sermons to his congregation against the Jews. These were transmitted to us in the Greek manuscripts of his works, but the 2nd sermon was much shorter than the others, leading scholars to suppose that most of that sermon was lost. This belief was confirmed in the 1990's when German scholar Wendy Pradels discovered a forgotten copy of sermon II in a Greek monastery which contained the missing material.Against the Jews · Preface to the online edition 1:14John ChrysostomThe only other English translation of the homilies is John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians , translated by Paul W. Harkins. The Fathers of the Church ; v. 68 (Washington : Catholic University of America Press, 1979), which also lacks the Pradels material. However the translation here is not the Harkins translation.Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with Innocent, Bishop of Rome 1:9John ChrysostomLetter from St. John Chrysostom to Innocent, Bishop of Rome.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Discourse 1 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 1. pp.1-37.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Discourse 2 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 2. pp.38-58.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Discourse 3 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 3. pp.59-89.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Discourse 4 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Discourse 4. pp.90-110.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Translator's introduction 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Four discourses, chiefly on the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (1869) Preface. pp.i-viii.Four Discourses, chiefly on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus · Translator's introduction 1:14John ChrysostomOf the Christian Fathers, none have gained such fame, and few have left remains so voluminous as Chrysostom. In the melancholy narrative of Gibbon, two Christian champions are presented as men of real power and vigour of mind. The historian pauses to detail their acts and estimate their influence, but his admiration seems rather spontaneously and involuntarily shown, than formally expressed. These two men are Athanasius and John Chrysostom. The one is the man of unyielding polemical skill, of undaunted courage and astounding energy. The latter possesses in a remarkable degree, that which the former lacked or repressed, imaginative genius. As an orator, Chrysostom must have been as pre-eminent as Athanasius was as a polemical champion. "They [the critics of succeeding times] unanimously attribute to the Christian orator the free command of an elegant and copious language, the judgment to conceal the advantages which he derived from the knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy, an inexhaustible fund of metaphors and similitudes, of |iv ideas and images to vary and illustrate the most familiar topics, the happy art of engaging the passions in the service of virtue, and of exposing the folly as well as the turpitude of vice, almost with the truth and spirit of a dramatic representation." As a writer, too, the same historian, though speaking of the Letters only, which are of far less value than his Essays and Commentaries, (speaking of his last days in exile) says, "The respectful attention of the Christian world was fixed on a desert spot among the mountains of Taurus. From that solitude the Archbishop, whose active mind was invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a strict and frequent correspondence with the most distant provinces." And, in a footnote, "Two hundred and forty two of the epistles of Chrysostom are still extant. They are addressed to a variety of persons, and show a firmness of mind much superior to that of Cicero in his exile."Homilies · 2nd Homily On the birthday of our Savior 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, 2nd Homily on the birthday of our Savior, Jesus Christ (2013) Translation Homilies · 2nd Homily On the birthday of our Savior 1:2John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom: On the Birthday of our Savior Jesus Christ, a Sermon. [1]Homilies · After the Earthquake 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Homily after the earthquake (2003).Homilies · After the Earthquake 1:2John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, Homily after the Earthquake. [1]Homilies · After the Earthquake 1:6John Chrysostom[1] CPG 4366, De terrae motu . BHG 1700y. This translation was commissioned by Roger Pearse and translated from the text printed in the Patrologia Graeca , vol. 50, cols. 713-716. The translation has been placed in the public domain. The work perhaps refers to the earthquake of 398 AD. The question of its authenticity is discussed by Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom - Provenance: Reshaping the foundations , 2005, p.27, 126, and answered in the affirmative. Update: Sever J. Voicu on the other hand, has long argued that this homily is not authentic Chrysostom and has challenged Mayer's claims in "Un errore di Montfaucon e altre note pseudochrisostomiche," in Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia: Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l' honneur de Paul Géhin , edited by André Binggeli, Anne Boudhors and Matthieu Cassin (Leuven - Paris - Bristol, CT: Peeters, 2016), 597-614; on pp. 602-604.Homilies · Against the circuses and theatres 1:2John ChrysostomHomily of St John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, our sainted father:Homilies · Chrysostom's First Sermon 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, First Sermon (2010)Homilies · Chrysostom's First Sermon 1:2John ChrysostomHomily given by St. John Chrysostom on the day that he was ordained priest.Homilies · Chrysostom's First Sermon 1:6John ChrysostomSt. John Chrysostom speaks of himself, the bishop and the people.Homilies · On the kalends of January 1:1John ChrysostomJohn Chrysostom, In Kalendas - On the kalends of January (2010)Letters · letter_090 1:2JeromeTheophilus writes to Epiphanius to convoke a council in Cyprus for the condemnation of Origenism and asks him to transmit to Constantinople by a trustworthy messenger a copy of it's decrees together with the synodical letter of Theophilus himself. His anxiety about this last point is caused by the news that certain of the excommunicated monks have set sail for Constantinople to lay their case before the bishop, John Chrysostom. The date of the letter is 400 a.d.Letters · letter_113 1:2JeromeTheophilus, bishop of Alexandria, had compiled an invective against John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople who was nosy (largely through his efforts) an exile from his see. This he now sends to Jerome with a request that the latter will render it into Latin for dissemination in the West. The invective (of which only a few fragments remain) is of the most violent kind. Nevertheless Jerome translated it along with this letter, the date of which is 405 a.d. The latter part of the letter has perished.Letters · letter_114 1:2JeromeJerome writes to Theophilus to apologize for his delay in sending Latin versions of the latter's letter (CXIII.) and invective against John Chrysostom. Possibly, however. the allusion may be not to these but to some other work of Theophilus (e.g. a paschal letter.) This delay he attributes to the disturbed state of Palestine, the severity of the winter, the prevalent famine, and his own ill-health. He now sends the translations that he has made and, while he deprecates criticism on his own work, praises that of Theophilus, quoting with particular approval the directions given by this latter for the reverent care of the vessels used in celebrating the holy communion. The date of the letter is 405 a.d.Dialogue on the life of St. John Chrysostom · Introduction 1:1Palladius of GalatiaThe Dialogue of Palladius concerning the Life of St. John Chrysostom (1921). Introduction by Herbert Moore. Pp. vii-xxv.The Lausiac History · Introduction 6:5Palladius of GalatiaHe was born in Galatia in 363 or 364, and dedicated himself to the monastic life in 386 or a little later. In 388 he went to Alexandria; as Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, James, and John, so, he says in the Prologue, did he go to Egypt to see the saints for himself. About 390 he passed on to Nitria, and a year later to a district in the desert known as Cellia from the multitude of its cells, where he spent nine years, first with Macarius and then with Evagrius. At the end of the time, his health having broken down, he went to Palestine in search of a cooler climate. In 400 he was consecrated bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, and soon became involved in the controversies which centred round St. John Chrysostom. The year 405 found him in Rome, whither he had gone to plead the cause of Chrysostom, his fidelity to whom resulted in his exile in the following year to Syene and the Thebaid, where he gained first-hand knowledge of another part of Egypt. In 412-413 he was restored, after a sojourn among the monks of the Mount of Olives. His great work was written in 419-420 and was called the Lausiac History, being composed for Lausus, chamberlain at the court of Theodosius II. Palladius was also in all probability the author of the Dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom. He died some time in the decade 420-430.Commentary on the Nicene Creed · Translator's Introduction 2:2Theodore of MopsuestiaA glimpse of the early life of Theodore is supplied by the writings of his bosom friend John Chrysostom who testifies that his days were spent in reading and his nights in prayer, that his fasts were long and |3 his bed was the bare ground, that he indulged in every form of asceticism and self-discipline. [Greek omitted]Fragments · English translation 4:3Philip of Side[Found interspersed with extracts from Eusebius in Cod. Barocc. 142, fol. 212r-216r, i.e., preceding in this ms. the material classified by Heyden as Fr. 6 and Fr. 2; Cod. Oxon. misc. 61 (Auct. E.4.18), fol. 136r-143r (unedited); nos. 3-6 also in Cod. Athous Vatopedi 286 fol. 91r-218r. — Greek text edited by C. de Boor, "Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pierius in bisher unbekannten Excerpten aus der Kirchengeschichte des Philippus Sidetes," TU 5.2 (1888), pp. 169-71. — De Boor (pp. 173-4) argued that these are fragments of Philip of Side, and that the use and expansion of Eusebius observable in them is consistent with what we know of his method; but his argument for this is partly tied to his attribution of the material labeled by Heyden as Fr. 6, now more convincingly attributed to Gelasius of Caesarea. Pouderon, "Le témoignage," pp. 10-11, 62-63, and Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes , pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, point out that at the very least De Boor's case for these fragments remains unproved. Heyden, p. 224, however, revives De Boor's appeal to the reference to John Chrysostom in no. 6 as one remaining point in favor of Philip of Side's authorship; and as another, notes the fact that Gelasius of Caesarea is not otherwise attested as providing information on the pre-Constantinian period, and thus any attempt to attribute this material to him would be problematic. — In the translations below, the italicized material is directly from Eusebius, whether verbatim or paraphrased; the normal text represents the additions made by our author to Eusebius' history.]The Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord, · Book 7 30:2John CassianHe adds also S. John Chrysostom.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 6 12:3Socrates ScholasticusThe odium against John Chrysostom was considerably increased by another additional event as follows: two bishops flourished at that time, Syrians by birth, named Severian and Antiochus; Severian presided over the church at Gabala, a city of Syria, and Antiochus over that of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. They were both renowned for their eloquence; but although Severian was a very learned man, he did not succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; and so while speaking Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin. Antiochus came first to Constantinople, and having preached in the churches for some time with great zeal and ability, and having thus amassed l a large sum of money, he returned to his own church. Severian hearing that Antiochus had collected a fortune by his visit to Constantinople, determined to follow his example. He therefore exercised himself for the occasion, and having composed a number of sermons, set out for Constantinople. Being most kindly received by John, to a certain point, he soothed and flattered the man, and was himself no less beloved and honored by him: meanwhile his discourses gained him great celebrity, so that he attracted the notice of many persons of rank, and even of the emperor himself. And as it happened at that time that the bishop of Ephesus died, John was obliged to go to Ephesus for the purpose of ordaining a successor. On his arrival at that city, as the people were divided in their choice, some proposing one person, and some another, John perceiving that both parties were in a contentious mood, and that they did not wish to adopt his counsel, he resolved without much ado to end their dispute by preferring to the bishopric a certain Heraclides, a deacon of his own, and a Cypriot by descent. And thus both parties desisting from their strife with each other had peace. Now as this detention [at Ephesus] was lengthened, Severian continued to preach at Constantinople, and daily grew in favor with his hearers. Of this John was not left ignorant, for he was promptly made acquainted with whatever occurred, Serapion, of whom we have before spoken, communicating the news to him and asserting that the church was being troubled by Severian; thus the bishop was aroused to a feeling of jealousy. Having therefore among other matters deprived many of the Novatians and Quartodecimans of their churches, he returned to Constantinople. Here he resumed himself the care of the churches under his own especial jurisdiction. But Serapion's arrogance no one could bear; for thus having won John's unbounded confidence and regard, he was so puffed up by it that he treated every one with contempt. And on this account also animosity was inflamed the more against the bishop. On one occasion when Severian passed by him, Serapion neglected to pay him the homage due to a bishop, but continued seated [instead of rising], indicating plainly how little he cared for his presence. Severian, unable to endure patiently this [supposed] rudeness and contempt, said with a loud voice to those present, `If Serapion should die a Christian, Christ has not become incarnate.' Serapion, taking occasion from this remark, publicly incited Chrysostom to enmity against Severian: for suppressing the conditional clause of the sentence, `If Serapion die a Christian,' and saying that he had made the assertion that `Christ has not become incarnate,' he brought several witnesses of his own party to sustain this charge. But on being informed of this the Empress Eudoxia severely reprimanded John, and ordered that Severian should be immediately recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia. He returned forthwith; but John would hold no intercourse whatever with him, nor did he listen to any one urging him to do so, until at length the Empress Eudoxia herself, in the church called The Apostles, placed her son Theodosius, who now so happily reigns, but was then quite an infant, before John's knees, and adjuring him repeatedly by the young prince her son, with difficulty prevailed upon him to be reconciled to Severian. In this manner then these men were outwardly reconciled; but they nevertheless continued cherishing a rancorous feeling toward each other. Such was the origin of the animosity [of John] against Severian.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 6 17:2Socrates ScholasticusSedition on Account of John Chrysostom's Banishment. He is recalled.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 7 28:3Socrates ScholasticusPhilip was a native of Side; Side is a city of Pamphylia. From this place also Troilus the sophist came, to whom Philip boasted himself to be nearly related. He was a deacon and thus admitted to the privilege of familiar intercourse with John Chrysostom, the bishop. He labored assiduously in literature, and besides making very considerable literary attainments, formed an extensive collection of books in every branch of knowledge. Affecting the Asiatic style, he became the author of many treatises, attempting among others a refutation of the Emperor Julian's treatises against the Christians, and compiled a Christian History, which he divided into thirty-six books; each of these books occupied several volumes, so that they amounted altogether to nearly one thousand, and the mere argument of each volume equalled in magnitude the volume itself. This composition he has entitled not an Ecclesiastical, but a Christian History, and has grouped together in it abundance of very heterogeneous materials, wishing to show that he is not ignorant of philosophical and scientific learning: for it contains a medley of geometrical theorems, astronomical speculations, arithmetical calculations, and musical principles, with geographical delineations of islands, mountains, forests, and various other matters of little moment. By forcing such irrelevant details into connection with his subject, he has rendered his work a very loose production, useless alike, in my opinion, to the ignorant and the learned; for the illiterate are incapable of appreciating the loftiness of his diction, and such as are really competent to form a just estimate, condemn his wearisome tautology. But let every one exercise his own judgment concerning these books according to his taste. All I have to add is, that he has confounded the chronological order of the transactions he describes: for after having related what took place in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, he immediately goes back to the times of the bishop Athanasius; and this sort of thing he does frequently. But enough has been said of Philip: we must now mention what happened under the episcopate of Sisinnius.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 7 46:2Socrates ScholasticusThe Body of John Chrysostom transferred to Constantinople, and placed in the Church of the Apostles by the Emperor at the Instigation of Proclus.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 8 2:1Hermias SozomenChapter II.-Education, Training, Conduct, and Wisdom of the Great John Chrysostom; His Promotion to the See; Theophilus, Bishopof Alexandria, Becomes His Confirmed Opponent.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 8 25:1Hermias SozomenChapter XXVI.-Two Epistles from Innocent, the Pope of Rome, of Which One Was Addressed to John Chrysostom, and the Other to the Clergy of Constantinople Concerning John.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 8 26:1Hermias SozomenChapter XXVIII.-Effort of Innocent, Bishop of Rome, to Recall John Through a Council. Concerning Those Who Were Sent by Him to Make Trial of the Matter. The Death of John Chrysostom.The Bazaar of Heracleides · Book 2, part 2 7:4Nestorius86. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, 398-404, was exiled in the latter year through the intrigues of Theophilus of Alexandria.Dialogues · Dialogue 2 26:15Theodoret of CyrusTestimony of the Holy John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople.The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret · Book 5 28:1Theodoret of CyrusChapter XXVII.-Of the Piety of the Emperor Arcadius and the Ordination of John Chrysostom.The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret · Book 5 33:1Theodoret of CyrusChapter XXXII.-Of the Demand Made by Gainas and of John Chrysostom's Reply.Life of St. Severinus · English translation 46:93Eugippius60. Paul Viard, Histoire de la Dîme Ecclésiastique (Dijon, 1909), gives an excellent account of the origin of tithing in the early church, and also (pp. 44 f., 49) discusses this passage at length. Some of his conclusions may be briefly stated as follows. The only references to tithes in the Gospels (Matthew, xxiii, 23; Luke, xi, 42; xviii, 12) are in rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Christians of the first four centuries did not recognize the Jewish tithe. They did in some instances acknowledge the tax of the first fruits. Insistence upon the tithe begins to appear about the end of the fourth century. In the East, its champion was Saint John Chrysostom (In Matthaeum Homilia lxiv ( lxv ), in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, lviii, col. 615). In the West, it was advocated in two forms. Jerome (Explanatio in Malackiam, iii, 7, in Migne's Patrologia Latina, xxv, coll. 1568-1571; and Epistola ad Nepotianum de Vita Clericorum et Sacerdotum, in Migne, xxii, col. 531) considers that the ancient law is still in force, and that the proceeds of the tithe should be for the support of the clergy. Augustine likewise (Sermones, lxxxv, 4, in Migne, xxxviii, col. 522) holds to the obligation of the tithe, at least upon the conscience, using the text Matthew, v, 20, " except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees "; but he directs it to the support of the poor. The later development of church polity, finally crystallized into definite enactments at the second council of Mâcon in 585, was a compromise between these two views. Severinus, on the other hand, follows Saint Augustine. "Probably," says M. Viard, "he did not speak of the tithe in the exact sense of the word; he wished merely to call forth the charitable gifts of the communities that he evangelized. It is very probable that the saint thought, in doing this, to revive the ancient tithe, modifying it, however, according to the needs of the moment and his personal disinterestedness. The biographer has exaggerated this thought of his hero in order to make it appear an actuality."Life of St. Severinus · Indices 4:11EugippiusJohn Chrysostom, Saint, 64.Letters · Index of Names and Subjects 2:25Severus of AntiochJohn Chrysostom.......238, 239, 242 The Christian Topography · Book 10 2:6Cosmas IndicopleustesFrom the work on Alms by John Chrysostom.Commentary on Philemon · Translation-Litteral 1:8OecumeniusThis commentary on Philemon was written by Oecumenius, who was a Greek Early Church Father of the sixth century. Not everyone agrees that this was written by Oecumenius. I go into this in more detail in the introduction of my recent translation of the commentary on Hebrews by Oecumenius. This commentary was written by Oecumenius as a compilation of quotes from various Early Church Fathers that lived prior to him, which is in the manner called Catena . In this version that I translated, which is from the Patrologia Graeca, volume 119, printed in 1864, does not have any indicators showing that any of the content comes from any specific ancient Christian writer, and it has the appearance of being written as a running commentary by Oecumenius himself. According to Dr. Karl Staab, in his edition called “Pauline commentaries from the Greek Church” [ Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche ], there are two excerpts for the letter to Philemon which indicate that one excerpt is by Photius of Constantinople, and one by Oecumenius himself, both found in the comments on verse 24. I added indicators for those two excerpts in this translation. According to my thesis, Photius (810-891A.D.) lived after Oecumenius (6 th century), which means that the excerpt by Photius was added to the text of the catena by a later copyist. Oecumenius depended greatly upon the homilies and commentaries of John Chrysostom (died around 407A.D.) for his own catenae/commentaries on Paul’s Epistles, though Oecumenius condensed and reworked what Chrysostom wrote. Oecumenius also relied upon Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457A.D.), as can be seen in the Preface.Commentary on Revelation · Translation-Litteral 8:44Oecumenius2. Oecumenius and many Early Church Fathers believed that punishment in the afterlife is not a "one-size-fits-all" experience but is strictly proportional to the sins committed. Hippolytus of Rome taught that at the final judgment, everyone (men, angels, and demons) will receive a "recompense made to each," where those who loved evil receive punishment specific to their deeds. John Chrysostom, while presenting a vivid and materialist view of hell, he emphasized that the "intensity" of the fire or torment would vary based on the severity of the individual’s transgressions.Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 5:12OecumeniusAnd that the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem in this place and in John is evident from the prophet, who says: "Behold, the Lord will come, and who will endure the day of his coming?" (Mal. 3:1) as the coming of the Lord brings judgment against the wicked. But also John Chrysostom 1 , in a certain commentary of his, explains the same thing, saying: This statement intends to signify the complete destruction of Jerusalem: and he confirms it from the prayer of the three youths, who said: "So let our sacrifice be in your presence today, and may it be perfected after you." (Dan. 3:40 LXX) He says: What does “after you” mean? It means, after your fury has passed. And when did it come? When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. And indeed, this is about the coming. However, some of the Fathers say that “ patience ” [µακροθυµία] here refers to long-suffering, which pertains to those who are among us; while “ endurance ” [ὑπομονή] refers to patience towards strangers. For one bears with those whom he could avenge; but he endures those whom he cannot avenge. Therefore, in God, “ endurance ” [ὑπομονή] is never said but “ patience ” [µακροθυµία]; in men, however, it is “endurance” [ὑπομονή].Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 5:27Oecumenius1 John Chrysostom, Eight Orations Against Judaizing Christians, Homily two Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 7:21Oecumenius" as free people .” The order is this: Be subject as free people, and not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil , but also as servants of God. Not only honor the princes, but also everyone : indeed, those who love brotherhood , fear God , and honor the king . However, as if they were free, John Chrysostom 3 explained it this way, saying: "Let them not say, 'We are free from the world, we have become citizens of heaven, and you again subject us to princes and command us to obey?” Therefore Peter says: “So obey as if you were free,” that is, as if complying with him who has freed you, and this he has commanded. For you should not have in mind evil, that is, the excuse for disobedience and stubbornness, for the very freedom for which you refuse to obey. However, according to another consideration, something can also be said about this matter. A person is free according to the Lord, who does not obey anything absurd. Therefore, since living in hypocrisy is not free, but that of one who is subject to passions, whether of flattery or any other dishonorable pleasure: for which someone also pretends to be in pretense, lest it appear what he is, and to whom he has endured to serve (this, however, is foreign and alien to the servants of God), he now commands that subjection be shown to princes, with true and not fictitious morals, lest we exhibit a forced subjection towards them as if hostile; and when such evil lies hidden in us, which is certainly sincere and simple, let us make a ploy and veil of manners, exhibiting an apparent subjection, and not one that proceeds from affection.Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 13:29Oecumenius3 John Chrysostom, in his Homily 23 on Romans Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 15:30OecumeniusTherefore, here too, since the time of the Lord's coming had passed through the middle of the thousand years, whatever follows from this can rightly be called the last or extreme. This is therefore most true, even according to John Chrysostom [Easter Sermon]. The last or extreme can also be understood as the worst, as when we say: He has reached the extreme of evil. Therefore, since the world was then shaken by great evils, the Devil developing these things after the coming of that Savior, whether for the temptation of the good or for the confusion of those things which are better, so that no one could discern what was good and what was not good: for this reason, that time is called the last hour , as it brings forth that which is worst, when it has the character of the most foul and thickest waste.Commentary on the Catholic Epistles · Translation-Litteral 18:160Oecumenius1 John Chrysostom, Eight Orations Against Judaizing Christians, Homily 2 Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles · Translation-Litteral 10:78Oecumenius1. having their ears tickled. [Κνηθόμενοι τ ὴν ἀκοὴν]. Most English translations read “having itching ears,” which is an expression meant as an experience for a relief for curiosity. But as we can see by the interpretation by Oecumenius, the expression refers to the experience of pleasure, where “having their ears ticked” fits the context better. Other Greek Early Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrus understand Κνηθόμενοι τ ὴν ἀκοὴν as referring to pleasure, not curiosity.Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews · Translation-Litteral 13:7OecumeniusIn this catena on Hebrews there are many excerpts from some of the Early Church Fathers that Oecumenius gleaned from. Not all excerpts have the names given from whom the sources are from. For those excerpts which have been named throughout the catena, Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457A.D.), Gennadius of Constantinople (died around 471A.D.), Cyril of Alexandria (died around 444A.D.), Photius of Constantinople (810-891A.D.), and Oecumenius (6 th century) himself have been specifically quoted and labelled as excerpts. Oecumenius also referenced and partially quoted Gregory of Nyssa (335-395A.D.) and Gregory Nazianzen (329-390A.D.). Cyril of Alexandria was mostly referenced and partially quoted in most cases, but there are a couple of places where his name was prefixed with the excerpts. One excerpt from Cyril was mistakenly credited to Oecumenius, but I corrected that excerpt and footnoted it and provided the source of the work, which is found in the comment section for Hebrews 13:12-15. There are undoubtedly more excerpts that are not identified, but I limited the amount of time that I spent to locate all the sources, though I truly wish that I had the time to identify as many of the excerpts as I could. Oecumenius relied heavily upon the homilies on Hebrews by John Chrysostom (died around 407A.D.) throughout the entire catena, but his name is never given as a source [on Hebrews]. Oecumenius took the interpretations from Chrysostom as the primary source but repackaged it, oftentimes in a more concise manner. Oecumenius did that same technique with some other sources as well, which makes it a bit challenging to locate the sources from where the original thoughts came from. The excerpts from Photius of Constantinople were a later stage of manuscript development and are plentiful throughout the catena, but those excerpts were added later by copyists, oftentimes as outer marginal notes, but then were later grafted into the main text by later editors. Photius was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and from 877 to 886, which means that he came much later than Oecumenius of the 6 th century.Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews · Translation-Litteral 23:127Oecumenius16. Oecumenius does not appear to comment on Hebrew 10:31, " The Lord will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God . I am not sure whether Oecumenius did not comment on it or whether at some point an editor/copyist accidentally omitted it. But for the sake of edification, I am adding an excerpt here in the footnotes for anyone who wants to read an interpretation for that verse. Since Oecumenius and most Greek Church Fathers rely heavily upon John Chrysostom, I am providing a direct quote from his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews for this verse. “Let us fall”, it is said, “into the hands of the Lord, and not into the hands of men.” (Sirach 2:18) But if you repent not, you shall fall into the hands of God: that is fearful: it is nothing, to fall into the hands of men. When, he means, we see any man punished here, let us not be terrified at the things present, but shudder at the things to come. For according to His mercy, so is His wrath. “And, His indignation will rest upon sinners.” (Sirach 5:6)Ecclesiastical History, Third Part · Preface 2:11John of EphesusFor the easier understanding of our author's pages, it may be necessary to add, that he was a Monophysite: and though his party are not to be confounded with the followers of Eutyches, whom they anathematized by name, yet they refused to receive the council of Chalcedon, at which he was condemned, on the ground of its being tainted with Nestorianism. As men's minds were greatly embittered at this period by the disputes which had arisen respecting our Lord's nature, it was found impossible to enforce general obedience in the East to the council's decrees : and thus John's party held a sort of intermediate position, not being condemned by their opponents as heretics, and yet being separated from their communion. As they professed themselves ready to obey the teaching of the Fathers generally, and especially, as Renaudot testifies in his History of the Alexandrian Patriarchs (p. 143) 'to accept every thing which John Chrysostome and Cyril had taught,' they claimed as their peculiar right the appellation of 'Orthodox,' and by this name are distinguished in the following pages.Commentary on the Catholic Epistles 8:10Bede[1 Peter 3:13] -- And who is there to harm you, etc. He speaks of those things that happen to us from adversaries through insulting words, through the loss of temporal goods, through bodily tortures. For all these and similar things, when inflicted upon the faithful, can in no way harm those who are zealous for good, especially according to knowledge, but rather bring the reward of patience to those who endure equanimously. On the contrary, they greatly harm those who inflict punishment by accumulating eternal punishment for themselves. But if anyone succumbs to such adversities and falls, it is not the one who inflicted the evil that harmed him, but he himself, who refused to bear it patiently. For the house which the wise man built did not fall because it did not endure the violence of tempests, but because it was founded upon a rock. And again, the house which the foolish man built foolishly did not fall because it was struck by tempests, but because it was placed upon sand. For both were equally tested by adversity striking them, but the firmness of the foundation gave the crown of perseverance to one, while the foolishness of the fragile structure overthrew the other. For no mishap, whether brought by the devil, by a wicked human, or by the general turmoil of passing things, can harm the perfect emulator of good. However, it is clear that many zealous for good have been harmed by others when they are ill-instructed in the knowledge of the truth which they love. For how many desiring to believe rightly in God and to live correctly in the Church have been unknowingly led astray by the madness of Arius, by the malice of Sabellius, or other heretics? Read the book of John Chrysostom, which he wrote about this: No one can be harmed by another unless by himself.An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith · Book 3 15:20John DamasceneIndeed, the most wise and great and holy John Chrysostom says in his interpretation of the Acts, in the second discourse , “One would not err if he should call even His passion action: for in that He suffered all things, tie accomplished that great and marvellous work, the overthrow of death, and all His other works.”Commentary_on_the_Wisdom_Of_Solomon 16:15Rabanus MaurusRABANUS. By the hatred of man the soul is slain, that is, by the wickedness of one's own will and the effect of evil deeds. Therefore someone [John Chrysostom] has said: No one can be harmed except by himself, because he is either the inventor of his own crime, or the supporter and encourager of another's wickedness. For if a man guards his mind and does not consent to evil persuasion, he is free from all guilt. [Rabanus Maurus, Commentary on Wisdom, PL 109] 780-856AD Commentary_on_the_Wisdom_Of_Solomon 16:16Rabanus MaurusJOHN CHYRYSOSTOM. Man, through malice and wickedness, that is, by his own will and the effect of wrongful action, kills the soul. Therefore someone has said: no one can be harmed except by himself, because he is either the originator of his own crime or consents to the crimes of others. For if a man guards his mind and does not consent to evil persuasion, he is free from all guilt. [John Chrysostom, No One Can Harm the Man Who Does Not Harm Himself 4] died 407AD Commentary on 1 Corinthians · Chapter 14 2:2Theophylact of OhridSome, after the words "so also you," place a period, and explain: so also you, speaking in tongues things unintelligible, appear as foreigners to the listeners; then they begin again and read: "zealous for spiritual gifts." But Saint John Chrysostom reads without the division. Since, he says, you are zealous for spiritual gifts, I also desire this, and I accept it, as I said before; only strive to abound in them "for edification," that is, for the benefit of the Church. For I not only do not hinder you from speaking in tongues, but I desire that you abound in this gift, provided only that you use it for the common benefit.Commentary on 1 Corinthians · Chapter 6 3:3Theophylact of OhridFornication, he says, defiles the entire body, which is why those who have committed fornication usually go to the baths as well, testifying thereby that their body has been defiled. Thus the fornicator sins against his own body, defiling and soiling it. Although murder, it seems, is also committed with the body, yet it does not defile the entire body; for one can throw a stone, or a piece of wood, or some other object, but it is impossible to commit fornication without the body: therefore it is always defiled. However, the apostle's intention was to present the gravity of this sin in an exaggerated manner, since his present exhortation concerns it; for fornication is by no means a vice worse than all other vices. I know other explanations on this subject as well. One is the following: the fornicator sins against his own body in the sense that he does not unite for the purpose of producing children, as in union with a lawful wife, but needlessly ruins it by the emission of seed and thereby weakens it. Another explanation: the fornicator sins against the woman with whom he unites, since she becomes his body through this, and therefore if he unites with her unlawfully, he sins against her. However, the explanation of the great John Chrysostom is better than all of them: I mean the first explanation. Furthermore, some raise a doubt and ask: what then? Does not envy also dry out the body? And they resolve this question as follows: envy is a passion, not an action. But the apostle is now speaking of action (for here are his words: "every sin that a man commits"), not of passion. Indeed, envy is not produced by us, but occurs within us.Commentary on 1 John · Chapter 2 2:7Theophylact of Ohrid"The last time." It is easier to explain it thus. Since the catholic epistle is directed to every person, and the end of life is not the same for all, and one's own death is unknown to anyone, the apostle fittingly reminds each one of his death, so that each may feel that the last time of his life is approaching, and may be ceaselessly sober, and so that in this way all Christians may always lead a blameless life and perform pure deeds. There is another explanation, to laugh at which would be inappropriate and foolish. Every thing can be divided into three parts: beginning, middle, and end. Without doubt, there is nothing incongruous in calling the end everything that follows after the middle. Therefore, if the Lord came in the middle of ten thousand years (for His coming to earth was approximately in the year 5500), then all the time following after this may, without any dispute, be called the last. And since the order of the millennia at the Lord's coming passed beyond the middle, all the time following after this may fittingly be called the last. John Chrysostom also accepts the truth of such an explanation.Commentary on 1 Peter · Chapter 2 2:2Theophylact of OhridThe connection of the speech is as follows. Be submissive, as free people, as servants of God. Honor not only rulers, but all people; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. "As free." John Chrysostom explains these words thus: "Lest they should say: we have been freed from the world, we have become citizens of heaven; why do you again subject us to rulers and bid us obey them? For this reason he says: submit yourselves as free, that is, as those who believe in Him who freed you, and yet who commanded submission. For by this you will show that you do not use the freedom by which you refuse obedience as a cloak for deliberate malice, that is, for insubordination and disobedience." One can also say something about this expression ("as free") in another sense. Free in the Lord is the one who is not subject to anything immoral. To live hypocritically is characteristic not of a free person, but of one who is enslaved to the passions — for example, given over to people-pleasing or some other shameful passion. But the servants of God must be far removed from and alien to the passions. Therefore he now commands that submission to the authorities be rendered good-naturedly and sincerely, without hostility toward them and not under compulsion, not harboring malice in the heart, not pretending to be sincere and simple, rendering obedience not outwardly only, but with heartfelt disposition.Commentary on 1 Timothy · Chapter 5 4:7Theophylact of OhridDo you see that, having so many ailments, Timothy was still exhausting himself by drinking water? Learn then not to be grieved when someone gives instructions concerning temperance, for even to Timothy, who for so long a time drank water, so that he often became subject to ailments, Paul gives a commandment about temperance, and did not simply say "use wine," but limited this use, adding "a little." For health, he says, not for pleasure. For youth is hot, and from wine quickly becomes stirred up. But why did Paul not heal him, who by his "handkerchiefs" raised the dead (Acts 19:12)? So that we, when even now we see holy people subject to ailments, would not be scandalized and think that the ancients were above our nature, but would believe that they too were people like us; and finally, so that Timothy himself would not become proud of his virtue. About this, more is said at length by Saint John Chrysostom, at the beginning of the so-called book of homilies "On the Statues." But it seems Timothy was by nature a sickly person, subject to ailments not of the stomach only, but of other parts as well, and therefore the apostle also added: "and your frequent ailments."Commentary on 1 Timothy · Chapter 6 3:25Theophylact of OhridThat is, according to the Divinity. He was seen and is visible only according to the humanity. Saint John Chrysostom understands it such that in the above-said it is spoken concerning the Son, and in what follows chiefly concerning the Father, although these words are applicable also to the Son and to the Spirit.Commentary on 1 Timothy · Chapter 6 4:24Theophylact of OhridNamely, impure and filthy ones. Consequently, there exists empty talk that is not foul. Saint John Chrysostom understands by this word novelties of teaching – κενοφωνίας – having written, it seems, this word with the diphthong αι (καινοφωνίας).Commentary on 2 Corinthians · Chapter 4 1:13Theophylact of OhridAmong those who are perishing, he says, who are many and various, are also the unbelievers. It is they whose "the god of this age has blinded the minds." The Marcionites assert that this is said about the demiurge, whom they call just (see St. John Chrysostom, Homily 8), but not good, while the Manichaeans refer this to the devil, whom they also call the creator of the world. But neither the one nor the other is correct; rather, this is said about our God. And if He is called the God of this age, there is nothing new in that, for He is also called the God of heaven, although He is not God of it alone; He is also called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, although He is God not of them alone, but of all. What is strange, then, if Paul also fittingly called Him here the God of this age, in order to better show the unbelievers that He created even this visible world, while enjoying which they reject the Creator? This passage can also be explained thus: that God blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age, for in the age to come there are no unbelievers. What then does "blinded" mean? It means that He permitted them to be blind, just as He also "gave them over to a debased mind" (Rom. 1:28). For after they fell away from Him, He left them to themselves, abandoned them, because He does not compel anyone to salvation. Note, however, that he did not say He blinded them so that they would not believe, but so that unworthy eyes would not see the radiance of Christ's glory. And the radiance consists in believing that He was crucified, ascended, and will grant us future blessings. Just as one with diseased eyes is not allowed to see the rays of the sun lest they be harmed, so too they became unbelievers of their own accord. And when they became such, God hid from them the rays of the glory of the Gospel, as from the Israelites the face of Moses. So He also commanded us "not to cast pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6). He beautifully said "to shine," for now we have a moderate light, and not full illumination, which above he called a fragrance and a pledge, showing that there is something greater.Commentary on 2 Thessalonians · Chapter 2 2:1Theophylact of OhridThat which "restrains" means an obstacle — that which hinders. What is this? Some assert that it is the grace of the Holy Spirit; others — the Roman state, and with the latter Saint John Chrysostom also agrees. For as long as it is not destroyed, the Antichrist will not have the ability to do as he pleases. Therefore Paul also spoke covertly: he did not wish to bring upon himself needless enmity and useless danger. For if he had said that in a short time the Roman state would be destroyed, they would have immediately wiped him off the face of the earth as a troublemaker, and together with him all the believers, who would have rejoiced at the destruction of such a state. That the apostle is not speaking about the grace of the Holy Spirit — this is clear. First, he would not have spoken covertly then, but would have spoken plainly, because even now the grace of the Holy Spirit restrains the Antichrist, that is, the gifts of grace. Furthermore, if the Antichrist were supposed to appear when the extraordinary gifts diminish, then he would have already appeared, because they diminished long ago. Notice also that he did not say that this would happen soon, but says: "to be revealed in his own time." Again he left the time unknown.Commentary on 2 Timothy · Chapter 2 3:9Theophylact of OhridThat is, flee. Saint John Chrysostom everywhere gives us to understand by "empty talk" – κενοφωνία – new currents – καινοτομίας in teaching and in those who follow it. Some, however, instead of "avoid" – περιίστασο read: περισσωσίστασο – pay more attention to stopping and restraining them. This is not so.Commentary on 2 Timothy · Chapter 3 2:8Theophylact of OhridIf such people will exist in the last times, then how does he say: "from such turn away"? Most likely, even then there were some such people: although not to a greater degree, there still were; therefore the apostle speaks as if to say: such people will be found even now, turn away from them—this will be good. Therefore he also adds: "of this sort are those who creep into houses." Or Paul calls "the last days" the days that will follow immediately after his death, while Timothy will still remain alive. Or, what is closer to the truth, as St. John Chrysostom judges, through Timothy the apostle exhorts everyone to turn away from such people.Commentary on Ephesians · Chapter 2 1:22Theophylact of OhridLest anyone doubt what has been said, he endeavors to make his speech more convincing, saying: if not for the sake of love toward us, then at least out of the desire to manifest His goodness, He will surely fulfill this. Now many do not believe this, but in the age to come all will know what God has granted us, seeing the saints in ineffable glory. As for the expression "in Christ Jesus," it means: this does not pertain to Christ alone, but through Him it passes also to us, as from the beginning to the whole: with Him we shall be made alive, with Him we shall also sit. So says the great John Chrysostom in his commentary on this passage, while in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew he says that no one will sit then. Truly the gift of the Spirit and of revelation is needed to comprehend the depth of these mysteries. For if the wise teacher John had not said clearly that we "shall be" seated, then one might have said that in Christ we "already" sit, just as also that in Christ we are deemed worthy of worship from the angels. For it is not we personally who are deemed worthy of worship, but since our nature, united with God the Word, receives worship, this honor passes also to us. It is in this sense that he now says that we too shall sit.Commentary on Ephesians · Chapter 5 4:1Theophylact of OhridHere is yet another example, namely: when someone, having left his parents, is united with her. And he did not say: will live together with her, but: "shall cleave," indicating an inseparable union. And the words "one flesh" are understood also simply, as the great John Chrysostom says: shall be one flesh; but they can also mean something else, namely: the two shall be for the production of one flesh, that is, a child.Commentary on Ephesians · Chapter 6 4:14Theophylact of OhridSaint John Chrysostom says the following: "that you may know about us," that is, that he may inform you of what is happening with me and not allow you to be disheartened on my account, since I am in afflictions and wear chains. And this indicates love both on his part toward them and on their part toward him.Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 10 1:5Theophylact of OhridThat is, not the very truth. Of what things? Of our sacrifice, of the remission of sins. For the things of the Old Testament, being unclear, resembled a shadowy outline; but those of the New Testament are like an image, that is, the truth, since they appear in brilliance and perfection. So explains St. John Chrysostom. But it is not useless to take into account also what Gregory the Theologian gives us to understand in this passage. In other discourses as well, but especially clearly in his oration on Pascha, he says: the Paschal lamb of the law—I state decisively—was an image darker than an image. Thus he gives us to understand that by "shadow" the apostle means the law; and by image, what is now performed in the Church, as a reflection of other more perfect blessings which the worthy will receive as their portion in the age to come; and these are what the apostle now calls "things." Therefore, just as an image differs in some way from the archetypal thing, so too the present mysteries differ from the more perfect things of the age to come; and to the degree that an outline falls short of an image, to that same degree the law falls short of the New Testament.Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 3 2:10Theophylact of OhridHe confirms in what sense he said "to the end," and says that this is signified by the expression "today." For "today" means: always, as he also said above: "but exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today'" (Heb. 3:13). Or, what is more approved, as stated by Saint John Chrysostom, the apostle makes a transition from the words "as long as it is said: 'today, when you hear His voice,'" to what follows: "Therefore let us fear, lest, while a promise remains" (Heb. 4:1), and so on.Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 4 1:9Theophylact of OhridThat is, those not united through faith and not in agreement with those who heard, but rather having withdrawn from them. By "those who heard" he means here those who believed; for they truly can be called hearers. Saint John Chrysostom understood by "those who did not hear" the supporters of Caleb and Joshua, for they did not take part in the rebellion, did not mingle, did not revolt, and did not perish together with the rest of the rebels, who all shared one opinion. With whom then? With those who heard and received no benefit. So said this saint out of his great and profound wisdom, but to me, the unworthy one, he did not grant to understand in what sense he said this.Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 8 1:7Theophylact of OhridHere he encourages the Jews who had believed. For since they were probably perplexed, saying: we do not have such a tabernacle, behold, he says, a greater and true tabernacle – heaven itself. For the Old Testament tabernacle was a figure of this one: and that one was pitched by man, either Bezaleel (Exod. 31:2) or Moses, but this one – by God. And here note, according to Saint John Chrysostom, that heaven neither moves nor is spherical: for the expression "pitched" excludes both the one and the other.Commentary on Hebrews · Chapter 9 5:2Theophylact of OhridAs at the Liturgy we bring up sins and say: voluntarily and involuntarily we have sinned, forgive — that is, we first recall our sins, and then ask for forgiveness — so He Himself also said to the Father: "for their sakes I sanctify Myself" (John 17:19). Or: He bore the sins, that is, He took them away from the people and brought them to the Father, so that He might remit them. Why then did He say "of many" and not of all? Because not all believed. His death was sufficient for the perdition of all, and insofar as it depended on Him, He died for all. But He did not bear the sins of all, because they themselves did not desire it. Therefore they made the death of the Son of God useless for themselves, which is truly a matter of horror. So explains Saint John Chrysostom. I found in his writings, on the following passage in the Gospel: "and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28), a note explaining this expression: "'many' is used instead of 'all,' for 'all' are indeed 'many.'"Commentary on James · Chapter 5 1:15Theophylact of OhridHaving condemned the luxury of the Jewish leaders and their cruelty toward the poor, the apostle turns his discourse to the faithful and says: brethren! do not be scandalized at the sight of this and do not be discouraged, as though there will be no retribution. He speaks of the invasion of the Romans and their captivity of the Jews, which he also calls the coming of the Lord, just as John who reclined on the Lord's breast, when speaking of his own death, presents the Lord Himself saying: "If I will that he remain till I come" (John 21:22), for his earthly life extended to the capture of Jerusalem and a little beyond. And that the coming of the Lord both here and in John signifies the destruction of Jerusalem is evident also from the words of the prophet: "Behold, He is coming, says the Lord of hosts. And who can endure the day of His coming?" (Mal. 3:1–2), that is, when the coming of God brings punishment upon the ungodly. John Chrysostom in some of his commentaries, when examining the words "till I come," also sees in them a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and confirms this by the prayer of the three youths, who say: "So let our sacrifice be before You today, and may it be accomplished according to You" ("so let our sacrifice be acceptable in Your presence today") (Dan. 3:40). In this he says that "according to You" means: after Your wrath has passed. And when did it come? When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. This regarding the word "coming." Some of the Fathers also say that by longsuffering the apostle here means forbearance toward one another, and by patience — forbearance toward those outside, for a person is longsuffering toward one upon whom he could take vengeance, but endures patiently one against whom he cannot take vengeance. Therefore, concerning God the word "patience" is never used, but "longsuffering," while concerning people — "patience."Commentary on Matthew 1:4Theophylact of OhridSt. John Chrysostom Commentary on Matthew 1:18Theophylact of OhridThe contents of Bl. Theophylact�s Explanation are based entirely on the works of the great Fathers of the early Church, and above all, St. John Chrysostom. Bl. Theophylact employs to perfection the commentary form introduced by St. Photius the Great and known as "links" or "series" (in Greek, seirai; in Latin, catenae). The inspiration behind this form of commentary is the Orthodox desire, and indeed, commandment, to guard and transmit to future generations the living apostolic tradition of the early Church. Therefore, later commentators and Fathers such as St. Photius and Bl. Theophylact, for each passage of Scripture under consideration, would gather together the explanations and interpretations of the early Fathers. The result is not simply the interpretation of one person, but an expression of the consensus of the mind of the Church, in short, what the Church has believed and taught "at all times and in all places."Commentary on Matthew 2:1Theophylact of OhridSt. John Chrysostom Fr. Christopher Stade Commentary on Romans · Chapter 7 2:20Theophylact of OhridBy the words "I do not find" he indicated the assault and scheming of sin; for he removes the blame both from the essence of the soul and from the essence of the flesh, and ascribes everything to vicious activity and will. When he says, "which I do not want," he removes the blame from the soul, and when he says, "it is no longer I who do it," he removes the blame from the body. Who then does evil? Sin, which, according to John Chrysostom, is a vicious and sin-loving will. And this will is not a creation of God, but our own movement. The will in itself is a creation of God; but the will directed toward a particular end is something of our own, an act of our free choice. It was said above what sin is, that is, the tyranny of sin, which carries away our mind through pleasure.Commentary on Romans · Chapter 7 2:22Theophylact of OhridThe expression is unclear; something is lacking in it. It should have said: so then, when I wish to do good, I find the law to be my defender, yet I do not do the good, because evil is present with me. The meaning of the present passage is this: the knowledge of good has been implanted in me from the beginning; I also find that the law defends it, and praises it, and I desire to do good, but I am drawn in by some other force, and evil is present with me, that is, the working of evil is not destroyed in me. However, St. John Chrysostom, having interpreted the present passage as incomplete, suggests that it can also be understood differently, namely thus: I find that the law was given not to anyone else, but to me who wishes to do good; for the law is a law only for those who wish to do good, since it desires the same thing that they also desire. This will be made clear from what follows.