Titus 2:13

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. This order is supported by א*G g and the Bohairic version, a strong combination; but the rec. reading (adopted by the R.V. and placed in the margin by WH) has, seemingly, the weight of evidence in its favour, viz. אcACD2EKLP and all the other authorities (MSS., versions and Fathers). See exegetical note.

13. προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα κ.τ.λ., looking for the blessed hope, &c. Note that the connexion of this with what goes before shews that this attitude of expectation is not only a privilege and a consolation, but a duty. Hope ‘abides’ no less than faith and love (1 Corinthians 13:13). The ἐλπίς is almost regarded as something objective, not only spes but res sperata; cp. Acts 24:15 ἐλπίδα … ἣν … προσδέχονται (in a speech of Paul’s). It is called μακάριος as containing in itself the fulness of bliss (see on 1 Timothy 1:11).

καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης, and appearing of the glory. The A.V. “glorious appearing” (derived from Tyndale, all the other English versions having preserved the true rendering) is a quite unjustifiable hendiadys, and impoverishes the sense. The absence of die article before ἐπιφάνεια requires us to connect it closely with ἐλπίδα; it is, indeed, the emphatic word in the sentence. The strength in which the Christian life is to be lived is the grace revealed in the First Advent (the Epiphany of Titus 2:11); the hope to which it presses is the glory of the Second Advent (the Epiphany of Titus 2:13).

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The rendering of this verse has been the subject of much dispute. (1) The older English versions distinguish two Persons in the clause to which we have come, and understand τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ of God the Father (cp. 2 Peter 1:1). (2) On the other hand the R.V. (though placing the other rendering in the margin) translates of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (see, however, the critical note for the order). (a) Primâ facie, it might be thought (and it has often been urged) that the omission of the article before σωτῆρος requires us to think of θεοῦ and σωτῆρος as being part of one conception, and that therefore the rendering of the R.V. is demanded inexorably by the ordinary rules as to the use of the definite article. But, in fact, σωτήρ is one of those quasi-technical words which speedily became anarthrous (see on 1 Timothy 1:1); and further it might possibly be, that, as τοῦ μεγάλου qualifies θεοῦ, so σωτῆρος is qualified by the following ἡμῶν. The point cannot be decided on grammatical grounds alone, (b) Again it has been supposed by some that interpretation (2), as being that adopted (with fair unanimity) by the Greek Fathers and as being therefore the traditional interpretation of the early Eastern Church, has strong claims upon us on this ground alone. Against that, however, a fact of exactly opposite significance may be set, viz. that the early translations of the N.T., Latin, Syriac, Egyptian and Armenian, seem to adopt interpretation (1). Patristic interpretation is not decisive when the evidence of the Versions is the other way. And, again, we must always remember that the Fathers were far better theologians than critics. Their judgement on a point of doctrine may be trusted with much readier confidence than the arguments by which they support that judgement. That St Paul would not hesitate to call Christ by the awful title God need not be doubted (see Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5 in particular), and the Fathers were right in asserting this quite plainly. But whether he does so at this point or not is a question of exegesis, not of doctrine; the dogma of our Lord’s Godhead does not rest only on one or on twenty texts.

Tradition, then, does not settle the problem before us any more than grammar, and we ask next (c) What is the general usage of the Pastoral Epistles as to the combination of the words θεός and Χριστός? To this there can be only one answer. From a comparison of 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:4; Titus 3:4-6 (see also 1 Timothy 2:3-5) it will be perceived that the habit of the writer of these letters is to use θεός of God the Father (the epithet σωτήρ being frequently applied to Him: see on 1 Timothy 1:1); ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 1:4) is his usual method of coupling the Eternal Father and His Son our Lord. Hence there is some ground for distinguishing the terms in the same way in the verse before us. But (d) we have not yet examined the context, and this will lessen our confidence in the conclusion to which (c) would point. For (α) the application of the adj. μέγας to θεός is unique in the N.T. (cp. Nehemiah 3:32 and esp. Daniel 2:45); and this remarkable choice of epithet may suggest that θεός is used in a special connexion with special motive. In other words μέγας is somewhat pointless (in this context) if applied to God the Father; but τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ has remarkable significance if it be understood of God the Son, with whose Second Advent the verse is concerned. It calls attention to the glory of that Appearing which shall be. (β) ἐπιφάνεια is habitually used by Paul of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not of God the Father, as a rule. Against this the expression in this very Epistle (Titus 3:4) ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ (sc. God the Father), has been set; but this latter Epiphany was that of the First Advent, not of the Second, and in reference to the Second Advent (which is here in question) ἡ ἐπιφάνεια is exclusively and perpetually applied to Christ. (γ) The full phrase ἡ ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης perhaps is more applicable to the glory of the Son (Matthew 25:31) which shall be revealed at the Last Day (1 Peter 4:13), than to the glory of the Father; but yet Matthew 16:27 shews how easy it would be to press a consideration of this kind too far.

On the whole, then, though with great hesitation, we prefer the rendering of the Revised Version (2) for the reasons assigned under head (d); but it must not be supposed that the rendering of the Authorised Version is less doctrinally significant. In both cases our Lord’s equality in glory with the Eternal Father is asserted in a fashion which would be out of the question if the writer did not believe that He was in truth the Almighty and Infinite God; the only difference is that what is only implied, according to the one translation, is explicitly stated by the other.