Regarding the Granville Sharp Rule

0. Introduction

The New Testament already applies θεὸς to the Jesus of Nazareth in four unambiguous places, both with and without the definite article. (Joh. 1:1, 18; 20:28; Heb. 1:8) There are other more disputed occurrences at Matt. 1:23; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Eph. 5:5; Col. 2:2; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4. Some of these passages have textual variants, and others are grammatically ambiguous. Granville Sharp proposed a grammatical rule to assist in sorting which of these passages actually refer to Jesus as God in an influential booklet entitled, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive article in the Greek Text of the New Testament. Sharp claimed that his rule can be applied to seven of these texts Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4 in support of the deity of Christ. 

1. Defined and Illustrated

While the rule may be named after Sharp, Theodore Beza had applied the same rule or something very similar in the past. (Ibid. p. vii, viii.) Sharp defined his first rule this way. 

“When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, 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: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person; ​— as, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτόν, ὥστε ΤΟΝ τυφλὸν ΚΑΙ κωφὸν καὶ λαλεῖν καὶ βλέπειν. Matt. xii. 22. And, again, Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ΚΑΙ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν ΚΑΙ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως. 2 Cor. i. 3. This last sentence contains two examples of the first rule.” (Ibid., p. 3, 4.)

There is a shorter version of the rule provided in the table of contents.

“When two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copulative καὶ, if the former has the definitive article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person.” (Ibid., p. xxxix.)

There are initially twenty-three scriptural examples cited in support of the rule. (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 9:31; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:20; 6:21; Phil. 4:20; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess. 2:16; Heb. 3:1; Jas. 1:27; 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:20; 3:2, 18; Rev. 1:6; 16:15) To conform to the rule, a construction must meet five criterion; (1) two substantives must be the same grammatical case, (2) connected by the conjunction καὶ, (3) singular, (4) not names but ‘personal descriptions,’ (5) and only the first substantive is preceded by the definite article. 

To illustrate the rule, the doxology at Phil. 4:20 τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν. The two titles θεῷ and πατρὶ are in the dative and are not names but personal descriptions. The first title is preceded by the article and both are connected by καὶ and only a single subject is in mind. The longer reading of Jude 4 corresponds to the rule τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεόν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν χριστὸν, which referring to a single person, would translate to something like “the only Owner, God and Lord, Jesus Christ.”[1] 

The LXX of Prov. 24:21 is a clear exception to the rule fear God and the King, φοβοῦ τὸν θεόν υἱέ καὶ βασιλέα.  The two substantives θεόν and βασιλέα are in the accusative case, connected by the conjunction καὶ, singular, not names but ‘personal descriptions,’  and only the first substantive is preceded by the definite article. This passage meets all of the criterion of the Granville Sharp rule, and yet there are two distinct persons under consideration in Prov. 24:21, the Israelite King and God. This is confirmed by the final exhortation “do not disobey either of them.” Wallace explains this exception by saying it is the result of translating Hebrew literally because it is not good Greek.[2] The syntax of Hebrew often bleeds over into New Testament Greek, as Moulton explained. 

“The LXX was in “translation Greek,” its syntax determined perpetually by that of the original Hebrew. Much the same was true of large parts of the NT, where translation had taken place from an original Aramaic. But even where this was not the case, it was argued, the writers used Greek as foreigners, Aramaic thought underlying Greek expression. Moreover, they were so familiar with the LXX that its idiosyncrasies passed largely into their own style.”[3]

Winstanley long ago documented numerous Classical as well as Patristic authors who frequently contradict the rule in their writings showing this rule was unknown to ancient authors.[4] However the rule was meant to apply strictly to the New Testament. 

2. Personal Names

The rule considers substantives which are “of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,” and it does not apply to phrases with personal names. (Sharp, p. 3, 6.) It ought to be seen as suspicious that a rule which was created for the purpose of personal identification excludes personal names from its considerations. The texts that Sharp used in support of his rule contain the personal name “Jesus” or they contain the title “Christ.” But “Christ” is not used merely as a title of Jesus in the New Testament, it is often treated as a personal name throughout the epistles.[5] The reputed grammarian Robert Funk, stated that the title “Christ” eventually “comes to be a personal name," by the time of the apostles. [6] Friberg also states, 

“Χριστός, οῦ, ὁ strictly one who has been anointed, symbolizing appointment to a task; as a title for Jesus, designating him as the Messiah sent from God (see JN 1.41), Christ, (the) Anointed One (MT 1.16); as a personal name for Jesus, Christ (RO 6.4)”[7]

The examples given by Sharp either use the title “Christ,” or compound personal names such as “Jesus Christ” in the key phrases, therefore, it is suspect whether they meet the criterion of his own rule. (Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; Jude 1:4) Wallace explained this same point. 

“Granville Sharp believed that several christologically significant passages involved the TSKS construction. [Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4] However, several of these involved dubious textual variants (e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1). This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1.”[8]

Modern translations seem rather evenly divided on whether “God” and “Christ” have a single subject in Titus 2:13. Winer’s consideration of Titus 2:13 is lengthy, and his conclusion is worth quoting here,

“In Tit. ii. 13, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ, — Christ being first called ὁ μεγάς θεος, and then σωτῆρ. The article is omitted before σωτῆρος, because this word is defined by the genitive ἡμῶν, and because the apposition precedes the proper name of: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”# 

Quite apart from the rule, 2 Peter 1:1 probably addresses Jesus as “God and Savior.” This can be argued on the basis of comparing similar language used in the epistle. Second Peter never uses the name “Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)” without attaching honorific titles to the name, seven times it uses κυρίος (1:2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2:20; 3:18) and four times σωτῆρος. (1:1, 4; 2:20; 3:18)

1:1  τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. 

1:11  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

2:20  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. 

3:18  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

1:1 our God and Savior Jesus Christ

1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

2:20 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

3:19 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

The wording of these statements are identical, with the significant difference that θεοῦ is substituted for κυρίου in the introduction of the epistle.[9] Robertson comments on 2 Pet. 1:1. 

“Curiously enough Winer endeavours to draw a distinction between this passage, “where there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος” and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1:11 τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, which he cites as an example of “merely predicates of the same person.” Stranger still he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled in Winer-Schiedel, where it is frankly admitted that the construction in 2 Pet. 1:1 is the same as that in 1:11 and also in 2:20; 3:2, 18. Schmiedel says also that “grammar demands that one person be meant.”[10]

However, Turner says that the “distinction between God and Christ in the next verse [2 Pet. 1:2] may be against this.” [11] BDF adds that the usage of the definite article varies in epistolary introductions, and therefore it is misled to compare usage of the article in an epistolary introduction with constructions found in the body of the epistle.[12] Furthermore, there is also a convertible proposition which identifies the Father as “God (θεοῦ)” later in the epistle.

λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης· (2 Pet. 1:17) 

Wallace defines the convertible proposition as a grammatical construction with two substantives which “indicates an identical exchange. That is to say, both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. A statement such as "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player in NBA history" means the same thing as "the greatest player in NBA history is Michael Jordan." There is complete interchange between the two.”[13] God just is the Father for the usual language of the author but of course, that does not rule out a broader application. 

[1]  Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament (Federal Republic of Germany: Biblia-Druck GmbH Stuttgart, 1975), p. 723.

[2]  Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by καὶ in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), p. 126. 

[3] James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena (Scotland: Morrison and Gibb Limited for T. & T. Clark LTD. 36 George Street. 1908), p. 2-3.

[4]  Calvin Winstanley, A Vindication of certain passages in the common English version of the New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819), p. 8-11.

[5]   Rom. 5:6; 6:4, 8, 9; 7:4; 8:9,10, 11, 17, 34, 35; 9:1, 3, 5; 10:4, 12:5; 14:9, 10, 15, 18; 15:7, 8, 20; 16:5. 7, 16; 1 Cor. 1:6, 12, 17, 23, 24; 2:16; 3:1, 23; 4:1, 10, 15, 17; 5:7; 6:15; 7:22; 8:11, 12; 9:1, 12, 18, 22; 10:4, 9, 16; 11:1, 3; 12:12, 27; 15:1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. 19, 20, 22, 23; 2 Cor. 1:5, 21; 2:10, 12, 14, 15, 17; 3:3, 4, 14; 4:4, 5:10, 14, 17, 17, 19, 20; 6:15; 8:23, 9:13; 10:1, 5, 7, 14; 11:2, 3, 10, 13, 23; 12:2, 9, 10, 19; 13:3; Gal. 1:7; 22, 2:4, 16; 20; 21; 3:13, 16, 17, 24, 27, 29; 4:7, 19; 5:1, 2, 4, 24; 6:2, 12; Eph. 1:1, 3, 20; 2:5; 12; 3:4, 6, 8, 17, 19, 21; 4:7, 12, 13, 15, 20, 32; 5:2, 5, 14, 23, 24, 25, 32; 6:5, 6; Phil. 1:10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29; 2:1, 16, 30; 3:7, 8, 9, 18; Col. 1:2, 3, 7, 24, 27; 2:2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 17, 20; 3:1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 16; 4:3, 12; 1 Thess. 2:5; 3:2; 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:5; 1 Tim. 2:7; 5:11; 2 Tim. 2:19; Phile. 1:8, 23; Heb. 3:6, 14; 5:5; 6:1; 9:11, 14, 24, 28; 11:26; 1 Pet. 1:11, 19; 21; 3:16, 18; 4:1, 13, 14; 5:1.

[6]   Robert W. Funk, The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline Problems (Vanderbilt University, 1953), p. 192.

[7]   Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, Neva F. Mille, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2005), p. 410. 

[8]   Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 276. 

[9]   Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume VI., The General Epistles and The Apocalypse (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1933), p. 147, 148.

[10]  Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 785, 786.

[11] Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, p. 16.

[12] F. Blass, A. Debrunner, R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 1961), p. 140.

[13]  (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of New Testament Greek., Published by Zondervan, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996., p.  41.)

 

Views of the Apostolic Fathers

 The early apologists describe the Father alone as the "one God" and "only God." (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.3.6; 2.30.9; 3.1.2; Justin Martyr, Dial. Trypho, 61, 128; Tertullian Adv. Prax. 2, 16, 18; Origen, Adv. Celsus, 8.13; Athenagoras, Leg. Christ. 4; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.5; 7.10; Hippolytus, Adv. Noet. 3, 5; Lactantius, Inst. 1.7) Such epithets are never even given to the Son—much less to the Father, Son and Spirit together. All early authors wrote on the subject of the generation of the Son affirm that it was not an eternal act of nature, but a free act of God's will. (Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2.10; Justin 2 Apol. 6, Dial. Trypho 120; Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. 5, Hippolytus, Contr. Noet. 10, Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 5; Adv. Hermog. 3, 5, 18; Novatian, De Trin. 31, Lactantius, Instit. 2.9, 4.6.) 

Origen of Alexandria (185-253)

Origen of Alexandria (185-253) was probably the most well educated Christian scholar of the second century besides Clement. The first academic Christian Bible schools were found in Alexandria and Origen was without a doubt the most prestigious of their teachers. He denies that Christ is the "supreme God over all" and instead subordinates him to the Father.

 "Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, "The Father who sent Me is greater than I."" (Contra Celsus, 8.14.)

 Take careful notice that Origen understands St. Joh. 14:28 as a denial that Christ is the supreme God while Athanasius endeavored to apply the text to eternal generation. (Athanasius, Cont. Arian. 13.58.) Origen also identifies the "one God" with the Father alone, to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. 

"Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God, and His only Son, the Word and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications; and we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through His only-begotten Son." (Cont. Cel. 8.13.)

Some say Origen clearly teaches eternal generation and condemns Arian doctrine in De Principiis, where he denies that the Son was begotten from nothing. (De Princip. 4.28.) But this section quotes from fourth century Arian maxims which were not in existence during the time or Origen, which suggests this section was added later. Origen is made to say, "can anyone who has learned to regard God with feelings of reverence suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a single moment, without begetting this wisdom?" Stevenson suggested that these words may be spurious, 

"However, we must note the strikingly anti-Arian tone of this statement, which may indicate that it comes from Rufinus rather than Origen." (Austin Stevenson, The Eternal Generation of the Son (CRUX: Fall 2015, Vol. 51, No. 3), p. 21.) 

We are largely dependent upon the Latin paraphrase of Rufinus for the text of De Principiis, and he was a vehemently anti-Arian translator. In what survives of the original Greek text of Περί Αρχών we find a Christology which is decidedly Homoian in direction.

 "The significant problem must be noted, if not dealt with in any depth here that much of the surviving text of DP is the Latin translation of Rufinus, who, by his own admission, felt at liberty to make certain alterations (See Rufinus, pref. to DP, lxii). As a result the authenticity of particularly anti-Arian or pro-Nicene statements in the text of DP is questionable." (Commentatio St. Joh. 2.6.)

 To the noticeable dismay of Rufinus, it was the custom of Origen to refer to the Son as a "creature" and Rufinus endeavors to obscure these passages in his Latin translation. Origen plainly states that the Son and Spirit are created in his commentary on the fourth Gospel, 

"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's own Son. The Only-begotten only is by nature and from the beginning a Son, and the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His essence, so as to enable Him not only to exist, but to be wise and reasonable and just, and all that we must think of Him as being." (2.6.) 

Of the three hypostases, “we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father.” Hanson commented on the freeness of speech with which Origen would refer to the Son and Spirit as creatures, 

"We can also note that both Origen and Arius described the Son as a 'creature' (ktisma). But here we encounter a difficulty. It is indeed pretty clear, in spite of the efforts of Rufinus in his translation of Peri Archon to disguise the fact, and those of Jerome to exaggerate it, that Origen did in the Peri Archon describe the Son as 'having come into existence' (γενητός) and as a 'creature' (κτίσμα), at a point when nobody distinguished 'having come into existence' (γενητός) from 'begotten' (γεννητός)." (Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 62.)

 Like Justin Martyr before him, Origen calls the Logos a "secondary deity" (δεύτερος θεός) or a deity of second rank. 

"It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that all things were made through Him, must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He… We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." (Commentatio St. Joh. 2.6.)

To say that the "father alone is uncreated" in contrast to the other two hypostases seems very close to Arianism. I should say that Origen is likely the primary source for the subordinationist tendencies of the later Arius of Alexandria.