The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God; one of the clearest scriptures on this point is Titus 2:13, which describes him as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (ESV). Nevertheless those who deny the deity of Jesus (e.g., Unitarians, JWs) maintain that this verse doesn’t call Jesus God at all. Such people say that this verse is actually talking about two different individuals: “the great God,” who is not Jesus—and “our Savior Jesus Christ,” who is not God.
When we read Titus 2:13 in English, this interpretation seems plausible; the word “and” does usually connect multiple things, after all. Even if we don’t agree with such an interpretation, we can see where the deity deniers are coming from. In the Greek text of Titus 2:13, however, a rule of Greek grammar known as the Granville Sharp Construction (GSC) is in play. The GSC clarifies that, under certain conditions, multiple terms/descriptors must refer to only one person. The GSC in Titus 2:13 thus demonstrates that “great God” and “Savior” must both refer to Jesus Christ.
The implications of the GSC are devastating to the Unitarian/JW position. This verse calls Jesus not merely “God” but “the great God;” and we all know who that is (Ezra 5:8, Neh 4:14 [4:8LXX]). Consequently, knowledgeable Unitarians/JWs often challenge the validity of the rule. The most common challenge I (and others since Granville Sharp himself onward) have encountered is to reject the rule outright, claiming that it is a bogus rule. The problem with this is that the GSC is entirely without excpetion in the Greek NT, and generally holds true in the LXX, patristic literature, and classical Greek. So that tactic doesn’t really work.
Recently I have heard a new argument to undermine the force of the GSC in Titus 2:13. Some Unitarian/JW interpreters have begun suggesting that the GSC in Titus 2:13 is cancelled out by another rule of Greek grammar known as Anaphora or Previous Reference. In what follows I will clarify the grammatical issues involved, summarize the Unitarian/JW argument, and demonstrate why this argument is flawed.
Defining & Illustrating the GSC and Anaphora
Both the GSC and Anaphora/Previous Reference depend on how the Greek language uses its definite article ὁ / ἡ / τὸ—the Greek equivalent for our English word “the.” The GSC uses the definite article to unite multiple nouns and apply them to the same person; Anaphora uses the definite article to point back to a noun that has already been mentioned.
A note of caution before we continue. To make this article as accessible as possible, I will use some English illustrations which mirror the GSC; this will allow readers to grasp the basic grammar at stake, even if they do not know Greek. Bear in mind, however, that the GSC is a rule for Greek grammar, not English grammar. English and Greek use their “the-s” very differently—so don’t expect English usage to always conform to the GSC. For the sake of precision, therefore, I will also frequently cite NT passages in Greek. This will show where the Greek NT uses the GSC, even when the presence of this construction is not apparent in English.
The GSC follows the pattern “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun. In order for a GSC to be in play, this “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern must meet three criteria: 1) both nouns must must be personal, 2) both nouns must be singular, and 3) neither noun is a proper name. “When the construction meets [these] three specific demands, then the two nouns always refer to the same person” (WGG 270, emphasis original).
To give an English illustration—if I refer to “the captain and commander,” I am speaking about only one person: the captain, who is also a commander. Notice how this phrase follows the “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern. If, however, I say “the captian and the commander,” I am speaking about two people: the captain, who is one person, and the commander, who is a different person. The inclusion of a second “the” breaks the “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern.1
To give another illustration—if I say “the captain and a cake,” this time I would be talking about two things: the captain, and a cake which certainly is not the captain. Even though this phrase follows the “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern, it violates criterion #1 (a cake is not a person). Or again—if I say “the captain and Bill,” I would also be talking about two people: the captain, and Bill who is someone other than the captain. Even though this phrase follows the “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern, it violates criterion #3 (one of the nouns is a proper name).
As I have already stated, the GSC is entirely without exception in the NT. I will list a few examples, all of which clearly show that a single referent is in view.
- Mark 6:3—οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου
This is the carpenter, the Son of Mary and brother of James - Eph 6:21—Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος
Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister - Heb 3:1—τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν
The apostle and high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus - 1 Peter 1:3—Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
These examples all follow the exact same pattern that Paul uses in Titus 2:13. Titus 2:13 follows the “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern, and the terms “God” and “Savior” meet the three criteria for a GSC (both terms are personal, both terms are singular, and neither “God” nor “Savior” is a proper name). Consequently, when Paul writes τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ—the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ—the terms “God” and “Savior” must necessarily both refer to Jesus.
Now let’s cover Anaphora/Previous Reference. This use of the Greek article is a little more intuitive, so it won’t take as much space to explain. When Greek uses “the” in an anaphoric way, it is pointing back to a previous reference to the same concept. You can think of this use of the article as meaning something like “the one I already mentioned earlier.” Here are some examples:
- Τί τὸ ὄφελος ἀδελφοί μου ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν
What does it profit, brothers, if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? can faith (the type of work-less faith I just mentioned) save him? - Rom 6:3-4—ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν. συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον
Don’t you know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are burried with him by baptism (the baptism-into-Christ I just mentioned) into death
With this grammatical background information in mind, I will now summarize and critique the Unitarian/JW argument regarding Titus 2:13.
The Arian Argument & Its Flaws
As I noted above, the presence of the GSC in Titus 2:13 disproves the Unitarian/JW position by plainly calling Jesus “our great God.” This being the case, thoughtful Unitarians/JWs are at pains to invalidate the GSC in this verse and to show that “our great God” refers to someone other than Jesus. Recently I have come across Unitarians attempting to do this by using Anaphora to cancle out or overrule the GSC.
Their argument goes something like this. In the phrase τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (the great God and our Savior), “the God” is anaphoric. In other words, the phrase should be understood “the great God—that is, the God I already mentioned earlier—and our Savior Jesus Christ.” So, who is “the God already mentioned earlier”? When we look at Titus 1:4, we see that this God is “the Father.” Consequently, Titus 2:13 actually means “the great God the Father, and our Savior Jesus Christ, who is not God the Father.”
The Arian argument rests on the assumption that Anaphora overrules or invalidates the GSC. To say the same thing differently: if the “the” in a “the”-noun-“and”/καὶ-noun pattern points back to a previous reference, then the “the” cannot unite the two nouns as it normally would in a GSC.
When I encountered this argument, I immediately suspected it was incorrect. I saw no reason why the Greek article couldn’t do double duty—simultaneously joining two nouns to refer to one person (i.e., the GSC) while also pointing back to a previous mention of this same one person (i.e., Anaphora). In other words, I suspected that the Greek article could simultaneously be anaphoric and govern a GSC.
To test my suspicion, I examined all of the nearly 80 instances of the GSC in the GNT. (I used Daniel Wallace’s list here.) The results were staggering. I found that nearly half of the GSCs in the NT—more than 35 by my count—were also anaphoric. Here are some examples of anaphoric GSCs:
- When Mark calls Jesus “the Son of Mary and brother of James” (6:3), he is referring back to the same Son he had already mentioned in 1:1 and 5:8.
- When Luke calls the Lord “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (20:37), he is referring back to the same God Zecharias worshipped in 1:6.
- When Paul talks about “the one who eats and drinks” in 1 Cor 11:29, he is referring back to the same “eater” he has already mentioned in v. 26.
- When Paul mentions “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” in Eph 1:3, he is talking about the same “God” he has already mentioned in 1:1.
- When Peter mentions “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, he is referring to the same “Lord” he already mentioned in 2 Peter 1:2.
In all of the above examples, a GSC is undoubtedly operating—even as reference is being made to an earlier mention of the first noun. Since the Greek article can simultaneously be anaphoric and govern a GSC, the Unitarian/JW argument falls apart.
It is debatable whether the Greek article in Titus 2:13 is anaphoric. But even if Titus 2:13 does contain an Anaphora, the GSC is still in play. If Titus 2:13 is indeed anaphoric, the force of the expression would be something like “the great God—the same God I already mentioned in 1:1-4—who is also our Savior Jesus Christ.”
Supposing our Unitarian/JW friends are right about the presence of Anaphora in Titus 2:13, this actually serves to strengthen Paul’s statement of Jesus’s deity—not lessen it. If the article is indeed anaphoric, then Unitarians/JWs cannot pivot to say “Paul is calling Jesus ‘God’ in a metaphorical sense, like Moses was called a ‘god’ to Pharaoh.” An anaphora in Titus 2:13 means that Paul is calling Jesus the same God he previously mentioned in 1:1-4, who is obviously the real one.
Conclusion
Another attempt to discount the deity of Jesus collapses under the weight of careful examination. Even if Titus 2:13 contains an Anaphora, Paul still plainly describes Jesus as both “the great God” and “our Savior.”
Knowing ancient Greek is an indispensable tool for defending God’s truth against false teaching and misunderstanding. After all, it is the language God chose to write the New Testament! If you’re ready gain this valuable skill, visit my website speakingothertongues.com to start learning ancient Greek!
Lectionary 
Perhaps you have not seen the actual paper or the secti
LikeLike
Email me your paper and I’ll read it. Send to jack@lectionary.blog
LikeLike