This is the only place in the N.T. in
196
i Seer Tim. " ἡμῶν ii. 6. idle
Ὁ Χριστοῦ ὃ" Ἰησοῦ, 14. ὃς ᾿ ἔδωκεν
Il,
ic 9 σφι ἄντυ μν σ ἑαυτὸν ὕπερ ἡμῶν, ἵνα
κ ’ ς “ 9 Ν , a λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας, καὶ ! καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν
1So Ν Ἔετα, g, boh.; Ἴησ. Χριστ. ΟΑΟΌΚΙ;Ρ, all cursives, d, e, f, vg., syrr.
arm.
which péyas is applied to the true God, although it is a constant predicate of heathen gods and goddesses, e.g., Acts xix. 28. (See Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, vii., vii. 563). In view of the fact that the most probable exegesis of Rom. ix. 5 is that 6 ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς, κ.τ.λ. refers to Christ, it cannot be said that 6 μέγας Θεός, as applied to Him, is un-Pauline. But the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disput- able texts, but in the whole attitude of his soul towards Christ, and in the doc- trine of the relation of Christ to mankind which is set forth in his epistles. St. Paul’s “declarations of the divinity of the Eternal Son”’ are not studied, as Ellicott admits that this would be if the R.V. rendering (our great God and Saviour, fesus Christ) be adopted. To this it may be added that the Versions, with the exception of the Aethiopic, agree with ἈΝ. ΕἸ]. cites on the other side, of ante-Nicene writers, Clem. Alex., Protrepi. §7, and Hippolytus, —quoted by Wordsworth—besides the great bulk of the post-Nicene fathers. The text is one which would strike the eye of a reader to whose consciousness the Arian controversy was present; but it is safe to say that if it had read τοῦ σωτῆρος, the μεγάλου would have ex- cited no comment. Consequently the papyri (all vii. Α.Ρ.) cited by J. H. Moul- ton (Grammar, vol. i. p. 84) ‘which attest the translation our great God and Saviour as current among Greek-speak- ing Christians”’ are too late as guides to St. Paul’s meaning here. The similar problem in 2 Peter i. 1 must be discussed independently. At least, even if it be granted that the R.V. there is correct, and that 2 Peter i. 1 is an example of the transference to Christ of the language used of deified kings ‘in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times,” it does not follow that the same account must be given of Tit. ii. 13.
Ver. 14. ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν κ.τιλ.: see note on 1 Tim. ii. 6. As already observed, this is an appeal from the con- straining love of Christ to the respond- ing love of man.
λυτρώσηται: ‘deliver. The language is borrowed from Psalm cxxix. (cxxx). 8 αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ. The material sup- plied by this passage for a discussion of the Atonement is contained in ἔδωκεν ... ἡμῶν, not in λυτρώσηται. See Dean Armitage Robinson’s note on Eph. i. 14.
ἀνομίας: Lawlessness is the essence of sin (1 John iii. 4), self-assertion as op- posed to self-sacrifice which is love. Love, which is self-sacrifice, is a dissol- vent of self-assertion or sin. And to what degree soever we allow the love of Christ to operate as a controlling prin- ciple in our lives, to that degree we are delivered from ἀνομία, as an opposing controlling principle.
καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαόν: This is a preg- nant expression for “ purify and so make them fit to be his people”. St. Paul has
in mind Ezek. xxxvii. 23, “I will save
them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God”, ῥύσομαι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ πασῶν TOV ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν ὧν ἡμάρτοσαν ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ καθαριῶ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαὸν, κ.τ.λ. There is in καθαρίσῃ an allusion to Holy Baptism, which is explicit in ii. 5. Cf. Eph. v. 26, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθα- ρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι.