2

In Titus 1:3, among other passages, we find “σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ“ used as a singular title “Our Savior God/God our Savior”.

However in Titus 2:13 we find “σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” is generally rendered as an appositive, “Our Savior, Jesus Christ”. Is it possible this phrase is a singular title “Our Savior Jesus Christ” rather than the appositive?

8
3

By way of clarification, "God", "Savior", "Lord", "Christ" are all titles. The only proper name in Titus 2:13 is "Jesus".

The grammar of these two texts are VERY clear:

  • Titus 1:3 - τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ = The Savior of us, God. In this case "God" is in apposition to "our Savior"
  • Titus 2:13 - τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ = the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ. In this case, "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to "our great God and Savior".

Thus, God has the title, "Savior" which agree with Isa Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21, 1 Tim 1:1, etc.

Further, Jesus Christ has the title "God and Savior" as well and agree with:

2 Tim 1:10 - And now He has revealed this grace through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and illuminated the way to life and immortality through the gospel,

See also 2 Peter 1:1, 3:18, Titus 1:4, etc.

Titus 2:13 is a good example of what Daniel Wallace in his book, "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" 9GGBB) calls the TSKS rule (sometimes also called the Granville Sharp Rule). See page 270ff of GGBB.

11
  • 1
    Unfortunately, you have missed the entire point of Titus 2:13 as too many seem to do. "the appearing of the glory of our great God..." This is not making Jesus God, he is the glory of God the Savior and that is what will be appearing in the person of Jesus.
    – steveowen
    Nov 20 '21 at 12:18
  • 2
    @steveowen - grammarians beg to differ.
    – Dottard
    Nov 20 '21 at 12:51
  • 2
    Agreed and up-voted. The literal text reads the great God and Saviour of us . . . The possessive 'of us' refers to both 'great God' and 'Saviour'. The glory is both of 'the great God' and also of 'the Saviour'. The Greek can mean nothing other than that one Person is in view and one glory is in view. But only those who are in the secret of Deity can also understand that since 'God' is involved, there is a necessity (by unity) of a broader involvement. The grammar is abundantly clear : but also so is the unity of divinity.
    – Nigel J
    Nov 20 '21 at 13:57
  • 1
    @Any_mouse - you have misunderstood - "God" and "Savior" are the two titles to which the TSKS rule applies. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to the one person, "God and Savior".
    – Dottard
    Nov 20 '21 at 19:37
  • 2
    @Dottard thank you. This actually answers my exact question. I don’t think I misunderstood, because this is what I was trying to ask. Unless I also misunderstand your response here. So you are saying it is required that “Jesus Christ” be in apposition to something? There is no way that “Savior Jesus Christ” is viewed as a singular substantive? For example, you find βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα treated as a single title “king Agrippa”, not appositive “king, Agrippa”. But with a hypothetical TSKS “the consulate and king Agrippa”. It would need to be “the consulate and king, Agrippa”?
    – Any_mouse
    Nov 20 '21 at 20:36
-2

My answer to this question was copied and pasted from https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/11/titus-213.html

Titus 2:13 - The Great God "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." -- Titus 2:13, New American Standard

This scripture is often listed, sometimes paralleled with scriptures such as Isaiah 45:21, as proof that Jesus is Jehovah God Most High., the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Does this scripture actually give proof of such?

First of all, there is nothing in the scripture about three persons in one God, nor is there any scripture that identifies Jesus as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; such ideas have to imagined using the spirit of human imagination, formed into dogma, then the assumed dogma has to be added to, and read into the scripture.

Titus 2:13 prosdechomenoi teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian AWAITING THE HAPPY HOPE AND MANIFESTATION 4327 3588 3107 1680 2532 2015 tees doxees tou megalou theou kai swteeros heemwn OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND OF SAVIOR OF US 3588 1391 3588 3173 2316 2532 4990 1473_8 christou ieesou OF CHRIST JESUS, 5547 2424 -- Westcott & Hort Transliterated Interlinear

This scripture can possibly be translated different ways, depending upon the translator's understanding of what is being said, or bias. Albert Barnes, although he contends that Jesus is being called the great God in Titus 2:13, does state: "It is uncertain whether these words should be read together thus, 'the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior,' or separately, as of the Father and the Son, 'the glory of the great God, and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.'" Since, Jesus is definitely NOT the "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6), the correct procedure should be to view Titus 2:13 from that perspective. The Greek form for "God" above is transliterated as "THEOU", a form of "THEOS."

Nevertheless, according to Hebraic usage, the words from which forms of the Greek word for Theos are translated from the Hebrew also are used in a more general sense of Might, Strength. The Christian certainly receives his strength through Jesus. Of course, Jesus is the One of Power sent by the only true God, Jehovah, who gives Jesus his power, and Jesus is the savior sent by the only true God, Jehovah. Jesus is theos -- deity, a powerful one -- and is therefore true theos in a secondary sense, but not in the sense of being the only true Supreme Being, the Source of all might. In the Bible, only the God and Father of Jesus is spoken of as having the attribute of being "one God" of whom are all. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Even as the saints are called theoi, so it would be proper to call Jesus theos, as the one given power and authority by Jehovah. -- John 10:34,35; 17:1,3 -- See also Psalm 82.

Additionally, "the Lord Jesus Christ" could be referring to the word "glory". Jesus will indeed, in effect, come as "the glory" of his God and Father (Ephesians 1:3), as he is the "sun of righteousness." -- Malachi 4:2, and Jesus comes in the glory of his God and Father. -- Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:27.

Nevertheless, we highly doubt that it was Paul's intent to speak of Jesus as the "great God."

We present below several translations of Titus 2:13 that render this verse in various ways:

"while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". -- New Revised Standard Version

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;" -- The Webster Bible

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" -- King James Version

looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory (Footnote: 1) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; -- Footnote: (1) Or of our great God and Saviour ) -- American Standard Version

Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, -- Douay-Rheims

expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; -- Living Oracles

looking for the blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Life-giver, Jesus the Messiah; -- Murdock

Prepared to welcome the happy hope and forthshining of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus, -- Rotherham

Regarding Titus 2:13 Paul S. L. Johnson states Tit. 2:13 is also alleged as a proof of the trinity by some, who to find in their thought, render the words in question as follows: 'the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.' This rendering is not preferred by a majority of learned trinitarians, though it is a possible rendering. Rendered as in the A.V., A.R.V. text, and a majority of modern translations, not our Lord Jesus but the Father is here called God. The fact that, properly translated, Paul never calls Jesus God, but always contrasts Him as Lord with the Father as God, is decisive on which is the right translation. Again, the connection (v. 11) naturally suggests that the bright shining is of the Father and of the Son. St. Paul's use of language, calling the Father God over 500 times and never once calling Jesus God, must rule in this case as to which is the right translation. Force, too, is added to our view by the words [A.R.V.] the glory of the Great God." -- Ephiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 1, God, pages 525,526. -- (One should note that this was written back in the 1930s, before many of the modern translators had sought to render this verse to read in favor of the trinitarian view.) We should also note that Titus 3:6 definitely shows that it is the Father who shed the holy spirit "through Jesus Christ our Savior." And we also can look at Titus 1:4: "to Titus, my true child according to a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God, the Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ, our Savior." (World English Bible translation) Here Paul clearly distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus. "God" in Titus 1:4 does not mean three persons, it means one person, and Jesus is not included as "God". This gives further evidence that Titus 2:13 does not reflect a triune God, or that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The revealing (epiphaneia) spoken of in Titus 2:13 probably refers to the time when the glory of Jehovah is revealed to all flesh, not to Jesus' appearance (Phaneroo) at his first advent, as spoken of in 1 Timothy 3:16. -- Isaiah 40:5; 11:9; Psalm 72:19.

The millennial kingdom of Christ will not only be the time of revealing of the glory of God and Christ, but also of the seed of Abraham, the chosen sons of God of this age. -- Romans 8:19; Galatians 3:26,29; 1 John 3:2.

Additionally, Titus 2:14 adds "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." This scripture shows that the man Jesus -- not God -- "gave" himself. Who did the man, Jesus Christ, 'give himself' to? To God himself! (1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:24; 10:10) Thus a little reasoning indicates that Jesus is not the same as the unipersonal God to whom he gave himself.

See also: Barry Hardy's comments at: https://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19980706.191409.3222.0.barryhardy%40juno.com

But someone argues: The rule of Greek grammar that applies here is that if there are two nouns separated by the word "kai" (and), then if each noun has an article with it, they refer to different things. But if only one of them has an article, they refer to the same thing. In these cases, we have two nouns ("God" and "Saviour"), separated by the word "kai", with only one of them having an article. According to this "rule" of Greek grammar, these two words refer to the same person.

What is often called the rules of grammar are not inherently rules of a language, but are made so by men who create such rules based on study of general usage. Such "rules" usually always have exceptions, which is also true of this "rule", as seen in the Septuagint of Proverbs 24:21. Granville Sharp is attributed to formulating the above rule which he presented in a book in 1798, long after Paul and Peter had written their letters. It would be an assumption to think that Paul had such a rule in mind when he wrote the above to Titus.

Nevertheless, according to Sharp's 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." (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3.) Sharp's sole purpose in his study was to promote the idea that Jesus is Jehovah, so he did not include "things" in his rule, thus he narrows his study to substantives (that is., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. He states that "there is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions ." In other words, he found a way to exclude or provide exceptions to his rule so as to make it appear that the rule would support the idea that several passages are saying that Jesus is Jehovah God Almighty.

Conversely, Sharp claimed that if two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first. -- Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.}" But Sharp came up with exceptions to this rule so that it would not apply to John 20:28.

Since writing the above, we have been given some quotes of various scholars concerning Titus 2:13, that we believe would be beneficial here: The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately." -- A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, (Volume # was not supplied), by James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner. Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule [Sharp's] is really decisive. -- Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965, by Nigel Turner It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the NT, to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception,... -- A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, by Alexander Buttmann The grammatical argument ... is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before "Savior" in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. -- The Expositor's Greek Testament, by N. J. D. White Let us look at an interlinear of Titus 2:13: prosdechomenoi teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian AWAITING THE HAPPY HOPE AND MANIFESTATION 4327 3588 3107 1680 2532 2015 tees doxees tou megalou theou kai swteeros heemwn OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND OF SAVIOR OF US 3588 1391 3588 3173 2316 2532 4990 1473_8 christou ieesou OF CHRIST JESUS, 5547 2424 Westcott & Hort Greek / English Interlinear NEW TESTAMENT coded with Strong's numbers (as obtained from the Bible Student's Library DVD) It should be obvious from the above that the Greek structure here is highly complex. First we have an article before two nouns -- two things -- connected by kai for which the Christian is awaiting -- teen makarian elpida kai epiphaneian -- the happy hope and manifestation. It is apparent that in this verse that there are two things being waited for -- "hope" and "manifestation", although one article is present, both of which are related to "glory" that is to be manifested at that time -- the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. (Compare Romans 8:19,24,25) The manifestation is followed by a phrase describing what the manifestation is: "of the glory of the great God and of Savior of us, Jesus Christ." We again have an article used of the possessive; the article before glory is of the great God and Savior of us. Thus the "glory" is applied to two nouns, "God" and "Savior". It is speaking of the glory of God and it is speaking of the glory of our Savior. As one reads this, we don't think anyone would see in this that the reference to the great God and the savior are speaking of one person, except that their minds had been preconditioned to think of the expression in such terms. We certainly don't think Paul was trying to structure his sentence in such a way to leave the impression that Jesus is God Almighty. Regardless of whether one would think that THEOS in Titus 2:13 is applied to Jesus or not, one would still have to call upon the spirit of human imagination to think that it means that Jesus is the Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And, if one wishes to think of trinity regarding this verse, he still has to use the spirit of human imagination so to think that THEOS means the second alleged person of the alleged triune God, which God is never once mentioned in the Bible.

There is even more to this, for let us read the verses before:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; -- King James Version.

Now we know that "grace" or "favor" did not make some physical appearing, but rather the knowledge through Christ concerning the grace of God appeared to all the men being spoken of, that is, Christians, both Gentile and Jew, teaching them how to live in this evil world while they awaited the happy hope and manifestation of the glory. Thus Paul is summing up the work of the first advent and the second advent, as to what is revealed at both events. The parallel between the advents is "grace" and "glory". The grace is of God through Christ. (Titus 1:3) The "glory" is of the great God and our Savior, the latter who is then identified as Jesus Christ. Thus the whole idea is the glory of our great God and the glory of our Savior, which glory we are awaiting the manifestation of.

As seen from Westcott & Hort's Interlinear, the Greek has the possessive heemwn, which appears after swteeros, which, according to the usual construction, would also demand an article before that which is possessed, that is, swteeros. There is no definite article before swteeros, so we go looking for a definite article earlier, which we find before megalou theou, "great God". Then this article is applied to both "great God" and "Savior." Since there is no separate article applied to Savior, some wish to conclude that one person is referred to as both God and Savior. Still, there we have no reason to think that this was Paul's intention, and there is certainly nothing definite in this conclusion. Sharp himself had to make exceptions to his rules in order to seemingly narrow them down for his purposes.

In view of the context, we do not believe that Paul here was constructing this sentence this way to show that Jesus is God Almighty, regardless of how one applies or makes exceptions for Sharp's rule in this verse. One still has to use the spirit of human imagination to think that it means that Jesus is Jehovah, and further use of the spirit of human imagination to think that it means one person of a triune Jehovah. It does appear more likely that he just wrote what seemed to him to be a way of saying that we are awaiting the appearance of both the glory of the great God and of our Lord Jesus. Nevertheless, even if Jesus is being called 'Great God", we should connect the phrase "Great God" here with the phrase with the more general Hebraic usage of such, that is, of Jesus as the Great Mighty One, rather than to call upon the spirit of human imagination so as to think that Paul was saying that Jesus is the Most High. This application would still not make Jesus into God Almighty, but as a Great One of Power, as made so by the Almighty Jehovah.

Then there is something else to consider concerning Titus 2:13 and Sharp's rules. As noted above, he provided exceptions to his rules if the nouns were proper nouns. Some argue that "God" and "Savior" in Titus 2:13 are semantic equivalents to such proper names, as titular names, and therefore Sharp's exception to his rule should apply to this verse.

Some claim that only Jehovah can be savior, and thus since Jesus is referred to as savior in Titus 2:13, that means that Jesus is Jehovah. Several scriptures show that besides (or apart from) Jehovah there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11; 45:11; Hosea 13:4) None of these scriptures, however, say that Jehovah cannot sent someone who is not himself as a savior, for the Bible records many whom Jehovah sent as saviors to Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. These saviors whom Jehovah sent are besides (apart from) Jehovah since Jehovah sent them. -- Nehemiah 9:27.

Overall, actual proof is lacking in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is Jehovah. The arguments presented for such are questionable, to say the least. One has to first assume that Jesus is God Almighty, then read this into the scripture, and then say that this is proof, which is, in effect, circular reasoning. Without all the circular reasoning that has been imagined toward the verse, it is not that difficult to understand in harmony with the entire Bible.

3
  • 2
    You state that "Sharp's sole purpose in his study was to promote the idea that Jesus is" God, and devote much space to disagreeing with Sharp's rule of Greek grammar on this point. However, it could equally be said that your sole purpose in this answer is to promote the idea that Jesus is not God. As one point cancels the other out and leaves us no further forward, I have down-voted your answer. Your last para. also indicates confusion as to what the Son being God means when you speak of Jesus not being the Almighty, and not being Jehovah. The key in this verse is there only being one Saviour.
    – Anne
    Nov 20 '21 at 14:54
  • @Anne. The ultimate Savior is God. God accomplished this through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.John 3:16. Who sent Jesus to save us? Jesus himself said the only true God sent him, John 17:3. If Jesus is the same God that sent him, Did Jesus send himself? Did God who is immortal die in order for us to be saved? How can you believe that Jesus is God and the only true God that sent Him also God without contradicting Jesus statement in John 17:3? Nov 20 '21 at 22:30
  • 1
    The defence of the bible and what it actually says, is often met with punitive voting. "forgive them for they know not what they do", comes to mind. It's a tough gig, but someone's got to do it. +1 (I might have put all the sharp nonsense as an appendix to make it less confronting and quicker to get the point - the preceding verses are very telling)
    – steveowen
    Nov 21 '21 at 1:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.