of things render it necessary to lay an emphasis on things already known, no one surely is entitled to take offence at the fact of their being already known. We only add that Schleiermacher (Sendschreiber, p. 195) acknowledges how characteristic are the precepts in the epistle to Titus, according to the distinctions of sex and age. Here then also we have arbitrary suppositions of the critics, which they have only to sacrifice to the real contents of the epistle, in order to come at the truth. Again it is said that the heretics are indistinctly characterized. We have already seen, and the exposition will further shew, what a distinct picture is drawn in this epistle of the corruptions of the Cretan Christians. If, however, it is Gnostics similar to those of the second century (De Wette), or even these themselves (Baur) that are meant, then we freely confess that they are not only indistinctly, but very indistinctly characterized. It is, moreover, remarkable that De Wette should here say that the heretics are "indistinctly" characterized, after saying that the apostle wrote concerning them with "a knowledge which presupposed a lengthened observation of them" (p. 2.) A similar reply is to be made to the objection, that this epistle contains nothing in opposition to these heretics that might serve as an apt refutation of their errors, and that this desideratum is not supplied by the "superficial and familiar moral precepts," in ii. 1-10; iii. 1, seq. This opinion is founded on the erroneous supposition that the Pastoral Epistles aim at refuting a dogmatical system. What the apostle says on "the heresy," is more by way of characterizing than of refuting it; besides, ii. 1, seq. is not in the remotest way intended to serve as a refutation of heresies. Here also are manifest the false assumptions. The epistle becomes altogether unintelligible on the supposition of its having been written in the second century for the purpose of combating the Gnostics and promoting hierarchical tendencies, on which comp. the General Introduction, § 3.

EXPOSITION

OF THE

EPISTLE TO TITUS.

§ 1. INSCRIPTION AND SALUTATION.

(i. 1-4.)

THE inscription and salutation are in the apostle's usual manner. He designates himself by his apostolical office, whence flows his authority to give the instructions and exhortations that follow. He then names the person to whom the epistle is addressed, with a reference to the relation in which he stands to him, and ends with the usual apostolical salutation. The commencement of this epistle bears a close resemblance to that of the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians, inasmuch as in these epistles also the designation άTóσToλoç is more exactly defined. And it may be inferred from this that here also, as in them, the more full and definitive representation of the apostle's apostolic office, stands in closest connexion with the design of the epistle, and as it were a comprehensive index to its contents. But while in its opening this epistle bears as a whole a common stamp with the others, it displays here also along with this similarity, the peculiarity which belongs to its contents, and consequently to its form; and that in a manner at at once so easy, and so decided, as to be altogether unaccountable in an imitator of the apostle's epistles, who wished to conceal himself. For what could have been easier and more natural, than for an imitator to avoid such peculiarities as servant of God, God our Saviour, Christ our Saviour, and in these also to adhere to the pattern presented in the rest of the apostle's epistles ?

Ver. 1.-Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, etc. Aoûλoç Oɛou here, in the same sense as in Acts xvi. 17; Rev. i. 1, xv. 3, x. 7, etc., not as in 1 Pet. ii. 16; Rev. vii. 3, etc. It is the more general designation of the office, which finds its special expression in what follows, namely ȧñóσтоhоç, etc. Hence Calvin justly observes: he thus descends from the genus to the species. The two predicates by which the apostle here designates himself, occur nowhere else in the same connexion. Even the expression

servant of God, is not used by the apostle elsewhere in this particular sense; although we find servant of Jesus Christ in Rom. i. 1. ; Gal. i. 10; Phil. i. 1, as the more general form of his official designation, and also as designating the relation in which the Christian as such stands to Christ as his Lord, 1 Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi. 6; in both these passages, however, the context gives special occasion to this appellation. Rom. i. 1 has most similarity to this passage, as there the apostle first represents himself generally as the servant of Jesus Christ, and then in like manner adds the more special designation, called to be an apostle. If it was his design in this passage to represent his office in its twofold aspect, with reference both to God and to Christ, we find the complete counterpart of this in Rom. i. 1, where, with reference to the former he calls himself, servant, with reference to the latter, apostle. It may be said with truth that the apostle must thus express himself according to his usual manner. The only question is, why he here in particular designates his office in this twofold aspect. To this it has been answered that he has already in his eye the Jewish opponents, in opposition to whom he aims at establishing his own authority and that of Titus; or he so characterizes himself on account of the church, and in order that by this appeal to his own dignity and authority, more weight and value might be imparted to the arrangements of Titus, who was commissioned by him. But the epistle was not written for the church, and much less for the opponents, so as to give any occasion for confirming his authority and that of Titus; it was written only to and for Titus, with reference to whom there was no necessity for any such attestation of the apostle's official standing. It might indeed be supposed, nevertheless, that the thought of those Jewish teachers called forth in the apostle's mind the consciousness, that as he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, so was he also and therewith a servant of God; and thus, while he refers to his calling, in which the exhortations that follow have their ground, he calls himself a servant of God as well as an apostle of Jesus Christ. But are we not here within the sphere which belongs to a writer's individuality, and where explanation finds its limit? Who will venture to explain the reason why the apostle designates himself in Rom. i. 1, by servant of Jesus Christ, in 1 Cor. i. 1, by called to be an apostle, in 2 Cor. i. 1, by apostle? (Aé after åñóστoloç is not to be understood as expressing opposition, but serves merely to introduce sorething different, Winer's Gr., § 53, 7.) On the other hand, the design of the following expressions which more exactly define dróσToλos is manifest: according to the faith of God's elect, etc. We have already noticed the similarity here to Rom. i. 1, seq.; Gal. i. 1, seq. The relation of these words to the subsequent contents of the epistle is not to be mistaken. They describe the end of his apostolic

office as the producing of faith in the elect of God, and the knowledge of the truth, whilst the subject matter of his preaching, with which he was entrusted, according to the commandment of God our Saviour, is described as the hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world began, but hath in his own time manifested his word through the preaching which is committed to the apostle. The manner in which the apostle here more exactly defines his office, can be understood only by contrast with those whose knowledge was not directed to the truth that leads to godliness, and whose doctrine had not for its essential contents the hope of eternal life. And errors of this kind are in fact represented in the epistle, i. 10-16, iii. 8-11. And besides the particular passages which directly refer to those corruptions, the whole epistle is but an efflux and evidence of the apostolic calling, which has for its end the faith of the elect, and the knowledge of the truth according to godliness, and the hope of eternal life for its essential import. On the construction of vers. 1-3, which proceed without interruption, see Winer's Gr., § 62, 4, p. 499. In particular, it is to be observed that κατὰ πίστιν . Kai miyvwow do not mean "according to, or in conformity with" the faith and the knowledge. The faith and knowledge of individuals, are not the rule or measure of the apostle's office. The true rendering of kará is "for, to," by way of distinction. Comp. Winer's Gr., § 49, d., p. 358; 2 Tim. i. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 6. It occurs nowhere else in connexion with dróσrоλoç. On the absence of the article with the following nouns, яíσTIν, ¿níуvwoiv, ÉKλεKт☎ν, comp. Winer's Gr., § 19, 2 b., with 0ɛoυ, § 19, 1, Anm., with ἀλήθεια, ibid.—Κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ. The expression EKλEKTOί is transferred from the Old Testament Israel to that under the New Testament dispensation; comp. Deut. xvi, 2, 21; Ps. cv. 43, cvi. 5, etc., This designation has its ground not in anything belonging to those who are thus distinguished, but in the eternal act of the Divine will, the póleos, Rom. viii. 28, or idía πрółεσι, 2 Tim. i. 9, in virtue of which they are fore-ordained in Christ to salvation. How the predestination is realized in time is shewn in Rom. viii. 30, compared with Luke xviii. 7; Rom. viii. 33; Col. iii. 12, etc. Matthies observes on this expression, that the difficulty in the way of taking kará as a final preposition is shewn by this, namely, that ExλEKTOί must then either be understood of those who are not Christians, but are to be brought to the faith according to the Divine decree, or if it be understood of Christians, that kará requires an extension of the sense, namely, "for the furtherance of the faith of the elect." But Kará means generally, "for, to." The sense is the faith of the elect is aimed at.-'EKλEKTOί, however— which, as the parallel member, eiç ¿níyvwow, etc., proves, is to be taken quite generally, not with reference to certain individuals

signifies neither Christians nor not Christians, but such as are chosen of God to salvation. The faith of the elect of God is the destination of the apostle's office; it is all one whether the Kλños has already taken effect in them or not. For, that his apostolical office hath this end and design also with regard to those who are already Christians, is plain from Phil. i. 5, etc. De Wette's supposition of a prolepsis, in support of which he adduces 2 Tim. ii. 10; Acts xiii. 48, is therefore unnecessary. The first of these passages is in regard to this point quite the same with the present, and the secoud shews, how all faith on the part of individuals rests on the Divine fore-ordination, which manifests itself in their becoming believers; so that they do not become elect by their faith, but become believers because they are elect. Comp. Eph. i. 4, and on the whole subject Rom. i. 5. When, moreover, we consider the reference to the peculiar error combated in the epistle, in this more full and exact representation of the apostolical office, which comes out especially in the parallel clause kaì ¿ñíyvwoiv, etc., we cannot help thinking that this expression also, elect of God, is used in opposition to those whose faith rested on no such election of God.-Kaì ¿níyvwow, etc.; in these words the apostle denotes the second thing at which his office aims. By this iniуvwots is meant a knowledge resting on faith, and penetrating ever farther and farther into the truth. Comp. Phil. i. 9. For iníуvwos is, as Wahl observes: Plena et accurata cognitio. Comp. on iníуvwois, Harless on Eph. i. 17, p. 95, seq. On dλ0ɛa, the Christian truth, comp. Eph. i. 13. This truth is more exactly defined in the words which follow, as a truth which leads to godliness. On the article coming after the noun in dλŋ0ɛíaç, comp. Winer's Gr. § 20, 4. It is the opposite of a knowledge which has not to do with the truth that leads to godliness, but that leads away from this, i. 11; i. 16, etc. Kará, as before, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 3. Here also Matthies takes kará in the sense of "comformable to," although he understands by d20ela evangelical truth, as if the godliness to which this truth alone can lead, were a rule lying beyond it. Evσéßea is not used by the apostle except in the Pastoral Epistles ; it is found, however, in Acts iii. 12; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, and in other places. On the other hand we find evσɛßɛïv in an address by the apostle, Acts xvii, 22; and in like manner εvoɛßýs, Acts xxii. 12; doεßýs, Rom. iv. 5, v. 6; doéßɛta, Rom. i. 18, xi. 26. If the apostle had to combat in the Pastoral Epistles an error which tended to àσéßɛɩa (2 Tim. ii. 16), as is abundantly evident from the representation which is given of the opponents therein referred to, it is easy to account for the frequent occurrence of the term evσéßɛa in these epistles; it thus belongs to those expressions, the use of which is at once explained by a reference to the state of things which the apostle had in his eye. And what more natural than that the