Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?
From the Doctrine of the Trinity – Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound
pp 279-281
Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1
A number of contemporary discussions advance the so-called “Granville Sharp’s rule” to support their claim that Jesus is called “the great God and Savior” in Titus 2:13. Sharp contended that when the Greek word kai (and) joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to one subject. Hence the disputed verse should read “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” and not as the King James Version has it, “...the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The rule about the omission of the article, however, cannot be relied on to settle the matter. As Nigel Turner (who writes as a Trinitarian) says:
Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even where there is clearly a separation in idea. “The repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately”
(Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. III, p. 181. The reference is to Titus 2:13).[1]
(Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. III, p. 181. The reference is to Titus 2:13).[1]
Since the absence of a second article is not decisive, it is natural to see here the appearing of God’s glory as it is displayed in His Son at the Second Coming. There is an obvious parallel with Matthew’s description of the arrival of Jesus in power: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels” (Matt. 16:27 ). Since the Father confers His glory upon the Son (as He will also share it with the saints), it is most appropriate that Father and Son should be closely linked. Paul had only a few verses earlier spoken of “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4 ).
A wide range of grammarians and biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called “the great God.” At best, the argument is “dubious.”[2] ...
The same grammatical problem faces expositors in 2 Peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called “God” in this verse. For him the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ. The writer of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agreed that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly relied upon as decisive.”[4]
A Trinitarian writer of the last century was much less generous to those who sought proof of the Deity of Christ in the omission of the article: “Some eminently pious and learned scholars…have so far overstretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the ‘honor of the Son,’ were not aware that they were rather engaged in ‘dishonoring the Father.’”[5]
The last statement may in fact be true of the whole effort of orthodoxy to make Jesus equal in every sense to the Father.
[1] Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), 16. An unfortunate misprint occurs in Nigel Turner’s statement. The word “not” is omitted before “repeated,” reversing Turner’s intention to point out that the article does not have to be repeated to separate two distinct subjects. We had ample opportunity to discuss this matter with the late Dr. Turner.
[2] See Raymond Brown, Jesus, God and Man, 15-18.
[4] A.E. Humphreys, The Epistles to Timothy & Titus (Cambridge University Press, 1895), 225.
[5] Granville Penn, Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant, 146, cited in Wilson,Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, 431.
A wide range of grammarians and biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called “the great God.” At best, the argument is “dubious.”[2] ...
The same grammatical problem faces expositors in 2 Peter 1:1. Henry Alford is one of many Trinitarians who argue that Jesus is not called “God” in this verse. For him the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in Titus 2:13, by the much more significant fact that both Peter and Paul normally distinguish clearly between God and Jesus Christ. The writer of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges agreed that “the rule that the one article indicates the one subject… [cannot] be too strongly relied upon as decisive.”[4]
A Trinitarian writer of the last century was much less generous to those who sought proof of the Deity of Christ in the omission of the article: “Some eminently pious and learned scholars…have so far overstretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the ‘honor of the Son,’ were not aware that they were rather engaged in ‘dishonoring the Father.’”[5]
The last statement may in fact be true of the whole effort of orthodoxy to make Jesus equal in every sense to the Father.
[1] Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965), 16. An unfortunate misprint occurs in Nigel Turner’s statement. The word “not” is omitted before “repeated,” reversing Turner’s intention to point out that the article does not have to be repeated to separate two distinct subjects. We had ample opportunity to discuss this matter with the late Dr. Turner.
[2] See Raymond Brown, Jesus, God and Man, 15-18.
[4] A.E. Humphreys, The Epistles to Timothy & Titus (Cambridge University Press, 1895), 225.
[5] Granville Penn, Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant, 146, cited in Wilson,Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, 431.
