If any “rule” can exist in Koine Greek, the Granville Sharp Rule must qualify as the most contested yet most proven. Granville Sharp was the 18th century son of the Archbishop of York. He is best known for his work as an abolitionist but has left us a great legacy in his theological writings. Sharp had no formal education but, while working as a young apprentice to a London linen-draper, he taught himself Greek.
In his studies, Sharp discovered an important Greek idiom – the rule which now bears his name. He noticed that whenever an article+noun+“kai”+noun construction occurred, both nouns always referred to the same person. This construction is commonly called the “TSKS construction.” A key point to this rule is that only the first noun has the article (“the”) and the second noun is anarthrous. Additional points include that the nouns must be singular, personal, and not proper names.
The rule sounds more complicated than it really is. Here is an example in English so that you can see how the construction works: 2 Peter 2:20, “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This short clause has the article (“the”), noun (“Lord”), kai (“and”), and noun (“Savior”). Therefore, according to Sharp's rule, both of these nouns refer to the same person. In this context, they obviously both refer to Jesus.
Here are a few more instances:
Matthew 12:22, τον τυφλον και κωφον (the blind and dumb)
2 Corinthians 1:3, ὁ Θεὸς και πατηρ (the God and Father)
Ephesians 6:21, ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς και πιστος διάκονος (the beloved brother and faithful minister)
Hebrews 3:1, τον αποστολον και αρχιερεα (the Apostle and High Priest)
Revelation 16:15, ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν (the one watching and keeping)
The context of these examples clearly demonstrates that both nouns in each verse are references to the same person. Setting aside textual variations, the TSKS construction occurs some 80 times in the NT and most scholars agree there are no exceptions to Sharp's rule.
Sharp's rule takes on considerable, theological significance when applied to two verses: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Here are the verses in the Greek:
Titus 2:13, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ).
2 Peter 1:1, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (our God and Savior Jesus Christ).
In both of these verses, “God” has the article and “Savior” is anarthrous so, according to Sharp's rule, they are references to the same Person. In these contexts, that Person is Jesus. Therefore, this explicitly means that Jesus is both God and Savior.
Those who deny the divinity of Christ refuse to see what should be obvious. The usual objection raised is to question the intent of the original authors: was this “rule” in the minds of the writers as they penned the New Testament? Considering the frequency where the TSKS construction appears and the large number of unambiguous examples that exist in the NT, I would say the writers understood well and precisely meant to say that Jesus is God and Savior. Indeed, where such a large number of unambiguous examples exist, to insist that these two passages are exceptions is nothing more than special pleading.
7 comments:
Indeed, one thing we often overlook, Who is the ultimate author of the scripture and, as such, these verses? God, Himself put these words in the minds of the authors to write down. Also, as I have read elsewhere, Grammars don't the language make. Grammars are a compilation of the discoveries of faithful people who have studied their texts and found such structures and meanings.
Maybe you'll want to get a twitter button to your website. Just bookmarked this blog, although I must do it manually. Simply my suggestion.
Thanks for visiting my blog and for your comments.
It probably would be a good idea for me to add a twitter button. Unfortunately, I don't have a twitter account. I looked at starting one but the name RKBentley is already being used by someone else so if I do start one, it will have to be under a different name than what I blog under. I'll have to think about it a little longer.
Of course, I do have an account on Facebook and I invite you to follow and friend me there.
Thanks again for visiting.
God bless!
RKBentley
It appears to me that there is no factual basis for the Granville Sharp rule. Mr. Sharp has merely chosen to see what he wants to see in contradiction to the context, and he has simply repeated his false teaching over and over again, relying on the axiom that if a lie is repeated often enough, people will believe it. See www.genitivephrases1.blogspot.com .
On page 252 in his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin, Dr. Wallace argues that the noun God is a common noun for two reasons.
1. The more frequently a noun occurs in the plural form, the more likely the noun is to be a common noun.
2. The more frequently a noun is preceded by an article in the nominative case, the more likely the noun is to be a common noun.
The noun Christ occurs in the plural form zero times in the Greek New Testament and three times (1 Chronicles 16:22, Psalms 104:15 and Habakkuk 3:13) in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint).
The noun Savior occurs in the plural form zero times in the Greek New Testament and one time (Nehemiah 19:27) in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint).
Thus, according to this criterion for a common noun, the noun Christ in Ephesians 5:5 is three times as likely to be a common noun as the noun Savior in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is.
The noun Christ occurs in the nominative case five times (verses 5:2, 5:14, 5:23, 5:25 and 5:29) in the fifth chapter of Ephesians, where the genitive phrase in Ephesians 5:5 appears, and the noun Christ is preceded by an article in all of those five instances (100% of the time).
The noun Savior occurs in the nominative case two times (Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Timothy 4:10) in the epistles in the New Testament, where the genitive phrases in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 appear, and the noun Savior is preceded by an article in neither one of those two instances (0.0% of the time).
Thus, according to this criterion for a common noun, the noun Christ in Ephesians 5:5 is infinitely (100% versus 0.0%) more likely to be a common noun than the noun Savior in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is.
Nevertheless, on pages 236-237 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says that the modifying noun Christ in the genitive phrase in Ephesians 5:5 is a proper name, and on page 241 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace says that the modifying noun Savior in the genitive phrases in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is a common noun.
Why does Dr. Wallace’s characterization of the nouns Christ and Savior as a proper name (Christ) and a common noun (Savior) contradict his criteria for a common noun?
Because whenever there is a contradiction between the actual facts and the conclusion that Dr. Wallace wants to reach, Dr. Wallace always says whatever he has to say in order to reach the conclusion that he wants to reach (circular reasoning).
On page 283 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace admits the fact that the modifying nouns Christ and God in the genitive phrase “the KINGDOM OF-THE Christ [the Son] and God [and Father]” in Ephesians 5:5 refer to two persons (Son and Father), as determined by the context.
Therefore, in order NOT to admit the fact that the genitive phrase in Ephesians 5:5 is proof that the Granville Sharp rule is false, Dr. Wallace cannot admit the fact that the modifying nouns Christ and God in the genitive phrase in Ephesians 5:5 are common nouns, and therefore he has to falsely (in contradiction to his criteria for a common noun) say that the modifying noun Christ in the genitive phrase in Ephesians 5:5 is a proper name.
On page 272 in his 2009 book, Dr. Wallace states that the Granville Sharp rule requires the referent of the two modifying nouns God and Savior in the genitive phrases in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 to be one person (Jesus Christ).
Therefore, both of those two modifying nouns (God and Savior) have to be common nouns, and therefore Dr. Wallace has to falsely (in contradiction to his criteria for a common noun) say that the modifying noun Savior in the genitive phrases in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is a common noun.
My point is that Dr. Wallace, like Mr. Sharp, employs circular reasoning by saying what he has to say in contradiction to the actual facts in order to reach the conclusion that he wants to reach, and that just as the Granville Sharp rule is a circular argument, so likewise is every defense of the Granville Sharp rule.
For those who have made up their minds to deny the divinity of Christ and therefore must twist the Granville Sharpe rule in order to refute its application to verses like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 : The divine nature of Christ is also seen in verses such as John Chap. 1; Col. 1:16; and those expressing Christ's absolute nature. For example Christ says in John 14:6 "I am the way, and the TRUTH, and the LIFE." He is not saying he has truth, or has life, but that HE IS these things - i.e. these absolutes are intrinsic to Christ. See also Heb. 13:8, expressing the immutability of the eternal deity of Christ. One could also approach his divine nature from the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) - He is the eternally existing One, the "I AM" (Ex. 3:14; John 8:58).
Sawok,
Thanks for visiting and for your comments.
I've noticed a trend among skeptics that they nearly always appeal to the least obvious translation. I know there are exceptions to rules but, according to them, the correct translation is always the exception! Do they expect us to believe the Bible was written in such a way that the obvious meaning of any passage is NEVER the intended meaning? It's like they think the Bible is written in code.
I've relaunched my blog at a new site. I encourage you to visit there at 2peter119.blogspot.com
Thanks again for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment