A few days ago I posted an article defending Paul’s statement in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is “the great God” against Unitarian objections. In that article, I demonstrated that the Granville Sharp Construction (GSC) can co-exist with Anaphora—and thus Paul can call Jesus “the great God” while simultaneously referring back to his opening description of God in 1:1-4.

A social media acquaintance of mine, Renzo Roberson, updated one of his old blog posts on this subject (see here) to account for my argument. In his post Renzo doubles down on the position I refuted, directly challenging some of my points—though he does not meaningfully engage my thesis. In this post I will respond to Renzo’s analysis and demonstrate the flaws in his position. Jesus is God; Paul plainly says so in Titus 2:13; and our friend’s misapplication of Anaphora does not change what Paul wrote.

A couple clarifications as I begin. Firstly, Renzo describes his article as a “written amplification to a recent YouTube response to Dr. James White.” In my response I will only be addressing the content of the written article, not the video. Given that Renzo’s article is an “amplification” of the video, responding to the article should suffice. Secondly, for my convenience, I will answer Renzo’s points roughly in the order that he makes them. This approach has the added benefit of helping the reader track with which part of Renzo’s article I’m addressing. Lastly, due to the nature of the topic, this response might run longish; I crave your indulgence.

Translation Trouble

Right from the start Renzo betrays a misunderstanding of the GSC by commenting on a slight translation difference between the ASV and NIV at Titus 2:13. For context, note the slight difference between these versions:

• ASV—of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (so also the KJV)
• NIV—of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (so also the CSB, ESV, & NASB)

According to Renzo, the ASV translates this verse such that it “refer[s] to two persons,” while the NIV translates the verse as referring to only one person. In this Renzo is mistaken. Both of these versions are referring to only one person, Jesus Christ; and both versions describe Jesus as “great God” and “Savior.” Renzo’s confusion comes from the placement of the word “our,” which the ASV and NIV handle differently.

A hyper-literal translation of the relevant Greek text (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) reads “of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ.” To clarify that only one person is in view—i.e., to prevent the very “two persons” mistake that Renzo makes—the NIV and most modern versions move the “our” / ἡμῶν to the front of the phrase. This is a perfectly legitimate translational choice. The single definite article in front of “God” turns “the great God and Savior” into its own self-contained block or unit; since “our” / ἡμῶν comes at the end of this unit, it is reasonable to take “our” / ἡμῶν as referring to the entire clause. Jesus is not just great-God-and-Savior, he is our great-God-and-Savior.

The ASV follows the word order Greek text a little more closely. Since ἡμῶν follows σωτῆρος in Greek, the ASV keeps “our” beside “Savior” instead of moving it to the front of the phrase. There is some logic to this, although it is a different thought-process than what is reflected in the NIV: while Jesus is “the great God” of everyone, whether they like it or not, he is specifically our Savior—the Savior of Christians. Jesus’s status as “the great God” is a fact whether one acknowledges Jesus as such or not; Jesus’s status as “our Savior” is a relational reality restricted only to the saved.

Renzo also discusses the placement of the “our” explicitly at the very end of the article when he writes, “the ἡμῶν clearly belongs with σωτῆρος not with μεγάλου θεοῦ. I would have expected in the normal TSKS structure that this would appear immediately after θεοῦ. This would lend credence to the view that this verse is not such a structure and that really, ἡμῶν is actually functioning as a definite article anyway.” Two points on this. Firstly, as I have already explained, there is sound reason to translate the GSC in Titus 2:13 as “our God” even though ἡμῶν does not directly follow Θεός—since the GSC is a self-contained unit, the ἡμῶν can describe the entire clause.

Secondly, Renzo seems to think that ἡμῶν following σωτήρ / “Savior” gives “Savior” articular force, thus implying two separate people. This is completely off-base. Consider a few examples where “our” / ἡμῶν follows the second term of a GSC, but there is still only one referent in view.

• Phil 4:20—τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν
  Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
• Gal 1:4—κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
  according to the will of God and our Father
• 1 Thess 1:3—ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
  before God and our Father
• 1 Thess 3:13—ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
  before God, even our Father

If our friend Renzo were right—if ἡμῶν really did lend articular force to the second term—then that means that all of the above passages actually refer to two persons, not one. Does Renzo really believe that in all of these verses “the God” is one person, and that “our Father” is another? Is he willing to apply the same logic to these passages, which are grammatically identical to the situation we see in Titus 2:13? I doubt it. In all of these above examples only one person is in view, even though “our” follows the second term of the GSC. And that is exactly what is happening in Titus 2:13 as well: Paul is talking about one person, Jesus, who is both “the great God” and “our Savior.”

Simply put, the placement of the word “our” in English translations does nothing to disprove the GSC. To think so is merely to misread English, not to invalidate the Greek.

Is Θεος Anaphoric in Titus 2:13?

Says Renzo, “According to the rule of Anaphora, the [definite] article in “The Great God” at Titus 2:13 clearly identifies him as the Father from Titus 1:1, 4…in the exact same way that a pronoun identifies its antecedent.” Let’s unpack Renzo’s statement here.

Renzo has asserted that the definite article before Θεός is anaphoric in Titus 2:13, but he has not demonstrated it. Respectfully, Renzo’s logic is overly simplistic on this point. Because of his Unitarian presuppositions, Renzo does not give Paul the liberty to define his own terms. He assumes a priori that Θεός in Titus 2:13 cannot be Jesus but must refer only to the Father. Because of this presupposition, he assumes that the article in front of Θεός must be anaphoric—that it must refer back to the precise referent for “God” in the letter’s opening. This is question-begging.

Renzo’s line of reasoning completely ignores the fact that an author can apply one term to two different referents; and that an author can do this while using the article in a non-anaphoric way. To give just one example, consider James 3:9 NET where the apostle describes God as “the Lord and Father” (τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα). God the Father is the clear referent of this phrase.

The noun κύριος is articular in 3:9; and there is an anarthrous (i.e., lacking the definite article) κύριος in 1:1. The situation in James exactly parallels the grammatical situation that Renzo has proposed for Titus 2:13. Renzo himself wrote, “When an articular substantive (noun) is present it will likely have an anarthrous first mention in the same book, chapter, or verse.” By Renzo’s logic, therefore, the articular κύριος of 3:9 should be an Anaphora, referring back to the “anarthrous first mention” of κύριος of 1:1.

But this creates a problem for Renzo: in James 1:1, κύριος is “the Lord Jesus Christ.” Is Renzo prepared to interpret James 3:9 anaphorically? If so, this verse would mean “the Lord—the same Lord I mentioned earlier, the Lord Jesus—and Father”? I highly doubt that our friend will accept this interpretation, because it would not only testify to Jesus’s deity but it would overtly call Jesus the Father! And yet this is exactly what this passage must mean, if we apply Anaphora here the way that Renzo has done in Titus 2:13.

Alternatively, Renzo could say that κύριος is not anaphoric in James 3:9. On this view, Paul is using the same term to describe two different referents, but it does not imply any kind of identity between them. (This is a favorite tactic of Unitarians, who argue that calling Jesus “Lord / Jehovah” or “God” or “I am” does not imply that he is God.) But by making this admission, Renzo would undercut his argument from Anaphora for Titus 2:13. If the articular κύριος of James 3:9 does not have to be anaphoric, even though κύριος lacks the article in 1:1—then there is no reason why Θεός must necessarily be anaphoric in Titus 2:13, simply because Θεός is anarthrous in 1:1, 4.

Grammatically speaking, these situations parallel exactly: if κύριος can be non-anaphoric in James 3:9, then Θεός can be non-anaphoric in Titus 2:13.

GSCs and Anaphoras can Coexist

In my initial article, I included a link to a Google spreadsheet where I listed over 35 instances of GSCs which were, in my opinion, also anaphoric. Other than Titus 2:13, which is the subject of the discussion, Renzo only attempted to rebut two of my examples—Mark 6:3 and Luke 20:37. But his analysis fails to invalidate these two examples.

With respect to Mark 6:3, Renzo starts his discussion with a critical textual mistake.¹ Renzo says that “the Son of God” is not anarthrous in Mark 1:1—when it plainly is. I will give him the benefit of the doubt; perhaps his edition of the Greek NT has an article before υἱός. But υἱός is anarthrous (i.e., lacks the article) in the TR, the Tyndale House GNT, and NA28/UBS5. As such, this is a perfectly valid example of anaphora.

But even if υἱός did happen to be articular in Mark 1:1, 6:3 could still be validly interpreted as an Anaphora. Renzo accuses me of misunderstanding Anaphora, citing Wallace; but he himself has not read Wallace very carefully. Wallace says that “The first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous,” not always anarthrous. Indeed, since Anaphora can operate even with verbs and synonyms as antecedents—as Renzo himself knows—expecting an anarthrous antecedent is a general expectation, not a hard and fast rule. Thus Renzo is the one who misunderstands Anaphora, not me.

Regarding Luke 20:37, Renzo likewise dismisses this passage as “not a viable example because…τοῦ θεοῦ [is not] anarthrous.” The only other engagement Renzo’s article makes with my list is vague hand-waving: “This [i.e., the antecedents being articular] would also apply to his other listed examples.” But, as I said above, anaphora is capable of referring to articular antecedents: anarthrous antecedents are a general exception but not a requirement. Thus, in truth, Luke 20:37 and all of my examples are valid unless Renzo can find a more compelling reason to dismiss them.

At this point I would like to issue a challenge to our friend. In my initial article, I listed 35+ examples of GSCs which also involved Anaphora. But other than doubling down on his assertions about Titus 2:13, Renzo’s article does not list a single passage where anaphora clearly cancles out a GSC.

I challenge Renzo to provide multiple clear examples from the NT where anaphora indisputably renders a GSC invalid. Passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 don’t count, because the deity of Jesus is the point under debate. Rather than rebut my examples—which, respectfully, Renzo fails to do—I challenge Renzo to provide two or three examples of his own. But he won’t be able to do this, because the GSC is entirely without exception in the NT.

“No clear argument”

Towards the end of the first section of his article, Renzo writes that he “did not see a clear argument [in my piece] as to why the article in Titus 2:13 would not be anaphoric.” This statement makes me think that Renzo has entirely misunderstood the purpose of my initial article, so I will clarify my intentions now.

Whether or not τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ / “the great God” is anaphoric in Titus 2:13 is immaterial to the force of my argument. It is possible that “God” is not anaphoric here, and that Paul simply applies the same title to multiple referents. Renzo may not like it, but this is a live possibility, as I have shown above with κύριος in James 3:9.

But even if “God” is anaphoric in Titus 2:13, this only strengthens Paul’s statement of Jesus’s deity—as I pointed out in my initial article. If “God” is anaphoric in Titus 2:13, the force of the passage is something like “the great God—the same God I already mentioned in 1:1-4—who is also our Savior Jesus Christ.”

I repeat: whether or not “God” is anaphoric in Titus 2:13 has no bearing on the force of my argument. If Θεός is anaphoric, Paul calls Jesus “God;” if Θεός is not anaphoric, Paul calls Jesus “God.” As I have already demonstrated clearly, anaphora can coexist with GSCs. For the sake of argument, I will grant Renzo’s point and say that “God” IS anaphoric. But at the end of the day, he still has the GSC to deal with. Renzo has neither demonstrated that anaphora cancles out the GSC, nor provided a single example of this happening in the NT; and his rebuttals of two of my examples—I listed over 35—are fraught with error and misunderstanding.

More Misunderstanding of the gsc

Toward the end of his piece, Renzo makes a statement which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the GSC. According to Renzo, the GSC “has many exceptions e.g., plurals, proper names…”. By definition, a GSC only involves personal, singular nouns which are not proper names. Those qualifications are part of the rule. As such, plurals and proper names are not exceptions to the rule—they are outside the jurisdiction of the rule.

Renzo’s statement is akin to someone saying, “The firearm laws of Great Britain contain many exceptions to the Second Ammendment” or “Speech laws in North Korea infringe harshly on the First Ammendment.” Such statements are ridiculous and meaningless, because Britain and Korea are outside the jurisdiction of our Constitution. Plurals and proper names are outside the jurisdiction of the GSC and as such are not and cannot be exceptions to the rule. To argue that they are is to fundamentally misunderstand what the GSC even is.

conclusion

I really appreciate Renzo taking the time to respond to my work, but his rebuttal falls flat. He repeatedly makes errors of text and syntax; he accuses me of misunderstanding Anaphora while misunderstanding it himself; and he does not provide a single compelling example from the NT of anaphora canceling out a GSC. As my initial article demonstrated, Anaphora can coexist with GSCs: it does this repeatedly in the Greek NT, and Titus 2:13 is arguably one such place. But whether or not Θεός is anaphoric there, Titus 2:13 clearly calls Jesus “the great God.”

In closing, let me say that I like Renzo and I have not written any of this to attack him personally. None of what I wrote is expressed with malice; and if my tone has occasionally seemed contentious, it is only because I am “earnestly contending for the faith.” In my interactions with Renzo he has always been a gentleman, and it is my prayer that he will repent of his denial of Jesus’s deity and worship him as “the great God” who he is.

1. “critical textual mistake:” I couldn’t resist the pun—his mistake was related to textual criticism. ↩︎