Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews

NPNF (V1-14)St. Chrysostom430during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but,after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but “He” saves “to the uttermost.” 2970What is “to the uttermost”? He hints at some mystery. Not here 2971 only (he says) but there 2972also He saves them that “come unto God by Him.” How does He save? “In that He ever liveth” (hesays) “to make intercession for them.” Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? Forhe says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, andwhensoever it may be needful to intercede for them.“To the uttermost.” What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. ‘Does Hethen always need to pray? Yet how can [this] be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimesaccomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with [theFather]?’ Thou seest that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, Heloves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He dothlive alway.[7.] ( Ver. 26 ) “For such an High Priest also 2973 became us, who is holy, harmless, unde filed,separate from the sinners.” Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (Butwhen I say ‘the manhood,’ I mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not dividing [one from theother], but leaving [you] to suppose 2974 what is suitable.) Didst thou mark the difference of theHigh Priest? He has summed up what was said before, “in all points tempted like as we are yetwithout sin.” ( c. iv. 15 .) “For” (he says) “such an High Priest also became us, who is holy,harmless.” “Harmless”: what is it? Without wickedness: that which another 2975 Prophet says: “guilewas not found in His mouth” ( Isa. liii. 9 ), that is, [He is] not crafty. Could any one say thisconcerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? ConcerningHim, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable [to say it]. “Holy, undefiled.” Thistoo would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? “Separate fromsinners.”2970εἰς τὸ παντελές2971in this world.2972in the other world.2973In Mr. Field’s ed. καὶ is read here, and where the words are cited afterwards, in the common texts it is omitted. Socritical editors consider that the sacred text is τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ ἔπρεπεν κ. λ . [The critical editors are not agreed; someinsert the καί , others place it in brackets.—F.G.]2974ὑ ποπτεύειν2975As this passage is cited by Facundus Hermianensis, an African Bishop, writing about the year 547, it may be well to givehis words and also the two Greek texts corresponding to them, as an evidence that the text which he had was of the short andsimple form now restored in Mr. Field’s edition.“In interpretatione quoque Epistolæ ad Hebræos, Sermone xiv, de eo quod scriptum est, Sicut consummatio per Leviticumsacerdotium erat , ita locutus est: Dicit alter propheta, Dolus non est inventus in ore ejus, hoc est nulla calliditas. Hoc forsitanquisquam de Deo dicat, et non erubescit dicens, quia Deus non est callidus, neque dolosus. De eo vero qui secundum carnemest, habebit forsitan rationem.” (pro def. trium capp. lib. xi. c. 5, p. 488, ed Sirm.) [ Gall. Bibl. Patr . xi. 789.]Mr. Field’s text is, ὃ [ ὃ om. ms. R.) λέγει ἕτερος προφήτης· δόλος οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ (τουτέστιν, οὐχ ὕπουλος·τοῦτο ἄν τις περὶ Θεοῦ εἴποι ; καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται λέγων, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὕπουλος, οὐδὲ δολερός ; περὶ μέντοι τοῦ κατὰσάκρα ἔχοι ἂν λόγονThe text of Savile and the Benedictines οὐχ ὕπουλος· καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτος, ἄκουε τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλοςἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, τοῦτο οὖν ἄν τις περὶ Θεοῦ εἴποι ; ὁ δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται λέγων, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὕπουλος, οὐδὲ δολερός; περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ἔχοι ἂν λόγον620