Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Titus 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 à ) support the Rec. (Lachm. Tisch. 8).
Tit_1:4. χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ] So Scholz, Tisch., following C* D E F G J à 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 1Ti_1:2; 2Ti_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.
Tit_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 2Ti_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 ἀπέλιπον . It is uncertain, too, whether the aor. ἀπέλιπον (Rec. supported by D E K à , 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).
Tit_1:10. In A C J à , 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 .
Tit_1:15. The μέν following πάντα in the Rec. is to be deleted, on the authority of A C D* E* F G à 17, al., Vulg. It. Or. Tert. etc.
For μεμιασμένοις , μεμιαμμένοις is found in A C K L à , many cursives, etc., and was adopted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. (see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 108]). D* has μεμιανμένοις .
Tit_1:1. Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ ] This designation, which indicates generally the official position (Wiesinger: “ δοῦλος Θεοῦ here in the same sense as in Act_16:17, Rev_1:1; Rev_15:3, etc., not as in 1Pe_2:16, Rev_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. Jud_1:1. With this double designation comp. Rom_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 Rom_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 2Ti_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 Rom_9:11 : Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΚΛΟΓῊΝ ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς ). Besides, the translation “piously” is not sufficiently clear.