Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[John Milton]

You say you are not a Sharpian, so your position is totally muddled as to what you actually believe.

Only if you have failed to understand what I've written. And what I've written is clear enough you should be able to understand it.

 

[Steven Avery]

The only proper noun in all of Tit. 2:13 is the word translated "Jesus". All of the additional descriptors "great", "God", "savior", and "Christ" are common nouns and could refer to Jesus alone. It is also possible that the sentence could refer in part to God the Father and in part to Jesus.

Daniel Wallace says directly that Jesus Christ is a proper name.

Granville Sharp's Canon and its Kin p. 254.

So who do we believe among the Sharpians?

==============================

Since you do not know and understand even the basics, as we see on the issue right above, and have no real position of substance, I will likely pass up your trying to defend your silly attacks, like cribbed, and then your second attempt.

And I will say that various writers have said that the English and Greek are quite analogous about this theory, and thus my first instinct observations about the possessive pronoun (making a definite article difficult) was from the English text of the AV.

And then this was neatly and powerfully confirmed by Benedict Winer and the Christian Examiner commenting on the Greek and specifically the possessive pronoun . Quite an interesting dynamic.

And, so far, I definitely take Winer over your harumphs. Winer's clear point is not answered by Daniel Wallace, or anybody afaik. Wallace does briefly discuss whether Saviour is a proper name, again on p. 254.

You never came up with your alternate Titus 2:13 text, two distinct subjects per Sharp Rule 6, so your attacks on Winer, and the Christian Examiner, fall to the ground. If you ever come up with such a Greek text, then at least we will have a point of evaluation.

And I have learned that you make scurrilous personal attacks, without substance.
You just wildly make things up, in order to attack.
In that sense, this discussion has been quite informative.

 

[cjab]

And I gave every source I found, with urls, and even made an important correction to the cjab quote of Winer, where he had “defined” rather than “made definite.” Nothing at all was “cribbed.”

My quote of Winer was correct. It came from
A TREATISE
ON THE
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
REGARDED AS
A SURE BASIS FOR NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED (NINTH ENGLISH EDITION.)
(corrected) of 1882 by Rev F. Moulton (848 pages)

whereas you quoted from
A GRAMMAR
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DICTION
INTENDED AS A CRITICAL STUDY
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
SIXTH EDITION, ENLARGED (FOURTH ENGLISH EDITION) by Edward Masson MA of 1863.(708 pages)

 

[Steven Avery]

My quote of Winer was correct. It came from
A TREATISE
ON THE
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
REGARDED AS
A SURE BASIS FOR NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED (NINTH ENGLISH EDITION.)
(corrected) of 1882 by Rev F. Moulton (848 pages)

whereas you quoted from
A GRAMMAR
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DICTION
INTENDED AS A CRITICAL STUDY
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
SIXTH EDITION, ENLARGED (FOURTH ENGLISH EDITION) by Edward Masson MA of 1863.(708 pages)

Thanks.

"Made definite" makes more sense in the context, and is in 1860, 1863, 1871. 1874 and 1892 editions and an earlier one used by the Christian Examiner in 1859.

You can see that with a search for "and the apposition precedes the proper name".

Of course, one could go to the German for more information.

 

[cjab]

Not necessarily , that is a philosophical statement which grammar does not and cannot address. All grammar denotes by the indefinite ἄνθρωπός or “a man” ( be it Greek or English) is that that someone falls within the category of the group defined as ἄνθρωπός even if they have only some of the “properties” of a man. So in LXX Genesis 18:2 when the bible calls three angels ἄνδρες it is not saying “they have all the characteristics of Adam “ anymore than when the bible calls the prophets of God Θεοί in John 10:34 it is saying that they have “all of the characteristics” of the one true God. If you think about it, even Eve (and all other women) did not have “all of the characteristics “ of Adam ( and all other males).

OK, yet this will raise the prospect that imputation of "essence" (meaning essential properties or sufficient properties to qualify as) is corollary to any anarthrous predicate.

 

[cjab]

Continuing an earlier thesis of mine that "glorious appearing" is mistranslated in Titus 2:13, I find support even amongst Sharpian Trinitarians on this. Consider Kevin Smith and Arthur Song's article. "SOME CHRISTOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS IN TITUS 2:13" (jstor).

Personally I would posit that "glorious" can only be justified from δόξα by qualifying prepositions, e.g. ἐν, διὰ. Thus ἐν δόξῃ, διὰ δόξης (2Co 3:11). Any objections?

A couple of pages from the above article:
______________________________________________________________________

In Titus 2:13, the immediate object of the verbal noun ἐπιφάνειαν (appearing) is της δόξης (of the glory). If it were correct to understand της δόξης as an attributive genitive and Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος as in apposition to Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ , then the construction would read the glorious appearing of Christ Jesus (= our God and Saviour), but this is not the best interpretation of της δόξης (see the argument below). It is best to interpret της δόξης as an objective genitive, hence, the manifestation of the glory. י

Technically, therefore, Titus 2:13 denotes not the appearing of Christ, but the manifestation of the glory of God.

What is the connection between the appearing of the glory of God and the second coming of Christ? The parallel expressions in Titus 2:11 and 3:4, which together with Titus 2:13 form a trilogy of syntactically and semantically parallel constructions, hold the clue to resolution. The two parallel verses, 2:11 and 3:4, both use the verb έπεφάνη with an abstract subject,

_________________________

י We have used the alternative translation, the appearing of the glory, below to make the connections between ἐπιφάνειαν (2:13) and έπεφάνη (2:11 and 3:4) more apparent. The translation "the appearing of the glory" implies that δόξης is a subjective genitive. Whether δόξης is a subjective or an objective genitive makes little difference to the meaning of the verse.
_________________________

interpreted as the manifestation of divine glory in the person of Jesus Christ at his second coming.2

The glory of God appears in the person of Christ, Therefore, the appearing of the glory and the appearing of Christ are inseparable The appearing of Christ at his second coming is the full and final manifestation of the glory of God, Christ's appearing, and in him is manifest the glory of God.

The above answer leads to two further questions: (a) what is glory (δόξα) and (b) what is the role of the genitive of the glory (της δόξης) in this sentence? We shall explore these two questions in inverse order.

4. The Glory

Syntactically, the genitive phrase της δόξης (of glory) modifies ἐπιφάνειαν (appearing). Semantically it could be an attributive genitive, hence the glorious appearing (NIV; NKJV) or an objective genitive, meaning appearing of the glory (NASB; NRSV). The choice is difficult, but before analysing the options, it is worth noting that της δόξης is the first genitive in a multiple genitive chain (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ).

The potential for ambiguity as to the semantic relationship between nouns in a genitive chain makes such chains notoriously difficult to interpret. The general principle to follow when handling genitive chains is that each genitive is dependent on the word immediately preceding it (see BDF· §168; Turner 1963, 281; Wallace 1996, 75). Unless context clearly indicates otherwise, this principle is the preferred rule to arbitrate in difficult cases.

Returning to ἐπιφάνειαν της δόξης, Banker (1994, 75, S2-S3) regards it as an attributive genitive, hence the glorious appearing, Among the prominent English translations, the CEV, NIV and NKJV support this interpretation. The high frequency of attributive genitives in the New

Testament, coupled with the New Testament portrayal of the second coming of Christ predisposes believers to think of it as the glorious appearing more instinctively than to speak of the appearing of the glory

_____________________________

2 The parallelism is strengthened by the use of σωτῆρος in 2:13 and 3:4 and σωτήριος in 2:11.
_____________________________

Nevertheless, Harris (1991) provides three persuasive arguments against interpreting τῆς δόξης as an attributive genitive:

1. It violates our general guideline for genitive chains. It makes τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ (of the great God) dependent on ἐπιφάνειαν (1appearing) rather than on τῆς δόξης (the glory). While not grammatically impossible, one needs a good contextual reason 10 argue that {he genitives in a chain do not function in sequence.​

​

2. it compromises the verbal parallelism between 2:11 and 2:13. The expressions the grace of God has appeared (Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ) in verse 11 and the appearing of the glory of God (ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ) in verse 13 are strikingly similar. They form a deliberate comparison between the first coming of Christ, which made manifest the grace of God, and the second coming, which will manifest his glory.​

​

3. It "weaken* the import of the term δόξα " (Harris 1991, 176). If intended only as an attributive genitive, τῆς δόξης makes minimal contribution to the sentence but creates maximum scope for confusion. Due to the scope for confusion, its inclusion is more likely to make a maximum contribution to the sentence, which it can only do as an objective (or subjective) genitive.​

Therefore, depending on whether the verbal idea expressed by ἐπιφάνειαν is active or passive, τῆς δόξης should be regarded as an objective genitive (manifesting the glory) or subjective genitive (the glory appears). In either case, what is being revealed is the glory ׳.

τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ can then be taken at face value as a possessive genitive modifying της δόξης, that is, "the glory belonging to the great God."

However, the glory of God (δόξα θεοΰ) needs to be explained, Δόξα is a technical term that derives its New Testament significance from its LXX usage. In the LXX, δόξα renders כְּבוֹ in passages where it denotes the glory of God. In relation to God, כְּבוֹ "denotes that which makes God impressive. Since God is invisible, it necessarily carries a reference to his self-manifestation" (Kittel and Von Rad 1995, 178). Thus Kittel and Von Rad (1995, 179) wrote concerning δόξα in the LXX, "The primary sense, then, is the divine glory which comes to expression in God's acts in creation and history. Λόξα is the divine nature in its invisibility or perceptible manifestation." The New Testament usage is based on the same sense, as Kittel explains:

While individual nuances may embrace divine honor, splendor, power, or radiance, what is always expressed is the divine mode of being, although with varying stress on the element of visible manifestation (Kind and Von Had 1995, 180).​

In Kittel's view, δόξα refers to a tangible manifestation of the essence of God's invisible nature. Therefore, any act of God which demonstrates some aspect of his invisible divine nature is a revelation of the glory of God. The ultimate such revelation will be the second coming of Christ.

What then is the glory of God? Λόξα Θεού is not, as some have surmised, a primitive Christological title (cf Harris 199 k 178). It does not refer directly to a person, but to a quality which can be embodied in a person. All three occurrences of έπεφάίνω and ἐπιφάνειαν in Titus (2:11, 13 and 3:4) refer to the making manifest of an impersonal quality of God's nature—grace, glory and goodness respectively—by means of the appearing of Jesus Christ, who embodies that quality. "The glory of God," therefore, is the invisible splendour inherent in God's very being.

ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ denotes manifesting something of the invisible divine nature (δόξα) by means of the future appearing of Christ.

 

[The Real John Milton]

OK, yet this will raise the prospect that imputation of "essence" (meaning essential properties or sufficient properties to qualify as) is corollary to any anarthrous predicate.

Not sure what that means . Meaning of words do not have to do with “essential properties” but with definition, that is, with what the language has seen fit to categorize someone or something as based on one or more shared characteristics , and not necessarily with “sufficient essential qualities.” For instance a “king” is defined as a male ruler , or as someone who holds power or even as someone powerful or strong, depending on context. So Herod the Great is called a King (because he ruled a literal kingdom). God is also a king, because he is the all powerful one. Does Herod share “sufficient qualities”with God as king to qualify for this role ? Ofcourse not. Both are kings because they fit into the definition of what it means to be a king in their own very different ways. Are there “essential properties” to being a king ? An evil king is just as much a king by definition as a good one.

 

[John Milton]

Daniel Wallace says directly that Jesus Christ is a proper name.

I didn't comment on the phrase "Jesus Christ". I commented on the parts "Jesus" and "Christ". If Jesus is a proper noun and his name is modified it doesn't make the modifier proper, much less a name, simply because the referent can only be a single person. Even taken as a whole, to say that Jesus's last name is "Christ" is ludicrous, even if that is the way many people understand it in English.

Granville Sharp's Canon and its Kin p. 254.

So who do we believe among the Sharpians?

Ask them.

Since you do not know and understand even the basics, as we see on the issue right above, and have no real position of substance, I will likely pass up your trying to defend your silly attacks, like cribbed, and then your second attempt.

I knew before you started that you couldn't defend your position, and you remain too ignorant to understand you've lost. As I've stated, you are only ever going to believe the things that confirm what you already think.

And I will say that various writers have said that the English and Greek are quite analogous about this theory,

They aren't. I've given you examples that prove it.

and thus my first instinct observations about the possessive pronoun (making a definite article difficult) was from the English text of the AV.

Then they were based on English and not relevant. I handled this before you commented.

And then this was neatly and powerfully confirmed by Benedict Winer and the Christian Examiner commenting on the Greek and specifically the possessive pronoun . Quite an interesting dynamic.

No. Winer was commenting on Greek Grammar. It's kind of the name of his book. If you are using Winder to confirm your remarks on the English translation, no wonder you are so confused. If you are using him to make comments about the Greek, you are cribbing him because you have left no doubt that you have zero competence in the language, and you were familiar with his work before you made the post I responded to.

And, so far, I definitely take Winer over your harumphs. Winer's clear point is not answered by Daniel Wallace, or anybody afaik.

Your problem is that you are limited to what you know. I have shown you multiple Greek quotations that show that Winer's remarks don't account for certain usages of the article and its omission. As I keep saying, you are too ignorant to know it and it's laughable and that's why it is clear that you are only ever going to confirm your biases. You are even too lazy to investigate something that would take two clicks in a search engine, at most, to verify if you were even slightly competent. I'll even help you out once more:
II Tim. 1:10 διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
Tit. 2:13 ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
I asked you before what is the only difference between the two underlined phrases? Since you couldn't answer the question on your own, I'll answer it for you. It is the word τοῦ. Copy and paste it and put it in a search engine. Scroll down the results and click on a Greek concordance and read where it is identified as an article. What this means is that there is nothing about the phrase "σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" that prohibits the use of the article. Now that you cannot deny that you can verify this information for yourself, are you going to accept that you and Winer are mistaken or are you going to continue believing an untruth? That's a rhetorical question, of course. I know what you are going to do. I suspect you've known the truth for some time since I posed the question to you at the very least.

Wallace does briefly discuss whether Saviour is a proper name, again on p. 254.

You're still haven't identified the relevant topic in Tit. 2:13.

You never came up with your alternate Titus 2:13 text, two distinct subjects per Sharp Rule 6, so your attacks on Winer, and the Christian Examiner, fall to the ground. If you ever come up with such a Greek text, then at least we will have a point of evaluation.

This is an outright untruth, Steven. The very first verse I gave you did that.

And I have learned that you make scurrilous personal attacks, without substance.
You just wildly make things up, in order to attack.
In that sense, this discussion has been quite informative.

I haven't attacked you personally, you sensitive soul, though you are certainly deserving of it.

 

[cjab]

Are there “essential properties” to being a king ? An evil king is just as much a king by definition as a good one.

I guess context is important, where you do have an anarthrous predicate. Many times it will uncontroversial, especially with a word like King or God. But sometimes it can be made out to be controversial; and where it is, the true nature of the anarthrous predicate is revealed.

Thus JWs make a controversy out of "The Word was God." They say, the Word didn't have sufficient qualities to be considered as "God" so is cast as a "god". But the bible entertains no controversy upon this point, except to dictate that the Word was not "the God."

The Jews made a controversy out of Jesus being the / a king.

Consider Jhn 19:19 "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."

"Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος [ἐστιν] ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων"

Jhn 19:21 "Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews."

Βασιλεύς εἰμι τῶν Ἰουδαίων

So here the Jews are seen exploiting the abstraction of an anarthrous predicate.

So what I'm suggesting is that if you say someone is ὁ βασιλεὺς , then it is put beyond controversy, as the person is being declared king in person. Anarthrously, the meaning is subject to a degree of abstraction so as to invite qualified derogation as in "Jesus was God but was not God the Father but had sufficient properties to be God with the Father" in Jn 1:1; and similarly by implication of Jhn 19:21, a qualified derogration from Jesus being universally regarded as king of the Jews.

 

[Steven Avery]

I didn't comment on the phrase "Jesus Christ". I commented on the parts "Jesus" and "Christ".

Why would that even be relevant to this conversation?
Especially in the topic of Titus 2:13.

Anyway, Daniel Wallace says Jesus Christ is a proper noun, and he is the dedicated Sharpian.

This is one of a dozen and more examples of the fluidity and confusion involved in Sharpian terms.

============================================

II Tim. 1:10 διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
Tit. 2:13 ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
there is nothing about the phrase "σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" that prohibits the use of the article.

Thanks. I agree that I should have spent more time on this the other day, yesterday I did the Poughkeepsie May Fest, walking the bridge, and cut my time down.

This has spurred me to work on a far more complete study (Henry Alford is especially interesting as our the verse comparisons.)
However, I do not want to rush it, so it may take a day or so.

 

[The Real John Milton]

So what I'm suggesting is that if you say someone is ὁ βασιλεὺς , then it is put beyond controversy, as the person is being declared king in person. Anarthrously, the meaning is subject to a degree of abstraction so as to invite qualified derogation as in "Jesus was God but was not God the Father but had sufficient properties to be God with the Father" in Jn 1:1; and similarly by implication of Jhn 19:21, a qualified derogration from Jesus being universally regarded as king of the Jews.

As I explained you can’t get that from the grammar and further it is polytheism plus the text at John 1:1 doesn’t even mention Jesus. And that’s just for starters.

 

[cjab]

As I explained you can’t get that from the grammar and further it is polytheism plus the text at John 1:1 doesn’t even mention Jesus. And that’s just for starters.

Sorry, I meant the Word was God (slip of the fingers). As for polytheism, not if you consider how the Word was God (the power of God was in the Word and the Word was in the power of God). The Word wasn't God independently of the power of God which is the JW and the Trinitarian mistake - to assume two independent Gods. Rather the power of God was exercised through the Word.

 

[brianrw]

When you have a situation, as we do in Titus 2:13, where there is no variation in the normal construction anywhere else in the GNT, and there is no variation in the interpretation of the Greek fathers as seeing the passage refer to Christ as "great God," then all these commentaries have a much higher burden of proof to overcome. It simply has not been met in almost all of these arguments--not by Winer, not by Winstanley, not like many others whose arguments begin with a stated theological supposition.

The Sharpians are not happy with this superb text, and insist that the Greek only shows one "person", Rule 1. Thus, by their logic, there must be another Greek text that would be virtually identical (it would translate essentially as the AV above) and would show two "persons". Simply by adding the second article, Rule 6.

You'll find some in the examples below.

And as Winer has pointed out, "no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ by itself, as referring to a second subject" when Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is associated with a proper name (or monadic noun - the article is omitted before words which denote objectsof which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names).

Let’s just take a simple look at the constructions. θεός is only used in the GNT as a title, not a proper name. Had θεός been a proper name, the following examples would be inexplicable:

1. τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 15:6)
2. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί (1 Cor. 15:24)
3. " (Ephesians 5:20)
4. " (Colossians 3:17)
5. " (James 1:27)
6. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 1:3)
7. " (2 Cor. 11:31)
8. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (Galatians 1:4)
9. " (1 Thess. 1:3)
10. " (1 Thess. 3:13)
11. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ (Ephesians 1:3)
12. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν (Philippians 4:20)
13. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Colossians 1:3)
14. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Colossians 2:2)
15. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (1 Thess. 3:11)
16. ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν (2 Thess. 2:16)
17. τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα (James 3:9)

In these places, when two individuals are in view both having the same case, we can note that both have the article. Steven and cjab may also note the examples where the pronoun accompanies the article. Also, in most manuscripts we find the following reading:

1. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Timothy 4:1 MT/TR). The NA/UBS texts omit the article before κυρίου.

Our other option when clearly distinguishing more than one person is to omit the article before both:

1. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 1:7)
2. " (1 Cor. 1:3)
3. " (2 Cor. 1:2)
4. " (Ephesians 1:2)
5. " (Philippians 1:2)
6. θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
7. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
8. " (Colossians 1:2)
9. " (2 Thessalonians 1:2)
10. " (Philemon 1:3)
11. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Galatians 1:3)
12. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ephesians 6:23)
13. " (Titus 1:4)
14. θεῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (2 Thessalonians 1:1)
15. τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Thessalonians 1:12)
16. θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Κυριόυ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Timothy 1:1)
17. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1 Timothy 1:2)
18. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (2 Timothy 1:2)
19. θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (James 1:1)

Cjab can take note that θεὸς in all instances is anarthrous.

We can also take a look at a few general other examples outside the Christologically significant texts (again, cjab and Steven can note the placement of the pronoun accompanying an article in some of the examples):

1. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:11)
2. τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 2:20)
3. τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος (2 Peter 3:2)
4. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 3:18)
5. ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελϕὸς Ἰακώβου (Mark 6:30)
6. Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ (Ephesians 6:21)
7. τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν (John 20:17)
8. ὑμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον ἠρνήσασθε (Acts 3:14)
9. Ἐπαϕρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελϕὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώτην μου (Philippians 2:25)
10. τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1)
11. Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ (Col. 4:7)
12. Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ (Col. 4:9)
13. Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν (Philemon 1:1)
14. κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ἰακώβ (Luke 20:37 NA/UBS)
15. Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει... (Revelation 1:9 NA/UBS/MT)
16. ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης (1 Timothy 6:15)
17. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων (1 Timothy 6:15)
18. τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 12:2)
19. τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (1 Peter 2:25)
20. ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων (1 Peter 5:1)
21. τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1)

Outside the Christologically significant passages, there are about eighty examples of the “Sharp” construction and there are no exceptions in the GNT. So it is only in passages where exceptions are demanded is in places where θεὸς appears to refer to Ἰησοῦς, and those exceptions are begin with the stated presupposition that Paul would not call Jesus . . . θεὸς. The fact that the Greek fathers themselves see here that Christ is called, "great God," these commentators and grammarians are clearly overselling their position. It's more like special pleading.

 

[John Milton]

When you have a situation, as we do in Titus 2:13, where there is no variation in the normal construction anywhere else in the GNT, and there is no variation in the interpretation of the Greek fathers as seeing the passage refer to Christ as "great God," then all these commentaries have a much higher burden of proof to overcome. It simply has not been met in almost all of these arguments--not by Winer, not by Winstanley, not like many others whose arguments begin with a stated theological supposition.


You'll find some in the examples below.


Let’s just take a simple look at the constructions. θεός is only used in the GNT as a title, not a proper name. Had θεός been a proper name, the following examples would be inexplicable:

1. τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 15:6)
2. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί (1 Cor. 15:24)
3. " (Ephesians 5:20)
4. " (Colossians 3:17)
5. " (James 1:27)
6. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 1:3)
7. " (2 Cor. 11:31)
8. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (Galatians 1:4)
9. " (1 Thess. 1:3)
10. " (1 Thess. 3:13)
11. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ (Ephesians 1:3)
12. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν (Philippians 4:20)
13. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Colossians 1:3)
14. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Colossians 2:2)
15. ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (1 Thess. 3:11)
16. ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν (2 Thess. 2:16)
17. τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα (James 3:9)

In these places, when two individuals are in view both having the same case, we can note that both have the article. Steven and cjab may also note the examples where the pronoun accompanies the article. Also, in most manuscripts we find the following reading:

1. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Timothy 4:1 MT/TR). The NA/UBS texts omit the article before κυρίου.

Our other option when clearly distinguishing more than one person is to omit the article before both:

1. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 1:7)
2. " (1 Cor. 1:3)
3. " (2 Cor. 1:2)
4. " (Ephesians 1:2)
5. " (Philippians 1:2)
6. θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
7. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
8. " (Colossians 1:2)
9. " (2 Thessalonians 1:2)
10. " (Philemon 1:3)
11. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Galatians 1:3)
12. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ephesians 6:23)
13. " (Titus 1:4)
14. θεῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (2 Thessalonians 1:1)
15. τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Thessalonians 1:12)
16. θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Κυριόυ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Timothy 1:1)
17. θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1 Timothy 1:2)
18. θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (2 Timothy 1:2)
19. θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (James 1:1)

Cjab can take note that θεὸς in all instances is anarthrous.

We can also take a look at a few general other examples outside the Christologically significant texts (again, cjab and Steven can note the placement of the pronoun accompanying an article in some of the examples):

1. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:11)
2. τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 2:20)
3. τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος (2 Peter 3:2)
4. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 3:18)
5. ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελϕὸς Ἰακώβου (Mark 6:30)
6. Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ (Ephesians 6:21)
7. τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν (John 20:17)
8. ὑμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον ἠρνήσασθε (Acts 3:14)
9. Ἐπαϕρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελϕὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώτην μου (Philippians 2:25)
10. τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1)
11. Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν κυρίῳ (Col. 4:7)
12. Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ (Col. 4:9)
13. Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν (Philemon 1:1)
14. κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ἰακώβ (Luke 20:37 NA/UBS)
15. Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει... (Revelation 1:9 NA/UBS/MT)
16. ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης (1 Timothy 6:15)
17. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων (1 Timothy 6:15)
18. τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 12:2)
19. τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (1 Peter 2:25)
20. ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων (1 Peter 5:1)
21. τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1)

Outside the Christologically significant passages, there are about eighty examples of the “Sharp” construction and there are no exceptions in the GNT. So it is only in passages where exceptions are demanded is in places where θεὸς appears to refer to Ἰησοῦς, and those exceptions are begin with the stated presupposition that Paul would not call Jesus . . . θεὸς. The fact that the Greek fathers themselves see here that Christ is called, "great God," these commentators and grammarians are clearly overselling their position. It's more like special pleading.

I believe the practice of identifying a grammatical tendency in a language and creating a "foolproof" rule for it by compiling, categorizing, and codifying exceptions is a colossal waste of time. The result is rarely more than a sophisticated appeal to statistics and seems to encourage bickering about the wording and content of those exceptions rather than discussion of grammatical/pragmatic features that explain them.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Sorry, I meant the Word was God (slip of the fingers). As for polytheism, not if you consider how the Word was God (the power of God was in the Word and the Word was in the power of God). The Word wasn't God independently of the power of God which is the JW and the Trinitarian mistake - to assume two independent Gods. Rather the power of God was exercised through the Word.

Don’t see how that changes anything. If a Hindu said that Shiva (from this Trinity ) wasn’t God “independently” of Brahma, does that make him less of a polytheist ?

 

[John Milton]

Outside the Christologically significant passages, there are about eighty examples of the “Sharp” construction and there are no exceptions in the GNT. So it is only in passages where exceptions are demanded is in places where θεὸς appears to refer to Ἰησοῦς, and those exceptions are begin with the stated presupposition that Paul would not call Jesus . . . θεὸς. The fact that the Greek fathers themselves see here that Christ is called, "great God," these commentators and grammarians are clearly overselling their position. It's more like special pleading.

It's been several years since I've read through the writings of the church fathers, and my library is in storage due to an impending move. Do you know off-hand of any ECFs that commented on Eph. 5:5?

 

[cjab]

Don’t see how that changes anything. If a Hindu said that Shiva (from this Trinity ) wasn’t God “independently” of Brahma, does that make him less of a polytheist ?

Hinduism is a different, pagan conception, because they are gods independently of each other. In monotheism, there is only one "power of God". If the power is exercised through the Word, then the Word must also be God (sufficent properties to be deemed God) unless the Word itself is inanimate. Clearly it isn't, nor anything associated with God (who is life).

 

[brianrw]

I believe the practice of identifying a grammatical tendency in a language and creating a "foolproof" rule for it by compiling, categorizing, and codifying exceptions is a colossal waste of time. The result is rarely more than a sophisticated appeal to statistics and seems to encourage bickering about the wording and content of those exceptions rather than discussion of grammatical/pragmatic features that explain them.

It's hard to create any "foolproof" rule in any language because there will always be ambiguity, and even if it is an established usage of grammar, somewhere it will be broken. English has a nearly identical convention using the article and we naturally include ways to remove ambiguity where it may be present. So I believe we need to approach the passage here with a similar mindset.

Noting the trend of objections in the passages, it seems that the grammatical tendencies of the Greek grammar or consistently ignored by certain individuals when the appellation of θεός appears to be applied to Christ, and all are predicated on the supposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." And that would be not just one sentence involving a single construction, but multiple sentences involving different constructions. I strongly suspect in the several passages, had κύριος been found instead, we would not even be having this debate.

So, I find we can view the situation in one of three ways:

1. Paul didn't write carefully and accidentally created an ambiguity in several places where he could be seen as calling Christ θεός
2. Paul knew the appropriate rules, and for whatever reason chose to ignore them.
3. Paul had no qualms about using θεός in reference to Christ because he makes no distinction about their nature.

I find the first extremely difficult to believe, because Paul removes all ambiguity everywhere else when discerning Father and Son else except (some contend) where he could specifically be seen as applying θεός to Christ. Some might also argue on the basis of inspiration, that nothing should be viewed as "accidental" but I'm sticking purely to style. I don't believe anyone writes a sentence to be read any one of three to six ways (Titus 2:13 vs. Romans 9:5), but that it's the rejection of the plainest reading that results in those variant clusters. This is the result of contrarian arguments--they are against a reading, but can't agree on the alternative. I believe Paul chose (or made) his words carefully.

The second is not at all impossible (it does happen in the GNT), but then we should find a plausible explanation for why Paul felt the need to break the rules. One might argue that Paul felt the distinction between God and Jesus was so obvious that a second article was not necessary. But then his comments in Colossians 1:15-18, 2:9 and Philippians 2:5-11 (and the first chapter of Hebrews, if we ascribe the authorship to Paul), as well as many of the cross references applied to the Lord God in the OT being applied to Christ in the NT, suggest that is not the case. It is particularly hard to evade the force of the contrast of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων . . . ἴσα θεῷ (Philippians 2:6) with ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (2:7) and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος (2:8). It is equally hard to ignore the parallelism between Colossians 1:15-18, John 1:1-3, and Hebrews 1.

I find the third option consistent with Paul's statements addressed above, and it is the most natural way in which the grammar would be read, and it is the manner in which the passage was read by the Greeks. Seeing as how in all the examples above, Paul removes all ambiguity with the usage or omission of the article, but doesn't when θεός is applied to Christ, IMHO Paul deliberately placed the article as he did because he very much intended to refer to Christ as "great God." I believe this is grounded also in Isaiah 9:6, where it is prophesied that Christ would be called "mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר), where μέγας is one of the Greek words used to translate the Hebrew גִּבּוֹר in the GOT. This certainly is also the simplest solution.

It's been several years since I've read through the writings of the church fathers, and my library is in storage due to an impending move. Do you know off-hand of any ECFs that commented on Eph. 5:5?

Sure!

John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (4th century)

And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God." (On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2)​

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (5th century)

For anyone who wants can easily learn from the scriptures that Paul often calls the Son "God." For he says, "awaiting the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And also, "from whom, according to the flesh, [came] Christ, who is over all, God" (Romans 9:5). And "in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Ephesians 5:5). And there are countless other texts like these. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:6; Greek: PG 82, col. 289)​

​

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (5th century)

​

For this reason, the blessed Paul called him Christ and God, speaking as follows, "For know this and understand that no fornicator, or unclean person, or coveteous one who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Consequently, all the others, as I said, may be anointed ones, and very reasonably, because of having been anointed, but Christ alone is true God, the Emmanuel. (Letter 1, 18)​

​

I seem to remember there being others, but these are the two I remember.

 

[cjab]

It's more like special pleading.

Not if you mark the distinction between Tit 2:13 and all of the above. Tit 2:13 refers to τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ, which in an inviolable genitive. Suppose the following example was Graecized per the Titus 2:13 formula:

"Awaiting the appearing of the crown jewels of the late matriarch and our beloved princess Jennifer."

and written when it was common knowledge that the princess Jennifer was the daugher of the late matriarch. All Winer is saying is that "our beloved princess Jennifer" doesn't need the article here.

Now what shall we say if, three hundred years later, when people had lost all knowledge of history, some insisted that the above meant that the matriarch and our beloved princess Jennifer were one and the same person because they insisted on taking the clause:

"Awaiting the appearing of the crown jewels of the (late matriarch and our beloved princess Jennifer)."

when in fact the author intended:

"Awaiting the appearing of (the crown jewels of the late matriarch) and (our beloved princess Jennifer)."

We would just say that they were WRONG and guilty of a perverse grammatical rendering, which starts with trying to break up the clause "crown jewels of the late matriarch." And your problem also starts with breaking up "glory of the great God" by a specious rule of grammar.

That's really all there is here, except for this one thing: "the (radiance) of the glory of the great God" is indeed Christ himself (Heb 1:3). Therefore we are justified in seeing only one person here, but it is not "the great God" himself, but the glory of God who is Christ.

 

[brianrw]

"Awaiting the appearing of the crown jewels of the late matriarch and our beloved princess Jennifer."

written when it was common knowledge that the princess Jennifer is the daugher of the late matriarch.

You should reformulate this, it's not a good example and it's certainly not analogous to the interpretation you are proposing, unless you take Jennifer as the crown jewels, which the sentence does not allow. But to remove all doubt we would write, "Awaiting the appearing of our beloved princess Jennifer and the crown jewels of the late matriarch."

That's really all there is here, except for this one thing: "the (radiance) of the glory of the great God" is indeed Christ himself (Heb 1:3). Therefore we are justified in seeing only one person here, but it is not "the great God" himself, but the glory of God who is Christ.

The identity of the Father and Son has not been lost to time. Can you name one of the ancient Greek fathers who read the passage that way? Because what I see consistently is them referring to Christ as "great God." The attributive usage of the genitive case is common in the GNT, and particularly lends itself to Hebrew thought.