Does Granville Sharp's Rule indicate that “God” and “Savior” share a referent in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1?

Question

Granville Sharp's rule states that when a clause has two nouns (or other substantive) in the same case, connected by a copulative kai ("and"), that are not proper nouns (i.e. not someone's name), which describe a person, and the first noun has the definite article while the second does not, both nouns are describing the same person. If one or more of the nouns is plural in number, this may not apply but can.

Titus 2:13 (New King James Version)

13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Peter 1:1 (New King James Version)

1...To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Is the Granville Sharp Rule in effect in these verses? What evidence supports and/or refutes the use of this rule as applied to the similar clause in both of these texts?

Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule | Bible.org — Paul Vargas, Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 15:40
Yeah, you aren't going to get a better answer than the Wallace article linked above. He works through what the rule states and doesn't state, goes over undebated examples of when it applies in the NT, and examines Greek outside the Testament (classical and patristic uses). I'd call it an exhaustive article. Wallace writes in his conclusion: "Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that 'God and Savior' refers to one person, Jesus Christ." — Frank Luke, Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 20:46
And, just for the banter, and in case anyone seeing this has as a personal slogan: "ad fontes" - Remarks on the uses of the definitive article.... — Dɑvïd, Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 21:24
@david brainerd - just looking at a couple of them (1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph 1:2), there is no article, so the rule doesn't apply. — Susan, Commented Jul 27, 2014 at 4:52
This Q&A would still benefit from a summary of Wallace's arguments with some assessment, for which Porter's review (see previous comment) would be useful. — Dɑvïd, Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 21:34

Community · Accepted Answer · 2017-04-13 12:47:43Z

From the link posted by Paul Vargas, found here:

Our restatement of Sharp’s rule is believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that Winstanley raised. The “Sharper” rule is as follows:

_

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.

_

This rule, as stated, covers all the so-called exceptions. Further, even the exceptions do not impact the christologically significant passages in the NT, for the semantic situation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 is outside the scope of Winstanley’s counter-illustrations.

_

...

Winer’s opinion notwithstanding, solid linguistic reasons and plenty of phenomenological data were found to support the requirements that Sharp laid down. When substantives meet the requirements of Sharp’s canon, apposition is the result, and inviolably so in the NT. The canon even works outside the twenty-seven books and, hence, ought to be resurrected as a sound principle which has overwhelming validity in all of Greek literature. Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.

In other words, based on the research presented in the above article, Granville Sharp's rule is both valid and applicable in these passages.

Thanks for the condensed version and succinct answer. Is "Sharpe" an alternative spelling or a typo? — C. Kelly, Commented Jan 31, 2016 at 13:00

Revelation Lad · Accepted Answer · 2023-05-19 01:02:37Z

The Validity of Sharp's Rule
Since Granville Sharp identified the rule in 1778, some claim it is 17^th century invention conceived to show the deity of Jesus, an understanding the original writer did not intend. The frivolous nature of this position is clear from the writings of both Peter and Paul:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3 ESV)
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Ephesians 1:3)
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ

In each case the writer composed a TSKS phrase according to the rule Sharp described. The sequence simply identifies one with two attributes. Granville Sharp did not invent this rule; he clarified its use by giving conditions in which the rule does not apply.¹

Titus
In addition to Ephesians Paul used a TSKS phrase with God and Father in Second Corinthians and First Thessalonians. However, in the letter to Titus he begins by using the terms God and Father in a phrase where Sharp's rule does not apply:

To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (Titus 1:4) [ESV]
Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [mGNT]

Rather than write the God and Father, Paul simply wrote θεοῦ πατρὸς, literally God Father or, in English, Father God. By omitting the article with both substantives, Paul begins the letter by identifying two separate: Father God and Christ Jesus. Upon careful examination, Paul also described each individual with plural terminology. One is both God and Father, and the other is both Christ Jesus and our Savior.

When we compare the beginning of the letter to verse 2:13, it is obvious how Paul modified the original statement to compose a TSKS sequence:

Not only does Sharp's Rule correctly describe the structure of 2:13, it is obvious from the beginning of the letter the phrase σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, our Savior, describes Christ Jesus, not Father God.

Furthermore, any potential ambiguity could have easily been avoided:

Use the article in its original position: μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Omit the article: μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Retain the first order of the title or name: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

The construction of 2:13 was deliberately composed to describe one, Jesus Christ, with two attributes: great God and Our Savior. In addition, the phrase great God is unique in the NT and not only does the adjective "great" apply to Christ,²Paul's composition makes no mention of Father. It is fair to say Paul did not want the reader to rely on grammar alone to understand his point.

2 Peter
Peter begins his second letter using a phrase similar to Paul's:³

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, 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)
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

As Paul in Titus, Peter could have avoided any ambiguity present in a TSKS construction:

...τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ [τοῦ] σωτῆρος
...τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
...τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

Simply including the article in the 2^nd substantive, as Paul did, would have no impact on the meaning and eliminates any possibility of confusion which may be present in a TSKS phrase. In other words, as Paul did in Titus, Peter has a purposeful construction to describe Jesus Christ with two different attributes: God and Savior.

Conclusion
As other answers state, Sharps rule applies in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude Paul's TSKS phrase in Titus 2:13 was intentional to clearly state the deity of Jesus Christ.

I would add hermeneutics should also consider the reality a writer had alternative ways to compose a phrase. For anyone arguing Paul and/or Peter did not intend to convey the deity of Jesus Christ, the rebuttal is twofold: 1) why didn't the writer make that statement? 2) why did the writer compose a text which even those who dispute Sharp's Rule acknowledge the potential for ambiguity is present when a simpler composition was available? In the case of Titus a third issue is why would Paul begin the letter by unambiguously describing Christ Jesus as our Savior and later make a statement using that phrase which allegedly now is to be applied to the Father who is not even included in the verse?

_{1. Daniel B. Wallace gives a detailed discussion of the limitations Sharp identified. His article can be found here.}
_{2. Fredrick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 624}
_{3. Later in this letter (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16) Peter makes reference to Paul's writing.}

Regarding τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ ("the great God") see my answer to your question about it here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/47016/35539. — Ryan Stephen, Commented May 4, 2020 at 1:15

Joseph · Accepted Answer · 2015-04-14 19:54:55Z

One presumptive analysis is to view all the grammatical situations extant in the Greek New Testament (NA28) and Septuagint where the following morphological string occurs:

 <START> 
        any definite article (in the genitive case) 
  <WITH> 
        any noun (in the genitive case) 
  <WITH> 
        any possessive pronoun (in the genitive case) 
  <WITH> 
        καί 
  <WITH> 
        any noun (in the genitive case) 
 <END>

The presumption here would be to determine whether or not consistency occurs throughout. In the case of the New Testament (4 instances) the presumptive analysis of morphology appears consistent -- that is, the concatenated words seem to appear as an appositive phrase.

However, in the Septuagint (1 instance), the concatenated words do not seem to appear as an appositive phrase. That is, we read of the servant (Solomon) and people. In this particular instance, however, the words following the phrase "the people" are σου Ισραηλ. These qualifying words, however, seem to appear so that the reader would understand that "people" is in reference to the nation (Israel). In other words, without the qualifying phrase "σου Ισραηλ," the reader might have otherwise inferred --based on the grammatical structure of the sentence-- that the servant and people (both singular nouns) were the same entity.

@Jas3.1 - Would not the example from the LXX be reasonable and relevant to the original question? — Joseph, Commented Apr 13, 2015 at 20:22
@Jas3.1 - no - click here. This example from the LXX carries no ones name, and thus no personal pronouns are involved. I was hoping this example was relevant to the original question.... — Joseph, Commented Apr 13, 2015 at 22:00
Hey, @Joseph I have confirmed your taste for the NASB again. ;-) ¡Saludos! — Paul Vargas, Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 18:20

Robert Evans · Accepted Answer · 2018-10-17 02:39:46Z

After reading the study on Granville Sharp I concluded this: Given that the entire passage at hand has been properly examined via the normative rules of language, context and logic within its respective context without unwarranted restrictions the TSKS construction under review will fit into one of the possible categories listed below:

1) A common (but not equal or unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

2) An equal (but not unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

3) A unique experience / identity of the person or thing referred to, (the referent).

Regarding interpretations of passages that when properly examined do not actually fit Sharp's Rule #1, there are other categories for TDAD / TSKS constructions - five other rules to choose from that Sharp proposed that will fit that passage under examination.

Still working on reviewing this study at biblestudymanuals.net/Deity_of_Christ.htm Please comment. Having trouble authenticating Classic Greek writings, Patristic Writings, and the LXX - mainly due to lack of resources and lack of Greek language skills.