Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

ΠΑΎΛΟΥ ΤΟῦ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΟΥ Ἡ ΠΡῸς ΤΊΤΟΝ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΉ

In A, al. the inscription begins with ἄρχεται; in D E F G it runs simply πρὸς Τίτον.

CHAPTER 1

Titus 1:1. For Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Buttm. and Tisch. 7, following A, al., adopted Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; but the majority of the most important MSS. (D** E F G H J K L א) support the Rec. (Lachm. Tisch. 8).

Titus 1:4. χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη] So Scholz, Tisch., following C* D E F G J א 73, al., Syr. Copt. Chrys. Aug. al.

Lachm. and Buttm. retained the usual reading: χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη; it is found in A C** K L, etc., but seems nevertheless to be a correction from the analogy of 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2.

Tittmann’s reading: χάρις, ἔλεος, καὶ εἰρήνη, is quite arbitrary.

Matthaei: ἔλεος nullus meorum omittit, nec ex quinque iis, quos postea consului. Reiche decided for the reading of Tisch.

καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] For this Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, on the authority of A C D* al., Vulg. Copt. Arm. Theodoret, etc.

Titus 1:5. So far as internal evidence goes, we cannot decide whether the Rec. κατέλιπον or the reading ἀπέλιπον (Lachm. Tisch.) is the original one; both may be corrections, the latter on the analogy of 2 Timothy 4:20, the former on the analogy of Acts 18:19; Acts 24:27. Hofmann prefers καταλείπειν, because it means: “leaving some one behind in going away;” but the simple verb is in no way unsuitable in the passage. The external evidence (A C D* F G, al., Or. Basil, ms.) is in favour of ἀπέλιπον. It is uncertain, too, whether the aor. ἀπέλιπον (Rec. supported by D E K א, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) or the imperf. ἀπέλειπον (A C F G J L, al., Tisch. 7) is the original reading. Hofmann prefers the imperf. “because it was part of the purpose for which Paul at that time left Titus behind;” but this would not prevent the apostle from writing the aor.

The authorities waver between the middle ἐπιδιορθώσῃ (Rec. Tisch.) and the act. ἐπιδιορθώσῃς (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm.). Since in classic Greek the middle is more current than the active, it may be supposed that the middle was a correction. It can hardly be supposed that the copyists did not know the middle form (Hofmann).

Titus 1:10. In A C J א, many cursives, etc., καί is wanting between πολλοί and ἀνυπότακτοι, for which reason it was omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Tisch. 7 retained it, on the authority of D E F G K L, several cursives, etc. The καί was perhaps added to be in accordance with classical usage.

In several MSS. (F G 67* 73, al.), as well as in some versions, Oecum. Hilar., a καί was inserted after ἀνυπότακτοι.

Titus 1:15. The μέν following πάντα in the Rec. is to be deleted, on the authority of A C D* E* F G א 17, al., Vulg. It. Or. Tert. etc.

For μεμιασμένοις, μεμιαμμένοις is found in A C K L א, many cursives, etc., and was adopted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. (see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 108]). D* has μεμιανμένοις.

Titus 1:1. Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ] This designation, which indicates generally the official position (Wiesinger: “δοῦλος Θεοῦ here in the same sense as in Acts 16:17, Revelation 1:1; Revelation 15:3, etc., not as in 1 Peter 2:16, Revelation 7:3,” etc.), is not usually found in the inscriptions of the Pauline Epistles. In the Epistle of James we have: Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰ. Χρ. δοῦλος, and in writing to the Romans and Philippians Paul says δοῦλος Ἰ. Χρ.

ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰ. Χρ.] δέ indicates here not so much a contrast (as Mack thinks) as a further definition (Matthies: a more distinct description); comp. Judges 1:1. With this double designation comp. Romans 1:1 : δοῦλος Ἰ. Χρ., κλητὸς ἀπόστολος.

κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ] κατά is explained by Matthies to mean: “according to faith, so that the apostleship is described in its normal state, in its evangelic character;” but it is altogether opposed to the apostolic spirit to make appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith of the elect. Κατά rather expresses here the general relation of reference to something: “in regard to faith;” the more precise definition must be supplied. This, however, can be nothing else than that which in Romans 1:5 is expressed by εἰς (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τ. ἔθνεσιν). It is on account of the πίστις ἐκλ. Θεοῦ that he is a δοῦλ. Θεοῦ and ἀπόστ. Χρ., and to this his office is related, see 2 Timothy 1:1. This general relation is limited too precisely by the common exposition: “for producing faith,” etc. Hofmann thinks the apostle uses ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΙΣΤ. ἘΚΛ. to describe faith as that which is presupposed in his apostleship, as that without which he would not be an apostle; but, on the one hand, we should in that case have had ΜΟΥ; and, on the other hand, ΚΑΤᾺ, does not express a presupposition or condition.

The expression ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΘΕΟῦ is taken by de Wette in a proleptic sense, to mean those who, by the free counsel of God, are predestinated to faith; and ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΊΣΤΙΝ ἘΚΛ. Θ., according to him, declares the faith of these elect to be the aim of the apostolic office. Wiesinger, on the contrary, thinks the expression ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΘΕΟῦ quite abstract, leaving it uncertain “whether the ΚΛῆΣΙς has already taken place in their case or not;” but he agrees with de Wette in taking the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟΊ to be the object of the apostolic labours, so that the meaning is: in order to produce or further faith in the elect. But in the N. T. the expression ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟῚ ΘΕΟῦ is always used of those who have already become believers, never of those who have not yet received the ΚΛῆΣΙς. Since it cannot be said that the purpose of the apostolic office is to produce faith in the ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟΊ (Plitt: “that the elect may believe”), who as such already possess faith, nor that it is to further their faith, ΠΊΣΤΙς ἘΚΛΕΚΤῶΝ must be taken as one thought, the genitive serving to define more precisely the faith to which Paul’s apostolic office is dedicated. We have therefore here a contrast between the true faith and the false πίστις, of which the heretics boasted.

ΚΑῚ ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς Τῆς ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ] In genuine faith the knowledge of the truth is a substantial element; and Paul here lays stress on this element to point the contrast with the heretics. The ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς is the subjective aspect, as the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ is the objective.

Τῆς ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ serves to define ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ more precisely, as Chrysostom says: ἘΣΤῚ ΓᾺΡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ ΠΡΑΓΜΆΤΩΝ, ἈΛΛʼ Οὐ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ, ΟἿΟΝ ΤῸ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΤᾺ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΚᾺ, ΤῸ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΤΈΧΝΑς, ἈΛΗΘῶς ἘΣΤῚΝ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ· ἈΛΛʼ ΑὝΤΗ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ. De Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt interpret Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ: “leading to holiness,” thus, indeed, naming a right element in truth, but one rather indicated than expressed by ΚΑΤΆ; it is merely said that here a truth is under discussion which is in nature akin to ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ. Hofmann translates it “piously,” asserting that ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ without the article stands for an adjective; but had Paul used the clause as an adjective, he would certainly have written: Τῆς ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς (as in Romans 9:11 : Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛΟΓῊΝ ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς). Besides, the translation “piously” is not sufficiently clear.

Titus 1:2. Ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου] ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι, “in hope” (comp. Romans 4:18; Romans 8:21; 1 Corinthians 9:10). It is not to be taken with ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας (“the knowledge of the truth which gives hope of an eternal life,” Heydenreich, but with hesitation; Wiesinger: “it is a knowledge whose content is that ἀλήθεια, and whose ground and condition is the hope of eternal life, by which hope it is supported and guided”), nor is it to be taken with εὐσέβεια (“a holiness the possessor of which is justified in hoping for eternal life,” which Heydenreich likewise considers possible), nor with τῆς κατʼ εὐσέβειαν (Matthies: “truth and holiness in their inner relationship are founded evangelically on the hope of eternal life”), nor even with the two ideas closely connected: πίστιν and ἐπίγνωσιν ἀλ. (so Plitt: “the πίστις and the ἐπίγνωσις rest on the ἐλπίς”); but it is to be joined with ἀπόστολος κ.τ.λ. Paul by this declares that the ἐλπὶς ζωῆς αἰωνίου is the basis on which he stands as an ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριοτοῦ κατὰ πίστιν κ.τ.λ. Van Oosterzee: “Paul in Titus 1:4 says he fulfils his task with or in hope of eternal life” (so, too, Hofmann).

The believer, it is true, possesses the ΖΩῊ ΑἸΏΝΙΟς in the present; but its perfection will only be granted to him in the future (comp. Colossians 3:3-4); here it is to be considered as a future blessing, which is indicated by ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ.

ἫΝ ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ Ὁ ἈΨΕΥΔῊς ΘΕῸς ΠΡῸ ΧΡΌΝΩΝ ΑἸΩΝΊΩΝ] ἭΝ relates to ΖΩῆς ΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ, and not, as some expositors (Flatt, Mack, and others) think, to ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ.

ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ, viz. ΔΙᾺ ΤῶΝ ΠΡΟΦΗΤῶΝ, comp. Romans 1:2.

Ὁ ἈΨΕΥΔῊς ΘΕΌς] This epithet occurs only here; ἈΨΕΥΔΉς is equivalent to ΠΙΣΤΌς, ἈΛΗΘΉς in regard to the divine promises, comp. Hebrews 6:18 : ἈΔΎΝΑΤΟΝ ΨΕΎΣΑΣΘΑΙ ΘΕΌΝ; 1 Corinthians 1:9; Romans 3:4.

ΠΡῸ ΧΡΌΝΩΝ ΑἸΩΝΊΩΝ here is not equivalent in meaning to ΠΡῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ or similar expressions; for in that case ἘΠΗΓΓΕΊΛΑΤΟ must have meant promittere decrevit, or the like, as Chrysostom expounds it: ἌΝΩΘΕΝ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΡΟΏΡΙΣΤΟ, which is impossible. It is equivalent to ἈΠʼ ΑἸῶΝΟς, Luke 1:70 : “before eternity, i.e. before the earliest times” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), comp. 2 Timothy 1:9. Calvin rightly says: hic, quia de promissione tractat, non omnia saecula comprehendit, ut nos adducat extra mundi creationem, sed docet, multa saecula praeteriisse, ex quo salus fuit promissa. De Wette rightly remarks that apparently the opposite is declared in μυστήριον χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένον, Romans 16:25.

Titus 1:3. Ἐφανέρωσε δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὑτοῦ] ἐφανέρωσε forms an antithesis to ἐπηγγείλατο. True, the promise is a revelation, but only a revelation in which the point under consideration still remains hidden. The object of ἐφανέρωσε is not the same as that to which ἐπηγγ. relates, viz. ἥν, i.e. τὴν ζωὴν αἰώνιον; Beza: quam promiserat Deus … manifestam autem fecit … The object is τὸν λόγον αὑτοῦ, which is not to be taken as in apposition to ἥν (or as Heinrichs even thinks, to ἐλπίδα ζωῆς), though it is strange that ἐφαν. should begin a new sentence. This is one of the cases where—as Buttmann, p. 328, remarks—a relative sentence passes almost imperceptibly into a principal sentence, without such continuation changing the actual principal sentence into one subordinate.

τὸν λόγον αὑτοῦ] is, of course, not a name for Christ (scholiasts in Matthaei), but the gospel, which contains the ἀποκάλυψις μυστηρίου, Romans 16:26, or, as is said here, τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου.

καιροῖς ἰδίοις] comp. 1 Timothy 2:6. How this φανέρωσις of the divine word took place, is told in the next words: ἐν κηρύγματι ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ] κήρυγμα (see 2 Timothy 4:17) is not quite “the general preaching of the gospel by the apostles” (Matthies, Wiesinger), the thought being limited by the words following; κήρυγμα is to be taken as forming one thought with what follows: “the preaching entrusted to me.” Paul had some reason for describing his preaching as the means by which this revelation was made, since he recognised the depth of the divine decree as no other apostle had recognised it, and by him it was proclaimed “to all peoples” (see 2 Timothy 4:17).

ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ] see 1 Corinthians 9:17; Galatians 2:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:11.

To define and emphasize the thought that the κήρυγμα was not according to his own pleasure, Paul adds: κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ] comp. 1 Timothy 1:1. Hofmann construes differently, connecting together κατὰ πίστιν and ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι as well as ἐν κηρύγματι, and then joining κατʼ ἐπιταγήν immediately with ἀπόστολος. But this construction not only makes τὸν λόγον αὑτοῦ (which, according to Hofmann, is in apposition to ἥν) quite superfluous, but separates ideas closely attached to each other, κήρυγμα and λόγος, ἐπιστεύθην and κατʼ ἐπιταγήν.

Titus 1:4. Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν] On γνησίῳ τέκνῳ, see 1 Timothy 1:2. Κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν gives the point of view from which Titus can be considered the genuine son of the apostle. Beza: i.e. fidei respectu quae quidem et Paulo patri et Tito filio communis erat. There is nothing to indicate that in using κοινήν Paul was thinking of an original difference between them, he being a Jewish Christian, Titus a Gentile Christian.

χάρις [ἔλεος], εἰρήνη κ.τ.λ.] see on 1 Timothy 1:2.

The designation appended to Χριστοῦ, viz. τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, is peculiar to this epistle.

Titus 1:5. The epistle begins by the apostle reminding Titus of the commission already given him by word of mouth.

τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ] Regarding the time when this happened, see the Introduction; as to the reading, see the critical remarks.

ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃς] τὰ λείποντα: quae ego per temporis brevitatem non potui coram expedire (Bengel).

ἐπιδιορθώσῃς] The preposition ἐπί does not serve here to strengthen the meaning (= omni cura corrigere, Wahl), but conveys the notion of something additional: “still further bring into order.”

τὰ λείποντα] means “that which is wanting,” i.e. here that which was wanting for the complete organization of the church. The apostle himself had already done something, but in many respects the churches were not organized as they ought to be; presbyters had still to be appointed to gather single believers into a firmly-established church. This Titus was now to do, as the next words say: ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΉΣῌς ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΌΛΙΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΈΡΟΥς.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΌΛΙΝ] For the expression, comp. Luke 8:1; Acts 15:21; Acts 20:23; and for the fact, Acts 14:23. Baur wrongly assumes that each ΠΌΛΙς was to receive only one presbyter, see Meyer on Acts 14:23.

ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην] “relates both to the fact and to the manner of it, the latter being set forth more fully in mentioning the qualities of those to be chosen” (de Wette). Hofmann, without sufficient ground, wishes ΠΡΣΒΥΤΈΡΟΥς to be regarded not as the object proper, but as something predicated of the object, which object is found by the words ΕἼ ΤΙς Κ.Τ.Λ. This view is refuted by the addition of ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΌΛΙΝ.

Titus 1:6. Εἴ τις ἐστίν] This form is not, as Heinrichs and Heydenreich think, selected to express a doubt whether such men could be found among the corrupt Cretans. The meaning is rather: “only such an one as.”

ἀνέγκλητος] see 1 Timothy 3:10; ἀνεπίληπτος is used in 1 Timothy 3:2. The objection which de Wette raises on the ground that Titus is in the first place to have regard to external blamelessness, has been proved by Wiesinger to have no foundation whatever.

μιᾶς γυν. ἀνήρ] see 1 Timothy 3:2.

τέκνα ἔχων πιστά] comp. 1 Timothy 3:4-5; πιστά, in contrast to those that were not Christian, or were Christian only in name.

μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας] “qui non sunt obnoxii crimini luxus” (Wolf); ἀσωτία is a debauched, sensual mode of life (1 Peter 4:4; Ephesians 5:18). Chrysostom: οὐκ εἶπε μὴ ἁπλῶς ἄσωτος, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ διαβολὴν ἔχειν τοιαύτην, μηδὲ πονηρᾶς εἶναι δόξης.

ἢ ἀνυπότακτα] see 1 Timothy 3:5. Comp. the picture of the sons of Eli in 1 Samuel 2:12 ff. As the bishop is to be an example to the church, his own house must be well conducted.

Titus 1:7. Δεῖ γάρ] The statements of Titus 1:6 are now confirmed by alluding to the higher moral necessity; “δεῖ is the emphatic word” (Wiesinger).

τὸν ἐπίσκ. ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι] ἀνέγκλ. is resumed from Titus 1:6, that the thought may be further developed. It is to be noted that the name ἐπίσκοπος appears here; it is given to the presbyter as superintendent of the church. As such “he must not be liable to any reproach, if he is to guide the church” (Wiesinger).

ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκόνομον] is added to give the reason for that higher necessity of the ἀνέγκλ. εἶναι; Heydenreich wrongly turns it to mean simply that he must know how to superintend his house well.

ὡς = “as,” i.e. “since, he is.”

Θεοῦ οἰκόνομος is the bishop in so far as there is committed to him by God authority in the ἐκκλησία as the οἶκος Θεοῦ (1 Timothy 3:15). Mack is not wrong in proving from this expression that the ἐπίσκοποι are not merely “ministers and plenipotentiaries of the church.” Even if they are elected by the church, they bear their office as divine, not exercising it according to the changing pleasure of those by whom they are elected, but according to the will of God.

μὴ αὐθάδη] occurs only here and in 2 Peter 2:10. It is compounded of αὐτός and ἁδέω, and synonymous with αὐτάρεσκος (2 Timothy 3:2 : φίλαυτος), “who in everything behaves arrogantly and regardlessly as seems good in his own eyes;” Luther: “wilful.”

μὴ ὀργίλον] ἅπ. λεγ. “passionate;” οἱ ὀργίλοι ταχέως ὀργίζονται.

μὴ πάροινον] see 1 Timothy 3:3.

μὴ πλήκτην] see also 1 Timothy 3:3.

μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ] see 1 Timothy 3:8; perhaps with special reference to the opportunities which the bishop had in his office of acquiring gain.

These five negative qualifications are opposed to arrogance, anger, and avarice; several positive qualifications follow.