1.] But (contrast to the persons just described: ‘on the other hand’) do thou speak (not what they speak, ch. 1:11: but) the things which befit the healthy teaching (that teaching which is sound and wholesome, not teaching ἃ μὴ δεῖ): viz., that the aged men (not = πρεσβυτέρους, which implies eldership, and not old age only) be sober (see note on 1Timothy 3:2), grave (1Timothy 3:4, note), self-restrained (a better word for σώφρων would be a valuable discovery: see above on ch. 1:8, and 1Timothy 2:9: ‘discreet’ is good, but not adequate), healthy in their faith, in their love, in their patience (see ref. 1 Tim., where the same three are joined together. The datives are of the element or condition: the same was expressed with ἐν, ch. 1:13: ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει. The articles should not be overlooked. The occurrence of τῇ ἀγάπῃ and τῇ ὑπομονῇ prevents us from rendering τῇ πίστει objective as in ch. 1:13, and compels us to take the subjective and reflective meaning).

3.] The aged women (= πρεσβύτεραι, 1Timothy 5:2, there being in this case here no official term to occasion confusion) likewise (after the same general pattern, to which the separate virtues above mentioned belong) in deportment (cf. Porphyr. de abst. in Wetst.,—τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν κἀκ τοῦ καταστήματος ἑωρᾶτο. πορεία τε γὰρ ἦν εὔτακτος, καὶ βλέμμα καθεστηκὸς ἐπετηδεύετο, ὡς ὅτε βουληθεῖεν μὴ σκαρδαμύττειν· γέλως δὲ σπάνιος, εἰ δέ που γένοιτο, μέχρι μειδιασμοῦ. ἀεὶ δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ σχήματος αἱ χεῖρες. The κατάστημα would thus iuclude gesture and habit,—more than καταστολή of 1Timothy 2:9), reverend (two examples, of those given by Wetst., seem nearest to touch the meaning of the word here as connected with outward deportment:—the one from Jos. Antt. xi. 8. 5, describing the High Priest Jaddus going forth to meet Alexander the Great,—πυθόμενος δʼ αὐτὸν οὐ πόῤῥω τῆς πόλεως, πρόεισι μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους, ἱεροπρεπῆ καὶ διαφέρουσαν τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ποιούμενος τὴν ὑπάντησιν … τὸ μὲν πλῆθος ἐν ταῖς λευκαῖς ἐσθῆσι, τοὺς δὲ ἱερεῖς προεστῶτας ἐν ταῖς βυσσίναις αὐτῶν, τὸν δὲ ἀρχιερέα ἐν τῇ ὑακινθίνῃ καὶ διαχρύσῳ στολῇ: the other from Plato, Theagcs, § 3, p.’ 262, Θεαγὴς ὄνομα τούτῳ, ὦ Σώκρατες. Καλόν γε, ὦ Δημόδοκε, τῷ υἱεῖ τὸ ὄνομα ἔθηκες καὶ ἱεροπρεπές), not slanderers (see reff. 1 Tim. and note), nor yet enslaved (so προσέχοντας, 1Timothy 3:8) to much wine (this vice may be included in the character given of the Cretans above, ch. 1:12), teachers of that which is good, that they school (see on σωφρονισμός, 2Timothy 1:7.

The occurrence of ἵνα here with a pres. indic. in the best mss. is remarkable—especially as the only other instances of this construction in St. Paul, 1Corinthians 4:6 and Galatians 4:17 (see notes there), may be accounted for on the hypothesis of an unusual (provincial) formation of the subjunctive, being both verbs in -όω. If this reading is to stand, it would shew that that hypothesis is unnecessary, and that St. Paul did really write the indic pres. after ἵνα: see also 1John 5:20. Cf. Winer, edn. 6, § 41 b. 1. c. If he did thus write it, it may be questioned whether he intended to convey any sense very distinct from the pres. subj.: perhaps more immediate and assumed sequence may be indicated: but it is hardly possible to join logically in the mind a causal particle with a pres. indic.) the young women to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children, discreet (this term certainly applies better to women than self-restrained: there is in this latter, in their case, an implication of effort, which destroys the spontaneity, and brushes off, so to speak, the bloom of this best of female graces. See, however, note on 1Timothy 2:9. The word is one of our greatest difficulties), chaste, workers at home (the word is not found elsewhere, and has perhaps on that account been changed to the more usual one οἰκουρούς. It is hardly possible that for so common a word οἰκουργούς should have been substituted. If the rec. is retained, ‘keepers at home’ will be signified: so Dio Cass. lvi. p. 391 (Wetst.), πῶς οὐκ ἄριστον γυνὴ σώφρων, οἰκουρός, οἰκονόμος, παιδοτρόφος; see Elsner’s note on the word, in which he shews that, as might be expected, the ideas of ‘keeping at home’ and ‘guarding the house’ are both included: so Chrys.: ἡ οἰκουρὸς γυνὴ καὶ σώφρων ἔσται· ἡ οἰκουρὸς καὶ οἰκονομικὴ· οὔτε περὶ τρυφήν, οὔτε περὶ ἐξόδους ἀκαίρους, οὔτε περὶ ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἀσχοληθήσεται), good (Thl. joins this with οἰκουρούς—οἰκουρὸς ἀγαθή. So also Syr. But it seems better to preserve the series of single epithets till broken in the next clause by the construction. As a single epithet (reff.) it seems to provide, as Heydenr., that their keeping, or working, at home, should not degenerate into churlishness or niggardliness), in subjection to their own (inserted to bring out and impress the duties they owe to them—so in Ephesians 5:22) husbands, that the word of God (the Gospel) be not ill-spoken of (τὸ γὰρ προφάσει θεοσεβείας καταλιμπάνεν τοὺς ἄνδρας, βλασφημίαν ἔφερε τῷ κηρύγματι, Thdrt.).

6 ff.] The younger men in like manner exhort to be self-restrained (see above ver. 5, and 1Timothy 2:9, note), shewing thyself (the use of σεαυτόν with παρέχεσθαι is somewhat remarkable, but borne out by Xen. in reff. The account of it seems to be, that παρέχεσθαι τύπον would be the regular expression for ‘to set an example,’ the personal action of the subject requiring the middle (see Krüger, p. 363): and, this being so, the form of such expression is not altered, even where ἑαυτόν is expressed in apposition with τύπον. Cf. Ellic.’s note) in (‘about,’ ‘in reference to’ (reff.): a meaning of περί with the acc. derived from its local meaning of ‘round about:’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 49, i.) all matters (not masc. sing.) an example (κοινὸν διδασκαλεῖον καὶ ὑπόδειγμα ἀρετῆς ἡ τοῦ σοῦ βίου λαμπρότης ἔστω, οἷόν τις εἰκὼν ἀρχέτυπος πᾶσι προκειμένη τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐναπομάξασθαι τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ καλῶν, Thl.) of good works (reff.),—in thy teaching (παρεχόμενος) incorruption (it is difficult exactly to fix the reference of ἀφθορία (or ἀδιαφθορία, which means much the same). It may be objective of the contents of the teaching—that it should set forth purity as its character and aim: or subjective, that he should be, in his teaching, pure in motive, uncorrupted: so Wiesinger, comparing 2Corinthians 11:3, μή τως … φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν χριστόν. Huther takes it of the form of the teaching, that it should be pure from all expressions foreign to the character of the Gospel. This is perhaps hardly satisfactory: and the first interpretation would bring it too near in meaning to λόγον ὑγιῆ which follows), gravity, a discourse (in its contents and import) healthy, not to be condemned, that he of the opposite part (τὸν ἐξ ἐναντίας φησὶ καὶ τὸν διάβολον καὶ πάντα τὸν ἐκείνῳ διακονούμενον, Chr. But the former idea is hardly before the Apostle’s mind, from ver. 5, in which the Gospel being evil spoken of was represented as the point to be avoided. Cf. also 1Timothy 6:1, and 5:14: 2Timothy 2:25. It is rather the heathen or Jewish adversaries of the Gospel, among whom they dwelt) may be ashamed (reff.), having nothing (μηδέν, because, following the ἔχων, it is subjective to him, the adversary. We should say, οὐδέν ἐστιν ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ,—but μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν: in the former the objective fact, in the latter the subjective deficiency, is brought out) to say of us (Christians: not ‘me and thee’) (that is) evil (in our acts: φαῦλος is never used with λέγειν, nor of words, in the N. T., but always of deeds: ‘having no evil thing to report of us’—no evil, whether seen in our demeanour, or arising from our teaching).

9.] (παρακάλει) Slaves to be in subjection to their own (see above on ver. 5) masters,—in all things to give satisfaction (this, the servants’ own phrase among ourselves, expresses perhaps better than any other the meaning of εὐαρέστους εἶναι. ‘To be acceptable’ would seem to bring the slave too near to the position of a friend), not contradicting (in the wide sense, not merely in words, see especially ref. John), not purloining (ref. νοσφιζόμενον, ὑφαιρούμενον, ἰδιοποιούμενον, Suid. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ σφετερίζεσθαι, Eustath.), but manifesting (see ref. 2 Cor.) all (possible, reff.) good faith; that they may adorn in all things (not ‘before all men,’ as Heydenr., al.: cf. ἐν πᾶσιν above) the doctrine of our Saviour, God (see on 1Timothy 1:1. Not Christ, but the Father is meant: in that place the distinction is clearly made. On this ‘adorning’ Calvin remarks, “Hæc quoque circumstantia notanda est (this is hardly worthy of his usually pure latinity), quod ornamentum Deus a servis accipere dignatur, quorum tam vilis et abjecta erat conditio, ut vix censeri soliti sint inter homines. Neque enim famulos intelligit quales hodie in usu sunt, sed mancipia, quæ pretio empta tanquam boves aut equi possidebantur. Quod si eorum vita ornamentum est Christiani nominis, multo magis videant qui in honore sunt, ne illud turpitudine sua maculent.” Thl. strikingly says, κἂν γὰρ τῷ δεσπότῃ διακονῇς ἀλλʼ ἡ τιμὴ εἰς θεὸν ἀνατρέχει, ὅτι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἐκείνου ἡ πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην εὔνοια τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει).

11-15.] Ground of the above exhortations in the moral purpose of the Gospel respecting us (11-14): and consequent exhortation to Titus (15).

11.] For (reasons for the above exhortations from ver. 1: not as Chrys., al., only for vv. 9, 10. The latter clause of ver. 10, it is true, gives occasion to this declaration; but the reference of these verses is far wider than merely to slaves) the grace of God (that divine favour to men, of which the whole process of Redemption was a proof: not to be limited to Christ’s Incarnation, as Œc. and Thdrt.: though certainly this may be said for their interpretation, that it may also be regarded as a term inclusive of all the blessings of Redemption: but it does not follow, that of two such inclusive terms, the one may be substituted for the other) was manifested, bringing salvation (not, ‘as bringing salvation:’ σωτήριος is not predicate after ἐπεφ., but παιδεύουσα which follows: σωτήριος is still part of the subject, and to make this constructionally clearer, the art. ἡ has been inserted) to all men (dat. belonging to σωτήριος, not to ἐπεφάνη, which verb is used absolutely, as in ch. 3:4: cf. σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 1Timothy 4:10: see also ib. 2:4), disciplining us (see note on 1Timothy 1:20. There is no need to depart from the universal New Testament sense of παιδεύουσα, and soften it into ‘teaching:’ the education which the Christian man receives from the grace of God, is a discipline, properly so called, of self-denial and training in godliness, accompanied therefore with much mortification and punitive treatment. Luther has well rendered παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς by ‘und züchtiget uns.’ Corn.-a-lap. (cited in Mack) explains it also well: “tanquam pueros rudes erudiens, corrigens, formans, omnique disciplina instituens et imbuens, perinde ut pædagogus puerum sibi commissum tam in litteris quam in moribus: hoc enim est παιδεύειν, inquit Gell. i. 13. 13”), that (by the ordinary rendering, “teaching us, that,” we make ἵνα introduce merely the purport of the teaching: and so, following most Commentators, De W., and I am surprised to see, Huther, although I suppose representing in some measure the philological fidelity of Meyer, under whose shelter his commentary appears. There must have been some defect of supervision here. Wiesinger only of the recent Commentators, after Mack and Matthies, keeps the telic meaning of ἵνα. The Greek Commentators, as might be expected, adhere to the propriety of their own language. So Chrys. (ἦλθεν ὁ χριστός ἵνα ἁρνησώμεθα τὴν ἀσέβειαν), Thl. (παιδεύει γὰρ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα τοῦ λοιποῦ σωφρόνως ζήσωμεν), Thdrt. (τούτου χάριν ἐνηνθρώπησεν … ἵνα …). The truth is, that παιδεύειν is one of those verbs, the purpose and purport of which mutually include each other. The form and manner of instructive discipline itself conveys the aim and intent of that discipline. So that the meaning of ἵνα after such a verb falls under the class which I have discussed in my note to 1Corinthians 14:13, which see. Our English ‘that,’ which would be dubious after ‘teaching,’ keeps, after ‘disciplining,’ its proper telic force), denying (not, ‘having denied:’ the aor. part. ἀρνησάμενοι is, as so often, not prior to, but contemporaneous with, the aor. ζήσωμεν following. (This, against Ellic. requires pressing here. The whole life being summed up in ζήσωμεν, aor., not ζῶμεν, pres., the aor. part. ἀρνησάμενοι must be so rendered, as to extend over all that sum, not as if it represented some definite act of abnegation anterior to it all.) διὰ τοῦ ἀρνήσασθαι, says Thl., τὴν ἐκ διαθέσεως ὁλοψύχου ἀποστροφὴν σημαίνει. “Has (cupiditates) abnegamus, cum eis consensum negamus, cum delectationem quam suggerunt, et actum ad quem sollicitant, abnuimus, imo ex mente et animo radicitus evellimus et extirpamus.” S. Bernard, Serm. xi. (Mack)) impiety and the lusts of the world (the τάς gives universality—‘all worldly lusts.’ κοσμικάς, belonging to the κόσμος, the world which ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται, and is without God: see 1John 2:15-17 and Ellicott’s note here), we might live soberly (our old difficulty of rendering σώφρων and its derivatives recurs. ‘Soberly’ seems here to express the adverb well, though ‘sober’ by no means covers the meaning of the adjective. The fact is, that the peculiar meaning which has become attached to ‘sober,’—so much so, as almost to deprive it of its more general reference to life and thought,—has not taken possession of the adverb) and justly (better than ‘righteously,’—‘righteous,’ by its forensic objective sense in St. Paul, introducing a confusion, where the question is of moral rectitude) and piously in the present life (“Bernard, Serm. xi.: sobrie erga nos, juste erga proximum, pie erga Deum, Salmer. p. 630 f.: dicimus in his verbis Apostolum tribus virtutibus, sobrietatis, pietatis et justitiæ, summam justitiæ Christianæ; complecti. Sobrietas est ad se, justitia ad proximum, pietas erga Deum … sobrie autem agit, cum quis se propter Deum diligit: juste, cum proximum diligit: pie, cum charitate Deum colit.” Mack. Wolf quotes from Lucian, Somn. p. 8, the same conjunction: τὴν ψυχὴν … κατακοσμήσω … σωφροσύνῃ, δικαιοσύνῃ, καὶ εὐσεβίᾳ … ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκήρατος κόσμος.

These three comprising our παιδεία in faith and love, he now comes to hope): looking for (this expectation being an abiding state and posture,—not, like ζήσωμεν, the life following on and unfolded from the determining impulse co-ordinate with the ἀρνήσασθαι,—is put in the pres., not in the aor.) the blessed hope (here, as in reff. Gal. and Acts, Colossians 1:5 al., nearly objective,—the hope, as embodying the thing hoped for: but keep the vigour and propriety both of language and thought, and do not tame down the one and violate the other, with Grot., by a metonymy, or with Wolf, by a hypallage of μακαρία ἐλπίς for ἐλπιζομένη μακαριότης) and manifestation (ἐλπίδα κ. ἐπιφ. belong together) of the glory (δύο δείκνυσιν ἐνταῦθα ἐπιφανείας· καὶ γάρ εἰσι δύο· ἡ μὲν προτέρα χάριτος, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα ἀνταποδόσεως, Chrys. Nothing could be more unfortunate than the application here of the figure of hendiadys in the E.V.: see below) of the great God (the Father: see below) and of our Saviour Jesus Christ (as regards the sense, an exact parallel is found in Matthew 16:27, μέλλει γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, compared with Matthew 25:31, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. See also 1Peter 4:13. The glory which shall be revealed at the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ is His own glory, and that of His Father (John 17:5; 1Thessalonians 3:13). This sense having been obscured by the foolish hendiadys, has led to the asking (by Mr. Green, Gr. Test. Gram., p. 216), “What intimation is given in Scripture of a glorious appearing of God the Father and our Lord in concert?” To which the answer is, that no such appearing is even hinted at in this passage, taken as above. What is asserted is, that the δόξα shall be that τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. And we now come to consider the meaning of these words. Two views have been taken of them: (1) that τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος̣ ἡμῶν are to be taken together as the description of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,—‘of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour:’ (2) that as given above, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ describes the Father, and σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ the Son. It is obvious that in dealing with (1), we shall be deciding with regard to (2) also. (1) has been the view of the Greek orthodox Fathers, as against the Arians (see a complete collection of their testimonies in Dr. Wordsworth’s “Six Letters to Granville Sharp on the use of the definite article in the Greek text of the N. T.” Lond. 1802), and of most ancient and modern Commentators. That the former so interpreted the words, is obviously not (as it has been considered) decisive of the question, if they can be shewn to bear legitimately another meaning, and that meaning to be the one most likely to have been in the mind of the writer. The case of ἵνα in the preceding verse (see note there), was wholly different. There it was contended that ἵνα with a subjunctive, has, and can have, but one meaning: and this was upheld against those who would introduce another, inter alia, by the fact that the Greek Fathers dreamt of no other. The argument rested not on this latter fact, but on the logical force of the particle itself. And similarly here, the passage must be argued primarily on its own ground, not primarily on the consensus of the Greek Fathers. No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it: and there were obvious reasons why they, having licence to do so, should choose this interpretation. But it is our object, not being swayed in this or any other interpretation, by doctrinal considerations one way or the other, to enquire, not what the words may mean, but what they do mean, as far as we may be able to ascertain it. The main, and indeed the only reliance of those who take (1), is the omission of the article before σωτῆρος. Had the sentence stood τοῦ μεγ. θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. χ., their verdict for (2) would have been unanimous. That the insertion of the article would have been decisive for (2), is plain: but is it equally plain, that its omission is decisive for (1)? This must depend entirely on the nature and position of the word thus left anarthrous. If it is a word which had by usage become altogether or occasionally anarthrous,—if it is so connected, that the presence of the article expressed, is not requisite to its presence in the sense, then the state of the case, as regards the omission, is considerably altered. Now there is no doubt that σωτήρ was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name: cf. 1Timothy 1:1 (I am quite aware of Bp. Middleton’s way of accounting for this, but do not regard it as satisfactory); 4:10; which latter place is very instructive as to the way in which the designation from its official nature became anarthrous. This being so, it must hardly be judged as to the expression of the art. by the same rules as other nouns. Then as to its structural and contextual connexion. It is joined with ἡμῶν, which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78: Romans 1:7: 1Corinthians 1:3 (1Corinthians 2:7; 1Corinthians 10:11): 2Corinthians 1:2, &c. Again, as Winer has observed (edn. 6, § 19, 5 b, remark 1), the prefixing of an appositional designation to the proper name frequently causes the omission of the article. So in 2Thessalonians 1:12: 2Peter 1:1: Jude 1:4: see also 2Corinthians 1:2; 2Corinthians 6:18: Galatians 1:3: Ephesians 1:2; Ephesians 6:23: Philippians 1:2; Philippians 2:11; Philippians 3:20 &c. If then σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς χριστός may signify ‘Jesus Christ our Saviour,’—on comparing the two members of the clause, we observe, that θεοῦ has already had its predicate expressed in τοῦ μεγαλου; and that it is therefore natural to expect that the latter member of the clause, likewise consisting of a proper name and its predicate, should correspond logically to the former: in other words, that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰη. χρ. would much more naturally suit (1) than τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμ. Ἰη. χρ. In clauses where the two appellative members belong to one expressed subject, we expect to find the former of them without any predicative completion. If it be replied to this, as I conceive on the hypothesis of (1) it must be, that τοῦ μεγάλου is an epithet alike of θεοῦ and σωτῆρος, ‘our great (God and Saviour),’ I may safely leave it to the feeling of any scholar, whether such an expression would be likely to occur. Let us now consider, whether the Apostle would in this place have been likely to designate our Lord as ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν. This must be chiefly decided by examining the usages of the expression θεὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, which occurs six times in these Epistles, once in Luke (1:47), and once in the Epistle of Jude. If the writer here identifies this expression, ‘the great God and our Saviour,’ with the Lord Jesus Christ, calling Him ‘God and our Saviour,’ it will be at least probable that in other places where he speaks of “God our Saviour,” he also designates our Lord Jesus Christ. Now is that so? On the contrary, in 1Timothy 1:1, we have κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, καὶ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν: where I suppose none will deny that the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another. The same is the case in 1Timothy 2:3-5, a passage bearing much (see below) on the interpretation of this one: and consequently in 1Timothy 4:10, where ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων corresponds to θέλει πάντας σωθῆναι in the other. So also in Titus 1:3, where the σωτὴρ ἡμῶν θεός, by whose ἐπιταγή the promise of eternal life was manifested, with the proclamation of which St. Paul was entrusted, is the same αἰώνιος θεός, by whose ἐπιταγή the hidden mystery was manifested in Romans 16:26, where the same distinction is made. The only place where there could be any doubt is in our ver. 10, which possible doubt however is removed by ver. 11, where the same assertion is made, of the revelation of the hidden grace of God (the Father). Then we have our own ch. 3:4-6, where we find τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ in ver. 4, clearly defined as the Father, and διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in ver. 6. In that passage too we have the expression ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμ. θεοῦ, which is quite decisive in answer to those who object here to the expression ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης as applied to the Father. In the one passage of St. Jude, the distinction is equally clear: for there we have μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. It is plain then, that the usage of the words ‘God our Saviour’ does not make it probable that the whole expression here is to be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. And in estimating this probability, let us again recur to 1Timothy 2:3, 1Timothy 2:5, a passage which runs very parallel with the present one. We read there, εἷς γὰρ θεός, " εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον κ.τ.λ. Compare this with τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ " καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἵνα λυτρώσηται κ.τ.λ. Can there be a reasonable doubt, that the Apostle writing two sentences so closely corresponding, on a point of such high importance, would have in his view the same distinction in the second of them, which he so strongly lays down in the first? Without then considering the question as closed, I would submit that (2) satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it. The principal advocates for it have been, the pseudo-Ambrose (i.e. Hilary the deacon, the author of the Commentary which goes by the name of that Father: whose words are these, “hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspectant adventum gloriæ magni Dei quod revelari habet judice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suæ præmium consequantur. Ad hoc enim redemit nos Christus, ut” &c.), Erasm. (annot. and paraphr.), Grot., Wetst., Heinr., Winer (ubi supra, end), De W., Huther (the other view,—not this as stated in my earlier editions, by inadvertence,—is taken by Ellicott). Whichever way taken, the passage is just as important a testimony to the divinity of our Saviour: according to (1), by asserting His possession of Deity and right to the appellation of the Highest: according to (2), even more strikingly, asserting His equality in glory with the Father, in a way which would be blasphemy if predicated of any of the sons of men), who (our Saviour Jesus Christ), gave Himself (“the forcible ἑαυτόν, ‘Himself, His whole self, the greatest gift ever given,’ must not be overlooked: cf. Beveridge, Serm. 93, vol. iv. p. 285.” Ellicott) for us (‘on our behalf,’ not ‘in our stead:’ reff.), that He might (by this assertion of the Redeemer’s purpose, we return to the moral aim of verses 11, 12, more plainly indicated as in close connexion with Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice) redeem (λυτροῦσθαι, ‘to buy off with a price,’ the middle including personal agency and interest, cf. καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ below. So in Diod. Sic. v. 17, of the Balearians, ὅταν τινὲς γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τῶν προσπλεόντων λῃστῶν ἁλῶσιν, ἀντὶ μιᾶς γυναικὸς τρεῖς ἢ τέτταρας ἄνδρας διδόντες λυτροῦνται. Polyb. xvii. 16. 1, of King Attalus and the Sicyonians, where only personal agency is implied in the middle, τὴν ἱερὰν χώραν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐλυτρώσατο χρημάτων αὐτοῖς οὐκ ὀλίγων. See note, 1Timothy 2:6: and cf. ref. 1 Pet., where the price is stated to have been the precious blood of Christ) us from all lawlessness (see reff. and especially 1John 3:4, ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία and might purify (there is no need to supply ἡμᾶς, though the sense is not disturbed by so doing. By making λαόν the direct object of καθαρίζῃ, the purpose of the Redeemer is lifted off from our particular case, and generally and objectively stated) to Himself (‘dat. commodi’) a people (object: not, as De W., Wies., al., predicate, ‘(us) for a people’) peculiarly His (see note on Ephesians 1:14, and cf. the reff. here in the LXX, from which the expression is borrowed. See also 1Peter 2:9, and Ellicott here. The ἐξειλεγμένον of Chrys., though expressing the fact, says too much for the word,—as also does the acceptabilis of the Vulg.: egregium of Jerome, too little: the οἰκεῖον of Thdrt. is exact: that which περίεστιν αὐτῷ), zealous (an ardent worker and promoter) of good works.

15.] gathers up all since ver. 1, where the general command last appeared, and enforces it on Titus. In ch. 3:1, the train of thought is again resumed. These things (the foregoing: not, the following) speak and exhort (in the case of those who believe and need stirring up) and rebuke (in the case of those who are rebellious) with all imperativeness (μετὰ αὐθεντίας καὶ μετὰ ἐξουσίας πολλῆς, Chrys.—τουτέστι, μετὰ ἀποτομίας, Thl.). Let no man despise thee (addressed to Titus, not to the people, as Calv. (‘populum ipsum magis quam Titum hic compellat’): ‘so conduct thyself in thine exhortations, with such gravity, and such consistency, and such impartiality, that every word of thine may carry weight, and none may be able to cast slight on thee for flaws in any of these points’).