Titus 2:13

13. Looking See last note. We are to maintain the holy model of 1-10 during the present, by a fixed and hopeful looking to the glorious future.

Hope A cheery name for the object of hope, the glorious epiphany of the coming Christ.

Appearing The same Greek word as appeared in Titus 2:11.

And our Saviour By our present translation, approved by many eminent scholars, the words great God designate the Father, and Saviour the Son. But the large majority of scholars, ancient and modern, understand both the two appellatives, great God and Saviour, to be applied to Jesus Christ.

The literal rendering of the Greek words would be: The appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us. Now, as the words stand, if the two appellatives are to designate two different persons, some mark of separation should have been interposed between them. The author ought certainly to have taken that precaution. Our translators have so done by interposing our before Saviour; a scarcely justifiable method, for of us may just as properly take in both appellatives as one. Another method for the author would have been to interpose an article: the great God and the Saviour of us. Greek scholars claim, that by the laws of the Greek the two appellatives without the interposed article designate one subject. But such a rule belongs not to any one language; it belongs to every language; especially to every language having a definite article. Indeed, the principle requiring some separation of the two appellatives is based in common sense and natural perspicuity.

It need not be denied that there is force in the opposite argument of Huther and Alford. It is certainly true that the appellative great God is no where else applied to Christ. The instance stands alone. But there is “over all, God,” (Romans 9:5;) “true God,” (John 5:20;) “mighty God,” (Isaiah 9:6;) and, as we think, “Almighty,” in Revelation 1:8. Each one of these appellatives of supreme divinity also stands alone.

Alford argues that in Matthew 16:27, the Son comes “in the glory of his Father.” But in Matthew 26:31, the Son comes in his own glory. So that the glory of the present passage may still be the glory of one personality. There was a unanimity among the early Greek writers of the Church in applying both appellatives to Christ, and the verse was so used against the Arians. Alford seems to think that this polemic use of the passage weakens the value of their opinions. Perhaps it does. But is it not probable that this text had its share of influence in fixing the views of the Church before Arius appeared, so as to render the Church so nearly unanimous against his views? A proper delicacy in declining to use polemic authorities is commendable; but there is some danger of sacrificing truth even to over magnanimity. We are obliged to say that the natural reading of the words favours decidedly the reference of both appellatives to one subject. The words Jesus Christ tell us who is our great God and Saviour. And this exposition is confirmed by the following words who gave himself, etc. indicating that the writer had but a single personality in his thought. We would, then, read: The epiphany of the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.