Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Titus 2:13 - 2:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Tit_2:13. Προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα ] The strange collocation of προσδεχ . and ἐλπίδα is found also in Act_24:15 : ἐλπίδα ἔχων … ἣν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι προσδέχονται ; so, too, in Gal_5:5 : ἐλπίδα … ἀπεκδεχόμεθα . The reason of it is that ἐλπίς not only denotes actively the hope, but also passively the thing hoped for, the subject of the hope; comp. Col_1:5 : ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡ ἀποκειμένη ἐν τ . οὐρανοῖς ; comp., too, Rom_8:24.
μακαρίαν ] Paul thus describes the ἐλπίδα in so far as the expectation of it blesses the believer. Wolf wrongly interprets ἡ μακ . ἐλπίς as equivalent to ἡ ἐλπιζομένη μακαριότης .
This ἐλπίς is further defined by the epexegesis: καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ . Χριστοῦ ] According to Hofmann, the adjective μακαρίαν as well as the genitive τῆς δόξης κ . τ . λ . belongs to both substantives, to ἐλπίδα and to ἐπιφάνειαν , because, as he thinks, ἡ μακαρία ἐλπίς is not a conception complete in itself. But Rom_15:4 shows this to be wrong. The genitive could only be construed with the two substantives by giving it a different reference in each case. Hofmann, indeed, maintains that this presents no difficulty, as it occurs elsewhere; but he is wrong in his appeal to Rom_15:4 (comp. Meyer on the passage) and to 1Pe_1:2 and 2Pe_3:11 (comp. my commentary on the passages).
Beyond doubt, the ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης κ . τ . λ . denotes Christ’s second coming (1Ti_6:14); it may, however, be asked whether μεγάλου Θεοῦ is an independent subject or an attribute of Ἰησ . Χρ . The older expositors are of the latter opinion; the orthodox even appealed to this passage against the Arians. Ambrosius, however, distinguishes here between Christus and Deus Pater.[5] Erasmus, too, says: simul cum Patre apparebit eadem gloria conspicuus Dominus ac Servator noster J. Chr.; and Bengel says of ΘΕΟῦ simply: referri potest ad Christum. Among more recent expositors, Flatt, Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, adopt the former view; while de Wette, Plitt, Winer, pp. 123 f.[E. T. p. 162], adopt the latter. Heydenreich leaves the question undecided.[6] It cannot be decided on purely grammatical grounds, for μεγ . Θεοῦ and σωτῆρος ἡμ . may be two attributes referring to Ἰησ . Χριστοῦ ; still it may be also that σωτῆρ . ἡμῶν Ἰησ . Χρ . is a subject distinct from μεγ . Θεοῦ , even although only one article is used.[7] The question can only be answered by an appeal to N. T. usage, both for this passage and others like it: 2Pe_1:1; Jud_1:4; 2Th_1:12. In 2Pe_1:11; 2Pe_3:18, the unity of the subject is beyond doubt. The following points may be urged in favour of distinguishing two subjects:—(1) In no single, passage is Θεός connected directly with Ἰησοῦς Χριστός as an attribute (see my commentary on 2Pe_1:1); i.e. there never occurs in the N. T. the simple construction ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησ . Χρ ., or ὁ Θεὸς Ἰησοῦς Χρ ., or Ἰησ . Χρ . ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν , whereas κύριος and σωτήρ are often enough construed in this way. (2) The collocation of God ( Θεός ) and Christus as two subjects is quite current, not only in the Pastoral Epistles (1Ti_1:1-2; 1Ti_5:21; 1Ti_6:13; 2Ti_1:2; 2Ti_4:1; Tit_1:4), but also in all the epistles of the N. T., Pauline or not, so much so, that when in some few passages the turn of the expression is such as to make Θεός refer grammatically to Christ also, these passages have to be explained in accordance with the almost invariable meaning of the expression. (3) The addition of the adjective μεγάλου indicates that Θεοῦ is to be taken as an independent subject, especially when it is observed how Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy uses similar epithets to exalt God’s glory; comp. 1Ti_1:17; 1Ti_4:10; 1Ti_6:15-16, especially Tit_1:11 : ἡ δόξα τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ . It is true the expression ὁ μέγας Θεός is not found in the N. T., except in the Rec. of Rev_19:17, but it occurs frequently in the O. T.: Deu_6:21; Deu_10:17; Neh_9:32; Dan_2:45; Dan_9:4.[8]
For the unity of the subject only one reason can be urged with any show of force, viz. that elsewhere the word ἘΠΙΦΆΝΕΙΑ is only used in reference to Christ; but Erasmus long ago pointed out that it does not stand here ἘΠΙΦ . ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , but Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ . Wiesinger, too, has to admit “that, according to passages like Mat_16:27, Mar_8:38, Christ appears in the glory of the Father and at the same time in His own glory (Mat_25:31), and His appearance may therefore be called the appearance both of God’s glory and of His own.” Wiesinger, indeed, tries to weaken this admission by remarking that in reality it is Christ Himself who will appear ἘΝ ΔΌΞῌ ΤΟῦ ΠΆΤΡΟς , and not God, that therefore ΔΌΞΑ would be construed with the genitives in quite different relations, and that on grammatico-logical principles it must mean either ἘΝ ΣΩΤῆΡΙ ἩΜῶΝ ἸΗΣ . ΧΡΙΣΤῷ , or ΤΟῦ ΣΩΤῆΡΟς ἩΜῶΝ ἘΝ Τῇ ΔΌΞῌ ΤΟῦ ΜΕΓΆΛΟΥ ΘΕΟῦ (Matthies). But his remark is wrong. Even if the subjects be distinct, the genitive ΤΟῦ ΜΕΓ . ΘΕΟῦ stands in the same relation to Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς as does the genitive ΣΩΤῆΡΟς ἩΜ . Ι . ΧΡ . Nor is the form of expression necessary on which Matthies insists, because in the N. T. God and Christ are often enough connected simply by καὶ without marking their mutual relations. Wiesinger further remarks that no reason whatever can be found in the context for connecting ΘΕΌς here as well as Christ with the ἘΠΙΦΆΝΕΙΑ , but he has manifestly overlooked the relation of ΠΡΟΣΔΕΧΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΤῊΝ ἘΠΙΦΆΝΕΙΑΝ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΤΟῦ ΜΕΓ . ΘΕΟῦ to ἘΠΕΦΆΝΗ Ἡ ΧΆΡΙς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ .[9]
Chrysostom rightly says: δύο δείκνυσιν ἐνταῦθα ἐπιφανείας · καὶ γάρ εἰσι δύο · ἡ μὲν πρότερα χάριτος , ἡ δὲ δευτέρα ἀνταποδόσεως . The χάρις of God has already appeared; the δόξα of God appears only at the day of completion, when Christ is made manifest in His δόξα , which is the δόξα of God. Though not so directly as it would have been if the subjects were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favour of the truth of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.[10]
Matthies suggests that in the expression τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ there is an allusion to the great Zeus worshipped in Crete, but that is more than improbable.
The genitive σωτῆρος is not dependent on ἐπιφάνειαν , but on τῆς δόξης . In 1Pe_4:13 also Christ’s second coming is called the revelation of His δόξα .
[5] The words of Ambrosius are: hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet judice Christo, in quo Dei patris videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suae praemium consequantur. Ad hoc enim redemit nos Christus, ut, puram vitam sectantes, repleti bonis operibus, regni Dei haeredes esse possimus.
[6] Heydenreich wrongly supposes that δόξα here is the glory which God and Christ will give to believers.
[7] Hofmann wrongly asserts that because σωτῆρος ἡμῶν stands before Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , and with μεγάλου Θεοῦ under one and the same article, therefore ἡμῶν must belong to μεγάλου Θεοῦ as much as to σωτῆρος , and μεγάλου to σωτῆρος as much as to Θεοῦ , and both together to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as predicate. There are instances enough of two distinct subjects standing under one article only, and we cannot see why these instances should not be quoted here. It cannot indeed be said that σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ . Χρ . needs no article; for, although σωτήρ as well as κύριος may be construed with Ἰ . Χρ . without the article, still there is no instance of κύριος ἡμῶν being without the article when construed with Ἰ . Χρ . But the article before μεγ . Θεοῦ may, according to N. T. usage, be also referred to σωτῆρος Ἰ . Χρ . without making it necessary to assume a unity of subject; comp. Buttm. pp. 84 ff.; Winer, pp. 118 ff. [E. T. p. 158]. Hofmann is no less wrong in what he says regarding the necessity of the reference of μεγάλου and of ἡμῶν Paul, indeed, might have written: τοῦ μεγ . Θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησ . Χρ . τοῦ σωτῆρος ὑμῶν , but he could also express the same thought in the way he has written it.
[8] Usteri (Paul. Lehrb. 5th ed. p. 326) says: “God the Father did not need the extolling epithet μέγας ;” to which it may be replied: “Did Christ need such an epithet?”—If Hofmann be right in remarking that Christ is not ὁ Θεός , which is the subject-name of the Father, then it is very questionable that Paul would Call Him ὁ μέγας Θεός .
[9] Van Oosterzee has advanced nothing new in support of the view disputed above. The appeal to 2Pe_1:11 is of no use, unless it be proved in passages beyond dispute that Θεός , like κύριος , is joined with Ἰησοῦς Χριστός as an attribute.
[10] Calvin: Verum brevius et certius repellere licet Arianos, quia Paulus, de revelatione magni Dei locutus, mox Christum adjunxit, ut sciremus, in hujus persona fore illam gloriae revelationem, ac si diceret, ubi Christus apparuerit, tunc patefactum nobis iri divinae gloriae magnitudinem.