17 That is, besides the covenant being in itself a new one, different from the Mosaic, there is also, he says, the difference in the mode of giving it, the one being written, the other put into the heart. The Jew is supposed to allege that this second is the only difference, and that the promise in the Prophecy is that the Mosaic law shall be given into the heart, and that this was fulfilled by the reformation of the people: as for instance after the Captivity.
18 poli/thn. The common editions have plhsi/on, as has the common text of the New Testament, but there also Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf [Tregelles, W. and H.] read poli/thn, which is the word used in Jeremiah, according to the Vatican ms. It is used by the LXX. to translate the Hebrew for "neighbor."
20 'Idou\, fhsi\, kai\ au#th kainh\ tugxa/nei. This is the argument of an objector, who alleges that the promise of a New Covenant was fulfilled by the modification and renewed efficacy of the Mosaic system, such as occurred after the Captivity. He alleges two senses in which the word "New" might be applied without implying the substitution of another system in place of the old, (i) as a repaired house is said to be new, and (ii) according to his interpretation, as the Heavens are new, when after long drought they again give rain. St. Chrys. replies. i. That after the Captivity the Covenant was still, as of old, unfruitful. ii. That this interpretation of the "new heaven" is incorrect. iii. That the Prophecy distinctly foretells a substitution. The common editions have changed the character of the passage by substituting a@llwj de\ kainh; for kainh; two lines above, and kainh\ de\ kai\ au#th t. for 'Idou;...kainh\ t. in this place; by omitting fhsi; at the end of the objection; and substituting i#na deich=| for e0a\n ou\n dei/cw.
22 The Verona edition, one Catena, the mss. which Mr. Field usually follows, and the Latin versions of Mutianus and the later translator, all give the text which is here translated: o#tan mhke/ti xalkou=j h\|, a0ll' u9eto\n didw=| : o#tan mh\ a@karpoj, ou0x o/tan metablhqh=|, ou0x o#tan ta\ me\n au0tou= e0caireqh=|, ta\ de\ me/nh. Mr. Field says that he has nolens volens admitted into the text the "amended" readings of the common editions, o#tan mhke/ti x. h\. a0. u9. didw=|, 0kai\ h9 gh= o9moiwj kainh9, o#tan mh\ a0. h\|, ou0x o#tan metablhqh|=, kai\ oi\koj oi/ tw kaino\j o#tan ta\ me\n k. l.. "when it is no longer at brass, but gives rain: [and the earth in like manner is new,] when it is not unfruitful, not when it has been changed: [and in this sense the house is new], when portions of it have been," &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 o#tan mh\ a@karpoj apply naturally to the heaven, when it does not supply the moisture necessary for producing fruit. This argument from the "new heaven" is alleged by the objector as distinct from that of the "new house": it is an instance, 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 fertilizing action 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 ground would 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 translation Field's text than to follow the alterations of the English edition-both because the passage is thus much clearer, and because this is professedly a translation of Field's text, and his critical sagacity must be considered on such a point of higher value.-F. G.]
25 pw=j ou0n e!laben au0to/n; The Catena has pw=j sune/labon au0to/n; which Mutianus read, translating it, "Quomodo corripuerunt eum?" Mr. Field thinks that neither reading gives a suitable meaning. If the reading adopted by Mr. F. and followed in the translation be the true one, it must be supposed that St. Chrys. had in mind the condition in which Ezra, or perhaps Nehemiah, found the Jews. The words ti/ de0 @Esdraj e0gkalei=; seem more appropriate to Nehemiah than to Ezra: and the reception of Nehemiah on his second visit to Jerusalem may have been the circumstance of which the orator was thinking.
[There was one who sold his patrimony,
------------A dear-bought dower
------------That had come down from high
------------In a golden shower,
------------It was a loss that gold could never mend,
------------The heart-blood of a Friend,
------------From out the world's dark den he came aside,
------------A monster for the sun to see,
------------All hideous soiled with foulest leprosy,
------------And he sat down upon the grass and cried,
------------Is there no fountain that can wash again?
------------There is a fount where holy men do say
------------He that doth look for aye
------------He shall become like that he doth behold,
------------Borrowing a light more pure than gold.
------------There is a glass whereon he that doth bend
------------Shall see portrayed the Heaven,
------------Till he forget what earth hath best to lend
------------In the sweet hope that he may be forgiven.The Rev. Isaac Williams, Thoughts in Past Years, "The Penitent," p. 151, ed. 2, 1842.]
6 This passage is translated [in the English edition] as if there was a point between th\n sa/rka and ei0serxome/nhn: and as if in the next clause toute/sti was a part of the citation, being put by St. Chrys. before the words dia\ tou= katapeta/smatoj, instead of after them, as in Heb. x. 20. St. Chrys. says that "the veil" represents both Heaven and "the Flesh" of our Lord; and cites the two places where it is so interpreted by the Apostle, vi. 19, x. 20. See below , p. 440. [The simple translation of the Greek (as given in the text) seems far better than this curious modification. The clause th\n sa/rka ei0serxome/nhn ei0j to\ e0sw/t. t. katapet. is closely connected together, and it is hardly tolerable to separate sa/rka from the participle agreeing with it. There is no "which" in the Greek.-F. G.]
7 to/te. Mr. Field seems to think that the Expositor read to/te in the sacred text: though, as he observes, he presently has to/ te. Perhaps the difficulty is avoided by supposing that the word ei\xe, "had," with which the clause begins, was emphasized in delivery, the explanation of the word "ordinances" being parenthetical, and the to/te being implied in the past tense ei\xe.
13 [One is disposed to think that in this and the following paragraphs there must be some serious corruption of the text. As it stands there is a confusion between the words of the Epistle relating to the Jewish High Priest and those that refer to Christ. It is only possible, however, to translate the text as it has come down to us.-F. G.]
22 e0ceuteli/zwn. As if they were so immaterial that he did not think it worth while to be accurate, and mentioned "drinks," about which there were no precepts. St. Chrys. had perhaps overlooked the law of the Nazarites, Numb. vi. 3.
26 A slight alteration of Mr. Field's text seems needed here. The text of the Homily which he gives in accordance with all the authorities is: o9ra=|j pw=j kai\ skhnh\n kai\ katape/tasma kai\ ou0rano\n to\ sw=ma kalei=. But there is no appearance that the Apostle called Christ's body heaven, nor do any of the texts cited show it. If however, we introduce kai; before to\ sw=ma, or substitute it for to;, we have a good sense, in accordance with the four texts cited by St Chrys. and the explanations which he afterwards gives. [The criticism of the English editor is not without some force; yet it seems best to adhere to the text of St. Chrys., as is here done. The proposed alteration does not remove the difficulty, which is merely negative. The rendering in the English edition is "he calls heaven and the body both tabernacle and veil." But to\ sw=ma should be the subject and skhnh\n kai\ katape/tasma kai\ ou0rano/n predicates.-F. G.]
28 The pointing has been changed in this place. In Mr. Field's edition the passage stands thus: katape/tasma o9 ou0ranoj : w#sper ga\r a0poteixi/zei ta\ a#gia katape/tasma, h9 sa\rc kru/ptousa th\n qeo/thta. The translation is made as if the pointing was ta\ a#gia : katape/tasma h9 sa\rc, kru/ptousa th\n q. Otherwise we must supply h9 sa\rc before w#sper. [The pointing is better as it stands; at most, it is only necessary to understand katape/tasma after sa\rc, which the contrast plainly suggests.-F. G.]