Tit_2:4-5.
Ἵνα
σωφρονίζωσι
τὰς
νέας
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] Since
σωφρονίζειν
must necessarily have an object,
τὰς
νέας
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. should not, like
πρεσβύτας
υηφαλίους
εἶναι
, Tit_2:2, and
πρεσβύτιδας
, Tit_2:3, be joined with
λάλει
, Tit_2:1 (Hofmann), but with
σωφρονίζουσιν
, so that the exhortations given to the young women are to proceed from the older women.
σωφρονίζειν
] (
ἅπ
.
λεγ
.) is properly “bring some one to
σωφροσύνη
,” then “amend,” viz. by punishment; it also occurs in the sense of “punish, chastise;” it is synonymous with
νουθετεῖν
. According to Beza, it expresses opposition to the juvenilis lascivia et alia ejus aetatis ac sexus vitia.
The aim of the
ΣΩΦΡΟΝΊΖΕΙΝ
is given in the next words:
ΦΙΛΆΝΔΡΟΥς
(
ἍΠ
.
ΛΕΓ
.)
ΕἾΝΑΙ
,
ΦΙΛΟΤΈΚΝΟΥς
(
ἍΠ
.
ΛΕΓ
.) These two ideas are suitably placed first, as pointing to the first and most obvious circumstances of the
ΝΈΑΙ
.
Tit_2:5.
ΣΏΦΡΟΝΑς
ἉΓΝΆς
] The latter is to be taken here not in the general sense of “blameless,” but in the more special sense of “chaste” (Wiesinger).
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΟΎς
(Rec.); Wahl rightly: “ex
οἶκος
et
ΟὖΡΟς
custos: custos domus, de feminis, quae domi se continent neque
ΠΕΡΙΈΡΧΟΝΤΑΙ
, 1Ti_5:13.” Vulgate: domus curam habentes; Luther: “domestic.” The word
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΓΟΎς
(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
οἰκουργεῖν
occurring in later Greek means: “make a house;” see Pape, s.v.
ἈΓΑΘΆς
] is rightly taken by almost all as an independent epithet: “kindly.” Some expositors, however, connect it with
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΟΎς
(so Theophylact, Oecumenius); but this is wrong, since
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΟΎς
is itself an adjective. Hofmann joins it with
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΓΟΎς
, 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
ΟἸΚΟΥΡΓΟΎς
to mean “housewives”?
ὑποτασσομένας
τοῖς
ἰδίοις
ἀνδράσιν
] On
ΤΟῖς
ἸΔΊΟΙς
ἈΝΔΡ
., comp. 1Co_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. Eph_5:22; Col_3:18; 1Pe_3:1. It is to be noted that the apostle adds this
ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΟΜΈΝΑς
after using
ΦΙΛΆΝΔΡΟΥς
. 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
ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΣΘΑΙ
may be seen from the words:
ἽΝΑ
ΜῊ
Ὁ
ΛΌΓΟς
ΤΟῦ
ΘΕΟῦ
ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜῆΤΑΙ
, which are closely connected with
ὙΠΟΤΑΣΣΟΜΈΝΑς
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
.; comp. Tit_2:10, where the same thought is expressed positively, and 1Ti_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:
ΕἸ
ΣΥΜΒΑΊῌ
ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ
ΠΙΣΤῊΝ
ἈΠΊΣΤῼ
ΣΥΝΟΙΚΟῦΣΑΝ
,
ΜῊ
ΕἾΝΑΙ
ἘΝΆΡΕΤΟΝ
,
Ἡ
ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑ
ἘΠῚ
ΤῸΝ
ΘΕῸΝ
ΔΙΑΒΑΊΝΕΙΝ
ΕἼΩΘΕΝ
, is unsatisfactory, because the apostle’s words are thereby arbitrarily restricted to a relation which is quite special.