TEXT [Commentary]

black diamond   B.   Reason: The Exemplary Mercy of God (3:3-8a)

3 Once we, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled and became slaves to many lusts and pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy, and we hated each other. 4 But—

When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love, 5 he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit.[*] 6 He generously poured out the Spirit upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior. 7 Because of his grace he made us right in his sight and gave us confidence that we will inherit eternal life.

8 This is a trustworthy saying,

NOTES

3:3 we hated each other. This translation combines what are two separate phrases in the Greek: We were (1) “despicable” (stugētos [TG4767, ZG5144]), and (2) “hating one another” (misountes allēlous [TG3404/0240, ZG3631/0253]). Louw and Nida (§88.204) define stugētos as “pertaining to being hated or regarded as worthy of being hated” (likewise BDAG).

3:4-7 Special paragraph formatting or punctuation, such as quotation marks, is not present in the Greek manuscripts. The NLT has set off vv. 4-7 as a special extract to reflect the labeling of this passage as a “trustworthy saying” in v. 8. It is likely this is a passage taken over from tradition, but Paul may have modified it for the present context.

3:4 kindness. This translates chrēstotēs [TG5544, ZG5983]: “the quality of being helpful or beneficial; goodness, kindness, generosity” (BDAG 1090). The noun is likewise used of God in Rom 2:4; 11:22; Eph 2:7 (cf. Pss 25:7 [24:7, LXX]; 31:19 [30:20]; 119:65, 68 [118:65, 68]). See above on 3:2 for the possible (indirect) influence of Matt 11:28-30.

love. This translates philanthrōpia [TG5363, ZG5792]: “affectionate concern for and interest in humanity, (loving) kindness” (BDAG 1055-1056; cf. Acts 28:2 for the only other NT use; the cognate adverb is used in Acts 27:3). Perhaps in this context we can transfer that meaning to the English derivative “philanthropy.”

3:5 new birth. Gr., palingenesia [TG3824, ZG4098]. Though the word is derived from ginomai [TG1096, ZG1181] (become) rather than gennaō [TG1080, ZG1164] (give birth to), it is here probably equivalent to “rebirth” and is thus related to imagery that is used in John 3:1-21; 1 Pet 1:3, 23; and often elsewhere in the imagery of spiritual birth (e.g., John 1:13; Jas 1:18; 1 John 2:29; 3:9) and sonship.

new life. The Greek is anakainōsis [TG342, ZG364] (renewal); it occurs only twice in the NT (here and Rom 12:2). But cognate verbs occur in 2 Cor 4:16; Col 3:10; Heb 6:6, and the idea of “newness” is pervasive in the NT; cf. Rom 6:4; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:23; Rev 21:5. It is possible that this word is separately dependent on the preposition “through” (through washing . . . and [through] renewal), suggesting two distinct perspectives on the one event (cf. Ezek 36:25-27; 1 Cor 6:11; Knight 1992:343-344). But without much difference in meaning, the two synonyms may both be dependent on washing (through washing of rebirth and of renewal).

3:7 that we will inherit. Lit., “that we might become heirs.” The aorist verb “become” (genēthōmen [TG1096, ZG1181]) is ingressive (Marshall 1999:324). The precise connection of this purpose clause to the preceding is not certain: either to the whole of 3:4-7 or to the verbs “saved” or “poured out.” If it attaches to the pouring out of the Spirit, then it may contribute to the development of the means of God’s saving act: The Spirit is poured out that the goal of salvation might be achieved. If it attaches to the verb “saved,” the purpose clause may amount to a restatement of salvation in different terms.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The Greek sentence of 3:3 begins with gar [TG1063, ZG1142] (for), which signals that this is the reason and rationale for the preceding teaching. The pronoun “we” (hēmeis [TG1473, ZG1609]) is emphatic. In this context, unlike Galatians 2:15 and elsewhere, this “we” makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile but groups all believers together. This also includes Paul (Acts 22:3; 26:5; 2 Cor 11; Phil 3:4-6). As a result this verse encompasses the whole of Romans 1:18–3:20. The word “once,” or “formerly” (pote [TG4218, ZG4537]) with synonyms, expressed or implied, is the usual way in which Paul signals both the wider categories of humanity before and after Christ and the individual realization of this history, which also has a “formerly” and a “but now” (e.g., Rom 11:30; Eph 2:13; 1 Tim 1:13-15; see the commentary on 1:10). At times this frame of reference can expand to contrast the pre-Creation plan of God and its hiddenness in past history with the “now” of its revelation and realization in history (e.g., 1:2-3; 2 Tim 1:9-10). For these schemata in the letters to Titus and Timothy see Towner 1986 (see also on 2:11; 2 Tim 3:1; 4:3; more generally see Ridderbos 1975:44-90; Dunn 1998:317-333, 461-498). In the context of Titus 3, however, the counterpart to “once, formerly” is not the “now”—that is, the present state of existence that results from what God has done—so much as the “when” (3:4), the turning point in history when God acted redemptively on their (and our) behalf. The focus for the moment is on what God did, how he did it, and what that must mean for the conduct of Cretan believers in relation to their compatriots.

What were we when God’s grace met us? A descriptive list follows:

  1. We were “foolish.” The Greek word is anoētos [TG453, ZG485], which means “unintelligent, dull-witted.” But the point is not intellectual capacity or potential. Nor is there any suggestion that people automatically become more intelligent and knowledgeable upon conversion, even about God and the Bible! Rather the statement ultimately relates to what theologians call noetic depravity (noetic = relating to the mind), the effects of sin on human rationality, especially in its response to God and the world as God’s. For an attempt at a fairly full statement on what this does and does not mean for unregenerated people, see Frame 1987:49-61. The point for the moment is twofold: Stop acting like this (since, by God’s grace and mercy, this is no longer who you are) and replace your arrogance toward unbelievers with a humble love (see 1:15; 2 Tim 2:23-26).
  2. We were “disobedient.” (The same word, apeithēs [TG545, ZG579], is used in 1:16 and 2 Tim 3:2.) The impulse of rebellion against God is a general characteristic of fallen humanity, but it is a theme in Titus due to the unruliness of the false teachers (1:10), which seems specifically to have affected the internal relations of households (1:6, 11; cf. 2 Tim 3:2) and of believers toward civil government (3:1).
  3. We were “misled,” which means we went astray because we were deluded. None of us were clever where it matters most. This word (planaō [TG4105A, ZG4414]) can be used metaphorically for straying (like sheep; 1 Pet 2:25), but it is not clear that this specific imagery is in mind here. The idea is broad enough to cover both being the victim of a deceiver (cf. 2 Tim 3:13) and being self-deceived. There may also be implied a sense of living without direction, of being lost. (For the same and related vocabulary in the letters to Titus and Timothy see 1:10; 1 Tim 2:14; 4:1; 6:10; 2 Tim 3:13.) Once again, recalling this is calculated to stimulate humble love toward others caught in the same trap that we were powerless to get ourselves out of.
  4. We “became slaves to many lusts and pleasures.” The idea of being a slave (from douleuō [TG1398, ZG1526]) to sin is classically formulated in Romans 6–7. The ideas of “lust” (epithumia [TG1939, ZG2123], in the negative sense of sinful desires—the idea is broader than sexual desire) and “pleasure” (hēdonē [TG2237, ZG2454], likewise in the negative sense)—are found elsewhere in the letters to Titus and Timothy at 2:12; 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:4, 6; 4:3. Here the scope is broad: The lusts and pleasures were poikilos [TG4164, ZG4476], that is, they were of various kinds or modes, diversified, manifold. The idea is not merely quantity but the infinite variety of kind. The nature of life without Christ is powerlessness in relation to sin. Because of what theologians call “common grace,” the results of this powerlessness have been held in check and have never fully manifested themselves (see 1:15). Yet within the individual and within the mass of humanity, sin, though it craves power and menaces with a cudgel, is weakness passing to weakness, a giving up and giving way; it is the process of death. The nature of existence after and with Christ is characterized by empowerment, enablement, the breaking of sin’s hold (cf. Rom 6–8; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 John 5:1-4), though the attainment of a life free from sins is not achieved (1 John 1:5–2:2).
  5. “Our lives were full of evil and envy.” The word for “evil” (kakia [TG2549, ZG2798]) is in this context “a mean-spirited or vicious attitude or disposition, malice, ill-will, malignity” (BDAG 500). Marshall (1999:311) casts it as “an evil of the mind, contrasted with ponēria [TG4189, ZG4504] as its manifestation.” Envy (phthonos [TG5355, ZG5784]) is “jealousy” (see 1 Tim 6:4; cf. Rom 1:29; Gal 5:21, 26).
  6. “We hated each other.” The phrase emphasizes the complete reciprocity of the response of humans toward one another. Enmity toward God has as its corollary enmity toward others, as Adam and Eve immediately discovered. The contrast with 2:2, 4-7, 9-10 is extremely sharp (cf. Jas 4:1-10; 1 John 3:11-18).

The picture painted in 3:3 is ugly and bleak. The point is not, however, to portray unbelievers in unflattering terms but to remind believers of who they were in their very identity before God’s saving act on their behalf. But what of those who experienced grace from the time they were infants? Many have grown up within the sphere of grace—within homes of Christian faith, within the church—and cannot remember consciousness without Christian faith. It makes no difference to Paul’s point, however, for ultimately he was not trying to describe a specific history—that of the Jewish people or that of the Cretans or the two combined—but our history, in which we all share.

It is significant that 3:4 begins with “But—‘When.’” See Ephesians 2:1-10 for a very similar thought. The word “but” is a translation of the little Greek word de [TG1161, ZG1254]. In this context it signals the undeserved, unexpected (in its full scope), and completely surprising historic event of God’s saving act in Christ. The inexorable slide to true, actual, total depravity that we feel in verse 3 is overcome and destroyed with this contrastive conjunction and what follows.

The content of verses 4-7 is called a trustworthy saying in verse 8 (see note on 3:4-7). The first statement is “When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love.” The verb for “revealed” is epiphainomai [TG2014A, ZG2210]; it signals the “epiphany Christology” that is characteristic of the letters to Titus and Timothy (see 2:11 and 2 Tim 1:10). In 2:11 “the grace of God has been revealed”; here it is his kindness and love. As in both of those passages the epiphany in question is the past-and-present manifestation of Christ as the embodiment of God’s saving work and presence. In this verse the accent is slightly heavier on the past act in history, though the description of verses 5-6 spills over to include Pentecost (Acts 2; cf. 1 Cor 12:13) and the ongoing extension of that work through the proclamation of the Good News (cf. 1:3, where the related verb, phaneroō [TG5319, ZG5746], is used).

Both “kindness” and “philanthropy” (see note on 3:4) are often mentioned together, and both are elsewhere human virtues. Philanthrōpia [TG5363, ZG5792] was particularly a characteristic expected of good rulers (see Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972:143-146, with references). Observing this, Dibelius and Conzelmann argue that these two words and several others in 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 reflect highly stylized language similar to that used in the praise of pagan rulers and deities, particularly in the Roman emperor cult (see above at 2:11). Since these associations are probable, it is likely that Paul was deliberately modeling his language on that background “in order to assert the more impressively the claims of Christianity” (Kelly 1963:251). Certainly this depiction of God’s behavior in salvation was meant to serve as a model for the behavior of the Cretans toward their compatriots.

The next line the NLT translates as “he saved us” (3:5). Since there is significance in the ordering of the Greek clauses, this requires a comment. The Greek delays the words “he saved us” until after the exclusion of works and the assertion of mercy. This has the effect of placing the allusion to human works between the assertion of God’s kindness and love on the one hand, and his mercy on the other, most emphatically rejecting any notion of merit in the human objects of God’s saving act. Further, verses 4-5a concern the basis of God’s salvation (exclusively his kindness, love, and mercy), and verses 5b-7 concern its means and goal. This assertion of the divine act of salvation is the hinge, standing in the middle:

But when the kindness and love of our Savior God appeared,

not by works in righteousness which we did,

but according to his mercy,

he saved us

through the washing . . .

in order that we might become heirs

The antecedent of the pronoun “he” in the statement “he saved us” is God. Scanning the letter as a whole this seems to fit in with a larger theocentric emphasis. Paul is the slave of God in 1:1 (versus the more usual “of Christ”); God is the one who promises and reveals and commissions in 1:2-3; the grace of God appear in 2:11; the kindness and love of God appear, and he saves and pours out the Spirit in 3:4-6; and God is the object of faith in 3:8. Plainly Christ is at the heart of this salvation (1:1, 4; 2:13-14; 3:6), but the letter’s Christocentricism is fitted into a theocentric plot line. It is possible that in some way this was a response to a Cretan syncretism that merged Paul’s preaching about God and Christ with indigenous religious views (see commentary on 1:2, 12). For example, Towner (2006:64 recalls that “in the background” of Crete’s culture “is a Cretan view of Zeus, alleged to have been born and to have died on Crete and to have received divine status for his benefactions to humans” (see note and commentary on 1:12). In this world, a man, by virtue of his benefactions, became a god. Paul, precisely through the theocentric emphasis of 2:11-14 and 3:3-8, “stresses that Christ, the grace of God [2:11], and the glory of God [2:13] ‘appeared’ among humans from above, not from below; and that he conferred gifts in this exalted role, instead of obtaining exaltation . . . in return for his gift/benefaction; and finally the life of virtue that characterizes God is a life that God communicates to his people” (Towner 2006:64). Thus, “Christology in Titus intentionally collides with the cultural myth by playing down the human features of Christology (e.g., 1 Tim 1:15; 2:5; 3:16) and insisting that Christ ‘appeared’ among humans from above, not from below, and conferred gifts (salvation, a life of virtue).” Certainly the effect of this theocentricism is an accentuation of the truth that it was precisely the grace, kindness, and love of God that appeared historically in Christ and in the preaching about him.

God saved us “not because of the righteous things we had done” (see above for the clause order of the Greek). The phrase refers to human actions that conform to what is right, that is, that conform to the norms of God’s revealed law. One thinks readily of Deuteronomy 7:7-8; 9:4-6. Within the flow of thought here in Titus, the immediate intent is not only to demolish any notion of pride and merit but to rouse God’s people to total enlistment into the praise and service of this grace and mercy that is for all people. Close to this line is the characteristic Pauline (and NT) theme that salvation is not by works. In the classic formulations of Romans and Galatians, this is specifically not by works of the law (e.g., Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16).

Especially since the time of the reformer Martin Luther, this has been interpreted as the exclusion of any attempt to claim righteousness on the basis of obedience to the law, a position framed in opposition—so it has been traditionally thought—to the Jewish opponents of Paul who felt that salvation depended on faithful observance of the Mosaic law (i.e., legalism). Beginning in 1977, however, E. P. Sanders mounted a persuasive defense of the thesis that Jews on the whole believed their salvation depended not on their obedience but on God’s gracious election of their nation. Obedience to the law was a mark of covenantal faithfulness (= “covenantal nomism”), not the basis of inclusion in it, and, due to the history of Israel from the time of her exiles to the first century AD, circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance in particular had become the leading external marks of this faithfulness to covenant.

As this has been developed, especially by James Dunn (in various writings, but see Romans 1–8, 9–16 [1988] and The Theology of Paul the Apostle [1998]), the chief problem that Paul faced was not legalism, as Luther thought, but nationalism. Salvation—which was entirely by God’s grace—was thought to be channeled exclusively through God’s covenant with Israel, so that Gentiles needed to be grafted into God’s covenant with the nation of Israel (cf. Acts 15:1). This meant that the Gentiles were to be required to obey the Jewish law, particularly in those ways that had come to symbolize what it meant to be within that community: circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance. The necessary Pauline corrective to this error was the argument that salvation came to both Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith, not on the basis of being a Jew. Of course for Paul’s opponents this would place in question the faithfulness of God to his covenantal promises to Israel, and according to this line of interpretation, this is precisely the reason for Romans 9–11. And the upshot of this Sanders-Dunn view is that while a misuse (i.e., nationalistic and exclusivistic use) of the Mosaic law is certainly excluded, there is a continuing, positive, regulating role for the law in the life of God’s people (in contrast to Luther, for whom grace and law stood in sharp opposition).

This has been a very influential view, spawning a variety of reworkings of Paul’s theology, but not all have been convinced. A fair number of scholars have contended, also convincingly, that the Sanders-Dunn school did not speak the final word on either first-century Judaism or Paul (see Carson, O’Brien, and Seifrid 2001–2004; Elliott 2000). Many of the latter would argue for something closer to the pre-Sanders reading, somewhat closer to Luther’s tradition.

This debate is important and ongoing, but too often left out of consideration are the letters that many scholars consider non-Pauline. Chief among these disputed letters are those written to Titus and Timothy, along with Ephesians (and Colossians for many). Whatever is true in the earlier letters, it is apparent that in the latter group Paul’s argument is more precisely opposed to human merit as such: Salvation is entirely by God’s grace and therefore not by human works but only through faith (e.g., here and Eph 2:8-9; 2 Tim 1:9; see especially Marshall 1984 and 1996). This would exclude any specific type of human work, such as works of the law, but it is the more general sense and foundational point that is meant here. This was always the substructure of Paul’s arguments, including in Romans and Galatians, but it is at least more overt and clear in these later letters.

What remains unclear here is whether the words of our present passage reject righteous works because there were none to be claimed (cf. 3:3!) or because all works, even “righteous” works, “fall short of God’s glorious standard” (Rom 3:23); the latter seems more likely, and this has been the theological view of many. Read in the most myopic sense, this passage would affirm that no human response whatsoever is called for: God saves humans in his mercy. Nevertheless, the Pauline idea of faith is present (e.g., 1:1, 4, 6; 3:8, 15), and the robust notion of faith expressing itself in love (Gal 5:6) is entirely at home here (2:2-14; 3:8). Both the “younger” Paul and the author of James would be quite satisfied with the older Paul’s letter to Titus.

Returning to the text, we read that God saved us “because of his mercy.” (See the commentary on 2 Tim 1:2; 1:9). Here “mercy” stands in parallel with God’s kindness and love in 3:4. Ultimately every honest heart will breathe a sigh of deep relief when the lies of our claims to merit are unmasked for what they are. Knowing that God saved us purely because of his mercy puts us on granite footing. There is no more self-deception, no more need of pretense, no longer any cause for despair and doubt. God, who was never fooled by our masquerades, has done it because he wanted to, simply because of his mercy, and he doesn’t change; it’s all over but the worshipful shouting.

The following line expresses the means by which God accomplished this salvation: “He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit.” God saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal that is associated with the Holy Spirit. (For the imagery of washing, see Ezek 16:9; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22.) Many take this as a reference to baptism (cf. 1 Pet 3:21) though that rite is probably in view only secondarily. The focus here appears to be on the divine act of salvation itself more than on a rite that signifies it. This is a washing of rebirth (palingenesia [TG3824, ZG4098]); that is, a washing brought about by rebirth. Palingenesia is used for cosmic renewal (after the Flood—1 Clement 9:4; in the future age of the Messiah—Matt 19:28), or for the experience of a complete change of life, a “re-genesis.” This and Matthew 19:28 are the only biblical uses of this word. The use of this kind of language in the pagan “mystery religions” of the first-century world has led many to suppose that the imagery came from those pagan experiences (Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972:148-150), but the word or concept was used widely in the ancient world for many different kinds of renewal (cf. Marshall 1999:319 [citing the dissertation of W.D. Mounce]; Towner 2006:781-782). Its use in 3:5 probably refers to the individual’s incorporation into the cosmic renewal with a view to its future completion (which includes resurrection; cf. Marshall 1999:320).

Paul also calls this regeneration a “renewing” (NLT, “new life”; see note on 3:5). Taken together these images (washing, rebirth, renewal) signify a clean break and departure from the life of sin and death and a transfer into the realm of purity and life, all of which is effected and empowered by the Holy Spirit. We are no longer slaves to sin (Rom 6–8)! Plainly salvation here is more than the flat concept of a spiritual, legal grant waiting to be cashed in at the time of the final judgment. It is already in the present the unfolding of the new creation.

It is the Holy Spirit who renews, which is the letter’s only mention of the third person of the Triune God. Yet Paul’s relative silence on the Holy Spirit in Titus is no basis for concluding the Spirit was less active or less important. Indeed just as the concentration on Jesus’ work in 2:14 spun off of the allusion to Jesus Christ in 2:13, so now 3:6 spins off of this mention of the Holy Spirit. The letter as a whole, centering on the salvation of God (the Father), includes the roles of the Son and the Spirit in our salvation.

The Holy Spirit was “generously poured out.” This signals the end-time movement of God (Joel 2:27-28; Zech 12:10; Acts 2), the new act of creation (Gen 1:2), and the indwelling of God’s spiritual temple (Eph 2:21-22). The allusion is to the historic event of Pentecost (Acts 2), into which individual believers are incorporated. The imagery of the pouring out of the Spirit derives from the Old Testament (see the texts of Joel and Zechariah above), where it designates that which comes from above; it may conceivably have been associated with Christian baptism. That the Spirit was generously (plousiōs [TG4146, ZG4455], “richly,” “abundantly”) poured out probably underscores further the disproportionate (cf. Rom 5:15-21) and unmerited mercy of God in salvation (3:4-5).

The Spirit was poured out “through Jesus Christ our Savior.” Note the wording “God our Savior” in 3:4. The interchange of “Christ” and “God” as “our Savior” is significant (cf. 1:3-4 and 2:13); it signals their divine unity. That the Spirit is poured out through Jesus alludes to his direct role in bestowing the Spirit (Luke 3:16; John 16:7; 20:22; Acts 1:5; 2:33; Eph 4:7-12) and to his work as the basis for the reception of the Spirit. These are sometimes posed as alternative ways of understanding the passage, but it is hard to see why in this context a choice between them should be necessary. The movement of salvation is Trinitarian in nature: God (the Father) through Jesus Christ (the Son) pours out the Holy Spirit. None acts without the other.

Titus 3:7 is the last verse of the trustworthy saying. The first half of this verse (being declared righteous) sums up 3:4-6, with the accent falling on “his grace.” The second half (becoming heirs) supplies the purpose for what God did as stated in all of 3:4-7a. The first thing we are told is that God has made us righteous by his grace. The Greek participle translated “made right in his sight” is from the verb dikaioō [TG1344, ZG1467], which is used frequently in Paul for the divine action in relation to justice and righteousness, a divine action in response to humans who believe in the Good News (Rom 3:20, 24, 26, 28; Gal 2:16-17). The verb itself can mean (1) to take up a just cause, (2) to vindicate, declare righteous, (3) to make free, make pure (in this sense: “cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid”), or (4) to prove to be right (BDAG 249). Of these four meanings, the second or third applies in the majority of the important Pauline uses, but the question has long been debated as to the fuller meaning of the term within Paul’s theology of salvation. Is this declaration of righteousness made on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (the Lutheran tradition of an alien righteousness), on the basis of our innocence because of Christ’s sacrifice (no notion of imputed righteousness), or on the basis of our own actual, lived-out righteousness (cf. Jas 2:20-26)? Is justification a past event or one that is anticipatory of the final and true verdict (which, in the nature of things, will be a verdict passed on a life of actual righteousness)? Moreover, does it communicate a status or a transformation; does it mean “make righteous” or “declare righteous”? Theologically, the questions are important, but the present passage does not elaborate enough to supply precise answers. On the whole, a past, forensic declaration simultaneous with salvation (3:5a) seems most likely, but then this idea is inseparable from the means of salvation as stated in 3:5b—namely, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Without giving a full discussion we can at least chart the general path to the main concerns: It could not be clearer in this letter that (1) salvation is based entirely on God’s mercy and grace (1:2-3; 2:11; 3:4-5a; with application to the false teaching and its disruptive effects), and (2) salvation results in a life characterized by actual, “lived-out” righteousness (2:2-14; 3:1-8). In the flow of thought of 3:1-11, that “lived-out righteousness” centers on the embodiment of God’s merciful love for all people.

The end result of our salvation is that we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life, which the NLT translates as “and gave us confidence that we will inherit eternal life.” The thought in the Greek is that we enter into the act of inheriting; we begin to become heirs. The idea of the “inheritance” (klēronomos [TG2818, ZG3101], klēronomia [TG2817, ZG3100]) is in several Pauline passages associated with the promise made to Abraham (Rom 4:13-14; Gal 3:18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30; probably Rom 8:17; possibly Eph 3:6). More than once it is used in a formulaic fashion for conditions placed on receiving the inheritance (1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5). It appears without definite derivation in Ephesians 1:14 (the Spirit is the deposit, down payment of our inheritance); 1:18; Colossians 1:12; and 3:24 (BDAG 548-549). The Spirit (3:5) is often linked with our inheritance (cf. Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 3:11–4:7; Eph 1:13-14). It is noteworthy that Paul did not say, “heirs of eternal life” (a possible but unlikely way of construing the grammar), but rather, lit., “heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” The latter phrasing picks up on 1:2 and 2:13, locating the inheritance within the framework of the eternal promise that has been realized historically in the epiphany of God’s grace and (yet) which we eagerly await (hope for) by living in a manner that realizes the intent of that grace.

Verses 4-7 are underscored with this statement: “This is a trustworthy saying” (3:8). The Greek expression is the same one used in 1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; and 2 Timothy 2:11. Used only in the Pastoral Epistles, it is found only in connection with brief passages, probably quoted or adapted from early church tradition.