Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Titus 3:4 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Tit_3:4-6. Ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία κ . τ . λ .] χρηστότης as a human quality; 2Co_6:6; Gal_5:22; Col_3:12; used of God, Rom_2:4; Rom_11:22 (often in the LXX.); with special reference to God’s redemptive work in Christ, Eph_2:7.
φιλανθρωπία ] elsewhere only in Act_28:1 (2Ma_6:22; 2Ma_14:9) as a human quality. De Wette remarks on it: “unusual for the idea of χάρις .” The reason why Paul makes use of the word here is contained in Tit_3:2, where he exhorts to πρᾳΰτης πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους . Χρηστότης corresponds in conception to πρᾳΰτης (both words stand closely connected in Gal_5:22 and Col_3:12); and in allusion to πρὸς π . ἀνθρ ., Paul adds φιλανθρωπία . The goodness and love of God to man, on which our salvation is based, should lead us to show benevolence and gentleness to all men. At the same time, the χρηστότης and φιλανθρωπία of God form a contrast with the conduct of men as it is described in Tit_3:3 in the words: ἐν κακίᾳ … μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους . Hofmann rightly remarks that as φιλανθρωπία has the article, it is made independent and emphatic by the side of the χρηστότης ; it does not, however, follow from this that χρηστότης here denotes “the goodness, of God in general towards His creatures.”
ἐπεφάνη ] just as in Tit_2:11.
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶς Θεοῦ ] see 1Ti_1:1.
Tit_3:5. The apodosis begins here and not at ἔλεος , so that the words οὐκ … ἔλεος modify ἔσωσεν ; so more recent expositors, even Hofmann.
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ] On ἐξ , comp. Rom_3:20. Matthies wrongly: “not from works appearing in the form of righteousness which we accomplished, i.e. not from our works produced with the appearance of righteousness.” Ἔργα τὰ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ are rather: “works which are done in righteousness.” Ἐν denotes the condition of life in which the works are accomplished (de Wette, Wiesinger). Δικαιοσύνη here is not justification (van Oosterzee: justitia coram Deo), but righteousness, integrity; so, too, Hofmann.
ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ] ἡμεῖς is added emphatically; to make the contrast all the stronger (Wiesinger). Paul is not speaking of works which may have been done by us, but denies that we have done such works of righteousness. Bengel rightly: Negativa pertinet ad totum sermonem: non fueramus in justitia: non feceramus opera in justitia: non habebamus opera, per quae possemus salvari.1[11]
The thought here expressed is not, as de Wette thinks, unsuitable to the context. In its negative form it rather serves to give emphasis to ἀλλὰ κατὰ (by means of) τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος , and hence to the conception of the divine χρηστότης and φιλανθρωπία . Wiesinger: “The apostle even by the contrast of the οὐκ wishes to make it quite clearly understood that saving grace is quite free and undeserved.”[12]
On κατὰ τὸ αὐτ . ἔλεος , comp. 1Pe_1:3.
ἜΣΩΣΕΝ ἩΜᾶς ] sc. ὁ Θεός . As ὍΤΕ … ἘΠΕΦΆΝΗ does not mean: “when or after it had appeared,” but: “when it appeared,” the saving is here represented as simultaneous with the appearance of the divine χρηστότης κ . τ . λ ., although ΔΙΆ refers ἜΣΩΣΕΝ to its application to individuals, which is different in time from the ὍΤΕ Κ . Τ . Λ . above. But Paul could rightly put these two things together, because the goodness of God which appeared in Jesus Christ comes to perfection in the saving of individuals by the ΛΟΥΤΡῸΝ ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑς ; the former is the efficient cause of the other.
ἩΜᾶς is not to be referred to all mankind, but to believers. The means by which the saving is effected are set forth in the words: ΔΙᾺ ( ΤΟῦ ) ΛΟΥΤΡΟῦ ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑς ΚΑῚ ἈΝΑΚΑΙΝΏΣΕΩς ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ ] The expression: ΤῸ ΛΟΥΤΡῸΝ ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑς , has been very arbitrarily interpreted by some expositors, some taking ΛΟΥΤΡῸΝ as a figurative name for the regeneratio itself, or for the predicatio evangelii, or for the Holy Spirit, or for the abundant imparting of the Spirit. From Eph_5:26 it is clear that it can mean nothing else than baptism; comp. too, Heb_10:23; 1Co_6:11; Act_22:16.
ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑ ] occurs also in Mat_19:28, but in quite a different connection, viz. in reference to the renovation of things at Christ’s second coming; comp. however, 1Pe_1:3; 1Pe_1:23, ἈΝΑΓΕΝΝΆΩ , and Joh_3:3 ff., ΓΕΝΝΗΘῆΝΑΙ ἌΝΩΘΕΝ .
According to the context, Paul calls baptism the bath of the new birth, not meaning that it pledges us to the new birth (“to complete the process of moral purification, of expiation and sanctification,” Matthies), nor that it is a visible image of the new birth (de Wette), for neither in the one sense nor in the other could it be regarded as a means of saving ( ἜΣΩΣΕΝ ἩΜᾶς ΔΙΆ ). Paul uses that name for it as the bath by means of which God actually brings about the new birth.[13] Comp. with this the apostle’s expressions elsewhere regarding baptism, especially Rom_6:3 ff., Gal_3:27, Col_2:12, which all alike assign this real signification to baptism.
καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου ] The genit. πν . ἁγ . is the genit. of the efficient cause: “the renewal wrought by the Holy Spirit” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). This may be taken as the continuing influence of the Spirit working in the regenerated Christian, or as the single act of inward change by which the man became a καινὴ κτίσις (2Co_5:17), a τέκνον Θεοῦ . Here the word is to be taken in the latter signification, as is clear from its connection with ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς ;[14] otherwise in Rom_12:2; Eph_4:22-24. According to some expositors, the genit. ἀνακαινώσεως is dependent on ΔΙΆ ; Bengel: duae res commemorantur: lavacrum regenerationis, quae baptismi in Christum periphrasis et renovatio Spiritus sancti. According to others, it depends on ΛΟΝΤΡΟῦ , and is co-ordinate with ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑς ; Vulgate: per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis (de Wette, Wiesinger). The latter is the right view, for “what else could ἈΝΑΚΑΊΝΩΣΙς ΠΝ . ἉΓ . be than the new birth denoted by ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑ ?” (Wiesinger). In this way ἈΝΑΚ . ΠΝ . ἉΓ . is added epexegetically to the previous conception ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑ , explaining it, but not adding any new force to it.[15] Heinrichs quite wrongly thinks that ΠΝ . ἉΓ . here is the ΠΝ . hominis, ipsius, which (quatenus antea fuit ΨΥΧΙΚΌΝ , ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌΝ , ἘΠΊΓΕΙΟΝ ) becomes holy by the ἈΝΑΚΑΊΝ .
Tit_3:6. ΟὟ ἘΞΈΧΕΕΝ ἘΦʼ ἩΜᾶς ΠΛΟΥΣΊΩς ] ΟὟ is not dependent ΤΟῦ ΛΟΥΤΡΟῦ , but on ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ . The genit. ΟὟ is in accordance with the common Greek usage. Heydenreich explains it wrongly by supposing ἘΞ or ἈΦʼ to have been omitted: “from which he abundantly, of which he poured out an abundant measure.”
ἘΞΈΧΕΕΝ ἘΦʼ ἩΜᾶς ] an expression which has passed from the O. T. (Joe_3:1; Zec_12:10) into the N. T. It is used to describe the gift of the Holy Spirit; see Act_2:17; Act_2:33; Act_10:45. The rich abundance of this gift is indicated by ΠΛΟΥΣΊΩς .[16]
ἘΦʼ ἩΜᾶς ] goes back to ἩΜᾶς in Tit_3:5. Christians are saved by God pouring upon them, at baptism, the Holy Spirit, which renews them. The apostle is not speaking here of the gift of the Spirit which was made at Pentecost, but of the gift made to individuals, and made after the outpouring at Pentecost.
ΔΙᾺ ἸΗΣ . ΧΡ . ΤΟῦ ΣΩΤῆΡΟς ἩΜῶΝ ] This does not belong to ἜΣΩΣΕΝ , which is already defined by ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΛΟΥΤΡΟῦ Κ . Τ . Λ . It goes with ἘΞΈΧΕΕΝ , so that Christ here, as elsewhere in the N. T., is represented as the medium by which the Holy Spirit is sent.[17] In order to understand the train of thought properly, we must note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is not a consequence, but the substantial inward fact in baptism, which is the bath of the new birth.
[11] 1 Similarly Theophylact: ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων , ὧν ἐποιήσαμεν , ἀντὶ τοῦ · οὔτε ἐποιήσαμεν ἔργα δικαιοσύνης , οὔτε ἐσώθημεν ἐκ τούτων , ἀλλὰ τὸ πᾶν ἡ ἀγαθότης αὐτοῦ ἐποίησε .
[12] Hofmann is not correct in analysing ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ into two statements. He says that ἐξ ἔργων is “in the first place to be conceived by itself,” and that τῶν ἐν δικ . further “denies that we have done what we should have done in order to deserve to be saved.” He then maintains that the relative sentence belongs to τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ . But ἔργα τὰ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ forms one conception, and on this the relative sentence depends.
[13] It is certainly right to say that baptism carries with it a pledge to continue the process of purification, and that, from its outward form, it bears in itself a symbolic character; only these are not the reasons for which the apostle calls it the λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας .—In the first edition of this commentary I remarked: “Baptism is regarded as the inner new birth manifesting itself in the external act of the bath.” This is not apposite, since baptism is not the new birth itself, but the means for producing it.
[14] These words, παλιγγενεσία and ἀνακαίνωσις , do not occur in classic Greek. In the former word, which Hofmann translates awkwardly enough by “resurrection,” the prefix πάλιν points to the former sinless condition of man, into which he is restored from his corruption. Thus παλιγγενεσία , in Mat_19:28, corresponds in conception to ἀποκατάστασις . It is doubtful whether the same reference is adapted to ἀνακαίνωσις (which only occurs here and in Rom_12:2); the ἀνα does not make such reference necessary. Expositors tacitly avoid this question; comp. Cremer, Wörterb. d. neut. Gräc.
[15] Hofmann indeed disputes our remark that ἀνακαιν . τ . πν . is added epexegetically to παλιγγ .; because, as he says, παλιγγενεσία is “an incident of the resurrection,” whereas ἀνακαίνωσις is “a work of the Holy Spirit.” But is not this renewing work of the Holy Spirit an incident for him on whom it is wrought? He further maintains that it might be said: ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διʼ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου , but not ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ παλιγγενεσίας ; but this we cannot admit. The latter may be said quite as much as the former.
[16] It is ὁ Θεός here who imparts the Holy Spirit, whereas in Act_2:33 the gift is ascribed to Christ; see Joh_14:16 comp. with Joh_15:26. The explanation of this is contained in the διά .
[17] Matthies remarks, by adding the words διὰ Ἰ . Χρ ., faith is at the same time assumed as the subjective condition; but the remark is out of place, as Paul is not in the least discussing subjective conditions.
REMARK.
The question why the apostle here speaks of baptism is rightly answered by Wiesinger in this way. Baptism, as the bath of the παλιγγενεσία , “is the basis on which rests all further growth in the life of the Spirit,” inasmuch as by it the believer is removed from the εἶναι ἐν σαρκί into the εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι or ἐν Χριστῷ , i.e. into the condition in which it is possible for him to live no longer κατὰ σάρκα , but κατὰ πνεῦμα . On the other hand, the apostle does not mention faith here as a medium of the saving love of God, because he is looking away entirely from the human aspect of the matter, and considering only the divine work in the saving of men. Leaving faith out of consideration, baptism is to the apostle what he says of it here, viz. the means of the new birth or renewal by the Holy Spirit, and also, according to Tit_3:7, of the completion of the δικαιοῦσθαι ; and baptism does not become this to him by means of faith. Hence the apostle’s expression cannot be rectified conjecturally by supplying this point, viz. faith. It is true that in other passages of the N. T. πίστις denotes that which brings about the new birth, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, justification; and the one expression should not be neglected for the sake of the other. There is here a problem which it is the task of Biblical Theology and of Dogmatics to solve; here, however, as the passage before us presents no handle for the discussion, it can only be indicated without solving it. This much only may be said, that according to these sayings of the Scriptures, man only becomes a τέλειος ἐν Χριστῷ when he is justified and regenerated both by baptism and by faith (the faith, viz., which is πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς , Rom_10:17).