Tit 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).
Tit 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 , λεος , εἰρήνη ; it is found in A C** K L, etc., but seems nevertheless to be a correction from the analogy of 1 Ti 1:2 ; 2 Ti 1:2 .
Tittmann’s reading: χάρις , λεος , καὶ εἰρήνη , is quite arbitrary.
Matthaei: λεος 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.
Tit 1:5 . So far as internal evidence goes, we cannot decide whether the Rec. κατέλιπον or the reading πέλιπον (Lachm. Tisch.) is the original one; both may be corrections, the latter on the analogy of 2 Ti 4:20 , the former on the analogy of Act 18:19 ; Act 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 πέλιπον . It is uncertain, too, whether the aor. πέλιπον (Rec. supported by D E K א , al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) or the imperf. πέλειπον (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 πιδιορθώσῃ (Rec. Tisch.) and the act. πιδιορθώσῃς (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).
Tit 1:10 . In A C J א , many cursives, etc., καί is wanting between πολλοί and νυπότακτοι , 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 νυπότακτοι .
Tit 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 .
Tit 1:2 . πʼ λπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου ] πʼ λπίδι , “in hope” (comp. Rom 4:18 ; Rom 8:21 ; 1Co 9:10 ). It is not to be taken with πίγνωσις ληθείας (“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 λήθεια , 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 πίγνωσιν λ . (so Plitt: “the πίστις and the πίγνωσις rest on the λπίς ”); but it is to be joined with πόστολος κ . τ . λ . Paul by this declares that the λπὶς ζωῆς αἰωνίου is the basis on which he stands as an πόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριοτοῦ κατὰ πίστιν κ . τ . λ . Van Oosterzee: “Paul in Tit 1:4 says he fulfils his task with or in hope of eternal life” (so, too, Hofmann).
The believer, it is true, possesses the in the present; but its perfection will only be granted to him in the future (comp. Col 3:3-4 ); here it is to be considered as a future blessing, which is indicated by .
relates to , and not, as some expositors (Flatt, Mack, and others) think, to .
, viz. , comp. Rom 1:2 .
] This epithet occurs only here; is equivalent to in regard to the divine promises, comp. Heb 6:18 : ; 1Co 1:9 ; Rom 3:4 .
here is not equivalent in meaning to or similar expressions; for in that case must have meant promittere decrevit, or the like, as Chrysostom expounds it: , which is impossible. It is equivalent to , Luk 1:70 : “before eternity, i.e. before the earliest times” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), comp. 2 Ti 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 , Rom 16:25 .
Tit 1:3 . φανέρωσε δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὑτοῦ ] φανέρωσε forms an antithesis to πηγγείλατο . True, the promise is a revelation, but only a revelation in which the point under consideration still remains hidden. The object of φανέρωσε is not the same as that to which πηγγ . 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 λπίδα ζωῆς ), though it is strange that φαν . 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 ποκάλυψις μυστηρίου , Rom 16:26 , or, as is said here, τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου .
καιροῖς ἰδίοις ] comp. 1 Ti 2:6 . How this φανέρωσις of the divine word took place, is told in the next words: ν κηρύγματι ὃ πιστεύθην γώ ] κήρυγμα (see 2 Ti 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 Ti 4:17 ).
ὃ πιστεύθην γώ ] see 1 Co 9:17 ; Gal 2:7 ; 1Th 2:4 ; 1 Ti 1:11 .
To define and emphasize the thought that the κήρυγμα was not according to his own pleasure, Paul adds: κατʼ πιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ ] comp. 1 Ti 1:1 . Hofmann construes differently, connecting together κατὰ πίστιν and πʼ λπίδι as well as ν κηρύγματι , and then joining κατʼ πιταγήν immediately with πόστολος . 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 , πιστεύθην and κατʼ πιταγήν .
Tit 1:4 . Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν ] On γνησίῳ τέκνῳ , see 1 Ti 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 [ λεος ], εἰρήνη κ . τ . λ .] see on 1 Ti 1:2 .
The designation appended to Χριστοῦ , viz. τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , is peculiar to this epistle.
Tit 1:5 . The epistle begins by the apostle reminding Titus of the commission already given him by word of mouth.
τούτου χάριν πέλιπόν σε ν Κρήτῃ ] Regarding the time when this happened, see the Introduction; as to the reading, see the critical remarks.
ἵνα τὰ λείποντα πιδιορθώσῃς ] τὰ λείποντα : quae ego per temporis brevitatem non potui coram expedire (Bengel).
πιδιορθώσῃς ] The preposition πί 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: .
] For the expression, comp. Luk 8:1 ; Act 15:21 ; Act 20:23 ; and for the fact, Act 14:23 . Baur wrongly assumes that each was to receive only one presbyter, see Meyer on Act 14:23 .
ὡς γώ 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 to be regarded not as the object proper, but as something predicated of the object, which object is found by the words This view is refuted by the addition of .
Tit 1:6 . Εἴ τις στίν ] 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 .”
νέγκλητος ] see 1 Ti 3:10 ; νεπίληπτος is used in 1 Ti 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 . νήρ ] see 1 Ti 3:2 .
τέκνα χων πιστά ] comp. 1 Ti 3:4-5 ; πιστά , in contrast to those that were not Christian, or were Christian only in name.
μὴ ν κατηγορίᾳ σωτίας ] “qui non sunt obnoxii crimini luxus” (Wolf); σωτία is a debauched, sensual mode of life ( 1Pe 4:4 ; Eph 5:18 ). Chrysostom: οὐκ εἶπε μὴ πλῶς σωτος , λλὰ μηδὲ διαβολὴν χειν τοιαύτην , μηδὲ πονηρᾶς εἶναι δόξης .
ἢ νυπότακτα ] see 1 Ti 3:5 . Comp. the picture of the sons of Eli in 1Sa 2:12 ff. As the bishop is to be an example to the church, his own house must be well conducted.
Tit 1:7 . Δεῖ γάρ ] The statements of Tit 1:6 are now confirmed by alluding to the higher moral necessity; “ δεῖ is the emphatic word” (Wiesinger).
τὸν πίσκ . νέγκλητον εἶναι ] νέγκλ . is resumed from Tit 1:6 , that the thought may be further developed. It is to be noted that the name πίσκοπος 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 νέγκλ . 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 κκλησία as the οἶκος Θεοῦ ( 1Ti 3:15 ). Mack is not wrong in proving from this expression that the πίσκοποι 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 2Pe 2:10 . It is compounded of αὐτός and δέω , and synonymous with αὐτάρεσκος (2 Ti 3:2 : φίλαυτος ), “who in everything behaves arrogantly and regardlessly as seems good in his own eyes;” Luther: “wilful.”
μὴ ὀργίλον ] π . λεγ . “passionate;” οἱ ὀργίλοι ταχέως ὀργίζονται .
μὴ πάροινον ] see 1 Ti 3:3 .
μὴ πλήκτην ] see also 1 Ti 3:3 .
μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ ] see 1 Ti 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.
Tit 1:8 . λλὰ φιλόξενον ] see 1 Ti 3:2 .
φιλάγαθον ] π . λεγ . (the opposite in 2 Ti 3:3 ), loving either the good or what is good. Chrysostom is inaccurate: τὰ αὐτοῦ πάντα τοῖς δεομένοις προϊέμενος ; and Luther: “kindly.”
σώφρονα ] see 1 Ti 3:2 .
δίκαιον , ὅσιον ] These two ideas are frequently placed together; comp. 1Th 2:10 ; Eph 4:24 ; Plato ( Gorg. 507 B) thus distinguishes between them: καὶ μὴν περὶ μὲν νθρώπους τὰ προσήκοντα πράττων δίκαιʼ ν πράττοι , περὶ δὲ θεοὺς ὅσια .
δίκαιος is one who does no wrong to his neighbour; ὅσιος is one who keeps himself free from that which stains him in the eyes of God; synonymous with κακος , μίαντος , Heb 7:26 .
γκρατῆ ] π . λεγ ., Chrysostom: τὸν πάθους κρατοῦντα , τὸν καὶ γλώττης , καὶ χειρὸς , καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν κολάστων · τοῦτο γὰρ στὶν γκράτεια , τῷ μηδενὶ ὑποσύρεσθαι πάθει . There is no ground for limiting the word to the relation of the sexes; besides, γκράτεια , and γκρατεύεσθαι in the N. T. hardly convey anything more than the general idea of self-control. The three last qualifications are closely related to each other, describing the conduct of the man towards his neighbour, towards God, towards himself; comp. Tit 2:12 .
The positive qualifications in this verse are not direct antitheses to the negative qualifications in the preceding verse; still there is a certain antithesis of cognate ideas. This is the case with μὴ αὐθάδη and φιλόξενον , φιλάγαθον ; with μὴ ὀργίλον , μὴ πάροινον , μὴ πλήκτην , and σώφρονα ; μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ and δίκαιον , ὅσιον , γκρατῆ . Still these epithets, though corresponding to one another, are not quite the same in the extent of their application.
Tit 1:9 . To these requisites, somewhat general in nature, Paul adds another with special bearing on the official duties of a bishop: ντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου ] The exposition given by most of the compound idea τοῦ … λόγου is inaccurate and confused. Heydenreich divides the expression into two parts: (1) ὁ πιστὸς λόγος , “the true doctrine of the gospel;” and (2) ὁ λόγος κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν , “the doctrine in which the bishop is instructed,” and gives the following translation: “holding firmly, as instructed, by the word which is certain (to reliable doctrine).” But manifestly this translation arbitrarily inverts the meaning. The words κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν are not dependent on πιστοῦ , but on λόγου , defined by πιστοῦ , so that τοῦ κ . τ . διδ . πιστοῦ λόγ . is equivalent to τοῦ πιστοῦ λόγου , τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν . Ὁ πιστὸς λόγος does not occur elsewhere in our epistles, but there is no doubt that Paul means thereby the pure, wholesome word ( λόγοι ὑγιαίνοντες , 1Ti 6:3 ; οἱ λόγοι τῆς πίστεως , 1 Ti 4:6 ) of the gospel, in contrast to the false doctrine of the heretics. He uses the epithet πιστός because it is not treacherous, it can be relied on: “ the sure, reliable word .” This sure word is defined more precisely by κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν ] διδαχή is not active (Luther: “that which can teach”), but means, as it often does in the N. T., “ doctrine .” Here it denotes “the Christian doctrine,” which is none other than that preached by Christ Himself and by His apostles; so Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Hofmann. It is less appropriate to explain διδαχή to be “the instruction imparted” (so van Oosterzee, and formerly in this commentary); comp. 1 Ti 4:6 ; 2Th 2:15 .
ντέχεσθαι (in Mat 6:24 , synonymous with γαπᾷν , opposed to καταφρονεῖν ; used in a similar sense, 1Th 5:14 ) occurs often in Polybius (see Raphelius on the passage) in the sense of: adhaerere, studiosum esse ( ντέχεσθαι τῆς ληθείας ). Here, too, it has this meaning, as in Phi 2:16 : πέχειν ; 2Th 2:15 : κρατεῖν , “ adhere to .” Luther: “he holds by the word.”
Heydenreich rightly remarks that this does not indicate the zeal the teacher was to show in speaking of divine doctrine, but his own internal adherence, etc.
ἵνα κ . τ . λ .] This adherence to the word is necessary for the bishop that he may discharge the duties of his office. It is further defined more precisely in two ways: ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ … καί : “both … and.” The first is: παρακαλεῖν ν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ , which refers to believers. παρακαλεῖν ] encourage, exhort ; viz. to remain in the way on which they have entered, and to advance ever further in it, ν being here instrumental: “through, by means of.” Matthies is incorrect: “to edify in sound doctrine;” comp. 1Th 4:18 .
ἡ διδασκ . ἡ ὑγιαιν .] see 1 Ti 1:10 .
The second is: τοὺς ντιλέγοντας λέγχειν ] “By correction and reproof to refute those who contradict” (viz. the pure doctrine of the gospel), by which are meant the heretics.
Even in classic Greek, the two conceptions “refute” and “reprove” are sometimes combined in λέγχειν ; see Pape, s.v.
This verse leads on to further description of the heretics.
Tit 1:10 . Εἰσὶ γάρ ] γάρ shows that this verse serves to explain the preceding words.
πολλοὶ [ καὶ ] νυπότακτοι ] If καί be read, the phrase should be explained by the usage common in Greek of joining πολλοί with an adjective following it (see Matthiae, § 444, 4, p. 830), and νυπότακτοι taken as an adjective. If καί be omitted, νυπότακτοι may be taken as a substantive. The heretics are so named because they set themselves in opposition to the gospel and refuse obedience to it; the word is found also in 1 Ti 1:9 ; Tit 1:6 .
The heretics are further styled ματαιόλογοι ] see 1 Ti 1:6 , and φρεναπάται ( π . λεγ .; the verb in Gal 6:3 ), “ misleaders ,” almost synonymous with γόητες , 2Ti 3:13 .
μάλιστα οἱ κ περιτομῆς ] A name for the Jewish-Christians, as in Gal 2:12 .
μάλιστα indicates that the preachers of heresy in Crete were chiefly Jewish Christians, but that they had also found followers among the Gentile Christians. These appended words do not compel us to take νυπότακτοι as the predicate, and the Christians of Crete as the unexpressed subject of εἰσίν (in opposition to Hofmann). Of course Paul by εἰσὶν γὰρ κ . τ . λ . means to say that Crete is the place where such chatterers are to be found.
Tit 1:11 . Οὓς δεῖ πιστομίζειν ] goes back to the end of Tit 1:9 .
πιστομίζειν ( π . λεγ .) is from πιστόμιον , which denotes both the bridle-bit and the muzzle, and is equivalent either to freno compescere, coercere (synonymous with τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλειν , Jas 3:3 ), or to os obturare (= φιμοῦν , Mat 22:34 ). The latter signification is more usual (see Elsner, p. 332): “put to silence.” Theophylact: λέγχειν σφοδρῶς , ὥστε ποκλείειν αὐτοῖς τὰ στόματα .
οἵτινες (= quippe qui, and giving the reason for οὓς δεῖ ) ὅλους οἴκους νατρέπουσι ] The chief emphasis is laid on ὅλους : not merely individuals, but also whole families are misled by them into unbelief.
νατρέπειν ] see 2 Ti 2:18 ; “the figure is here used in keeping with οἴκους ” (Wiesinger).
διδασκοντες μὴ δεῖ ] “teaching what should not be taught;” this shows the means by which they exercise so destructive an influence; μὴ δεῖ , equivalent to τὰ μὴ δέοντα , 1Ti 5:13 .
This refers to , just as does to .
The purpose is briefly set forth by . The disgrace of their gain consists in the means they employ for acquiring it. The apostle adds these words to point out the selfish conduct of the heretics, who work only for their own profit.
Tit 1:12 . Paul quotes the saying of a Cretan poet as a testimony regarding the Cretans.
εἶπέ τις ξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης ] ξ αὐτῶν is by most expositors referred to the preceding πολλοί or to οἱ κ περιτομῆς ; but such a reference is unsuitable; the apostle is rather thinking of Cretans in general.
The ἴδιος αὐτῶν declares still more strongly that the saying proceeds from a Cretan and not from a stranger, see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. p. 192].
προφήτης ] According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Epiphanius, Jerome, it is Epimenides who is meant. This Epimenides was a contemporary of the seven wise men, and by some was even reckoned as one of them in place of Periander; he was born in the sixth century B.C. The saying quoted by Paul, which forms a complete hexameter, is said to have been in his lost work περὶ χρησμῶν . Theodoret, on the other hand, ascribes the saying to Callimachus, who, however, was a Cyrenian in the third century B.C.; besides, it is only the first words that occur in his Hymn. ad Jov. Tit 1:8 . Epiphanius and Jerome think that Callimachus took the words from Epimenides. Paul does not call Epimenides a προφήτης because poets and philosophers were often called prophets in ancient times, but because the saying of Epimenides described beforehand the character of the Cretans as it was in the apostle’s time. Still it is to be noted that this very Epimenides was famed among the Greeks for his gift of wisdom, so that even Cicero ( De Divinat . xviii.) places him among those vaticinantes per furorem. Comp. Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos . p. 81, ed. Henr. Steph.
Κρῆτες εὶ ψεῦσται ] Chrysostom refers these words chiefly to the pretence of the Cretans that Jupiter lay buried among them; to this, at any rate, the verse of Callimachus refers; but the Cretans in ancient times were notorious for falsehood, so that, according to Hesychius, is synonymous with ; for proofs of this, see in Wetstein.
] denoting their wild, unruly character; some expositors refer this name specially to the greed of the Cretans, as Polybius, book vi., specially mentions their ; but it is more than improbable that Epimenides had this meaning in his words.
] synonymous with Phi 3:19 : (comp. Rom 16:18 ; 2Pe 2:13-14 ); this denotes the Cretans as men given to sensuality. Plato, too ( De Legg. i.), reproaches them with lust and immodesty.
The apostle’s purpose in quoting this saying of Epimenides is indicated in the next verse. The national character of the Cretans was such that they were easily persuaded to listen to the heretics, and hence it was all the more necessary to oppose the latter firmly.
Tit 1:13 . In confirmation of the verse quoted, Paul says: ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη στὶν ληθής , and attaches to it an exhortation to Titus. Bertholdt, without reason, holds this verse to be a later interpolation.
διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ] see 2 Ti 1:6 . Chrysostom: ; it refers to the picture of the Cretan character given in the testimony.
, as in Tit 1:9 ; “the apostle here drops all reference to the bishops to be appointed, and assigns to Titus himself the duty of applying a remedy” (Wiesinger).
] not so much the heretics as the Cretans, who were exposed to their misleading influence. These latter needed the , because they were not resisting the heretics as they ought, but (as shows) were yielding to them easily.
] “sharply, strictly;” elsewhere only in 2 Co 13:10 ; the substantive in Rom 11:22 .
] “ that they may be sound in the faith .” De Wette takes this as the immediate contents of the λέγχειν , just as occurs with , but without good grounds. here is not instrumental (Heinrichs: per religionem), but is the subject in which they are to be sound.
Tit 1:14 . One especial requisite for the ὑγιαίνειν ν τῇ πίστει is given by Paul in the participial clause: μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ντολαῖς κ . τ . λ .] προσέχοντες , see 1 Ti 1:4 ; 1Ti 4:1 . Here, as in the epistles to Timothy, the heresies are called μῦθοι , from the theories they contained; see on 1 Ti 1:4 . Here, however, they are further defined by the epithet Ἰουδαϊκοί , as they were peculiar to Jewish speculation, though their substance was derived from Gentile modes of thought. The description, too, in the First Epistle to Timothy shows that to the speculative part of the heresy there was added a legal element founded on an arbitrary interpretation of the Mosaic law. The ντολαί of the heretics are here called ντολαὶ νθρώπων ποστρεφομένων τὴν λήθειαν : “ commands of men which depart from the truth ,” because they were founded not on Christianity, but on the arbitrary wills of men estranged from Christianity. These ντολαί consisted not so much of moral precepts, as of prohibitions of food and the like, see 1 Ti 4:3 . Hofmann refers the adjective Ἰουδαϊκοῖς , and the defining words νθρώπων κ . τ . λ ., to both substantives, a possible construction, but not necessary. His reasons are far from sufficient.
ποστρεφομένων ] see 2 Ti 1:15 .
Tit 1:15 . The apostle, bearing in mind the prohibitions of the heretics, opposes to them a general principle which shows their worthlessness.
πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς ] πάντα quite generally: all things in themselves , with which a man may simply have to do, but not a man’s actions, nor, as Heydenreich thinks, the errors of the heretics. The usual explanation which limits the bearing of the words to the arbitrary rules of the heretics regarding food and other things, is only so far right that Paul lays down his general principle with special reference to these rules; but πάντα itself should be taken quite generally. Even the exposition of Matthies: “all that falls into the sphere of the individual wants of life,” places an unsuitable limitation on the meaning. Chrysostom rightly: οὐδὲν ὁ Θεὸς κάθαρτον ποίησεν .
καθαρά as the predicate of πάντα is to be connected with it by supplying στί : “ all is pure ,” viz. τοῖς καθαροῖς . Bengel: omnia externa iis, qui intus sunt mundi, munda sunt. Many expositors wrongly refer the conception of καθαροί to knowledge, as Jerome: qui sciunt omnem creaturam bonam esse, or as Beza: quibus notum est libertatis per Christum partae beneficium. It should rather be taken as referring to disposition: to those who have a pure heart everything is pure (not: “to them everything passes for pure”), i.e. as to the pure, things outside of them have no power to render them impure. From the same point of view we have in the Testam. XII. Patriarch. test. Benjam . chap. viii.: ὁ χων διάνοιαν καθαρὰν ν γάπῃ , οὐχ ὁρᾷ γυναῖκα εἰς πορνείαν · οὐ γὰρ χει μιασμὸν ν τῇ καρδίᾳ . Kindred thoughts are found in Mat 23:26 ; Luk 11:41 ; comp. also the similar expression in Rom 14:20 . On καθαροῖς , van Oosterzee remarks: “By nature no one is pure; those here called καθαροί are those who have purified their heart by faith, Act 15:9 .” This is right, except that Paul is not thinking here of the means by which the man becomes καθαρός ; the indication of this point is given afterwards in πίστοις . The apostle purposely makes the sentence very emphatic, because it was with the distinction between pure and impure that the heretics occupied themselves so much.
The contrast to the first sentence is given in the words: τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ πίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν . Regarding the form μεμιαμμένος , see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 108] [also Veitch, Irregular Greek Verbs, s.v. ]. The verb forms a simple contrast with καθαροῖς , and stands here not in a Levitical ( Joh 18:28 ), but in an ethical sense, as in Heb 12:15 ; Jud 1:8 . Καὶ πίστοις is not an epexegesis of μεμιαμμ ., but adds a new point to it, viz. the attitude of the heretics towards the saving truths of the gospel. The two words do not denote two different classes of men, as the article τοῖς is only used once. To these impure men nothing is pure, i.e. every external thing serves only to awaken within them impure lust
λλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις ] This sentence expresses positively what οὐδὲν καθαρόν expressed negatively, at the same time furnishing the reason for the preceding thought. De Wette’s opinion therefore is not correct, that “for λλά there should properly have been γάρ ; the author, however, makes moral character equivalent to moral action .” The relation of the two sentences is pretty much the same as if, e.g. , we were to say: he is not rich, but his father has disinherited him. If Paul had used γάρ , the sentence would simply have furnished the reason for what preceded; λλά , on the other hand, indicates the contrast. Still we must not conclude, with Hofmann, that the second sentence merely says the same thing as the first. It should be interpreted: “but to them everything is impure, because their νοῦς and their συνείδησις are defiled.”
Νοῦς and συνείδησις do not here denote the inner nature of man on the two sides of knowledge and will (so Hofmann). Νοῦς is the spiritual faculty of man acting in both directions; in N. T. usage the reference to action prevails, νοῦς being equivalent to the practical reason. Συνείδησις , on the other hand, is the human consciousness connected with action, and expressing itself regarding the moral value of action; it corresponds to “conscience” (see on 1 Ti 1:3 ). The two conceptions are distinguished from each other by καὶ … καί , and at the same time closely connected. By this, however, no special emphasis is laid on the second word (formerly in this commentary). In Tit 3:11 ( αὐτοκατάκριτος ) and 1 Ti 4:2 , the apostle again says as much as that the conscience of the heretics was defiled. Though the thought contained in this verse is quite general in character, Paul wrote it with special reference to the heretics, and is therefore able to attach to it a further description of them.
Tit 1:16 . Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι ] not: “they pretend” (Matthies), but “they loudly and publicly confess,” that they know God. Paul leaves it undecided whether their confession is correct or not. He does not grant to them, as de Wette thinks, that “they have the theoretical knowledge of God, and in a practical aspect,” nor does he deny this to them. His purpose here is to declare that, in spite of this their confession, their actions are of such a nature as to argue that they had no knowledge of God: τοῖς δὲ ργοις ρνοῦνται ] ρνοῦνται , opposed to ὁμολογοῦσιν , see 1 Ti 5:8 ; 2 Ti 3:5 . Supply Θεὸν εἰδέναι (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann).
βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ πειθεῖς ] βδελυκτός ( π . λεγ .), equivalent to abominabilis, detestable (comp. Luk 16:15 ); Luther: “whom God holds in abomination.”
The word is joined with κάθαρτος in Pro 17:15 , LXX. Paul does not apply this epithet to the heretics, because they were defiling themselves with actual worship of idols, which especially was regarded by the Jews as βδέλυγμα , but in order to describe their moral depravity.
καὶ πειθεῖς ] “and disobedient,” synonymous with νυπότακτοι in Tit 1:10 ; this indicates why they are βδελυκτοί .
καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ργον γαθὸν δόκιμοι ] “the result of the preceding characteristics” (Wiesinger); δόκιμος , as 2 Ti 3:8 .