Granville Sharpe's Rule and the Deity of Christ

 

In discussing the deity of Christ, there are many common texts we go to: Mark 2, John 1, John 8:58, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, etc. However, there are also other uncommon texts (two in particular, which we will examine in this article). And there is a Greek construction contained in them known as the Granville Sharpe rule which shows how these texts explicitly call the Lord Jesus "God", thus proving His deity.

Here are the texts in question:

"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13 ESV)

"To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃, (Titus 2:13 SBL)

Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)

In both of these texts, a Greek construction known as the Granville Sharpe Rule occurs. In this article, I will discuss this rule, the debates surrounding it, and how it ultimately shows that Jesus is God.

What is the Granville Sharpe Rule?

Here are some basic definitions given of the Granville Sharpe Rule:

“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, pg. 3)

"Basically, Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word “and,” and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. " (https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/granville-sharps-rule/#4.)

This construction is basically this: ARTICLE-SUBSTANTIVE-"KAI"-SUBSTANTIVE. From now on, we will refer to it as TSKS (the acronym used in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace). 

According to Sharpe, there are three requirements in a particular TSKS construction for the second noun to have the same antecedent as the first noun:

1) neither is impersonal

2) neither is plural

3) neither is a proper name

This third conditional rule above is important in our discussion of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (our christological texts), and I will give more detail in that particular area later on in this article.

Some NT Examples of TSKS

Below are a few passages in which the TSKS construction occurs (the way it does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1), where both nouns have the same antecedent, due to the Greek article being only in front of the first noun, and the conjunction kai between the two nouns.

(The antecedent noun will be in blue while the substantives will be in red)

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James...?" (Mark 6:3 ESV)

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς ⸀τῆς Μαρίας ⸂καὶ ἀδελφὸς⸃ Ἰακώβου (Mark 6:3 SBL)

"Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister" (Ephesians 6:21)

Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος (Ephesians 6:21 SBL)

"consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, " (Hebrews 3:1 ESV)

τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν ⸀Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 3:1 SBL)

" I, John, your brother and partner" (Revelation 1:9 ESV)

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ⸀συγκοινωνὸς (Revelation 1:9 SBL)

"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. " (2 Peter 1:11 ESV)

 τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2 Peter 1:11 SBL)

In all of the above passages, it is quite obvious that both nouns are referring to the same person/antecedent. Therefore, the same should be said of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where "God" and "Savior", two nouns, have the same antecedent, i.e. "Jesus Christ".

However, a popular objection to Titus 2:13 as being an example of TSKS (and hence the Granville Sharpe Rule), is the idea that theos is a proper name. Here is the problem with that argument: a "proper" noun can be basically defined as a noun which cannot be pluralized. In other words, the proper noun "David" cannot be turned into "Davids". That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. However, theos can be pluralized (examples would be the use of theoi in John 10:34 and 1 Cor. 8:5)

Sharpe's Colleagues and Opponents Concede to the Validity of the Rule

The last thing I want to do is provide some material from 19th century writings (when this debate took place amongst Greek grammarians and scholars), which shows scholars and contemporaries admitting that his rule is valid. However, I cannot find all of the books quoted. Yet Daniel Wallace in his famous Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, gives the following summary of 19th century evidence:

"The most formidable foe to Sharp’s rule was Calvin Winstanley (A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament: Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq., 2d ed. [Cambridge: University Press–Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819]). Yet even he agreed that Sharp’s principle was generally valid, going so far as to say, “your first rule has a real foundation in the idiom of the language . . .” (36). And further, within the pages of the NT, Winstanley con ceded “There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts [i.e., the ones Sharp used to adduce Christ’s deity] be such. . . . it is nothing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing as exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions . . . in the New Testament . . .” (39-40)–an obvious concession that he could find no exceptions save for the ones he supposed to exist in the christologically pregnant texts................There is some interesting confirmation of Sharp’s rule, as applied to the christologically pregnant texts, in patristic literature. In 1802 a fellow (and later, master) of Trinity College in Cam bridge, Christopher Wordsworth, published his Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. Respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, in the Greek Text of the New Testament (London: F. and C. Rivington, 1802). Wordsworth tested Sharp’s principle in the patristic literature. He felt that if the principle was valid, then the Greek fathers would certainly have understood the christologi cally significant texts in the same way that Sharp had. At one point he gushed, “I fully believe, that there is no one exception to your first rule in the whole New Testament: and the assertion might be extended infinitely further” (ibid., 103). After an exhaustive investigation, from Greek Christian literature covering a span of over 1000 years, Wordsworth was able to make the astounding comment, “I have observed . . . some hundreds of instances of the ho megas thou kai soter (Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form o theos kai soter (2 Pet. i. 1.)[,] while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any of them used, but only of one person” (ibid., 132). Therefore, as far as Wordsworth was concerned, the TSKS constructions which involve the deity of Christ, both in the NT and in the Greek church fathers, were never ambiguous, but fully supported Sharp’s proposition." (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pgs. 273, 277)

Another Greek Grammarian's View

"The arguments for Paul’s identification of tou megalou theou … hemon, “our great God,” and ‘Iesou, “Jesus,” ARE impressive…(1) theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior,” are both governed by the same article, and according to Granville Sharp’s rule they therefore refer to the same person (Robertson, Grammar, 785-89; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 59-60; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 267-69; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270-90). For example, 2 Cor 1:2 speaks of ho theos kai pater, “the God and Father,” both terms referring to the same person. As Wallace clarifies Sharp’s own qualifiers, the rule applies “only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns” (Greek Grammar, 272) and indicates some degree of unity between the two words, possibly equality or identity (270). When understood as Sharp intended, there are no exceptions in the NT to the rule (although on theological grounds, not grammatical, the rule has been questioned here and in 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 273 n. 50, and further bibliography at 273 n. 50 and 276 n. 55). If soteros referred to a second person, it would have been preceded by the article. However, this is not to make the mistake of modalism, which sees only one God appearing in different modes (cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242). God the Father and God the Son are not identical in orthodox theology; the Son is God, but he is not the Father. Wallace and Robertson (Exp 21 [1921] 185-87) both describe the force of G. B. Winer’s refusal (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament [Andover, MA: Draper, 1869] 130) to accept Sharp’s rule for theological and not grammatical reasons. Speaking of the same construction in 2 Pet 1:1, 11, Robertson is direct in his critique: “The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remarks about 2 Peter i. 1” (Exp 21 [1921] 185); and the influence that Winer exerted as a grammarian has influenced other grammarians and several generations of scholars.   The grammatical counterargument is that soter, “savior,” like other technical terms and proper names, tends to be anarthrous; but “God” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42), and soter (Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 268) are not proper names. theos is not a personal proper name because it can be made plural (theoi, “gods”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 272, n. 42). Proper nouns are usually anarthrous since they are inherently definite, but theos is almost always articular unless other grammatical rules require the article to be dropped in specific contexts. theos occurs frequently in the TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) construction to which Sharp’s rule applies (Luke 20:37; John 20:27; Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 15:24; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; Phil 4:20; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6), always in reference to one person (cf. Wallace, “Sharp Redivivus?” 46-47). In the PE soter occurs in eight other passages, seven of which are articular (1 Tim 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4, 6). The only other anarthrous use of soter in the PE is in 1 Tim 1:1, where it is anarthrous in accordance with Apollonius’s Canon (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 250). In other words, in the PE the articular construction is the rule, suggesting that there is a specific reason for its anarthrous state here. If the question is the grammatical meaning of this text, Sharp’s rule is decisive. If Paul was speaking of two persons, it would have been easy to say so unambiguously (e.g., tou megalou theou kai ‘Iesou Christou tou soteros hemon, “the great God and Jesus Christ our savior,” or tou megalou theou hemon kai tou soteros ‘Iesou Christou, “our great God and the savior Jesus Christ” [Harris, 269]). Instead he chose a form that most naturally reads as one person, ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” which is in apposition to tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon, “our great God and savior.” To say it another way, if Paul did not believe that Jesus was God, it seems highly unlikely that he would have been so sloppy in making such a significant theological statement. If Paul did believe that Jesus was God, it is not a surprise to read this.  (2) The flow of the discussion argues that theou kai soteros, “God and savior,” refers to one person and that the one person is Jesus Christ. (a) Paul begins by saying, “for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation,” associating God with salvation. Two verses later, without a change of subject, he speaks of theou kai soteros hemon, “our God and savior.” The most natural reading is to continue the association between theou, “God,” and soteros, “savior.” However, since ‘Iesou Christou “Jesus Christ,” most likely stands in apposition to soteros, “savior,” because of their close proximity, Jesus is the God and Savior. (b) Since elpis, “hope,” is personified in the PE as Jesus (see above), Paul begins the verse speaking of Jesus not God the Father (“waiting for the blessed hope, which is the appearing of God, who is Jesus Christ”). (c) The following verse speaks of Jesus’ saving activity. This does not mean that v 13 must be speaking of one person; Paul often changes subjects by adding a relative clause (e.g. Eph 1:7). However, since v 14 does discuss salvation, it strongly suggests that Paul is thinking of Jesus as savior. (This argues against Hort’s position [below] that ‘Iesou Christou, “Jesus Christ,” refers back to tes doxes tou … theou, “the glory of God.”) If God and savior refer to one person (below), and if savior refers to Jesus Christ, then so must God. Lock (145) also points out that the idea of hina lytrosetai, “in order that he might redeem,” which occurs in v 14, is used in the OT of God but here of Christ, implying an equation between the two.   (3) The phrase theos kai soter, “God and savior,” was a set phrase in Hellenistic language… and always referred to one person, such as Ptolemy I (tou megalou theou euergetou kai soteros [epiphanous] eucharistou, “the great god, benefactor, and savior [manifest one,] beneficent one”…; soter kai theos, “savior and god”…), Antiochus Epiphanes (theos epiphanes, “god manifest”…), and Julius Caesar (theos kai soter, “god and savior”…). Moulton comments, “Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some of the worst men” (Grammar 1:84). It was also used by Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism in reference to God (Dibelius-Conzelmann, 143-46). Since in Hellenism it was a set phrase referring to one Person and Paul is using language that places his gospel in direct confrontation with emperor worship and Ephesian religion…, the phrase most likely refers to one person in this context, not two. This is how it would have been understood in Cretan society. Wallace points out how rare this expression is in the LXX (Esth 5:1; Ps 61:1, 5, without the article; cf. 2 Macc 6:32; Philo Leg. All. 2.56; Praem. 163.5); the MT rarely has an analogous construction (singular-article-noun-waw-noun), and when it does, the LXX uses a different construction in translation (“Sharp Redivivus?” 43). He cites O. Cullmann (The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 241) in concluding that “Hellenism accounts for the form, Judaism for the context of the expression” (“Sharp Redivivus?” 44). (4) When Paul speaks of the “appearing of the glory of our great God,” he ties “appearing” and “God” together. Yet epiphaneia, “appearing,” in Paul always refers to Jesus’ second coming and never to God. The appearance of God is therefore the appearance of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:9-10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). In fact 1 Tim 6:14 and 2 Tim 1:10 have much the same meaning as our passage and confirm this argument. Although God the Father is involved in the Son’s return, he is not as involved as this would indicate if it refers to two people (Lock 145; Fee, 196). There are two related arguments. (a) If kai, “and,” is epexegtical, epiphaneian, “appearing,” is a restatement of elpida, “hope,” and hope is a personification of Jesus, showing that the appearance is the appearance of Jesus. (b) epiphaneian, “appearing” (v 13), parallels epephane, “appearance,” in v 11, and since in v 11 Paul is speaking of Jesus’ appearance, it is most likely here that he is speaking of Jesus’ second appearance. The counterargument is that the cognate epiphaneian, “to appear,” occurs in Titus 2:11 and 3:4 as part of the description of God the Father; however, these verses speak of God sending Jesus the first time. (5) Marshall (SNTU-A 13 [1988] 174-75) adds the following arguments: (a) Jesus, as Lord, is the judge, which is the sole prerogative of God (2 Tim 4:8); (b) Jesus and God are placed side by side (1 Tim 1:1-2; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 1:1; 2:13); (c) both are given the title “savior” (1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 1:9; 4:18); (d) spiritual blessings come from both (2 Tim 1:3, 6, 18; 1 Tim 1:12, 14); and (e) both are “objects of the writer’s service” (God: 2 Tim 1:3; 2:15; Titus 1:7; Jesus: 2 Tim 2:3, 24). If Jesus has the position and function of God, then he can “probably” be called God. There are other arguments that are of questionable validity. (1) The early Greek church fathers are nearly unanimous in seeing “God and savior” as referring to Jesus, and it can be assumed that they would know the Greek idiom (not Justin Martyr [1 Apol. 61] and Ambrosiaster; cf. Lock, 145; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 271). The counterargument is that the early versions are nearly unanimous in seeing two persons in this passage (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian, but not Ethiopic) and that the Greek church fathers tended to be controlled more by their theology than by the text itself. Bernard asserts, “The Fathers were far better theologians than critics. Their judgement on a point of doctrine may be trusted with much readier confidence than the arguments by which they support their judgement” (172). Moulton (Grammar 1:84) points out that this appears to be the interpretation of the seventh-century Christians as evidenced by the papyri (cf. en onomati tou kyriou kai despotou ‘Iesou Christou tou theou kai soteros hemon…, “in the name of the Lord and master, Jesus Christ, our God and savior etc.” [BGU 2:366, 367, 368, 371, 395]), but this is quite late. (2) The NT nowhere describes God as megas, “great,” and it is argued that it would be tautological to call God great (Ellicott, 188; Guthrie, 200). But the use of megas, “great,” distinguishes God from the pagan deities, and great is no more than a summary of what Paul says about him in 1 Tim 6:15-16. Harris lists other arguments that he feels are debatable (“Titus 2:13,” 270-71)…Fortunately the doctrine of Christ’s divinity does not rest on this verse. But the question of what Paul is saying here is still important, and it seems that he is making a christological pronouncement on the divinity of Christ. This is the most natural reading of the text, is required by the grammar, concurs with Paul’s use of epiphaneia, “appearing,” accounts for the singular use of the phrase “God and savior” in secular thought, and fits the context well."

(William D. Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, pgs. 426-429, 431)