“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13, KJV)

Hopefully by now you should be able to answer the question: Is this an explanation? Or is this a proof-text that is used for the basis of a jumped to conclusion and false dilemma?

The latter. Why? Because it does not explain, “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance.” So, Trinitarians use this as a proof-text to create their false dilemma…

TRINITARIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “This can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is God the Son, the second person in the Trinity.”

Likewise, it doesn’t explain, “Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the Father,” or something like that identifying it as a passage explaining Oneness. So Onenessians, use this as a proof-text to create a false dilemma of their own…

ONENESSIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “this can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the person of the Father.”

And once again, by doing this, they are pressed into using the devil’s method of bible interpretation to conclude their doctrine, which negates the bulk of the clear scriptures that teach to the contrary.

Proof Texted Scripture	False Dilemma “Concluded” from Proof Text	Scripture Negating the False Dilemma / Conclusion
Titus 2:13 “Great God and Savior”	This verse can only mean that Jesus is the Great God and Savior	Titus 2:13 “the appearing of our great God and Savior’s glory—Jesus Christ.” See also Luke 9:26; Matthew 16:27; John 17:21; John 8:29; John 17:11, 20–22; 2 John 9–10; Titus 1:3–4; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3

Let’s read Titus 2:13 in context to get the intended “teaching focus” of the passage:

“¹¹For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, ¹²instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live sensibly and righteously and godly in this present age, ¹³while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior’s glory—Jesus Christ, ¹⁴who gave himself up for us in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a special people, zealous for good works. ¹⁵Continue to speak these things, and continue to exhort and reprove with full authority. Let no one look down on you.” (Titus 2:11-15, REV)

Another version has verse thirteen translated like this: 

“looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ; ¹⁴who gave himself for us… (Titus 2:13, WEB)

The intended focus of this passage is clear from the context: this is an instruction to believers that we should deny (say no to) ungodliness while we wait for the appearing of the Son of God who is the glory of God our Savior. We don’t find Paul saying his intended purpose here was to explain or address the nature or relationship between Jesus and the Father or teach and explain that Jesus is God the Father incarnate in a dual natured individual. No, the context of the passage was, according to Paul, “instructing to the intent” of “denying ungodliness” and instead living “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” So, if someone were to claim the intent here was to teach that Christ was an incarnation of God, that would be to take the passage out of context to say the least!

Note the way WEB translates the verse: “looking for the… appearing of the glory of…” This is a legitimate way of rendering Titus 2:13. This is how it is translated in the World English Version, RSV, ASV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, NASB, Complete Jewish Bible, New Living Translation, Young’s Literal Translation and New Century Version. In each of these translations Titus 2:13 reads in accordance with the World English Bible above: “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

The problem is that there are other translations that put these words together differently. For example, the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NET, and Noah Webster’s Bible translate Titus 2:13 like this: “…the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

To say, “looking for the appearing of the glory of…” and “looking for the glorious…” God and savior, is to say two completely different things. The former is talking about an event in time and place precipitated by God (“the appearing of the glory of”), the latter makes it about the manner of the appearance “the glorious appearing of…” So how can we tell what is the correct translation and word order?

The first problem with the KJV type translation is that it isn’t true to the Greek grammar. It changes the Greek noun “glory” (doxees) into an adjective “glorious.” This is an obvious error of translation, and that mistranslation is where the “glorious appearing” clause comes from. This is what the Bible calls “handling the word of God deceitfully.”

Another “artificial” means by which this verse is mistranslated is the imposition of what is known as “The Granville Sharp Rule.” This is a rule that was basically made up by a novice Trinitarian scholar in order to interpret passages like this in a Trinitarian manner to justify their doctrine that Jesus is God incarnate. That’s called circular reasoning: he created a non-existent rule to justify his interpretation.

“There are Trinitarians who say that 2 Peter 1:1, as it stands in most Greek texts, is an example of the Granville Sharp rule, and thus proves Jesus is God. However, that is not the case. Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Jesus Christ was God. From his study of the New Testament, he declared that when the Greek word kai (usually translated “and”) joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to the same subject. This is the principle behind the “rule,” but there are a large number of exceptions to it that must be noted. Before we go further in this discussion, we should point out that Granville Sharp was trying to prove the Trinity, and there is a bias in the way he perceived his “rule” of Greek grammar that tries to do away with exceptions that disprove the rule, as we will see below.

“For one thing, it is impossible to prove that what is today known as the Granville Sharp rule was even a “rule” of grammar at the time of the apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarian, writes: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea.” Turner also wrote: “One must look critically at the common view that in Titus 2:13 we have two clauses in apposition…The same is true of 2 Peter 1:1…In Hellenistic Greek, and indeed for practical purposes in classical Greek, the repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” In other words, just because two things were only modified by one article does not mean they were not two different things.” Commentary on 2 Peter 1:1 from the REV Bible, https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/comm/2Peter/1/nav1, last accessed 9/1/2022.

As you can plainly see, the “rule” by which Trinitarian translators use to make Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 appear to say Jesus is “God,” is a man-made rule that has, first, no evidence that it was a rule by those who wrote the Bible, and secondly, ignores the “large number of exceptions” to the rule.

Notice again the way the REV Bible translates the passage: “while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Savior’s glory—Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13, REV).

In other words, the “glory” of the “Great God and Savior” is Jesus, and we are waiting for his appearing.

Can we determine whether this is a superior translation by interpreting the way Jesus taught us: by looking for clear verses on the subject that will help us to keep from stretching the Scriptures beyond what they intend. Let’s begin with:

“For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26)

“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.” (Matthew 16:27)

“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:21)

These verses support the “appearing of the glory,” and that “glory” being Jesus, translation of Titus 2:13. They also tell us that Jesus’ glory, like his name and authority, was not inherent to his person; they were derived from the Father. Furthermore, the glory that Jesus was given from the Father is a glory that is a “transferable” glory that he is also able to turn and give to the saints, so that we may be one in the same way that the Father and the Son are one.

So, in Titus 2:13, Paul was using typical language that reflected Jesus’ words; namely, that Jesus’ doctrine was not his own and that he did only what the Father commanded him. And furthermore, that Christ was never alone for the Father was always with him. How much more so, then, when Christ returns to earth!

“He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” (John 8:29)

Thus, when Christ returns, we don’t expect him to return alone or under the power of his own human authority. Rather, we look “for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and (our) Savior: Jesus Christ.” That is, we expect Jesus Christ, the living temple of the living God to return in the same oneness that Christ promised we would share with him and the Father.

“11…That they may be one, even as we are…

“21aThat they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…

“21bThat they also may be one in us…

“22The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11, 20–22)

This is another “it is written again,” qualifying, scripture that we could use in Jesus’ fashion to reply to the “temptation” of the conclusion that Jesus is “the Great God and Savior.” Because Jesus himself explains his oneness with the Father as being exactly what he prays our oneness with the Father be. 

Here’s a question for our Oneness reader: why is an interpretation (i.e. “this means Jesus is God incarnate as a dual natured individual”) that is concluded from but not stated in Titus 2:13 to be believed to be of more importance than John 17:11, 20-22, that explicitly explains that we will be one with the Father even as Jesus is?

So, either Onenessians are deliberately claiming to believe that saints like them are going to somehow be transformed into being incarnations of God the Father according to the “oneness” they ascribe to the man Jesus, or Jesus wasn’t able to articulate what they claim he meant, or they simply do not want to hear Jesus’ explanation of what he being one with the Father means. In any case, they really ought to stop interpreting Titus 2:13 to mean that Jesus is the Great God and Savior.

“⁹Whoever transgresses and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son. ¹⁰If anyone comes to you, and doesn’t bring this teaching, don’t receive him into your house, and don’t welcome him.” (2 John 9–10)

Paul consistently taught and explained a distinction between God and Jesus

Notice what the epistle says at the beginning of the letter to Titus:

“³I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior; ⁴to Titus, my true child according to a common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:3–4)

This book starts out with Paul’s usual and consistent distinction between God the Father and Jesus the Anointed One. There is no confusion here if we keep in mind that one doesn’t anoint himself, and even Christ didn’t anoint himself per Hebrews 5:4-5, and God needs no anointing. Thus, this statement itself supports the true Son of God doctrine.

Now let’s look at some verses that have Paul consistently calling God the Father of our “Lord” Jesus Christ and note the striking distinction between God and Christ that Paul maintains:

“That with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 15:6)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 1:3)

“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don’t lie.” (2 Corinthians 11:31)

“We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (Colossians 1:3)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 1:3)

“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.” (Ephesians 1:17)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy became our father again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Peter 1:3)

If Oneness is true, apparently Paul wasn’t competent to supply the missing piece that Onenessians are able to articulate: that what Paul meant but didn’t say was the “son” was really a “mode” of the Father.

Let’s look at some observations by scholar James D. G. Dunn regarding the way in which Paul spoke of Jesus in the above verses…

“Within Jewish thought there was a fair amount of speculation about exalted heroes… Jewish monotheistic faith could accommodate the idea of one highly exalted, without (apparently) any thought that Jewish monotheism was compromised or would have to be rethought… Equally striking is the repeated formula in the Pauline letters in which God is spoken of as ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Col. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; also 1 Pet. 1:3). The striking feature is that Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as ‘the God… of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges his Father as his God. Here it becomes plain that kyrios [lord] is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God… That is, that Jesus’ lordship is a status granted by God, a sharing in his authority. It is not that God stepped aside and Jesus has taken over. It is rather that God shared his lordship with Christ, without it ceasing to be God’s alone.” James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 252–254.

“Does Paul speak of Jesus as ‘God/god’? The debate here revolves around one text in particular—Rom. 9:5 What is at issue is whether the final clause would be more fairly translated: ‘from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen’ (NRSV). This is stylistically the most natural reading, and it accords with Paul’s style elsewhere… In other words, to infer that Paul intended Rom. 9:5 as a benediction to Christ as ‘God’ would imply that he had abandoned the reserve which is such a mark of his talk of the exalted Christ elsewhere. And this would be no insignificant matter…

“…Other possible references in the Pauline corpus… depend on contentious or little supported readings of the text, or are later…  Particularly Tit. 2:13—‘awaiting the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ This is the most probable rendering… And is ‘Jesus Christ’ in apposition to ‘our great God and Saviour’ or to ‘the glory of our great God and Saviour’ (cf. particularly to John 1:14 and 12:41)” James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 255–257.

So, James Dunn confirms the interpretation of Titus 2:13 given above from other Bible versions. But the real point here, in observing that God is the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” is that Paul consistently and deliberately speaks of and explains Christ in radically different ways than Onenessians or Trinitarians do. In fact, Dunn is strongly insinuating that to read into Paul’s words the idea that Paul taught Jesus to “be” God, would be to misrepresent what Paul was saying overall.

Granville Sharp’s rule debunked:

Commentary on 2 Peter 1:1 from the REV Bible, https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/comm/2Peter/1/nav1, last accessed 9/1/2022

 Print This Post