1 Timothy 3:6

culiarly influenced by the power of hope (see Romans 8:24; Colossians 1:27; Titus 1:2). The hope, considered with respect to its realization, is here called blessed, because of the happy results with which it shall be associated in the experience of all to whom it properly belongs. But the hope itself is more closely defined by what follows the manifestation of the glory: so, certainly, should ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης be rendered, not by hendyadis, as in the Authorized Version, “glorious appearing,” for the manifestation of the glory as a thing to come stands here in a kind of antithesis to the manifestation of the grace which has already taken place. But the chief difficulty in connection with this latter portion of ver. 13 lies in determining whether the manifestation of glory spoken of is to be connected both with God and with Christ, or simply with Christ as at once God and Saviour. If the latter view were adopted, then the proper way to avoid all ambiguity would be to render, with Ellicott and many others, “the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;” while, if with the Vulgate, Syr., and all the English translations, except the Genevan, we render, “of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” we naturally think of God and Christ as distinguished from each other. A decision has been sought in favour of the former view, by Middleton and many others, on the grammatical principle, that the article τοῦ, standing simply before μεγ. θεοῦ, and omitted before σωτῆρος, covers the two expressions as attributives of one and the same person. On the ground of this principle, Middleton says: “It is impossible to understand θεοῦ and σωτῆρος otherwise than of one person.” Had two been meant, the article must have been repeated before σωτῆρος. Ellicott, however, frankly admits that “it is very doubtful whether the interpretation of the passage can be fully settled on this principle.” And Winer, while he allows that “ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article τοῦ still holds to the other interpretation, and considers “the article to have been omitted before σωτῆρος, because this word is defined by the genitive ἡμῶν, and because the apposition precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ” ( Gr. § xix. 5). Alford is of the same opinion, and thinks that σωτη ́ ρ was one of those words which gradually dropt the article and became a quasi proper name referring in proof to 1 Timothy 2:1; 1 Timothy 4:10 the article here also being the less needed on account of the pronoun ἡμῶν. Both writers, however, as also Huther, De Wette, and several others, confess themselves to be chiefly influenced by a regard to St. Paul's usual style of representation, especially in the Pastoral epistles, in which the relation of God to salvation is not identified with, but distinguished from Christ's: 1 Timothy 1:1; 1 Timothy 2:3-5; Titus 3:4-6; also Jude 1:24. There is, undoubtedly, something in this consideration; and it can scarcely be maintained that there is any quite parallel passage in St. Paul's writings, if he should here be held to have designated Jesus Christ at once “the great God and our Saviour.”

On the other hand, there are especially two considerations which must be allowed to have considerable weight in the opposite direction. One is, that the notion expressed by ἐπιφανεία is in New Testament Scripture specially applied to the Son, not to the Father (2Ti 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1Ti 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:8); the nearest approach to it in connection with the Father is at Matthew 16:27, where it is said that Christ shall appear in the glory of His Father, though still the appearing or manifestation itself is Christ's. The other consideration is, that nearly all the Fathers Greek, as well as Latin who refer to this passage, understood it simply of Christ. Thus Chrysostom, after quoting the words, says: “Where are they who speak of the Son as less than the Father? Of the great God, he says, and Saviour. When he couples great with God, he does not say great in respect to what, but great absolutely, since there is nothing great after Him.” So Jerome: “Where is the serpent Arius? Where the snake Eunomius? Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is called the great God. Not as the first-begotten of every creature, not as the Word or Wisdom of God, is He so called, but as Jesus Christ names which belong to Him as having assumed humanity.” Quotations to the same effect have been produced from Clemens Alex., Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory Nys., Epiphanius, Aug. (see Waterland, Works, ii. p. 135). This striking unanimity as to such being indisputably the meaning of the passage, must be held conclusive to this extent, that -the application of the epithets “great God” and “our Saviour” to Jesus Christ, appeared to persons conversant with the Greek as a living tongue, not only a competent, but by much the most natural interpretation. So that no one who takes this view can be charged with doing violence to the passage, considered by itself. The only question that seems open is, whether the other view, which distinguishes between God and Christ, is not in somewhat better accord with the usual language of the apostle. In a doctrinal point of view, it is of little moment which interpretation is adopted; for, while I see no reason for saying, with Alford, that this latter interpretation “even more strikingly asserts Christ's equality in glory with the Father,” than that which directly ascribes to Him the designation of the great God, it is inconceivable that the name of Christ as Saviour should be associated equally with the Father in that manifestation of glory which is the culminating hope of the church, unless He had been essentially divine unless, indeed, the peculiar glory of the Father had been that also of the Son. I am disposed, with Calvin, rather to press this aspect of the matter, as being, on the whole, the more sure and satisfactory. Feeling some doubt whether the epithets should be applied solely to Christ, or disjunctively to the Father and the Son, and having referred to the mode in which the orthodox Fathers sought to confute the Arians from the passage, Calvin characteristically adds: “More briefly and certainly may the Arians be refuted thus, since Paul, when speaking of the revelation of the glory of the great God, presently conjoined Christ, so that we might know that that revelation of glory was to be made in His person; as if he said, when Christ shall have appeared, then shall be disclosed to us the magnitude of the divine glory.”