A Brief Response To ‘The Christology Of Titus 2:13 And 1 Tim. 2:5’ By J. Christopher Edwards -- By: Murray J. Harris
TynBull 62:1 (2011) p. 149
A Brief Response To
‘The Christology Of Titus 2:13 And 1 Tim. 2:5’
By J. Christopher Edwards
We can be grateful to Dr Edwards for reminding us of part of the Old Testament background of the ransom logion and for highlighting the similarity of Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14, and Barnabas 14:6.
In its essence, Dr Edwards’ view seems to be that the similarities between 1 Timothy 2:1-7 and Titus 2:11-14 are so great that it is unlikely that their Christologies should not also be identical. Then, since θεός and Χριστὸς ’Ιησοῦς are clearly distinguished in 1 Timothy 2:5, they should also be distinguished in Titus 2:13. So the common translation that ascribes the title ‘our great God and Saviour’ to Jesus Christ ‘is not valid’.
That there are certain similarities between 1 Timothy 2:1-7 and Titus 2:11-14 is incontestable (although it is perhaps the universal ‘scope’ of salvation rather than its universal ‘extension’), but when we compare the two verses in question, a principal difference between them becomes apparent, namely that 1 Timothy 2:5 is concerned with the oneness of the Godhead (εἷς... θεός) and the oneness of the mediator (εἷς... μεσίτης) along with the humanity (ἄνθρωπος) of that one mediator, emphases that are lacking in Titus 2:13, which could be affirming the complementary truth of Christ’s deity (hardly ‘a fundamentally different Christology’) as well as his glorious appearing as the ‘blessed hope’ of Christians.
From notes seven and seventeen it appears that Edwards wishes to translate Titus 2:13, ‘the appearance of the glory of our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ’, taking ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as being in apposition to τῆς δόξης. This has a prima facie attractiveness, since (1) it preserves intact the stereotyped θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ formula that was common in First Century religio...
Click here to subscribe