Titus 2:13

[Steve Ski]

I’ve always read this as regarding the return of Christ, regardless of one’s eschatology.

However, I was recently reading it in the ESV; “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory (Gr. doxa) of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,”

Was Paul saying “waiting for … the appearing of … Jesus Christ,”?

Or was he saying “waiting for … the appearing of the doxa of … Jesus Christ,”

If the former then it is about Christ appearing, but if the latter then it is about His doxa appearing.

Within the context of the entire chapter I can see how it could be about his doxa appearing as the church grows and matures.

Can anyone who has studied Greek comment?

 

[MW]

In Greek ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης is a genitive construction. It could be a subjective genitive: Christ's glory is manifested. Or it could be a possessive genitive: Christ appears in glory. The Greek in and of itself will not determine the question.

So how do we decide? Scripture must interpret Scripture. We need systematic theology. Is there a case for a progressive glory to be revealed in the church, or is it more natural to take it as an eschatological event at the end of time?

For the first, progressive manifestation, it is absent from the NT. I would call it a non entity or a non event. The closest we come to the idea is Eph. 3:21 or 2 Cor. 3:18. But in neither of these do we find the associated idea of "revelation" or "appearing." It is not an event, but a reality that exists by virtue of His first coming.

The second, eschatological event, is regularly connected to an ἐπιφάνεια. It is not a gradual process but a decisive and climactic event in the future, in which the glory of Christ will be manifested for all to see, 1 Tim. 6:14-16; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8. As these are also in the Pastoral Epistles they give us our closest point of reference to Titus. The NT everywhere speaks of this as an event to be expected as the consummation of history and intricately tied up with the final judgment.

So the weight of revelation as we have it in the NT is towards the second advent. There is no reason to take it as a progressive manifestation. That is not to deny that the progressive element cannot be subordinated to the main idea, but it should not be used to subvert it.

 

[TheInquirer]

That was literally a masterclass in exegesis and applied hermeneutics in a few short paragraphs - brilliant explanation Matthew.