I wrote something on Titus 2:13 today (for a different Christian forum, albeit, so ignore references to names etc). Hope you guys find this insightful:
Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the [
definite article, tou] great God and [
conjunction, kai] our Saviour Jesus Christ
Granville Sharp's rule:
[quote:c7a01]"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 ho, 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."
This is nothing new, but I wanted to bring it to light and perhaps gain insight from those who know Greek (only James does, I believe) or have resources (commentaries from authorities and scholars of ancient Koine Greek) or contacts to those who do know the language.
But anyway, I will explain, as best as I know how, what is meant by this virtually undisputed rule of Greek grammar and how it ties in to the passage quoted. Basically we are concerned with two descriptive nouns (this rule has exceptions with proper nouns) in this passage: 1) "[great] God" and 2) "Saviour [Jesus Christ]". Is the "great God" referring to "Saviour Yeshua ha Mashiach" in this verse, or are they separated by the conjunction
kai (and)?
Well, according to this rule, since the two nouns are connected by the conjunction
kai, and the definite article
tou precedes the first noun ("God"), but is not used before the second noun ("Saviour"), i.e. between the two nouns, then the second noun is a further description of the first noun, i.e. "Saviour [Jesus Christ]" is describing the "great God". They are not separate subjects because of the conjunction, but are combined with the same definite article which precedes the first noun. Only if the definite article was repeated again after the first noun would they be separate.
So if the verse read like this:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ
...Then it would be referring to two different individuals, but the absence of another definite article "the" disallows this interpretation. According to my knowledge, throughout the NT there is NO exception to this rule--ever (see also 2 Peter 1:1).
Consider another example:
Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider
the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus
No one would dispute that the apostle [noun 1] and high priest [noun 2] are referring to the same individual (Yeshua), and are not describing two persons, as in one person is an apostle, and another person is a high priest. The Greek simply does not allow it. If the verse read, "the Apostle and
the High Priest..." then things would be different.
No one can dispute the grammar of Tit. 2:13 or 2 Pet. 1:1. The only objection to the Messiah not being called "God" as in "YHWH", would be to say
theos (here in the genitive
theou) refers, not to YHWH, but is used as it is used of men such as in Ps. 82:6 or of Moses in Ex. 7:1.
The problem with this interpretation, imo, is the use of the adjective "great" as in "great God", especially
the great God. The scripture says:
Psalm 95:3
For
YHWH is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
While it is true that men and angels are called "god" (
elohim) in scripture, it is quite a stretch to say that anyone other than Yahweh can be called "great God". Other scriptures that refer to Yeshua as "God" can be argued that way, but not this one. And if the authors' of the bible intents were never for us to assume that Yeshua shared an ontological nature with the Father and so is considered YHWH, then they came dangerously close to doing so quite frequently by applying the titles and attributes of Yahweh to him and tying scriptures that speak of Yahweh to him.
So I can safely conclude that Yeshua, the fully divine manifest presence and character of the Father Yahweh is also Yahweh and thus God (as only Yahweh is God, that is, big "G").
HOWEVER, just to be fair, I have heard what seems to be a credible objection to the general conclusion drawn from Titus 2:13. The verse literally speaks of the "blessed hope and revealing of
the glory...", not "glorious appearing" as the KJV renders it. So in essence, the passage is not saying Yeshua is the "great God and our Saviour", but that we are "waiting for the manifestation of the glory of the great God and our Saviour, Yeshua Ha Mashiach". In other words, Christ is described as the glory of the great God and our Saviour and not the great God and our Saviour himself, and that this is allowed by the Greek.
I wanted to know, specifically from JamesYuile (who knows Greek), whether or not this interpretation is uninhibited by the Greek.
Thanks for reading. [/quote:c7a01]
: