| |
Titus 2:13
Verse 13
Attendant with one’s consistent Christian character is the attitude of love
And expectation expressed toward the future coming of the Lord.
“expectantly waiting for the joyous hope and appearance of the glory of the
Great God and (the appearance) of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” (BFT)
1. Looking for: this is the verb, prosdechomai, as a present middle participle
to describe the attitude of expectation toward Christ’s promised return. This
same verb is translated at Jude 21 in the NASB, as “waiting
anxiously.”
A. It is described as loving His
appearing at 2 Timothy 4:8.
B. At 1 Corinthians 1:7, the word apekdechomai is used as at
Philip. 3:20; Gal.
5:3; Rom. 8:23, 25; Heb. 9:28
C. At 2 Peter 3:12-14, the word is prosdokao.
2. The blessed hope: the word blessed is the adjective, makarios, which means
HAPPY or JOYOUS. The word HOPE is elpis which expresses confident
expectation. It is not an “I hope so” type of attitude, but rather a
confidence expectation of what we KNOW will occur in God’s perfect timing (1
Timothy 6:15).
3. AND (the) appearing: this noun is epiphaneia which means appearing or
appearance. It occurs only 6 times and five in reference to the second coming.
A. Here, the second coming of Jesus FOR the church is seen as an
appearing of GLORY; glory of God (the Father) AND glory of
Christ.
This is perfectly consistent with what Jesus taught in the
Olivet
discourse when He said, “and they will see the Son of Man
coming
in the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (Mat. 24:30).
B. The phrase, “the appearance of His presence,” at 2
Thessalonians 2:8, indicates that there is a visible manifestation
of
Christ that initiates judgment on the man of lawlessness.
C. 1 Timothy 6:14.
“that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach
until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This is clear enough a reference to
the
coming of Jesus for the church.
D. 2 Timothy 4:1
“I solemnly charge {you} in the presence of God
and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living
and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom.”
Here the appearing of Jesus is directly connected with His kingdom.
This is not because the kingdom
begins AT His appearing, nor is it
because this is a reference to His physical descent at Armageddon.
But rather, it is because His kingdom
is directly connected with
His arrival, for the arrival
initiates the events of the day of the
Lord which culminate in the
establishment of His kingdom.
E. 2 Timothy 4:8
“in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day;
and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.”
Here, His appearing is again a reference to Christ’s return for the
church, in connection with which, believers will be rewarded for their
works. The attitude of LOVING refers to placing value on the CONFIDENT
EXPECTATION of being with Him, as He has promised.
The expression of this attitude is evidenced through consistent Christian
living.
This is the attitude and the WORKS that will be rewarded at the judgment seat
of Christ, which will occur after the arrival of Jesus.
See Topic: Judgment seat of Christ
F. The most important point is that there is no basis for making this
word
refer sometimes to the return of Jesus for the
church, and
sometimes to the physical descent of Jesus at Armageddon (what is
traditionally called the second coming). Pentecost quotes Walvoord
on page 157 of Things to Come, to summarize erroneously,
“As used of the return of the Lord, two instances
are found where it refers to the rapture of the church and two
instances seem to refer to the second coming of Christ . . . it would
seem sound exegesis to classify 1 Timothy 6:14 and 2 Timothy
4:8 as referring to the rapture . . .
In 2 Timothy 4:1 and Titus 2:13, however, there seems to be reference
to
His second coming.”
I am appalled that these men would interpret Titus 2:13 as a reference to the
descent of Jesus at Armageddon rather than to the return of Jesus for the
church. It is not “sound exegesis” to apply the use of this word in these
places to anything other than the one and only second coming of Jesus which is
the focus of all the apostolic writings.
The JOYOUS hope of the church is NOT the physical descent of Jesus at
Armageddon, what is erroneously entitled as the second coming, but that hope
is the return of Jesus in the clouds when the living believers will be
resurrected and be given relief from the persecutions leveled against them.
4. The HAPPY EXPECTATION refers to a dual event, which
is the return of Jesus and the resurrection of
believers that occurs at that time through the
rapture.
A. Romans 8:23-25, we groan in anctipation of the
redemption of the BODY, which is resurrection. Then
Paul explains this as HOPE, “for we are saved in the
sphere of hope.”
So, what is it that is not seen, that we hope for and
with endurance, wait eagerly for it? It is
resurrection. But of course, that will be given at the
time that the sons of God are revealed, which is when
Christ is revealed (Col. 3:4).
B. 1 Thes. 5:8-10, the hope of salvation. But
technically, we already possess the salvation from SIN
(Eph. 1:7). What factor about our salvation is yet
future? It is the HOPE that we eagerly wait for of
Romans 8:23-25. It is the hope of resurrection; that
hope “that whether awake or asleep, we may LIVE
together with Him,” (1 Thes. 5:10).
C. What is the focus at 1 Corinthians 15:50-58? Is it
the coming of the Lord or is it resurrection. It is
resurrection, which happens at His coming (1 Cor.
15:23).
D. Philippians 3:20-21, What is the real focus here;
The return of Jesus or the fact that we will be given
a body just like His? Resurrection is the focus, but
it happens AT HIS COMING.
E. What is the focus at 1 John 3:1-3, the coming or
resurrection. Again, it is resurrection. He who has
this hope fixed on him, purifies himself.
What hope? The hope of being like him. BUT it is
realized “when he shall appear.”
F. 1 Peter 1:3-5, what is the LIVING hope?
We have the phrase, “through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead.”
Does this phrase EXPLAIN the means by which -
(a) we are regenerated? NO.
or (b) the reason that our HOPE is LIVING - it is a
living hope THROUGH the resurrection of Christ,
because we TOO will be resurrected.
BUT - it happens “at the revelation of Jesus Christ”
(v. 7).
G. Acts 24:15, “having a HOPE in God . . . that there
shall certainly be a resurrection of both the
righteous and the wicked.”
H. 1 Thes. 4:13, “but we do not want you to be
uninformed brethren about those who have fallen asleep
(died physically), so that you may not grieve as do
the rest WHO HAVE NO HOPE.”
Hope of WHAT? Hope of eternal life - or hope of
resurrection which is of course directly connected
with eternal life. Since Paul is talking about
physical death, the HOPE that is in view would be
concerning the perpetuation of physical life (or just
LIFE) for all eternity, which in many other passages
revolves around the issue of resurrection.
BUT very clearly here, the resurrection occurs at “the
coming of the Lord,” (v.15).
I. Passages of resurrection HOPE without the word hope
being used. Romans 6:4-8; John 6:35-40;
J. The possession of the resurrection body is directly
connected with the second coming of Jesus. The
resurrection of all believers (to date) does in fact
happen at that very instant. 1 Thes. 4:13-17; Philip.
3:20-21; 1 John 3:1-3; 1 Peter 1:3-7; 1 Cor. 15:50-58;
Romans 8:19-25;
K. Conclusion: the term “joyous hope” at Titus 2:13
refers to the hope or “confident expectation” of
possessing a resurrection body exactly like Christ’s.
This COULD be the primary focus, but it is so
intricately connected to the actual physical return of
Jesus, that there is slim justification for viewing
the term as separate from that return. Thus, the term
“the happy hope” refers to the possession of a
resurrection body which will be given at the return of
Jesus.
Accordingly, the equating of the two terms, “happy
hope” and “appearing” is justified both through
comparison of the truths involved and through
grammatical allowance.
To claim that the two terms are two separate and
distinct ideas is valid on the surface, for indeed,
the resurrection AND the coming of the Lord are two
separate and distinct ideas. The “coming” occurs and
THEN the resurrection occurs.
However, IS the happy hope referring to JUST
resurrection, or does it inherently include in it, the
fact of Christ’s appearing?
The result of the comparison of passages above
strongly indicates that the resurrection and the
appearing are intricately connected as ONE focus and
expectant hope of the believer.
COMMENTS ON THE GRANVILLE SHARP RULE
There is a grammatical device (rule) called the
Granville Sharp Rule, which states: “When the
copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if
the article, ho, or any of its cases precedes the
first of the said nouns or participles, and is not
repeated before the second noun or participle, the
latter always relates to the same person that is
expressed or described by the first noun or
participle; i.e., it denotes a farther description of
the first-named person.” (Dana and Mantey Grammar,
page 147).
1. Although the rule begins with “nouns” in general,
it then seems to focus just on “persons.” However,
that is not pertinent as I will endeavor to disqualify
the “rule” as having any kind of absolute grammatical
jurisdiction.
2. But that is the reason why many equate “blessed
hope” and “glorious appearing,” or more specifically,
“appearance” at Titus 2:13.
3. However, as well established as that rule is in
grammatical circles, I have a serious problem with it.
Notice that in the statement of the rule, it reads,
ALWAYS. This is a little too rigid for my tastes.
Man’s formulations of rules and devices are not
ABSOLUTE, and it seems there are ALWAYS exceptions.
This “rule” is no different.
4. I have always (there’s that word again) held
respectfully to the Granville Sharp Rule until my
recent studies in 2 Peter 1. Here is what I have
determined -
2 Petr 1:1, “the righteousness of our God and Savior,
Jesus Christ.”
Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: It is commonly held
that this construction is an example of the Granville
Sharp Rule.
5. Also at 2 Peter 2:20, “our Lord” is joined by kai
to “Savior, Jesus Christ,” and equates the two as
referring to one and the same person.
Also, at Titus 2:13a, “the blessed hope and glorious
appearing (appearance of the glory),” are joined by
kai with the definite article preceding “blessed” and
not preceding “appearance.”
6. Here, at 2 Peter 1:1, it is suggested, that “Our
God,” is referring to the same person as “Savior”
because the definite article precedes God, is followed
by KAI, and is thus connected to “Savior, Jesus
Christ,” which does not have the definite article.
7. However, the rule may be suspect because its
application to 2 Peter 1:1 cannot be upheld by a
detailed analysis of the context. Since such analysis
will determine that the Father and the Lord Jesus are
always (how often that word does come up) to be viewed
as separate individuals. It is Oneness Theology that
equates the Father and the Son, but the true biblical
doctrine of the Godhead (or trinity) recognizes as
with the Athanasian Creed, “For the person of the
Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy
Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory
equal, the majesty equal.”
8. Furthermore, at 2 Peter 2:20, it is the context
that makes the two words (Lord and Savior) refer to
the same person and it does not depend on any
grammatical construction.
9. And at Titus 2:13, the translation, “Looking for
the blessed hope, that is (kai) the appearing of the
glory of The Great God and OF our Savior Christ
Jesus,” does not NEED to equate the words “God” and
“Savior” for the second advent context makes it clear
that TWO things APPEAR at the second coming; (1) the
GLORY of the Great God, Matthew 16:27, AND (2) the
person of Jesus.
10. Furthermore, at Titus 2:13, the claim that the
“rule” is what equates “blessed hope” and “appearance”
is presumptuous of the rule.
At the same time, the linguistic practice of using AND
to equate two separate words or ideas is common to all
languages. It is that practice that ALLOWS (but not
demands) us to understand KAI as EVEN.
11. And it is context once again that justifies the
application of that practice to Titus 2:13, by
establishing that, the “hope” of Christians is in fact
the very appearance that is described.
a. John 14:1-3, “let not your heart be troubled.”
b. 1 Cor. 1:7, “awaiting eagerly the revelation of our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
c. Philip. 3:20, “we eagerly wait for a Savior.”
d. Rom. 8:25, “but if we expectantly hope for what we
do not see, then with endurance do we eagerly wait for
it.”
e. Heb. 9;28, “those who eagerly wait for Him.”
f. 1 Thes. 4:18, “therefore comfort one another with
these words.”
g. 2 Tim. 4:8, “those who have LOVED His appearing.”
h. 1 Peter 1:3-6, “a living HOPE . . . an inheritance
. . . to be revealed in the last time, in which you
greatly rejoice.”
i. 1 John 3:2-3, “When He appears, we shall be like
Him . . . And everyone who has this HOPE on Him.”
12. The claim that this RULE “still proves to be
true,” (Dana and Mantey Grammar, page 147) is forced
rather than cut in stone. A perfect example is our
passage here at 2 Peter 1:2, where it is claimed that,
“Our God,” is referring to the same person as “Savior”
because of the construction and the Granville Sharp
Rule. As I attempt to find the true meaning of Peter’s
words here, I cannot be restricted by a grammatical
“rule” that seems to be more wishful thinking than
accurate fact.
13. However, let me be quick to add that this in no
way threatens the deity of Jesus Christ, for that fact
is clearly established in the New Testament, and does
not depend on the Granville Sharp Rule to establish
its veracity.
14. Now, concerning the passage before us, there is
no basis for equating the word, God, with either
savior or Jesus in either First or Second Peter, and
both the immediate context as well as the over all
context will demonstrate this.
15. Starting in 1 Peter 1:1-3, Peter consistently
makes a distinction between “God” and Jesus, and it is
clear that when he mentions God, he has in mind God,
the Father. In fact, so consistently does Peter make
this distinction, that it is hermeneutically unwise to
use the Granville Sharp Rule at 2 Peter 1:2 as
justification to depart from his pattern.
16. In 1 Peter chapter one, theos is used 6 times,
and the first two are identified as God the Father,
which sets the pattern for its usage in the rest of
the book.
17. In chapter two, theos is used 9 times and the
distinction between GOD and Jesus Christ is continued
at verse 5 and preserved through the rest of the
chapter.
18. In chapter three, theos is used 8 times, with the
distinction being indicated at verses 18 and 22.
19. In chapter four, theos is used 11 times, with the
distinction being indicated at verse 11 and 14.
20. At chapter five, theos is used 5 times, with the
distinction being indicated at verse 10.
21. Accordingly, at 2 Peter 1:1, in spite of the
construction of the words, “The God of us and Savior,
Jesus Christ,” it is best to keep the two persons
separate, and the possessive pronoun would do double
duty as in, “the God of us and (the) Savior (of us),
Jesus Christ.”
22. The application of this “rule” at the beginning
of Titus 2:13, “the blessed hope AND (or EVEN) the
appearing of the glory of our great God . . .” is a
valid example IF the rule is to insisted upon. Even
without the rule, contextual analysis determines that
the blessed hope is in fact THE APPEARING.
|
|
