Titus 2:13: Does “The Great God” refer to Christ?

Introduction

The phrase ‘our great God and saviour’ is commonly taken to refer to Jesus Christ. In the 1980 festschrift for F. F. Bruce,[1] M. J. Harris noted a few dissenting voices: Winer[2] (Grammarian); Alford[3] (Expositor’s Greek Testament) and half a dozen or so obscure commentators; but their focus was on breaking up the conjunction into two subjects. The longer expression is ‘the glory of our great God and saviour’ and other commentators have taken this to refer to Jesus Christ as God’s Glory.  The interpretative questions for the text are both grammatical and typological. Any Bible student will immediately recognize that ‘great God’ is distinctive, inviting an OT scriptural source (it doesn’t occur elsewhere in the NT). Equally, ‘the glory of our great God and saviour’ is unusual, again inviting consideration of precursor OT texts that have an emphasis on ‘glory’. The manifestation or the appearing of this glory suggests a reference to the event of the return of Christ. The interpretative questions come down to deciding whether ‘Jesus Christ’ is in apposition to ‘the glory of…’ or to ‘our great God and saviour’. This article argues that Jesus Christ is the Glory of God.

The word qeo,j is seldom applied to Jesus Christ, but the best candidate Pauline texts are disputed (Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13). It is the Gospel of John and Hebrews that have more generally accepted texts (John 1:1, 20:28; Heb 1:8), although commentators may put forward the case for other texts such as 2 Pet 1:1. Paul’s possible usage of qeo,j for Christ here would be rare and what we require is not an ad hoc explanation of each text, but an exegesis that integrates the text within its letter and Paul’s theology as a whole.

Granville-Sharp

Grammarians have disputed among themselves whether ‘our great God and saviour’ refers to one or two subjects: does Paul refer to God on the one hand and ‘our saviour’ Jesus Christ on the other? This question is debated within the terms of a grammatical rule known as the Granville-Sharp rule. D. B. Wallace states,

In Greek, when two nouns are connected by kai. and the article precedes only the first noun, there is a close connection between the two. That connection always indicates at least some sort of unity. At a higher level, it may connote equality. At the highest level it may indicate identity.[4]

Under this general rubric, Wallace cites what has come to be known as the Granville-Sharp rule:

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity or connexion, and attributes, properties or qualities, good or ill], if the article o`, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person…[5]

The syntactic structure here is called a TSKS structure. Wallace clarifies the restrictions on the rule to be that the second substantive expression has the same reference as the first substantive expression when neither is impersonal, neither is plural and neither is a proper name.[6] Wallace considers the 80 constructions in the NT (other than ones involving Christ) and finds the rule to be valid. For example,

(1) Nouns

o` ui`o.j th/j Mari,aj kai. avdelfo.j VIakw,bou kai. VIwsh/toj kai. VIou,da kai. Si,mwnoj
the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon

(2) Participles

~O katalu,wn to.n nao.n kai. evn trisi.n h`me,raij oivkodomw/n
The destroyer of the temple and the builder in three days

(3) Adjectives

~Umei/j de. to.n a[gion kai. di,kaion hvrnh,sasqe
You denied the holy one and the just

Wallace states that the rule applies to two christologically significant texts – Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1.

Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the Glory of our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ… Tit 2:13 (RSV revised)

prosdeco,menoi th.n makari,an evlpi,da kai. evpifa,neian th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the Righteousness of our God and saviour, Jesus Christ… 2 Pet 1:1 (RSV revised)

Sumew.n Pe,troj dou/loj kai. avpo,stoloj VIhsou/ Cristou/ toi/j ivso,timon h`mi/n lacou/sin pi,stin evn dikaiosu,nh| tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n kai. swth/roj VIhsou/ Cristou/(

The two texts have a similar construction, although it is interesting to note that there is a textual variant for 2 Pet 1:1 which has kuri,ou for qeou/ (Greek, Latin, Coptic and Syriac witnesses, including Sinaiticus). The standard critical text and the majority text do not follow the variant  or note it in their apparatus.[7] Textual critics reject the variation because kuri,ou looks like a harmonization and is easier to explain;[8] there are no significant textual variants for Tit 2:13.[9]

Wallace concludes that for Tit 2:13, “there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.”[10] His conclusion is implicitly taking VIhsou/ Cristou/ to be in apposition with tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n. However, there is no grammatical reason why the apposition cannot be with th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n. Wallace doesn’t argue against this latter choice. The same choice applies to 2 Pet 1:1 – VIhsou/ Cristou/ could be in apposition with tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n kai. swth/roj or dikaiosu,nh| tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n kai. swth/roj. The question is whether Jesus Christ can be said to be Glory of God or the Righteousness of God.

There is a further point to make regarding Wallace’s conclusion. If Tit 2:13 uses qeo,j of Christ, an interpreter has to argue that such a use is an affirmation or presupposition of ‘deity’. This term is now theologically loaded with centuries of Christian doctrine and we cannot afford to be anachronistic in our analysis of Paul, should he have used qeo,j of Christ.

The Granville-Sharp rule applies to the expression ‘our God and Saviour’, but it does not apply to the longer expression ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’, because ‘Jesus Christ’ is a proper name and in a relation of apposition to a prior substantive expression. The two substantive expressions in the frame for the apposition are ‘our great God and Saviour’ and ‘the Glory of our great God and Saviour’ Both candidates are in the right case for a simple apposition.[11] So, either ‘the Glory’ is defined to be Jesus Christ or ‘our great God and Saviour’ is defined to be Jesus Christ.

It is at this point that Winer and Alford offer an alternative analysis. Wallace states that Winer “offers no real grammatical arguments”[12] but this is not entirely fair. Winer confesses that “dogmatic conviction” led him to believe that Paul could not have called Christ ‘the great God’ and so he sought to show that there was no grammatical obstacle to taking kai. swth/roj h`mw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/  “by itself”.[13] Winer makes three points:

1. A second article before swth/roj is not required to give a separate subject.
2. swth/roj h`mw/n would not have an article.
3. swth,r would be anarthrous when prefixed to an appositional designation that is a proper name.

The second and third points are expressed by Winer in his statement, “The article is omitted before swth/roj because this word is defined by the genitive – h`mw/n, and because the apposition precedes the proper name…”, and for the first point he refers readers in a footnote to section 19.2 of his grammar for examples that show an article is often omitted where the noun comes before a genitive.[14] Winer’s translator, W. F. Moulton, thinks that this is a grammatical question.

The critical point of disagreement between Wallace, as a modern defender of Granville-Sharp for Tit 2:13, and Winer is whether, as a matter of syntax, kai. swth/roj h`mw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/ is a syntactical unit on its own, meaning that therefore kai. swth/roj h`mw/n is not part of a TSKS unit.   Winer is not limiting the scope of Granville-Sharp because he doesn’t express an additional general condition that needs to be satisfied for the rule to apply. His points are centred on the lexeme, swth,r.  This is why it can be said Winer’s arguments are not grammatical. Winer’s challenge is that Tit 2:13 does not have a TSKS unit  for the Granville-Sharp rule to apply. If it did have a TSKS unit, we could then check that the second substantive expression was not impersonal, plural or a proper name, and affirm by the rule that the unit referred to the same subject.

The dispute here is all about the unit of analysis: what are the syntactical units in Tit 2:13? Do we have a TSKS unit or do we have two units? Winer’s case is based negatively on the lexical characteristics of swth,r in relation to the article, the possessive pronoun and appositional designations involving a proper name, but positively only on doctrinal considerations.  For Winer and Alford, the correct translation of Tit 2:13 is therefore “the great God and our saviour, Jesus Christ” – two subjects.[15]

The first argument in favour of there being a single TSKS unit is the scope of the verb ‘to appear’. Paul is not saying, ‘the appearing of the glory of the great God and (the appearing of) our saviour, Jesus Christ’. His use of the verb elsewhere is restricted to the ‘appearing’ of Christ (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1, 8). Thus, he is saying ‘the appearing of the glory of …’ and, in consistency with his usage elsewhere, defining this glory in apposition to be ‘Jesus Christ’. This avoids Harris’ objection that “it would be strange for any NT writer to conjoin an impersonal or quasi-personal subject (do,xa) and a distinctly personal subject (swth,r) in a double epiphany.”[16]

C. F. D. Moule canvasses the option of treating the conjunction as epexegetical – ‘the glory of our great God, namely, our Saviour Jesus Christ’. He calls this an “ingenious but highly improbable alternative”,[17] although he doesn’t measure the improbability. It sidesteps the point made earlier about the scope of the verb, since it too doesn’t read a double epiphany. Is the kai then epexegetical?

A second argument in favour of there being a single TSKS unit scuppers the epexegetical reading of kai.. This is simply that Paul has just referred to ‘God our saviour’ i.e. God the Father (Tit 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; although the Greek syntax is different).[18]

A third argument is that the combination swth,r h`mw/n is generally articular in the Pastorals (1 Tim 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:6 except 1 Tim 1:1 and Tit 2:13).  If there were two subjects, why isn’t it articular in Tit 2:13? It doesn’t have to be, but isn’t this pattern suggestive?[19]

A fourth, perhaps weaker, argument is that there is a parallelism in the verse that suggests we have a TSKS unit:

th.n makari,an evlpi,da kai. evpifa,neian th/j do,xhj
tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n

The parallel structure in each case is article-adjective-noun-conjunction-anarthrous noun-genitive. What we look for is the blessed hope which we will see in the appearance of a glory. Similarly, the great God we look for is a saviour.

Our conclusion is therefore that there isn’t anything in the syntax that would allow us to exclude ‘our great God and Saviour’ from Granville-Sharp: ‘the great God and saviour of us’ is one subject, the Father.

However, Moule’s alternative is in the right ball-park. We don’t need to treat the conjunction as epexegetical in order to hold that ‘Jesus Christ’ is in apposition to ‘glory’. F. J. A. Hort (of Westcott and Hort fame) took this view, giving the translation “the appearing of him who is the glory of the great God and Saviour”. Hort thought there was an allusion to the Shekinah Glory with ‘Glory’ being almost a title of Christ.[20]

Apart from the contested Rom 9:5, no other passage in Paul has qeo,j connected directly with VIhsou/j Cristo.j as an attribute. This supports our reading that ‘Jesus Christ’ is in an appositional relationship with ‘the Glory of…’.[21]

The Glory of God

The principal argument for Hort’s view is the parallel between v. 11 and v. 13,

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men…awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ, Tit 2:11-13 (RSV revised)

VEpefa,nh ga.r h` ca,rij tou/ qeou/ swth,rioj pa/sin avnqrw,poij
… prosdeco,menoi th.n makari,an evlpi,da kai. evpifa,neian th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/

The appearance of the grace of God was fulfilled in the first advent; similarly, the appearance of the glory of God will be fulfilled in the second advent, and both are the fulfilled in the appearance of Jesus Christ. The parallel to strike is between grace=Jesus Christ and glory=Jesus Christ, supported by the additional correspondence of salvation/saviour. Harris notes[22] this parallel and it is the reason why th/j do,xhj is not adjectival ‘the glorious appearing’ (KJV) but substantive ‘the Glory’. He also notes the argument of E. Abbot that the reference of ‘God’ in v. 11 must be the same as that in v. 13.[23] Paul is doing no more than reflect,

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matt 16:27 (KJV); Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26

This is not to say that Jesus does not have his own glory (Matt 25:31; John 1:14; 12:41; 17:24; Jms 2:1; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:13) or that the Father and Son do not have glory together (John 17:3); it is just to say that Jesus comes in the glory of the great God, our saviour.

We should also add the parallelism in Tit 3:4 to our data,

But when the kindness and philanthropy of God our Savior appeared…

o[te de. h` crhsto,thj kai. h` filanqrwpi,a evpefa,nh tou/ swth/roj h`mw/n qeou/…

This appearance of God’s kindness and love towards man is the appearance of Jesus Christ. The parallelisms of Tit 2:11 and 3:4 are decisive in linking the appositional ‘Jesus Christ’ to ‘the Glory’ rather than ‘God and Saviour’ in v. 13.

What we have in Tit 2:13 is a linguistic hypostatization[24] of the glory of God, so that ‘the Glory’ is said to appear in the return of Jesus Christ. That Paul thinks of God as a ‘God of glory’ is a given (Rom 3:23; 5:2; 6:4; 9:23; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17).

A counter-argument to this exegesis is that the relative clause of v. 14 defines the work of Jesus Christ as that of a saviour and that therefore we should treat ‘Jesus Christ’ as in apposition to ‘our God and Saviour’; Jesus is, after all, the saviour (2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 3:6).

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Tit 2:14 (KJV)

However, v. 13 is not about the sacrifice of Christ (the first advent); it is about looking for the blessed hope (the second advent) – this hope (another linguistic hypostatization)  is defined by Paul to be Christ: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, who is our hope” (1 Tim 1:1). That Paul can use swth,r of God and Christ in close proximity without confusion is shown in Tit 3:4-6.

Paul relates Christ to what we might call other abstract attributes of God:

….resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery—Christ. Col 2:2

eivj evpi,gnwsin tou/ musthri,ou tou/ qeou/( Cristou/(

This example has textual variants which show that copyists tried to clarify the Greek; hence the Majority Text is different to the critical text given above. Cristou/ is in apposition to tou/ musthri,ou and Paul’s point is that Christ is the content of the mystery of God.[25]

Another example is the identity between Christ and the power and wisdom of God:

But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Col 1:24

auvtoi/j de. toi/j klhtoi/j( VIoudai,oij te kai. {Ellhsin( Cristo.n qeou/ du,namin kai. qeou/ sofi,an\

Paul talks of the ‘appearance/manifestation’ of ‘the glory’. This is the language of God-manifestation, but it is the glory of God embodied in Jesus Christ. God’s presence with Israel in the wilderness in the cloud, over the tabernacle and on Mount Sinai is spoken of in terms of the ‘glory of Yahweh’ appearing (Exod 16:9-10; 24:15; 40:34). This connects with John in his gospel stating ‘the word was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us’ (John 1:14).

Seeing the glory of the Lord on Sinai or over the tabernacle in a fiery cloud is not the same as seeing the glory of the Lord in Jesus, a man. A comparable presence of God the Father in Jesus is clear, but is the ‘glory of God’ ever presented in anthropomorphic terms in the Old Testament? On Sinai, God manifested himself to Moses in terms of his glory passing Moses by whilst he was placed in the cleft of a rock. Moses was allowed to see the ‘back’’ of God but not his ‘face’. This is certainly an anthropomorphic presentation of God but in terms of ‘his glory’.[26]

Similarly, Isaiah “saw the Lord” sitting upon the throne. In the gospel of John, this vision is applied to Christ when John says, “he saw his glory, and spake of him” (John 12:41). Ezekiel’s chariot-throne vision also has “the likeness of the appearance of a man” surrounded by the glory of the Lord (Ezek 1:26-28). Later, this Glory stands on a plain and Ezekiel prostrates himself while ‘the Spirit’ speaks with him (Ezek 3:23-24). We might well identify the glory of God manifested in an angelic spirit in this description.[27]

The departure of the glory of the Lord from the temple is significant (Ezek 10:4, 18-19, 11:22-23. This is paired with a vision of the return of that glory to the temple (Ezek 40:1; 43:1-5). This departure-return visionary framework is the basis for Paul’s “looking for the appearance of the glory of the great God and saviour” (Tit 2:13), a glory now centred in Christ.

Great God and Saviour

Paul uses the expression ‘great God’. Is this more likely to denote Christ or God the Father? Scriptural usage is, of course, for the one God of Israel (lwdg la, ~yhla – Deut 7:21; 10:17; Ezra 5:8; Neh 1:5; 8:6; 9:32; Ps 77:13; 95:3; Dan 2:45; 9:4). Is Paul quoting a particular text or invoking a scriptural tradition? Either way, this background[28] is a strong reason for saying that in Titus’ ‘our great God’ is the Father. God is great because he fights on behalf of his people, he is mighty and terrible towards the enemies of Israel. But he is also great because he does great works and wonders. Finally, he is great because he is the only God in contrast to the many gods and lords of the nations (cf. 1 Tim 6:15-16).

Equally, there is a common scriptural tradition in calling God a saviour, particularly in times of threat and in times of deliverance. This association for ‘Saviour’ fits with those for ‘great God’. For example, “For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour” (Isa 43:3); “O God of Israel, the Saviour” (Isa 45:15); and “A just God and a Saviour” (Isa 45:21). One text has ‘great’, ‘God’ and ‘Saviour’ – “They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt” (Ps 106:21). Is Paul quoting a particular text or invoking a scriptural tradition? Either way, this background is a strong reason for saying that Titus’ ‘God and Saviour’ is the Father.[29]

Jesus

Harris argues for the common reading that ‘Jesus Christ’ is in apposition to ‘our God and Saviour’. A problem with his arguments, however, is that he is attacking those commentators that divide ‘God and Saviour’ into two subjects and we agree with him on that score. There is, accordingly, only one argument that partly attacks our position that there is only one subject, the Father. This is that it is probable Paul is borrowing and applying a title from the current terminology of pagan apotheosis to Christ, because (a) he uses several semi-technical terms associated with royal epiphany; (b) Paul had experienced the crowd at Ephesus call out ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’ (Acts 19:28, 34).[30]

The argument is essentially that Paul is opposing the use of the divine title ‘God and Saviour’ as it was applied to human rulers.[31] The question is: suppose this hypothesis is correct, is he using the title for the Father or for Christ? The title was used for rulers and in the mystery cults, and these two contexts split the hypothesis into two: if Paul has mystery religions in mind, he is applying the title to the Father; if he has the cult of the ruler in view, he is applying the title to Christ. The echo with ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’ supports a polemic against mystery religions.

Conclusion

The scriptural case for reading ‘Jesus Christ’ as ‘the Glory’ is decisive. If we compare Titus with Hellenistic/Palestinian Judaism or Greek religions, the evidence points in two directions – divine and human. Whether the Spirit in Paul is being polemical with such materials is uncertain. The lack of material and more overtly engaging material counts against socio-historic polemics in Titus. Matching odd phrases to contemporary ideas doesn’t really amount to much in the way of a polemical intent or genre.