Lectionary Calendar
Saturday, July 19th, 2025
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Meyer's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Titus 2". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/titus-2.html. 1832.
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Titus 2". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/
Whole Bible (48)New Testament (17)Individual Books (10)
Introduction
CHAPTER 2
Titus 2:3 . á¼Î½ καÏαÏÏήμαÏι ] For this F G, without reason, have καÏαÏÏήμαÏι .
Some MSS. (C H** al. ) have the reading ἱεÏοÏÏεÏεῠ; Vulg.: in habitu sancto, which gives a good enough meaning, but must, however, be regarded as a mere correction; see Reiche on the passage.
μὴ οἴνῳ ] A C × 73, al., have the reading μηδΠfor μή .
Titus 2:4 . For the Rec. ÏÏÏÏονίζÏÏιν , supported by C D E K L, ÏÏÏÏÎ¿Î½Î¯Î¶Î¿Ï Ïιν is read by A F G H × , al. (Lachm. Tisch.). The conjunctive seems to be a correction, because the indicative contradicts the force of the ἵνα ; but also in 1 Corinthians 4:6 , Galatians 4:17 , it stands after ἵνα . In these passages, however, Meyer explains ἵνα as equivalent to ubi; comp. Winer, pp. 272 f. [E. T. p. 363], and Buttm. p. 202. As in later post-apostolic times, the construction with the indic. was not unusual; ÏÏÏÏÎ¿Î½Î¯Î¶Î¿Ï Ïιν is possibly to be ascribed to a later copyist.
Titus 2:5 . Instead of the word Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Ï ÏοÏÏ (Rec. supported by D*** H J K, the cursives, Fathers, and versions), which occurs frequently in classic Greek, A C D* E F G × have the word Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Ï ÏγοÏÏ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), which is not used elsewhere. Matthies declares this to be a lectio vitiosa et inepta; so Reiche. De Wette thinks it an error in copying, as the word does not occur elsewhere. This certainly is possible, and yet it is strange that it should have such weighty testimony. Matthaei thinks that the scribae istorum sex codicum were so very barbari that the word Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Ï ÏÏÏ was unknown to them; but that is hardly conceivable.
Titus 2:7 . The Rec. á¼Î´Î¹Î±ÏθοÏίαν (D*** E* L, al., Chrys.) is to be exchanged for the reading á¼ÏθοÏίαν (A C D* E* K × , al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), though Reiche seeks to prove from the meaning of two substantives not used elsewhere that the Rec. should be preferred. As the adj. á¼Î´Î¹Î¬ÏθοÏÎ¿Ï frequently occurs, and á¼ÏθοÏÎ¿Ï but seldom, we may readily suppose that the Rec. was a correction in keeping with the more usual adjective.
After ÏεμνÏÏηÏα , D** E, gr. 23, 44, and many other cursives, etc., have the word á¼ÏθαÏÏίαν ; but the weightest authorities are against its genuineness, A C D* (E apud Mill) F G 47, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. etc.
Titus 2:8 . ÏεÏá½¶ ἡμῶν ] so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., supported by C D E F G K L P × 17, 23, al., many versions and Fathers. Lachm. retained the common reading.
Both readings give a good sense, but the testimony assigns the preference to ἡμῶν . Matthies wrongly says that A C D E F G have the reading á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ .
Titus 2:9 . Instead of á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï Î´ÎµÏÏÏÏÎ±Î¹Ï (Tisch. 8, on the authority of C F G K L × ), Lachm. (so, too, Tisch. 7) reads δεÏÏÏÏÎ±Î¹Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï , on the authority of A D E 27, al., Vulg. It. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al.
Titus 2:10 . For μή , the correction μηδΠis found in D F G, al., 17.
Ïá¾¶Ïαν ÏίÏÏιν ] for ÏίÏÏιν Ïá¾¶Ïαν (Tisch. 7). This is read by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C D E × 31, 37, al., Vulg. Clar. Germ. Jerome, Ambrosiast.
After διδαÏκαλίαν Griesb. inserted Ïήν , with the support of the weightiest authorities, A C D E F G I × , al., Chrys. Theodor.
Titus 2:11 . Instead of ἡ ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï (Tisch. 7), ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï , without the article, has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A* C* D × , Syr. utr. The reading: Ïοῦ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ , found in F G, Copt. Aeth. al., must have arisen from Titus 2:10 ; still × has ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï .
Titus 2:13 . Tisch. 7 reads ἸηÏοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ , with the support of most MSS. the other hand, Tisch. 8 reads ΧÏιÏÏοῦ ÎηÏοῦ .
Verse 1
Titus 2:1 . Instructions to Timothy how he is to exhort the various members of families, down to Titus 2:10 .
Ïὺ δΠ] see 2 Timothy 3:10 ; 2 Timothy 4:5 . A contrast with the heretics, not, however, as Chrysostom puts it: αá½Ïοί εἰÏιν á¼ÎºÎ¬Î¸Î±ÏÏοι · á¼Î»Î»á½° μὴ ÏοÏÏÏν á¼Î½ÎµÎºÎµÎ½ ÏιγήÏá¿Ï . It is with regard to their unseemly doctrine that Paul says: Ïὺ δὲ λάλει á¼ ÏÏÎÏει Ïá¿ á½Î³Î¹Î±Î¹Î½ . διδαÏκαλίᾳ . In contrast with their μῦθοι and á¼Î½Ïολαὶ á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÏν , Titus is to speak things in harmony with sound doctrine, by which are meant not so much the doctrines of the gospel themselves, as the commands founded on them, Titus 2:3 ff. (Wiesinger). On Ïá¿ á½Î³ . διδ ., see Titus 1:9 .
Verse 2
Titus 2:2 . The members of the family are distinguished according to age and sex. First, we have ÏÏεÏβÏÏÎ±Ï , which is not equivalent to ÏÏεÏÎ²Ï ÏÎÏÎ¿Ï Ï , the official name, but denotes age simply: senes aetate; Philemon 1:9 ; Luke 1:18 .
νηÏÎ±Î»Î¯Î¿Ï Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ ] The accusative does not depend on a word understood such as ÏαÏακάλει , but is an object accusative to the verb preceding λάλει á¼ ÏÏÎÏει : “viz. that the old men be νηÏάλιοι .”
νηÏÎ±Î»Î¯Î¿Ï Ï ] see 1 Timothy 3:2 .
ÏεμνοÏÏ ] see 1 Timothy 2:2 .
ÏÏÏÏÎ¿Î½Î±Ï ] Tit 1:8 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 .
á½Î³Î¹Î±Î¯Î½Î¿Î½ÏÎ±Ï Ïá¿ ÏίÏÏει , Ïá¿ á¼Î³Î¬Ïá¿ , Ïá¿ á½Ïομονῠ] On the use of the dative here, for which in Titus 1:13 there stands the preposition á¼Î½ , see Winer, p. 204 [E. T. p. 272]; it is to be explained as equivalent to “in respect of, in regard to.”
To ÏίÏÏÎ¹Ï and á¼Î³Î¬Ïη , the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, á½Ïομονή (quasi utriusque condimentum, Calvin) is added, the stedfastness which no sufferings can shake. All three conceptions are found together also in 1 Thessalonians 1:3 ( ἡ á½Ïομονὴ Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»ÏÎ¯Î´Î¿Ï ); á½Ïομ . and ÏίÏÏÎ¹Ï in 2 Thessalonians 1:4 ; á¼Î³ . καὶ á½Ïομ ., 2 Thessalonians 3:5 ; comp. also 1 Timothy 6:11 ; 2 Timothy 3:10 .
Verse 3
Titus 2:3 . ÎÎÏεÏβÏÏÎ¹Î´Î±Ï (“the aged women” = ÏÏεÏβÏÏεÏαι in 1 Timothy 5:2 ) ὡÏαÏÏÏÏ (see 1 Timothy 2:9 ) á¼Î½ καÏαÏÏήμαÏι ἱεÏοÏÏεÏεá¿Ï ] καÏάÏÏημα is taken in too narrow a sense, only of the clothing (Oecumenius: Ïá½° ÏεÏιβÏλαια ). It denotes the entire external deportment; Jerome: ut ipse earum incessus et motus, vultus, sermo, silentium, quandam decoris sacri praeferant dignitatem. Heydenreich, on the other hand, makes the conception too wide, when he includes under it the temper of mind.
ἱεÏοÏÏεÏεá¿Ï ] ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .) is equivalent to ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¼Ï ÏÏÎÏει á¼Î³Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï , Ephesians 5:3 ; comp. also 1 Timothy 2:10 . Luther rightly: “that they behave themselves as becometh saints.”
μὴ διαβÏÎ»Î¿Ï Ï ] see 1 Timothy 3:11 .
μὴ οἴνῳ Ïολλῷ Î´ÎµÎ´Î¿Ï Î»ÏμÎÎ½Î±Ï is equivalent to μὴ οἴν . Ï . ÏÏοÏÎÏονÏÎ±Ï in 1 Timothy 3:8 .
καλοδιδαÏÎºÎ¬Î»Î¿Ï Ï ] ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .) Beza: “honestatis magistrae; agitur hic de domestica disciplina;” but not so much by example as by exhortation and teaching, as appears from what follows.
Verses 4-5
Titus 2:4-5 . Ἵνα ÏÏÏÏονίζÏÏι Ïá½°Ï Î½ÎÎ±Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] Since ÏÏÏÏονίζειν must necessarily have an object, Ïá½°Ï Î½ÎÎ±Ï Îº . Ï . λ . should not, like ÏÏεÏβÏÏÎ±Ï Ï Î·ÏÎ±Î»Î¯Î¿Ï Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ , Titus 2:2 , and ÏÏεÏβÏÏÎ¹Î´Î±Ï , Titus 2:3 , be joined with λάλει , Titus 2:1 (Hofmann), but with ÏÏÏÏÎ¿Î½Î¯Î¶Î¿Ï Ïιν , so that the exhortations given to the young women are to proceed from the older women.
ÏÏÏÏονίζειν ] ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .) is properly “bring some one to ÏÏÏÏοÏÏνη ,” then “amend,” viz. by punishment; it also occurs in the sense of “punish, chastise;” it is synonymous with Î½Î¿Ï Î¸ÎµÏεá¿Î½ . According to Beza, it expresses opposition to the juvenilis lascivia et alia ejus aetatis ac sexus vitia.
The aim of the ΣΩΦΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ is given in the next words: ΦÎÎÎÎÎΡÎÎ¥Ï ( á¼Î . ÎÎÎ .) Îá¼¾ÎÎÎ , ΦÎÎÎΤÎÎÎÎÎ¥Ï ( á¼Î . ÎÎÎ .) These two ideas are suitably placed first, as pointing to the first and most obvious circumstances of the ÎÎÎÎ .
Titus 2:5 . ΣÎΦΡÎÎÎÏ á¼ÎÎÎÏ ] The latter is to be taken here not in the general sense of “blameless,” but in the more special sense of “chaste” (Wiesinger).
ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÏ ( Rec. ); Wahl rightly: “ex Î¿á¼¶ÎºÎ¿Ï et Îá½Î¡ÎÏ custos: custos domus, de feminis, quae domi se continent neque Î ÎΡÎÎΡΧÎÎΤÎÎ , 1 Timothy 5:13 .” Vulgate: domus curam habentes; Luther: “domestic.” The word ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÎÏ (read by Tischendorf, see critical remarks) does not occur elsewhere; if it be genuine, it must mean “ working in the house ” (Alford: “workers at home”), which, indeed, does not agree with the formation of the word. The word Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Ï Ïγεá¿Î½ occurring in later Greek means: “make a house;” see Pape, s.v.
Chrysostom: Ἡ ÎἸÎÎÎ¥á¿¸Ï ÎÎ¥Îá¿ ÎÎῠΣÎΦΡΩΠá¼Î£Î¤ÎΠ· Ἡ ÎἸÎÎÎ¥Î¡á¿¸Ï ÎÎá¿ ÎἸÎÎÎÎÎÎÎΠ· Îá½Î¤Î Î ÎΡῠΤΡΥΦá¿Î , Îá½Î¤Î Î ÎΡῠá¼ÎÎÎÎÎ¥Ï á¼ÎÎÎΡÎÎ¥Ï , Îá½Î¤Î Î ÎΡῠá¼ÎÎΩΠΤῶΠΤÎÎÎÎΤΩΠá¼Î£Î§ÎÎÎÎÎΣÎΤÎÎ .
á¼ÎÎÎÎÏ ] is rightly taken by almost all as an independent epithet: “kindly.” Some expositors, however, connect it with ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÏ (so Theophylact, Oecumenius); but this is wrong, since ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÏ is itself an adjective. Hofmann joins it with ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÎÏ , and translates it “good housewives” (so Buttmann, in his edition of the N., T., has no comma between the two words); but where are the grounds for explaining ÎἸÎÎΥΡÎÎÎÏ to mean “ housewives ”?
á½ÏοÏαÏÏομÎÎ½Î±Ï Ïοá¿Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï á¼Î½Î´ÏάÏιν ] On ΤÎá¿Ï ἸÎÎÎÎÏ á¼ÎÎΡ ., comp. 1 Corinthians 7:2 . The thought that wives are to be subject to their husbands is often expressed in the N. T. in the same words, comp. Ephesians 5:22 ; Col 3:18 ; 1 Peter 3:1 . It is to be noted that the apostle adds this á½Î ÎΤÎΣΣÎÎÎÎÎÏ after using ΦÎÎÎÎÎΡÎÎ¥Ï . The one thing does not put an end to the other; on the contrary, neither quality is of the right kind unless it includes the other. How much weight was laid by the apostle on the á½Î ÎΤÎΣΣÎΣÎÎÎ may be seen from the words: á¼½ÎÎ Îá¿ á½ ÎÎÎÎÏ Î¤Îῦ ÎÎÎῦ ÎÎÎΣΦÎÎá¿Î¤ÎÎ , which are closely connected with á½Î ÎΤÎΣΣÎÎÎÎÎÏ Î . Τ . Î .; comp. Titus 2:10 , where the same thought is expressed positively, and 1 Timothy 6:1 . The apostolic preaching of freedom and equality in Christ might easily be applied in a fleshly sense for removing all natural subordination, and thus disgrace be brought on the word of God; hence the express warning. The remark of Chrysostom: ÎἸ ΣΥÎÎÎÎá¿ ÎÎ¥ÎÎá¿ÎÎ Î ÎΣΤá¿Î á¼Î ÎΣΤῼ ΣΥÎÎÎÎÎῦΣÎÎ , Îá¿ Îá¼¾ÎÎÎ á¼ÎÎΡÎΤÎÎ , Ἡ ÎÎÎΣΦÎÎÎÎ á¼Î ῠΤῸΠÎÎῸΠÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ ÎἼΩÎÎÎ , is unsatisfactory, because the apostle’s words are thereby arbitrarily restricted to a relation which is quite special.
Verse 6
Titus 2:6 . Î¤Î¿á½ºÏ Î½ÎµÏÏÎÏÎ¿Ï Ï ] “ the younger men ;” not, as Matthies supposes, the younger members of the church, without distinction of sex.
ὡÏαÏÏÏÏ ] here, as in Titus 2:3 , on account of the similarity of the exhortation.
ÏαÏακάλει ÏÏÏÏονεá¿Î½ ] equivalent to ÏÏÏÏÎ¿Î½Î±Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ , opposed to omnibus immoderatis affectibus (Beza). Hofmann: “The whole purport of the apostle’s exhortations is included by the apostle in the one word ÏÏÏÏονεá¿Î½ , which therefore contains everything in which the moral influence of Christianity may be displayed.”
Verses 7-8
Titus 2:7-8 . The exhortation by word is to be accompanied by the exhortation of example.
ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏα does not belong to what precedes, but begins a new sentence, and is put first for emphasis. ÎÎάνÏα is not masculine: “towards every one,” but neuter: “in regard to all things, in all points.”
ÏÎµÎ±Ï Ïὸν ÏαÏεÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ÏÏÏον καλῶν á¼ÏγÏν ] On the use of the middle ÏαÏÎÏεÏθαι with the pronoun á¼Î±Ï ÏÏν , “show himself,” see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. p. 322] (comp. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 1.39: ÏαÏάδειγμα ⦠Ïοίονδε á¼Î±Ï Ïὸν ÏαÏείÏεÏο ).
ÏÏÏον , “type,” is in the N. T. only found here with the genitive of the thing.
καλὰ á¼Ïγα ] 1 Timothy 5:10 ; an expression often occurring in the Pastoral Epistles.
á¼Î½ ÏῠδιδαÏκαλίᾳ á¼ÏθοÏίαν ] This and the following accusatives are dependent on ÏαÏεÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ; see Colossians 4:1 . Luther inaccurately: “with unadulterated doctrine, with sobriety,” etc.; Jerome: in doctrina, in integritate et castitate.
á¼ÏθοÏία , only in later Greek, is from á¼ÏθοÏÎ¿Ï (in Artemidorus, ver. 2:95: de virginibus puerisque intactis et illibatis legitur; Reiche; Esther 2:2 : κοÏάÏια á¼ÏθοÏα καλὰ Ïá¿· εἴδει ), which is equivalent to “ chaste ,” and therefore means “ unstained chastity .” á¼Î´Î¹Î±ÏθοÏία ( Rec. ) is of more general signification; it is also used of virgin chastity (Artac. 26, Diodorus Siculus, i. 59), but denotes in general soundness, also especially incorruptibility. Older as well as more recent expositors (Heydenreich, Mack, Wiesinger) refer the word here to the disposition: “purity of disposition;” [1] but it is more in accordance with the context to understand by it something immediately connected with the ÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎÎÎ , to which ΣÎÎÎÎΤÎΤΠalso refers. Matthies, de Wette, and others refer it (as does Luther also) to the subject-matter of the doctrine; de Wette: “incorruptness in doctrine, i.e. unadulterated doctrine.” But in that case it would mean the same thing as the following λÏγον á½Î³Î¹á¿ ; there is no justification for Bengel’s interpreting á¼Î ÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎÎá¾¼ to mean public addresses, and λÏγον the talk of daily intercourse. According to its original meaning, á¼Î¦ÎÎΡÎÎ is most suitably taken to mean chastity in doctrine, which avoids everything not in harmony with its true subject and aim, and it has a special reference to the form (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:1 ; 1 Corinthians 2:3 ). So, too, van Oosterzee: “the form of the doctrine which Titus preaches is to be pure, chaste, free from everything that conflicts with the nature of the gospel”
ΣÎÎÎÎΤÎΤΠ, on the other hand, denotes dignity in the style of delivery. Both these things, the á¼Î¦ÎÎΡÎÎ and the ΣÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ , were injured by the heretics in their ÎÎÎÎÎÎΧÎÎÎÏ . [2]
λÏγον á½Î³Î¹á¿ á¼ÎºÎ±ÏάγνÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ( á¼Ï . λεγ .) refers to the subject-matter of the doctrine: “ sound , unblameable word ,” in opposition to the corruptions made by the heretics.
The purpose is thus given: ἵνα á½ á¼Î¾ á¼Î½Î±Î½ÏÎ¯Î±Ï á¼Î½ÏÏαÏá¿ ] á½ á¼Î¾ á¼Î½Î±Î½ÏÎ¯Î±Ï ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .), qui ex adverso est; according to Chrysostom: á½ Î´Î¹Î¬Î²Î¿Î»Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá¾¶Ï á½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿³ διακονοÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ; but the next words are against this interpretation. According to Titus 2:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1 , it means the non-Christian opponent of the gospel, and not the Christian heretic (Heydenreich, Wiesinger).
á¼Î½ÏÏαÏá¿ , “ be ashamed, take shame to oneself ;” 1 Corinthians 4:14 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:14 . The reason for the shame is contained in the words: μηδὲν á¼ÏÏν ÏεÏá½¶ ἡμῶν (or á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ) λÎγειν Ïαῦλον ] “ having nothing wicked to say of us .”
If ÏεÏá½¶ ἡμῶν be the correct reading, it is not to be limited to Titus and Paul, but should be taken more generally. With the reading á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , on the other hand, the apostle’s words refer to Titus and the churches that follow his example.
[1] Reiche, who prefers the reading á¼Î´Î¹Î±ÏθοÏίαν , agrees with the exposition of Erasmus: integritas animi nullis cupiditatibus corrupti, non ira non ambitione non avaritia.
[2] Hofmann wishes to refer both words to the subject-matter and form alike, and so, also, with λÏγον á½Î³Î¹á¿ ; but we cannot see why in that case Paul does not specially name the latter.
Verses 9-10
Titus 2:9-10 . Exhortation in regard to slaves.
δοÏÎ»Î¿Ï Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï Î´ÎµÏÏοÏαá¿Ï (or δεÏÏοÏαá¿Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï ) á½ÏοÏάÏÏεÏθαι ] The construction shows that Paul is continuing the instructions which he gives to Timothy in regard to the various members of families, so that Titus 2:7-8 are parenthetical; ÏαÏακάλει is to be supplied from Titus 2:6 . Heydenreich and Matthies wrongly make this verse dependent on Titus 2:1 . The harder the lot of the slaves, and the more unendurable this might appear to the Christian slave conscious of his Christian dignity, the more necessary was it to impress upon him the á½ÏοÏάÏÏεÏθαι . Even this is not sufficient, and so Paul further adds: á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïιν εá½Î±ÏÎÏÏÎ¿Ï Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ . á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïιν , equivalent to “ in all points ” (Titus 2:7 : ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏα ; Colossians 3:20 ; Colossians 3:22 : καÏá½° ÏάνÏα ), is usually joined with εá½Î±ÏÎÏÏÎ¿Ï Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ ; Hofmann, on the contrary, wishes to connect it with á½ÏοÏάÏÏεÏθαι . Both constructions are possible; still the usual one is to be preferred, because the very position of the slaves made it a matter of course that the á½ÏοÏάÏÏεÏθαι should be evinced in its full extent, whereas the same could not be said of εá½Î±ÏÎÏÏοι εἶναι , since that goes beyond the duty of á½ÏοÏάÏÏεÏθαι . The word εá½Î±ÏεÏÏÎ¿Ï occurs frequently in the Pauline Epistles, but only in speaking of the relation to God. The two first exhortations refer to general conduct; to these the apostle adds two special points: μὴ á¼Î½ÏιλÎγονÏÎ±Ï and μὴ νοÏÏιζομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï . Hofmann is wrong in saying that μὴ á¼Î½ÏιλÎγονÏÎ±Ï is the antithesis of εá½Î±ÏÎÏÏÎ¿Ï Ï . The conduct of slaves, which is well-pleasing to masters, includes more than refraining from contradiction. Van Oosterzee says not incorrectly: “It is not contradiction in particular instances, but the habitus that is here indicated.” Luther: “not contradicting.” The verb νοÏÏίζεÏθαι is found only here and in Acts 5:2-3 : “ not pilfering, defrauding .”
The next words: á¼Î»Î»á½° Ïá¾¶Ïαν ÏίÏÏιν á¼Î½Î´ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ½Ï μÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï á¼Î³Î±Î¸Î®Î½ (Luther: “but showing all good fidelity”), is in the first place opposed to μὴ νοÏÏιζομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï , but includes more than merely to abstain from defrauding (in opposition to Hofmann). As in Titus 2:5 , so, too, here, where the maintenance of the natural duties of subordinates is under discussion, the apostle adds ἵνα Ïὴν διδαÏκαλίαν κ . Ï . λ ., except that the expression is now positive, whereas before it was negative; the thought is substantially the same.
ἡ διδαÏκαλία is equivalent to ὠλÏÎ³Î¿Ï , Ïὸ εá½Î±Î³Î³Îλιον .
Ïοῦ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼ . Îεοῦ ] see 1 Timothy 1:1 ; not, as some expositors (Calvin, Wolf) think, Christ, but God.
κοÏμῶÏιν ] “ do honour to .”
á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïιν ] Titus 2:9 , “ in all points ,” not “with all, in the eyes of all” (Hofmann).
Chrysostom: Î¿á½ Î³á½°Ï á¼Ïὸ δÏγμαÏÎ¿Ï Î´ÏγμαÏα , á¼Î»Î»Ê¼ á¼Ïὸ ÏÏαγμάÏÏν καὶ Î²Î¯Î¿Ï Ïá½° δÏγμαÏα κÏÎ¯Î½Î¿Ï Ïιν οἱ á¼Î»Î»Î·Î½ÎµÏ · á¼ÏÏÏÏανν á¼Î½ αá½Ïοá¿Ï καὶ Î³Ï Î½Î±á¿ÎºÎµÏ καὶ δοῦλοι διδάÏκαλοι διὰ Ïá¿Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎµÎ¯Î±Ï á¼Î½Î±ÏÏÏοÏá¿Ï .
Verses 11-14
Titus 2:11-14 . Foundation for the moral precepts given from the nature of Christianity: eximium ex evangelii medulla motivum inseritur (Bengel).
Chrysostom ( Ïολλὴν ÏαÏá½° Ïῶν οἰκεÏῶν á¼ÏαιÏήÏÎ±Ï Ïὴν á¼ÏεÏὴν , á¼Ïάγει καὶ Ïὴν αἰÏίαν δικαίαν , διʼ ἣν á½ÏÎµÎ¯Î»Î¿Ï Ïι ÏοιοῦÏοι εἶναι οἱ οἰκÎÏαι ) and others refer Titus 2:11 ( Î³Î¬Ï ) only to the exhortation to slaves which immediately precedes. It is more correct, however, to refer it to the whole sum of moral precepts, given from Titus 2:1 onwards (so, too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann).
á¼ÏεÏάνη Î³á½°Ï á¼¡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ ] (see Titus 3:4 ) is used of the sun in Acts 27:20 . Possibly Paul is speaking here with this figure in mind (comp. Isaiah 9:2 ; Isaiah 60:1 ; Luke 1:79 ), as Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee suppose; but possibly, also, the expression simply means that the ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ , formerly hidden in God, has come forth from concealment and become manifest and visible.
ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ ] The old writers on dogma give to this expression, which denotes the absolute ground of the work of redemption, too special a reference to Christ’s incarnation; Oecumenius: ἡ μεÏá½° ÏαÏÎºá½¸Ï á¼Ïιδημία ; Theodoret: ÏοÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏάÏιν á¼Î½Î·Î½Î¸ÏÏÏηÏεν á½ Î¼Î¿Î½Î¿Î³ÎµÎ½á½´Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ Ï á¼±á½¸Ï , ἵνα κ . Ï . λ . It need hardly be said that he is speaking here not simply of a revelation of the divine grace by teaching , but also of its appearance in act , viz. in the act of redemption.
To define the ÏάÏÎ¹Ï more accurately, there is added: ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Ïá¾¶Ïιν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ] not: “as bringing salvation” (de Wette, van Oosterzee). This would make ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï here the main point, which from the context it cannot be; the main point is not given till ÏαιδεÏÎ¿Ï Ïα . ΣÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï is rather an adjective qualifying the substantive ÏάÏÎ¹Ï : “there appeared the grace bringing salvation to all men.” With the Rec. ἡ ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï this construction is beyond doubt.
Ïá¾¶Ïιν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ] does not depend on á¼ÏεÏάνη , but on ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï . Matthies is not intelligible in regarding it as dependent on both. [3]
The emphasis laid on the universality of the salvation, as in 1 Timothy 2:4 and other passages of the Pastoral Epistles, is purely Pauline.
[3] Wiesinger translates: “for there appeared the grace of God which brings salvation to all men;” and on the construction of Ïá¾¶Ïιν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï he afterwards says: “according to the context, it can only be construed with ÏÏÏήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï .”
Verse 12
Titus 2:12 . ΠαιδεÏÎ¿Ï Ïα á¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï , ἵνα κ . Ï . λ .] On this the chief emphasis is laid. By ÏαιδεÏÎ¿Ï Ïα the apostle makes it clear that “the grace of God has a paedagogic purpose” (Heydenreich). Here, as also elsewhere in the N. T., ÏαιδεÏειν does not simply mean “educate,” but “educate by disciplinary correction.” Hence Luther is not incorrect in translating: “and chastises us.” This reference is to be noted here, as is shown by the next words: á¼ÏνηÏάμενοι κ . Ï . λ . Ἵνα does not indicate the purpose here, but the object to be supplied, for Ïαιδ . is not subjective, but objective; the sentence beginning with ἵνα might also have been expressed by the infinitive; comp. 1 Timothy 1:20 ; not therefore “ in order that we,” but “ that we.” On this use of ἵνα , see Winer, pp. 314 ff. [4] [E. T. pp. 420 426].
á¼ÏνηÏάμενοι ] see Titus 1:16 : “denying,” i.e. renouncing, abandoning.
Ïὴν á¼ÏÎβειαν ] is not equivalent to ÎἸÎΩÎÎÎÎΤΡÎÎÎÎ ÎÎῠΤᾺ Î ÎÎÎΡᾺ ÎÎÎÎÎΤΠ(Theophylact), but is the opposite of Îá½Î£ÎÎÎÎÎÎ : the behaviour of man, ungodly, estranged from God, of which idolatry is only one side.
ÎÎá¿ Î¤á¾ºÏ ÎÎΣÎÎÎá¾ºÏ á¼Î ÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÏ ] ÎÎΣÎÎÎÎÏ only here and in Hebrews 9:1 , but there in another connection. The ÎÎΣΠ. á¼Î ÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÎ are not “desires or lusts referring to the earthly, transient world” (first edition of this commentary; so, too, Wiesinger), but “the lusts belonging to the ÎÎΣÎÎÏ , i.e. to the world estranged from God,” which, indeed, is the same thing (so, too, van Oosterzee). Kindred conceptions are found á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î± ÏαÏκÏÏ , Galatians 5:15 ; Ephesians 2:3 ; á¼ÎÎΡÎΠΩΠá¼Î ÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÎ , 1 Peter 4:2 .
ΣΩΦΡÎÎÎ©Ï ÎÎá¿ ÎÎÎÎÎÎ©Ï ÎÎá¿ Îá½Î£ÎÎá¿¶Ï ÎÎΣΩÎÎÎ ] see Titus 1:8 ( ΣÎΦΡÎÎÎ , ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ , á½Î£ÎÎÎ ). This denotes the life of Christian morality in three directions. Immediately after á¼Î ÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÎ we have the opposing conception ΣΩΦΡÎÎÎ©Ï , which expresses self-control. ÎÎÎÎÎÎ©Ï denotes generally right conduct such as the divine law demands, having special reference here, as in Titus 1:8 , to duty towards one’s neighbour. Îá½Î£ÎÎá¿¶Ï (opposite of á¼Î£ÎÎÎÎÎÎ ) denotes holiness in thought and act.
Even the older expositors find in the collocation of these three ideas an expression for the whole sum of duties. Wolf: optime illi res instituunt, qui per ΤῸ Îá½Î£ÎÎá¿¶Ï officia adversus Deum, per ΤῸ ÎÎÎÎÎÎ©Ï officia adv. proximum, per ΤῸ ΣΩΦΡÎÎÎ©Ï vero illa adv. hominem ipsum indicari existimant; still it might be doubtful whether Paul regarded the ideas as so sharply distinct from each other.
á¼Î Τῷ ÎῦΠÎἸῶÎÎ ] Paul adds this to remind Titus that for the Christian there is another and future life towards which his glance is directed even in this; still these words cannot be construed with ΠΡÎΣÎÎΧÎÎÎÎÎÎ .
[4] Wiesinger translates: “educating us, that we ⦠live holily,” but thinks that ἵνα is to be retained in its proper signification as denoting the aim of the ÏÎ±Î¯Î´ÎµÏ Î¼Î± . In its proper signification, however, ἵνα does not give the aim , but the purpose . If it be taken in this sense here, we cannot but translate it “in order that.”
Verse 13
Titus 2:13 . Î ÏοÏδεÏÏμενοι Ïὴν μακαÏίαν á¼Î»Ïίδα ] The strange collocation of ÏÏοÏÎ´ÎµÏ . and á¼Î»Ïίδα is found also in Acts 24:15 : á¼Î»Ïίδα á¼ÏÏν ⦠ἣν καὶ αá½Ïοὶ οá½Ïοι ÏÏοÏδÎÏονÏαι ; so, too, in Galatians 5:5 : á¼Î»Ïίδα ⦠á¼ÏεκδεÏÏμεθα . The reason of it is that á¼Î»ÏÎ¯Ï not only denotes actively the hope, but also passively the thing hoped for, the subject of the hope; comp. Colossians 1:5 : ἡ á¼Î»Ïá½¶Ï á¼¡ á¼ÏοκειμÎνη á¼Î½ Ï . οá½Ïανοá¿Ï ; comp., too, Romans 8:24 .
μακαÏίαν ] Paul thus describes the á¼Î»Ïίδα in so far as the expectation of it blesses the believer. Wolf wrongly interprets ἡ μακ . á¼Î»ÏÎ¯Ï as equivalent to ἡ á¼Î»ÏιζομÎνη μακαÏιÏÏÎ·Ï .
This á¼Î»ÏÎ¯Ï is further defined by the epexegesis: καὶ á¼ÏιÏάνειαν Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Ïοῦ Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï Îεοῦ καὶ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ Ἰ . ΧÏιÏÏοῦ ] According to Hofmann, the adjective μακαÏίαν as well as the genitive Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Îº . Ï . λ . belongs to both substantives, to á¼Î»Ïίδα and to á¼ÏιÏάνειαν , because, as he thinks, ἡ μακαÏία á¼Î»ÏÎ¯Ï is not a conception complete in itself. But Romans 15:4 shows this to be wrong. The genitive could only be construed with the two substantives by giving it a different reference in each case. Hofmann, indeed, maintains that this presents no difficulty, as it occurs elsewhere; but he is wrong in his appeal to Romans 15:4 (comp. Meyer on the passage) and to 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 3:11 (comp. my commentary on the passages).
Beyond doubt, the á¼ÏιÏάνεια Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Îº . Ï . λ . denotes Christ’s second coming (1 Timothy 6:14 ); it may, however, be asked whether Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï Îεοῦ is an independent subject or an attribute of á¼¸Î·Ï . Î§Ï . The older expositors are of the latter opinion; the orthodox even appealed to this passage against the Arians. Ambrosius, however, distinguishes here between Christus and Deus Pater. [5] Erasmus, too, says: simul cum Patre apparebit eadem gloria conspicuus Dominus ac Servator noster J. Chr.; and Bengel says of ÎÎÎῦ simply: referri potest ad Christum. Among more recent expositors, Flatt, Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, adopt the former view; while de Wette, Plitt, Winer, pp. 123 f.[E. T. p. 162], adopt the latter. Heydenreich leaves the question undecided. [6] It cannot be decided on purely grammatical grounds, for μεγ . Îεοῦ and ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼ . may be two attributes referring to á¼¸Î·Ï . ΧÏιÏÏοῦ ; still it may be also that ÏÏÏá¿Ï . ἡμῶν á¼¸Î·Ï . Î§Ï . is a subject distinct from μεγ . Îεοῦ , even although only one article is used. [7] The question can only be answered by an appeal to N. T. usage, both for this passage and others like it: 2 Peter 1:1 ; Jude 1:4 ; 2 Thessalonians 1:12 . In 2 Peter 1:11 ; 2 Peter 3:18 , the unity of the subject is beyond doubt. The following points may be urged in favour of distinguishing two subjects: (1) In no single , passage is ÎεÏÏ connected directly with ἸηÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§ÏιÏÏÏÏ as an attribute (see my commentary on 2 Peter 1:1 ); i.e. there never occurs in the N. T. the simple construction á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼¸Î·Ï . Î§Ï ., or á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï á¼¸Î·ÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§Ï ., or á¼¸Î·Ï . Î§Ï . á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ , whereas κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï and ÏÏÏÎ®Ï are often enough construed in this way. (2) The collocation of God ( ÎεÏÏ ) and Christus as two subjects is quite current, not only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy 1:1-2 ; 1 Timothy 5:21 ; 1 Timothy 6:13 ; 2 Timothy 1:2 ; 2 Timothy 4:1 ; Titus 1:4 ), but also in all the epistles of the N. T., Pauline or not, so much so , that when in some few passages the turn of the expression is such as to make ÎεÏÏ refer grammatically to Christ also, these passages have to be explained in accordance with the almost invariable meaning of the expression. (3) The addition of the adjective Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï indicates that Îεοῦ is to be taken as an independent subject, especially when it is observed how Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy uses similar epithets to exalt God’s glory; comp. 1Ti 1:17 ; 1 Timothy 4:10 ; 1 Timothy 6:15-16 , especially Titus 1:11 : ἡ δÏξα Ïοῦ μακαÏÎ¯Î¿Ï Îεοῦ . It is true the expression ὠμÎÎ³Î±Ï ÎεÏÏ is not found in the N. T., except in the Rec. of Revelation 19:17 , but it occurs frequently in the O. T.: Deuteronomy 6:21 ; Deuteronomy 10:17 ; Nehemiah 9:32 ; Daniel 2:45 ; Daniel 9:4 . [8]
For the unity of the subject only one reason can be urged with any show of force, viz. that elsewhere the word á¼Î ÎΦÎÎÎÎÎ is only used in reference to Christ; but Erasmus long ago pointed out that it does not stand here á¼Î ÎΦ . ΤÎῦ ÎÎÎῦ , but Τá¿Ï ÎÎÎÎÏ Î¤Îῦ ÎÎÎῦ . Wiesinger, too, has to admit “that, according to passages like Matthew 16:27 , Mark 8:38 , Christ appears in the glory of the Father and at the same time in His own glory (Matthew 25:31 ), and His appearance may therefore be called the appearance both of God’s glory and of His own.” Wiesinger, indeed, tries to weaken this admission by remarking that in reality it is Christ Himself who will appear á¼Î ÎÎÎῠΤÎῦ Î ÎΤΡÎÏ , and not God, that therefore ÎÎÎÎ would be construed with the genitives in quite different relations, and that on grammatico-logical principles it must mean either á¼Î ΣΩΤá¿Î¡Î ἩÎῶΠἸÎΣ . ΧΡÎΣΤῷ , or ΤÎῦ ΣΩΤá¿Î¡ÎÏ á¼©Îá¿¶Î á¼Î ΤῠÎÎÎῠΤÎῦ ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ¥ ÎÎÎῦ (Matthies). But his remark is wrong. Even if the subjects be distinct, the genitive ΤÎῦ ÎÎÎ . ÎÎÎῦ stands in the same relation to Τá¿Ï ÎÎÎÎÏ as does the genitive ΣΩΤá¿Î¡ÎÏ á¼©Î . Î . ΧΡ . Nor is the form of expression necessary on which Matthies insists, because in the N. T. God and Christ are often enough connected simply by καὶ without marking their mutual relations. Wiesinger further remarks that no reason whatever can be found in the context for connecting ÎÎÎÏ here as well as Christ with the á¼Î ÎΦÎÎÎÎÎ , but he has manifestly overlooked the relation of ΠΡÎΣÎÎΧÎÎÎÎÎΠΤá¿Î á¼Î ÎΦÎÎÎÎÎΠΤá¿Ï ÎÎÎÎÏ Î¤Îῦ ÎÎÎ . ÎÎÎῦ to á¼Î ÎΦÎÎΠἩ ΧÎΡÎÏ Î¤Îῦ ÎÎÎῦ . [9]
Chrysostom rightly says: δÏο Î´ÎµÎ¯ÎºÎ½Ï Ïιν á¼Î½Ïαῦθα á¼ÏιÏÎ±Î½ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï Â· καὶ Î³Î¬Ï Îµá¼°Ïι δÏο · ἡ μὲν ÏÏÏÏεÏα ÏάÏιÏÎ¿Ï , ἡ δὲ Î´ÎµÏ ÏÎÏα á¼Î½ÏαÏοδÏÏεÏÏ . The ÏάÏÎ¹Ï of God has already appeared; the δÏξα of God appears only at the day of completion, when Christ is made manifest in His δÏξα , which is the δÏξα of God. Though not so directly as it would have been if the subjects were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favour of the truth of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. [10]
Matthies suggests that in the expression Ïοῦ Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï Îεοῦ there is an allusion to the great Zeus worshipped in Crete, but that is more than improbable.
The genitive ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï is not dependent on á¼ÏιÏάνειαν , but on Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï . In 1 Peter 4:13 also Christ’s second coming is called the revelation of His δÏξα .
[5] The words of Ambrosius are: hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet judice Christo, in quo Dei patris videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suae praemium consequantur. Ad hoc enim redemit nos Christus, ut, puram vitam sectantes, repleti bonis operibus, regni Dei haeredes esse possimus.
[6] Heydenreich wrongly supposes that δÏξα here is the glory which God and Christ will give to believers.
[7] Hofmann wrongly asserts that because ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ stands before ἸηÏοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ , and with Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï Îεοῦ under one and the same article, therefore ἡμῶν must belong to Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï Îεοῦ as much as to ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï , and Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï to ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï as much as to Îεοῦ , and both together to ἸηÏοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ as predicate. There are instances enough of two distinct subjects standing under one article only, and we cannot see why these instances should not be quoted here. It cannot indeed be said that ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ Ἰ . Î§Ï . needs no article; for, although ÏÏÏÎ®Ï as well as κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï may be construed with Ἰ . Î§Ï . without the article, still there is no instance of κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ being without the article when construed with Ἰ . Î§Ï . But the article before μεγ . Îεοῦ may, according to N. T. usage, be also referred to ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¸ . Î§Ï . without making it necessary to assume a unity of subject; comp. Buttm. pp. 84 ff.; Winer, pp. 118 ff. [E. T. p. 158]. Hofmann is no less wrong in what he says regarding the necessity of the reference of Î¼ÎµÎ³Î¬Î»Î¿Ï and of ἡμῶν Paul, indeed, might have written: Ïοῦ μεγ . Îεοῦ καὶ á¼¸Î·Ï . Î§Ï . Ïοῦ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , but he could also express the same thought in the way he has written it.
[8] Usteri ( Paul. Lehrb . 5th ed. p. 326) says: “God the Father did not need the extolling epithet μÎÎ³Î±Ï ;” to which it may be replied: “Did Christ need such an epithet?” If Hofmann be right in remarking that Christ is not á½ ÎεÏÏ , which is the subject-name of the Father, then it is very questionable that Paul would Call Him ὠμÎÎ³Î±Ï ÎεÏÏ .
[9] Van Oosterzee has advanced nothing new in support of the view disputed above. The appeal to 2 Peter 1:11 is of no use, unless it be proved in passages beyond dispute that ÎεÏÏ , like κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï , is joined with ἸηÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§ÏιÏÏÏÏ as an attribute.
[10] Calvin: Verum brevius et certius repellere licet Arianos, quia Paulus, de revelatione magni Dei locutus, mox Christum adjunxit, ut sciremus, in hujus persona fore illam gloriae revelationem, ac si diceret, ubi Christus apparuerit, tunc patefactum nobis iri divinae gloriae magnitudinem.
Verse 14
Titus 2:14 . The thought in this verse is very closely related to Titus 2:12 : ÏαιδεÏÎ¿Ï Ïα á¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï , ἵνα κ . Ï . λ ., as it shows how far the appearance of the grace of God exhorts us to deny á¼ÏÎβεια κ . Ï . λ . In construction, however, it is connected with ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï á¼¡Î¼ . Ἰ . Î§Ï .
á½Ï á¼Î´Ïκεν á¼Î±Ï ÏÏν ] comp. Galatians 1:4 , equivalent to ÏαÏÎδÏκεν á¼Î±Ï ÏÏν , Ephesians 5:25 . The conception of the voluntary submission to death is not contained in á¼Î±Ï ÏÏν (Heydenreich) so much as in the whole expression.
á½Ïá½²Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] is not equivalent to á¼Î½Ïá½¶ ἡμῶν , but: “ for us, on our behalf ;” the notion of á¼Î½Ïί , however, is not excluded (Matthew 20:28 ). The purpose of this submission is given in the next words: ἵνα Î»Ï ÏÏÏÏηÏαι á¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï ] Î»Ï ÏÏοῦÏθαι : “set free by means of a ransom.” In Luke 24:21 (comp. too, 1Ma 4:11 , and other passages in the Apocrypha) the reference to ransom falls quite into the background; but in 1 Peter 1:18-19 , where, as here, the redemption through Christ is spoken of, the Ïίμιον αἷμα of Christ is called the ransom. The same reference is indicated here by the previous á¼Î´Ïκεν á¼Î±Ï ÏÏν , comp. 1 Timothy 2:6 . The middle form includes the reference which in the next clause is expressed by á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿· .
á¼Ïὸ ÏάÏÎ·Ï á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î±Ï ] “from all unlawfulness.” á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î± is regarded as the power from which Christ has redeemed us; it is opposed to ÏÏÏÏÏνÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ δικαίÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ εá½ÏÎµÎ²á¿¶Ï Î¶á¿Î½ : “the unrighteousness in which the law of God is unheeded.” It is wrong to understand by á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î± “not only the sin, but also the punishment incurred by sin” (Heydenreich), or only the latter; comp. Romans 6:19 , 2 Corinthians 6:14 , and especially 1 John 3:4 : ἡ á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏία á¼ÏÏὶν ἡ á¼Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î± .
καὶ καθαÏίÏá¿ á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿· λαὸν ÏεÏιοÏÏιον ] positive expression of the thought which was expressed negatively in the previous clause. De Wette and Wiesinger without reason supply á¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï as the object of καθαÏίÏá¿ ; the object is λαὸν ÏεÏιοÏÏιον .
ÏεÏιοÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ( á¼ Ï . λεγ . in N. T.). Chrysostom wrongly interprets it by á¼Î¾ÎµÎ»ÎµÎ³Î¼ÎÎ½Î¿Ï , οá½Î´á½²Î½ á¼ÏÏν κοινὸν ÏÏá½¸Ï ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î»Î¿Î¹ÏοÏÏ ; Theodoret more correctly by οἰκεá¿Î¿Ï ; so, too, Beza: peculiaris, and Luther: “a people for a possession.” The phrase Î»Î±á½¸Ï ÏεÏιοÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï belongs to the O. T., and is a translation of the Hebrew ×¢Ö·× ×¡Ö°×Ö»×Ö¼Ö¸× , Exodus 19:5 ; Deuteronomy 7:6 ; Deuteronomy 14:2 ; Deuteronomy 26:18 , LXX.; in the church of the N. T. the promise made to the people of Israel is fulfilled; comp. 1 Peter 2:9 : Î»Î±á½¸Ï Îµá¼°Ï ÏεÏιÏοίηÏιν .
á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿· corresponds with Î»Ï ÏÏÏÏηÏαι á¼ÏÏ . The sentence is pregnantly expressed, and its meaning is: “that He by the purifying power of His death might acquire for Himself ( á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿· ) a people for a possession.”
The moral character of the Î»Î±á½¸Ï ÏεÏιοÏÏ . is declared by the words in apposition, ζηλÏÏὴν καλῶν á¼ÏγÏν : accensum studio bonorum operum.
De Wette is inaccurate in saying that the apostle is speaking here not of reconciliation, but only of moral purification. Wiesinger rightly asks: “What else are we to understand by á¼Î´Ïκεν á¼Î±Ï Ïὸν á½Ïá½²Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ than the reconciling death?” But de Wette is so far right, that reconciliation is not made the chief point here, but rather, as often in the N. T., e.g. 1 Peter 1:17-18 , the design is mentioned for which Christ suffered the death of reconciliation; comp. Luther’s exposition of the second article of faith.
Titus 2:15 . ΤαῦÏα (viz. these moral precepts, see Titus 2:1 , with the reasons given for them, Titus 2:11-14 ) λάλει καὶ ÏαÏακάλει καὶ á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Ïε ] The distinction between these words is correctly given by Heydenreich. Îαλεá¿Î½ denotes simple teaching, ÏαÏακάλ . pressing exhortation, á¼Î»ÎÎ³Ï . solemn admonition to those who neglect these duties. “The theoretic, the paraenetic-practical, and the polemic aspects of the preaching of the gospel are combined” (Matthies).
μεÏá½° ÏάÏÎ·Ï á¼ÏιÏαγá¿Ï ] According to 1 Corinthians 7:6 , ÏÏ Î³Î³Î½Ïμη is the opposite of á¼ÏιÏαγή ; this clause therefore enjoins that Titus is not to leave it to the free choice of the church whether his exhortations shall be obeyed or not, but to deliver them as commands. De Wette translates: “with all recommendation,” which is right in sense; still á¼ÏιÏαγή is not properly recommendation but command, and it is therefore better to say, “ with entire full command. ”
With this the final words are closely connected: Î¼Î·Î´ÎµÎ¯Ï ÏÎ¿Ï ÏεÏιÏÏονείÏÏ ] ÏεÏιÏÏονεá¿Î½ ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .); properly: “consider something on all sides;” then: “think beyond, despise,” equivalent to καÏαÏÏονεá¿Î½ ; comp. 1 Timothy 4:12 . Luther is right in sense: “let no man despise thee,” viz. by not receiving thy teachings, exhortations, and admonitions as commands, and by thinking lightly of them. There is nothing to suggest that Titus is to conduct himself so that no one may be right in despising him.