Titus 2:13

This exegetical commentary is from The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC): The Pastoral Epistles by George W. Knight, focusing on Titus 2:13 (pp. 321-326). We present this information for readers to study and engage with the material at their own pace. If you’re looking for a simple read, this may not be the article for you. The references cited by Dr. G. W. Knight are extensive, and we encourage you to consult his book, linked at the top, for a comprehensive study. Dr. Knight excels in presenting diverse perspectives, offering logical and well-reasoned conclusions throughout his work. His commentary on Titus 2:13 is particularly noteworthy, addressing the question of whether Jesus Christ is referred to as God in this verse. You’ll find that he approaches differing viewpoints with careful, unbiased language, making his analysis both thorough and fair. In a future article, the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus) will be discussed regarding authenticity. (All bold Emphasis, by AC)

Understanding Biblical Scholarly Work

When it comes to scholarly works, particularly those by biblical scholars, the analysis is often meticulous, delving into aspects of biblical manuscripts that the average reader might not typically consider. Scholars must weigh historical evidence, both well-known and obscure, as they formulate their conclusions. It’s important to recognize that every scholar brings a degree of bias to their work, some more than others. Scholars are not meant to be viewed as the ultimate authority over biblical texts. This principle applies broadly to the interpretation of all ancient evidence, whether secular or religious. Relying solely on scholarly opinion as the definitive interpretation can lead to what is known as the appeal to authority fallacy. Instead, their work should be seen as a valuable resource that contributes to our understanding, but not as an infallible source.

Abbreviations

Pl. (=Paul), PE (= Pastoral Epistles), vv. – Verses, cf. – Compare (cross-reference), e.g. – For example, PE – Pastoral Epistles, p. – Page, NIV – New International Version, RSV – Revised Standard Version, NEB – New English Bible, NASB – New American Standard Bible, TEV – Today’s English Version

TDNT – G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. G. W. Bromiley, I-X. Grand Rapids, 1964-76.

MHT – J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek I-IV. Edinburgh, 1908-76.

Gramaticle Examination of Titus 2:13

2:13 The participial clause that occupies vv. 13 and 14 serves as a further qualification of the verb σωφρονῶμεν. We live from the vantage point of “expectantly awaiting” and “looking forward to” Christ’s appearing (προσδεχόμενοι; cf. Paul’s use of the related verb ἀπεκδέχομαι in Rom. 8:19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20; cf. the note of expectant waiting in the use of προσδέχομαι in Lk. 2:25, 38). Paul joins to the instructions given by grace about living the Christian life (vv. 11-12) this note of looking forward to Christ’s appearing, so that the two give perspective to each other. προσδεχόμενοι has as its object two nouns, ἐλπίδα, “hope,” and ἐπιφάνειαν, “appearing,” joined by καί and governed by a single definite article. The first noun is qualified by the adjective μακαρίαν and the second by the genitive construction τῆς δόξης, which itself in turn is qualified by another genitive construction.

Paul often uses the concept of “hope” of the expectancy that Christians have for the unseen and sure, but not yet realized, spiritual blessings that they will possess in the future in Christ (cf. especially Rom. 8:23-25). That “hope” (which is “laid up in heaven” for Christians, Col. 1:5) is for righteousness (Gal. 5:5) and for the grand inheritance of eternal life (Tit. 1:2; 3:7). Perhaps as fully as anywhere Paul speaks of this hope in 1 Thes. 4:13-18 as embracing several elements that are all inherently tied together, namely, Christ’s return, the resurrection (or transformation) of all believers, and their being “always with the Lord” (and presumably with one another).

Whereas 1 Thes. 4:13 uses ἐλπίς of the subjective attitude of “hope” focused on these future realities, here Paul uses it of the objective “that which is hoped for” (as in Rom. 8:24; Gal. 5:5; Col. 1:5). The return of the one who brings all that Christians hope for is itself called “the blessed hope” (cf. Col. 1:27). This “hope” is called “blessed” (μακαρία) just as God was called “blessed” (see 1 Tim. 1:11) because it, like him, embodies and brings the blessedness for which Christians hope.

The single article before ἐλπίδα and ἐπιφάνειαν probably indicates that Paul regards these nouns as referring to the same thing: The “hope” and the “appearing” are one event (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 786). This is borne out by the natural sense of the sentence, by the fact that elsewhere in Paul that which one hopes for is tied to Jesus’ appearing, and by the use of τῆς δόξης, which elsewhere in Paul is attached to “hope” (Rom. 5:2; Col. 1:27), while ἐπιφάνεια**, “appearing, appearance,” in all its NT occurrences (6x, all Pl.: here; 2 Thes. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14 [see the comments there]; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8) except for one (2 Tim. 1:10, Jesus’ first appearance), refers to Jesus’ second appearance, as is evidenced here by the words that follow.

The ἐπιφάνεια is said more particularly to be τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ. Some have suggested that this genitive construction is a Hebraism and that the phrase should be rendered “the glorious appearing.” It is more plausible, however, that the passage speaks of the appearance of God’s glory rather than that the appearance of God’s glory should be rendered “the glorious appearing.” It is more plausible, however, that the passage speaks of the appearance of God’s glory rather than that the appearance of Jesus’ appearing should be rendered “the glorious appearing.” It is more plausible, however, that the passage speaks of the appearance of God’s glory rather than that the appearance of God’s glory rather than that the appearance of Jesus’ appearing should be rendered “the glorious appearing.” Finally, the verb παράλληλα (“appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”) is more likely to be interpreted in the same way as the verb παράλληλα in the same verse: the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

If this understanding is correct, then the appearing manifests the glory of “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (the reasons for understanding this to refer to one person are given below). This glory has a double effect: Christians look forward to the appearing of this glory because therein “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8) himself is finally and openly glorified before mankind. They also await it because in the appearing of this glory the blessedness that Christians hope for appears. Thus Paul has spoken here of the blessed hope and of the appearing of the glory as two aspects of one and the same event. When this glory appears so also will our blessedness appear (cf. 1 Jn. 3:2; Phil. 3:20-21; see Murray, Romans I, 161f. on the similar phrase “we exult in hope of God’s glory” in Rom. 5:2).

Three Differing Scholarly Opinions

But does τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refer to one or two persons, or is there some other way to understand the verse in its entirety? (For a full discussion of this question see Harris, “Titus 2:13.”) Essentially three views have been proposed: (1) that one person is in view and that the statement should read “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” (2) that two persons are in view and that the statement should read “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” and (3) that two persons are in view and that the glory of the one (God and Savior) appears in the other (Jesus Christ) so that the statement should read “the appearing of [him who is] the Glory of our God and Savior [= the Father], [which Glory is/that is] Jesus Christ.”

The First View

The first of these views is supported by a number of modern commentators (Barrett, Bernard “with hesitation,” Dornier, Easton, Ellicott, Freundorfer, Gealy, Guthrie, Hanson, Hendriksen, Hiebert, Houlden, Leeney, Lenski, Lock, Moellering, Riddderbos, Simpson, Spica, and Weiss).

———————————————————

Full names provided by AC

1. Charles Kingsley Barrett – British New Testament scholar known for his work on the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles.
2. John Henry Bernard – Irish biblical scholar and theologian, known for his work on the Gospel of John.
3. Albert Dornier
4. James H. Easton
5. Charles John Ellicott – British Christian theologian, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, known for his commentaries on the New Testament.
6. Joseph Freundorfer
7. Fred B. Craddock Gealy – American biblical scholar known for his contributions to New Testament studies.
8. Donald Guthrie – British New Testament scholar known for his works on New Testament introduction, theology, and commentaries.
9. Anthony Tyrrell Hanson – British theologian and New Testament scholar, known for his studies on Pauline theology.
10. William Hendriksen – American theologian and New Testament scholar, known for his New Testament commentaries.
11. D. Edmond Hiebert – American New Testament scholar known for his commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and other New Testament books.
12. Leslie Houlden – British theologian and scholar, known for his work in New Testament studies.
13. James E. Leeney
14. R. C. H. Lenski – German-born American Lutheran scholar known for his New Testament commentaries.
15. Walter Lock – British theologian and scholar, known for his work on the Pastoral Epistles.
16. David Moeller
17. Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos – Dutch theologian known for his work on Pauline theology.
18. E. K. Simpson – British New Testament scholar known for his commentaries on the Epistles of the New Testament.
19. Aloysius Spica – A theologian likely contributing to New Testament scholarship, though specific details may be limited.
20. Julius Weiss

———————————————————

 In its favor is, first, that the “appearance” in the NT always refers to one person, Christ, not to two (see the occurrences of ἐπιφάνεια cited above). Second, the ἡμῶν phrase in the earlier use in Paul is centered in Christ and his return (see the discussion of “hope” above). Third, the joining of two nouns by καί with a single article, as here, usually designates one entity or person (see BDF §276.3; Robertson, Grammar, 786; idem, “Greek Article”). Fourth, the words “God” and “Savior” were often in earlier Christian literature used together as a title designating one person in the Greek usage of the period (see the literature cited in MHT I, 84; Robertson, Grammar, 786; BAGD s.v. σῶτηρ). Fifth, the following verse, v. 14, carries on the thought of this verse by referring back to it with the statement “who gave himself for us,” which is easier to understand as referring to one person, Christ, than to two persons, the Father and Jesus Christ (Alford; cf. Lock).

Sixth, “the exceptional usage of one person with two titles would be more easily explained than a use of one person for two” (Moule, “Idioms,” 66). Harris gives the explanation that “if there is a use of the θεός καί σῶτηρ formula and its grammatically exclusive reference to Christ, it would occasion no surprise if μέγας (and ἡμῶν) were added in opposition to the pagan applications of the formula: ‘our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ'” (cf. Acts 19:27, 28, 34). Harris says further that Christ has shown himself to be “the great God and Savior” “by his sacrificial self-surrender to achieve their redemption and sanctification (verse 14)” (p. 270).

The Second View

Interpretation (2) is also held by a number of modern commentators (Alford, Dibelius-Conzelmann, Holtz, Huther, Jeremias, Kelly, Schlatter, and N. J. D. White).

———————————————————

Full names provided by AC

1. Henry Alford – British Anglican churchman and scholar, known for his work “The Greek Testament,” a widely respected critical commentary on the New Testament.
2. Martin Dibelius – German New Testament scholar, one of the pioneers of form criticism. Often mentioned in conjunction with Hans Conzelmann, who continued Dibelius’s work and contributed significantly to New Testament studies, particularly the study of the Acts of the Apostles.
3. Traugott Holtz – German New Testament scholar known for his contributions to Pauline studies and the Pastoral Epistles.
4. Johann Eduard Huther – German Protestant theologian known for his commentary work in the “Meyer’s Commentary” series, especially on the New Testament.
5. Joachim Jeremias – German Lutheran theologian and biblical scholar, known for his works on the historical Jesus and early Christianity.
6. John Norman Davidson Kelly – British theologian and scholar, known for his extensive work on early Christian doctrine and his commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles.
7. Adolf Schlatter – German evangelical theologian and New Testament scholar, known for his scholarly and theological work on the New Testament and early Christianity.
8. Norman John Davidson White (N. J. D. White) – British biblical scholar known for his contributions to New Testament commentary, particularly in the International Critical Commentary (ICC) series.

———————————————————

 In favor of it is, first, that Paul rarely if ever refers to Jesus with the word θεός (so, e.g., Huther). Winer states it more strongly: “Doctrinal conviction, deduced from Paul’s teaching, that this great apostle could not have called Christ the great God, induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to taking καί σωτῆρος … Χριστοῦ by itself as a second object” (Grammar, 130 n. 2). Second, θεός ό σωτῆρ ἡμῶν (PE 6x, twice elsewhere: Lk. 1:47; Jude 25) is used elsewhere of the Father, which “does not make it probable that the whole expression is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ” (Alford). Third, σωτῆρ “was one of those words which gradually dropped the article. . . . This being so, it must hardly be judged as to the expression of the art[icle] by the same rules as other nouns” (Alford; cf. Bernard). Fourth, since God the Father is referred to as Savior in v. 10 and as he who brings salvation in v. 11, it is highly unlikely that this title would now refer to someone else, namely, the Son (Abbott, “Construction of Tit. II.13,” 448, referred to by Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 265). Fifth, the expression “great God” is a late Jewish term for God, and would be an exception if applied to Jesus (Jeremias, who refers to the LXX, Enoch, Philo, and Josephus), and it is most in line with “similar epithets to exalt God’s glory” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:17; 4:10; 6:15, 16, especially 1:11; so Huther). Sixth, while Paul regularly speaks of God and Christ side by side, “they are invariably distinguished as two persons” (Kelly; so also Huther).

The Third View

Interpretation (3) was proposed by Hort (James, 47, 103ff.) and has since been followed by others (e.g., Fee, Parry). It combines some of the considerations of the preceding two interpretations. First, there is only one appearance. Second, this appearance is that of Christ. Third, the title “God and Savior” go together so that there cannot be two persons in view but one. Fourth, “God” must refer to the Father, especially when μεγάλου is considered. Fifth, δόξα θεοῦ may have been a primitive christological title (Hort refers to Jas. 2:1; Eph. 1:17; 2 Cor. 4:6; Heb. 1:3; possibly 1 Pet. 4:14; also Rev. 21:11, 23; Fee appeals to the similar grammatical construction of Col. 2:2). Sixth, since this interpretation “resolves the difficulties and carries none of its own” (Fee), “Jesus Christ” should therefore be understood as in apposition to “the glory of God,” and thus God’s glory is manifested in the appearing of Christ.

Process of Elimination of Views

Alford’s argument (the third interpretation [2]) explaining why σωτῆρος is anarthrous does not accord with the evidence in the PE, where σωτῆρ is articular seven times and anarthrous only twice (excluding Tit. 2:13). In one of these instances (1 Tim. 1:1) “σωτῆρ” is anarthrous as being in apposition to θεός which lacks the article in accordance with the canon of Apollonius” (that “nouns in regimen must have articles prefixed to both of them or neither”); in the other (1 Tim. 4:10) “σωτῆρ” is anarthrous because it is predicative and adjectival” (Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 274 n. 39; see also 268f. for Harris’s treatment of other ways of accounting for anarthrous σωτῆρος, which, he shows, fail to carry conviction). That “God our Savior” refers to God the Father in the PE (the second argument under [2]) does not determine the reference of “God and Savior” or rule out its application to Christ, since Christ is also referred to in the PE as σωτῆρ (3x of 9x, leaving this verse aside; in Titus, leaving this verse aside, 2x of Christ [1:4; 3:6] and 3x of the Father [1:3; 2:10; 3:4]). This makes the fourth argument under (2) inconclusive and points, in fact, to interpretation (1). Paul most likely does refer to Christ as θεός in Rom. 9:5 (see, e.g., the discussion and literature in TGCNT; Cranfield, Romans, ad loc.), which shows that the first argument under (2) and this aspect of the fourth argument under (3) are not conclusive. It is doubtful if the fifth argument under (3), that δόξα θεοῦ was a primitive christological title, has adequate evidence to sustain the hypothesis. All three interpretations agree that but one person “appears,” namely, Christ. Interpretation (3) says that the appearing is that of the “glory” of our God and Savior, i.e., the Father, and that “Jesus Christ” is in apposition to that “glory,” so that it appears in him. This position is attractive, but it requires an appositional reference that is quite far removed, and it is a solution that is certainly less obvious than the alternatives, or at least than interpretation (1).

Interpretation (2) has in its favor that it sees Paul using μεγάλου with θεοῦ in the same way that the LXX and late Jewish writers do (argument five), but argument six under interpretation (1) gives an equally adequate, if not better, explanation of the usage in the setting in which Paul writes. Interpretation (2) has against it that it separates “God and Savior,” which was a composite title referring to one person in the literature of Paul’s time (the fourth argument under [1] and the third under [3]) and which is joined by καί and one article and would be considered by all as referring to one person in the natural reading of the passage—if the words “Jesus Christ” were not present (the third argument under [1]). Interpretation (2) also has against it that it requires that ἀνάρθρωπος be dependent on ἐπιφάνειαν, whereas v. 13 speaks of “the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior [σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ]” on the same footing. But even more fundamentally, there is no compelling reason to take σωτῆρος as dependent on ἐπιφάνειαν or to take καί as exegetical when the more normal relationships are so much more likely.

The arguments in favor of interpretations (2) and (3) that focus on the juxtaposition of “Jesus Christ” and “the great God” are not compelling reasons for setting aside view (1), which is the natural and normal interpretation. Furthermore, the considerations of interpretation (1) that address this particular question are quite adequate. Therefore, we conclude that the sense of the verse speaks of the appearing and the glory of one person, “of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (so RSV, NEB, NASB, TEV, which all give interpretation [2] in the margin, and of NIV).

With regard to the phrase τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ, W. Grundmann (TDNT IV, 538-40) quotes a number of OT references to proclamation of God’s greatness in which “the basic monotheistic thrust in conflict with other gods is clear and unmistakable” (538f.). He then provides a number of examples to show that “in Hellenism, with its fusion of the oriental and Greek worlds, the phrase μεγας θεός is found everywhere” (539), as in the acclamations in Acts 19:28, 34. He concludes (see the arguments for interpretation [1] above) that Titus 2:13 adopts both the language of the OT and, more so, that of Paul’s day to speak of Christ over against pagan cultic claims.

Paul’s Designation of Jesus as Savior and God in Titus and Pauline Letters

Paul refers to Jesus as σωτηρ (the word in NT 24x, PE 12x, PE 10x) six times (here; Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:4; 3:6). In the letter to Titus first the Father and then Christ are called “Savior” in adjacent sections in each of the three chapters (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). Here Christ is called the Savior as the one who will bring the hoped-for blessedness through what he has done, as the following verse (v. 14) indicates, in his saving deed (giving himself for us) and its saving accomplishments (redemption from sin, cleansing for himself a people who will zealously do good deeds). Thus σωτήρ is used here as it is in the two non-PE Pauline uses of the title for Christ. It is set in a context like that of Phil. 3:20-21, in which “we eagerly await (ἀπεκδεχόμεθα) a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” because of the blessedness that his coming will bring (“who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory”). And it is set in a context analogous to that of Eph. 5:23ff., in which Christ is the Savior who “gave himself up” for the church “that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it, . . . that he might present it to himself” (vv. 23, 25-27). Whenever Paul uses σωτήρ of Jesus, except once (Tit. 1:4), the context indicates some aspect of Jesus’ work as Savior. The pronoun ἡμῶν here signifies those who already know him as Savior.

This verse concludes with the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in apposition to the preceding designation, “our great God and Savior,” thereby indicating precisely who it is of whom Paul has been writing. This is one of the infrequent, but important, occasions where Jesus is specifically designated θεός, “God.” The others are arguably Rom. 9:5; Jn. 1:1; 1:18 (according to some manuscripts); 20:28; Heb. 1:8ff.; 2 Pet. 1:1; and possibly 1 Jn. 5:20. The use of θεός makes explicit what is implicit elsewhere in the NT, where Jesus is said to have the attributes of God, to do the work of God, and to receive the worship and allegiance due only to God. These references are infrequent, probably because the NT usually designates the Father as “God” and Jesus as “Lord” (cf., e.g., the trinitarian blessing in 2 Cor. 13:14 and Paul’s argument for monotheism in 1 Cor. 8:4-6, where he writes of “one God, the Father,” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” [v. 6]).

Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles. The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC). Eerdmans, 1992, pp. 321-326.

Daniel B. Wallace

Titus 2:13
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
It has frequently been alleged that θεός is a proper name and, hence, that Sharp’s rule cannot apply to constructions in which it is employed. We have already argued that θεός is not a proper name in Greek.⁵⁶ We simply wish to point out here that in the TSKS construction θεός is used over a dozen times in the NT (e.g., Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:4; Jas 1:27) and always (if we exclude the christologically significant texts) in reference to one person. This phenomenon is not true of any other proper name in said construction (every instance involving true proper names always points to two individuals). Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan, 1996, pp. 276

2 Peter 1:1

Gene L. Green

But here the justice is not that of God the Father but “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” One definite article in the Greek (to, tou) governs both “God” and “Savior,” which are connected with kai (kai, and). The identical grammatical construction appears elsewhere in the epistle where Jesus Christ is called both “Lord and Savior” (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). In a case such as this, “the article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by kaí [kai]” (BDF §276.3, although BDE oddly views the present case as an exception to the rule).

Here, in a construction identical to Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” [NRSV]), our author ascribes to Jesus Christ both the titles “God” and “Savior” (contra Neyrey 1993: 148, who does not address the way that the author uses the same grammatical structure in his comments on 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). This verse is one of the clearest NT declarations of the early church’s conviction of the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Thess. 1:2; Heb. 1:8–9; 1 John 5:20). The ascription of the divine title to Jesus is hardly evidence for the epistle’s late date (Bauckham 1983: 168–69).

Jesus Christ is likewise called “Savior,” which itself was a divine title both within Judaism and in the wider Roman world (see Jude 25 and comments; 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 15, 18), as also the title “Lord,” which is likewise ascribed to Jesus Christ (1:2, 8, 11, 14, 16; 2:20; 3:2, 18; and comments). The initiative in allotting them the gospel faith came from Jesus Christ, who is none less than the true God and Savior.

Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Academic, 2008, p. 175.

 Jacob Chengwei Feng

“It is worth noting here that first, Jesus Christ is described as both God and Savior. [14]”

Footnote: [14] Based on the fact that only one article, τοῦ, governs the whole genitive clause in v. 2, Reese applies Sharp’s rule, and argues that “the general consensus is that the phrase refers to one person, Jesus Christ, who is described as both God and Savior” (Reese 2007, p. 131).

Feng, Jacob Chengwei. “Deificational Hermeneutics as Theological Interpretation: A Theological Exegesis on 2 Peter 1:1–11.” Religions, vol. 15, no. 12, 2024, article 1557, pp. 1–10. MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121557 and Academia

Daniel B. Wallace

b. For Christologically Significant Texts

Granville Sharp believed that several christologically significant texts involved the TSKS construction.⁵⁴ However, several of these involved dubious textual variants (e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).⁵⁵

This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1.

Titus 2:13 (Titus 2:13 quotation located above)…

2 Pet 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⁵⁷
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
Some grammarians have objected that since ἡμῶν is connected with θεοῦ, two persons are in view.⁵⁸ The pronoun seems to “bracket” the noun, effectively isolating the trailing noun. However in v 11 of this same chapter (as well as in 2:20 and 3:18), the author writes τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, an expression which refers to one person, Jesus Christ: “Why refuse to apply the same rule to 2 Peter 1.1, that all admit… to be true of 2 Pet 1.11 (not to mention 2:20 and 3:18)?”⁵⁹ Further, more than half of the NT texts that fit Sharp’s rule involve some intervening word between the two substantives. Several of them have an intervening possessive pronoun or other gen. modifier.⁶⁰ Yet, in all of these constructions only one person is clearly in view.⁶¹ In all such instances the intervening term had no effect on breaking the construction. This being the case, there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ.⁶²

---

5. Constructions Involving Impersonal, Plural, and Proper Nouns
a. Proper Names

Always in the NT, whenever proper names are in the equation, distinct individuals are in view. For example, we read of “Peter and James and John” (τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην) in Matt 17:1; “Mary Magdalene and Mary . . .” (ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία) in Mark 15:47; “Martha and Mary” (τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν) in John 11:19; “Barnabas and Saul” (τὸν Βαρναβᾶν καὶ Σαῦλον) in Acts 13:2. Yet at the same time they are united under one article for the purposes at hand. Peter and James and John were the inner circle of disciples (Matt 17:1), Martha and Mary were sisters (John 11:19), your first rule in the whole New Testament: and the assertion might be extended infinitely further” (ibid., 103). After an exhaustive investigation, from Greek Christian literature covering a span of over 1000 years, Wordsworth was able to make the astounding comment, “I have observed . . . some hundreds of instances of the ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ (Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ (2 Pet. i. 1.), while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any of them used, but only of one person” (ibid., 132). Therefore, as far as Wordsworth was concerned, the TSKS constructions which involve the deity of Christ, both in the NT and in the Greek church fathers, were never ambiguous, but fully supported Sharp’s proposition.

FOOTNOTE:

54.
“One text that Sharp did not deal with is 1 John 5:20. Whether this even fits Sharp’s rule is debatable. For a discussion, see Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives,” 277–77.”

55.
“It is somewhat surprising that many scholars (most notably, R. Bultmann) have embraced 2 Thess 1:12 as an explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity. Only by detaching κυρίου from Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ could one apply Sharp’s rule to this construction. But significantly, Middleton, whose Doctrine of the Greek Article was the first major work to support Sharp’s rule, rejects 2 Thess 1:12, arguing that (1) κυρίου should not be detached from Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, since the whole forms a common title in the epistles, thus partaking of the properties of a proper name; and (2) although Greek patristic writers employed the wording of Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 on numerous occasions to affirm the deity of Christ, they have hardly noticed this passage (Doctrine of the Greek Article, 379–82). Cf. also Matthews, Syntax, 228–29, for modern linguistic arguments related to gradations of apposition (in 2 Thess 1:12 most exegeses would see “Lord Jesus Christ” as constituting a ‘close apposition’).”

56.
“See earlier discussion under “Statement of the Rule.””

57.
“ℵ Ψ et pauci have κυρίου instead of θεοῦ.”

58.
“The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ,” The Expositor, 8th Series, vol 21 (1921) 185.

59.
E.g., E. Stauffer, θεός, TDNT 3.106.

60.
Cf. John 20:17; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 6:15; Heb 12:2; Rev 1:9.

61.
“In a sampling of the non-literary papyri, I have found the same phenomenon, and, once again, the genitive attached to the first noun never broke the force of Sharp’s principle. For example, P. Lond. 417.1 reads ‘to my master and beloved brother’ (τῷ δεσπότῃ μου καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ); P. Oxy. 2106. 24–25 addresses ‘my lord and brother’ (τῷ κυρίῳ μου καὶ ἀδελφῷ).”

62.
“There is some interesting confirmation of Sharp’s rule, as applied to the christologically significant texts, in patristic literature. In 1802 a fellow (and later, master) of Trinity College in Cambridge, Christopher Wordsworth, published his Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. Respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, in the Greek Text of the New Testament (London: F. and C. Rivington, 1802). Wordsworth tested Sharp’s principle in Greek patristic literature. He felt that if the principle were valid, then the Greek fathers would certainly have understood the christologically significant texts in the same way that Sharp did. Wordsworth wrote: ‘I have observed … some hundreds of instances of the ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ (Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ (2 Pet. i. 1.), while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any of them used, but only of one person’ (ibid., 132). Therefore, as far as Wordsworth was concerned, the TSKS constructions which involve the deity of Christ, both in the NT and in the Greek church fathers, were never ambiguous, but fully supported Sharp’s proposition.”

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan, 1996, pp. 276–277

Richard Bauckham

Elsewhere in the letter the writer uses the similarly constructed phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”: 1:11; 3:18; cf. 2:20; 3:2), where there is no doubt that the whole phrase refers to Jesus Christ. When, however, this writer wishes to distinguish the two persons, in 1:2, the construction is different: τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (“of God and Jesus our Lord”).[4]

Early extracanonical Christian literature shows that by the beginning of the second century the title was not uncommon (1 Clem 2:1?; Ign. Eph. Scr; 1:1; 7:2; 18:2; 19:3; Trall. 7:1; Rom. 3:3; Smyrn. 10:1; Pol. 8:3; Pol. Phil. 12:2; Ep. Apost 3 (Ethiopic); Apoc. Pet. E 16; cf. 2 Clem 1:1). (For Jesus Christ as “our God,” as in 2 Pet 1:1 see Ign. Eph. Scr; 18:2; Rom. 3:3; Pol. 8:3.) Thus there is no improbability in 2 Peter’s use of θεός (“God”) for Jesus, nor does the usage require a second-century date for the letter.[5]

[4] Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1983), 168

[5] Ibid., 169

Located on 161 pdf

Response to Bible Hub Commentaries

The Meaning of “Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6