Does Titus 2:13 finally prove Jesus is God?

 

Examining Titus 2:13 in light of biblical scholarship

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

“waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”

(Titus 2:13) (emphasis added)

  The Trinitarian Christian believer that happily and gloriously believes in the divinity of Jesus will joyously cling to this verse and shout with utter elation that here is proof that the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God and as such, he deserves our religious adoration and worship. The academic Trinitarian will be more scholarly in his approach, maintaining a cool air of calmness, yet affirming the above elation as expressed by the ordinary Christian Trinitarian believer, by pointing out to the so called Grandville Sharp grammar rule in Greek which says that when two items are governed by only one definite article then it may simply only refer to one person that is present. This position, which heavily relies on the use of the Grandville Sharp rule is by no means a full proof approach that one may use to understand this verse. Alternatively, there are equally able and authoritative scholars who differ with the use and application of the Grandville Sharp rule in Titus 2:13 whereby both epithets (‘Great God’ and ‘Saviour’ due to the existent of only one article) would fall on Jesus, and would instead propose that two persons rather than one are in view here in spite of the absence of two articles to indicate the presence of two individuals. They argue that there is evidence for their position in Greek literature of the past and that there is no certainty that the modern developed idea or grammatical concept of the so called Grandville Sharp rule was applicable and in vogue at the time of the writing of Titus 2:13. Scholars who favour the application of the Grandville Sharp rule which then leads to Jesus being specifically identified as “our great God” include such notable theologians and scholars of Greek such as Daniel Wallace, who is often the point of reference for Trinitarian writers and speakers today when discussions pertaining to this verse come up. We need not mention other writers who are in support of Wallace as they number in the dozens, if not hundreds including the late eminent textual critic Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman’s mentor and teacher at Princeton University. On the other hand, we have equally great experts of the Greek language and highly qualified biblical scholars in their own right who would champion the alternative view as stated above and they include individuals such as Dr. Nigel Turner, Henry Alford, G. B. Winer and others. In the following lines, we shall have a look at what these scholars, who oppose the mainstream Christian Trinitarian take on Titus 2:13,  say despite the fact that their own personal theology belong to that of mainstream Christianity, that is, they themselves were Trinitarians in belief and practice, yet their scholarly conclusions depart dramatically from those other Trinitarians due to the weight they give, after careful consideration and analysis, to the alternative position when inspecting Titus 2:13.

Before we proceed to cite and reference those scholars that we have just mentioned, it is noteworthy that the above quoted verse at the beginning of the article is a version that would reflect the mainstream reading of the text favouring the Grandville Sharp rule, and that agree with Wallace’s approach to the text, making the verse appear to identify the subject as Jesus who is the owner of the two descriptors “great God and “Saviour”. There are alternative translations or versions of the text that differ from the above and capture instead the essence of the alternative view which posits the existent of two persons rather than one. The following is one example of such rendering of the verse:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (Titus 2:13, King James Version; other versions or translations that reflect the alternative view include the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the American Standard Version, the Douay-Rheims Bible and Webster’s Bible Translation)

In the rendering above, which is most interestingly given by the King James Version, the text now seems to propose that the people are awaiting the appearance of the great God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christian, meaning God , who is a separate being, will appear in tandem with another, Jesus the Saviour. This rendering reflects the interpretation of the alternative view which posits that two persons instead of just one are in view in Tituts 2:13, hence Jesus in the above rendering isn’t actually called God here.

Christian author Mark Heber Miller in his ‘Nazarene Commentary’ cites the great Greek scholar Henry Alford and Dr. Nigel Turner respectively on their views concerning Titus 2:13.

“Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament : “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing (Boston, 1877, Vol. III, p. 421)” [1]

So in the above, Alford argues that in his expertise in Greek language, he sees that the existent of two persons rather than one in Titus 2:13 is a more probable position to favour than the alternative, that has found mainstream support among Trinitarians, and that the Greek does in fact confirm this conclusion of his and so does the structure and context of the verse.

He then cites the eminent scholar of Greek James Hope Moulton (1905) and Dr. Nigel Turner in the Moulton-Turner ‘A Grammar of New Testament Greek’ (1963):

A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963): “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” Dr. Nigel Turner: “Unfortunately, at this point of Greek we cannot be sure [Sharp’s] is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965)” [2]

In the above, we see that Moulton and Turner are not so certain as to whether one can really apply the so called Grandville Sharp rule in order to prove the position favoured by the Trinitarians. Similarly, he cites Prof. Alexander Buttmann who writes:

“It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down the rigid rules which have no exception…
(A Grammar of the New Testament Greek)” [3]

Biblical scholars Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin entertain the possibility (even though they seem to favour the mainstream view), if not probability of understanding Titus 2:13 in a different way than that which has become so entrenched in the mainstream Trinitarian camp, that is, the verse may well speak of two persons instead of just one, abandoning then the so called rule that the mainstream camp so staunchly use to deify Jesus there.

“The second and more significant grammatical question is whether the terms God (theou) and Savior (soteros) refer to one person of two persons. Since both terms are governed by one definite article, the most grammatically natural meaning is that they refer to one person. The full import of the rendering becomes apparent as “Jesus Christ” is used appositionally to “our great God and Savior.” This text, therefore, directly applies the title “God” (theos) to Jesus Christ. For this reason this text has been so studied and debated. The basic arguments against the acceptance of this text as directly applying the title “God” (theos) to Jesus are as follows:

1. Theologically, the New Testament writers generally avoid referring to Jesus as theos.

2. Grammatically, it is possible to translate the words of this text to refer to render theou and soteros as two persons, notwithstanding the use of the only one definite article.” [4]

And to clarify point number two further, they cite the grammarian G. B. Winer:

“G. B. Winer (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7th ed. [Andover: Draper: 1881], 130) argues: “The Article is omitted before Σωτῆρος because the word is made definite by the Genitive ἡμῶν, and the apoosition precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.[5]

Here, we would like to point out a rather major difficulty in what Lea and Griffin try to put forward as their favoured position. Undoubtedly, since the alternative view that they recognise and unabashedly supply, with relevant notes, explanations and citations, must be true, insofar the admission that, “it is possible to translate the words of this text to render theou and soteros as two persons” goes, their favoured position is weakened as their second point becomes a concessionary view, that they recognise as valid, that contradicts their choice view. So if the concession purported by Winer is true, which they site, and stamp as plausible an explanation for Tituts 2:13, then the confidence of the previous view that says the text must refer to only Jesus, henceforth identifying him as God must at least be mitigated, if not entirely dismissed as simply another possible alternative in the way of yet another, creating two possibilities, therefore, leading to the text being ambiguous and so it becomes of little worth in proving Jesus’ alleged identity as deity or divine being as per the trinitarian viewpoint.

Christian author Patrick Navas first quotes ‘The MacArthur Study Bible’, a conservative resource, which says that Peter, in Titus 2:13, is identifying Jesus as both Saviour and God. In opposition to this view, he cites Dr. Nigel Turner, whom we have already mentioned above (and many more references to him shall be made as we go along as he is recognised as an authority in the field) who says in his Moulton-Turner, 1963, “The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” [6]  And he cites him again along with Moulton and Howard (Howard Wilbert Francis) in the Moulton-Howard-Turner ‘Grammar’,” Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule [regarding the article] is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even where there is clearly a separation in idea.” [7]

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament agrees with the mainstream Trinitarian view that the verse has Jesus being referred to as both God and Saviour, however, it recognises and admits that it is actually possible, and there are authorities that have done so, to render the verse in an alternative manner that would involve Jesus being distinguished with God, having actually two persons in the verse, God being one of them and Jesus being another. 

“The syntax of this statement in Greek indicates that Paul is asserting the divinity of Jesus (Jn 10:33-38; Col 2:9; 2 Pet 1:1). Less likely translations make a distinction between God and Christ in this verse (Or the great God and our Savior).” [8]

“Less likely” is a concessionary expression which necessarily indicates that the position suggested may not be so, but it is nevertheless possible. Upon recognition of the fact that the verse can be understood in multiple different ways and that the Trinitarian view that depends on the Grandville Sharp rule is accepted as not the only possible route by which to understand the verse, the text no longer can be treated as definitive proof of Jesus’ alleged divinity or as a text that actually and truly identifies him as God. At the most, it is an ambiguous text that may go either direction.

The noted Unitarian biblical scholar (Dr) Sir Anthony Buzzard, who is himself an expert in Greek, had ample opportunity and privilege to speak to the late Dr. Nigel Turner and discuss Titus 2:13 and the application of the Grandville Sharp rule on it in detail. Buzzard gives an excellent overview of how the Sharp rule is applied, in case it is still unclear to our readers how this infamous rule works and is applied in Titus 2:13 by Wallace and others, and shows that Turner and other authorities (who themselves were Trinitarians) are not satisfied by the mainstream Trinitarian take on the verse and prefer instead the alternative view that does not see Jesus as being identified as God in the verse.

“A number of contemporary discussions advance the so called “Grandville Sharp’s rule” in Tituts 2:13. Sharp contended that when the Greek word kai (and) joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to one subject. Hence the disputed verse should read “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” and not as the King James Version has it, “…the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The rule about the omission of the article, however, cannot be relied on to settle the matter. As Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trinitarian) says:

 Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even where there is clearly a separation in idea. “The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately” (Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol III, p. 181. The reference is to Tituts 2:13).

A wide range of grammarians and biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called “the great God.” At best, the argument is “dubious.” It is unfortunate, as Brown says, “that no certainty can be reached here, for it seems that this passage is the one which shaped the confession of the World Council of Churches in ‘Jesus Christ as God and Savior.’ ” [9] Brown here is the late eminent New Testament scholar, Father Raymond Brown. Buzzard reports that Brown, even though he sees Tituts 2:13 as probably pointing to Jesus’ identification as God, views this Grandville Sharp’s rule affair as simply “dubious” at best (in Jesus, God and Man, pages 15-18 as cited by Buzzard) and that “no certainty can be reached” regarding it.  Buzzard continues with his overview:

“It should also be noted that the Roman emperor could be called “God and Savior,” without the implication that he was the Supreme Deity. Even if the title God were most exceptionally used of Jesus, it would not establish his position as coequal and coeternal with the Father. It would rather designate him as the One God’s supreme agent, which is the view of the whole Bible.

The same grammatical problem faces expositors in 2 peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called “God” in this verse, For him the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ. The writer of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agreed that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly relied upon as decisive.” A Trinitarian writer of the last century was less generous to those who sought proof of the Deity of Christ in the omission of the article: “Some eminently pious and learned scholars… have so far overstretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the “honour of the Son,’ were not aware that they were rather engaged in ‘dishonoring the Father.'”

The last statement may in fact be true of the whole effort of orthodoxy to make Jesus equal in every sense to the Father. [10] The last statement cited by Buzzard comes from Granville Penn in his ‘Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant’ as noted by Buzzard in his footnote. This scholar seems to say that in the excitement of many scholars, using the Grandville Sharp’s rule in Tituts 2:13, to deify Jesus and identify him as God, they may have easily disparaged the Father since the text may well be referring to both the Father (as the “Great God”) and Jesus (as “Savior), rather than just the latter. And if that is true, then to dismiss the Father as present in the text and relegate him into oblivion is tantamount to dishonouring him.

Lending support to this stance, we find biblical scholars Robert Wall and Richard Steele, who both contend, like Dr. Nigel Turner and Henry Alford before them, that the verse need not the application of the Grandville Sharp rule to understand it. They argue rather vociferously that the language, text and context dictate that the epithet ‘theos’ be applied to other than Jesus (most likely the father) and that he is most likely referred to correctly as the Saviour. And so in their view, there are actually two persons in Titus 2:13  and each epithet, “great God” and “Saviour”, refer to two different persons.

The second core belief about God our Savior named here concerns the “blessed hope” of a future appearance of “our great God along with our Savior Jesus Christ” (2:13). The confusing syntax of this passage is reflected in the differences among translations. Marshall lists three main interpretations: (1) it refers to two persons, God and Jesus Christ, both of whom are cosaviors of the world; (2) it refers only to Jesus Christ, whose “glorious appearing” discloses God; and (3) it refers only to Jesus Christ, who is in fact “our God and Savior.” All three readings agree that only one person makes an “appearance”: Jesus Christ. The question is whether Jesus will appear as God incarnate or as the medium of divine glory or our salvation. I prefer the first of Marshall’s three readings, translating the conjunction καὶ (kai) as “along with” for clarity. While the grammar and patristic evidence favor the third alternative, the canonical context does not. Nowhere else in the Pauline canon do we find θεός (theos, “God”) used of Jesus, whereas in this letter’s opening both God and Jesus are titled “our Savior” (1:3-4). Moreover, while the omission of an article before “Savior” may be explained as indicating its pairing with  τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ (tou megalou theou, “of our great God”), it does not require it; in fact, it is more unlikely that tou megalou theou refers to both God and Christ without clear indication of an intent or precedent to do so. Finally, the attribution of “Savior” to Jesus Christ and of a future “epiphany,” when interpreted by Paul’s messianic Christology, does not require that Christ also is divine – only risen and exalted. This is not to deny those vague indications within the Pauline canon that nudge the reader toward Nicea. But it is puzzling, if theos is taken as attributed to Christ, that there is no clear sense of his deity in 1 Tim 3:16, even though it was probably written after Titus and stands as the fullest Christological confession of the Pauline canon. [11] (emphasis added)

In the above we see clearly that Robert Wall identifies himself with Turner and Alford, but he is more unequivocal in his stance in saying that he sees that there are two persons in Titus 2:13 and that the attribution of “Savior”, but not “theos” is given to Jesus. In in view, “Theos” should be correctly attributed to Jesus’ master, the Father. In fact, Wall is so determined in making clear that he favours the alternative view, that is, having two persons instead of one and denying Jesus’ attribution as deity in the text that he actually renders the verse in such a way as to make this point vividly evident, “our great God along with our Savior Jesus Christ.” In his translation of the text, which is acceptable as he is adept in Greek, he clearly identifies two persons, the great God and the Savior Jesus Christ as being two separate entities. He also makes the good point that if indeed Titus 2:13 is taken to be a text where Jesus is clearly identified as God, then this point should be seen in its fullest form and confirmed as such in a later text that speaks of Jesus’ being, 1 Timothy 3:16. In the oldest manuscript evidence , we see that Jesus is evidently simply identified as a human being here, but interestingly, later scribes due to a corruption in the text rendered it as if it said that Jesus was “God”. For a full discussion on this topic you may refer to my article ‘Is Jesus God because of 1 Timothy 3:16’.

From the foregoing discussion, what we have seen is that Titus 2:13 is not sufficiently vivid and clear as a text to be used as definitive proof for Jesus’ alleged divinity, or as a text that truly and absolutely identify Jesus as theos or God.

Nevertheless, if we were to seriously entertain, for the sake of argument, the Trinitarian mainstream and conservative interpretation that sees Jesus as being identified as the “great God” in the verse, that still does not necessarily amount to actually equating him with the godhood of the Father. Simply identifying Jesus as theos would not make him equal to the Father as one deserving of religious devotion and worship. This is because we have clear cut evidences throughout the New Testament that distinguish Jesus from God, and always identifies the former as subservient to the latter. Since Jesus is typically and unequiovocally identified as a true and real, 100% human being, when and if Jesus is identified as “God”, it must necessarily be understood as an epithet that conveys his status, rather than innate nature. That is to say, the word theos can and is used in the Bible for human beings to denote the quality of their greatness and their stature compared to other ordinary and mundane men around them, for example, the Judges in 82nd Psalms are called “Gods” and this is quoted by Jesus himself in John 10, as a refutation against his opponents who tried to accuse him of claiming to be God. And another example is Exodus 7:1 which has Moses being called “God”. These examples and others in the Bible indicate that when the word theos or elohim, meaning “God”, is used for a human being (which Jesus certainly was; Acts 2:22) it does not carry the same connotation as when it is used of God, the Supreme Deity and Creator of existence and this is explained in Thayer’s Lexicon as the fourth available definition of the term in question.

Joseph Thayer in his excellent lexicon on Greek vocabulary, recognises that the conundrum and disagreements among scholars as to whether Jesus is indeed identified as God in the New Testament remain an unresolved issue.

“Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn i. 1; xx. 28; 1 Jn. v. 20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq., etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians;” [12]

In his fourth definition of the four available meanings of theos as we have mentioned above, Thayer explains:

“θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges…” [13]

So, when Jesus, like the Judges in 82nd Psalms and Moses in Exodus 7:1, is called God in Tituts 2:13, if indeed that were the case, that may not necessarily mean that he is in the text being identified as the Supreme Deity and Overlord of the Universe. Rather, in accordance with Thayer’s definition above, when the epithet is used of him, if ideed it is, then it is because he appears like God (i.e. one with authority), and in the Hebrew idiom (applicable to Jesus since he was born and raised into this tradition and then preached and taught within the Jewish framework and cultural background), he would be understood as the vicegerent of God, one who occupies a high position in the sight of God. Being such he is given the title “God”, not as Creator, but as a human being who holds such high esteem in the sight of men and His master, God the Creator. This good point is noted and elucidated by the great Muslim theologian and scholar of centuries ago, Imam al-Ghazali:

The “Lord” We have already explained the application of incarnation. As regards the word “lord” it is employed equally for “God” (may His name be glorified) and for the owner of something. So one speaks of an owner of a house or of an owner of goods. And so to (the word) “god”, according to them, it is employed equally for everything great. It is so said in the Gospel, when Christ addressed the Jews, “It has been applied to you in your Law that you are gods”. In the Psalms “I have called you all gods and Sons of the Highest”. And in the Torah God said to Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharoah and thy brother Aaron thine apostle”. On the other hand, “god” is used for everything which is worshipped, whether the worship (of it) is true or false. And when the one who follows the difficult way has discovered a way out, his persistence in the wrong course is absolutely blind.

Paul had plainly explained this in his second Epistle in chapter nine; it is clear except for one who has not followed the Guidance, and lacks intelligence and knowledge, thus he said:

‘…There is no god but one’…If there be so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth as indeedthere are many ‘lords’ – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all being…and we are in Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, in his care is everything, and we are in his kingdom. (NEB:towards whom we move; and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things came to be, and we through him).
You see this good explanation of Paul who plainly stated that “god” and “lord” are used for God Almighty and All-great was well as for others, who are not entitled to be worshipped. He then ascribed to God the object of worship, the attribute of Creator, and the entitlement of worship.He stressed that the xistence of all things was originated from Him, by saying “From whom all being comes and we are in Him”. He stated that the “whom” was God, and praised Him by the attribute of uniqueness, by saying “For us there is one God, the Father”. He denied entitlement of divinity to others, by saying “there is no god but one”He then pointed out that when he applied “rabb” to Jesus, the equivalence of which he had stated, he meant “owner”. This indicates that he had not ascribed to Jesus any of the abovementioned attributes of God. He had only ascribed to him the authority of mastership which is obviously ascribed to an owner. [14]

Al-Ghazali’s elucidation above does not simply reflect the view of a Muslim on Christian scriptures, but it clearly reflects Thayer’s fourth definition of theos and it also shows his careful consideration of Christian scriptures whose findings are not only restricted to him but are agreed by Christian scholars themselves, for example, we have already seen Anthony Buzzard affirming this interpretation earlier and we reproduce the relevant part of the text that we cited from him above that shows this:

“It should also be noted that the Roman emperor could be called “God and Savior,” without the implication that he was the Supreme Deity. Even if the title God were most exceptionally used of Jesus, it would not establish his position as coequal and coeternal with the Father. It would rather designate him as the One God’s supreme agent, which is the view of the whole Bible.”

What Buzzard says above essentially reflects Thayer’s fourth definition for theos as well. The eminent Christian theologian, James Dunn also applies Thayer’s fourth definition of theos upon Titus 2:13. Although he agrees that only Jesus is in view in Titus 2:13, and as such is identified as “great God”, such a title does not actually identify him actually as “God or as a god” but rather the epithet applied to him God’s manifestation in and through Jesus. In other words, though the word God may be attached to Jesus, it shows him as God’s representative that conveys God’s divine purpose and being, but it does not in any way identify him as equal with the Father, being God, the divine being who made this world and everything in it.

“A stronger case is Titus 2.13, which speaks of ‘the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’. To be noted, however, is that the ‘appearing’ (epiphaneia) in view is the appearing of the divine glory, not the appearing of Jesus Christ in glory. This may seem a small point, but it may also signify that we are back in the thought most clearly expressed in earliest Christianity’s Wisdom Christology: that in Jesus is to be seen the glory of God, the glory of the divine presence; Jesus Christ seen more as the visible manifestation of the invisible God, God manifesting himself in and through Jesus, than as God or a god as such.[15] (emphasis added)

In sum, we should note for those who may have thus far been left with the impression for some reason or another that we deny absolutely that Titus 2:13 actually identifies Jesus as “God” that this is untrue. We neither deny nor confirm that the text in question actually identifies Jesus as God. This is essentially the conclusion of our whole exercise in a nutshell: the text is too ambiguous with many possible alternative views that can given to it that it may not in the end be used as good evidence or proof of Jesus’ divinity or as a good reference for Jesus’ alleged identification as deity. But even if we did agree, as a concession, for the sake of argument, that the text does in fact name Jesus as “God”, that too may not necessarily lead to a Trinitarian concept that speaks of Jesus’ innate divinity that is equal to the Father, but it may well simply reflect Jesus’ high esteem in God’s estimation. In the end, the text cannot serve as a defense for the Trinitarian viewpoint and belief concerning Jesus’ alleged divine nature that makes him truly God and equal to the Father.

 

Notes: 

[1] Miller, M. H. (2007). Volume Two Pauline Teachings Romans to Hebrews. In Timo Koornstra (Ed.), Nazarene Commentary 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures. Living Waters Publishing Company. p. 655

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Lea, T. D. & Hayne, P. G. Jr. (1992). The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. United States: B&H Publishing Group. p. 312

[5] Ibid. fn 37

[6] Navas, P. (2011). Divine Truth or Human Tradition: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse. p. 319

[7] Ibid.

[8] Hahn, S. & Mitch, C. ( 2010). Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. p. 406

[9] Buzzard, A. F. & Hunting, C. F. (1998). The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Oxford, UK: International Scholars Publications. pp. 279-280

[10] Ibid. pp. 280-281

[11] Wall, R W. & Steele, R. B. (2012). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 354

[12] Thayer, J. H. (2012). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. p. 288

[13] Ibid.

[14] Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (1983). Excellent Refutation of the Divinity of Jesus by the Texts of the Gospels. In Razali Nawawi (trans.), Al-Ghazali’s Criticism of Christians’ Theological Doctrines. Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia. pp. 72 -74

[15] Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 133

Incoming search terms:

  • is titus 2:13 of nwt a good grammar
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Does Titus 2:13 finally prove Jesus is God?”

  1. mrt says:

    some are seeing man god in the second verse of mark

    2
    As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[c]

    “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,[d]
    who will prepare your way;
    3 the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
    ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
    make his paths straight,’”

    so they are thinking “lord” here means jesus.
    so john the baptist is preparing the way for jesus?

    the context of isiah 40 doesn’t say that yhwh is going to be dunked in water.

    please explain who is “lord” according to mark 1:3 ?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      This has been erroneously applied to Jesus, but even if we recognised that it correctly refers to Jesus then you need to understand the concept of Shaliach (agency), wherein the agent may be referred to as though it is the master or sender, but he is distinct from the sender even though he may be described or labelled as if he was the sender himself by virtue of him speaking on behalf of the sender e.g. the ambassador of America to the UK may correctly be labelled as “America” as if he was America in terms of labelling, but in terms of context we understand that he is a representative and spokesperson of America. Similarly, when Hitler sent his army to Paris, the Parisians were not wrong to shout, “Hitler is here” even though he was thousands of miles away safely tucked in his bunker, but the army is referred to as Hitler (as though he was him) by virtue of the fact that they stood on his behalf and represented him in his stead. After you have digested this little piece of information, you may wish to proceed to two of my articles that demonstrate how Mark has simply invented this prophesy for Jesus, and as he was doing so in God’s supreme greatness, he determined that Mark should make errors in his creative invention and now biblical scholars are beginning to recognise these errors committed by Mark as he inveted things even at the beginning of his gospel:
      http://unveiling-christianity......in-mark-1/
      http://unveiling-christianity......-an-error/

  2. mrt says:

    one second…. does mark even call jesus “lord” ?

  3. KZ says:

    Super long!
    It is quite technical for a layman such as I but I find this article impressive.

    Great job as always!

Leave a Reply