Punctuation Removed
In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. Hebrews 5:7-8 NASB
Loud crying and tears – Do you pray like Yeshua prayed? We all want that kind of intimacy with the Father, don’t we? But what about this verse? Do you pray with loud crying and tears? Or are you more like the comment from Abraham Heschel:
“We do not refuse to pray. We merely feel that our tongues are tied, our minds inert, our inner vision dim, when we are about to enter the door that leads to prayer. We do not refuse to pray; we abstain from it. We ring the hollow bell of selfishness rather than absorb the stillness that surrounds the world, hovering over all the restlessness and fear of life – the secret stillness that precedes our birth and succeeds our death.”[1]
Let’s ask this question another way. Why would the Messiah need to pray with loud crying and tears? Isn’t he God? Does he have to plead with himself to have an answer? Perhaps we haven’t paid any attention to the obvious question because we have been seduced by the punctuation. The capitalized pronoun. With “He” and “Him” in capitals, the whole verse seems to be nonsense. How can God save God from death? Ah, the Christian solution: just 400 years to figure out that when we read a verse like this, Yeshua is human, but when we come to the punctuation, He is divine. Makes perfect sense, right? So “he” becomes “He” whenever we need “him/Him” to.
No, I’m afraid not. It doesn’t make any sense (but that’s why we believe it, according to Erickson). What makes sense is that Yeshua and you and I face the same human struggles and the answer is praying with loud cries and tears. Yeshua didn’t get an answer from the Father because he was already God (disguised). He got an answer because he eulabeias—he was devout! Holiness is devotion and Yeshua was devoted to the Father. That’s why he was holy (devoted). And that’s why God answered. But it still took loud crying and tears. The only reason for loud crying and tears is because we hurt! We suffer. We learn by trial and error. It’s the human way. Perhaps you thought that your prayers should be like those soliloquies heard from the pulpit or the crafted erudition from center stage. That’s not how our leader prayed.
What about your prayers?
Remember the warning: “It is easier to study than to pray. It is harder to become a God-fearing person than a scholar. The evil spirit permits learning.”[2]
Topical Index: prayer, loud crying, tears, Messiah, Hebrews 5:7-8
[1] Abraham Heschel, Man’s Quest for God, p. 4.
[2] Abraham Heschel, A Passion for Truth, p. 56.
Ouch or amen…
Or ouch AND amen. ; )
If the form (which is Person) of God precedes His function, then God cannot have a real conversation with Himself, that’s for sure. But if the Person part is an effect of function, then you could have differing functions effecting the Person(s) doing those functions. If you argue from within the paradigm of form determining function, God will never talk to Himself, but we find God doing just that even in the Old Testament- I mean, this would mean it was not metaphorical.
If function causes form, we have a whole new ball of wax even when it comes to our person stuff. If I am determined by my function, then every cell in my body and every thought in my head is an effect of a choice of action, not a cause. This is a gamechanger in biology, medicine, law and order, as well as religion and philosophy, for sure. We would practically have to start over with all of it, almost – particularly in the West – and we would have to start by crediting more of what the East is saying that sounds the most nonsensical of all – not that they have everything right, either, but they at least have a very different take on this than we have.
Form preceding function, I am beginning to be suspicious, IS the Western paradigm out of which all our petty denominational, political and social conflicts arise, not to mention what we think we hold in common. Why, to question all of that would just be too, too hard!
Sorry, Skip, but you told me to examine my paradigm, and this is what I think I have found so far!
Laurita – oh! My soul wants to comprehend what you’re saying but it is just way to high over my fullness and I cannot understand what it is you are trying to say….while I am not completely daft, this *waving hand madly over the texts including comments* makes me dizzy and I feel completely stupid. I’m trying….. I’m sincerely trying friend!
Not my fullness but over my head…. see, my fingers even help confuse me! Sorrrrry!!
David Flusser – “I wrote that when I was stupid.” From one of the world’s EXPERTS on 2nd Temple period.
Me, too, Lesli! Me too!
Skip has convinced me that I need to start over; that the rot and incomprehension go all the way to the bottom of our paradigms, and that we are Greek at that bottom. Well, what I have found at that bottom so far is that we have made function subservient to the forms it creates. Hence, we get hung up on some really weird sand bars, and end up in some really unprofitable arguments, too.
My desire is to get it back to a real starting point. Skip has lit a fire!
Laurita: A few comments about paradigms (I know the topic is important to Skip):
Years ago I saw a video of a presenter pulling out a deck of cards. He took about ten of them and asked us to try and remember which cards we saw as he flashed them. I recall he gave us about a second per card. Then he repeated the process with twice the amount of time. Nobody in the group got more than 7 out of 10. It turned out that three of the cards were different. One card had black hearts, others red spades. As I recall, I got only 7 correct myself! While most participants were amused, the exercise SCARED me!! I have a Masters degree in Science and studied Kuhn’s work on paradigms. I completely missed the novelty cards, trapped within a paradigm of the standard playing card deck. In all likelihood, the only individual who COULD have recalled all the cards would not have even understood the “conventions” within the playing card paradigm. I believe such a person would have been ridiculed by the group for suggesting “impossible” observations. I am trying very hard to analyze my own paradigms frequently, for maybe many of mine are seriously flawed.
HSB, do you mean that we all need to become as little children? It’s my new fav prayer!
Laurita: I just downloaded the article you referenced concerning the double-slit interference phenomenon. I recall fondly doing this experiment numerous times years ago. I had no idea the whole thing was so complicated as the article indicates. My head spins! I love your call back to becoming as “little children”. I mentioned that the card recognition event amused most of us. If I am totally honest it not only scared me…it terrified me. None of us present could even consciously “see” what was literally before us. Our observations were totally shaped by the “baggage” we brought along. I wonder if the Nicea attendees understood any of this. I’m sure they found it helpful that Constantine “The Great” said “Let us having nothing to do with the perfidious Jew!” So much for Hebraic perspectives…
Lord, save us from our presuppositions and faulty paradigms!
Those Christians with their (Middle) Eastern thinking!
How was it possible for Yeshua to be so completely devout, so completely perfect and sinless…hmmm
And, to be born of a virgin…hmmm
And to be raised from the dead…hmmm
And heal leprosy…hmmm
And on and on.
If none of this is possible WITHOUT being God, then how can we be asked to be like him? What would be the point?
If we COULD be like Him…why would we even need a Savior?
I think “try” is the operative word…not “be.”
We all TRY to be like him, but fail. Torah shows us that.
Thankfully, he (Yeshua) came to be the blood sacrifice… so we can enter the Holy of Holies.
Are you sure “try” is enough? Does he say, “Try to be like me.” OR does he say, “Keep my commandments.” And if he can do this only because he is God, then why would we suffer punishment for not being able to do it? You have opened a great can of worms here. Much more than can be discussed in a blog. Have you read, God Time and the Limits?
I’m thinking that, in His infinite wisdom, He knew we couldn’t achieve perfection, but if He set the bar lower, we would happily comply. So, He set it high, even knowing we would fail. He also knew that failure (aka, sin) would need a sin covering, which He planned on and showed up for… exactly as prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it possible Yeshua set equality with God aside for incarnation…the ultimate example humility?
Could that be why Paul call Him “our great God and Savior?”
I’d check the Greek of the verse you cite to be sure that it is translated correctly.
Can any one be SURE?
I’d say that the issue of Titus 2:13 is one of ‘punctuation’, providing an apt segue from the title of this TW. Here’s the Greek of 2:13 (articles are bolded in Greek transliterations):
prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
Waiting for the blessed hope and appearing
tēsdoxēstou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou
of the glory of the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ
of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
With one article (tou) preceding “great God”, which is then followed by kai (“and”) and no article in front of “savior”, grammatically it’s best to construe the article as governing both “great God” and “our Savior”, making this one entity. Arguments have been made against this, but they don’t hold up under scrutiny [I’m ready]. With this understanding, though hēmōn, “our”, most naturally goes with “Savior”, the best way to render this entire genitival phrase in English translation is by placing “our” in front of “great”. But, is all this really correct contextually? The answer lies in the flow of the long sentence. Here’s the Greek of verse 14:
hos edōken heauton hyper hēmōn, hina lytrōsētai hēmas apo pasēs anomias
Who gave Himself ——- for —– us, in-order-to redeem us from all lawlessness
Who gave Himself for us, in order to redeem us from all lawlessness
kai katharisȩ̄ heautō̧ ——– laon periousion, zēlōtēn kalōn ergōn
and to purify for Himself a people special, zealous for good work
and to purify for Himself special people, zealous for good work
Clearly verse 14 is a dependent clause—a part of what precedes it. And verse 13 is also a dependent clause. This long sentence begins in verse 11 with “For the grace of God has appeared”—the independent clause, the ‘meat’ of the long sentence:
So, “the grace of God” (11) has already appeared—this is clearly in reference to Christ’s first coming. Verse 13 speaks of the yet-to-occur second coming of Christ—the One Who previously gave Himself to us (14) at His first coming. The subject is Jesus Christ, aka the “grace of God”, and this subject carries all the way through.
Craig,
I am BY NO MEANS a scholar. But I would interject that in Torah, there is no human sacrifice. So when you quote “Who gave Himself for us,” it means something other than Yeshua’s self sacrifice. Yeshua is devout to the letter of Torah. There would be no blood drank (Torah) What He told the disciples was metaphor. Yeshua had to die to set in motion the Kingdom to come. He, Yeshua had to be resurrected to show that death was over come (Jewish Sheol). As Skip has said, we have to have an Eastern mind set to understand what was being said and to who it was said. Even Shaul said to those who were where new in the faith not to boast that they were better than the Jew, because a branch had been broken off the tree and (we) they were grafted in and could be removed just as the as the natural branch had been removed. I truly believe in G-d’s grace because it has been given to me. I truly believe that Yeshua lived, died, arose and is our Messiah. Brother Craig, if I may call you that, All of what I stated is my belief, my understanding. I pray peace, health, comfort, strength and HaShem’s continued presents in your and your families life.
Da\’vid,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, brother Da\’vid. In brief response, I think you must somehow take your position that it wasn’t self-sacrifice in view here and reconcile that with Hebrews 7-10, in which it specifically mentions a new covenant (7:22), a new law (7:12), and more importantly, “the blood of Christ”, which “through the eternal Spirit” He “offered himself without blemish to God”, in order to “purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (9:14). The text goes on to more explicitly state that, “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (9:15, NASB).
Craig: I enjoy these discussions! Regarding this text is it possible that the author intended the following:
..the GLORY of our great God, and SAVIOUR Jesus Christ. That would link Glory as well as Saviour to Jesus. OR how about …the GLORY of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. That would link Glory with Jesus but leave Saviour and great God as separate. Please let me know if these options are grammatically possible. If so then it comes down to one’s paradigm of where to put the comma. Of course there are no capitals in the text. I merely do that to focus attention on Glory and possibly Saviour. I for one think the identification of Jesus as the Glory of God is a very important concept for discussion.
Hi HSB, I think you’ve hit on the essence of the passage here. (all other interpretive issues aside for the moment) Even as the Messiah is described as the grace of God (given) in verse 11, He’s also described as the blessed hope and appearing glory of the Great God…..To put that in perspective, Moses asks to see God’s glory, (Ex. 33) and is told that, while he can’t see His face, he will see His Achar (what comes after). In Ex. 34 God shows him what that “achar” is, ……merciful and gracious……but it’s not God that Moses sees but rather, what is experienced in His wake. The pattern is interesting, first grace given, then glory revealed, the promise and fulfilment of that promise. Titus speaks in that same manner here and I would be surprised if this isn’t the passage he had in mind. Yeshua is both the promise of grace given and the awaited and awaiting glory of God. I wonder if this isn’t where much of the confusion lies, and rightfully so. God, and the things He does (that we experience) are so closely tied that to distinguish between them is almost (?) impossible. Just a consideration, YHWH bless you and keep you…..
Robert: thank you for these comments. I agree with your insights about grace and glory!
HSB,
Did you see my lengthy two part reply to your query about the grammar?
Craig: yes. I am making my way through it slowly. First of all thanks for taking time and thought to provide your responses! I have NO background training in theology, or Hebrew or Greek for that matter. So I value your comments and insights. Actually, many years ago I did audit a part of one survey course on Old Testament taught by the “go to” expert in an evangelistic denomination. He started each lecture with a short devotional and prayer. Almost all the students were M.Div. students keen to complete their degree requirements. In one of his devotionals the professor read Gen. 13:14,15 in which it is stated to Abraham “for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendents forever.” One of the students in the course put up his hand and asked “Is that still in effect?” The answer was fast in coming “Absolutely not! Read Hebrews! The physical rest has been replaced by a spiritual rest!” So I put up my hand and asked my only question while in attendance in the course. “If God had actually intended the physical land to be a continuing inheritance to the Jews, how would He have worded the verse?” The professor looked at me for what seemed a very long time, then said “I don’t know!” I felt terrible. I was going to stand up and apologize. He was obviously embarrassed. After all it was his lecture course, not a seminar. Then later upon reflection I felt some anger myself at a system that would so quickly and strongly nullify the obvious plain meaning of the text. By what authority do these folks make such strong pronouncements? … Surely a little humility would go a long way in discussing what these Scriptures meant then, and mean today. I should add that a number of times the professor indicated to the class that if they wished to hear an alternative viewpoint on some of his positions, they might like to chat with Hal (that’s me). He was gracious and not at all mocking in this regard. Suffice to say that no one ever took him up on that suggestion… so his paradigm remains secure.
HSB,
Just for the record—and I believe I’ve mentioned this here before—I’ve zero theological schooling. Everything I’ve learned is from self-study. Years ago, I was in an online private forum in which a seminary prof contributed, and he gave me some pointers in terms of where to begin acquiring commentaries and the like. It was in reading some technical commentaries that I vowed to acquire some sort of minimal Greek competence. This led to the acquisition of some very helpful software—software that parses all the parts of speech. Thus, I cannot read much Greek at all without study helps, but I have taken to learn more about grammar (and refreshing myself on English grammar). I reasoned that, with tools that parse the words, I can focus on what I perceive to be the more important aspects: knowing the possible ways to translate by the grammar and the immediate and larger context. Knowing the words is one thing, but knowing how the words interrelate and how that can affect meaning is more important. Hence, I think that a robust knowledge of grammar is of far more importance than the memorization of words. I can always look up meanings of words in the lexicon. However, by sheer immersion I’ve committed a fair number of words to memory.
All this means that any passage of Scripture requires quite a bit of time for me to internalize, and then translate. I’ve learned that not all scholars agree on certain things, and sometimes a work will confidently assert one thing, yet subsequent study of my own questions this, which leads to further study to dis/confirm. Upon discovering this early on, I endeavored to ‘re-learn’ some basics in my own theology, to try to become a tabula rasa in order to determine the truth of Scripture, absent any denominational theological bias. In some areas, I find that the more I ‘know’ the more I don’t know.
My two major foci have been Christology in general and John’s Gospel.
Your account of the survey course exemplifies one of the reasons I don’t think I could ever go to seminary or Bible College (not that it’s even a feasible option for me, really). How one can outright deny the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant, or claim some sort of ‘replacement’ “theology” is beyond me.
Reflecting generally on my posts here on this site, I’d say that I propose a both/and approach, over against either/or—to keep a balance of Christian theology and Jewish theology, as I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, though in some areas this is true. IMO, if you go to far one way, you miss the riches of the other.
Craig, your summary in this post represents everything I have been trying to do over the past six years since leaving the RCC. I love Skip’s website for exactly what you represent on it and for me your last paragraph says it all. Thanks so much for your rich contributions.
I should have said last TWO paragraphs.
George,
Thanks for your heartfelt comment. It is appreciated.
Craig: I wrote a lengthy submission yesterday and then it “bounced” when I posted it. Maybe quote marks or paragraph returns. So until I get that sorted out here is a brief comment on your last post. As I read about your background it occurred to me we are not so very far apart. When we read about the golden calf in Exodus 32 most Christians I know understand the story in terms of blasphemy and idolatry. The God of Israel has somehow been replaced by a “fake god” made of gold. But years ago I noticed something interesting in the story. Look at what Aaron says in verse 4 about the golden calf: “This is your god, O Israel who brought you up from the land of Egypt”. Then he goes on to state that tomorrow would be a feast to….the fake god I just pulled out of the fire? No, he explicitly refers to YHWH, God of Israel. I had always wondered why God did not destroy Aaron for the sin of the calf. Then I realized that Aaron was actually still aligned with the God of Israel but erred in making an image of Him. I believe for the Jews the issue of idolatry was “burned out of them” while in Babylon. The Orthodox Jews I know and respect do not accept “images” as being God. Why does any of this matter? Strange as it may sound, I also believe that there is a “certain amount of both/and over against either/or”. For me the “coming of God” is fulfilled in Messiah. But that is not saying that Messiah IS God. I don’t find that equation coming through in the Scriptures to be honest. A study of Acts will reveal the good news concerned the arrival of Messiah, not that God had been born. Rather God’s plan has been accomplished, and yes He is “with them”. A sober story in the time of Hezekiah involves the destruction of the brass serpent from the wilderness. Why? …Because it had become an object of worship. Jews find the notion of “worshipping” a dead man hanging on a cross as literally God Himself to be a similar abomination. Interesting to me that Jesus used this exact metaphor of the serpent on the stake to describe…Himself, not Father God! See John3:14-15. Let the reader understand the point. For me a helpful analogy concerns the Olympics. The team that represents and competes for Canada is in the minds of the audience actually Canada competing. Years ago Canada played Russia in a hockey tournament . In the last minute of the last game Paul Henderson scored the winning goal for Canada and the whole country went absolutely nuts! I was a high school Science teacher at the time. All classes in the building were cancelled for this game. It was an incredible event. Paul Henderson WAS Canada for those few seconds. I also saw some time ago a film of the liberation of Holland during WW2. As the Canadian soldiers came down the street the people cheered. Somebody shouted “Here comes Canada!!!” In a sense the soldiers WERE the expression of Canada in action. For me that is what Messiah does, express the will and love of God. So if you have seen Yeshua… yes, you have seen God Almighty in action. Does that qualify as “both/and”?
A VERY GOOD point, and one that no Jew would object to, including Paul, John, James, Mark, Matthew, etc.
HSB,
May I suggest typing your comment in MS Word first, then copying and pasting? After one too many happenings as you described, I began doing that. As a bonus, I’ve learned to keep one large Word doc with lengthy comments so that I can easily return to them if necessary, via looking up key words. The one I typed on to make this comment is up to 123 pages!
I’m glad you bought up the bronze snake and John 3:14-15. Look closely at the relative contexts. In Numbers, the Isrealites spoke against both God and Moses. In response, YHWH sent venomous snakes. When they repented, i.e., recognized their sins, they prayed that YHWH would remove the snakes. What method was used for deliverance? The “lifting up” of the bronze snake on a pole/standard. Anyone bitten who looked up at the bronze snake—and believed what YHWH said to Moses—would live.
This parallels John 3:14-15: The Son of Man was to be “lifted up” (crucified), and everyone believing in Him, would be ‘saved’, i.e. gain eternal life. But, look at John quoting Jesus in 12:31-32:
In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ “lifting up” glorifies—which includes the crucifixion, as well as Jesus’ ascension—the Son of Man, and God is glorified in Him:
(Brackets indicate text that may or may not be ‘original’.) In John 1:14, the “glory” we (they) have seen is the glory of Word, aka Word-made-flesh, aka the Messiah.
Over the last few days I’ve been very carefully tracing the grammar in John’s prologue. What I’m finding is eye-opening to me—and I’ve been looking at this text for years. English translations do not capture the nuances of the Greek.
Let’s allow Scripture to correct one of your assertions:
First century Jews had difficulty in believing “Christ crucified”. So, the difficulty is in believing that the Messiah could even be crucified. Islam, which follows its own version of the Tanakh, outright denies Christ’s crucifixion altogether.
HSB,
The short answer is that, as I understand you, only the second is grammatically possible, but with a bit of tweaking the first can be, though it has little to commend it. The second is better. I’ll engage with these two (as I understand them), with the tweak on the first, but even the second doesn’t escape problems, to include context, which I will explain as we go. I will say that I like the way you capitalized “Glory”, as that was precisely how I was going to explain this option (had some asked, as you did), as a form of shorthand.
Necessarily, we will have to look at the broader context, for there are five other verses in this epistle which mention “Savior” as well as “God”. They are outlined below. I’ve bolded each article.
1:3: kat’ epitagēn tou sōtēros hēmōn theou
By command of the Savior of us God
By the command of God our Savior
Here “God” is not specified, so one cannot just assume it’s the Father. It may well be, but the context is not definitive. If we set aside any a priori assumptions that “God” here is the Father and leave open the possibility of a plurality of “God” (as Elohim is plural in the Tanakh), then we shouldn’t assume the context is definitively speaking of the Father. In fact, to the contrary, I read this “command of God our Savior” that Paul received here as speaking of Saul on the Damascus road, for that is where he received his instructions initially (Acts 9). In any case, this is a clear reference to “God” as Savior.
1:4: eirēnē apo theou patros kai Christou Iēsou tou sōtēros hēmōn
peace from [the] God Father and Christ Jesus the Savior of us
peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
This is a crystal clear reference to Christ as Savior given the presence of the article and its location after the conjunction kai. And this is specifically over against God the Father. “Theou Patros”, without the article, was a stereotyped idiom in the NT. It was used like a proper name. This is common usage in Paul’s letters. This explicit reference to God the Father here may possibly be read back into 1:3’s “God”. If so, we have God the Father as Savior in 1:3—and Jesus Christ as Savior here. But, again, I don’t think this can be stated definitively, for the reasons I mention above.
2:10: ina tēn didaskalian °tēn tou sōtēros hēmōn theou
so-that the teaching [[of/about the]] of/about the Savior of us God
so that the teaching about God our Savior.
The double brackets are for an article which is missing in a number of manuscripts. The evidence points to its originality, but the effect is minimal. This clearly is a reference to “God” as Savior, but once again we’re not 100% sure if it’s the Father. It may well be. Or not.
3:4: hote de hē chrēstotēs kai hē philanthrōpia epephanē tou sōtēros hēmōn theou
while but the kindness and the love appeared of the Savior of us God
but while the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared
Once again “God” is specified. This is now the third appearance of “God our Savior”, but note this is not the same as “God and our Savior”.
3:6: dia Iēsou Christou tou sōtēros hēmōn
through Jesus Christ the Savior of us
through Jesus Christ our Savior
Here we have a parallel (save the reversal “Christ Jesus”) of 1:4—a clear reference to Christ as Savior.
Note the pattern. Setting aside chapter 2 for the moment, in chapters 1 & 3 we find “God our Savior” followed by “Christ our Savior”. In chapter 2 we find “God our Savior”, followed by our subject verse. While the pattern found in the 1st and 3rd chapters cannot be imposed a priori onto 2:13, it cannot be ignored either.
Continued…
Continuing:
Since I’m not sure if I completely understand your two options, let me engage with how I see the interpretations of your options. First of all, let me define your most basic positions. You construe “Glory” as referring to Jesus—no problem on that depending on how the rest is exegeted. Your contention is that “the great God” = the Father. This can work, once again depending on the rest.
The first one, restated and tweaked: “…the appearing of the Glory of the great God [the Father], and our Savior Jesus Christ”. This means two separate entities.
Option A, which would like this, doesn’t work: “the appearing of the Glory of the great God [the Father] [(=Christ)], and the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ”.
Option B is better: “the appearing of the Glory of the great God [the Father], and the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ”. This would mean that “the Grace of God” in 2:11 refers to the Father, as well. While this rendering is possible, there are too many difficulties:
(a) the article is lacking in front of “our Savior Jesus Christ”, which is normally present if there are two persons (see earlier examples);
(b) it separates “God and Savior” which was contemporaneously used for one person;
(c) it’s highly unusual to parallel the impersonal “glory” with the personal “our Savior Jesus Christ”;
(d) most damaging is that there is no good reason to make “Savior” dependent on “appearing” and the conjunction kai epexegetical (i.e., further explaining “appearing” by what follows), when there’s a much more natural option (the one I gave earlier). Occam’s Razor should be applied here.
Your second one is more attractive grammatically: “the appearing of the Glory of the great God [the Father] and our Savior, [and this Glory is] Jesus Christ”. Thus, God the Father’s Glory is manifested in Christ. However:
(a) the apposition of “Jesus Christ” with the preceding clause is not obvious; there should be additional words to indicate this apposition more clearly, or “Jesus Christ” should be preceded by an article and/or “Jesus Christ” should be in the nominative, rather than the genitive;
(b) one of the reasons used for this rendering is “great God” is thought to be for the Father, as it is found in the latter part of the Tanakh and contemporaneous Jewish literature, however it’s also found in pagan literature, so, with its complete absence anywhere else in the NT, this makes it seem more probable that the usage here is for Christ over against pagan use (Paul is writing to Titus who is on Crete) = this is indecisive;
(c) the very reasons that make the interpretation I used above militate against this rendering, which are:
1) The verb for appearing here is only used one time outside in Pastoral Epistles (PE), and there it’s for the parousia, the Second Coming of Christ (2 Thess 2:8). In the PE, the term is used with an added [pro-]noun in reference to Jesus Christ each and every time.
2) Throughout the NT, “hope” is anchored in the person of Christ. And “hope” in 2:11 is in conjunction with a form of the verb for “appearing” (see 1).
3) There is no verse in all of Scripture which calls Yeshua “the Glory of God”. Not one.
Sorry, “tēsdoxēstou” should be three words: tēs doxēs tou
Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Would it not be blasphemy to state this if Yeshua were jut a human being and nothing else?
But think FIRST CENTURY! What is the difference between bowing the knee to Caesar and bowing the knee to the NEW emperor, Yeshua? Does that make him deity?
When they called Caesar “Lord,” did they mean, God or Savior?
The Senate voted in Julius and Augustus as gods.
An Elder friend advised me not to get in a debate with you. :-))
Shall we just agree to disagree and leave it at that for now. I doubt I could offer enough “proof” for why I believe what I believe, but I love knowing that we can still be friends…even if we disagree.
Perhaps I’ll study up for the cruise. :-))
But did the Sanhedrin vote that, too? AND, if the Jews really had no problem with Ceasar as god then why did so many of them die for refusing to kiss his image on their tax coins? I need some explanation, here.
“It is easier to study than to pray. It is harder to become a God-fearing person than a scholar. The evil spirit permits learning.
Wow! that hurts…
Great is the mystery of godliness!! No doubt in this man’s (puny) mind! Father- Son – and – Ruach HaKodesh. These three (according to the scriptures) “agree” in One. The written word is the Living word. The Word (logos) became flesh and tabernacled among us.
Is Yeshua divine? Absolutely. Is Yeshua (the son of man) human? Absolutely. So.. which is it? Human or Divine? And the answer is? He is. He is the incarnate “I AM.”
Now, what about this “He humbled Himself and became a man?” Or “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son?” Or “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?” Yes, to “Whom” did Yeshua pray? Great question!! Another fine mystery you’ve got us into!!
We must remember His is (both) our Example (He prayed – so should we!) and our Exemplar – the Living Model – yes, the “Second Adam” or “perfection personified!” If you want to know the heart of God – look unto Yeshua. If you want to know how to live according to “Torah” or the instructions of YHWH – look to Yeshua. Examine His (yes, “sinless”) life! Friend, “I (too) find no fault in Him!!
And as we pray, (just as He prayed!) – Prayer is our assignment! – (and when you pray, say “Father!!”) – this is our instruction from One whom the disciples called “Master!!” “Loud crying and tears?” Pray with passion people!!
Let your requests be made known unto G-d!!! (Ha!) – What we have here, is a failure to communicate!!! Our (heaven-sent) instructions? “Pray without ceasing!!”