Plain Talk With A Gilt Edge: An Exploration Of The Relation Between “Plain” Biblical Exposition And Persuasion In Chrysostom And Calvin

By Peter Moore

[Peter Moore is a Lecturer in Theology, The Timothy Partnership, Sydney, and a Ph.D. candidate, Macquarie University, Sydney.]

As a young man, John Calvin had been trained in classical rhetoric, yet it seemed that his first attempts at persuasive oratory failed. In 1538, after less than two years practicing this art, John Calvin left Geneva with his colleague Guillaume Farel and went into exile.[1] Calvin’s departure was hurried and painful, and it must have seemed to the young man as he made his way to Strasbourg that his training had failed.[2]

Calvin had in fact been a reluctant preacher on his first coming to Geneva, and initially because of his natural shyness, he had not agreed to preach at all.[3] It seems he probably remained just a “reader” and “lecturer” until well into 1537, a form of public oratory that is more about informing than persuading. However, he himself came to be persuaded, and he consented to be ordained as Farel’s colleague. In doing so he embraced a ministry that proved tumultuous in the extreme.

Writing to Farel later from his exile in Strasbourg, Calvin spoke of his ministry in Geneva as a “gulf and whirlpool . . . dangerous and destructive” and he expressed his reluctance to ever return to it.[4] Yet after a little more than three years in Strasbourg, Calvin, “minister of the Gospel,” agreed to return to Geneva.[5] He took up his ministry again, preaching there for the rest of his life.

Calvin’s first years back in Geneva were very difficult ones, and it would be wrong to think that this time his public oratory carried all before him. However, over time his preaching did succeed. Not only that, but preaching was clearly the centerpiece of this second Genevan ministry. Thus Parker states, “It is impossible to do justice to his work in Geneva unless preaching be given the main place.”[6]

Clearly Calvin became a public orator of special influence. In an age before modern mass media, in public oratory Calvin employed the primary means by which large groups of people came under the influence of new ideas (and old ones) and by which a culture and a civilization were shaped. This was certainly true of the pulpits in Calvin’s day, as it was in an earlier “Golden Age”: that ancient time when preachers such as John Chrysostom in like manner had changed the world in which they lived.[7]

This brings me to the subject of the present article. The evidence is compelling that Calvin studied Chrysostom in Latin translation whilst sojourning in Strasbourg.[8] The actual impact of Calvin’s engagement with Chrysostom has yet to be satisfactorily tested, but we do have Calvin’s views of Chrysostom and his preaching. Calvin prepared a draft preface to a proposed translation of Chrysostom into the French language: “Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias” (the “Praefatio”).[9]

The purpose of this present article is to begin to consider some features of the exposition of the Scriptures of both men in their public oratory, and to do so by taking Calvin’s comments in the “Praefatio” as a starting point.[10] This article will comprise two sections. In the first short section, I shall identify the two things that Calvin considered especially worthy about Chrysostom’s preaching: his goal of communicating to plain people the plain meaning of Scripture.

After a short interlude, my second and larger section will nuance these two ideas with a brief look at not only Chrysostom’s, but also Calvin’s rhetorical style. The question here is the extent to which Chrysostom’s and Calvin’s sermons were gilt with classical rhetorical forms.[11] Does their broad appeal and straightforward exposition consist in an absence of such forms, or is it in fact enhanced by them?

This question also relates to an ongoing debate in classical studies: how educated in classical oratory were the congregations who heard preachers like Chrysostom? Were his “target audience” people who had a well-developed taste for rhetoric as an art form? Or did he employ classical forms in order to enhance communication with ordinary people regardless of their experience with those forms?[12]

All these matters are relevant to an assessment of Calvin as well: what were his goals in preaching, and his debt to classical forms? Broadly, in the Calvinist tradition, emphasis has been given to divine initiative in preaching, and less so to human persuasion and human choice.[13] Does that mean Calvin himself was embarrassed by the art of rhetoric, perhaps even shunning its forms, because of his dependence on the sovereign work of God?

With these questions in view, the second section will include a study of both pastors as they preach sermons on 2 Tim 4:1-2.

I. Calvin’s “Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias”

Calvin’s “Praefatio” is an example of his own ability to persuade. Calvin, who had demonstrated with his 1532 Seneca commentary his familiarity with classical forms, employs in the “Praefatio” several rhetorical strategies worthy of Chrysostom.[14] Although this present article does not attempt a comprehensive analysis of Calvin’s rhetoric, I will identify some of the techniques as we encounter them.

Calvin begins the defense of his project to translate Chrysostom with ὑποφορά (hypophora: Calvin anticipating objections).[15]

I am aware of what nearly always happens in the case of innovation, that there will be no lack of people who will not only condemn this work of mine as unnecessary, but also are of the opinion that it ought to be rejected out of hand as being of no particular benefit to the Church.[16]

He relates this directly to the sixteenth-century debate over access for ordinary people to the gospel.

We know what kind of protests were raised initially by backward people when it was suggested that the Gospel should be read by the public (vulgo). For they reckoned it an outrage that the mysteries of God, which had been concealed for so long by priests and monks, be made known to ordinary people (plebeiis hominibus).[17]

Calvin immediately uses αὔξησις (auxēsis or “amplification”), comparing the present situation with a previous one where a favorable judgment had been given: the need for the plain people (plebeiis hominibus or multitudine) to have access to the Scripture had been generally conceded.[18] In the same manner, Calvin argues, they ought also be able to have the benefit of

Aids (adminicula), which he intends to be of assistance in our labour of investigating his truth . . . 

The point is, if it is right that ordinary Christians be not deprived of the Word of their God, neither should they be denied prospective resources, which may be of use for its true understanding (instrumenta quae ad veram eius intelligentiam usui sint futura).[19]

In his concluding remarks on this issue he offers a γνώμη (gnōmē or “maxim”): the general principle of love.[20] His project is a work of love calculated to help the humble and uneducated (rudibus ac illiteratis).[21]

In the second stage of the “Praefatio,” Calvin defends himself from a second anticipated attack, which might be based on Chrysostom’s own goals and audience.[22]

I am certainly well aware of what objection can be made to me in this business. This is that Chrysostom, whom I am undertaking to make known to the public (vulgo hominum), aimed his studies at the intelligentsia only (doctis tantum et literarum peritis lucubrationes suas destinasse).[23]

Calvin answers this objection with several important points. First, Calvin denies his objectors’ basic premise: Chrysostom clearly had aimed to communicate not just with the intelligentsia but also with ordinary people.

[U]nless both the title (titulus) and style of language (orationis compositio) deceive, this man specialized in sermons which he delivered to a wide public (universum populum). Accordingly, he plainly adjusts both approach and language (et rerum tractationem et dictionem attemperat) as if he had the instruction of the common people (hominum multitudinem) in mind. This being the case, anyone maintaining that he ought to be kept in seclusion among the academics has got it wrong, seeing that he did go out of his way to cultivate a popular appeal (studuerit esse popularis).[24]

Secondly, Calvin employs a two-stage ἐνθύμημα (enthymēma, a proof based on comparison).25 An ambition to communicate with ordinary people was common among the other ancients and true of the great Apostle Paul himself:

[If] Paul . . . declared himself under an obligation to the simple and uneducated (rudibus ac imperitis), how could [the ancients] exempt themselves from that stipulation? Therefore, just as they would have very inadequately discharged what was their duty if they had not put to common use the skills they had received from God, so, too, would we be invidious by failing to impart to the people of God what is theirs.[26]

In the next major section of the “Praefatio,” Calvin explains his choice of Chrysostom from among the ancients for this translation project. His major point is that Chrysostom excels as an interpreter of Scripture: positively by keeping to the “genuine plain meaning” (germana scripturae sinceritate) and negatively, by not “twisting” (contorquendo) “the straight-forward sense of the words” (simplici verborum sensu).[27]

Calvin employs something like κεκριμένον (kekrimenon, an appeal to an already accepted position) and also ὑποφορά, as he meets an anticipated objection to his strong preference for Chrysostom’s homilies.[28] In them, “the interpretation of Scripture is . . . their priority (primum tamen . . . tenet scripturae interpretatio)” and Chrysostom is the best of ancients at this.[29]

A brief survey of the Fathers follows, in which Calvin evidences some important criteria for his selection of Chrysostom. Calvin dislikes allegorical interpretations, he is suspicious of preachers who emphasize rhetorical form over substance, and he loves straightforward exegesis.[30]

These criteria are all founded on the consistent priority Calvin gives to the simple exposition of the “plain meaning of Scripture.” Calvin concludes his survey with a rehearsal of Chrysostom’s chief merits, again employing κεκριμένον:

He took great pains everywhere not to deviate in the slightest from the genuine plain meaning of Scripture (germana scripturae sinceritate), and not to indulge in any license of twisting the straight-forward sense of the words (simplici verborum sensu). I am only saying what will be acknowledged by those who are both in a position to make a correct assessment and who will not hesitate to state the fact.[31]

Calvin delights then, in Chrysostom’s passion to communicate with “the common people,” and his exposition, which keeps to the “genuine plain meaning of scripture.”

This brings us to the remaining sections of my article: how is it that Chrysostom achieves these ends? More specifically, in presenting the plain meaning of Scripture to plain people, is there a place for classical rhetorical forms?

Interlude—Chrysostom’s Debt to Greek Rhetorical Forms

Before my second major section, I wish to consider scholarly assessments of the gilt edge to Chrysostom’s talk. Have scholars acknowledged any debt Chrysostom owed to Greek rhetoric as he expounds the (per Calvin) plain meaning of Scripture for plain people?

There have been three major phases in Chrysostom scholarship in understanding his debt to the principles and techniques of oratory generally practised amongst Asian Greeks. The question in each case has been the relative influence in shaping Chrysostom’s speeches of the ideas found in the Scriptures on the one hand as compared to the contemporary principles of rhetoric on the other.

Like many young men of his day, Chrysostom studied rhetoric in one of the rhetorical schools of Antioch. This was probably under the direction of the official sophist for Antioch, Libanius. Not long after his rhetorical training was complete, Chrysostom broke away from Libanius and his “Greek” heritage, and spent years in monastic community and then solitude. It was only when his health had deteriorated through the privations of this period that Chrysostom returned to Antioch and commenced ministry within the church. The question then can be posed: in returning to public life, and ministry as an orator, did Chrysostom also return to his rhetorical “roots”?

In the first phase of modern scholarship, it was considered that there was minimal evidence of Greek rhetorical forms in Chrysostom’s preaching.[32] This consensus gave way to a second period of scholarship, from the 1920s to the 1980s, when Chrysostom was portrayed as a fierce critic of the sophists and rhetoric, but it was suggested that he consciously or unconsciously used the very rhetorical forms he despised, and even to tasteless excess.[33] In the current phase in Chrysostom studies, his employment and mastery of classical rhetoric is explored with no signs of embarrassment.[34]

This leads us to our own study of how our two preachers employ rhetorical forms as they preach an important biblical text which itself insists that a pastor: “Preach the word.”

II. Sermons on 2 Timothy 4:1-2

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. (NIV)

A. Chrysostom

Chrysostom expounds these two verses within a sermon covering a larger portion, 2 Tim 3:16-4:8. Chrysostom, ever the careful exegete, begins his sermon by locating this whole section in its context, which in this case is that of Paul’s approaching death. Chrysostom then immediately offers an ἐνθύμημα (a comparison based on the greater and the lesser).

For if Elisha, who was with his master to his last breath, when he saw him departing as it were in death, rent his garments for grief, what think you must this disciple suffer, so loving and so beloved, upon hearing that his master was about to die . . .[35]

Having located the sermon in its context, Chrysostom continues, in his usual fashion, with a close study of the passage he has chosen to preach. First there is an exposition of 3:16-17 about the value and use of the Scriptures. In the course of this he offers his explicit hermeneutic—explaining why Paul’s words to Timothy also apply to “us.” This is based on another ἐνθύμημα, a comparison moving from the greater to the lesser: “And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! [Εἰ δὲ Τιμοθέῳ . . . πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν;]”[36]

Chrysostom then moves on to the two verses I am particularly considering. His first exegetical consideration from these verses is the meaning of “the quick and the dead” (ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς).[37] This leads our preacher to consider how “dreadful” is the judgment of God, and when it shall be.

Next Chrysostom considers, “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season” (v. 2). Chrysostom begins with an αἰτιολογία: he asks a question of what he—and Paul—has said, which he then answers: “What means ‘in season, out of season’?”(Τί ἐστιν, Εὐκαίρῳ, ἀκαίρῳ;)[38] His answer will be particularly apt for the context of Paul’s approaching death, in which Chrysostom has already located these verses. It is not so much that Paul means the various conditions of the hearers (whether they are willing or reluctant to hear) as it is about the security and safety of the preacher.[39]

That is, have not any limited season: let it always be your season, not only in peace and security, and when sitting in Church. Whether you be in danger, in prison, in chains, or going to your death, at that very time reprove. Withhold not rebuke, for reproof is then most seasonable, when your rebuke will be most successful, when the reality is proved [ὅταν ἀποδειχθῇ τὸ ἐργον].[40]

The testimony of a martyr—the offering of his life for the sake of the truth he preaches—offers the most compelling opportunity and proof for preaching!

Chrysostom next offers a preacher’s perspective as to how rebuke must be matched with persuasion, and then a pastor’s perspective as to how this must then be followed with encouragement, all illustrated with a surgical μεταφορά (“metaphor”).[41]

“Exhort,” [Παρακάλεσον] he says. After the manner of physicians, having shown the wound, he gives the incision, he applies the plaster. For if you omit either of these, the other becomes useless [ἄχρηστον]. If you rebuke without convicting [῎Αν τε γὰρ χωρὶς ἐλέγχων ἐπιτιμήσῃς] you will seem to be rash, and no one will tolerate it, but after the matter is proved [τὸ ἀποδειχθῆναι], he will submit to rebuke: before, he will be headstrong. And if you convict and rebuke, but vehemently, and do not apply exhortation [μὴ παράκλησιν προσαγάγῃς], all your labor will be lost. For conviction is intolerable in itself if consolation be not mingled with it [᾿Αφόρητον γὰρ ἔλεγχος καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν, ὅvταν μὴ καὶ παράκλησιν ἀναμεμιγμένην ἔχῃ]. As if incision, though salutary in itself, have not plenty of lenitives to assuage the pain, the patient cannot endure cutting and hacking, so it is in this matter.[42]

These few words might well be taken as a template for Chrysostom’s own preaching: rebuke [ἐπιτίμησον], prove (or convince) [ἔλεγξον], encourage [παρακάλεσον].

In a final paragraph offering exegesis of our two verses, Chrysostom considers Paul’s encouragement to preach “with all longsuffering and doctrine.” For Chrysostom the logic of the first word “longsuffering” again confirms the patient application of persuasion and encouragement to rebuke. He offers this αὔχησις (“emphasis”):

“With all longsuffering and doctrine” [μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ]. For he that reproves is required to be longsuffering, that he may not believe hastily, and rebuke needs consolation, that it may be received as it ought.[43]

As to the need to add “doctrine” it seems here that Chrysostom understands a reference to the profound and exalted ministry of the gospel, for it takes the ministry of a preacher to a different place than any ordinary teacher. Our preacher unpacks this by means of a διάλογος (“dialogue,” an imaginary debate with a listener).[44]

Chrysostom goes on to expound the next six verses of his text, and then gives his “moral” or application.[45] The application section dwells on the concluding words of v. 8 in which Paul speaks of “all that love His appearing.” This leads Chrysostom to an elaboration or ἐξεργασία (exergasia, a practical working out of the implications of his argument) in which he treats the necessity to be ready for Christ’s coming.[46] Chrysostom includes μεταφοραῖ (“metaphors”) of shipwreck, feeding beasts, standing on solid rock rather than flowing waters, and a tree deeply rooted that endures a storm. His sermon ends with his customary doxology.

B. Calvin

Calvin treats our two verses in at least two sermons, the first (which we shall examine) studies them alone, and the second goes beyond, incorporating a larger section.[47]

In the first of these sermons, Calvin begins with a brief review of his preceding sermon. His key theme had been that God encourages us to read the Scripture. Then Calvin jumps to the topic of his current sermon: the virtues of preaching. He immediately tells us preaching’s purpose.

God did not content himself to put forth the holy Scripture that every man might study it, but he devised of his infinite goodness, a second means to instruct us: and it is, he would have the doctrine that is therein contained, preached, and expounded to us . . .[48]

He explains the reason we need this, offering an eating and infant feeding μεταφορά (“metaphor”).

This aid God thought good to add, because of our rudeness. It was already very much, that he had given us his word, and caused it to be written, that every one of us might read it, and learn it: God showed himself herein very liberal toward us: but when we see he deals with us after our weakness, and chews the morsels for us, that we might digest them the better: to be short, in it he feeds us as little children, we see thereby, we shall never be able to excuse our selves, unless we profit in his school.[49]

As Calvin explains Paul’s exhortation to preach the word, he again explains the purpose of preaching.

God will have men to be stirred up, and because they are rude and gross headed, he will have them to have some to show them the way, to guide them, and lend them their hands, and bear them the message of the gospel, to show them what the will of God is.[50]

This leads Calvin to his first application: our obligation to seek preaching in order to profit from what God offers in it, and for preachers to make it available to congregations. He makes use of ἐξεργασία (exergasia, a detailed elaboration of his point), covering the position of the preacher and his listeners both in public and private.[51]

Calvin offers a theological εἰκών (“simile”).[52] Preaching is like the ministry of God when he brought us to life from being dead in sin, and so we should seek it for our good.

As God did once draw us out of the bottomless pit of death, when he spared not his only Son: so he makes us partakers of this inestimable treasure of this benefit that was purchased for us, when the Gospel is preached. . . . And therefore it ought to be a most precious thing to us . . .[53]

It is not surprising then, says Calvin, that Timothy is charged to preach, and to do so at all times.

In the next section Calvin explores the reasons for preaching at all times. To preach merely when it seems the audience is inclined to listen would see preachers never speak! He offers this as his explanation for Paul’s charge to preach, couched in the form of διάλογος (an imaginary discussion set in direct speech).

[It is a]s if he said, “I will not that you choose times only at their lust and fantasy, which are committed to your charge, but be importunate upon them . . .” 

Truth it is, that this importunity seems to be very unfit: for seeing men are too delicate of their own nature, they chafe when they are too sore dealt withall. Therefore if a man cease not, it seems it will do no good, but bring them out of taste, and make them weary of the word of God. But what would come of it, if we should follow their humour. . . . They will not seek God too earnestly . . .[54]

Calvin next offers something of his understanding of the preaching task, using a negative form of εἰκών (“simile”) in which he contrasts it to teaching in school.

And again Saint Paul shows that it is not enough to preach . . . as though a man should teach in a school: but he must Improve, threaten, and exhort.[55]

He offers a plausible speculation as to Paul’s reason for encouraging exhortation, proving his point with a μεταφορά (“metaphor”) relating to wild beasts, and generally using ἐπιχείρημα (epicheirēma), which here is an argument from consequents.[56]

[It is a]s if he said, if we leave it to men’s choice to follow [w]hat is taught them, they will never move one foot. Therefore the doctrine of itself can profit nothing at all, unless it be confirmed by exhortations, and by threats, unless there be spurs to prick men withall: for beasts that are so wild and fierce, if they should be left alone to lie grovelling in their slothfulness, it will be hard to make them profit in the end, and to go on in the way of salvation.[57]

But of course doctrine must also be given as well as the exhortation for (and here Calvin offers a construction μεταφορά)

[it is] as if he said, when we exhort, we must stand upon good reason, for otherwise we should build in the air. So then, doctrine is (as it were) the groundwork, and then, threatenings, and exhortations, and all the rest, is to go on with the building.[58]

Meekness too is required by Paul, and Calvin explains this with another speculation, offering an eating μεταφορά and an εἰκών:

And besides this, he will have meekness mixed withall, that too much sharpness do not bring the hearers out of taste, for this causes them often times to be at defiance and swell as toads against God. And therefore we must show as much as possibly we may, that we seek nothing but to bring them to God.[59]

In the section that follows, Calvin’s further explication involves use of a number of rhetorical forms including γνώμη (gnōmē or “maxim”).[60] Employing a method that bears a striking resemblance to Chrysostom’s, Calvin also offers his explicit hermeneutic based on an ἐνθύμημα, an argument based on comparison from greater to lesser.

[I]f Timothy, which was like an Angel in this world, had need to be stirred up after this sort, what shall we say of our selves, which are so fleshly, which have our minds and wits wandering this way and that way, yes, and are (as it were) quite vanished away in this corruptible world? Have we not much more need to have the judgment of God laid forth before us?[61]

As the sermon proceeds Calvin then notes that Paul speaks of Christ judging “the quick and the dead” and this leads him to another extended application: we should live expecting his coming. What follows is a somewhat unrelated excursus into eschatology not directly addressed by Paul, but provoked by Paul’s use of the term “kingdom.” But then Calvin offers a μετάβασις (metabasis), a crossing over from one point to another, in which he calls himself back to the main point: “preach the word in season and out of season, and as it were importunely.”[62] He then uses ἐξεργασία (exergasia), a practical working out of the implications of his argument.[63]

Next comes a lengthy explication of the continuing and general relevance of Paul’s exhortation through use of διαίρεσις (diairesis), addressing various persons in turn, assigning to each their relevant role or duty.[64] Here the list includes preachers, believers at large, and even unbelievers. In doing so Calvin employs διάλογος several times,[65] and an ἐνθύμημα, a comparison, moving from greater to lesser.

If the good would sometimes have men spare them, and pleasure them, to say they have done enough, when they have done but half or one part of their duties, and for that cause we should be importunate toward them, what must we do to them which of themselves are condemners of God, and would gladly cast off all yoke from them? We must be much more importunate against them . . .[66]

Calvin ends his sermon by repeating his διαίρεσις, addressing again each listener in turn—first the preacher and then believers. Explaining to believers the need for constant preaching, he offers a travel μεταφορά.

And indeed experience shows us how necessary a thing it is for them that have any good affection to come to God, to be called thereunto. And wherefore? Because there is always some negligence in us: and again, we should rest ourselves every minute of an hour, as they that have a voyage to make, and draw their legs and their wings after them, and unless they were called upon, and their fellows said to them, let us go on, let us go on, they would sit down at every place they meet, and wallow themselves upon the grass, or in the shadow. Even so fares it with us . . .[67]

Calvin then concludes with a formal confession of sin as he closes his sermon.

III. Conclusions

In this article we have been examining the relation between “plain” biblical exposition and persuasion in Chrysostom and Calvin. In particular we have focused on the two preachers’ use of classical rhetorical forms as they attempt to communicate plain truth to plain people.

First we saw that Calvin, even as he lauds Chrysostom for his plain exegesis and his ministry to plain people, himself uses sophisticated proofs in the “Praefatio,” most of which are taken directly from classical rhetoric.

Second, we noted a developing scholarly consensus to the effect that Chrysostom, whom Calvin lauds as a plain talker, was a master of classical rhetorical forms.

Third, we studied Calvin and Chrysostom preaching on 2 Tim 4:1-2. Chrysostom offers something akin to a template for preaching: reproof, conviction, and encouragement. It seems from his frequent use of rhetorical proofs such as ἐνθυμήματα (proofs based on comparison) and others, that these proofs accomplish the convicting that he believes is required of preachers.

There are no striking similarities in the exegetical substance of the sermons, but they both employ similar rhetorical strategies in abundance. Further, they both offer a hermeneutic based on the same ἐνθύμημα as they justify the application today of Paul’s instructions to Timothy.

We set out to assess the role of classical rhetorical forms in these preachers, and particularly as they apply plain biblical exegesis to a plain group of listeners. It seems that those forms are not only acceptable but also (judging by these examples) indispensable. It is striking that both Chrysostom and Calvin (the latter living in an age when hearers were not especially accustomed to classical rhetoric), decorate their plain talk with a very rich gilt edge.

IV. Glossary of Rhetorical Terms

αἰτιολογία (aitiologia)—asking a question about a statement just made, which is then answered.

αὔχησις (auxēsis)—emphasis.

γνώμη (gnōmē)—maxim.

διαίρεσις (diairesis)—addressing various persons in turn.

διάλογος (dialogos)—presenting an objection and answer in direct speech.

εἰκών (eikōn)—simile.

ἐνθύμημα (enthumēma)—a proof based on comparison.

ἐξεργασία (exergasia)— a practical working out of the implications of one’s argument.

ἐπερώτησις (eperōtēsis)—a concluding question that is incapable of being answered.

ἐπιχείρημα (epicheirēma)—an argument from consequents.

κεκριμένον (kekrimenon)—an appeal to an already accepted position.

μετάβασις (metabasis)—the speaker calls himself back to the main point.

μεταφορά (metaphora)—metaphor (“transfer”).

ὑποφορά (hypofora)—answering an anticipated objection.

Notes

1. August 1536 to April 1538, in T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 62-63, 79.
2. Ibid., 79, 96.
3. Ibid., 68-69.
4. Calvin in a letter to Farel (ibid., 96). In the same letter, Calvin also spoke of “the anxiety by which we were continually tossed up and down and driven to and fro from the time I was appointed your colleague . . . , the wretchedness of my life there [and] the thoughts [while there] that were apt to come into my mind of moving elsewhere, thoughts which often stole in upon me unawares.”
5. The record of his arrival on September 13, 1541, in the city register described him simply as “minister of the Gospel” and stated that he had “offered himself to be always the servant of Geneva” (ibid., 97).
6. Ibid., 114. In an earlier article I quoted from the unpublished work of Henri Blocher about the importance of Calvin’s preaching (Peter Moore, “Gold Without Dross: Assessing the Debt of John Calvin to the Preaching of John Chrysostom,” RTR 68 [2009]: 109-29, 127). In his work Blocher argues “he was first a preacher.” This is not a reference to a chronology in Calvin’s ministry but to the heart of that ministry. Blocher goes on to cite various scholars to support the exceptional impact of Calvin’s preaching. This includes Stauffer’s claim that Calvin created a new civilization “essentially through his preaching.” (Henri Blocher, “Luther and Calvin on Christology” [paper presented at The Twelfth Edinburgh Conference in Christian Dogmatics, Edinburgh, 2007], 6).
7. Jaclyn LaRae Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 2.
8. There have been several studies of the evidence, and my own study, referred to already, concludes that this took place in Strasbourg, together with the project to translate Chrysostom for wider use (Moore, “Gold Without Dross,” 113-14).
9. Ioanni Calvini, “Praefatio In Chrysostomi Homilias,” in Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia (ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss; Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863), vol. 9, columns 831-838. Note the commentary and translation of Ian Hazlett, “Calvin’s Latin Preface to His Proposed French Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies: Translation and Commentary,” in Humanism and Reform (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), 129-50. Hazlett explicitly deals with the nature of Calvin’s proposed work, and considers its timing (129-33).
10. This forms part of a doctoral project in which I hope to determine the extent of Calvin’s debt to Chrysostom in his preaching.
11. I use the term “classical forms” to include the art of the Second Sophistic.
12. As to the debate about the need for experience in classical rhetoric in order to profit from its use, see the discussion by Maxwell, “Philosophical Preaching in the Roman World,” in Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity, 11-41.
13. Calvin’s own theology of preaching stressed this (John H. Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation of the Word and Its Significance for Today,” in John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform [ed. Timothy George; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990], 206-29, 210-12). In the Presbyterian tradition, with its priority on divine sovereignty rather than human decision shaping history, it might be thought that persuasion in preaching is either unnecessary or even impious. However I note that at something of a high point for Presbyterian theology in England, the Westminster theologians were able to state that preaching should be done “plainly, that the meanest may understand; delivering the truth not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” and also “wisely, framing all his doctrines, exhortations, and especially his reproofs, in such a manner as may be most likely to prevail” (Westminster Assembly, Directory for Public Worship [London, 1645]).
14. Battles lists in his introductory essay to Calvin’s commentary “some fifty terms” identified by Calvin (Jean Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s “De Clementia” [ed. and trans. Ford Lewis Battles and Andre Malan Hugo; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969], 77).
15. Definitions for rhetorical forms are difficult. Over the years, the classical commentators used the terms with slightly different meanings. In this article I rely heavily upon R. Dean Anderson, Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 24; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); and Heinrich Lausberg, David E. Orton, and R. Dean Anderson, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998). Additionally, I have provided a short glossary at the end of this article.
16. Calvin in his first use of ὑποφορά; Hazlett, “Preface,” 138-39; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/831. In ὑποφορά the speaker refers to “possible objections from his opponents” and this can include objections presented in non-question form (Anderson, Glossary, 124).
17. Hazlett, “Preface,” 139; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/831.
18. For this kind of αὔξησις, see Anderson, Glossary, 26 category 2. For the Latin quoted see Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/832.
19. Hazlett, “Preface,” 14; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/832. This is a form of ἔμφασις (“emphasis”) where “something is said which logically flows from something else” (Anderson, Glossary, 42 category 3).
20. Anderson, Glossary, 30.
21. Hazlett, “Preface,” 142; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/833.
22. A further example of ὑποφορά (Anderson, Glossary, 125).
23. Hazlett, “Preface,” 142; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/833.
24. Hazlett, “Preface,” 142-143; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/833.The words titulus et orationis compositio could be qualifying either Chrysostom’s opera (not actually mentioned) or Chrysostom himself (hic in the next clause of the text). In n. 22, Hazlett explains titulus as a reference to the “headings” on Chrysostom’s opera: they are “homilies.” However, in my mind, this is more likely a reference to Chrysostom’s titulus: his “reputation” or “claim to fame” as “Goldenmouth.”
25. Anderson argues that the term ἐνθύμημα refers in the literature (other than Aristotle) to an argument based on contraries, and that the broad term for a rhetorical syllogism is ἐπιχείρημα (epichirēma) (Anderson, Glossary, 47).
26. Hazlett, “Preface,” 143; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/833. Here Calvin offers two consecutive ἐνθυμήματα, arguing from the greater to the lesser in two steps: first from Paul to the Fathers, and then the Fathers to Calvin and his contemporaries. Both ἐνθυμήματα are single sentences as is typical of the genre. The first is composed as a question (also typical of an ἐνθύμημα) and the second (less commonly) takes the form of a statement. On ἐνθύμημα also see Paul A. Holloway, “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul,” JBL 120 (2001): 329-39, especially 329-35; Anderson, Glossary, 44-45. In the next paragraph Calvin makes a third point in support of his project and against the objectors. Many church leaders lack skill in Greek and Latin (Hazlett, “Preface,” 143; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/833-834). In making his point, Calvin employs the rhetorical strategies of κεκριμένον (“it is widely recognised that”) and ἀποσιώπησις (“to avoid giving the impression of dragging on about such a sensitive issue, I will not press the point further”). On κεκριμένον and ἀποσιώπησις see Anderson, Glossary, 67 and 24. Lausberg’s Handbook lists a “transitio-aposiopesis” as one which “seeks to spare the audience from having to listen . . . in order to gain immediately their all the stronger interest in the new section” (Lausberg, Orton, and Anderson, Handbook of Rhetoric, § 888c). There is certainly a transitional quality to Calvin’s remark, but he also mentions that this is a “sensitive issue.” It seems then this is an “audience respecting” aposiopesis (ibid., § 888b).
27. Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/ 835; Hazlett, “Preface,” 145-46.
28. Anderson, Glossary, 67.
29. Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834. In the reference to “no-one of sound judgment” Calvin employs something like κεκριμένον. In the proposal to avoid two anticipated objections, Calvin again uses ὑποφορά.
30. First, Calvin dismisses Origen because he “obscures very much the plain meaning of Scripture with constant allegories (perpetuis allegoriis scripturae sinceritatem valde obscurat)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). Secondly, Calvin dismisses Basil and Gregory, because from the fragments that do survive, one may suspect that “the latter two had more of an aptitude for oratory than for literary exposition (duos postremos ad declamationes fuisse magis natos quam ad didacticam scribendi rationem)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). On the other hand, Cyril is “an outstanding exegete indeed (egregius sane interpres)” though not matching Chrysostom (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). Further criteria are evident in Calvin’s dismissal of Hilary as offering “little towards an understanding of the mind of the prophet (parum ad intelligendam prophetae mentem) [i.e. the writer of the Psalms] . . . and [in Matthew he is] missing . . . lucidity (perspicuitas)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). As Calvin dismisses Jerome, he rejects him for his habit of allegorizing, and the fact that he is evidently “a man not sufficiently experienced in church affairs (non satis in rebus ecclesiasticis exercitatum, sapiunt)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). In contrast, Calvin praises Ambrose for there is “no one after Chrysostom who comes closer to the plain sense of Scripture (scripturae sinceritatem)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 144; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/834). Augustine, though outstanding “in dogmatics” and “a very scrupulous biblical commentator of the first rank . . . is far too ingenious (argutus)” (Hazlett, “Preface,” 145; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/835).
31. Hazlett, “Preface,” 145; Calvini, “Praefatio,” 9/835.
32. E. Nordern in 1915 “minimizes” this influence. Secondly, in 1889 L. Ackermann, “makes the strange assertion that Chrysostom wrote in the style of St Paul, and that he was free from the bad taste and the mannerisms of the sophists.” Thirdly, in 1907 Wilamowitz “states that there is no trace of the jingle of rhymes and cadences in Chrysostom’s larger orations.” Finally in 1912 Bardenhewer “restricts the sophistic influence in Chrysostom to some individual sermons of his earlier period.” (Thomas E. Ameringer, The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom: A Study in Greek Rhetoric [Patristic Studies 5; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1921], 10). Mitchell refers to the view that Chrysostom “purposely eschews ‘pagan’ literary forms” as “a consensus opinion of the last century” (Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 10 n. 40).
33. The most strident critic of Greek rhetoric (albeit an evident admirer of Greek culture) is Ameringer, who argues that Chrysostom both uses and condemns “profane” rhetorical forms. Thus Ameringer finds himself obliged to defend Chrysostom’s integrity: “Are we justified then in accusing him of insincerity? By no means. His irreproachable, stainless character, his exalted conception of the dignity of the Christian preacher’s office, place him above all suspicion of insincerity. In fairness to him we must concede that, generally, he is true to his principles, but that, when he violates them, he does so unconsciously. The mannerisms of profane rhetoric had become, as it were, his second nature, so that, while he strove to avoid the grosser excesses of the oratory of show and display, he could not altogether eradicate intellectual habits that were deep-rooted and of long standing. This may be regrettable, but it is only the natural and logical result of his education and environment” (Ameringer, Influence of Second Sophistic, 102). In contrast to this, Sawhill seems very comfortable with Chrysostom’s abundant use of metaphor, and his only interest seems to be in explaining the use of athletic metaphors in particular: “Athletics must have had a strong appeal to the people, else St. Chrysostom would not have resorted to them so often for illustration” (John Alexander Sawhill, The Use of Athletic Metaphors in the Biblical Homilies of St. John Chrysostom [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1928], 110). Mary Burns quotes from and then affirms the earlier scholar Partridge: “‘Chrysostom . . . is certainly one of the greatest masters of rhetoric, whether sacred or profane.’ The truth of these words is fully exemplified in the Homilies on the Statues.” “It is natural to find Sophistic methods in an orator who was taught and trained in a school devoted to artistic and display rhetoric. Yet it must be said that Chrysostom never sacrificed his subject matter for mere display” (Mary Albania Burns, Saint John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Statues: A Study of Their Rhetorical Qualities and Form [Patristic Studies 22; Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1930], 117, 119).
34. Thus, for example, Margaret Mitchell can say, “Chrysostom knew exactly what he was doing when he engaged his opponents using commonplace arguments, appeals and phrases from the wider rhetorical culture” (in the course of commending the work of Robert L. Wilken from 1983; Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet, 27). With similar appreciation of Chrysostom’s rhetorical training, Pasquato concludes, “In this research we have found historical and literary forms of especially the classical Greek tradition contained in large numbers throughout the present invaluable treatise. . . . We have . . . shown that the vast knowledge that our pastor has of the classical tradition, he consistently employs in his pastoral activity” [Nella presente ricerca abbiamo rilevato forme storiche e forme letterarie della tradizione classica greca sopratutto, contenute con dovizia nella preziosa operetta in esame. . . . Abbiamo . . . messo in luce la conoscenza vasta che il nostro pastore aveva della tradizione classica, di cui ha costantemente tenuto conto nella sua azione pastorale] (Ottorino Pasquato, “Forme Della Tradizione Classica Nel De Inani Gloria Et De Educandis Liberis Di Giovanni Crisostomo,” Orientalia christiana periodica 58 [1992]: 253-64, 264; my translation).
35. John Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:509).
36. Ibid., 510. How often does Chrysostom make this explicit hermeneutical jump? Not often. It is only here in Hom. 9 on 2 Tim., and in Hom. 5 and Hom. 13 on 1 Tim. that a hermeneutical jump is made on the logic of the greater and the lesser. Thus in Hom. 5 on 1 Tim 1:18-19, Chrysostom states, “When we hear this, let us not disdain the exhortations of our superiors, though we be Teachers. For if Timothy, to whom all of us together are not worthy to be compared, receives commands and is instructed, and that being himself in the Teacher’s office, much more should we.” In Hom. 13, on 1 Tim 4:11-5:7, he says, “Even Timothy is commanded to apply to reading. Let us then be instructed not to neglect the study of the sacred writings,” and “For these things are not said to Timothy only, but to all. And if such advice is addressed to him, who raised the dead, what shall be said to us?” and “But does Paul give this advice to Timothy? Yes, he says, for I am speaking to the world through him. But if Timothy was thus advised, let others consider what sort of conduct is required of them” (NPNF1 13:424, 449-50). The hermeneutical process is made explicit several other times in the Timothy homilies without the comparison being made. In Hom. 10, on 1 Tim 3:1-16, Chrysostom says, “And here he does not do it as in the course of his exhortation to Timothy, but addresses all, and instructs others through him.” In Hom. 4, on 2 Tim 2:1-7, he says, “These things are said indeed to Timothy, but through him they are addressed to every teacher and disciple. Let no one therefore of those who hold the office of a Bishop disdain to hear these things, but let him be ashamed not to do them.” In Hom. 7, on 2 Tim 3:1-7, he says, “But why does he do this? In order that Timothy may not be troubled, nor any one of us, when there are evil men. If there were such in the time of Moses, and will be hereafter, it is no wonder that there are such in our times.” This latter is an ἐνθύμημα but the comparison is to Moses. (NPNF1 13:437, 488, 500).
37. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:510); Iohannes Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG line 02336 [online edition: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0345-0407__Iohannes_Chrysostomus__In_epistulam_II_ad_Timotheum__MGR.pdf.html; accessed January 2, 2011]).
38. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:510); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG line 02349).
39. See Calvin’s exegetical focus below concerning the various “seasons” or states of readiness of the hearers to listen.
40. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:510); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG line 02352).
41. Anderson, Glossary, 73-77.
42. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:5l0); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG lines 02353-02360).
43. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:5l0); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG lines 02361-02362).
44. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:5l0); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (lines 02363-02367, especially at 02367).
45. Chrysostom, Hom. 9 on 2 Tim. (NPNF1 13:512-13, headed “Moral”); Chrysostomus, Homily IX ad Timotheum II (PG lines 02466-02531).
46. On ἐξεργασία see Anderson, Glossary, 48.
47. I am using the sixteenth-century translation of John Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, on the Epistles of S. Paule to Timothie and Titus (trans. L.T.; London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579; facsimile reprint, 1983). Although I am largely dependent on L.T., I do modernize the spelling and expression.
48. Ibid., 945.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., 946.
51. Ibid.
52. Anderson, Glossary, 38-39.
53. Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, 946-47. David Rylaarsdam has shown that the divine condescension of God in Christ in Chrysostom’s thinking is mirrored in preaching. Calvin’s theology of incarnation and preaching is similar (David M. Rylaarsdam, “The Adaptability of Divine Pedagogy: Sunkatabasis in the Theology of John Chrysostom” [Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1999]).
54. Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, 947. Calvin also uses an ἐπιχείρημα (epicheirēma), which is an argument from consequents: he notes what would follow from “following” his hearers’ “humour.” On ἐπιχείρημα see Anderson, Glossary, 55-57; Lausberg, Orton, and Anderson, Handbook of Rhetoric, §§ 371-72.
55. Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, 947.
56. Anderson, Glossary, 57, meaning 3; Lausberg, Orton, and Anderson, Handbook of Rhetoric, §§ 371-72.
57. Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, 947.
58. Ibid., 947-48.
59. Ibid., 948.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., 949.
62. Ibid., 956. On μετάβασις see Anderson, Glossary, 70.
63. Anderson, Glossary, 48.
64. Ibid., 32.
65. Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin, 956.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid., 957.