O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lockward O’Donovan, Editors. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999)

John Chrysostom’s Twelfth Homily on 1^st Timothy strikes the reader as a pietistic interpretation of the Biblical view of wealth and private property. The O’donovan sketch in the summary of the chapter comparing John Chrysostom and Ambrose of Milan portrays Chrysostom as a master of rhetoric, though not a seminal thinker. It is clear in the homily on Timothy that Chrysostom the Rhetorician is employing his skilled faculties not Chrysostom the Intellectual.

Chrysostom questions the definition of what is called “goods”. He is right to question the assumption that those who possess goods must be called good themselves. However, he incorrectly applies the qualification of a good person as following from one who possesses goods. First, the two senses of ‘good’ that is used bear no resemblance to each other. One is used in a material sense (slaves, gold, silver) while the other is used in a qualitatively ethical sense (what constitutes the righteous ‘good’ in the character and nature of an individual). The material sense of the word implies that it is good to possess such quantifiable materials (again, physical aspect such as land, property, material resources). Such ownership is good because it allows certain freedom of movement within society and affords more easily the “quiet and peacable life” intended to be lived in simple holiness. However, it does not directly follow that while the benefits of such material can be called a good that it inherently derives such a quality from its nature. Thus we must allow the possibility that such ownership is not in fact ‘good’. The ethical sense which Chrysostom uses good refers to the motivations arising in an individual that determine what is done with those material goods. Thus has no bearing on the inherent merit of the goods themselves, and thus the material goods cannot be used qualitatively to be ‘good’ as their use can be. And therefore, Chrysostom’s argument that one who holds such goods is good is in fact not good.

A second major flaw in Chrysostom’s homily is his assumption that material wealth arises inherently from unrighteous activity. He does allow the possilibty that it could in fact, be sourced righteously, however he assumes the opposite. “…but can you, tracing [the source of your wealth] back through many generations show that the title was just? You could not avoid discovering the original source in someone’s injustice. Why? Because at the beginning God did not make one man rich and another poor.” (102). Chrysostom seems bent on discovering illegitimate origins of wealth, not satisfied with its apparent source until he can dig far enough in history to uncover it’s “real” origination. He says also, “suppose wealth in itself is just, free from the imputation of piracy”…as if piracy were the natural cause of all gold chests everywhere scattered throughout the universe.

Chrysostom’s major critique of wealth is that of private property. Pointing to the beginning of creation he points to the lack of property lines given to adam and eve, noting that everything is shared, and not one thing is clearly defined as one person’s and something else clearly defined as belonging to the other. He also elevates and glorifies common areas and public ownership of things such as streets, baths, sidewalks, and marketplaces. Their peaceableness relative to the jealousy-inducing private property is clearly enough for him to justify public ownership of all things and ascribement of unholiness to anything of private or individual ownership.