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

NPNF (V1-14)St. Chrysostom436For instance, when an old house is ready to fall down, if a person leaving the whole, has patchedup the foundation, straightway we say, he has made it new, when he has taken some parts away,and brought others into their place. For even the heaven also is thus called ‘new,’ 3010 when it is nolonger ‘of brass,’ but gives rain; 3011 and the earth likewise is new when it is not un fruitful, notwhen it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of it have been taken away,and portions remain. And thus, he says, 3012 he hath well termed it ‘a New Covenant.’”If then I show that that covenant had become “Old” in this respect, that it yielded no fruit? Andthat thou mayest know this exactly, read what Haggai says, what Zechariah, what the Messenger,3013when the return from the Captivity had not yet fully taken place; and what Esdras charges. Howthen did [the people] receive him? 3014 And how no man enquired of the Lord, inasmuch as they[the priests] themselves also transgressed, and knew it not even themselves? 3015 Dost thou see howthy [interpretation] is broken down, 3016 whilst I maintain my own: that this [covenant] must becalled “New” in the proper sense of the word?ii. That this interpretation of the “ new heaven ” is incorrect. iii. That the Prophecy distinctly foretells a substitution. Thecommon editions have changed the character of the passage by substituting ἄ λλως δὲ καινὴ for καινὴ two lines above, andκαινὴ δὲ καὶ αὕτη τ . for ̓ Ιδοὺ … καινὴ τ . in this place; by omitting φησὶ at the end of the objection; and substituting ἵ ναδειξῇ for ἐ ὰ ν οὖν δείξω3010See Isa. lxv. 17; Deut. xxviii. 233011The Verona edition, one Catena, the mss. which Mr. Field usually follows, and the Latin versions of Mutianus and thelater translator, all give the text which is here translated: ὁ ταν μηκέτι χαλκοῦς ᾖ, ἀλλ̓ ὑετὸν διδῷ· ὅταν μὴ ἄκαρπος, οὐχὁταν μεταβληθῇ, οὐχ ὅταν τὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ ἐξαιρεθῇ, τὰ δὲ μένῃ . Mr. Field says that he has nolens volens admitted into the textthe “ amended ” readings of the common editions, ὅ ταν μηκέτι χ. ᾖ. ἀ. ὑ. διδῷ, καὶ ἡ γῆ ὁμοιως καινὴ, ὅταν μὴ ἀ. ᾖ, οὐχ ὅτανμεταβληθῆ, καὶ οἶκος οὕτω καινὸς ὅταν τὰ μὲν κ. λ. “ when it is no longer of brass, but gives rain: [and the earth in like manneris new,] when it is not unfruitful, not when it has been changed: [and in this sense the house is new], when portions of it havebeen, ” &c. There does not however appear to be any need for this: on the contrary, while the old text is simple and intelligible,the additions bring in matters which are out of place. [The other Catena, however, that of Niketas, Archbishop of Heraklea,one of Mr. Field’s valuable authorities, has the bracketed bits.]The words ὅ ταν μὴ ἄκαρπος apply naturally to the heaven, when it does not supply the moisture necessary for producingfruit. This argument from the “ new heaven ” is alleged by the objector as distinct from that of the “ new house ” : it is aninstance, he would say, of the word “ new ” being applied, when there was neither change nor substitution, as St. Chrys.interprets the prophecy: nor even partial alteration as in the analogy of the “ new house ” ; but only a renewal of fertilizingaction which had been previously suspended.On the other hand the introduction of “ the new earth ” by the interpolator is out of place: inasmuch as unfruitful groundwould represent the people not the Law; neither does St. Chrys. in the refutation which follows refer at all to this point of “new earth. ” The introduction of the “ house ” is simply needless repetition. [It has seemed better to follow in the translationField’s text than to follow the alterations of the English edition—both because the passage is thus much clearer, and becausethis is professedly a translation of Field’s text, and his critical sagacity must be considered on such a point of higher value.—F.G.]3012ὥ στε, φησι . Sav. &c. om. φησὶ3013ὁ ῎Αγγελος Malachi.3014πῶς οὖν ἔλαβεν αὐτόν ; The Catena has πῶς συνέλαβον αὐτόν ; which Mutianus read, translating it, “Quomodocorripuerunt eum?” Mr. Field thinks that neither reading gives a suitable meaning. If the reading adopted by Mr. F. and followedin the translation be the true one, it must be supposed that St. Chrys. had in mind the condition in which Ezra, or perhapsNehemiah, found the Jews. The words τί δὲ ῎Εσδρας ἐγκαλεῖ ; seem more appropriate to Nehemiah than to Ezra: and thereception of Nehemiah on his second visit to Jerusalem may have been the circumstance of which the orator was thinking.3015See Mal. i. 6, and c. ii., iii3016βεβίασται τὸ σόν ; or, “ how forced it is. ”629