The blessed hope "in" vs "and" the appearing [Archive]

View Full Version : The blessed hope "in" vs "and" the appearing

apostoli

December 23rd 2005, 06:15 PM

Hi All,

Most TWEBers concentrate on the second clause of Titus 2:13. I'd like to examine the first clause. I've provided the Greek & some translations at the bottom of this post...

We could adopt a very liberal interepretation using a Granville Sharpe Rule revision (see link below) and translate the opening of vs13 as the RSV does "awaiting the blessed hope, the appearing", and by extension "awaiting the blessed hope which is the appearing" or by further extension "awaiting the blessed hope in the appearing". But does this give us the message A.Paul tries to communicate? The RSV and some paraphrases definitely see it this way, but the majority of translations give a rendering indicates a unity but also a distinction between "the blessed hope and the appearing". This leads me to contemplate two questions: What is the hope A.Paul talks about? What expectation did A.Paul and Titus have of the appearing?

The answers may seem obvious, but were they to Titus? There is a diversity of modern opinion based around texts which in all probability were not available to Titus. I am seeking to get at the understanding Titus would have had (and/or A.Paul was communicating). We can assume Titus had access to the OT plus those gospels and epistles written prior to 65AD, and so an examination of the clause in question needs to be limited to these. Based on the standard datings, we need to assume that Titus had no access to (and therefore we must exclude from discussion) the following texts: Mark (?), John, 1&2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, 1&2 John, Jude and Revelation.

Also, I would appreciate any scholars of the Greek, to comment on the validity of the phrase "glorious appearing" (KJV,NWT) versus the more literal "appearing [of] the glory", which is the rendering of most modern translations. And: if the genetive article "toy", used in the second clause, makes a difference to the understanding of the first clause. And: if a nomative or accusative article had been used in the second clause (is this possible?) would it change the way the first clause of the verse is to be understood?

Thanks.

The transliterated greek:

prosdekhomenoi ten makarian elpida kai* epiphaneian tes doxes
awaiting the blessed hope and appearing [of] the glory

toy megaloy theoy kai soteros emon iesoy kristoy | kristoy iesoy**
[of] the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus

Notes:
** Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550), Scrivener Textus Receptus (1894), Nestle (1898), Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Nestle have "iesoy kristoy"
** Westcott and Hort has "kristoy iesoy"

* Strongs Lexicon "kai=and, also, even, indeed, but"

Greek articles:
ten = the, that: singular accusative, masculine
tes = the: singular genitive, feminine
toy = the: singular genitive, masculine or neuter
ho = the: singular nominative, masculine

Various translation families

NEB,NLT,BBE (paraphrases):
Looking forward to the happy fulfillment of our hope when the splendour of our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus will appear
While we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.
Looking for the glad hope, the revelation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ

RSV:
Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Darby,Young,HNV,NASB:
awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ
waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ

Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah
Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

ASV:
Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

NKJV:
Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

KJV,Webster,NWT:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ
While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Saviour of us, Christ Jesus

Granville Sharpe Rule
The Rule that Granville Sharpe divised is misquoted by most writers. Many revisions of it have occurred and various grammars have put various extensions or limitations on its use. Appeal to Granville Sharpe, is used by many writers to give authority to what they are saying. But would Granville Sharpe actually agree with them? The following paper is a comprehensive examination of the GSR.
A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule by Daniel B. Wallace (PH.D)
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Sharp%20Redivivus%20A%20Reexamination%20of%20the%20Granville%20Sharp%20Rule.htm

Provoker

December 23rd 2005, 07:37 PM

Hello apostoli:
It is my opinion that it is a mistake to appeal to the rules of composition of Byzantine Greek, when the original NT texts, were written in a completely different language. All of the Greek New Testaments(textus receptus), are paraphrased interpretations/translations, from 1st century common Greek, to the Byzantine language which replaced it as common Greek.
The only thing which can reliably shed light on the meaning of the passage in question, is the story which runs, with continuity, all the way through scripture.
In the greater context of scripture, the messiah ***cannot be God*** because the messiah's goal is to resurrect the kingdom of his father David, and ascend the throne, and according to the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God cannot aid in the resurrection of covenant Israel, because God would have to break His own covenant to do it, and God cannot lie.
The very reason that the repentant, covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, must be resurrected, is so that God can forgive Israel, and return to His covenant obligation of making covenant Israel into a great nation, and a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
Since the messiah cannot be God, and God cannot be the messiah, then part of the passage in question is cleared up by the scripture story...LOL
What do you think?

apostoli

December 23rd 2005, 09:00 PM

Hi Provoker,

Thanks for the post. I agree with your general view (given your posts in various threads) that people tend to fragment/isolate scriptures for the sake of gaining doctrinal browny points. And, that scriptures should be taken in the entirity. The later is the spirit of my initial post.

Hello apostoli:
It is my opinion that it is a mistake to appeal to the rules of composition of Byzantine Greek, when the original NT texts, were written in a completely different language. All of the Greek New Testaments(textus receptus), are paraphrased interpretations/translations, from 1st century common Greek, to the Byzantine language which replaced it as common Greek.
The only thing which can reliably shed light on the meaning of the passage in question, is the story which runs, with continuity, all the way through scripture.

In the greater context of scripture, the messiah ***cannot be God*** because the messiah's goal is to resurrect the kingdom of his father David, and ascend the throne, and according to the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God cannot aid in the resurrection of covenant Israel, because God would have to break His own covenant to do it, and God cannot lie.

The very reason that the repentant, covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, must be resurrected, is so that God can forgive Israel, and return to His covenant obligation of making covenant Israel into a great nation, and a blessing to all the peoples of the world.

Since the messiah cannot be God, and God cannot be the messiah, then part of the passage in question is cleared up by the scripture story...LOL
What do you think?For the time being I'd like to avoid interpreting the second clause of the verse.

What I am seeking is an investigation of the first half of the clause "the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory" as Titus would have understood it and within the consistent message of scripture.

My first thoughts were the parable of the bidegroom in Matthew, which I immediately interpretated in the light of Revelation but then it occurred to me that Titus would not have been privy to the book of Revelation. However, there is similar terminology in the OT, where YHWH is called the husband of Israel. Then there is the Lord's prayer and scriptures such as 1 Cor 15:24-28 and Zechariah 14:6-9 which influence my thinking. Was Titus' hope the establishment of the kingdom of the Father, the resurrection to eternal life or both? There are other possibilities as well once cause and effect scenarios are taken into account.

Based on the correlated scripture, how do you understand it?

My focus is on the pastoral message not the dogmatic application of the verse.

James Peter

December 23rd 2005, 09:29 PM

I'm pretty confident from a quick scan that a good translation would be:

"We are awaiting the blessed expectation/hope which is the manifestation of the Glory of God and our saviour Jesus Christ"

It seems pretty clear from the context that the blessed expectation is the manifestation of the Glory of God and as they are both in the same case it is a perfectly legitimate translation. Kai can function in that way although I forget the technical designation for it, it isn't referring to two distinct things here though.

So to answer the questions... I prefer to render it 'the manifestation of the Glory of Mighty God' because there is a distinction between the glorious manifestation of God and the manifestation of the glory of God. The author of Titus could have easily chosen to use an adverbial construction (he does in the first clause) but he didn't so I'm inclined to disagree with such a translation.

Now the real question is whether the Glory is "of mighty God and our saviour Jesus Christ" or whether again the kai should be understood as introducing a clarifying phrase... i.e. the glory of mighty God IS our saviour Jesus Christ. In fact a similar meaning could be reached if you see both "of the glory of mighty God" and "of our Saviour Jesus Christ" as being modifiers of epiphaneian (once again the exact terminology escapes me, it is 1:30am tho).

I think I lean towards the last possibility because that certainly fits into Pauline theology and it is difficult to imagine what else was being written about. Especially if you side with almost all scholars and accept that Titus was written much later than you suggest, after the fall of the Temple. What were the early church expecting? The parousia of Christ accompanied by the full resurrection of the dead. Especially Pauline churches.

John from Ebla

December 24th 2005, 05:35 AM

apostoli

December 25th 2005, 12:49 AM

Hi James Peter,

I'm pretty confident from a quick scan that a good translation would be:

"We are awaiting the blessed expectation/hope which is the manifestation of the Glory of God and our saviour Jesus Christ"

It seems pretty clear from the context that the blessed expectation is the manifestation of the Glory of God and as they are both in the same case it is a perfectly legitimate translation. Kai can function in that way although I forget the technical designation for it, it isn't referring to two distinct things here though.

So to answer the questions... I prefer to render it 'the manifestation of the Glory of Mighty God' because there is a distinction between the glorious manifestation of God and the manifestation of the glory of God. The author of Titus could have easily chosen to use an adverbial construction (he does in the first clause) but he didn't so I'm inclined to disagree with such a translation.

Now the real question is whether the Glory is "of mighty God and our saviour Jesus Christ" or whether again the kai should be understood as introducing a clarifying phrase... i.e. the glory of mighty God IS our saviour Jesus Christ. In fact a similar meaning could be reached if you see both "of the glory of mighty God" and "of our Saviour Jesus Christ" as being modifiers of epiphaneian (once again the exact terminology escapes me, it is 1:30am tho).

I think I lean towards the last possibility because that certainly fits into Pauline theology and it is difficult to imagine what else was being written about. Especially if you side with almost all scholars and accept that Titus was written much later than you suggest, after the fall of the Temple. What were the early church expecting? The parousia of Christ accompanied by the full resurrection of the dead. Especially Pauline churches.I think we are in agreement!

I raised this thread after reading a paper proposing that the text should be interpreted as follows...

"Our happy hope is in the [second coming] of Jesus Christ, [who is] the glory of God the saviour of us"

The rules of Greek grammar would seem to permit such a rendering (allowing kai=even,indeed). Also such an interpretation is consistent with scriptures such as Phillipians 2:11 "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ, is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father."

Also, this interpretation fits the teaching of the epistle: verse 10 defines God as "our savior in all things" (cp 1:3&4) and verse 11 seems to be refering to Jesus saying "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" and verse 14 defines Jesus role as our savior as distinct from God's role as savior (cp 3:4-7).

Based on punctuation marks it seems that the NLT,HNV & NASB translations have this interpretation. Other modern translations, through lack of punctuation seem to leave the text as either ambiguous or making Jesus the "great God and Savior" or making "the great God" refer to one person and "the Savior" as referring to another.

What made me particularly curious is why the NWT didn't pursue the above interpretation (which appears in their interlinear) as it definitely would have been in their interest. Instead they seem to have opted for following the KJV. I'm far from being a grammaratian in the Greek, so if you have any insights regarding the Greek (or could refer this query to someone) it would be appreciated.

Thanks and all the best.

apostoli

January 15th 2006, 11:47 AM

Hi Alam,

[What interested me, was whether the "blessed hope" referred to the resurrection of the righteous in the first resurrection or merely the second coming of Jesus (given the and appearance clause). Subtle differentiator, but I think you know what I mean.My hunch is that since the structure of 13a is similar to that of 13b, they should be understood in a similar way. Sharp's rule is not a source of contention for me and the title "our God and savior" is applied to Christ in ancient non-Nicene writings. The analogy to 13b would mean that the blessed hope is, or is at least bound up in thought with, the glorious appearance of Christ. The resurrection and glorification of the saints is inseparable from this event, and so the "blessed hope" in 2:13 would have some connotation of that as well (cf. Titus 3:7)

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:4).I'd rank my Greek as novice. However, taking the GSR, in the disputed texts there seems to be commonality in purpose as opposed to subject. To an extent I agree with you fully, though I perceive a distinction between the "hope" and the "glory" - aka without the Son being resurrected, there is no glory, but the fact that he was "glorifies the Father". However, "our hope", as I see it, is that when the Son returns at his second advent, our faith will be realised = the promise fulfilled.

I think, to understand the first clause, clarifies the second. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I tend for the pre- fall of Jerusalem dating fot the epistle, thus the idea of "God and Savior" dates the epistle to the end of the second century when such references seem to be common. I think given the intro to Titus, the reference is to commonality in purpose not titles.

Strangely enough, I'm viewing this in a (orthadox) trinitarian perspective.

alam

January 16th 2006, 02:01 PM

Hi Apostoli:

Hi Alam,

I'd rank my Greek as novice. However, taking the GSR, in the disputed texts there seems to be commonality in purpose as opposed to subject. To an extent I agree with you fully, though I perceive a distinction between the "hope" and the "glory" - aka without the Son being resurrected, there is no glory, but the fact that he was "glorifies the Father". However, "our hope", as I see it, is that when the Son returns at his second advent, our faith will be realised = the promise fulfilled.

Agreed, the hope is not identical with the glory: the verse associates it with the 'appearance of the glory.' This is our immediate hope--the appearance of the divine glory at the second advent

But regarding your comment here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1336171&postcount=98), I do not see a specific reference in this verse to individual resurrection or glorification. The relation between Christ and those who are assimilated to him in spirit, is just such that when he is again physically manifest in our world, they cannot help but be physically manifest with him in glory. Hence the Colossians 3:4 reference. His all-subduing energy (Phil. 3:21) will transform what is in accord with his mind, while convicting and repelling what is not. For the children of God, to see him is to be made like him (1 John 3:2), whereas Antichrist will be slain at the brightness of his coming (2 Thess. 2:8) and the world will burn away (2 Pet. 3:12; Nah. 1:5). All of these things are included in the hope for the appearance of His glory, and yet more, since simply to look upon the Son of God must qualify as a blessed hope for the elect.

I think, to understand the first clause, clarifies the second. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I tend for the pre- fall of Jerusalem dating fot the epistle, thus the idea of "God and Savior" dates the epistle to the end of the second century when such references seem to be common.

If this phrase is an anarchronism, there is not much to be done... It is the phrase that was used later and taken as a singular title of Christ;

1. JESUS CHRIST, our God and Saviour (tou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Khristou), delivered to us the great mystery of godliness, and called both Jews and Gentiles to the acknowledgment of the one and only true God His Father, (Apostolic Constitutions viii. 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm))

..."looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour," when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father (Hippolytus, De Antichristo 67 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm)).

If the phrase did not originally lend itself to this meaning, it is hard to imagine how it became accepted in the sense it did, where similar expressions potentially relevant for the deity of Christ (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:12) were neglected (the explanation being given by GSR proponents that these fail the condition that excludes proper nouns). I am not committed to Sharp's rule, and certainly not to Trinitarian principles, but descriptively, looking at how Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 were understood by the church, it seems to succeed here. A popular title of Jesus in EO is "our Lord, GOd, and Savior" and they say this is an inheritance of anti-Arianism, yet as far as I know, the so-called Arians themselves did not dispute that this was a title of Christ (eg. excerpt from Maximinus on other thread)

I think given the intro to Titus, the reference is to commonality in purpose not titles.

Would you please expand on this? In the intro, both God and Jesus are called 'our Savior'. Titus 3:4-7 explains how they are both savior with great clarity. Imo, it gets down to the term 'megas theos' in 2:13 and whether this term is so specific that Paul could not have applied it to Jesus without seeming to teach modalism.

Strangely enough, I'm viewing this in a (orthadox) trinitarian perspective.

Strange, indeed! ;-) Usually in non-nicene/orthodox exchanges on Titus 2:13 the sides are reversed. God bless,

apostoli

January 17th 2006, 12:06 PM

Hi Alam,

Thankyou for participating in my contemplations...

My reply may seem to be a little cryptic, and I apologise. My intention is not to lead you to my conclusions but see if you arrive there yourself. Of course I have to give some indication of my direction and so in that regard I'll be as clear as possible. As usual. Please tolerate me (particularly when your thoughts guide me to another branch of inspection and my thoughts get conflicted - which as time progresses may happen) ;-)

I'd rank my Greek as novice. However, taking the GSR, in the disputed texts there seems to be commonality in purpose as opposed to subject. To an extent I agree with you fully, though I perceive a distinction between the "hope" and the "glory" - aka without the Son being resurrected, there is no glory, but the fact that he was "glorifies the Father". However, "our hope", as I see it, is that when the Son returns at his second advent, our faith will be realised = the promise fulfilled.Agreed, the hope is not identical with the glory: the verse associates it with the 'appearance of the glory.' This is our immediate hope--the appearance of the divine glory at the second advent

But regarding your comment here, I do not see a specific reference in this verse to individual resurrection or glorification.My thoughts are influenced by Titus 3:5-7; Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8 etc. Admittedly, Titus was a gentile and not a Jew and may have had a different understanding but if so, A.Paul corrects him at Titus 3:7.

What intrigues me is Romans 5:1-2 coupled with Titus 2:13. Particularly "rejoice in hope of the glory of God" and Rom 5:11 "we have now received the reconciliation".

The relation between Christ and those who are assimilated to him in spirit, is just such that when he is again physically manifest in our world, they cannot help but be physically manifest with him in glory.In scriptural retrospect I agree, but is this how Titus would have understood it? In his letter to Titus, A.Paul doesn't even hint at our glorification. The context of Titus 2:13 seems to me, to be about the reason to humble oneself "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11) and now we await the delivery of our hope.

Hence the Colossians 3:4 reference.This is a good point, as according to Schofields, Colossians was written about 5 years before Titus. So the idea of "us appearing with him in glory" would have been established but I don't perceive this as the message in Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:14 "[do not] give heed to Jewish fables" with Titus 2:14-15. I think the contrast is works verses faith, and in Titus 2:13 we have the offset - the why - and more particularly a contrast between the Jewish hope and Christian hope (aka Titus 3:5-6; Titus 1:10-11; 3:9)

His all-subduing energy (Phil. 3:21) will transform what is in accord with his mind, while convicting and repelling what is not. For the children of God, to see him is to be made like him (1 John 3:2), whereas Antichrist will be slain at the brightness of his coming (2 Thess. 2:8) and the world will burn away (2 Pet. 3:12; Nah. 1:5). All of these things are included in the hope for the appearance of His glory, and yet more, since simply to look upon the Son of God must qualify as a blessed hope for the elect.I won't dispute any of these implications in the "appearance of the glory; but I feel it is an exageration of what A.Paul was communicating to Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:9-11. It seems to me that the message of Titus 2:13, is 3:5-7. aka our justification is in "his grace, to be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

I think, to understand the first clause, clarifies the second. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I tend for the pre- fall of Jerusalem dating for the epistle, thus the idea of "God and Savior" dates the epistle to the end of the second century when such references seem to be common.If this phrase is an anarchronism, there is not much to be done... It is the phrase that was used later and taken as a singular title of Christ;Agreed. However, consider that in Ignatius' & Polycarp's time the Roman emperor had taken on the title "Lord and God" and the christian writers seem to have written along the lines of "yours maybe but ours is Jesus Christ". Then we have the Eastern empires want to worship Ceasar (dating back to Julius) and their view of Ceasar as their Savior (Rome keeps the peace). Seems to many accademics, conflict was bound to arise as Christianity spread and Christianity adopted local phrases and applied them to the Christ; and so date Titus (and 2 Peter) into the 2nd century. Admittedly, I see this trend evident in later writers but not A.Paul or A.Peter. As you may remember from my posts in early 2005, I find the cathechist reading as being out of context with the rest of the writer's epistle.

..."looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour," when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father (Hippolytus, De Antichristo 67)Hippolytus uses the phrase as a prayer at the very end of his Treatise (para 67 in the ANF vol V). However the context is in verse 66 "concerning the resurrection of the righteous...For if we believe that Jesus dies and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (para 66). It seems Hippolytus expected God to appear with Jesus. And to me this is important as the context of Hippolytus is the appearing of our God and Savior, though not specifically stated, can only be read as applying to Jesus. Throughout the treatise Hippolytus distinguishes between the Father and the Son (eg: para 26) but via a quick scan it seems only in the last paragraph that the title God is applied to Jesus. Which isn't remarkable given the last couple of paragraphs of his, book X, Refutation of all Heresies.

CCEL - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Hippolytus Index
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/TOC.htm#TopOfPage

If the phrase did not originally lend itself to this meaning, it is hard to imagine how it became accepted in the sense it did, where similar expressions potentially relevant for the deity of Christ (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:12) were neglected (the explanation being given by GSR proponents that these fail the condition that excludes proper nouns).And this underlines the beginning of my study. Few of the ANFs cite Titus 2:13. Novatian who quotes scripture copiously in his pro Trinity treatise doesn't quote Titus 2:13, nor 2 Peter 1:1 despite the fact that we does quote other texts from these books. Prior to Athanasius, I've only found two ANFs who cite Titus 2:13 at all!

Of particular import: none of the heretics seems to have cited Titus 2:13. This is particularly evident as the early writers were often prone to respond to distortions by the modalist, gnostics and what not. eg: Seems Noetus, who "alledged that the Christ was the Father himself, and that the Father himself was born" didn't cite Titus 2:13 as Hippolytus, refuting him, doesn't cite Titus 2:13 (nor 2 Peter 1:1).

As for 2 Thess 1:12, I might suggest the ANFs had a better understanding of Greek than our modern modalists. Both books of Thessalonians were popular with the ANFs but none seem to cite 2 Thess 1:12.

I am not committed to Sharp's rule, and certainly not to Trinitarian principles, but descriptively, looking at how Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 were understood by the church, it seems to succeed here.But only when we read the texts in the light of the post Nicene Fathers. I have yet to find ANFs that cite 2 Peter 1:1, even though I have found several that cite 2 Peter 1:4. And only two that cite Titus 2:13; though Titus 2:15 is often cited.

A popular title of Jesus in EO is "our Lord, GOd, and Savior"Agreed. It was a very popular phrase from at least the time of Irenaeus, but reading the ANFs it had a particular context and was used in a way not to confound the Son with the Father.

and they say this is an inheritance of anti-Arianism, yet as far as I know, the so-called Arians themselves did not dispute that this was a title of Christ (eg. excerpt from Maximinus on other thread)Acknowledged. Had a conversation with NonTrintarian over on the WTS threads. As a JW he admitted to preaching from the KH stage that Jesus is our God (with qualification). Of interest, in his conversation with others on Titus 2:13 he seems to reject the NWT translation. A curiosity! Especially, as one of the things that initiated my contemplations was why the NWT followed the KJV in their translation of Titus 2:13, when doctrinally there are legitimate readings, based on accepted Greek grammars, that might better favour their opinions.

I think given the intro to Titus, the reference is to commonality in purpose not titles.Would you please expand on this? In the intro, both God and Jesus are called 'our Savior'. Titus 3:4-7 explains how they are both savior with great clarity. Imo, it gets down to the term 'megas theos' in 2:13 and whether this term is so specific that Paul could not have applied it to Jesus without seeming to teach modalism.The way I see it, Titus 1:3-4 has to be reconciled with 2:13; 3:14 and 3:6-7. To understand 2:13 as referring "God" to be Jesus without qualification confuses the text. Especially as 1:4 puts a specific definition to whom God is and whom the Lord Jesus Christ is. To my mind the context only allows for the KJV/NWT translation or those that render "the glory of our great God, which is" (or equivalent).

As you are probably aware, Titus 2:13 theologically is generally considered a neutral text as the grammar permits the greek to be rendered in a variety of ways (ie: modalist, trinitarian or arian). Cathechists on the other hand grab it because of the "theos kai soteros" and miss the teaching of the entire epistle. As you probably know, that mode of thought really annoys me. The rule I go by: The message dictates the doctrine - not the other way around. One of my defects, but it doesn't stop me from listening to other opinions.

I don't think the "megas" has much weight as a quick flash to Isaiah can have it applied to Jesus by all antagonists. As suggested above, Hippolytus seems to have understood the appearing in a dualist sense, even though his paraphrase unambiguously applies to Jesus. Hippolytus might have had John 14:9; 17:21 & 23 in mind.

Strangely enough, I'm viewing this in a (orthadox) trinitarian perspective.Strange, indeed! ;-) Usually in non-nicene/orthodox exchanges on Titus 2:13 the sides are reversed.I hope the above has been adequate for ongoing discussion. My approach at this stage is neutral in regards to the second clause, but I hope you are now as intrigued by the first clause as I am.

The spirit I hope to encourage in our discussion is aka Titus 3:9 and 1:9.

All the best my good man - Titus 1:8 ;-)

alam

January 18th 2006, 10:45 PM

Hi Apostoli,

Hi Alam,

Thankyou for participating in my contemplations...

My reply may seem to be a little cryptic, and I apologise. My intention is not to lead you to my conclusions but see if you arrive there yourself. Of course I have to give some indication of my direction and so in that regard I'll be as clear as possible. As usual. Please tolerate me (particularly when your thoughts guide me to another branch of inspection and my thoughts get conflicted - which as time progresses may happen) ;-)

No problem friend, and thanks for the heads up! :-)

My thoughts are influenced by Titus 3:5-7; Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8 etc. Admittedly, Titus was a gentile and not a Jew and may have had a different understanding but if so, A.Paul corrects him at Titus 3:7.

What intrigues me is Romans 5:1-2 coupled with Titus 2:13. Particularly "rejoice in hope of the glory of God" and Rom 5:11 "we have now received the reconciliation".

I was looking at Romans 5:2 in connection with this thread, as well as Colossians 1:27 and 1 Timothy 1:1 which calls Jesus "our hope." In Romans 5:2, Paul says that the glory hoped for is 'of God'. What I get from this is that we rejoice in the hope in God's glory because we are at peace with God through Christ. The focus is God and how the justified faithful stand in a new relationship to God. "..we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (5:11). What we hope for is not our own glory as such, personal glorification, but God's glory and God's glory, when it is made manifest in the world, will attach to and imbue those who live in this attitude toward God, even as do the graces and spiritual virtues that He already sends into the world.

In scriptural retrospect I agree, but is this how Titus would have understood it?

I think so. Colossians 3:4 again, 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:14-18; 2 Thess. 1:10. The letters to the Thessalonians are Paul's earliest extant writings. Needless to say, those such as Titus who had worked closely with Paul would have had an excellent grasp of Paul's understanding. Paul's extant writings do not exhaust his teaching work, but are snapshots of his thinking at given times in response to certain issues. Noticeable themes in his letters, especially ones that carry across letters, must have been rather important to Paul, and probably would have been known to someone like Titus, who was a close friend and fellow-worker.

In his letter to Titus, A.Paul doesn't even hint at our glorification. The context of Titus 2:13 seems to me, to be about the reason to humble oneself "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11) and now we await the delivery of our hope.

Yet, he does not mention the resurrection as such in Titus either. To me the simple reading is that the blessed hope in 2:13 is the appearance of the glory of our God and savior--not our own appearance in glory or resurrection to eternal life. It remains to see how these are implied in the appearance of Christ's glory.

This is a good point, as according to Schofields, Colossians was written about 5 years before Titus. So the idea of "us appearing with him in glory" would have been established but I don't perceive this as the message in Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:14 "[do not] give heed to Jewish fables" with Titus 2:14-15. I think the contrast is works verses faith, and in Titus 2:13 we have the offset - the why - and more particularly a contrast between the Jewish hope and Christian hope (aka Titus 3:5-6; Titus 1:10-11; 3:9)

Did not Jews also hope for eternal life via the resurrection? This is a point of similarity with Christianity rather than contrast. I may misunderstand you here.

I won't dispute any of these implications in the "appearance of the glory; but I feel it is an exageration of what A.Paul was communicating to Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:9-11. It seems to me that the message of Titus 2:13, is 3:5-7. aka our justification is in "his grace, to be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Agreed, this is a theme of Titus, and Titus 2:13 ties in well with it, particularly 3:4-7. However, if Paul really wanted to separate 'the blessed hope' from the 'appearance of the glory', it would have been easy to insert, 'of eternal life,' between the two. As it is, the two words are in a relation which, although not GSR, is immediately followed by one, and the back-to-back repetition of the syntax (article-adjective-noun-kai-noun) suggests its use for the same purpose both times. So, it appears to me that we are on better ground to seek an understanding of how hope in the appearance of God's glory ties in with Titus as a whole (perhaps along the lines of Rom. 5:2, as you mentioned)

Agreed. However, consider that in Ignatius' & Polycarp's time the Roman emperor had taken on the title "Lord and God" and the christian writers seem to have written along the lines of "yours maybe but ours is Jesus Christ". Then we have the Eastern empires want to worship Ceasar (dating back to Julius) and their view of Ceasar as their Savior (Rome keeps the peace).

In the first century Vespasian was called 'Lord' and 'God'. Nero was called 'God and Savior'. God willing, I will supply the references as I locate them again. 'God and Savior' was a recognized title, much as 'Lord and Savior' in Christianity (and 'God and Savior' still is in some forms of Christianity).

Seems to many accademics, conflict was bound to arise as Christianity spread and Christianity adopted local phrases and applied them to the Christ; and so date Titus (and 2 Peter) into the 2nd century. Admittedly, I see this trend evident in later writers but not A.Paul or A.Peter. As you may remember from my posts in early 2005, I find the cathechist reading as being out of context with the rest of the writer's epistle.

I will want to go back and read these again; hopefully before the weekend.

Hippolytus uses the phrase as a prayer at the very end of his Treatise (para 67 in the ANF vol V). However the context is in verse 66 "concerning the resurrection of the righteous...For if we believe that Jesus dies and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (para 66). It seems Hippolytus expected God to appear with Jesus. And to me this is important as the context of Hippolytus is the appearing of our God and Savior, though not specifically stated, can only be read as applying to Jesus.

Of course he is quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:14 there. I cannot imagine that Hippolytus thought of God Himself coming, as a personage, at the second advent. If He were to do so at that time, why not in previous times as well? Hippolytus would have seen how this undermines Logos theology.

Throughout the treatise Hippolytus distinguishes between the Father and the Son (eg: para 26) but via a quick scan it seems only in the last paragraph that the title God is applied to Jesus. Which isn't remarkable given the last couple of paragraphs of his, book X, Refutation of all Heresies.

CCEL - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Hippolytus Index
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/TOC.htm#TopOfPage

Absolutely.

And this underlines the beginning of my study. Few of the ANFs cite Titus 2:13. Novatian who quotes scripture copiously in his pro Trinity treatise doesn't quote Titus 2:13, nor 2 Peter 1:1 despite the fact that we does quote other texts from these books. Prior to Athanasius, I've only found two ANFs who cite Titus 2:13 at all!

Of particular import: none of the heretics seems to have cited Titus 2:13. This is particularly evident as the early writers were often prone to respond to distortions by the modalist, gnostics and what not. eg: Seems Noetus, who "alledged that the Christ was the Father himself, and that the Father himself was born" didn't cite Titus 2:13 as Hippolytus, refuting him, doesn't cite Titus 2:13 (nor 2 Peter 1:1).

Essentially they did not quote it because they did not think it would help them any? Grammatical ambiguity is not the only explanation for this. If the term was of Hellenistic provenance and a title of Caesar, perhaps it did not convey the kind of thing they were looking for?

But only when we read the texts in the light of the post Nicene Fathers. I have yet to find ANFs that cite 2 Peter 1:1, even though I have found several that cite 2 Peter 1:4. And only two that cite Titus 2:13; though Titus 2:15 is often cited.

Can a reason be discerned from their own writings to think other ANFs would have applied it differently than Hippolytus and the post-Nicene fathers (of many persuasions both Nicene and non-Nicene)?

Agreed. It was a very popular phrase from at least the time of Irenaeus, but reading the ANFs it had a particular context and was used in a way not to confound the Son with the Father.

I have not seen it much in the ANFs, although found it in Cyprian (Epistle 46.1), and there is Irenaeus, as you mention. Perhaps in the original culture, it was not something that would confound the Son with the Father. Romans 9:5 which uses a Jewish sort of expression seems to have posed a greater threat

The way I see it, Titus 1:3-4 has to be reconciled with 2:13; 3:14 and 3:6-7. To understand 2:13 as referring "God" to be Jesus without qualification confuses the text. Especially as 1:4 puts a specific definition to whom God is and whom the Lord Jesus Christ is. To my mind the context only allows for the KJV/NWT translation or those that render "the glory of our great God, which is" (or equivalent).

Yes, this is the root of the issue, and the point where I disagree is that 2:13 would refer 'God' to Jesus without qualification. Titus 1:3 and other occurrences have 'theos', in what seems to approximate the role of a proper noun, in apposition to 'our Savior', much as 'Christ Jesus' is in apposition to 'our Savior' in the following verse. It is used in a way that denotes a specific person. In Titus 2:13 however, 'theos' is qualified by being in a Sharp's construction which excludes proper nouns and is referred to Christ, who is not the Father.

As you are probably aware, Titus 2:13 theologically is generally considered a neutral text as the grammar permits the greek to be rendered in a variety of ways (ie: modalist, trinitarian or arian). Cathechists on the other hand grab it because of the "theos kai soteros" and miss the teaching of the entire epistle. As you probably know, that mode of thought really annoys me. The rule I go by: The message dictates the doctrine - not the other way around. One of my defects, but it doesn't stop me from listening to other opinions.

That sounds like a good approach, keeping in mind that, whereas particular passages cannot be understood apart from the general context, the general context itself is composed of particular passages.

I don't think the "megas" has much weight as a quick flash to Isaiah can have it applied to Jesus by all antagonists. As suggested above, Hippolytus seems to have understood the appearing in a dualist sense, even though his paraphrase unambiguously applies to Jesus. Hippolytus might have had John 14:9; 17:21 & 23 in mind.

Absolutely. The Logos theology would conceive of the Father's appearance with Jesus in terms of John 14:9 &c.

I hope the above has been adequate for ongoing discussion.

More than so, and hopefully you can say the same of this.

My approach at this stage is neutral in regards to the second clause, but I hope you are now as intrigued by the first clause as I am.

The spirit I hope to encourage in our discussion is aka Titus 3:9 and 1:9.

Amen. Peace and the best,

apostoli

January 21st 2006, 05:01 AM

Hi Alam,

I hope the above has been adequate for ongoing discussion.More than so, and hopefully you can say the same of this.Definitely. You have given me several new branches of thought to think upon.

I was looking at Romans 5:2 in connection with this thread, as well as Colossians 1:27 and 1 Timothy 1:1 which calls Jesus "our hope." In Romans 5:2, Paul says that the glory hoped for is 'of God'. What I get from this is that we rejoice in the hope in God's glory because we are at peace with God through Christ. The focus is God and how the justified faithful stand in a new relationship to God. "..we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (5:11). What we hope for is not our own glory as such, personal glorification, but God's glory and God's glory, when it is made manifest in the world, will attach to and imbue those who live in this attitude toward God, even as do the graces and spiritual virtues that He already sends into the world.Titus 2:10-14 does seem an echo of sorts of Colossians 2:27-28 and I need to think on this more. Particularly, "the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" with "our belessed hope...that he redeemed us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people of his own". To my mind the "mystery" correlates to "Christ died for the ungodly...Christ died for us" of Rom 5:6&8 and particularly "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God" of Rom 5:10. Makes me want to read Titus 2:13 as saying "though we have not seen him, we believe and our faith will be confirmed when he returns in glory and power".

1 Tim 1:1-2 does seem to have a lot in common with Titus. Which, may not be remarkable, in as much as Tim & Titus are letters to Paul's appointed "shepherds" to whom one might expect he would write more candidly (admittedly a respectable justification for the GSR application at 2:13b). 1 Tim 1:1-2 makes me want to flash to Rom 10:9 but again I see A.Paul's message to Titus as crystal clear in 1:2; 3:4-7. Slanting Romans 5:2 towards Titus 3:7 I think the message is different aka that God would grant us immortality and as such God is glorified. Then again the ANFs distort my view a little in this regard, as they often portray immortality as an attribute of divinity and define our participation in divinity as participatation in immortality aka our hope, and that we have been reconciled to God and will sit in his presence aka our glory. Titus 3:1 makes me think on Phil 2:6-11 = be subject and you'll be exhalted. Titus 1:1;2:12;3:5 influence me as well.

As a retrospect, there is just so much I could read into Titus 2:13a! But I think the message A.Paul is communicating to Titus (given Titus 1:2) isn't that complicated. Maybe "deny ungodliness for we should keep in mind our hope, that God through Jesus Christ, selects people zealous for good works" (cp: Titus 2:10-14 with 3:4) While this thought gives an explanation of "our blessed hope", it needs to be reconciled with "and the appearing of the glory", which given Titus 2:11 I think it does through the thought that "do not imitate the Jews who tired of waiting for the Messiah and fell short (cp: Tit 1:13-16) but remember God, who through his Son, fulfilled his promise to them, and we should witness of it to all men (cp: Tit 2:1,10-11), and testify that the Son will return in all power and glory given to him by his Father."

Sigh! There is much I can read into Titus 2:13a; but my grander thoughts are reflections of A.Paul's teachings outside of Titus. I take comfort in your observation that "Needless to say, those such as Titus who had worked closely with Paul would have had an excellent grasp of Paul's understanding."

In scriptural retrospect I agree, but is this how Titus would have understood it?I think so. Colossians 3:4 again, 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:14-18; 2 Thess. 1:10. The letters to the Thessalonians are Paul's earliest extant writings. Needless to say, those such as Titus who had worked closely with Paul would have had an excellent grasp of Paul's understanding. Paul's extant writings do not exhaust his teaching work, but are snapshots of his thinking at given times in response to certain issues. Noticeable themes in his letters, especially ones that carry across letters, must have been rather important to Paul, and probably would have been known to someone like Titus, who was a close friend and fellow-worker.And possibly because Titus and A.Paul were so close, maybe the "holes" I find, the things not written, were so initimately connected with Titus' work that they were immediately understood by him through keywords such as "blessed hope". I think, your association of Titus with Thessalonians is spot on! 1 Thess 4:18 with Titus 2:1 also seem to correlate.

In his letter to Titus, A.Paul doesn't even hint at our glorification. The context of Titus 2:13 seems to me, to be about the reason to humble oneself "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11) and now we await the delivery of our hope.Yet, he does not mention the resurrection as such in Titus either.I understand Titus 1:2; 3:7 as directly referring to our resurrection. Though thinking on other scriptures, where in the coming, those still alive are taken up, "the hope of eternal life" is not exclusive to those who have died. So I take your point!

To me the simple reading is that the blessed hope in 2:13 is the appearance of the glory of our God and saviorThinking on the Lord's prayer, I see the blessed hope as the establishment of the Father's kingdom, which the second advent of the Son brings, and because such arrives we have eternal life.

Hippolytus use of Titus 2:13 as a prayer at the end of "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist" is of interest in this regard. In para 64 he says "...and the whole world finally approaching the consumation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope...For the Lord says 'And when these things begin to come to pass then look up and lift up your heads; for your redemption draws near." (Luke 21:28)

not our own appearance in glory or resurrection to eternal life. It remains to see how these are implied in the appearance of Christ's glory.My thoughts are particularly influenced by contrasting Titus 2:10,11 with Titus 2:13. The "blessed hope and" seems superfluous if the hope is simply the second advent. The hope seems to be reflected in the belief held because of Titus 2:11, which is confirmed by the second advent. Though "in this present age" at Titus 2:12 implies that a new age is coming, and this I see as also a hope that is confirmed when we see him coming.

One of the reasons I dislike renderings such as the RSV's "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing" is they just seem too limiting in scope. I see the hope and the appearing as seperate things which are so intertwined they seem as one thing. That is: the results from the appearing are our hope/s; but our hope/s cannot be delivered without the appearing. I guess the RSV reading could be understood that way. Maybe I'm just accepting of the common "hope and the appearing" context.

This is a good point, as according to Schofields, Colossians was written about 5 years before Titus. So the idea of "us appearing with him in glory" would have been established but I don't perceive this as the message in Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:14 "[do not] give heed to Jewish fables" with Titus 2:14-15. I think the contrast is works verses faith, and in Titus 2:13 we have the offset - the why - and more particularly a contrast between the Jewish hope and Christian hope (aka Titus 3:5-6; Titus 1:10-11; 3:9)Did not the Jews also hope for eternal life via the resurrection? This is a point of similarity with Christianity rather than contrast. I may misunderstand you here.A.Paul isn't precise about what the Jewish fables are, so I have to be speculative here: The Pharisees did have a doctrine of resurrection but the Sadducees denied it (Acts 23:8). I can only presume A.Paul held a near Pharisee understanding but with a different understanding of how it comes about and the end result - "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question" (Acts 23:6). I think the Jewish fables A.Paul refers to may have been the multi layered sheol/hades with the righteous held in the bosom of Abraham and the unrighteous seperated from them by a chasm. That sort of thing. The Jewish hope seemed to be in the promises delivered to the Patriarchs, the Law and their zealous observance of it. That sort of thing. Thinking on Titus 1:11, I think the Jewish fables may also have been referring to their extensions of observance to God's law, circumcision, sacrifices and offerings - any service for which money could be charged. But I think the greatest fable in A.Paul's mind is that of justification by works. For salvation is a free gift, with our works being merely our way of saying thankyou.

I won't dispute any of these implications in the "appearance of the glory; but I feel it is an exageration of what A.Paul was communicating to Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:9-11. It seems to me that the message of Titus 2:13, is 3:5-7. aka our justification is in "his grace, to be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."Agreed, this is a theme of Titus, and Titus 2:13 ties in well with it, particularly 3:4-7. However, if Paul really wanted to separate 'the blessed hope' from the 'appearance of the glory', it would have been easy to insert, 'of eternal life,' between the two. As it is, the two words are in a relation which, although not GSR, is immediately followed by one, and the back-to-back repetition of the syntax (article-adjective-noun-kai-noun) suggests its use for the same purpose both times. So, it appears to me that we are on better ground to seek an understanding of how hope in the appearance of God's glory ties in with Titus as a whole (perhaps along the lines of Rom. 5:2, as you mentioned)As alluded to above "our hope" has many connotations. For instance whats the point of gaining eternal life if nothing changes, we suffer, cry, get cold, go hungry etc. To me the term "eternal life" and "establishment of the kingdom of the Father" are synonymous terms with all types of implications (ie: Rev 20:14; 21:4-6).

Thinking on something you said earlier, I think 1 Thess 5:2-4 & 5:9-11 comes into play when contemplating Titus. Maybe the key focus should be on the "awaiting / looking for" at the beginning of Titus 2:13. Thus the "appearing" might be associated with 1 Thess 4:16; 5:2 and the "hope" associated with 1 Thess 5:8-10. In which case we have one event with two results - destruction of the wicked and the reward of the believer.

In the first century Vespasian was called 'Lord' and 'God'. Nero was called 'God and Savior'. God willing, I will supply the references as I locate them again. 'God and Savior' was a recognized title, much as 'Lord and Savior' in Christianity (and 'God and Savior' still is in some forms of Christianity).It has been a while since I looked into the history. In my post I was working from memory. If you can readily put your hands on any authoritative references that are available on the web that would be excellent. My source was/is an old ancient history school book on the Roman emperors.

I have a hard copy of ANF v5, so today I had a slow read of Hippolytus "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist", in the book he refers to "our Lord and Saviour" (para 44, 64) but then in the last paragraph when he refers to Jesus as "our God and Saviour" (para 67). The development of the idea (as I perceive it) is very interesting. Throughout the book there is a contrast with the Antichrist who would "glorify himself as God" (para 5), call himself God and make himself "like the Most High" (para 53 - Ezek 28:2; Isa 14:13-15).

Hippolytus does refer to Jesus as God three times: as previously noted the last paragraph. Then, "declared to be God and man" (para 61) and "[We will consider the the Antichrist, how he] shall glorify himself as God; and what his end shall be; and how the sudden appearing of the Lord shall be revealed from heaven...our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God was prophesied of under the figure of a lion...in the same way have the scriptures aforetime spoken of the Antichrist as a lion..." (para 5&6). I think para 26 defines his meaning "He showed all power given by the Father to the Son" as does the way he contrasts Christ and the Antichrist - the later set himself on high, whereas Jesus is set on high by his Father.

In the book, Hippolytus makes reference to several historical personages who he saw as prefigures of the Antichrist and though it may not be conclusive, it does indicate validity to the premise that the early Church did call Jesus God as an apposition (syntactic parallelism eg: John Smith, Manager) in opposition to the titles applied by someone to themselves (ie: the emperors as Lord, God and Savior). That said, though Hippolytus undoubtedly had a subordinationist view, he did see the Son as born of the Father, and God the Father appointed him as God to us from before creation. What I find of great interest is even with the recognition that Jesus is God to us, the emphasis is that he is our Lord to the glory of his Father - "He [Jesus] will rejoice with them [saved believers] glorifing the Father" (end Para 67).

As I think on this I am inclined to rendering Titus 2:13 as "Awaiting that blessed hope, which is [in] the appearing of the glory of the great God, which is [in] the appearing of the Saviour of us, Jesus Christ. Who gave himself for us..."

Thinking on this, my first reaction is the "kai" can be rendered "which is" so that is OK but the word "en" is missing in the Greek. What I am wondering is whether the Greek would prohibit it. Do you happen to have access to an expert in ancient Greek ?

Of course he is quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:14 there. I cannot imagine that Hippolytus thought of God Himself coming, as a personage, at the second advent. If He were to do so at that time, why not in previous times as well? Hippolytus would have seen how this undermines Logos theology.1 Thess 4:14 could be read as the coming of the kingdom of the Father, which is the ultimate hope, which the second coming of our Lord trumpets. Given verses 13-15, I'm moved to think on the fact that the dead are raised by God the Father (Rom 8:11), so he must come in some fashion (eg: spritually). There is OT witness for the appearing of the God but I'm inclined to see this as a manifestation rather than a physical thing.

Regarding Logos theology, I don't think it precludes the idea. The whole idea is that the Logos has made God known (even through the creative works) and the culmination in Revelation is that the Father is seen by us (Rev 22:4). Though I see Rev as symbolic of heaven and earth being as one, under divine control, and therefore we are in the presence of God (ie: God has turned his face back to us - so to speak). Thinking on it: There is a mass of scriptures that shows the Son as having dominion over all etc but the culmination of his rule is to conquer all his Father's enemies and then subject himself to the Father (1 Cor 15:28). So the Father is made manifest.

As an aside: there seems a correlation between 1 Thess 4:14-15 and 1 Cor 15:23.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that when A.Paul talks of the coming, he is referring to Jesus (eg: 2 Thess 2:1). Though as previously suggested John 14:9; 17:21 & 23 aids reconciling any perceived conflict in terminologies which might suggest both the Father and the Son come.

Within the above contexts, I see no conflict of understanding Titus 2:13 in a dualist sense but I suggest to understand that way is more biblical exegesis than anything else. And yet, it has a certain credence.

Essentially [the modalist, gnostics etc] did not quote it because they did not think it would help them any? Grammatical ambiguity is not the only explanation for this.I'm not sure of that. Pity few of their writings are extant. I've been meaning to look into the Nestorians, to see what writings they have available that aren't in the ANFs. My primary objection to your premise is that there is evidence that the various groups, simply rewrote what they didn't like. You know, Jeromes complaint when collating manuscripts. Even Augustine (though a PNF) rephrased scripture to suit his arguments - if I recall correctly the famous one is his rewording of Jn 17:3.

This is my point with Titus 2:13. As the grammar is ambiguous, whatever spin one puts on it isn't readily refuted, and the argument becomes "your opinion against mine". To my mind, such a scripture would be a powerful tool in attracting proselytes. I can think of several modern groups that have used this approach.

If the term was of Hellenistic provenance and a title of Caesar, perhaps it did not convey the kind of thing they were looking for?Thats a good point! Though, I'm inclined to think that the ANFs would have appealed to it all the more, as an emphasis of the Son as our God. The modalists would have loved it (as they do) as it provides a powerful link into OT teachings of God as our saviour.

Can a reason be discerned from their own writings to think other ANFs would have applied it differently than Hippolytus and the post-Nicene fathers (of many persuasions both Nicene and non-Nicene)?Maybe putting a different twist on things. For instance Clement of Alexandria's rendering is significantly different from Hippolytus even though they date roughly around the same time.

Given that nothing is new under the sun, I think it possible that the modern disputes about the rendering of A.Paul's writings might be just replications of older disputes. For instance: Irenaeus says that A.Paul uses words not in their grammatical sequence (Bk 3, Chapter 7) and that indicates to me that even as early as the 2nd century some scriptures may have been dogmatically rendered / manipulated.

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - BOOK III
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html

I have not seen it much [Lord, God & Saviour] in the ANFs, although found it in Cyprian (Epistle 46.1), and there is Irenaeus, as you mention. Perhaps in the original culture, it was not something that would confound the Son with the Father.I basically did a word/phrase search using various combinations/spellings when looking for cites of Titus 2:13 in the ANFs and came across various combinations of the words. Not always as a phrase, but it seems the words and various combinations as applied to Jesus were in fairly wide use.

Irenaeus in Book 1, Chapter 10 says "Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father".

In the Lightfoot and the Kirsopp Lake translations of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians there there is the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" (which may be an interpolation).

Ignatius also variously calls Jesus our Savior, our Lord, our God in his letters (eg: Ephesians).

These are three sources I have immediately at hand.

Romans 9:5 which uses a Jewish sort of expression seems to have posed a greater threatNoetus appealed to Rom 9:5 and in my opinion Hippolytus' refutation is a little awkward (para 6) but interestingly Hippolytus is in acceptance of Noetus' rendering. Novatian seems to have accepted the same rendering (ie: As KJV has it).

[QUOTE=Alam][QUOTE=Apostoli]The way I see it, Titus 1:3-4 has to be reconciled with 2:13; 3:4 and 3:6-7. To understand 2:13 as referring "God" to be Jesus without qualification confuses the text. Especially as 1:4 puts a specific definition to whom God is and whom the Lord Jesus Christ is. To my mind the context only allows for the KJV/NWT translation or those that render "the glory of our great God, which is" (or equivalent).Yes, this is the root of the issue, and the point where I disagree is that 2:13 would refer 'God' to Jesus without qualification. Titus 1:3 and other occurrences have 'theos', in what seems to approximate the role of a proper noun, in apposition to 'our Savior', much as 'Christ Jesus' is in apposition to 'our Savior' in the following verse. It is used in a way that denotes a specific person. In Titus 2:13 however, 'theos' is qualified by being in a Sharp's construction which excludes proper nouns and is referred to Christ, who is not the Father.I made a typo in the last post: the 3:14 ref should have been 3:4; but I trust you figured that out. Sorry!

I guess it comes down to deciding whether the glory refers to "God", "God and Saviour of us" or the "appearing". If the "appearing" then the KJV & NWT are the better renderings. If only to "God" then the understanding changes and if to both "God and Saviour of us", then we have the problem whether "emon" refers to Saviour only or both God and Saviour. Then we have the argument over "kai", does it mean "and", "and also" or "even=which is=who is". The GSR would permit all these. I've read that the position of the "emon" has no effect on the GSR, which I can readily accept but it is the qualification of "tes doxes" that makes me wonder. Arguing on grammar is not satisfactory to me, given Irenaeus' comment that A.Paul didn't always adhere to correct grammar and more particularly - there is a word for it, but I forget what it is - the study in linguistics of how someone habitually uses words - would admit that Titus 2:13 doesn't fit the rest of the epistle. Hippolytus is nice and unambiguous because he leaves out the "tes doxes".

Given A.Paul is writing to his "shepherd", I can accept him making "understood" statements without the need for qualification but A.Paul seems to qualify eveything else in the letter. For instance: Saviour in 2:13 is qualified in 2:14. 3:4 qualifies "kindness and love" as that which appeared. Now this corresponds to God's grace which appeared (vs 2:10) and to my mind, we now await a reappearing (vs 13). Not just of Jesus Christ but his coming with the kindness, love and grace of God = the glory.

I must agree with you regarding proper names. However, if we take "kai" as meaning "even=which is" then a rendering "the glory of God which is our Saviour Jesus Christ" is fully GSR compliant. Which leads me back to Titus 2:13a. If the "hope" and "appearing" using a GSR are the same thing, as the RSV has it, then the God and Saviour would seem to be also, and yet the RSV keeps them seperate. Admittedly 13a has an adverbial construction so there are undoubtedly valid grammatical reasons for the RSV rendering. To my mind the complexity of arguments around 2:13b, makes it a neutral text but 13a, I think is less problematical.

Generally, I think the ASV gives the least problematical of readings "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Though I think Winer influenced that construct.)

That sounds like a good approach, keeping in mind that, whereas particular passages cannot be understood apart from the general context, the general context itself is composed of particular passages.Very good advice.

My major complaint is many quote "God and Savior" and leave out even the sentence context. But my biggest complaint is that people get wrapped up in dogmatics and miss the message A.Paul is delivering. I think you know what I mean. Like those that cite Heb 1:7 and go Oh! When 2:9 is pointed out.

It is still hot and humid here and my sleep patterns are shot. I'm a little testy at the moment. Ah well! Our autumn is just a few months away ;-)

All the best.

alam

January 23rd 2006, 05:59 AM

Hello Apostoli:

I was looking at Romans 5:2 in connection with this thread, as well as Colossians 1:27 and 1 Timothy 1:1 which calls Jesus "our hope." In Romans 5:2, Paul says that the glory hoped for is 'of God'. What I get from this is that we rejoice in the hope in God's glory because we are at peace with God through Christ. The focus is God and how the justified faithful stand in a new relationship to God. "..we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (5:11). What we hope for is not our own glory as such, personal glorification, but God's glory and God's glory, when it is made manifest in the world, will attach to and imbue those who live in this attitude toward God, even as do the graces and spiritual virtues that He already sends into the world.
Titus 2:10-14 does seem an echo of sorts of Colossians 2:27-28 and I need to think on this more. Particularly, "the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" with "our belessed hope...that he redeemed us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people of his own". To my mind the "mystery" correlates to "Christ died for the ungodly...Christ died for us" of Rom 5:6&8 and particularly "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God" of Rom 5:10. Makes me want to read Titus 2:13 as saying "though we have not seen him, we believe and our faith will be confirmed when he returns in glory and power".

1 Tim 1:1-2 does seem to have a lot in common with Titus. Which, may not be remarkable, in as much as Tim & Titus are letters to Paul's appointed "shepherds" to whom one might expect he would write more candidly (admittedly a respectable justification for the GSR application at 2:13b). 1 Tim 1:1-2 makes me want to flash to Rom 10:9 but again I see A.Paul's message to Titus as crystal clear in 1:2; 3:4-7. Slanting Romans 5:2 towards Titus 3:7 I think the message is different aka that God would grant us immortality and as such God is glorified. Then again the ANFs distort my view a little in this regard, as they often portray immortality as an attribute of divinity and define our participation in divinity as participatation in immortality aka our hope, and that we have been reconciled to God and will sit in his presence aka our glory. Titus 3:1 makes me think on Phil 2:6-11 = be subject and you'll be exhalted. Titus 1:1;2:12;3:5 influence me as well.

This doesn't sound like a distortion.. God alone has immortality of Himself, as an essential attribute, just as He alone is Good in and of Himself. As creations draw near to the Father they are more able to participate in His qualities. You might recall that after his encounter with the Logos, Moses' own face was so glorious that the children of Israel could not look at him. Eternal life is a result of being spiritually near to God; without God in the picture--say eternal life in bad conditions as you mention below, or immortality through medical advances, it no longer resembles what the NT and ANFs meant.

I believe our basic hope is to be near to/in harmony with God. The Aramaic malkhutha' dash'maya' means "the kingship" or "dominion of heaven". "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33) on this understanding would mean that we seek the reign or dominion of God first, subjecting ourselves to that reign. Then everything else follows.

As a retrospect, there is just so much I could read into Titus 2:13a! But I think the message A.Paul is communicating to Titus (given Titus 1:2) isn't that complicated. Maybe "deny ungodliness for we should keep in mind our hope, that God through Jesus Christ, selects people zealous for good works" (cp: Titus 2:10-14 with 3:4) While this thought gives an explanation of "our blessed hope", it needs to be reconciled with "and the appearing of the glory", which given Titus 2:11 I think it does through the thought that "do not imitate the Jews who tired of waiting for the Messiah and fell short (cp: Tit 1:13-16) but remember God, who through his Son, fulfilled his promise to them, and we should witness of it to all men (cp: Tit 2:1,10-11), and testify that the Son will return in all power and glory given to him by his Father."

This makes sense as an implication of the appearing of Christ; nevertheless, at the surface-level, the blessed hope still seems to refer to the appearance of Christ's glory. As I see it the trouble with the view that the blessed hope is not the appearance of God but something else which is explained in terms of Titus' greater context is in isolating what that might be! There is Titus 1:2, of course ,and 3:7, which refer the hope to 'eternal life', and yet arguments that this is what is in view in 2:13 seem to me to be equally compatible with 'the blessed hope' referring to the 'appearance' as the occasion on which eternal life and salvation are extended to the saints' bodily nature.

Sigh! There is much I can read into Titus 2:13a; but my grander thoughts are reflections of A.Paul's teachings outside of Titus. I take comfort in your observation that "Needless to say, those such as Titus who had worked closely with Paul would have had an excellent grasp of Paul's understanding."

It is something to bear in mind. There are things going on in the background of Paul's letters that would have been known to his audience but are unclear to us, except insofar as preserved in the apostolic tradition. Although this may be partially found in church fathers, the NT itself is an earlier and more authoritative document of this tradition. Hence I would even refer to some texts such as John's to help explicate Titus--not with the view that Titus had access to John any more than he had access to Hippolytus, but that John's writings, as documents of the earliest church, may help elucidate the general background of other NT writings.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he (the object of hope, Christ) is pure (1 John 3:2-3).

In scriptural retrospect I agree, but is this how Titus would have understood it?
I think so. Colossians 3:4 again, 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:14-18; 2 Thess. 1:10. The letters to the Thessalonians are Paul's earliest extant writings. Needless to say, those such as Titus who had worked closely with Paul would have had an excellent grasp of Paul's understanding. Paul's extant writings do not exhaust his teaching work, but are snapshots of his thinking at given times in response to certain issues. Noticeable themes in his letters, especially ones that carry across letters, must have been rather important to Paul, and probably would have been known to someone like Titus, who was a close friend and fellow-worker.

And possibly because Titus and A.Paul were so close, maybe the "holes" I find, the things not written, were so initimately connected with Titus' work that they were immediately understood by him through keywords such as "blessed hope". I think, your association of Titus with Thessalonians is spot on! 1 Thess 4:18 with Titus 2:1 also seem to correlate.

This was more a less a spur of the moment association on my part. Now that you explain it, there does seem to be a greater connection.

In his letter to Titus, A.Paul doesn't even hint at our glorification. The context of Titus 2:13 seems to me, to be about the reason to humble oneself "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11) and now we await the delivery of our hope.Yet, he does not mention the resurrection as such in Titus either.

I understand Titus 1:2; 3:7 as directly referring to our resurrection. Though thinking on other scriptures, where in the coming, those still alive are taken up, "the hope of eternal life" is not exclusive to those who have died. So I take your point!

Perhaps glorification is even less separable from eternal life than the resurrection? Some may enter bodily immortality apart from resurrection, by living until the coming of the Lord, but will any enter immortality without also being glorified? Does not glorification simply mean that Christ "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:21; 2 Cor. 5:4)?

To me the simple reading is that the blessed hope in 2:13 is the appearance of the glory of our God and savior
Thinking on the Lord's prayer, I see the blessed hope as the establishment of the Father's kingdom, which the second advent of the Son brings, and because such arrives we have eternal life.

If the second advent is the occasion which brings the Father's will to fulfilment on earth as it is in heaven, and this in turn results, for the saints, in the nullification of death and resurrection of the dead, couldn't the blessed hope refer to the second advent itself, as the Event from which inexorably flows the realization of these godly hopes?

Hippolytus use of Titus 2:13 as a prayer at the end of "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist" is of interest in this regard. In para 64 he says "...and the whole world finally approaching the consumation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope...For the Lord says 'And when these things begin to come to pass then look up and lift up your heads; for your redemption draws near." (Luke 21:28)

Yes, we do look in hope for the coming of Jesus Christ. For all practical purposes, this is the blessed hope. Our individual hopes in God are, as you say below, confirmed or brought to realization through the second advent.

not our own appearance in glory or resurrection to eternal life. It remains to see how these are implied in the appearance of Christ's glory.

My thoughts are particularly influenced by contrasting Titus 2:10,11 with Titus 2:13. The "blessed hope and" seems superfluous if the hope is simply the second advent. The hope seems to be reflected in the belief held because of Titus 2:11, which is confirmed by the second advent. Though "in this present age" at Titus 2:12 implies that a new age is coming, and this I see as also a hope that is confirmed when we see him coming.

If the thing under consideration is the translation of 13a as "the blessed hope, even the appearing"... this would identify the second advent as the Event with which all other hopes are inseparably bound up.

One of the reasons I dislike renderings such as the RSV's "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing" is they just seem too limiting in scope. I see the hope and the appearing as seperate things which are so intertwined they seem as one thing. That is: the results from the appearing are our hope/s; but our hope/s cannot be delivered without the appearing. I guess the RSV reading could be understood that way. Maybe I'm just accepting of the common "hope and the appearing" context.

It seems to me that anything of which one can say, "I hope that _________ happens" is a hope, even if it is only a "stepping stone" or bit of progress toward the realization of greater and more ultimate hopes. The second advent is not only a stepping stone toward the realization of Christian hopes, a further bit of progress -- it is the very event which brings them all to pass; as you say, all of them are so intertwined that they might seem to be one thing. My understanding, based on Romans 5:2; Colossians 3:4, 1 John 3:3-4, is that in a certain respect they are one thing. Titus 2:13 would imply that inasmuch as all Christian hopes are fulfilled in the second advent, this in itself may be considered the blessed hope; it is the future "main event".

This is a good point, as according to Schofields, Colossians was written about 5 years before Titus. So the idea of "us appearing with him in glory" would have been established but I don't perceive this as the message in Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:14 "[do not] give heed to Jewish fables" with Titus 2:14-15. I think the contrast is works verses faith, and in Titus 2:13 we have the offset - the why - and more particularly a contrast between the Jewish hope and Christian hope (aka Titus 3:5-6; Titus 1:10-11; 3:9)
Did not the Jews also hope for eternal life via the resurrection? This is a point of similarity with Christianity rather than contrast. I may misunderstand you here.
A.Paul isn't precise about what the Jewish fables are, so I have to be speculative here: The Pharisees did have a doctrine of resurrection but the Sadducees denied it (Acts 23:8). I can only presume A.Paul held a near Pharisee understanding but with a different understanding of how it comes about and the end result - "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question" (Acts 23:6). I think the Jewish fables A.Paul refers to may have been the multi layered sheol/hades with the righteous held in the bosom of Abraham and the unrighteous seperated from them by a chasm. That sort of thing. The Jewish hope seemed to be in the promises delivered to the Patriarchs, the Law and their zealous observance of it. That sort of thing. Thinking on Titus 1:11, I think the Jewish fables may also have been referring to their extensions of observance to God's law, circumcision, sacrifices and offerings - any service for which money could be charged. But I think the greatest fable in A.Paul's mind is that of justification by works. For salvation is a free gift, with our works being merely our way of saying thankyou.

Good works as a way of thanking God is a wonderful way of looking at it. The Law says, "thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God" (Deut. 18:13), and can that even be quantified? This commandment reaches beyond what we do and into what we are, of which our works are just the symptom... I agree with you that justification through works is one of the big fables.

Concerning Jewish fables in general: the book of Jude draws on Jewish stories such as the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch, and Paul gives the names of Pharaoh's magicians as Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8), which he probably first learned through his pharisaic studies. I would see the key point in Titus 1:14 as, "of men that turn from the truth". Titus is admonished to not listen to myths and commandments which the people Paul is talking about might advance in support of themselves.

This could present another connection to Colossians. The "Colossian heresy" has been suggested, plausibly in my view, to be quasi-Essene, making use of recitations such as the "Songs of the Sabbath Burnt-Offering" which describe rank upon rank of angels in the heavens worshiping God, with a view to transporting the worshiper mystically or vicariously into participation in their worship: "the religion of angels," "which he hath not seen" (Col. 2:18; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; 2 Cor. 12:4). With this background the emphases of Colossians make quite a lot of sense: Christians do not need to seek entry into angelic worship because we are united with One who is above the angels, Christ seated at the right hand of God. We can naturally identify with him because he is not alien like the angels; rather, he is the Logos in whom all things consist, and one of us, "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily: and ye are complete in him". The elect are raised with him and seated in the heavenlies, their life hid with him in God (Col. 3:3), bypassing the blessed angels.

This seems to be a dividing line between Judaism and Christianity, since it is possible to turn Christianity into virtually a sect of Judaism by denying and interpreting Jesus as a prophet or solely human Messiah. Although none of this is directly stated in Titus, I see it as part of the background against which 'the hope' can shift between individual eternal life and the appearance of the Lord. The one implies the other and they cannot be separated.

I won't dispute any of these implications in the "appearance of the glory; but I feel it is an exageration of what A.Paul was communicating to Titus. Particularly because of Titus 1:9-11. It seems to me that the message of Titus 2:13, is 3:5-7. aka our justification is in "his grace, to be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Agreed, this is a theme of Titus, and Titus 2:13 ties in well with it, particularly 3:4-7. However, if Paul really wanted to separate 'the blessed hope' from the 'appearance of the glory', it would have been easy to insert, 'of eternal life,' between the two. As it is, the two words are in a relation which, although not GSR, is immediately followed by one, and the back-to-back repetition of the syntax (article-adjective-noun-kai-noun) suggests its use for the same purpose both times. So, it appears to me that we are on better ground to seek an understanding of how hope in the appearance of God's glory ties in with Titus as a whole (perhaps along the lines of Rom. 5:2, as you mentioned)

As alluded to above "our hope" has many connotations. For instance whats the point of gaining eternal life if nothing changes, we suffer, cry, get cold, go hungry etc. To me the term "eternal life" and "establishment of the kingdom of the Father" are synonymous terms with all types of implications (ie: Rev 20:14; 21:4-6).

I agree, but it seems that the second advent of Christ and the establishment of the kingdom of the Father would be at least as synonymous as the latter is with eternal life.

Thinking on something you said earlier, I think 1 Thess 5:2-4 & 5:9-11 comes into play when contemplating Titus. Maybe the key focus should be on the "awaiting / looking for" at the beginning of Titus 2:13. Thus the "appearing" might be associated with 1 Thess 4:16; 5:2 and the "hope" associated with 1 Thess 5:8-10. In which case we have one event with two results - destruction of the wicked and the reward of the believer.

Agreed. The appearance of Christ will signal the redemption of the elect as well as destroy the antichrist with the wicked (2 Thess. 1:9; 2:8).

In the first century Vespasian was called 'Lord' and 'God'. Nero was called 'God and Savior'. God willing, I will supply the references as I locate them again. 'God and Savior' was a recognized title, much as 'Lord and Savior' in Christianity (and 'God and Savior' still is in some forms of Christianity).

It has been a while since I looked into the history. In my post I was working from memory. If you can readily put your hands on any authoritative references that are available on the web that would be excellent. My source was/is an old ancient history school book on the Roman emperors.

Here's one:

The use of the titles ‘lord’ and ‘god’ in tandem in ruler cults predates the time of Domitian by more than a century in the Greek-speaking east. In the Hellenistic ruler cult, ‘lord and god’ was not an official title, but it was rather common nonetheless:
The title ‘god and lord’ is of interest, for it does not appear to be found earlier than Auletes. In P. Bouriant 12 (88 BCE) we have to_n me/giston qeo/n of Soter, but in BGU VIII we have q.k.k.b. four times: dia_ th_n tu/xhn tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou basile/wj (1764.8); tou= para_ tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou bas(ile/wj) (1789.3) and the plural tw=n qew=n kai_ kuri/wn basile/wn (1834.7 [51/50 BCE] and 1845.5); in 1838.1 (51/50 BCE) an official is described tw|= qeota/tw|= kai_ kuri/w|= strathgw|=20.
A papyrus from around the time of Ptolemy Auletes (c. 69-58 BCE) records that a religious association, dedicated to Zeus, was to arrange for a monthly banquet for its members ‘at which they should in a common room pouring libations, pray, and perform other customary rites on behalf of the god and lord, the king’ (u(pe/r te t[o]u= qeo[u=] kai_ kuri/o[u] basile/wj)
[http://www.bsw.org/?l=71821&a=Comm06.html ]

The source goes on at some length. He says of Nero,

He was also known as ‘son of god Claudius’ and ‘greatgrandson of god Sebastos’ qeou= Klaudi/ou ui(o/j ... qeou= Sebastou= a)po/gonoj52. An inscription from Salamis (c. 60-61 CE) calls him ‘god and savior’ (qew|= kai_ swth=ri)53. In 66 CE, the Parthian king Tiradates addressed Nero as ‘master’ (de/spota) and ‘my god’ (to_n e)mo_n qeo/n) within the course of a short speech (Dio Cassius, 62.14), the exact terminology Dio Cassius claims Domitian employed (67.4.7), except that the two titles were not connected by kai/.

I have a hard copy of ANF v5, so today I had a slow read of Hippolytus "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist", in the book he refers to "our Lord and Saviour" (para 44, 64) but then in the last paragraph when he refers to Jesus as "our God and Saviour" (para 67). The development of the idea (as I perceive it) is very interesting. Throughout the book there is a contrast with the Antichrist who would "glorify himself as God" (para 5), call himself God and make himself "like the Most High" (para 53 - Ezek 28:2; Isa 14:13-15).

Hippolytus does refer to Jesus as God three times: as previously noted the last paragraph. Then, "declared to be God and man" (para 61) and "[We will consider the the Antichrist, how he] shall glorify himself as God; and what his end shall be; and how the sudden appearing of the Lord shall be revealed from heaven...our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God was prophesied of under the figure of a lion...in the same way have the scriptures aforetime spoken of the Antichrist as a lion..." (para 5&6). I think para 26 defines his meaning "He showed all power given by the Father to the Son" as does the way he contrasts Christ and the Antichrist - the later set himself on high, whereas Jesus is set on high by his Father.

In the book, Hippolytus makes reference to several historical personages who he saw as prefigures of the Antichrist and though it may not be conclusive, it does indicate validity to the premise that the early Church did call Jesus God as an apposition (syntactic parallelism eg: John Smith, Manager) in opposition to the titles applied by someone to themselves (ie: the emperors as Lord, God and Savior). That said, though Hippolytus undoubtedly had a subordinationist view, he did see the Son as born of the Father, and God the Father appointed him as God to us from before creation. What I find of great interest is even with the recognition that Jesus is God to us, the emphasis is that he is our Lord to the glory of his Father - "He [Jesus] will rejoice with them [saved believers] glorifing the Father" (end Para 67).

Agreed. It must be very seldom that either of us disagree with Hippolytus. ;-)

As I think on this I am inclined to rendering Titus 2:13 as "Awaiting that blessed hope, which is the appearing of the glory of the great God, which is [in] the appearing of the Saviour of us, Jesus Christ. Who gave himself for us..."

Thinking on this, my first reaction is the "kai" can be rendered "which is" so that is OK but the word "en" is missing in the Greek. What I am wondering is whether the Greek would prohibit it. Do you happen to have access to an expert in ancient Greek ?

No, unfortunately, no one in particular. But iirc, to insert "in" one would want to see an objective genitive: "hope of the glory" being "hope in the glory." Epiphaneian tes doxes could be read as an objective genitive: the glory is what is manifested. For a dual significance there may be a comparison to Romans 1:20 (another borderline GSR case) the eternal power and godhead are both 'of him,' autou, but do not necessarily describe the same thing. However, I do not think it could be said that we await the hope in the glory, we should already be living in that hope. It just seems simpler to refer the 'hope' to the 'appearance' in Titus 2:13. Perhaps the more technical Greek aspect to this thread should be taken up on the biblical languages forum.

Of course he is quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:14 there. I cannot imagine that Hippolytus thought of God Himself coming, as a personage, at the second advent. If He were to do so at that time, why not in previous times as well? Hippolytus would have seen how this undermines Logos theology.
1 Thess 4:14 could be read as the coming of the kingdom of the Father, which is the ultimate hope, which the second coming of our Lord trumpets. Given verses 13-15, I'm moved to think on the fact that the dead are raised by God the Father (Rom 8:11), so he must come in some fashion (eg: spritually). There is OT witness for the appearing of the God but I'm inclined to see this as a manifestation rather than a physical thing.

Regarding Logos theology, I don't think it precludes the idea. The whole idea is that the Logos has made God known (even through the creative works) and the culmination in Revelation is that the Father is seen by us (Rev 22:4). Though I see Rev as symbolic of heaven and earth being as one, under divine control, and therefore we are in the presence of God (ie: God has turned his face back to us - so to speak). Thinking on it: There is a mass of scriptures that shows the Son as having dominion over all etc but the culmination of his rule is to conquer all his Father's enemies and then subject himself to the Father (1 Cor 15:28). So the Father is made manifest.

Point well taken. I think that the nature of the Son's subjection in 1 Cor. 15:24f., especially in view of Luke 1:33, "of his kingdom there shall be no end," needs more study in its own right, but this may be better for another thread.

As an aside: there seems a correlation between 1 Thess 4:14-15 and 1 Cor 15:23.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that when A.Paul talks of the coming, he is referring to Jesus (eg: 2 Thess 2:1). Though as previously suggested John 14:9; 17:21 & 23 aids reconciling any perceived conflict in terminologies which might suggest both the Father and the Son come.

Perhaps Philip was misunderstanding of the nature of the Father when he said, "shew us the Father." The way that Father discloses Himself to creations is through the Son.

Within the above contexts, I see no conflict of understanding Titus 2:13 in a dualist sense but I suggest to understand that way is more biblical exegesis than anything else. And yet, it has a certain credence.

Agreed.

Essentially [the modalist, gnostics etc] did not quote it because they did not think it would help them any? Grammatical ambiguity is not the only explanation for this.
I'm not sure of that. Pity few of their writings are extant. I've been meaning to look into the Nestorians, to see what writings they have available that aren't in the ANFs.

Nestorius: Bazaar of Heracleides (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006AJST8/002-2547905-2108837?v=glance&n=283155) (from Amazon) I do not have a copy but have read some of it; interesting stuff.

The Assyrian church of the East (http://www.cired.org/) is thought to be Nestorian. Nestorius is honored by them with a feast day but not considered their founder. Also, http://www.nestorian.org/

My primary objection to your premise is that there is evidence that the various groups, simply rewrote what they didn't like. You know, Jeromes complaint when collating manuscripts. Even Augustine (though a PNF) rephrased scripture to suit his arguments - if I recall correctly the famous one is his rewording of Jn 17:3.

This is my point with Titus 2:13. As the grammar is ambiguous, whatever spin one puts on it isn't readily refuted, and the argument becomes "your opinion against mine". To my mind, such a scripture would be a powerful tool in attracting proselytes. I can think of several modern groups that have used this approach.

If it was truly ambiguous, I would expect to find traces of different interpretations of the verse especially from the Arian controversy. Homousians such as Chrysostom had certainly begun to press it:

listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God." (Tit. ii. 13.) But can he have said "appearing" of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing "of the great God." Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, "The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." See, the Son is great also (Homily 6 on Philippians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230206.htm)).

Yet as per the other thread, the Homoians, at least, did not deny the application of 'theos' in v. 13 to Christ. Perhaps we should look into evidence of Eunomius' response to this use of the verse.

If the term was of Hellenistic provenance and a title of Caesar, perhaps it did not convey the kind of thing they were looking for?
Thats a good point! Though, I'm inclined to think that the ANFs would have appealed to it all the more, as an emphasis of the Son as our God. The modalists would have loved it (as they do) as it provides a powerful link into OT teachings of God as our saviour.

It does work in their favor now, since we have lost the category of the subordinate gods and/or epigeioi theoi. This was the context in which titles like ho theos kai sothr emerged in emperor cult. Originally, people must have recognized that the background of the phrase was not the Jewish monotheism. One would have had to see the title as emptied of its original connotation and given that of the Jewish One God specifically, as distinct from other facets of Hebrew usage including the sense in which judges/rulers were called 'gods' and 'saviors' (Exodus 22:9; Judges 3:9; Psa. 82:1, &c).

Can a reason be discerned from their own writings to think other ANFs would have applied it differently than Hippolytus and the post-Nicene fathers (of many persuasions both Nicene and non-Nicene)?
Maybe putting a different twist on things. For instance Clement of Alexandria's rendering is significantly different from Hippolytus even though they date roughly around the same time.

Hippolytus might have been quoting from memory. Clement keeps to the original, at least in what I found. It is not so clear whether he applies 'theos' in the passage to Christ, but in context it seems he did:

For, in the words of that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." This is the New Song, namely, the manifestation which has but now shined forth among us, of Him who was in the beginning, the pre-existent Word. Not long ago the pre-existent Saviour appeared on earth; He who exists in God (because "the Word was with God") appeared as our teacher; the Word appeared by whom all things have been created. He who gave us life in the beginning when as creator He formed us, taught us how to live rightly by appearing as our teacher, in order that hereafter as God He might supply us with life everlasting (Exhortation to the Greeks ch. 1; Loeb Classical Library, Butterworth tr.; pp. 17,19)

Given that nothing is new under the sun, I think it possible that the modern disputes about the rendering of A.Paul's writings might be just replications of older disputes. For instance: Irenaeus says that A.Paul uses words not in their grammatical sequence (Bk 3, Chapter 7) and that indicates to me that even as early as the 2nd century some scriptures may have been dogmatically rendered / manipulated.

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - BOOK III
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html

Thanks, that is interesting. I have doubts about trying to read Paul's writings out of syntax when they present doctrinal difficulties. Unless there is some way of making this manageable and consistent, I would have to assume that maybe it works for Irenaeus, but is one of those "don't try this at home" things.. :-)

I have not seen it much [Lord, God & Saviour] in the ANFs, although found it in Cyprian (Epistle 46.1), and there is Irenaeus, as you mention. Perhaps in the original culture, it was not something that would confound the Son with the Father.
I basically did a word/phrase search using various combinations/spellings when looking for cites of Titus 2:13 in the ANFs and came across various combinations of the words. Not always as a phrase, but it seems the words and various combinations as applied to Jesus were in fairly wide use.

Irenaeus in Book 1, Chapter 10 says "Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father".

In the Lightfoot and the Kirsopp Lake translations of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians there there is the phrase "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" (which may be an interpolation).

Ignatius also variously calls Jesus our Savior, our Lord, our God in his letters (eg: Ephesians).

These are three sources I have immediately at hand.

Thank you, now I see what you mean. I had in view the specific phrase "our Lord God and Saviour" Counting different permutations would increase the number quite a bit.

Romans 9:5 which uses a Jewish sort of expression seems to have posed a greater threat
Noetus appealed to Rom 9:5 and in my opinion Hippolytus' refutation is a little awkward (para 6) but interestingly Hippolytus is in acceptance of Noetus' rendering. Novatian seems to have accepted the same rendering (ie: As KJV has it).

I would have to agree with you here on Hippolytus' response, but something like it still would have to be the correct interpretation, assuming the application of 'theos' in 9:5 to Christ.

The way I see it, Titus 1:3-4 has to be reconciled with 2:13; 3:4 and 3:6-7. To understand 2:13 as referring "God" to be Jesus without qualification confuses the text. Especially as 1:4 puts a specific definition to whom God is and whom the Lord Jesus Christ is. To my mind the context only allows for the KJV/NWT translation or those that render "the glory of our great God, which is" (or equivalent).
Yes, this is the root of the issue, and the point where I disagree is that 2:13 would refer 'God' to Jesus without qualification. Titus 1:3 and other occurrences have 'theos', in what seems to approximate the role of a proper noun, in apposition to 'our Savior', much as 'Christ Jesus' is in apposition to 'our Savior' in the following verse. It is used in a way that denotes a specific person. In Titus 2:13 however, 'theos' is qualified by being in a Sharp's construction which excludes proper nouns and is referred to Christ, who is not the Father.

I made a typo in the last post: the 3:14 ref should have been 3:4; but I trust you figured that out. Sorry!

Got it, and no problem.

I guess it comes down to deciding whether the glory refers to "God", "God and Saviour of us" or the "appearing". If the "appearing" then the KJV & NWT are the better renderings. If only to "God" then the understanding changes and if to both "God and Saviour of us", then we have the problem whether "emon" refers to Saviour only or both God and Saviour.

Both, if 'God and Saviour' was one phrase, similar to 'Lord and Saviour'.

Then we have the argument over "kai", does it mean "and", "and also" or "even=which is=who is". The GSR would permit all these. I've read that the position of the "emon" has no effect on the GSR, which I can readily accept but it is the qualification of "tes doxes" that makes me wonder. Arguing on grammar is not satisfactory to me, given Irenaeus' comment that A.Paul didn't always adhere to correct grammar and more particularly - there is a word for it, but I forget what it is - the study in linguistics of how someone habitually uses words - would admit that Titus 2:13 doesn't fit the rest of the epistle. Hippolytus is nice and unambiguous because he leaves out the "tes doxes".

Apart from grammar there is not a lot to say; it would be a matter of the likelihood of Paul calling Christ 'theos' in a given passage, since he calls both God and Christ 'our Saviour' in the pastorals, and does not use 'megas theos' elsewhere. The only point I would propose is that 'God and Saviour' was a recognized expression with unipersonal application, and to his readers Paul would have seemed to use this in Titus 2:13.

Moulton lists several instances of this expression as referring to Roman emperors, though all but one of them dates from the [i]seventh century CE. But there are earlier uses of the phrase circulating in hellenistic circles—and not a few which antedate the NT. Harris, in fact, argues that “the expression oJ qeoV" kaiV swthvr was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology . . . and invariably denoted one deity, not two." More than likely, then, the expression should be traced to non-Jewish sources, especially those relating to emperor-worship...(Daniel B. Wallace, Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496)).

Given A.Paul is writing to his "shepherd", I can accept him making "understood" statements without the need for qualification but A.Paul seems to qualify eveything else in the letter. For instance: Saviour in 2:13 is qualified in 2:14. 3:4 qualifies "kindness and love" as that which appeared. Now this corresponds to God's grace which appeared (vs 2:10) and to my mind, we now await a reappearing (vs 13). Not just of Jesus Christ but his coming with the kindness, love and grace of God = the glory.

I must agree with you regarding proper names. However, if we take "kai" as meaning "even=which is" then a rendering "the glory of God which is our Saviour Jesus Christ" is fully GSR compliant. Which leads me back to Titus 2:13a. If the "hope" and "appearing" using a GSR are the same thing, as the RSV has it, then the God and Saviour would seem to be also, and yet the RSV keeps them seperate.

I am having trouble finding this edition of the RSV online. Here is what I find online and on my shelf:

...Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvTitu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1)

The footnote mentions, "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ"

Admittedly 13a has an adverbial construction so there are undoubtedly valid grammatical reasons for the RSV rendering. To my mind the complexity of arguments around 2:13b, makes it a neutral text but 13a, I think is less problematical.

Generally, I think the ASV gives the least problematical of readings "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Though I think Winer influenced that construct.)

What I have been reading in Wallace's thesis quoted above attributes the general lapse in popularity of Sharp's rule to Winer.

The ASV reading is not too controversial since it can be interpreted in either way. Of course, the KJV can be read either way too; it just tends to translate Sharp's constructions very literally. Perhaps the most startling:

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Col. 2:2);

My major complaint is many quote "God and Savior" and leave out even the sentence context. But my biggest complaint is that people get wrapped up in dogmatics and miss the message A.Paul is delivering. I think you know what I mean. Like those that cite Heb 1:7 and go Oh! When 2:9 is pointed out.

Dogma arising from such methods cannot be very trustworthy.

It is still hot and humid here and my sleep patterns are shot. I'm a little testy at the moment. Ah well! Our autumn is just a few months away ;-)

Quite a bigger world than just one hemisphere would tell! It is still hard for me to envision January as a Summer month! It is snowy out here. :dizzy: Please take it easy and feel no need to maintain the current pace of this discussion. I am going to be busy this week and may not be able to get back to this thread for several days. Yours in Christ,

Pythagoras

January 24th 2006, 12:47 PM

Hi Alam,

Greetings in the name of the Father of Jesus Christ, the only True God. And peace.

It's obvious that the expression "the Great God" in Titus 2:13 functions as a proper name ; infact , in many ways it's even more restrictive in it's application since the bible makes it clear that there is only one "great God" but we know there are many Peters or Johns etc. Titus 2:13 is therefore another clear exception to Sharp's rule.

There could be little doubt that "the great God" in Titus 2:13 was a refrence to Yhwh, the Father, the God of Jesus and no one reading it could have confused the two, since "Saviour Jesus Christ" is very capable of standing on it's own. Also, Jesus is to appear in the great God's glory. Psalm 85:10 (LXX) uses the descriptive "ho Theos..ho megas" in this regard. In adition, the text writes "monos"..-- "You alone are the great God." There are other, less explicit examples to show the "great God" refrenced God Almighty . -- check Deut 10:17, Neh 1:5, Neh.9:32 ,etc.

On another note , it could also be (as you have already indicated) that Paul was using this expression in the Greco-Roman spirit,which they subsequently understood in refrence to Jesus,as an opposition/contrast, rather than to Roman emperors, heroes and the like. Jesus is thus the "great God" in a qualified , restrictive sense.

Titus 2:13 is inimical to the trinitarian interpretation, unfortunately, whichever way one dissects it.

best wishes,

alam

January 27th 2006, 01:20 AM

Hi Pythagoras:

Hi Alam,

Greetings in the name of the Father of Jesus Christ, the only True God. And peace.

Also to you.

It's obvious that the expression "the Great God" in Titus 2:13 functions as a proper name ; infact , in many ways it's even more restrictive in it's application since the bible makes it clear that there is only one "great God" but we know there are many Peters or Johns etc. Titus 2:13 is therefore another clear exception to Sharp's rule.

There could be little doubt that "the great God" in Titus 2:13 was a refrence to Yhwh, the Father, the God of Jesus and no one reading it could have confused the two, since "Saviour Jesus Christ" is very capable of standing on it's own. Also, Jesus is to appear in the great God's glory. Psalm 85:10 (LXX) uses the descriptive "ho Theos..ho megas" in this regard. In adition, the text writes "monos"..-- "You alone are the great God." There are other, less explicit examples to show the "great God" refrenced God Almighty . -- check Deut 10:17, Neh 1:5, Neh.9:32 ,etc.

This is a good point. However, Scripture often applies terms to God out of their ordinary sense. God is the mighty God (Jer. 32:18) but not just mighty; rather, He is Almighty. He is not just Wise (Romans 16:27) but Omniscient.

When the condition "only" is added, as in the verses "who alone hath immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16) and "Thou alone art holy" (Rev. 15:4), it is to show these terms' unique application to God.

The Hebrew of Psalm 86:10 (85:10 lxx) presents another example: 'attah 'elohim l'vaddekha -- "thou alone art 'elohim." In the sense in which He is God or 'elohim, He alone is 'elohim. As you know, others are called 'elohim, but to argue on such grounds that they are God Himself would commit the fallacy of equivocation, because they are not 'elohim in the same way.

The LXX acknowledges the idiom of 85:10 by adding the adjective 'great'. Even this does not bring us to strict literal accuracy: God is not simply "a great god"; He transcends the whole class of gods, being "a great King above all gods" (Psa. 95:3)...

Along these lines, both God and Jesus could possess the title 'theos' with the adjective 'Great'. As applied to Jesus it would not have the superlative sense which denotes God alone, since he taught, "my Father... is greater than all" (John 10:29), including himself, for he taught, "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Paul agreed that "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3).

On another note , it could also be (as you have already indicated) that Paul was using this expression in the Greco-Roman spirit,which they subsequently understood in refrence to Jesus,as an opposition/contrast, rather than to Roman emperors, heroes and the like. Jesus is thus the "great God" in a qualified , restrictive sense.

As per the above, 'ho theos kai sothr' seems to have been a non-Jewish expression of divinity. Hence my reluctance to interpret Tit. 2:13 in solely Judaic terms.

Btw, it is great to hear from you again!

Yours in Christ,

Pythagoras

January 27th 2006, 06:58 AM

Greetings Alam, and blessings in God's name.

This is a good point. However, Scripture often applies terms to God out of their ordinary sense. God is the mighty God (Jer. 32:18) but not just mighty; rather, He is Almighty. He is not just Wise (Romans 16:27) but Omniscient.

When the condition "only" is added, as in the verses "who alone hath immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16) and "Thou alone art holy" (Rev. 15:4), it is to show these terms' unique application to God.

The Hebrew of Psalm 86:10 (85:10 lxx) presents another example: 'attah 'elohim l'vaddekha -- "thou alone art 'elohim." In the sense in which He is God or 'elohim, He alone is 'elohim. As you know, others are called 'elohim, but to argue on such grounds that they are God Himself would commit the fallacy of equivocation, because they are not 'elohim in the same way.

The LXX acknowledges the idiom of 85:10 by adding the adjective 'great'. Even this does not bring us to strict literal accuracy: God is not simply "a great god"; He transcends the whole class of gods, being "a great King above all gods" (Psa. 95:3)...

I agree with what you're saying, but my point is that in Titus 2:13 there is nothing preventing "the Great God" [or for that matter even "God"(Theos)] from functioning or from being a proper name. The point is that when Scripture refers to "our Great God and Saviour , Jesus Christ" it can mean two things -- both the "Great God", and the "Saviour", Jesus Christ. Some academics have taken the stance that both "Great God" and "Saviour, Jesus Christ" are proper names in their own right. Arguing from purely a Jewish standpoint, "God" and "Saviour" in Titus 2:13 are semantic equivalents of proper names, as titular names, and therefore Sharp's exception to his rule must apply to this verse.

If "the great God" is a fixed expression for Jehovah, the Father, then it could stand on it's own in Titus 2:13. The expression could be construred like so : "the California Governor and the President, George Bush". Contextually it seems to be saying that we are awaiting the appearing of both the "great God"(i.e. The Father, i.e. His glory) and our "Lord Jesus". There is no doubt that "Theos" and "Pater" can be used in the NT as a proper name, so why not "great God"? What's the determining factor? Context, sense and meaning, ofcourse. Is it unreasonable to assume Paul's audience would have automatically equated "great God" [or even "God"(Theos) for that matter] with the Father in Titus 2:13 and other passages unless clearly stated otherwise? I think Paul uses "Theos" hundreds of times in his writings, but never once of Jesus(correct me if I'm wrong here). In anycase, "Theos" invariably signifies the Father in scripture and Jesus is referred to as "Theos" a handful of times. So why do we assume Paul's refering to the Son in Titus 2:13, when the vaste number of times "Theos" refers to the Father? After all it can be argued that no one is spoken of as the "great God" in the OT, except for Jehovah. So the point upon which the question hinges is very simple. How did the Jews understand the expression "great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? It's unlikely that they read it in a trinitarian frame of refrence. And more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the appelation "great God" could only have indicated Yhwh Father to the monotheistic, Shema reciting Christians(preponderantly Jewish) of Paul's era. Doubtless no trinitarian baggage into this expression had yet been introduced .

Overall, there is no actual proof in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is YHWH. The arguments presented are after the fact trinitarian posturings. One has to first assume that Jesus is God Almighty, then read this into the scripture, and then apply Sharp's rule to say "great God" is not a proper name, then indicate this is proof for Christ's deity; in effect, this is circular reasoning using Sharp's rule.

God bless,

P.S. Good to hear from you also Alam, faithful servant and light of Christ.

One more thing:

Along these lines, both God and Jesus could possess the title 'theos' with the adjective 'Great'. As applied to Jesus it would not have the superlative sense which denotes God alone, since he taught, "my Father... is greater than all" (John 10:29), including himself, for he taught, "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Paul agreed that "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3).

I would said even if Jesus does posess the title "theos" with the adjective great, it must be in the spirit of Isaiah 9:6 , "Mighty El" or "Mighty God". The "great God" indicator does not carry full freight when applied to Jesus obviously, for we only have One everlasting God, who alone is great. Jesus is given by God to be "great" and not by himself. He can do nothing on his own accord.I'm sure you concour.

apostoli

January 28th 2006, 02:26 PM

Hi Alam,

Please take it easy and feel no need to maintain the current pace of this discussion. I am going to be busy this week and may not be able to get back to this thread for several days.At times we will both have obstacles preventing us from a high paced conversation, so I thought we might reduce the pace. I'm still thinking on what you wrote but one paragraph caught my attention...

...at the surface-level, the blessed hope still seems to refer to the appearance of Christ's glory. As I see it the trouble with the view that the blessed hope is not the appearance of God but something else which is explained in terms of Titus' greater context is in isolating what that might be! There is Titus 1:2, of course ,and 3:7, which refer the hope to 'eternal life', and yet arguments that this is what is in view in 2:13 seem to me to be equally compatible with 'the blessed hope' referring to the 'appearance' as the occasion on which eternal life and salvation are extended to the saints' bodily nature.Given Rom 8:24-25 I might agree with you: "For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope...if we hope for that which we see not, then so we with patience wait for it." However, given Rom 8, it seems the hope refers to being raised up (vs8), our sharing in divinity (v19), release of all creation from bondage (v21). Rom 8:23 makes it clear what we are "waiting for the adoption, that is the redemption of our body".

In an earlier post I considered whether the conjunction "kai" might be translated "which is" or "which is [in]". I can't see the "the hope" and "the appearing" as the same thing as "the appearing itself" is only the beginning of promised future events.

I was thinking on Titus 1:2 & 3:7, in the context of Romans 8 which led me to think on "God does not lie", so Titus would have taken for granted the promise of "eternal life". However, given Titus chapters 2 &3, I think A.Paul was warning Titus that it was only a gaurantee for those who are found holy when the judgement comes. Aka with the second coming of the Lord, judgement of the righteous and unrighteous also comes. Be sure you and your charges are found righteous.

Admittedly, "judgement" is not mentioned in Titus. However, I am contemplating on what would A.Paul/Titus have preached as the motivation of 3:8. At first glance vs 3:7 seems to have the answer. However, A.Paul uses the word "hope" not "promise", so reflecting back on A.Paul's writings, in his eyes, "eternal life" is only gauranteed to those who remain righteous. (eg: Rom 8:11). Rom 8:28-39 influence my thoughts on Titus 3:8.

Have a great weekend!

apostoli

January 28th 2006, 03:17 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

Welcome back!

Hi Alam, It's obvious that the expression "the Great God" in Titus 2:13 functions as a proper name ; infact , in many ways it's even more restrictive in it's application since the bible makes it clear that there is only one "great God" but we know there are many Peters or Johns etc. Titus 2:13 is therefore another clear exception to Sharp's rule.

There could be little doubt that "the great God" in Titus 2:13 was a refrence to Yhwh, the Father, the God of Jesus and no one reading it could have confused the two, since "Saviour Jesus Christ" is very capable of standing on it's own. Also, Jesus is to appear in the great God's glory. Psalm 85:10 (LXX) uses the descriptive "ho Theos..ho megas" in this regard. In adition, the text writes "monos"..-- "You alone are the great God." There are other, less explicit examples to show the "great God" refrenced God Almighty . -- check Deut 10:17, Neh 1:5, Neh.9:32 ,etc.

On another note , it could also be (as you have already indicated) that Paul was using this expression in the Greco-Roman spirit,which they subsequently understood in refrence to Jesus,as an opposition/contrast, rather than to Roman emperors, heroes and the like.

Titus 2:13 is inimical to the trinitarian interpretation, unfortunately, whichever way one dissects it.My premise is that Titus was a personal letter, not a congregational letter. So, A.Paul may have been more candid than we find him in his other letters.

Titus was a gentile, so it is possible that A.Paul wrote Titus 2:13 in the Roman sense and so "great God and Saviour" might be a contrast with the emperor/s. Isaiah 9:6 would permit Jesus as being called "great God".

There is a Judeo-Christian teaching (Jn 17:21-23; Rom 8:9-11) that might also support the understanding that "God and Savior" applies to Christ especially given modern translations which render "the appearing of the glory". (ie: Jn 14:9).

Jesus is thus the "great God" in a qualified , restrictive sense.Given Phil 2:9-11 and 1 Cor 15:28. That is a fair call.

Titus 2:13 is inimical to the trinitarian interpretation, unfortunately, whichever way one dissects it.I might agree with you in regards to USA influenced evangelicals but not neccessarily as regards the understanding of the Orthodox churches.

1 Cor 15:27, Col 1:16-19, Phil 2:10 do indicate that Jesus has been made God to us by the Father, and through such the Father is glorified.

I may be able to justify the possibility of Titus 2:13 as applying God and Savior to Jesus, but I have the opinion (because of Titus 1:3&4) that it doesn't identify Jesus as being God the Father - as the modalists want.

To me a broader question is "what does being God mean?". We ourselves are promised as sharing in divinity (eg: 2 Pet 1:4). To my mind, there is one true God the Father (Eph 1:17; 3:14; 4:6). However, whereas the Jews were made subject to YHWH through their Law, we have been made subject to Jesus Christ and he has been made our owner/master/Lord and his believers are promised to be his bride.

That said: Alam and I are discussing the first clause of Titus 2:3 and I'd to hear your insights in this regard.

Pythagoras

January 28th 2006, 05:04 PM

Greetings Apostoli,

Welcome back!

Thank you, and blessings in Christ Jesus.

My premise is that Titus was a personal letter, not a congregational letter. So, A.Paul may have been more candid than we find him in his other letters.

Titus was a gentile, so it is possible that A.Paul wrote Titus 2:13 in the Roman sense and so "great God and Saviour" might be a contrast with the emperor/s. Isaiah 9:6 would permit Jesus as being called "great God".

I'm certainly not averse to this point of view, it's logical, and puts into proper context the expression "great God and Saviour". I think alam also is inclined to this perspective.

But I'm also looking at the other possibilities....

There is a Judeo-Christian teaching (Jn 17:21-23; Rom 8:9-11) that might also support the understanding that "God and Savior" applies to Christ especially given modern translations which render "the appearing of the glory". (ie: Jn 14:9).

The word "Saviour" certainly can apply to both God and to Christ. Also the word "God" or "Theos" , in certain clearly qualified biblical passages. However it's undeniable that when the word "God"("Theos") is read in the bible (OT and NT), the natural inclination/tendency was(still is with me) to think in terms of only the one True God, Yhwh, unless the clear context demands something else. That's why Christ is called "Theos" only a handful of times in clearly defined, unmistakable terms in the entire Scripture.

Could Paul not have penned the expression,"our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" within the perimeters of his natural tendency without thinking twice that he was communicating with a Gentile? It's a distinct possibility. Please note that in Titus 2:13 the full expression is "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ", and not just "God" and "Saviour". Considering that Paul never uses "God" (Theos) to refer to Jesus in any of his writings or in any of his other statements to Gentiles, it sems to me a compelling point. Is Paul's "our great God" refering to God or to Christ? The answer is ofcourse subjective because we have to read his mind to find out. Trinitarians think one way and Unitatrians the other. So ofcourse this begs the question, if Sharp's rule is applied to it to prove the "Deity of Christ" . In my opinion, it's quite possible that Paul was following his natural, innate, subconscious tendecy when he wrote "our great God" , meaning that he was refering to the Father here and using the expression as a proper name.

It's curious that Jesus is never called the "great God" in the bible. However even if he was, it would not be probative to Deity. Infact Diana trumps Christ in this regard for she is called the "the Great Goddess Diana" in Acts 19:35 . The true God, the Father of Jesus, is expressly called "great God" in the bible, Psalm 85:10 (LXX) -- "ho Theos..ho megas" . So Paul could have been refering to him in Titus 2:13, considering Paul's Jewish propensity .

God bless,

P.S. I'm aware that you are discussing the first clause of Titus 2:3. Please concentrate on it and I would furnish insights, if any, in this regard.

alam

January 28th 2006, 05:25 PM

Greetings Alam, and blessings in God's name.

I agree with what you're saying, but my point is that in Titus 2:13 there is nothing preventing "the Great God" [or for that matter even "God"(Theos)] from functioning or from being a proper name. The point is that when Scripture refers to "our Great God and Saviour , Jesus Christ" it can mean two things -- both the "Great God", and the "Saviour", Jesus Christ. Some academics have taken the stance that both "Great God" and "Saviour, Jesus Christ" are proper names in their own right. Arguing from purely a Jewish standpoint, "God" and "Saviour" in Titus 2:13 are semantic equivalents of proper names, as titular names, and therefore Sharp's exception to his rule must apply to this verse.

If "the great God" is a fixed expression for Jehovah, the Father, then it could stand on it's own in Titus 2:13. The expression could be construred like so : "the California Governor and the President, George Bush". Contextually it seems to be saying that we are awaiting the appearing of both the "great God"(i.e. The Father, i.e. His glory) and our "Lord Jesus". There is no doubt that "Theos" and "Pater" can be used in the NT as a proper name, so why not "great God"? What's the determining factor? Context, sense and meaning, ofcourse. Is it unreasonable to assume Paul's audience would have automatically equated "great God" [or even "God"(Theos) for that matter] with the Father in Titus 2:13 and other passages unless clearly stated otherwise? I think Paul uses "Theos" hundreds of times in his writings, but never once of Jesus(correct me if I'm wrong here). In anycase, "Theos" invariably signifies the Father in scripture and Jesus is referred to as "Theos" a handful of times. So why do we assume Paul's refering to the Son in Titus 2:13, when the vaste number of times "Theos" refers to the Father? After all it can be argued that no one is spoken of as the "great God" in the OT, except for Jehovah. So the point upon which the question hinges is very simple. How did the Jews understand the expression "great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? It's unlikely that they read it in a trinitarian frame of refrence. And more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the appelation "great God" could only have indicated Yhwh Father to the monotheistic, Shema reciting Christians(preponderantly Jewish) of Paul's era. Doubtless no trinitarian baggage into this expression had yet been introduced .

Overall, there is no actual proof in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is YHWH. The arguments presented are after the fact trinitarian posturings. One has to first assume that Jesus is God Almighty, then read this into the scripture, and then apply Sharp's rule to say "great God" is not a proper name, then indicate this is proof for Christ's deity; in effect, this is circular reasoning using Sharp's rule.

God bless,

P.S. Good to hear from you also Alam, faithful servant and light of Christ.

One more thing:

I would said even if Jesus does posess the title "theos" with the adjective great, it must be in the spirit of Isaiah 9:6 , "Mighty El" or "Mighty God". The "great God" indicator does not carry full freight when applied to Jesus obviously, for we only have One everlasting God, who alone is great. Jesus is given by God to be "great" and not by himself. He can do nothing on his own accord.I'm sure you concour.

Hello Pythagoras, and God bless,

I would said even if Jesus does posess the title "theos" with the adjective great, it must be in the spirit of Isaiah 9:6 , "Mighty El" or "Mighty God". The "great God" indicator does not carry full freight when applied to Jesus obviously, for we only have One everlasting God, who alone is great. Jesus is given by God to be "great" and not by himself. He can do nothing on his own accord.I'm sure you concour.
[/size]

Absolutely. You are also right to suggest an association with Isa. 9:6. From The Interpreter's Bible, vol. ix : "Great is applied to God in the N.T. only here, although it occurs frequently in the O.T., especially in the Psalms, Isaiah, and later writings. It is common in secular Greek as an epithet of gods or kings, and means 'powerful'" (p. 539).

I do not think an infallible case can be made for the unipersonal reading of Titus 2:13. The arguments are cumulative. What changed my view on it was finding that the Homoians, at least Maximinus and the author of the Fragmenta in Lucam, considered the expression to apply to Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1333743&postcount=95). In favor of the reading, Harper's commentary (J.N.D. Kelly, 1963) mentions that "it has the support of the Greek fathers," but counters with, "The fathers, again, were influenced in part by theological motives...and as against them the early versions, which are older, support [the bipersonal reading]" (p. 246). The western Homoians probably did not have theological motives for this reading, and used old Latin versions.

Your observations on the function of 'megas theos' in Judaism are valid and appreciated. However, in some forms of ancient Judaism, titles normally belonging to God, such as 'el de`oth (God of knowledge), 'elohim hay (living God), and similar, could be applied in a restricted sense to angels. You could refer to the Qumran "Songs of the Sabbath Burnt-Offering" (4Q400-407) for examples of this.

Yours in Christ,

Pythagoras

January 28th 2006, 06:19 PM

Greetings Alam,

Hello Pythagoras, and God bless,

I do not think an infallible case can be made for the unipersonal reading of Titus 2:13. The arguments are cumulative. What changed my view on it was finding that the Homoians, at least Maximinus and the author of the Fragmenta in Lucam, considered the expression to apply to Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1333743&postcount=95). In favor of the reading, Harper's commentary (J.N.D. Kelly, 1963) mentions that "it has the support of the Greek fathers," but counters with, "The fathers, again, were influenced in part by theological motives...and as against them the early versions, which are older, support [the bipersonal reading]" (p. 246). The western Homoians probably did not have theological motives for this reading, and used old Latin versions.

Thanks for your observations. I don't disagree. My point being that it's conjecture one way or other . Could Paul have meant one thing but the early church Fathers another? It's a distinct possibility.

God bless,

apostoli

January 29th 2006, 12:30 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

The word "Saviour" certainly can apply to both God and to Christ. Also the word "God" or "Theos" , in certain clearly qualified biblical passages. However it's undeniable that when the word "God"("Theos") is read in the bible (OT and NT), the natural inclination/tendency was(still is with me) to think in terms of only the one True God, Yhwh, unless the clear context demands something else. That's why Christ is called "Theos" only a handful of times in clearly defined, unmistakable terms in the entire Scripture.

Could Paul not have penned the expression,"our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" within the perimeters of his natural tendency without thinking twice that he was communicating with a Gentile? It's a distinct possibility.
In a trinitarian/binitarian sence, you might have a point! Even though, A.Paul regularly distinguishes between God the Father (whom he equates as the God of the OT) and the Son of God (whom he identifies as Jesus), A.Paul may have seen the two, so much as one, that they are the one God (Godhead) to us.

Modalist definitely read Titus 2:13 as identifing the "Father is the Son" but A.Paul's letters especially Ephesians make it evident that A.Paul considered the Son as have pre-existence, and has the the Father and the Son as two distinct individualities.

Please note that in Titus 2:13 the full expression is "our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ", and not just "God" and "Saviour".Actually, this is only one of many possible renderings. It might also be rendered "the great God and our Savior" as the KJV & NWT have it. The actual Greek is...

prosdekhomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes
awaiting the blessed hope and appearing [of] the glory

toy megaloy theoy kai soteros emon iesoy kristoy
[of] the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus

Considering that Paul never uses "God" (Theos) to refer to Jesus in any of his writings or in any of his other statements to Gentiles, it sems to me a compelling point. Is Paul's "our great God" refering to God or to Christ? The answer is ofcourse subjective because we have to read his mind to find out. Trinitarians think one way and Unitatrians the other. So ofcourse this begs the question, if Sharp's rule is applied to it to prove the "Deity of Christ" .Seems there is a variety of possible renderings all permitted by the Greek grammars and all providing a different understanding - trinitarian, unitarian or modalist. So to me Titus 2:13b is a neutral text.

In my opinion, it's quite possible that Paul was following his natural, innate, subconscious tendecy when he wrote "our great God" , meaning that he was refering to the Father here and using the expression as a proper name.I've thought on this and it would end all debate if it was proved so. However, it is the use of "epiphaneian tes doxes" that seems to restrict such an opinion.

It's curious that Jesus is never called the "great God" in the bible. However even if he was, it would not be probative to Deity.I think I get your drift here.

Infact Diana trumps Christ in this regard for she is called the "the Great Goddess Diana" in Acts 19:35.But not by any Christian!

The true God, the Father of Jesus, is expressly called "great God" in the bible, Psalm 85:10 (LXX) -- "ho Theos..ho megas" . So Paul could have been refering to him in Titus 2:13, considering Paul's Jewish propensity .The OT never talks of "God the Father" but A.Paul never stops talking about him and how he sent his Son!

Something I have often thought on: The Jews had YHWH, in their eyes a jealous, wrathful husband. But the Christians, have the loving Father, who sent his Son to save us and who has betrothed us to his Son. And it is through our acceptence of this betrothal that we receive the adoption.

stabalizer

January 29th 2006, 02:07 PM

alam

January 29th 2006, 04:31 PM

Hello Apostoli:

Hi Alam,

At times we will both have obstacles preventing us from a high paced conversation, so I thought we might reduce the pace.

Agreed, let's take this more slowly. I would like to return to your latest post after a little while.

In a previous post (11 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1349500&postcount=11)) you mentioned Acts 23:6, "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." This was not proposed as an example of kai identifying the conjuncts but it does seem to be one. Apart for anarthrous 'elpidos', it also presents a close parallel to Titus 2:13a. I will leave this for you to comment on, or not, and start looking at Romans 8.

God bless,

Pythagoras

January 29th 2006, 05:53 PM

Greetings apostoli, and peace in Christ.

Seems there is a variety of possible renderings all permitted by the Greek grammars and all providing a different understanding - trinitarian, unitarian or modalist. So to me Titus 2:13b is a neutral text.

And that's the bottom line. It's akin to John 1:1.

The OT never talks of "God the Father" but A.Paul never stops talking about him and how he sent his Son!

I disagree. Jesus wasn't innovating when he reminded the Jews that Yhwh was their Father -- check Ex. 4:22-23, Deut 8:5, 2 Sam 7:14-16, etc.

God bless,

apostoli

January 31st 2006, 11:58 PM

Hi Alam,

In a previous post (11) you mentioned Acts 23:6, "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." This was not proposed as an example of kai identifying the conjuncts but it does seem to be one. Apart for anarthrous 'elpidos', it also presents a close parallel to Titus 2:13a.One of the reasons I like chatting with you. You have the knack of highlighting little things I hadn't noticed and leading me onto new paths of investigation Thankyou! ;-)

peri elpidos kai anastaseos nekron krinomai
about hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged

Acts 23:6 lead me to 24:15 "have hope toward God...that there be a resurrection" (KJV). Which made me think that "kai" at 23:16 has the sense of "which is", but seems "kai" can have annother connotation as "of"
eg: hope of resurrection of the dead (NEB, NWT)

So I tried that on Titus 2:13a and it does seem to work.

prosdekhomenoi ten makarian elpida kai* epiphaneian tes doxes
awaiting the blessed hope of [the] appearing [of] the glory

Seems the article "ten" may prohibit such a rendering, as the majority of translations provide "and" for "kai". My understanding of kione constructs is inadequate, so I have to go with the majority opinion.

In anycase, you made me curious and I went through my Cruden's Concordance and searched where "hope" is used with "and" in the old KJV - found three other cites. Their construct may not be the same as Titus 2:13a but they are of particular interest for their message...

1 Thess 2:19-20 might give a different understanding to "the blessed hope", than we have discussed so far: "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation - why, is it not in fact you? - before our Lord Jesus at his presence. You certainly are our glory and joy." (NWT, similar to NEB)

1 Pe 1:21 speaks of both Christ's glory and our hope; in a way that seems to conform to the idea of "the appearing of the glory of the great God" - "Through him you have come to trust God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, and so your faith and hope are fixed on God." (NEB)

1 Pe 1:13 "fix your hopes on the gift of grace which is to be yours when Jesus Christ is revealed" (NEB)

I will leave this for you to comment on, or not :-)

I'm still thinking on 1 Tim 1:1 (re: your cite post #10). But I keep coming to the conclusion that the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory are seperate, though interlinked. Maybe it is my focus! I think I'll put "hope" to the side, and change focus to "appearing" and see where that leads me.

All the best

apostoli

February 1st 2006, 12:00 AM

Hi Pythagaros,

Seems there is a variety of possible renderings all permitted by the Greek grammars and all providing a different understanding - trinitarian, unitarian or modalist. So to me Titus 2:13b is a neutral text.And that's the bottom line. It's akin to John 1:1.There are several text I see as neutral, as they can be read in several ways. The last clause of Jn 1:1 being one of them but not the second clause.

A precise rending of Jn 1:1c does show A.John making not only a distinction between God and the Logos, but also a signification of their nature - "what God was the [Logos] was" (NEB). A lot of people jump on this to show the equality of God and the Logos, but as I am sure you agree, this nature is something we are told by scripture to might attain through our imitation of Christ (eg: Eph 4:19, 2 Pe 1:4).

Of more significance to me is the phrase "kai o Logos en pros ton Theon" in the second clause, as it literally says "and the Logos was face to face with the God". A handy bit of info if one is discussing Jn 1:1 with a modalist. But an important bit of info when one reflects on our common hope. (1 Jn 4:9)

The OT never talks of "God the Father" but A.Paul never stops talking about him and how he sent his Son!I disagree. Jesus wasn't innovating when he reminded the Jews that Yhwh was their Father -- check Ex. 4:22-23, Deut 8:5, 2 Sam 7:14-16, etc.I agree the message is there in the OT, but I suggest, as presented is different to that of the NT.

Though I haven't found a direct OT reference using the word "Father", in a general sense God is Father of all, as he is the source of all things. In the OT, when referencing YHWH, "Father" seems to be used as an idiom (cp: Judges 17:10; Job 29:16, 31:18). YHWH is Father, in a similar way that Abram & Moses were seen as Fathers of Israel. It seems that in the OT when Father is applied to God, it is in the sense of the head of a household. This is evident as YHWH is spoken of as Israel's husband.

It seems to me that the NT expands on the OT. In the OT, YHWH is Father but only in the collective sense - Israel is my Son (eg: Ex 4:22). Wheresas, in the NT it is, God who is the true Father of the individual - as Jesus said to Mary: "my God and your God; my Father and your Father" (Jn 20:17)

Lately, I've been thinking on the contrasts & parallels between the OT & NT in regards to "our hope". YHWH is also spoken as the husband of Israel and Israel as the adulterous harlot.

We have a contrast/parallel in the NT, where the Father is personalised to the individual (cp: Gal 4:6 - abba=daddy). The Father is the head of Christ, but it is Christ that is the head of us (the church), and we as individuals, acting in unity, as members of the one body (1 Cor 12:25-27), become the bride of Christ (cp: Jn 3:29). Our adoption by the Father isn't direct, but through our union with Christ (cp: Jn 17:21).

An aside: In the OT, the term "Father" when not specially referring to someone's biological progenerator, seems to be used in reference to the head of a household or more particularly, the guiding force of the household. Bearing this in mind explains how the "child born unto us...through the zeal of the Lord of hosts" might come to be called "everlasting father" (Isa 9:6-7).

Pythagoras

February 1st 2006, 02:47 AM

Hello apostoli, may God bless you,

A precise rending of Jn 1:1c does show A.John making not only a distinction between God and the Logos, but also a signification of their nature - "what God was the [Logos] was" (NEB). A lot of people jump on this to show the equality of God and the Logos, but as I am sure you agree, this nature is something we are told by scripture to might attain through our imitation of Christ (eg: Eph 4:19, 2 Pe 1:4).

Of more significance to me is the phrase "kai o Logos en pros ton Theon" in the second clause, as it literally says "and the Logos was face to face with the God". A handy bit of info if one is discussing Jn 1:1 with a modalist. But an important bit of info when one reflects on our common hope. (1 Jn 4:9)

kai o Logos en pros ton Theon

"...and the word was with God," ... And then this;

"and the word was God."

This is where the battle is waged. Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father ,or is he saying the Word is God in the fashion of the Sons of God , Moses and Judges (aka the Elohim ) , or is he perhaps suggesting the Word is God in the trinitarian sense, one who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father? Notice that the word "Logos" is, again, preceded by the article. But the word "God" is not. I've learnt that while Greek possesses the definite article ("the"), it does not have an indefinite article ("a", "an"). In Greek, the absence of the article virtually signifies indefiniteness. But trinitarians disagree.

Trinitarians would argue that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. However (as Daniel Wallace has correctly pointed out) simply appealing to Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite. His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite.

Infact Wallace argues that a definite theos in this passage would imply Sabellianism or Modalism .

It is not unfair to say that , like Titus 2:13, you could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If John had wanted to emphasize the word theos then he would have moved it to the beginning of the phrase before the verb and thus, (according to Colwell’s rule) it would be anarthrous .

Though I haven't found a direct OT reference using the word "Father", in a general sense God is Father of all, as he is the source of all things.It seems to me that the NT expands on the OT. In the OT, YHWH is Father but only in the collective sense - Israel is my Son (eg: Ex 4:22).
Wheresas, in the NT it is, God who is the true Father of the individual - as Jesus said to Mary: "my God and your God; my Father and your Father" (Jn 20:17)

I disagree. I think the following scriptures, among others already presented last post(and more), are very personal :

"When Israel was a child, then I loved you, and called my son out of Egypt"(Hosea 11:1)

"Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our Father, our redeemer, thy name is from everlasting."(Isa. 63:16)

As noted in my last post to you, even in the OT God refers Himself as Father to the individual kings of the Davidic dynasty , check 2 Sam. 7:14, etc. What you refer to as the "NT expanding on the OT" I prefer to think of as "Jesus reminding the Jewish people" that God is their Father. Jesus was not preaching something new or previously hidden, in my opinion, when he told us to pray ,"Our Father who art in heaven...".

Peace in Christ Jesus the good Shepherd,

apostoli

February 1st 2006, 06:32 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

kai o Logos en pros ton Theon
"...and the word was with God," ... And then this;
"and the word was God."
This is where the battle is waged. Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father ,or is he saying the Word is God in the fashion of the Sons of God , Moses and Judges (aka the Elohim ) , or is he perhaps suggesting the Word is God in the trinitarian sense,Given Jn 1:4,9,17,18 I think the message is simpler. cp: 1 Jn 1:1-7.

one who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father?I accept this idea with qualification, as it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. My understanding is reflected in 1 Cor 8:6.

but is also distinct from the FatherIndeed Jn 1:1 shows the distinction. The very last clause underlining it. To my mind, A.John wouldn't have qualified the character of the Logos, if he meant to be understood, as referring to a single entity.

In fact if the last clause of Jn 1:1 is to be understood "the Logus was God" then the previous clause would have to be considered redundant. As would verse 2.

Notice that the word "Logos" is, again, preceded by the article. But the word "God" is not. I've learnt that while Greek possesses the definite article ("the"), it does not have an indefinite article ("a", "an"). In Greek, the absence of the article virtually signifies indefiniteness. But trinitarians disagree. Trinitarians would argue that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. However (as Daniel Wallace has correctly pointed out) simply appealing to Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite. His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite. Infact Wallace argues that a definite theos in this passage would imply Sabellianism or Modalism.In many ways we are in agreement. So, (morso for those reading this thread) I'll just cite Dr Mantey (of Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar fame)...

"0ur interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: 'What God was, the Word was': and with that of Barclay: 'The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God'....

(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's articles in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1: 1 "The Word was a god" . Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .

(3) Your quotation of Colwell 's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ''qualitative'' noun soley because of the absence of the article. ''

(4) Prof. Harner, Vol. 92.1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature of character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark, Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended, the Gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John l: 1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god".

Mantey's Letter to WTS
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html

It is not unfair to say that , like Titus 2:13, you could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If John had wanted to emphasize the word theos then he would have moved it to the beginning of the phrase before the verb and thus, (according to Colwell’s rule) it would be anarthrous.Reading the ANFs: they tended to use Jn 1:1 to show Jesus as being God, but in a subordinationist sense. In Greek idiom: God of God. So I suggest to the Greek speakers in the early centuries John 1:1 was read as the Logos had all the attributes one identifies with God but was not God of himself. This is where modern (evangelical) trinitarians lose the plot and find themselves arguing from a modalist position.

I disagree. I think the following scriptures, among others already presented last post(and more), are very personal :"When Israel was a child, then I loved you, and called my son out of Egypt"(Hosea 11:1)
Note it is the collective - Israel that is being spoken of. Abraham, Moses etc were generally referred to as a friend of God (eg: Ex 33:11)

"Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our Father, our redeemer, thy name is from everlasting."(Isa. 63:16)

As noted in my last post to you, even in the OT God refers Himself as Father to the individual kings of the Davidic dynasty , check 2 Sam. 7:14, etc."I will be his father, and he shall be my son, I will chasten him...but my mercy shall not depart from him"

Hmm. There does seem a pre-cursor to the NT promise there.

A couple of things to note about 2 Sam 7:14: though David was an Israelite and therefore in the collective sense God was his Father, in the personal sense God would become his father.

To my mind: the Israelites had set God too high to conceive him as a pro-active Dad. And this thought pattern is what Jesus corrected. God is not just your Father in a conceptual sense. He is your Abba, active in your life in a practical sense (cp: 2 Sam 7:14-15; John 8:38-44; Matt 6:9-14)

What you refer to as the "NT expanding on the OT" I prefer to think of as "Jesus reminding the Jewish people" that God is their Father.I agree. Possibly "expanding" is too strong a word. Considering that Jesus corrected the populace regarding observing the spirit instead of the letter of the law, I might have better said the "NT exhanced the understanding of the OT"

Jesus was not preaching something new or previously hidden, in my opinion, when he told us to pray ,"Our Father who art in heaven...".I agree that Jesus was not introducing anything new in concept. Though he did introduce a new perspective.

I waded through the concordance checking all references to God as Father in the OT. In nearly all cases the term is used in the collective sense of Israel and not extended to the outside world, and not used in the particular to an individual level (though it might be implied).

As for a teaching previously hidden: One of the innovations, at least via A.Paul is adoption of the gentiles.

Peace and goodwill to you...

Pythagoras

February 1st 2006, 10:42 PM

Hi apostoli,

In fact if the last clause of Jn 1:1 is to be understood "the Logus was God" then the previous clause would have to be considered redundant. As would verse 2...Indeed Jn 1:1 shows the distinction. The very last clause underlining it. To my mind, A.John wouldn't have qualified the character of the Logos, if he meant to be understood, as referring to a single entity

I agree. This presents serious challenges to modalists. However, trinitarians encounter their own demons here. It means verses like John 1:2 are only sensible with a fully , or fairly developed trinitarian creed .

I agree. Possibly "expanding" is too strong a word. Considering that Jesus corrected the populace regarding observing the spirit instead of the letter of the law, I might have better said the "NT exhanced the understanding of the OT"

I agree that Jesus was not introducing anything new in concept. Though he did introduce a new perspective.

I think we pretty much agree here, with the proviso that God as "Abba Father" might not necessarily have been a "new perspective" but rather an re-introduction, a reminder of sorts to the spiritually lost sheep....

As for a teaching previously hidden: One of the innovations, at least via A.Paul is adoption of the gentiles.

Strictly speaking you're right ofcourse, the full "gospel" of our adoption was only revealed by the apostles, but I think the seeds of our inclusion were laid by Jesus himself . Some critics have actually postulated that Jesus outright rejected the inclusion of gentiles into his kingdom by harking to verses like Matt. 6:7-8, Matt. 6:31-32, Matt. 10:7,Matt.15:24, Matt. 5:46-, Matt.18:17-, etc. But this is a misunderstanding of scriptures on their part . It is noteworthy that Jesus never turned away any Gentile who came to him for help. Infact only twice does Jesus commend people for possessing great faith, and in both instances the compliments went to Gentiles -- Matt. 8:15-13 and Matt. 15:21-28. Jesus had harsh words for Jew and Gentile alike.

Furthermore, what are we to make of scriptures like these?

Matt 10:5-6 "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

John 4:4,"Now he(Jesus) had to go through Samaria. So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar.."

Was Jesus violating his own command? Was he saying in Matt. 10:5-6 that the apostles never preach to Gentiles and Samaritans ? No . Why? Because he himself preached to a Samaritan woman in John chapter 4 verse 10 and offered her eternal life. Infact in verse 26 he revealed to her that he was the Messiah of God , something he rarely did even in Israel.

Actually in the following scripture Jesus says that many of the sons of Israel will be cast out into the outer darkness because of unbelief, but gentiles take their place inot eternal life!

Matt 8:11-12

"I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." </P>

alam

February 3rd 2006, 04:16 AM

Hello Apostoli,

In an earlier post I considered whether the conjunction "kai" might be translated "which is" or "which is [in]". I can't see the "the hope" and "the appearing" as the same thing as "the appearing itself" is only the beginning of promised future events.

Why do you see such a separation between the appearing of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead that both cannnot be 'our hope'? Jesus himself is called 'our hope' in the beginning of Timothy...why not extend this to his appearing? I keep thinking I am missing something important in this topic. :-S

Colossians 3:4 and 1 John 2:2 seem to weigh against an appreciable time interval between the second advent and the resurrection and glorification. Also 1 Cor. 15:51-52 : "I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 gives a sequential order for the resurrection and glorification, but 1 Cor. 15 says that they nonetheless take place within "a moment...the twinkling of an eye". By the time the fact of the second advent has registered on the minds of the living, the dead saints will be alive and coming with the Lord: "at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints" (1 Thess. 3:13) and "them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him" (1 Thess. 4:14).

We know that at the time of the second advent, the Lord will have received the nod of approval from the Father to go forth, actively subduing all things to God. Nothing, not even ordinary physical limitations, let alone the beast and its armies, can present a meaningful obstruction to him, who has been given to exercise all-subduing power (Phil. 3:21). In the face of such power, there cannot even be indolent molecules taking their time to coalesce back into bodies when he wills to restore his elect from the grave-- it will be in "a moment...the twinkling of an eye"

Given Rom 8:24-25 I might agree with you: "For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope...if we hope for that which we see not, then so we with patience wait for it." However, given Rom 8, it seems the hope refers to being raised up (vs8), our sharing in divinity (v19), release of all creation from bondage (v21).

Agreed on the significance of these passages.

Rom 8:23 makes it clear what we are "waiting for the adoption, that is the redemption of our body".

This is true. Yet, our focus text itself says, "awaiting the blessed hope and appearance." You are right that theosis (2 Pet. 1:4) and resurrection are hopes. But do these exhaust the meaning of the Christian hope? There is Romans 5:1-11 : "we... rejoice in the hope of the glory of God... we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (v. 2,11). You are right that eternal life is a Christian hope. But needless to say, the bare idea of 'life' that is 'eternal' does not exhaust the content of our hope. Understood as an unending state of nearness to and concord with God, eternal life might accurately sum it up, but eternal life in this sense is inseparable from God, and Christ, and the manifestation of Christ, since we cannot begin to be with the Lord in body and spirit until he appears. The 'hope' would still encompass an interrelated group of things.

Hi Alam,

One of the reasons I like chatting with you. You have the knack of highlighting little things I hadn't noticed and leading me onto new paths of investigation Thankyou! ;-)

You are welcome, glad to hear I am managing to be of some use. The benefit is also mutual. ;-) I had not actually studied Titus 2:13a before.

peri elpidos kai anastaseos nekron krinomai
about hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged

Acts 23:6 lead me to 24:15 "have hope toward God...that there be a resurrection" (KJV).

It is true that 'hope' is especially connected to the resurrection in the book of Acts. What Paul does in Acts, leading into the preaching of Christ's resurrection by way of the general resurrection, seems to be right in line with his response in 1 Cor. 15:12-19 (which has another reference to hope).

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which [promise] our twelve tribes, instantly serving [God] day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? ... Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:6-8,22-23). Also Acts 28:20-23.

Notably, according to John, Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:25-26) In Paul's terms, the redeemed could be said not to die inasmuch as Christ is their life, and their life is with him, hidden in God (Col. 3:3-4). Their relation to him is such that when he appears, they must appear with him in glory. John writes of Christ as the eternal life, who was with the Father in the beginning (1 John 1:2).

Which made me think that "kai" at 23:16 has the sense of "which is", but seems "kai" can have annother connotation as "of"
eg: hope of resurrection of the dead (NEB, NWT)

The NEB and NWT appear to use an English appositive genitive to translate 'kai' with the sense of 'even'.

So I tried that on Titus 2:13a and it does seem to work.

prosdekhomenoi ten makarian elpida kai* epiphaneian tes doxes
awaiting the blessed hope of [the] appearing [of] the glory

Seems the article "ten" may prohibit such a rendering, as the majority of translations provide "and" for "kai". My understanding of kione constructs is inadequate, so I have to go with the majority opinion.

In terms of literal translation, at least, using an English genitive would not be right because epifaneian is not genitive. The translation of kai as 'even' could be seen as literal because it is within the definition of kai and fits this context. What seems to have happened with the NEB and NWT in Acts 23:6 is the translators thought "the hope, even the resurrection" sounded stilted, and opted to translate with appositive genitive, with the same basic meaning.

In anycase, you made me curious and I went through my Cruden's Concordance and searched where "hope" is used with "and" in the old KJV - found three other cites. Their construct may not be the same as Titus 2:13a but they are of particular interest for their message...

1 Thess 2:19-20 might give a different understanding to "the blessed hope", than we have discussed so far: "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation - why, is it not in fact you? - before our Lord Jesus at his presence. You certainly are our glory and joy." (NWT, similar to NEB)

What Paul wrote in Romans 5, that we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, and joy in God, sounds like a function of the first commandment, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God...," and its corollary would be the thought Paul expresses here in 1 Thessalonians-- his hope and joy is that his brethren stand before Christ in glory -- "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Mark 12:30-31).

1 Pe 1:21 speaks of both Christ's glory and our hope; in a way that seems to conform to the idea of "the appearing of the glory of the great God" - "Through him you have come to trust God who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, and so your faith and hope are fixed on God." (NEB)

1 Pe 1:13 "fix your hopes on the gift of grace which is to be yours when Jesus Christ is revealed" (NEB)

I will leave this for you to comment on, or not :-)

:-)) To me, these verses suggest a question. If we are to hope on the gift of grace, and hope in God, what is the connection between the gift of grace and God, relative to the hope? Is it that of means to an end, and if so, in which direction-- is the gift of grace the means to the end which is in God? At least the converse seems to be wrong: saying that God is a means to an end. Here is a thought you might appreciate as a former(?) RC: "As the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 2), the end is twofold--the end 'for which' and the end 'by which'; viz. the thing itself in which is found the aspect of good, and the use or acquisition of that thing. Thus we say that the end of the movement of a weighty body is either a lower place as 'thing,' or to be in a lower place, as 'use'; and the end of the miser is money as 'thing,' or possession of money as 'use'" (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.1.1.8 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/200108.htm)). Perhaps something of this sort obtains with respect to God and eternal life. The end for-which is God, and eternal life is the end by-which: the attainment to God.

I'm still thinking on 1 Tim 1:1 (re: your cite post #10). But I keep coming to the conclusion that the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory are seperate, though interlinked. Maybe it is my focus! I think I'll put "hope" to the side, and change focus to "appearing" and see where that leads me.

All the best

I look forward to hearing what you find. Yours in Christ,

apostoli

February 3rd 2006, 07:15 PM

Hi Pythagoras,

As for a teaching previously hidden: One of the innovations, at least via A.Paul is adoption of the gentiles.Strictly speaking you're right ofcourse, the full "gospel" of our adoption was only revealed by the apostles, but I think the seeds of our inclusion were laid by Jesus himself . Some critics have actually postulated that Jesus outright rejected the inclusion of gentiles into his kingdom by harking to verses like Matt. 6:7-8, Matt. 6:31-32, Matt. 10:7,Matt.15:24, Matt. 5:46-, Matt.18:17-, etc. But this is a misunderstanding of scriptures on their part . It is noteworthy that Jesus never turned away any Gentile who came to him for help. Infact only twice does Jesus commend people for possessing great faith, and in both instances the compliments went to Gentiles -- Matt. 8:15-13 and Matt. 15:21-28. Jesus had harsh words for Jew and Gentile alike.

Furthermore, what are we to make of scriptures like these?

Matt 10:5-6 "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

John 4:4,"Now he(Jesus) had to go through Samaria. So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar.."

Was Jesus violating his own command? Was he saying in Matt. 10:5-6 that the apostles never preach to Gentiles and Samaritans ? No . Why? Because he himself preached to a Samaritan woman in John chapter 4 verse 10 and offered her eternal life. Infact in verse 26 he revealed to her that he was the Messiah of God , something he rarely did even in Israel.

Actually in the following scripture Jesus says that many of the sons of Israel will be cast out into the outer darkness because of unbelief, but gentiles take their place inot eternal life!

Matt 8:11-12 "I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." </P> Must admit I've never encountered anyone who postulated that Jesus rejected the inclusion of gentiles etc from the kindom arrangement. If I recall there are texts even in the OT which set out requirements for inclusion of tribes outside Israel in the worship of YHWH.

I guess those that feel a need to reject gentile involvement take texts like Matt 15:24, in part "for it is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it unto dogs" and then skip the next couple of verses completely, and ignore the context that Mark gives. I think Mark 7:27, puts it all in context "Let the children first be filled" and I think this is the context of Matt 10:5-6 "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The promise was to the Jew first, so they should hear about its fulfillment first, then everyone else.

Jn 4:4 is of interest to me, especially as the Samaritan woman was amazed that Jesus would have anything to do with her, as were the apostles (vs 4:9,27). And then so many of the Samaritans (in contrast to what we hear about the Jews) believed on him (vs39-42). It seems that Jesus saw his mission first to the children of Israel but didn't reject any that believed on him.

I've heard it said that Matt 8:11 refers to the disporia coming back to Israel, but I don't accept that. Mainly because Jesus was talking to a centurian and more particularly because of the phrase "I have not found so great a faith in Isreal."

Thanks for the cites.

All the best...

apostoli

February 3rd 2006, 07:52 PM

Hi Alam,

Why do you see such a separation between the appearing of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead that both cannnot be 'our hope'? Jesus himself is called 'our hope' in the beginning of Timothy...why not extend this to his appearing? I keep thinking I am missing something important in this topic. :-SRevelation keeps playing in the back of my mind. A lot of things occur there, and mostly "we" are excluded from the activity. I think it is the contrast between the first and second resurrection that influences me most. My thoughts revolve around stay holy that you will participate in the 1st, but if not, stay holy for in the 2nd ressurrection there is still hope, know that your works will judge you also. (Rev 20:4-6; 14-15)

1 Thess 2:19-20 might give a different understanding to "the blessed hope", than we have discussed so far: "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation - why, is it not in fact you? - before our Lord Jesus at his presence. You certainly are our glory and joy." (NWT, similar to NEB)What Paul wrote in Romans 5, that we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, and joy in God, sounds like a function of the first commandment, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God...," and its corollary would be the thought Paul expresses here in 1 Thessalonians-- his hope and joy is that his brethren stand before Christ in glory -- "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Mark 12:30-31).I agree in concept.

What my mind was toying with: Given the context of vs 13 within Titus chapter 2 (ie: speak sound doctrine), and that the letter is from A.Paul to his overseer, the meaning of 13a to Titus may have gone beyond dogma and was a personal admonishment in regards of how he would be judged. Though because of vs15, I think A.Paul is just saying "teach about the hope and the coming".

Here is a thought you might appreciate as a former(?) RC:Being born RC can be like being born Jewish. It never really leaves you. For instance: Some time agao, I was chatting to a lady one day about mundane things, when out of the blue she said "You are Catholic! Aren't you?" Guess, we are brought up to have a different slant on most things ;-)

Theologically, I had to get off the fence sometime, and to my mind the EOC has the most scriptural weight (& convincing arguments). So that is my preferred understanding. And it does seem to allow that as the source of the Son, the Son came to be through some activity of the Father - which though we give it different meanings I think we agree on. I forget whether you take an ex-nihilio position or not in this regard.

The benefit is also mutual. ;-) I had not actually studied Titus 2:13a before.It was more or less an accident that I came to study clause 13a, and I thought "Oh! Thats an easy one!" To my surprise it has been quite a complex but rewarding study.

I'll think on the rest of your post and get back to you during the week.

Pythagoras

February 4th 2006, 11:03 AM

Greetings apostoli,

Must admit I've never encountered anyone who postulated that Jesus rejected the inclusion of gentiles etc from the kindom arrangement.

You'll be surprised. See the following example:

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/jesus_and_the_gentiles.html

The promise was to the Jew first, so they should hear about its fulfillment first, then everyone else.

Exactly!

I've heard it said that Matt 8:11 refers to the disporia coming back to Israel, but I don't accept that. Mainly because Jesus was talking to a centurian and more particularly because of the phrase "I have not found so great a faith in Isreal."

I coudn't have said it better.

If Jesus excluded Gentiles, then we're suckers. Thankfully he did not. The good news of the bible is precisely that salvation is come to the whole world, and the great God is not only the God of Israel but also the Saviour of all men through Christ Jesus.

God bless,

apostoli

February 5th 2006, 01:25 AM

Hi Pythagoras,

You'll be surprised. See the following example:

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/jesus_and_the_gentiles.htmlThanks for the link. I'll have a read. I often find value from examining other opinions. If nothing else it makes he read the scriptures more closely.

If Jesus excluded Gentiles, then we're suckers. Thankfully he did not. The good news of the bible is precisely that salvation is come to the whole world, and the great God is not only the God of Israel but also the Saviour of all men through Christ Jesus.Amen!

God bless.