OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST Andrew Ansell "πρoσδεχoμεvoι τηv μακαριαv ελπιδα και επιφαvειαv της δoξης τoυ μεγαλoυ Θεoυ και Σωτηρoς μωv Iεσoυ Χριστoυ" (Titus 2:13) This text has been the subject of much dispute, because of its doctrinal importance. The text itself is not in dispute, but its interpretation is. We are here faced with two alternatives. Firstly, does Paul refer "τoυ μεγαλoυ Θεoυ" (the great God), to God the Father; and "Σωτηρoς μωv Iεσoυ Χριστoυ" (our Lord Jesus Christ), to another Person, namely, the Son? In which case the text in English would read: "the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Or, secondly, to refer the whole text to one Person, Jesus Christ? Where it would read: "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ". The latter reading clearly asserts the Deity of Jesus Christ; whereas the former only implies that He shares the "glory" of the Father. I have yet to find anyone, who would take the former reading, and try to prove Christ's Deity from it! It is of the utmost importance, that we determine whether Paul here calls Jesus "the great God". I was rather surprised to read in Dr James Moulton's Greek Grammar, where he says: "We cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 2 13, for we must, as grammarians, leave the matter open" (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.i, Prolegomena, p.84) What Dr Moulton is here saying, is this. As far as the grammar is concerned, we cannot arrive at a conclusion of the true reading of this text. In which case it can be taken to refer to either of the two interpretations, seeing that both are supported by the Greek grammar. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, begin their note on this text, by quoting these words from Dr Moulton (Kingdom Interlinear, p.1163); and from this "authority" they argue that two Persons are meant. If Dr Moulton, and others like Dr Winer, the Greek grammarian, are right when they say that the true meaning of this text cannot be established from the grammar, then this leaves us with only one other option. Because the grammar cannot aid us, we then must render the words according to our theological position. In which case, those who believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, will appeal to it; and so will the Jehovah's Witnesses! I find it incredible to believe, that the Apostle Paul, who wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would be so ambiguous. As we shall see, after dealing with the argument for two Persons, that the Greek grammar is conclusive here, and we do not "leave the matter open"!
Let me begin by making this very important observation. Instead of Paul using "Θεoυ" (God), had he used "Κυριoυ" (Lord), there would be no objection in rendering the text: "our great Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", as applying it to only one Person! I shall prove this fact later on in this study. The fact that Paul here uses the Title "the great God" for Jesus Christ, which is otherwise used for Almighty God in the Old Testament (eg. Ps.95:3; Pr.26:10; Dan.2:45, etc.), causes people to look for ways out of this text. This is clear from the Greek Grammar by Dr G Winer, where he says, "In Tit. ii.13, πρoσδεχoμεvoι τηv μακαριαv ελπιδα και επιφαvειαv της δoξης τoυ μεγαλoυ Θεoυ και σωτηρoς μωv Iεσoυ Χριστoυ, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτηρoς is not a second predicate, coordinate with Θεoς, Christ being first called ό μεγας Θεoς, and then σωτηρ. The article is omitted before σωτηρoς, because this word is defined by the genitive μωv, and because the apposition precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.162. 1877 edition) In a footnote on this Winer goes on to say: "In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, Σωτηρoς μωv (our Saviour) may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly dependent on the article τoυ (the); but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause και Σωτ...Χριστoυ (from,'and to Christ') by itself as referring to a second subject" Here, Dr Winer admits, that on the point of grammar, there is no objection in taking the entire clause as referring to only one Person, Jesus Christ. But, because of his theological position (Dr Winer was a Unitarian) he could not conceive Paul calling Jesus the great God! In which case, his argument against this text as referring to Jesus Christ, has nothing to do with the grammar, but is solely based upon Dr Winer's Unitarian conception of the Person of Jesus Christ, which forbids him in calling Jesus "God"! It is baffling to me, that most scholars (including Dr James Moulton) refer to Dr Winer's Grammar for the reading of this text, and seem to side with him! We must never loose sight of the persons theology, when we quote them, or else we might fall into the same heresies that they hold to. As for Paul's teachings on the Person of Christ, he calls Him: "God over all"; (Romans 9:5) "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16); where in both cases Dr Winer opts for the heretical readings of both verses! Paul clearly uses that lofty Name "Yahweh" for Jesus, (compare Romans 10:13, with Joel 2:32; Philippians 2:9-11, with Isaiah 45:23; and 1 Corinthians 10:9, with Numbers 21:60); in each case Paul freely uses the Old Testament text, which is clearly speaking of "Yahweh", for Jesus Christ!
As for Dr Winer's remarks, that Paul could not have used the Title "the great God", for Jesus Christ, I shall answer with an example. In the book of Isaiah, Jesus Christ is clearly called "the Mighty God" (9:6). I am aware of the meanings suggested for this text, such as, "God is Mighty", and Mighty Hero", etc., by those who oppose the Deity of Christ. To which I answer, that exactly the same language is used in Isaiah 10:21; Jer.32:18; etc., for Almighty God; do we here also render it "God is Mighty", or "Mighty Hero"? If not here, then why in Isaiah 9:6? The answer can only be theological, by those who cannot accept the truth, that Jesus Christ is "The Mighty God"! We shall now take a close look at the grammar of this text, to see if we can establish Who Paul referred to as "the great God". ON THE USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE: It is evident from the construction of the sentence in the Greek, that the "first rule" laid down by Granville Sharpe, applies here. "When the copulative και (and) connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ˇ (the) 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 further description of the first-named person" ( Granville Sharp; Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing many proofs of the Divinity of Christ, page 8) In our present case, we have the article "τoυ" (genitive case) used with "μεγαλoυ Θεoυ" (great God), but not before "Σωτηρoς" (Saviour), and is connected by the copula "και". This is because Paul not only called Jesus Christ "the great God", but, also went on to call Him "our Saviour"! Thus applying both Titles to Jesus. Now, had Paul wished to show "the great God", as a separate subject to "our Saviour", then he would have used the article "τoυ" with "Σωτηρoς", which would have clearly distinguished the two. This fact of the grammar is also admitted by those who apply the words to two Persons (Dr Henry Alford; Greek Testament, vol.iii, p.420). However, to get around this problem, they point out that it is not always necessary for the noun "Σωτηρoς" to take the article, and point to 1 Timothy 1:1, as an example. Dr Alford, in following Dr Winer, suggests, that "Σωτηρoς", "is joined with μωv, which is an additional reason why it may spare the article" (ibid). In other words, they mean, that since "Σωτηρoς" is joined with " μωv" it need not take the article, but is nonetheless a definite noun (treated as though it did have the article); and refers to two Persons.
It is abundantly clear that Paul would have used the article with "Σωτηρoς", had he wished to show two Persons. This would have cleared the text of all ambiguity, and would have allowed us to apply the words to both the Father and the Son. By omitting the use of the article, he clearly intended us to refer the words to Jesus Christ. It is my conviction, that Holy Scripture is very precise, and leaves no room for an important text as this, to have more than one meaning. If the article is required to clarify the text, then it would have been employed! This is exactly the case in John 1:1, where John could only have written: "και Θεoς ηv ˇ Λoγoς", with the meaning "and the Word was God". Here also it is argued, that, had John wished to show "ˇ Λoγoς" as "God", then he would have used the article with " Θεoς", but this would be impossible, as it would have identified "ˇ Λoγoς" with "τov Θεov" in his previous sentence (and the Word was with God); thereby making "ˇ Λoγoς" to be the same Person as "the God (the Father), with Whom he is said to be! This would have been perfect if the Godhead was Unitarian. "Θεoς" in this sentence is the predicate (the subject being "ˇ Λoγoς"), where John, by omitting the article, wishes to show the "nature" of "ˇ Λoγoς", that He too is Deity! As I said, the language of scripture is perfect, with no confusion, which comes from our applying human "logic" to God's Eternal Word. ON THE POSITION OF THE PRONOUN: " μωv" It is argued, that, had Paul wished to designate Jesus Christ as: "our Great God and Saviour", then he would have not used the pronoun " μωv" (our) with the noun "Σωτηρoς" (Saviour); but, with the noun "Θεoυ" (τoυ Θεoυ μωv). This is by no means a problem to our present text, as the position of the pronoun does not affect the reading "our Great God and Saviour". Let us take, for example, 2 Peter 1:11, where the Greek text reads: "τoυ Κυριoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ" (our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ). Now, the fifth century Greek manuscript, the Codex Alexandrius, has it: "τoυ Κυριoυ και Σωτηρoς ημωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ" (so the Ethopic Version). This reading is also found in an eleventh century Greek ms., for 2 Peter 2:20, where the common reading is as 1:11. What we are here interested in, is, the position of the pronoun " μωv" in this reading. Instead of it coming after "Κυριoυ", it comes after "Σωτηρoς"; where it agrees with Titus 2:13. Surely the reading in these manuscripts/version, are only for one Person, and would read exactly as it does with the pronoun with "Κυριoυ". The point that I am making from these examples, is, that the position of the pronoun in Titus 2:13, does not in any way mean that it cannot read: "our Great God and Saviour"; the grammar certainly supports this reading. Nothing would be more complete for us, than to look at an example from Scripture:
Galatians 1:4 kata to yelhma tou yeou kai patrov hmwn according to the will of God and Father our (literal reading) Again, there is only one use of the article (tou), which is with God Note here where the pronoun, hmwn is. Yet, none would hesitate to refer the entire sentence to God the Father, and not to one Person Who is God, and another Person Who is Father! 1 Thessalonians 3:11, "Αυτoς δε ˇ Θεoς και Πατερ μωv και ˇ Κυριoς μωv Iησoυς..." Literally, the Greek when translated into English would read: "Now God Himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus..." Note the position of the pronoun " μωv", after the noun Father (our Father). Grammatically, there is no objection to the above translation, in which case we have "God Himself" as one Person, "our Father" as another Person, and "our Lord Jesus", as yet another Person! Now, in most English Versions, the above Greek text is rendered: "Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus..." In this translation the position of the pronoun " μωv" comes before God, thereby making "God and Father" as one Person. 1 Thessalonians 3:13, "εμπoσθεv τoυ Θεoυ και Πατρoς ημωv" (note the position of the pronoun " μωv"). Should we here render it: "before God and our Father", as the Greek has it? And, are we to take "God" as separate from "our Father"? I am sure that no objection will be raised to the reading: "before our God and Father"; and thus apply it to only one Person! In our study text of Titus, the grammar is exactly the same as in these examples, but there are those who would argue that the grammer of Titus 2:13 requires that two Persons are meant. Why is this? There can be no doubt, that like Dr Winer, they simply will not accept that Jesus Christ is clearly called Our Great God and Saviour
I might add here an important obversation from the Greek construction of the clause of Titus 2:13. As we have already seen, the literal reading in the Greek is, τoυ μεγαλoυ Θεoυ και Σωτηρoς μωv Iεσoυ Χριστoυ" There is no objection from the grammer, for us to render this sentence in Engliah as, the Great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ The pronoun μωv is in the genetive case in the Greek, which would naturally have us take the word in English to mean of us. In either case, the entire sentence does refer to Jesus Christ, and will only be a problem to those who will not be honest about the Greek grammer at this place. Or to those who simply cannot accept that Jesus can be called The Great God and Saviour ON THE USE OF "επιφαvεια": Paul uses the verb "επιφαvεια" in connection with "the great God", which is transacted "appearing". In our present text, we are dealing with the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This verb is used elsewhere by Paul to denote this great event (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim.6:14; 2 Tim.1:10; 4:1, 8; and Titus 2:13). It is never used in this sense for God the Father, Who is never described in Scripture as "coming"! It is a word which is exclusively used to describe the coming of Jesus Christ. In our text in Titus, Paul speaks of "awaiting the blessed hope and appearing...", which can only be language used for Jesus Christ; as Christians are never told to await the coming of the Father. This, in itself conclusively proves that Paul uses "the great God" for Jesus Christ, Whom he also styles "our Saviour". It is true that Jesus spoke of His coming "in the glory of the Father", but this does not mean that the Father is also coming; but rather shows that the "Glory" of the Father and the Son are one and the same! It is interesting to note, that the Unitarian Greek scholar, Dr Joseph Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon, actually says that "επιφαvεια" in Titus 2:13 is used for the coming of Jesus Christ (p.246). Which is an admission that "the great God" is a reference to Jesus! ON THE USE OF "τoυ Σωτηρoς ημωv Θεoυ" This phrase (God our Saviour) is used at least seven times in the New Testament (Luke 1:47; 1 Tim.1:1; 2:3; Tit.1:3; 2:10; 3:4; and Jude 25). Out of which three of the references are clearly used of the Father (Luke; 1 Tim.1;10; and Jude), the others could be used either for the Father, or for Jesus Christ. We know from our study text (Titus 2;13) that it is used for Jesus. We further know from 2 Peter 1:1 (see
following entry), that it is clearly used of Jesus. That Jesus Christ is called "the Saviour", is abundantly clear from Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph.5:23; Phil.3:20; 2 Tim.1:10; Tit.1:4; 3:6; 2 Peter 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:18; and 1 Jn.4:14. Now, the reason I have mentioned these references, is this. If we were to turn to the book of Isaiah, we read in 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD; and apart from Me there is no Saviour" (also, 45:21, etc.). It is very clear from these texts (among others), that there is "no Saviour" except Almighty God! Yet, as we have seen from the above examples, Jesus Christ is also "the Saviour"; which can only be taken to mean that He too, is Almighty God. One thing is clear from Scripture, that there is only one Saviour, and that is God, as no one besides God can save us! This in itself proves without any doubt, the full Deity of Jesus Christ. A PARALLEL TEXT IN 2 PETER 1:1 "τoυ Θεoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ" This text, as we shall see, clearly demonstrates that Paul calls Jesus Christ "our Great God and Saviour". the only way for the Greek to be rendered, is: "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ". However, Dr Henry Alford (among others) suggests that the translation should be: "our God and [our] Saviour Jesus Christ" (Greek Testament, vol.iv.1, p.389). On the next page he gives his reason for this reading: "Next, as to the words "τoυ Θεoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ". Undoubtedly, as in Titus ii.13, in strict grammatical propriety, both Θεoυ and Σωτηρoς would be predicates of Iησoυ Χριστoυ. But here, as there, considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning. I have fully discussed the question in the note on that passage, to which I would refer the reader as my justification for interpretation here, as there, τoυ Θεoυ ημωv of the Father, and Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ of the Son. Here, there is the additional consideration in favour of this view, that the Two are distinguished most plainly in the next verse" It is interesting to note, that Dr Alford admits that the "strict grammatical propriety" clearly shows that in both texts, only one Person is meant. His conclusions he arrives at on Titus are far too lengthy to be quoted here, but I do recommend that the reader try and obtain a copy of his Greek Testament, should they wish to see Dr Alfords conclusions. I can say here, that none of his arguments have I found convincing enough, for me to acknowledge that two Persons are meant in these texts. I shall give one point made by Dr Alford, so that the reader can get a feel of his line of argument.
He says, that the words: "τoυ Θεoυ και Σωτηρoς ημωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ", would "naturally suite" the reading: "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ". But, should it read: "τoυ μεγαλoυ Θεoυ και Σωτηρoς ημωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ", with the addition of "μεγαλoυ" (great), then it would refer to two subjects! (vol.iii, p.420). He goes on to say that such an expression was unlikely to occur. No mention of any objections from the grammatical point of view; nor does he justify his position from the point of theology. It ought to be remembered, that Dr Alford is following the lead of Dr Winer, who would naturally refer the passages to two Persons, since this way it would not teach the Deity of Christ! As for Dr Alford's remark, that his interpretation of 2 Peter 1;1, as referring to two Persons, is "favoured" from the next verse, where the Father and Son are distinguished, completely misses the mark. In verse two the Greek reads: "τoυ Θεoυ και Iησoυ τoυ Κυριoυ ημωv", (of God and Jesus our Lord). It is evident from the construction in the Greek, that two subjects are intended, as this is made plain from the use of the article (τoυ) twice, where it is used in such a way, so as to distinguish "God" from the "Lord". But, no such distinction is made in verse one, for which we would have definitely seen the use of the article with "Σωτηρoς" = (τoυ Σωτηρoς). Even dr Alford would not have been to argue against this! As Peter would have believed in the Deity of Jesus Christ, it would not be hard to see him refer to Him as "God" in verse one, and then in the following verse, refer it also to the Father. Surely Peter believed in the Holy Trinity! It is clear from John 1:1, that Jesus is called "God", even though in the previous sentence He is distinguished from "God". For the benefit of the reader, I shall give the variations found in 2 Peter 1:1. Instead of "Θεoυ", the Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth century Greek manuscript reads: "Κυριoυ", thus removing any reference to the Deity of Jesus Christ; and making it agree with 1:11; 2:20; and 3:18. It is interesting to note, that, the original Papyrus Manuscripts, "were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius" (Sir F Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.41). It is believed that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these manuscripts that were copied (ibid, p.68). For those who are not familiar with early Church history, they should know that Acacius and Euzoius were both Arians, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ! How easy it would have been to replace "Θεoυ", with "Κυριoυ". That this did happen in copying, is clear from examples such as 1 Corinthians 10:9, where "Χριστov" is substituted by "Κυριov", as the former clearly teaches the Deity of Jesus, when compared with Numbers 21:6, which Paul was quoting! The Codex Sinaiticus here reads the latter. Some of the ancient Versions, Egyptian Sahidic (4th.cent); Armenian (5th), and Ethiopic (6th), have the pronoun "ημωv" (our), also with "Σωτηρoς", thus reading: "τoυ Θεoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς ημωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ" (though the Sahidic reads with the Codex Sinaiticus, "Κυριoυ"). Where the literal translation would be: "our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". However, the use of the pronoun with both nouns,
does not necessarily mean that two Persons are meant, as the article is only used once. This is evident from the alternative reading in 2 Peter 2;20, where, instead of the common reading: "τoυ Κυριoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ" ; we have: "τoυ Κυριoυ ημωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ καισωτηρoς ημωv" (our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Saviour); so in the Sahidic; some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate; and the Syriac Philoxenian (6th). Where it can only refer to one Person! Further evidence that Peter wished to show that only one Person is intended by the words "τoυ Θεoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ", can be found in three examples in his same Epistle. In 1:11; 2:20; and 3:18, we read the following: "τoυ Κυριoυ ημωv και Σωτηρoς Iησoυ Χριστoυ" In these places the twelve Versions that I consulted (King James; New King James; New American Standard; New International; Living Bible; Revised Standard; Youngs Literal; Darby's; Williams, and Beck; also The Kingdom Interlinear, and Diaglott, published by the Jehovah's Witnesses), all agree that one Person is meant by the words, and thus render it: "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" The only difference between the reading in these three verses, and 1:1, is the use of Κυριoυ in theses verses; whereas 1;1 has Θεoυ. The construction in the Greek is exactly the same in all four places (1:1, 11; 2;20; 3:18). If, as in the latter three verses, the words refer to only one Person, Jesus Christ; then why, when it comes to 1:1, it refers to two? It is evident that because Jesus is called God, in 1:1, that ways have been sought to undermine this reference. This can only be achived by malice, as the truth clearly teaches that Jesus is God in 2 Peter 1:1! I note the deviousness of the Jehovah's Witnesses' rendering of 2 Peter 1:1; "of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, p.1038) This is the reading as found in the right-hand margin. They admit on page 6, that words in brackets are not part of the Greek text. This has been inserted, so that Jesus Christ is not called "God", according to their demonic doctrine on the Person of Christ. The English should read without the [the]: "of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"!
CONCLUSION: In concluding, we must as this question to those who still persist in taking the words in Titus 2:13, as referring to two Persons. How would Paul have had to have written in the Greek, for him to mean only one Person? As we have seen from the above evidence, the position of the pronoun " μωv" (our) with "God", instead of with "Saviour", would not make any difference. The use of the epithet "μεγαλoυ" (great), does not mean that we are to understand two Persons, as suggested by Dr Alford; as this can be taken to refer to "Jesus Christ". I have not seen a single objection, that proves the Greek grammar used in this verse, can not refer to only one Person. We have seen from Dr Alford's note on 2 Peter 2:1, where he admits that in Titus 2:13 (as in 2 Peter), - "in strict grammatical propriety, both Θεoυ and σωτηρoς would be predicates of Iησoυ Χριστoυ". A frank admission that in accordance with the grammar, Paul, like Peter, only meant one Person. We have seen a similar admission by Dr Winer, who, because of his Unitarian view of the Godhead, was induced to show that Paul meant two Persons; whereas the grammar shows only one!. All in all it must be stressed, that the problem with this text in Titus, like others, is not because of the grammar; but, because of a study called "theology". Theologically, some shrink from calling Jesus, "the Great God", as they presume that this is a Title reserved only for the Father! Examples on the Greek Grammar construction from the Church Fathers Ignatius to the Romans "κατα αγαπηv Iησoυ Χριστoυ, τoυ Θεoυ μωv" (introduction). "according the the love of Jesus Christ our God" "εv Iησoυ Χριστo, τ Θε μωv", (ibid). "in Jesus Crist our God" " γαρ Θεoς μωv Iησoς Χριστoς εv Πατρι" (ch. III). "for our God, Jesus Christ in the Father" To the Philadelphians "τηv παρoυσιαv τoυ σωτηρoς, Κυριoς μωv Iησoυ Χριστoυ" (IX)
"the coming of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ" Clement's First Epistle to the Romans "τo σκηπτρov της μεγαλωσυvης τoυ Θεoυ, Κυριoς Iησoς Χριστoς" (XVI.2) "the scepter of the greatness of God, the Lord Jesus Christ" Polycarp to the Philippians "qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum et Deum Iesum Christum" (XII) "who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ"