Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Titus 2:7 - 2:8

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Titus 2:7 - 2:8


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Tit_2:7-8. The exhortation by word is to be accompanied by the exhortation of example.

περὶ πάντα does not belong to what precedes, but begins a new sentence, and is put first for emphasis. ΙΙάντα is not masculine: “towards every one,” but neuter: “in regard to all things, in all points.”

σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων ] On the use of the middle παρέχεσθαι with the pronoun ἑαυτόν , “show himself,” see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. p. 322] (comp. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 1.39: παράδειγμα τοίονδε ἑαυτὸν παρείχετο ).

τύπον , “type,” is in the N. T. only found here with the genitive of the thing.

καλὰ ἔργα ] 1Ti_5:10; an expression often occurring in the Pastoral Epistles.

ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν ] This and the following accusatives are dependent on παρεχόμενος ; see Col_4:1. Luther inaccurately: “with unadulterated doctrine, with sobriety,” etc.; Jerome: in doctrina, in integritate et castitate.

ἀφθορία , only in later Greek, is from ἄφθορος (in Artemidorus, ver. 2:95: de virginibus puerisque intactis et illibatis legitur; Reiche; Est_2:2 : κοράσια ἄφθορα καλὰ τῷ εἴδει ), which is equivalent to “chaste,” and therefore means “unstained chastity.” Ἀδιαφθορία (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 ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ , to which ΣΕΜΝΌΤΗΤΑ also 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 λόγον ὑγιῆ ; there is no justification for Bengel’s interpreting ἘΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊᾼ to mean public addresses, and λόγον the talk of daily intercourse. According to its original meaning, ἈΦΘΟΡΊΑ 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. 1Co_2:1; 1Co_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”

ΣΕΜΝΌΤΗΤΑ , on the other hand, denotes dignity in the style of delivery. Both these things, the ἈΦΘΟΡΊΑ and the ΣΕΜΝΌΤΗς , were injured by the heretics in their ΛΟΓΟΜΑΧΊΑΙς .[2]

λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστου ( ἄπ . 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 ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ ] ἐξ ἐναντίας ( ἅπ . λεγ .), qui ex adverso est; according to Chrysostom: διάβολος καὶ πᾶς ἐκείνῳ διακονούμενος ; but the next words are against this interpretation. According to Tit_2:5 and 1Ti_6:1, it means the non-Christian opponent of the gospel, and not the Christian heretic (Heydenreich, Wiesinger).

ἐντραπῇ , “be ashamed, take shame to oneself;” 1Co_4:14; 2Th_3:14. The reason for the shame is contained in the words: μηδὲν ἔχων περὶ ἡμῶν (or ὑμῶν ) λέγειν φαῦλον ] “having nothing wicked to say of us.”

If περὶ ἡμῶν be the correct reading, it is not to be limited to Titus and Paul, but should be taken more generally. With the reading ὑμῶν , on the other hand, the apostle’s words refer to Titus and the churches that follow his example.

[1] Reiche, who prefers the reading ἀδιαφθορίαν , 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 λόγον ὑγιῆ ; but we cannot see why in that case Paul does not specially name the latter.