“Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
—Titus 2:13, ESV

Summary

Titus 2:13 is one of the relatively few New Testament passages
commonly cited as directly calling Jesus “God.” Most modern English
translations render the verse so that “our great God and Savior” is a
single description of Jesus Christ.

The translation “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is
grammatically possible under a commonly accepted interpretation of the
Greek construction. However, the Greek does not require that translation
or place it beyond dispute. Other renderings are also grammatically
possible and have substantial historical precedent. Therefore, the
question cannot be settled by invoking a grammatical rule alone; the
construction must be evaluated in light of the context, the author’s
customary language, and broader Greek usage.

In this article we will examine four questions:

1. Where does the word “our” actually appear in the Greek?
2. What did Granville Sharp claim, and what evidence did he
   provide?
3. Is the so-called Granville Sharp rule an exceptionless law of
   Ancient Greek?
4. Does the context allow Jesus to be understood as the appearing of
   the glory of the great God—the Father?

My conclusion is measured: the one-person interpretation is
grammatically plausible and may be the most natural reading of the
construction. But grammar alone does not make that interpretation
indisputable, and even if Paul calls Jesus “God” here, Titus 2:13 still
does not establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.

Why This Verse Matters

Trinitarian scholars acknowledge that the number of New Testament
passages explicitly calling Jesus θεός—“God”—is small, and nearly all
are disputed for textual, grammatical, or contextual reasons.

Daniel Wallace writes:

“Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line
that ‘In describing Christ as “God” the New Testament still exercises
great restraint.’ The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify
Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost
never more than a half dozen or so.”

—Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin:
Semantics and Significance (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 27.

This does not mean that Trinitarianism stands or falls with Titus
2:13. Trinitarians appeal to a much broader collection of passages and
theological arguments. It does explain, however, why this verse carries
considerable weight in debates over the identity of Jesus.

Both sides have a theological interest in the outcome. Trinitarians
may be predisposed to see Jesus called “God,” while non-Trinitarians may
be predisposed to distinguish “the great God” from “our Savior Jesus
Christ.” Our responsibility is therefore to examine the evidence
carefully and resist overstating what it proves.

Where Is “Our” in the Greek?

The Greek text reads:

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ
μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

A relatively literal rendering is:

“Waiting for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great
God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ.”

The Greek word ἡμῶν means “of us” or “our.” It occurs only once in
the verse, immediately following σωτῆρος, “Savior.”

The ESV uses “our” twice:

“our blessed hope”
“our great God and Savior”

The first “our,” before “blessed hope,” has no corresponding word in
the Greek. Translators supply it because the hope belongs to believers
and because “our blessed hope” sounds natural in English.

The second “our” represents the actual Greek word ἡμῶν. Its position
after “Savior” explains the wording found in older English translations
such as the King James Version:

“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ.”

However, the location of ἡμῶν does not by itself prove that “our”
modifies only “Savior.” Greek word order is more flexible than English,
and a possessive genitive following the second of two coordinated titles
can qualify the entire expression.

Therefore, the Greek word order permits the translation “the great
God and our Savior,” but it does not require it. We must consider the
complete construction.

The Recurring
Language of “Our Savior” in Titus

The expression “our Savior” occurs repeatedly throughout Titus:

Reference	Description
Titus 1:3	“God our Savior”
Titus 1:4	“Christ Jesus our Savior”
Titus 2:10	“God our Savior”
Titus 2:13	“the great God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ”
Titus 3:4	“God our Savior”
Titus 3:6	“Jesus Christ our Savior”

This pattern shows that both God and Jesus can be called “our Savior”
in Titus. It also confirms that ἡμῶν naturally belongs with the title
“Savior.” What it does not settle is whether, in Titus 2:13, “the great
God” and “Savior” are two titles for Jesus or descriptions involving God
and Jesus as two distinguishable persons.

What Is the Granville Sharp
Rule?

Granville Sharp was an English abolitionist and theological writer
who lived from 1735 to 1813. In 1798 he published Remarks on the
Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New
Testament. A third edition appeared in 1803.

Sharp proposed six rules concerning the Greek article. What is now
called the “Granville Sharp rule” is a restricted form of his first
rule.

In simplified terms, when:

• two singular personal titles are in the same grammatical case;
• the titles are joined by καί, “and”;
• the article appears before the first title but is not repeated
  before the second;
• neither title is a proper name;

the two titles normally refer to the same person.

Titus 2:13 contains the construction:

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

Literally:

“the great God and Savior of us”

“God” and “Savior” are singular personal titles in the same case,
connected by “and,” with one article before “God.” On the standard
application of Sharp’s rule, both titles describe Jesus Christ.

That is a serious grammatical argument. It cannot fairly be answered
merely by pointing out that ἡμῶν follows “Savior.”

Does “Jesus Christ” Violate
the Rule?

The restricted rule does not apply when one of the two coordinated
nouns is a proper name. This excludes constructions such as “God and
Christ Jesus” from the absolute form of the rule.

But in Titus 2:13 the coordinated titles are “God” and “Savior.”
“Jesus Christ” follows them as an identifying name. Most grammarians
understand it as standing in apposition to the preceding
description—that is, it names the person described by the title or
titles.

Consequently, the presence of “Jesus Christ” does not automatically
disqualify Titus 2:13 from the rule. Any criticism based solely on the
presence of that proper name would be grammatically inadequate.

The real questions are whether θεός, “God,” functions here as a
common title rather than effectively as a proper name, and whether a
one-article construction necessarily produces only one possible referent
in every relevant variety of Ancient Greek.

Sharp’s Acknowledged
Theological Purpose

Sharp did not approach this subject without a theological objective.
He openly explained why his first rule mattered to him:

“The reason of my recommending the first rule more particularly to
your attention, is, because it is of much more consequence than any of
the rest, as it will enable us (if the truth of it be admitted) to
correct the translation of several important texts in the present
English version of the New Testament, in favour of a fundamental article
of our church, which has, of late, been much opposed and traduced; I
mean the belief that our Lord Jesus Christ is truly God.”

—Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article
in the Greek Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (London: Vernor and
Hood, 1803), 2–3.

Sharp repeatedly identified Socinians and Unitarians as opponents of
Christ’s deity. It is therefore historically accurate to say that he
developed and promoted his rules partly to defend the deity of Christ
against contemporary anti-Trinitarian arguments.

This does not prove that his grammatical observation was false. A
person can possess a theological motive and still discover a genuine
feature of language. But Sharp’s admitted objective gives us a reason to
test his rule independently rather than accepting it because it supports
a desired doctrine.

The same caution applies to everyone. A Trinitarian can overstate the
rule to secure a verse calling Jesus “God.” A non-Trinitarian can
understate the construction because the one-person reading conflicts
with his theology.

What Evidence Did Sharp
Provide?

Sharp supported his first rule with what later scholars count as
twenty-five New Testament constructions. That description can sound more
impressive than the underlying evidence actually is.

He first cited thirteen constructions, including:

• “the blind and mute [man]” in Matthew 12:22;
• “the Father of mercies and God of all comfort” in 2 Corinthians
  1:3;
• “the beloved brother and faithful minister” in Ephesians 6:21;
• “the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus” in Hebrews
  3:1;
• “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 3:18;
• “the one watching and keeping his garments” in Revelation
  16:15.

He then added twelve more references containing variations of the
familiar expression “God and Father.” Those references bring the count
to twenty-five.

The examples demonstrate a genuine pattern. “The beloved brother and
faithful minister,” for instance, clearly gives two descriptions of the
same person, Tychicus.

Nevertheless, Sharp’s evidence had important limitations:

• The examples were not twenty-five diverse, independent tests.
• Sixteen were variations of the recurring formula “God and
  Father.”
• Some depended on Greek readings that differ from modern critical
  editions.
• Sharp did not conduct a comprehensive search of surviving Classical
  and Koine Greek literature.
• He did not establish statistically that the construction was
  exceptionless.

Sharp himself acknowledged that a learned friend had produced
exceptions to an earlier formulation of the rule. Sharp responded by
adding restrictions. He then invited his correspondent to provide
further examples either to invalidate or confirm it.

That is not the conduct of someone knowingly inventing a fraudulent
rule. It does show, however, that the familiar rule resulted from a
process of qualification: potential counterexamples were excluded by
narrowing its scope.

Is It an Absolute Rule
of Ancient Greek?

The underlying tendency is real: a single article governing two
coordinated personal titles often indicates that both titles describe
one individual.

But the named “Granville Sharp rule” is used primarily in New
Testament grammar and Christian theological discussion. Secular
classicists recognize the broader function of the Greek article, but
they do not commonly invoke Sharp’s formulation as an exceptionless
interpretive law.

Later investigations found possible exceptions and special categories
outside the New Testament. Meaning can also be affected by:

• established idioms;
• semantically paired terms;
• proper names;
• ordinal numbers;
• the relationship between the two nouns;
• literary period and register;
• the author’s usage;
• and the surrounding context.

Therefore, it is more responsible to describe Sharp’s construction as
creating a strong presumption of one referent under restricted
conditions—not as a mathematical formula that eliminates every
contextual question.

The one-person reading of Titus 2:13 has substantial support. But
merely announcing “the Granville Sharp rule” does not end the
interpretation.

What Do the Early Versions
Show?

Early translations are relevant because they show how ancient readers
rendered the passage.

The Latin Vulgate reads:

gloriae magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi

This places nostri, “our,” after salvatoris,
“Savior,” corresponding closely to the Greek word order.

George William Horner’s English translation of the Sahidic Coptic
version reads:

“Expecting the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the
great God and our saviour the Christ Jesus.”

—George William Horner, trans., The Coptic Version of the New
Testament in the Southern Dialect, vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1911), Titus 2:13.

Older English Bibles also commonly read “the great God and our
Savior,” including Tyndale’s New Testament and the King James
Version.

This evidence demonstrates that the two-person-sounding translation
did not originate as a modern anti-Trinitarian invention. It has an
ancient and substantial translation history.

At the same time, word order in another language does not necessarily
reveal how its translator resolved the question of reference. Latin and
Coptic can reproduce a possessive expression after “Savior” without
conclusively telling us whether “God” and “Savior” were understood as
two persons or as two titles for one person.

Therefore, the early versions support the legitimacy of the
traditional wording but do not decisively settle the interpretation.

“The Appearing of the Glory”

Now consider another important feature of the verse. Paul does not
simply say “the appearing of the great God.” He writes:

“the appearing of the glory of the great God…”

Some translations render this as “the glorious appearing,” treating
“glory” adjectivally. But δόξης is a noun: “glory.” The more literal
translation is “the appearing of the glory.”

That wording matters because the New Testament repeatedly says that
Jesus will return in the glory of his Father:

“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of
his Father.”
—Matthew 16:27

“When he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels.”
—Mark 8:38

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of
Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father
and of the holy angels.”
—Luke 9:26

These passages distinguish the Son of Man who appears from the Father
whose glory accompanies or is manifested through him.

Paul uses related language in 2 Corinthians 4:6:

“The light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ.”

Here God’s glory is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ without
erasing the distinction between Jesus and God.

This creates a contextually plausible alternative reading of Titus
2:13: believers await the appearing of the great God’s glory, manifested
in and through their Savior Jesus Christ.

On that reading, “Jesus Christ” could identify the personal
manifestation of God’s glory rather than serve as the name attached to
both “God” and “Savior.” This interpretation must not be presented as
grammatically certain, but it deserves consideration because it
corresponds to established New Testament language about Christ returning
in his Father’s glory.

The Parallel Between Grace
and Glory

Titus 2:11–13 contains an important parallel:

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all
people…”
—Titus 2:11

Then verse 13 speaks of:

“the appearing of the glory of the great God…”

God’s grace has already appeared through Christ’s first coming. God’s
glory will appear in Christ’s return.

This does not necessarily prevent Paul from calling Jesus “God.” But
it provides a coherent framework in which God is the source of the grace
and glory, while Jesus is the one through whom they are revealed.

The immediate context continues:

“Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all
lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own
possession.”
—Titus 2:13–14

Jesus Christ is unquestionably the Savior whose appearing believers
await. The disputed question is whether Paul also directly identifies
him as “the great God,” or whether Jesus appears as the embodiment and
revelation of the great God’s glory.

Paul’s
Consistent Distinction Between God and Christ

The wider context of Titus must also inform our interpretation.

At the opening of the letter, Paul writes:

“Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Savior.”
—Titus 1:4

Paul explicitly distinguishes God the Father from Christ Jesus. The
same distinction is pervasive throughout his letters:

“For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and
for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things and through whom we exist.”
—1 Corinthians 8:6

This established pattern does not make it impossible for Paul to use
θεός of Jesus on an exceptional occasion. It does mean that any proposed
exception should be interpreted within Paul’s normal distinction between
“God,” the Father, and “the Lord,” Jesus Christ.

Does Titus 2:13 Prove the
Trinity?

Suppose we accept the modern translation:

“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

That would provide evidence that Paul applied the title θεός to
Jesus. But it would not establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.

The later doctrine claims that:

1. The one God eternally exists as three distinct persons.
2. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and coeternal.
3. Each person is fully God.
4. The three persons share one indivisible divine essence.

Titus 2:13 explains none of these propositions. It does not mention
the Holy Spirit, define one divine essence, or describe three coequal
persons.

Calling Jesus “God,” if that is what Paul does, would be an important
Christological statement. But the conclusion “Jesus is called God” is
not identical to the conclusion “God is a Trinity.” Those are separate
propositions requiring separate evidence.

Conclusion

What, then, can we say responsibly about Titus 2:13?

First, the Greek contains only one occurrence of ἡμῶν, “our,” and its
position after “Savior” does not by itself prove that “the great God”
and “our Savior” are two persons.

Second, the Granville Sharp construction provides substantial
grammatical support for applying both “God” and “Savior” to Jesus
Christ.

Third, Sharp openly pursued a theological objective: he wanted his
rule to correct English translations in favor of the belief that Jesus
is truly God. That motive does not invalidate the rule, but it makes
independent testing essential.

Fourth, Sharp’s twenty-five supporting constructions were limited and
repetitive. They established a real pattern but did not, by themselves,
prove an exceptionless law covering all Ancient Greek.

Fifth, early versions and older English translations preserve the
wording “the great God and our Savior.” This is a legitimate translation
with an ancient history, although those versions do not conclusively
establish two referents.

Sixth, the context supplies a serious alternative: Jesus Christ may
be described as the appearing or manifestation of the glory of the great
God, his Father. This interpretation fits repeated New Testament
statements that the Son will return in the Father’s glory.

Finally, even if Titus 2:13 calls Jesus “our great God and Savior,”
it does not by itself prove the Trinity. Paul continues to distinguish
Jesus Christ from God the Father, and the verse says nothing about three
coequal persons sharing one divine essence.

The evidence therefore does not justify accusing translators of
deliberately changing God’s Word. Neither does it justify presenting the
Granville Sharp rule as an unquestionable formula that ends all
discussion.

The most defensible conclusion is this:

Titus 2:13 grammatically favors, but does not place beyond dispute,
the interpretation that Jesus is called “our great God and Savior.” The
alternative understanding—that Jesus is the appearing of the great God’s
glory—remains contextually plausible. Whichever reading we adopt, this
verse alone does not establish the later doctrine of the Trinity.

Our task is not to force the text to support our theology. It is to
follow the evidence as carefully and honestly as we can.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker
who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of
truth.”
—2 Timothy 2:15

Selected Sources

• George William Horner, trans. The Coptic Version of the New
  Testament in the Southern Dialect. Vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
  1911.
• George W. Knight III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the
  Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
  Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992, 321–323.
• Granville Sharp. Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article
  in the Greek Text of the New Testament. 3rd ed. London: Vernor and
  Hood, 1803, 2–7.
• Daniel B. Wallace. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin:
  Semantics and Significance. Studies in Biblical Greek 14. New York:
  Peter Lang, 2009.
• Daniel B. Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand
  Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 270–290.