The objection
If a translation speaks of “God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” God the Father and Jesus could be two different persons. Is the translator's theological preference not all that decides here?
1. The “and” does not decide the question alone
“My friend and doctor” can mean one person with two designations; “my friend and my doctor” can designate two people. In Greek, too, the entire construction must be read. In Titus 2,13, “God” and “Savior” stand as personal singular titles under a shared article. The following name identifies Jesus Christ.[1]
The so-called Granville Sharp rule describes such combinations. It does not claim that every “and” equates two expressions. Its conditions concern precisely personal singular designations not used as proper names. An arbitrary sentence with two names therefore does not refute it.
2. The hope concerns Christ's appearing
Titus 2,13 looks toward the appearing of the glory of the one designated by the text. Verse 14 continues with the one who gave himself for us. The combination of future appearing and accomplished self-giving has a recognizable referent: Jesus Christ. The syntactically natural reading thus fits the passage's line of thought.[3]
Elsewhere the letter distinguishes Father and Son. It does not follow that every designation as God must refer exclusively to the Father. Such a prior decision would exclude precisely the statement whose grammar is being examined.
3. Peter offers a comparison within the same letter
2. Peter 1,1 contains the corresponding combination, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Particularly revealing are 1,11 and 2,20: There “Lord” and “Savior” are applied to Jesus in a comparable manner. Tearing apart the same close combination precisely in “God and Savior” without a linguistic reason would require explanation.[2]
Verse 2, by contrast, names God and Jesus in a different construction. The personal distinction is thus not denied. Different sentence forms must precisely be evaluated differently.
4. Grammar supports a specific, limited statement
These texts call Jesus God. They do not alone unfold the entire doctrine of the Trinity and do not say Jesus is the Father. The statement nevertheless remains weighty: The expected Savior does not belong merely to a lower class of divine helpers.
We do not justify this reading by saying it fits the doctrine well. It explains the combination of titles, usage within the particular letter and the statement's continuation. Doctrine takes up this evidence.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- NET Bible, Titus 2,13Grammatical note on the combination of personal titles under one article.
- NET Bible, 2. Peter 1,1Comparison with the corresponding formulations in 1,11 and 2,20.
- Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian FaithTitus 2,13, pp. 248–250: syntax and Christ's appearing.