it translates "ΤΟΓΙΙ denotes personal
holiness, while ἅγιος and ἱερός express the idea of consecration. [See Trench, Synon.] Weiss, however, says: ‘‘éctos, ein Synonym yon a@ytos” (Vulg., Ps. iv. 4, Xvi. 10) ‘‘bezeichnet die religidse Weihe des GottangehGrigen” (Tit. i. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 8). Peirce understands that here the word means “merciful”. But this is scarcely consistent with N.T. usage. ἄκακος, “innocent,” and frequently with the idea of inexperience which attaches to the English word [cf. the definition which Trench, Synon., p. 197, quotes from Basil; and see also the use of ἀκακία in Ps. xxxvi. 37, and of ἄκακοι in Ps. xxiv. 21. Its use in Jer. xi. 19 is significant, ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ θύεσθαι.] Here the word seems to point to that entire absence of evil thought and slightest taint of malice
Vil
p v.3, et ix. ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος: 27. ὃ ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἡλότερ ἡμέρ
12, 28, εἴ xX. 02) Lev. ix. 7,
ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν
et xvi. 6, θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ - τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ,
Buc ε Ν > / 1 4 1.1ο,εῖ εαυτον aveveykas. Vv. 1, 2,0.
28. %6 νόμος yap ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς, ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν - ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ
τὸν νόμον, υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.
1T.R. with BDEKLP; προσενεγκας in SA, 17, 73, 80, Cyr est 93.
-which might prompt disregard of human need. ὅσιος denotes His oneness with God, ἄκακος His oneness with His fellow-men. He is not separated from them, or rendered indifferent by any selfishness. Neither has His contact with the world left any soil; He is ἀμίαντος, ‘stainless,’ and so fit to appear before God. Cf. the stringent laws regarding uncleanness and blemish laid down for the Levitical priests in Lev. xxi. 1, xxii. 9. And as the high priest in Israel was not permitted to go out of the sanctuary nor come near a dead body, though of his father or mother (Lev. xxi. 11, 12), and as the later law enjoined a seven-days’ separa- tion of the high priest before the day
of Atonement (Schoettgen in loc.), so.
our Lord fulfilled this symbolic isolation by being in heart and life κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. If there is any- thing in the symbol, then this separation occurred before the sacrifice was made, and as a preparation for it, but almost all modern interpreters (Grotius, Bengel, ‘“separatus est, relicto mundo,” Peirce, Tholuck, Bleek, Alford, Davidson, Ren- dall, von Soden, but not Milligan) refer the separation to His exaltation. ‘In virtue of His exaltation He is now for evermore withdrawn from all perturbing contact with evil men” (Delitzsch). Being co-ordinate with the previous adjectives, while the ὑψηλότερος γεν. is added by καὶ, it would seem that κεχωρ. refers to the result achieved by His earthly life with all its temptations. By the seclusion of the high priest it was hinted that before entering God’s pres- ence the priest must be isolated from the contamination of human intercourse: there must be a period of quarantine ; but our High Priest has carried through all the confusion and turmoil and de- filement and exasperation of life an absolute immunity from contagion or stain. He was with God throughout, and throughout was separated by an -atmosphere of His own from sinners.
kal ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος, “and made higher than the heavens,” which apparently has a meaning similar to iv. 14, ‘‘ We have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens,” cf. also Eph. iv. το. Τ is not ‘‘and has been set,” but γενόμενος; has by His own career and character attained that dignity. It is by right, as the necessary result of His life, that He is above the heavens. ‘He is now become, strictly speaking, as to His mode of being, supra-mundane”’ (Delitzsch). [For the word, cf. Lucian, Nigr., 25, ἑαυτὸν ὑψηλότερον λημμάτων παρέχειν, to show himself superior to gains.] ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην .. - “who does not need daily, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices first for His own sins, then for the people’s ; for this He did once for all by offering Himself”. As shown by the relative, this is the main affirmation to which the preceding clauses lead up. The one offering of Christ is contrasted with the continually repeated offerings of the Levitical high priests; and His Sonship priesthood to which He was instituted by an oath is set over against the service of men who had first to be cleansed from their own defilements be- fore they could sacrifice for the sins of the people. In the words καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, when κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν (x. 1) might have been expected, a difficulty has been found. It was on the Day of Atone- ment, once a year, that the high priest offered first for himself and then for the people, see ix. 7. Accordingly, several interpreters, such as Bleek, Lunemann, Davidson, adopt the idea that the writer blends in one view the ordinary daily sacrifice and the sacrifice of the day of Atonement. Others again, as Hofmann, Delitzsch, Alford, maintain that the position of καθ᾽ ἡμέραν shows that it belongs only to és [Christ], not to ot ἀρχιερεῖς, 5ο that the sentence really means: ‘Who has not need day by day, as the high priests had year by