Michael Gaddis, author of There is no Crime for those who have Christ addresses your points in the following quote. Here he is answering the claim that Chrysostom never advocated violence:
"I don't wish to get heavily involved in this fascinating if slightly overheated debate -- as a historian, I do not feel I have to come down "for" or "against" John Chrysostom, in some absolute sense, as if we were putting him on some kind of trial. Nor do I wish to take a position regarding the various definitions of anti-semitism that are being debated. However, the statement "Chrysostom never advocated violence" needs to be corrected.
First, the one time when Chrysostom actually was put on trial, the Synod of the Oak in 403. Among the charges preferred by the deacon John:
(2) A monk had on Chrysostom's instructions been beaten, taken into custody, and put in chains along with possessed persons. (19) He had people who were in communion with the whole world shut up in prison by his own decision, and when they died there, he did not even think it fit to give due honor to their remains. (27) He gave a blow with his fist to Memnon in the Church of the Apostles, and while the blood was still flowing from his mouth made him take communion. (Acts of the Synod of the Oak, as preserved in Photius' Bibliotheca, quoted here from the translation appended to J. Kelly's 1995 biography of Chrysostom, "Golden Mouth".)
In all fairness it should be recognized that these were charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented. But according to Theodoret, a source much more sympathetic to John, Chrysostom as bishop got together "certain monks who were fired with divine zeal" and sent them to destroy pagan temples throughout Phoenicia (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 5.29). John's own letters 21, 28, 53-55, 69, 123, 126, 175, 221 (written to encourage the same monks, all in PG 52) confirm this story, and also make it clear that this battle against paganism involved considerable physical violence by both sides. Finally let's hear Chrysostom's own words, which he addressed to his Antiochene congregation in 386:
"I desire to ask one favor of you all... which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify thy hand with the blow." [Homilies on the Statues 1.32, quoting from the translation in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, first series, v.9, p.343]
One of the previous posters (I forget who) cited from Florovsky's book, and in supporting the assertion "Chrysostom never advocated violence" they adduced a quote from a different sermon in which Chrysostom expressed sentiments which would seem to completely contradict the words I quote above -- he speaks of "turning the other cheek", arguing by persuasion and not compulsion, etc. Although expressing opposite attitudes, both quotes are genuine Chrysostom: so which of the two should we consider to be more "authoritative" or "representative" of Christian tradition? That's not a question that can be easily answered."