Paul, a slave of God, apostle of Jesus Christ according to faith of the elect of God and knowledge of the truth according to godliness
δὲ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
κατʼ is not discussed.
into hope of life eternal, which the non-lying God promised before eternal ages,
ἐπʼ is not discussed.
ἣν is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
πρὸ is not discussed.
but in His own season He demonstrated His word in preaching, which I was entrusted by command of God our Saviour.
So, I've translated this as He demonstrated. I don't know that this is proper; it should perhaps be He made known.
δὲ is not discussed.
Note that Greenlee (Exegetical Summary) classifies this as LN 67.1.
τὸν is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
ὃ is not discussed.
ἐγὼ is not discussed.
κατʼ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
To Titus, my genuine son according to the common faith; grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour.
The word γνήσιος (gnēsios) occurs four times in the NT, twice in the PE. Other NT occurrences are 2Co 8.8 and Php 4.3.
κατὰ is not discussed.
The faith is common because both Titus and Paul share the same "faith".
καὶ is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
What's the difference between Paul's usage of "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ"? Is there a difference, or are these synonyms?
τοῦ is not discussed.
Is there a relationship between "God our Saviour" in Tt 1.3 and "God our Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour" in this verse? Note the "our Saviour" agrees in case, number, and gender between the two verses.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
Because of this I left you behind in Crete, so that being left behind you yourself might set things straight and might appoint elders according to city, as I directed you;
Τούτου is not discussed.
χάριν is not discussed.
σε is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location ‘Crete’.
This is best rendered as Crete.
ἵνα is not discussed.
τὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. The first primary sense ‘to leave behind’ (transitive, middle, and passive) actually has two sub-senses: ‘fall short’, ‘be inferior’, ‘lack’; and also ‘be/do without’, ‘be in need or want (of)’. The second sense (seemingly most popular) is ‘lack’ in an intransitive sense.
LSJ: LSJ's article is extensive and should be consulted.
I've translated this incorrectly. It should be something like the things lacking or the things (you) are lacking, or perhaps the remaining things, thus making the whole phrase read like " ... so that the things (you) are lacking you yourself might set straight" or perhaps " ... so that you yourself might set straight the remaining things."
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘set right’ or ‘correct in addition’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses generally as ‘correct afterwards’. This instance is specifically glossed as "‘to have’ deficiencies ‘set right also’" or "‘complete’ unfinished ‘reforms’."
I've translated this as set things straight.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three primary senses. First is ‘bring’, ‘conduct’, or ‘take’. Second is ‘appoint’, ‘put in charge’. Third is simplyl ‘make’ or ‘cause’
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated as might appoint.
κατὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses, but the primary meaning here is ‘town’ or ‘city’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated city, though perhaps town or village would be better as this doesn't seem to necessarily relate to larger population centers.
ὡς is not discussed.
ἐγώ is not discussed.
σοι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘make arrangements’. The second sense is that of ‘order’.
LSJ: LSJ doesn't seem to attest the sense of ‘order’, but the idea of being ‘appointed’ to complete a task (thus being a de facto ‘order’) seems well attested.
I've translated as directed.
if anyone is blameless, a one-woman man, having faithful children, not accused of wild living or rebelliousness.
εἴ is not discussed.
τίς is not discussed.
There are five occurrences of ἀνέγκλητος (anegklētos) in the NT, three of which are in the PE.
μιᾶς is not discussed.
Note the use of a similar phrase in 1Ti 3.2 and 1Ti 3.12; and conversely the "one-man woman" (the widow) of 1Ti 5.9.
μὴ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
The word κατηγορία (katēgoria) occurs three times in the NT, and two of those are in the PE (1Ti 5.9 and here).
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT, and only here in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘debauchery’, ‘dissipation’, ‘profligacy’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘prodigality’ or ‘wastefulness’.
I've translated as wild living, which seems to match the basic sense of the word.
ἢ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘independent’. Second is ‘undisciplined’, ‘disobedient’, or ‘rebellious’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘not made subject’, ‘unrestrained’, ‘free’.
I've translated as rebelliousness.
For the elder it is necessary to be blameless as God’s steward, not self-willed, not inclined to anger, not a drunkard, not pugnacious, not fond of dishonest gain,
γὰρ is not discussed.
τὸν is not discussed.
The word ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) occurs five times in the NT, twice in the PE.
The word ἀνέγκλητος (anegklētos) occurs five times in the NT, three times in the PE.
ὡς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is that of ‘(house) steward’, ‘manager’ (cf. Jos. Ant. 12.200). Second is a specific sense (occurring once in NT) of ‘treasurer’. The third sense is that of ‘administrator’; seemingly one who administrates "divine" things.
LSJ: LSJ notes that generally οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) is used of a ‘manager’ or ‘steward’, and that the ‘house-steward’ is typically a slave. Note when the word is in the feminine, it typically means ‘housekeeper’, ‘housewife’.
I've translated this as steward. The steward is the one who administrates the church on behalf of God. It is clear in the above that the elder is acting as God's agent, managing the affairs of the community he oversees.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘self-willed’, ‘stubborn’, or ‘arrogant’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘acting to please oneself’, ‘self-regarding’.
I've translated as self-willed.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘inclined to anger’, ‘quick-tempered’. Note also Jos. Ant. 19.19. Also note Aristotle, "‘quick-tempered’ persons lose no time being angry, and do so with those they ought not, over things they ought not, and far more than they ought."
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as inclined to anger. This seems to be what is intended.
μὴ is not discussed.
The word πάροινος (paroinos) occurs twice in the NT, both times in the PE.
μὴ is not discussed.
The word πλήκτης (plēktēs) occurs twice in the NT, both times in the PE.
μὴ is not discussed.
The word αἰσχροκερδής (aischrokerdēs) occurs twice in the NT, both times in the PE.
but a friend of strangers, a lover of what is good, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined,
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
The word φιλόξενος (philoxenos) occurs three times in the NT, twice in the PE.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though the word does occur in Wis 7.22. BDAG glosses as ‘loving what is good’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘loving goodness’.
I've translated a lover of what is good.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘self-controlled’, ‘disciplined’.
LSJ: LSJ handles the general sense of the word, which has to do with being ‘in possession of power’.
I've translated disciplined. In NT/Christian literature, ἐγκρατής (egkratēs) seems to be an inward thing, describing the control one has over one's will/actions.
firmly holding to the faithful message in accordance with the teaching, so that he might be capable to exhort in sound teaching and to rebuke those speaking against it.
BDAG: This word occurs 4 times in the NT, once in the PE, several times in the LXX. Note that LN/Swanson assume deponency, while BDAG/LSJ use the traditional form. BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘cling to’, ‘hold fast to’, ‘be devoted to’. The second is that of simply ‘help’.
LSJ: LSJ's info on the middle sense agrees with BDAG.
I've translated firmly holding.
τοῦ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τοὺς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. The firs tis that of ‘speak against’ or ‘contradict’. The second sense is a more generic ‘oppose’ or ‘refuse’. Deissmann has an example of ἀντιλέγω (antilegō) on p. 194, plate 23 of LAE.
LSJ: LSJ offers several glossed citations. Generally, ‘speak against’, ‘contradict’, ‘gainsay’. Also ‘declare in opposition’ or ‘urge in opposition’. This article should be further consulted.
I've translated speaking against.
For there are many rebellious ones, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those from the circumcision group,
γὰρ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
Why does Swanson have ἀνυπότακτοι (anypotaktoi) (plural) instead of the traditional single form? This occurs four times in the NT, three of them in the PE (the other in Heb 2.8).
BDAG: This is an NT hapax and it apparently does not occur in the LXX, though note 1Ti 1.6. BDAG glosses generally as ‘talking idly’ and provides specific glosses as ‘an idle talker’, ‘windbag’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘talking at random’.
I've translated as idle talkers.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘deceiver’, ‘misleader’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘soul-deceiver’.
I've translated as deceiver.
μάλιστα is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
ἐκ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has two primary senses. The first is simply that of ‘circumcision’, the act (or covenant). Second is ‘one who is circumcised’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as circumcision group, with "group" in italics as a supplied word. This is in the plural, and seems to indicate a sub-group rather than a simple label (i.e., the "circumcised").
whom it is necessary to muzzle, who ruin whole households teaching what ought not to be taught for the sake of shameful gain.
οὓς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG provides the general gloss of ‘to silence’, but specifically glosses this instance as ‘who must be silenced’. Note also the seemingly more literal sense of ‘bridle’, ‘hinder’, ‘prevent’ which is attested in both Philo and Josephus, amongst others.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘bridle’, ‘curb’, and notes that it was used concerning a horse in some instances.
I've translated as muzzle; this seems to catch the literal sense of the word, which seems to indicate stuffing something into the mouth.
οἵτινες is not discussed.
BDAG: The definition in BDAG is extensive, but the word ὅλος (holos) basically means ‘whole’ in a number of different contexts, thus has several different nuances.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
I've translated whole.
The word ἀνατρέπω (anatrepō) occurs three times in the NT, twice in the PE (the third occurrence is Jn 2.15).
ἃ is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs four times in the NT, only here in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘shameful’, ‘base’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as shameful, note that BDAG provides a specific gloss of dishonest for this instance as well.
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT; twice in Php and here. The basic meaning is that of ‘gain’ or ‘profit’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is extensive.
I've translated as gain; this word goes with the previous one thus meaning "shameful gain" or "dishonest gain".
χάριν is not discussed.
A certain one from them, a prophet of their own, says, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
τις is not discussed.
ἐξ is not discussed.
αὐτῶν is not discussed.
αὐτῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG's definition is extensive, though the basic meaning is ‘prophet’. (note that the plural is many times used to represent the writings of the prophets).
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
The proper translation seems to be prophet.
BDAG: This is a people-group name, ‘Cretans’, meaning those who are from or who live on the island of Crete.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation is Cretans.
ἀεὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG's article is extensive. The basic meaning is that of ‘bad’ or ‘evil’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated as evil.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘animal’ or ‘beast’ (not including humans). The second is a figurative extension, ‘beast’ or ‘monster’ applied to a human.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive but concurs in the main.
I've translated beasts as it is in the plural.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘belly’. A figurative extension of this first sense is that of ‘glutton’, or one whose interest lies with his belly. The second sense is that of ‘womb’, thus used to indicate pregnancy (cf. Mt 1.18).
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as gluttons, it seems obvious that the context here is not speaking of one's belly, but of those who in their laziness serve their desires.
This witness is true. For this reason, rebuke them rigorously, so that they may be healthy in the faith,
ἡ is not discussed.
This should perhaps be testimony as witness could be confusing.
αὕτη is not discussed.
διʼ is not discussed.
ἣν is not discussed.
αὐτοὺς is not discussed.
ἀποτόμως is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
Note that Greenlee (Exegetical Summary) uses domain 23.129, but that doesn't seem correct.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
not holding to Jewish myths and commandments of men who reject the truth.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘Judean’, hence ‘Jewish’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The best translation here is Jewish. This is an adjective, it modifies the following noun.
This word occurs five times in the NT, four of them are in the PE.
καὶ is not discussed.
Swanson/LN treat ἀποστρέφομαι (apostrephomai) as deponent, while BDAG does not.
τὴν is not discussed.
All is pure for those who are pure. But for the corrupt and the unfaithful nothing is pure, both their minds and consciences are completely corrupted.
τοῖς is not discussed.
τοῖς is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs five times in the NT and twice in this verse. The other NT occurrences are Jn 18.28, Heb 12.15, Jud 1.8. BDAG has an interesting note on the general use of the word: "The primary sense ‘to stain’ (as of dye [Il. 4, 141]) prepares the way for the transf. sense of causing defilement through socially or cultically unacceptable behavior. It is well to keep in mind in connection with the use of this term and cognates that in the Gr-Rom. world harmonious relations with the transcendent realm were understood to be dependent on careful observance of certain moral and ritual proprieties. Individuals were subordinate to interests of the community and violations of standard moral and ceremonial expectations could jeopardize the delicate balance between an entire populace and its deities." Two senses are discussed, one involving ritual defilement (hence ‘stain’, ‘defile’) the other involving moral defilement (hence ‘defile’).
LSJ: LSJ concurs. Interesting glosses of ‘stain’, ‘sully’, and ‘taint’ are among many offered.
I've translated as corrupt. The use of defiled could cause confusion with ceremonial or ritual defilement, which is not intended in this passage.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
αὐτῶν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
They claim to know God, but they deny Him with their works; being detestable and disobedient and unfit for any good work.
τοῖς is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, but has some usage in the LXX. BDAG glossses as ‘ahorrent’, ‘detestable’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, glossing as ‘disgusting’, ‘abominable’.
I've translated detestable because it both conveys the meaning of βδελυκτός (bdelyktos) and it also sounds better with "disobedient", which follows.
καὶ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
πρὸς is not discussed.
But you speak what accords with sound doctrine.
Σὺ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
ἃ is not discussed.
Note that LN/Swanson use the third person form instead of a traditional lexical form.
τῇ is not discussed.
Older men are to be sober minded, worthy of respect, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, in patience.
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT, once in the PE. BDAG glosses ‘old man’, ‘aged man’.
LSJ: LSJ is brief, glossing as ‘age’, ‘seniority’.
I've translated this as older men. This seems appropriate considering the context of the passage (instructions to different sorts of folks classified by age and gender).
This word occurs three times in the NT, all three times are in the PE.
This word occurs four times in the NT, three of them are in the PE. The other is in Php 4.8.
This word occurs four times in the NT, all four instances are in the PE.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, but it is simply the feminine form of πρεσβύτης (presbhytēs). BDAG glosses as ‘old(er) woman’, ‘elderly lady’.
LSJ: LSJ simply notes that πρεσβῦτις (presbytis) is the feminine of πρεσβύτης (presbhytēs).
I've translated as older women, to go with "older men" of the previous verse.
ὡσαύτως is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though an orthographical variant occurs in 3Ma 5.45. BDAG glosses as ‘behavior’, ‘demeanor’.
LSJ: The word occurs frequently in classical Greek. LSJ gives the overall gloss of ‘condition’, ‘state’, noting it is "not necessarily permanent", then provides seven different senses in which the word may be used. Sense 3 is the sense in Titus and in Jos. Antiq. 15.7.5.
I've translated as behavior, though I now think demeanor would be better.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though two instances occur in 4Ma (9.25, 11.20). BDAG glosses as ‘reverent’, ‘venerable’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘beseeming a sacred place, person, or matter’.
I've translated as reverent.
μὴ is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has two senses. The first is that of ‘enslave’. The second is a figurative extension, ‘cause to be like a slave’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, mostly.
I've trnaslated as enslaved, which I now think is bad. I don't have much of an idea what would be good, though. The concept of being enslaved to "much wine" seems weird -- wouldn't one simply be enslaved/held in bondage to "wine" in general?
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘teaching what is good’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘teacher of virtue’.
While καλοδιδάσκαλος (kalodidaskalos) is a hapax, it is not out of place or unexpected. The sense fits the context of the PE, which have a focus on sound doctrine and good teaching. I've translated as teaching what is good.
so that they might encourage the younger women to love their husbands, love their children,
ἵνα is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘encourage’, ‘advise’, ‘urge’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as "‘recall’ a person ‘to his senses’", ‘chasten’. Passively, ‘learn self-control’.
I've translated they might encourage. LSJ seems to imply a slightly harsher edge to the term (chasten vs. encourage).
τὰς is not discussed.
BDAG: The general sense is that of ‘new’ or ‘fresh’. BDAG is lengthy and will not be discussed in full here.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly lengthy.
I've translated younger women, which makes sense in the context. Note that Swanson lists νέα (nhea) as the lemma.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘having affection/love for a husband’. BDAG cites Jos. Ant. 18.159 in support.
LSJ: LSJ lists a few different glosses. First, ‘loving men’ of a country. Second, ‘loving masculine habits’. Third (interestingly) is ‘lewd’. Lastly is the NT sense, ‘loving one's husband’.
I've translated as love their husbands.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘loving one's children’. Note BDAG references LAE 315.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as love their children.
to be sober minded, pure, fulfilling their household duties, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God is not blasphemed.
The word σώφρων (sōphrōn) occurs four times in the NT, all are in the PE.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘busy at home’, ‘carrying out household duties’. Note that Metzger's Textual Commentary addresses this variant and the support for this reading.
LSJ: LSG glosses ‘working at home’.
I've translated this as fulfilling their household duties. This isn't the best translation.
It appears as if I've missed this word in my translation. Is it a modifier of fulfilling their household duties or a separate standing term in the list? NA27/UBS4 has no comma previous, thus implying the editors think ἀγαθός (agathos) goes with household duty?
BDAG: BDAG lists two major senses. The first is the general sense of ‘to subject’, ‘to subordinate’. There are many different contexts and nuances in which this word may be used. The second sense, much more specific, is that of ‘attach’, ‘append’, ‘subjoin’; which is apparently used frequently in official documents of adding one document at the end of another.
LSJ: LSJ agrees, generally, while of course providing examples of more specific citations.
I've translated as being subject.
τοῖς is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
Likewise urge the younger men to be reasonable
τοὺς is not discussed.
ὡσαύτως is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘be of sound mind’. The second is ‘be reasonable’, ‘sensible’, ‘serious’, ‘keep one's head’.
LSJ: LSJ provides a few glosses from Herodotus (‘to be of sound mind’, 3.35; ‘come to one's senses, learn moderation’, 3.64) as well as Heraclitus (‘to be temperate, moderate, show self control’; 112, 116).
I've translated as to be reasonable.
concerning all things, holding yourself as an example of good works, with purity of doctrine, dignity,
περὶ is not discussed.
σεαυτὸν is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘soundness’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘incorruption’.
I've translated as purity in regards to doctrine, though this may be a little strong. The sense of soundness of doctrine may be better. As I recall, I believe I shied away from that so as to not confuse other occurrences of sound or soundness in the PE with this (as their underlying Greek is completely different).
This word occurs three times in the NT; all three times are in the PE.
with sound preaching that is beyond reproach, so that the one opposed has nothing foul to say concerning us.
As this word is λόγος (logos), the translation preaching may be a stretch. But I think it is much more than simply "sound words" that Paul is requesting of Timothy. This phrase represents the message of encouragement from Titus to the churches in Crete; thus it really is the substance of what Titus is preaching and teaching these communities.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘not condemned’ (based on 2Ma 4.47) and also as ‘beyond reproach’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as beyond reproach.
ἵνα is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
ἐξ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is ‘opposite’, ‘against’, ‘contrary’; in the sense of direction. The second sense is much the same, only in relation to opposition.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated as opposed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is ‘to shame’, as in turn or provoke someone to shame. The second is ‘turn toward something/someone’, ‘have regard for’, ‘respect’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
Note that I missed this in my original translation. Perhaps a bit of homoearcheon based on the beginning of the successive words. Anyway, this should most likely be something like, " ... the one opposed may be put to shame, having nothing foul to say concerning us." Note that is a 2nd aorist passive subjunctive.
I'm confused on the domain for this word as 57.1 just doesn't seem to cut it, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
περὶ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two major senses. The first is ‘base’, as in low-grade. The second is ‘ordinary’ in the sense of being "relatively inferior in quality".
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated as foul.
Slaves are to be subject to their own masters in all things, to be well-pleasing, not speaking against their masters,
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘pleasing’, ‘acceptable’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as well-pleasing.
μὴ is not discussed.
not misappropriating their master’s property but showing all good faith, so that they may do credit to the teaching of our God and Saviour in all respects.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs three times inthe NT, only here in the PE. Other NT occurrences are in Acts 5.2-3, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. BDAG glosses as ‘keep back’; LN uses the gloss ‘embezzle’.
LSJ: LSJ is much more extensive, offering (in the sense discussed here) ‘put aside for oneself’, ‘appropriate’, ‘purloin’.
I've translated as misappropriating.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
I've followed BDAG's lead and translaed this as they may do credit in respect to the teaching.
ἐν is not discussed.
For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men
BDAG: This word occurs four times in the NT, two of those are in the PE (both in Titus). BDAG provides four senses. The first (LXX only, it seems) is that of ‘show’. Second is ‘give light to’. Third is ‘become apparent’. Fourth (both Titus refs are cited here) is ‘show oneself’, ‘make an appearance’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as has appeared in reference to the "grace of God".
γὰρ is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs five times in the NT, only here in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘saving’, ‘delivering’, ‘preserving’, ‘bringing salvation’.
LSJ: The LSJ article has interesting glosses. The standard glosses of ‘saving’, ‘delivering’, of course. But Aeschylus' "hope of seed ‘to preserve’ or ‘perpetuate’ the race". Sense 1.b. discusses use with the dative specifically, glossed as "‘bringing safety’ or ‘deliverance to’ ... " This is well attested.
I've translated bringing salvation.
instructing us, so that having renounced impiety and worldly desires, we might live self-controlled and justly and godly in this present age,
ἡμᾶς is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὰς is not discussed.
BDAG: This word ocurs twice in the NT; here and in Heb 9.1. BDAG provides two major senses (one for each instance). First (Heb 9.1) is that of ‘earthly’ or "pertaining to the earth as aphysical phenomenon". Second (this instance) is that of ‘worldly’. BDAG notes this is "pertaining to interests prevailing on earth ... with the implication of that which is as enmity with God or morally reprehensible".
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as worldly.
σωφρόνως is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
δικαίως is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
εὐσεβῶς is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῷ is not discussed.
νῦν is not discussed.
looking forward to the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and deliverer of us, Jesus Christ,
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. First is that of ‘take up’, ‘receive’, ‘welcome’. Second is that simply of ‘wait for’. Note that each sense has subarticles denoting how the word is used in certain grammatical contexts. The sense used here is 2b (w/accusative of thing).
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as loking forward. Note that this means "wait" in the sense that one must wait for that which is eagerly anticipated.
τὴν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
NA27 notes a variant (from NA25) where the word order of "Jesus Christ" was flipped (so, Christ Jesus).
who gave himself on behalf us, so that he himself might redeem us from all lawlessness and purify for himself a chosen people, zealous for good works.
ὃς is not discussed.
ἑαυτὸν is not discussed.
ὑπὲρ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT, and only here in the PE. Swanson considers it deponent; though BDAG lists it under the traditional form. Two senses are provided. First is that of ‘redeem’. Second is that of ‘set free’, ‘rescue’, ‘redeem’.
LSJ: The active sense has to do ‘release on receipt of a ransom’ or ‘hold to ransom’. Thus, passively, ‘to be ransomed’.
I've translated he himself might redeem. Obviously I took it as middle and not deponent. That could be a mistake.
ἡμᾶς is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The firs is more general, that of simply ‘lawlessness’. Second is a bit more specific, ‘a lawless deed’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘lawlessness’, ‘lawless conduct’, thus agreeing with BDAG.
It is interesting to note that BDAG classifies this instance as lawless deeds even though the recommended tranlsation is lawlessness. The word previous to ἀνομίας (anomias) is πάσης (phasēs), or "all", thus (according to BDAG) all lawlessness, or all lawless deeds. While I see the reasoning, I don't know that I agree. It seems strange to think of Jesus Christ redeeming us from a (albeit comprehensive and complete) inventory of sins or bad-doings; it seems less strange to consider Jesus Christ as having redeemed us from sin itself -- what Chambers would call a "heredity of sin", distinguishing between wrong-doing and wrong-being. Wrong-doing is the consequence of wrong-being. To speak in the lingo of the day, wrong-being is the "root cause" of wrong-doing. It seems better theology to consider Jesus Christ as addressing this root cause (wrong-being), which then has a positive effect on wrong-doing.
καὶ is not discussed.