Table of Contents
1. What is the Granville Sharp’s Rule?
2. Does Granville Sharp’s Rule Apply to Plural Nouns and Proper Names?
3. Why such criteria’s?
4. “The King and Queen” is 1 Person?
5. Exceptions?
6. 2 Thessalonians 1:12 – Sharp’s Rule?
7. Ephesians 5:5 – Sharp’s Rule?
8. KJV and Granville Sharp’s Rule
What is the Granville Sharp’s Rule?
In 1798, Granville Sharp, an English scholar and theologian, published a groundbreaking monograph titled Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version. This detailed study focused on how the Greek definite article—particularly in combination with the conjunction kai (meaning “and”)—was used in the New Testament to reference the deity of Jesus Christ.
Sharp meticulously examined the use of the Greek language across the 27 books of the New Testament, identifying six distinct ways in which the article kai appears in reference to Christ’s divine nature. Among these findings, the most significant and influential was rule 1, which became known as the Granville Sharp Rule.
Although native Greek speakers in the early Christian centuries would have instinctively understood this grammatical pattern, Sharp was the first to formally analyze and document it in writing. His work offered new theological insights and reinforced key doctrines of Christian belief, particularly the divine nature of Jesus Christ as expressed in the original Greek texts.
Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:
“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 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: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.”
(Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, p. 3.)
The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp’s work is this: Sharp’s rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is not intended to be applied to proper names. His rule only applies to persons, not things. As you can see, Granville Sharp’s rule is much more limited in its scope than the more modern definitions reveal.
Here what the NET footnotes on Jude 1:4 says:
The terms “Master and Lord” both refer to the same person. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper nouns), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the (article) friend (noun) and (kai) brother (noun),” “the (article) God (noun) and (kai) Father (noun),” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. For more discussion see ExSyn 270-78. See also Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1″
Also the NET footnote in 2 Peter 1:1 (same fn for Titus 2:13) says:
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
Later scholars, most notably Daniel B. Wallace in modern times, rigorously re-examined Sharp’s claims. After thorough analysis of every instance in the Greek New Testament where the construction applies, they confirmed Sharp’s accuracy. Wallace, in particular, affirmed that there is not a single counterexample in the entire New Testament where Sharp’s rule fails when the specified conditions are met.
This consistency lends significant weight to theological interpretations that rely on this grammatical structure—especially in affirming the deity of Christ in key passages such as Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”) and 2 Peter 1:1.
To sum it all up:
- Two nouns (or noun phrases) are joined by the Greek copulative καὶ (“and”).
- Both nouns are in the same case (usually the nominative or genitive).
- The definite article (ὁ, ἡ, τό, or their cases) precedes the first noun only. The second noun has no article before it.
- Both nouns are singular (not plural).
- Both nouns are personal (referring to persons, not things).
- Neither noun is a proper name.
The construction implies that both nouns refer to the same person, with the second noun providing a further description or attribute of the first.
Important Clarification – Rule 6, John 20:28
However, it’s crucial to note what Sharp’s rule does not claim. While his rule clearly shows that the absence of a second article implies a single person, the presence of a second article (article + noun + kai + article + noun) does not automatically indicate two different persons. The context remains essential. For example, in John 20:28, Thomas exclaims to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”—a construction that uses the article with both nouns, yet unmistakably refers to one person.
Here is what Sharp says regarding his 6th rule:
RULE VI. And as the insertion of the copulative και between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles: as in the following examples…Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeably to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule, or even to the fifth, (for, this exception relates to both rules,) the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate: as in…John, xx. 28. Και απεκριθη ο Θωμας, και ειπεν αυτω Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ μου ΚΑΙ Ο ΘΕΟΣ μου.If the two nouns (viz. ο Κυριος and ο Θεος) were the leading nominative substantives of a sentence, they would express the descriptive qualities or dignities of two distinct persons, according to the sixth rule; but, in this last text, two distinct divine characters are applied to one person only; for, the context clearly expresses to whom the words were addressed by Thomas: which perspicuity in the address clearly proves, likewise, the futility of that gloss for which the Arians and Socinians contend; viz. that Thomas could not mean that Christ was his God, but only uttered, in his surprise, a solemn exclamation or ejaculation to God. The text, however, expressly relates that our Lord first addressed himself to Thomas:ειτα λεγει τω Θωμα, φερε τον δακτυλον σε ὧδε, &c. και απεκριθη ο Θωμας και ειπεν αυτω, (that is, without doubt, to JESUS,) ο Κυριος μου, και ο Θεος μου.So that both these distinct titles (for, they are plainly mentioned as distinct) were manifestly addressed, αυτω, to that one person, Jesus, to whom Thomas replied, as the text expressly informs us.
This means that while Sharp’s rule has a consistent, one-directional application (i.e., when there is only one article), it does not automatically work in reverse to imply separation in all cases with two articles. Interpretive context remains essential.
Does Granville Sharp’s Rule Apply to Plural Nouns and Proper Names?
Some scholars argue that Granville Sharp’s rule, which is famously without exception when applied to singular personal nouns, might also apply to plural nouns. They appeal to a statement by Sharp found early in his monograph:
“There is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, except that nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions; though there are not wanting examples, even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable to this rule.”
— Granville Sharp, Remarks, p. 6
They interprets this to mean that Sharp extended his rule to include plural constructions. However, this reading overstates Sharp’s intent. Sharp’s rule was carefully limited, and the inclusion of plurals in this statement is far more incidental than central.
Granville Sharp explicitly restricted his rule to apply to singular, personal, non-proper nouns. The core of his formulation appears on page 3 of his monograph:
“…the latter always relates to the same person… i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.”
This wording makes it clear: the rule applies when the construction involves a single person being described by two personal nouns, joined by kai (and), and with only one article preceding the first noun. Plural nouns fall outside this framework.
The Misreading of Sharp’s Note
When Sharp mentions that “there are not wanting examples… of plural nouns” that follow the same pattern, he uses the word “though”, indicating that this is a side point, not a core part of his rule. Porter’s citation omits the word though, which significantly alters the tone and intent of Sharp’s original statement.
Here’s an example I read before:
“All land-based animals breathe air. There are no exceptions to this rule. Though, some water-based animals (e.g., whales) also breathe air,”
Would it be fair to say that my rule now applies equally to water animals?
Of course not. The original statement was about land animals. The mention of whales is an aside—not a redefinition of the rule.
The same logic applies to Sharp’s statement. He notes in passing that some plural constructions seem to follow the same pattern, but this does not expand the actual rule to cover plurals.
Importantly, none of Sharp’s own examples from the New Testament involve plural nouns (see pp. 4–5 of his monograph). Every one of them follows the pattern of singular, personal nouns.
Thus, while plural constructions (article + noun + kai + noun) may sometimes refer to the same group (as in Ephesians 4:11 or Matthew 3:7), they do not fall under the rule as Sharp defined it. The fact that he observed a few similar cases does not change the grammatical scope of the rule.
All Sharp is doing is making an aside when he notes that some plural nouns appear to follow a similar pattern. However, the rule itself is explicitly intended for singular personal nouns. This is clear when we return to Sharp’s original formulation of the rule on page 3, where he refers specifically to “the same person” in the singular:
“…the latter always relates to the same person… i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.”
The mere observation that some plural nouns in article + noun + kai + noun constructions sometimes refer to the same group does not alter the fact that the rule strictly concerns singular nouns.
Why such criteria’s?
Thomas Fanshaw Middleton (1769-1822)
Middleton, one of the first scholars who supported Sharp’s rule, tried to explain why certain nouns are excluded from this rule. He focused on why proper names, impersonal nouns, and plural nouns could not follow the same pattern as personal singular nouns. Middleton’s arguments were rooted in semantic and phenomenological reasoning—the nature of the nouns themselves.
Proper Names
- Middleton argued that proper names (e.g., “John” and “Thomas”) cannot follow Sharp’s rule because they are used to identify rather than describe. Proper names point to specific individuals, but they do not inherently carry descriptive attributes. In other words, the names “John” and “Thomas” refer to two distinct individuals and cannot be used together to describe the same individual in the same way that personal common nouns can. In Greek, proper names serve to distinguish individuals rather than convey descriptive qualities. For example, “John” and “Thomas” can never refer to one person under Sharp’s rule because each proper name inherently denotes a different person, and proper names do not overlap in reference unless contextually specified. Middleton’s argument is that proper names, due to their identifying function, cannot be predicated of the same individual in the way that common nouns can. Proper names like Σαῦλος (Saul) and Παῦλος (Paul) are distinct identifiers for the same person, but the key point is that they don’t describe or define the person in the same way that descriptive nouns (like “Lord” and “Savior”) might. When you use two proper names like this, each name is just identifying a person—it’s not describing them. Therefore, they can’t be linked together in the same way two descriptive titles can be under Sharp’s rule. Granville Sharp’s rule works when you are using descriptive nouns (like “Lord” and “Savior”), which describe the same person from different perspectives. But proper names are only identifiers, so saying “the Paul and Saul” wouldn’t have the same meaning as “the Lord and Savior” (where “Lord” and “Savior” describe different aspects of the same person).
Impersonal Nouns
- Impersonal nouns—those that describe abstract concepts or inanimate objects—are also excluded from Sharp’s rule. Words like “truth” or “justice” don’t refer to a specific, identifiable person or object, making it impossible for two such nouns to refer to the same referent. Impersonal nouns have referential meaning but lack the connotative richness of personal singular nouns. They primarily describe ideas or states of being, not concrete individuals or entities. Middleton contended that such nouns could not follow the same pattern as personal nouns because they often don’t function in a way that allows them to denote the same specific entity when joined by the conjunction “και”. In the example of “truth” and “justice”, these terms may overlap in their meaning conceptually, but they don’t refer to the same individual or entity in a personal or tangible way.
Plural nouns
- Plural nouns present a more complex case. While personal singular nouns typically refer to a single individual, plural nouns refer to groups of individuals. This makes the use of two plural nouns in the TSKS construction a rare occurrence, as there is a much lower likelihood that both plural terms would refer to the same group or individual. For instance, consider a sentence where the plural nouns “men” and “kings” are connected by “και”. It’s highly unlikely that this construction would refer to a single group of people. In contrast, personal singular nouns often refer to one individual, making them far more likely to share the same referent in a TSKS construction. Middleton highlighted that the plural form’s semantic function (referring to a group, not an individual) fundamentally differentiates it from singular personal nouns in the way Sharp’s rule operates.
The Statistical Evidence
The statistics provided serve to highlight how different types of nouns behave in TSKS constructions:
- Personal proper names in the NT: About a dozen. None of them has an identical referent in the TSKS construction.
- Impersonal nouns: Close to 50. Only one unambiguously has the same referent.
- Plural substantives: More than 70. A little more than a third have an identical referent in the TSKS construction.
- TSKS constructions fitting Sharp’s rule: 80 examples. All of these constructions appear to have an identical referent.
From these numbers, it’s clear that personal singular nouns are the ones most consistently adhering to Sharp’s rule, whereas proper names, impersonal nouns, and plural substantives do not follow the same pattern nearly as consistently. This evidence makes a strong case for the idea that Sharp’s rule is not arbitrary—it reflects an inherent principle of NT Greek grammar.
Exceptions?
Aristotle
A well-known example is found in Aristotle’s phrase:
“the disciplined and undisciplined man” (τὸν σώφρονα καὶ ἀκόλαστον).
There’s 2 ways to answer this, the first being the same answer we will gave for “the king and queen.” below, namely that these terms are contradictory without having an possibility that this can refer to the same person. Likewise here, disciplined and undisciplined are clearly contradictory terms and fall out the boundaries of the rule which presupposes the possibility of identical referent.
Secondly, here, both substantives are singular, but they are used in a universal sense, referring not to one particular disciplined or undisciplined man, but rather to the general qualities of people who embody these characteristics. As Calvin Winstanley observes, these singular nouns, although they represent personal qualities, are clearly employed in a generic or universal sense. He acknowledges that while these nouns may seem to fit the basic framework of Sharp’s rule (two singular personal nouns joined by “και”), they do not carry the same grammatical weight or referential specificity. Therefore, such examples may be seen as inapplicable to the rule. In other words, though they are grammatically singular (“discipled man”), it is semantically plural (“the undisciplined men”).
Sharp himself, in his original writings, focused on specific personal references — usually theological — where the identity of a single individual (e.g., Jesus Christ as “God and Savior”) was the question at hand. He did not provide a formal linguistic limitation excluding generic nouns, but his practical concern was always with definite, identifiable persons — not generic types. That is he did not address or analyze generic use cases like Aristotle’s — nor did he include generic constructions in his rule’s domain. He observed this grammatical phenomenon in NT texts with a clear referential function: i.e., describing one person with two titles.
This isn’t something Sharp made explicit — but it is inferred from:
- The use cases he studied,
- The kinds of nouns he included,
- And the purpose of the rule (theological and referential clarity).
The Aristotelian phrase isn’t a counterexample to Sharp’s Rule because Sharp’s Rule never claimed to apply to such generic constructions. So instead of violating the rule, it lies outside the scope of the rule.
Proverbs 24:21 LXX
φοβοῦ τὸν θεόν υἱέ καὶ βασιλέα καὶ μηθετέρῳ αὐτῶν ἀπειθήσῃς
“Son, fear God and the king; and do not disobey either of them“
First Explanation: Translational Inconsistency and Oversight
The translator may have started with a more idiomatic or dynamic rendering for יהוה (YHWH) by using ὁ θεός (“the God”). Even though יהוה lacks the article in Hebrew, it is inherently definite, often translated in LXX with an article. But when translating מלךְ (“king”), the translator slipped into a more literal rendering, without the article, producing βασιλέα. This inconsistency could be due to the interruption caused by the vocative υἱέ, which might have disrupted the translator’s attention or syntax or a lack of precision, which was common in LXX translations, especially in the later books like Proverbs. This explanation assumes accidental inconsistency driven by the complexities of translating Hebrew into Greek.
Second Explanation: Vocative Disruption
Vocative υἱέ is syntactically unrelated to the two accusative nouns. In TSKS (article-substantive–καί–substantive) constructions, intervening words (like possessive pronouns or adjectives) are usually subordinate to the main nouns. But here, the vocative isn’t subordinate — it breaks the flow of the construction. Therefore, the translator might have consciously avoided unifying θεόν and βασιλέα with the article because the vocative broke the tight TSKS construction. This explanation says: the vocative disrupts the normal TSKS syntax, so the translator may have intentionally dropped the article from the second noun to avoid ambiguity.
Strabo’s Kings
“The fourth and the seventh” (ὁ τέταρτος καὶ ἕβδομος)
Sharp’s Rule would suggest these refer to the same person. But they clearly don’t: they refer to two different Ptolemies.
Ordinal numbers behave like proper names — they identify but don’t describe. They are inherently definite, so the article is often omitted or inconsistently applied. Strabo adds ὁ ὕστατος (“the last”) with the article — possibly because that could be confused with the seventh, so the article helps clarify. This use is supported by other authors, like Sophocles, where ordinals also omit the article selectively.
Ordinal numerals are a special grammatical class that Sharp’s Rule doesn’t govern well. They are used to denote sequence, not to link referents. Thus, they fall outside the scope of Sharp’s construction.
“The King and Queen” is 1 Person?
Some critics of the Granville Sharp Rule argue that it cannot be universally applied, pointing to phrases like “the king and queen.” They claim that this construction mirrors the rule’s structure — two singular nouns connected by καὶ (“and”), with only one article before the first noun — yet still refers to two distinct individuals, not one. Therefore, they argue, the rule does not prove singular identity and cannot be relied on in passages where theological conclusions (such as the deity of Christ) are at stake.
This objection collapses under scrutiny because it misrepresents what the Granville Sharp Rule actually requires. The rule is not triggered by just any two nouns joined by καὶ with a single article. It requires a precise set of grammatical and semantic conditions, including the critical condition that it must be possible for both nouns to refer to one person.
The phrase “the king and queen” (Greek: ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ βασίλισσα) fails the rule on multiple fronts:
- Gender disagreement: βασιλεὺς is masculine, βασίλισσα is feminine. In Greek, gender matters for agreement. A single person cannot simultaneously carry titles of conflicting grammatical genders.
- Semantic exclusivity: “King” and “queen” represent distinct, mutually exclusive roles. They are inherently understood to refer to different people — a male monarch and a female consort or sovereign.
- Impossibility of referent identity: Because of these two points, it is not logically or linguistically possible for one person to be both “king” and “queen” in this construction. Thus, the key condition of referent identity is broken.
This means the phrase is not a counterexample to the Granville Sharp Rule — it is a case to which the rule simply does not apply. A person cannot hold both titles simultaneously whereas a person can hold “God and Saviour” simultaneously. So it falls outside the Rule.
As an example, let’s use something super familiar—say, the rule for driving speed limits. Presupposing that this rule is always true, here’s how it could go, laid out in premises.
Premise one: If a vehicle is driving over sixty miles per hour, then it is breaking the speed limit.
Premise two: This car is driving at seventy miles per hour.
Conclusion: Therefore, this car is breaking the speed limit.
Now, on the surface, that reasoning looks airtight. But here’s the catch—it presupposes that the car is on a road where sixty miles per hour is actually the limit. If the car is on a highway where the limit is seventy-five, then the whole argument falls apart. The rule doesn’t apply because it assumed something that wasn’t true in that case. So even though the reasoning followed the correct form, it had a hidden presupposition—that the speed limit was sixty. If that’s not true, the rule doesn’t apply. It’s just like the Granville Sharp Rule. It only applies if it’s possible for both nouns to refer to the same person. If that’s not possible—like with ‘the king and queen’—then the rule simply isn’t relevant, even if the sentence structure looks right.”
Conclusion
Critics who appeal to “the king and queen” as a counterexample misunderstand how narrowly defined the Granville Sharp Rule actually is. The rule requires not only grammatical alignment but also referent compatibility. Where the rule does apply — such as in constructions referring to “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” — it does so with full grammatical integrity. The distinction, therefore, is not one of theological preference, but of grammatical precision.
2 Thessalonians 1:12 – Sharps rule?
2 Thessalonians 1:12 – “του Θεού ημων και κυριου ιησου Χριστόυ” (our God and Lord Jesus Christ)
2 Peter 1:1 – “του Θεού ημων και σωτῆρος ιησου Χριστόυ” (our God and Savior Jesus Christ)
These 2 verses are identical in the Greek with the exception of one word. So if 2 Peter 1:1 is translated as the Granville Sharp’s rule (our God and Savior Jesus Christ. NKJV), Why is 2 Thess 1:12 not the Granville’s Sharp’s rule (our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. NKJV)?
First of all, there are many translations that translate the Greek literally, as referring to 1 person:
Names of God (NOG)
Evangelic Heritage Version (EHV)
Exegesis Companion Bible (ECB)
Gods World translation (GWT)
New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Wilber Pickering New Testament (WPNT)
Youngs Literal Translation (YLT)
Secondly, many scholars argue for this position:
“In these circumstances there seems no reason why the ordinary laws of grammar should not determine our understanding of II Thess. i. 12. We may set it down here, therefore, with its parallels in Tit. ii. 13 and II Pet. i. 1 in which the same general phrasing even more clearly carries this sense.
(Benjamin Brickeridge Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pp. 190)
So why do others take the opposite view? A reason is given for the opposite view, ie. that they view κυριος as a proper name and therefore doesn’t fall under Sharp’s rule:
“Of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ (του θεου ημων κα κυριου Ιησου Χριστου). Here STRICT syntax requires, since there is only one article with θεου and κυριου that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (Robertson, Grammar, p.786). This otherwise conclusive syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by the fact that Κυριος is often employed as a proper name without the article, a thing not true of σωτηρ in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1. So in Ephesians 5:5 εν τη βασιλεια του Χριστου και θεου the natural meaning is in the Kingdom of Christ and God regarded as one, but here again θεος, like Κυριος, often occurs as a proper name without the article. So it has to be admitted that here Paul may mean “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” though he may also mean “according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
(Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (A.T. Robertson), 2 Thessalonians)
Daniel Wallace Greek beyond the Basics, p. 276 footnote 55 says:
“It is somewhat surprising that many scholars (most notably, R. Bultmann) have embraced 2 Thess 1:12 as an explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity. Only by detaching κυριου from ιησου Χριστόυ could one apply Sharp’s rule to this construction. But significantly, Middleton, whose Doctrine of the Greek Article was the first major work to support Sharp’s rule, rejects 2 Thess 1:12, arguing that (1) κυριον should not be detached from ιησου Χριστόυ since the whole forms a common title in the epistles, thus partaking of the properties of a proper name; and (2) although Greek patristic writers employed the wording of Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 on numerous occasions to affirm the deity of Christ, they have hardly noticed this passage (Doctrine of the Greek Article, 379-82). Cf. also Matthews Syntax, 228-29, for modern linguistic arguments related to gradations of apposition (in 2 Thess 1:12 most exegetes would see “Lord Jesus Christ” as constituting a “close apposition”)
Ephesians 5:5 – Sharp’s rule?
Certain scholars are hesitant to view this (Eph 5:5) as another place where the risen Lord is expressly called God on the grounds that they interpret/understand either the title Christos (“Christ”) functions as a proper name of Jesus in this text, or that “Theos” (God) functions as a proper name for the Father; and Sharp’s rule excludes proper nouns. On the other hand, though Christos has the force of a proper name in respect to Jesus in certain passages, this is not always the case. More importantly, there are thousands of instances in the writings of the early Greek fathers where Ephesians 5:5, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are all quoted as places where Jesus is expressly called God. As Evangelical NT textual scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace noted:
49 As was mentioned earlier, we believe that Eph 5:5 is the only other christologically significant text in which Sharp’s rule might be valid. But the main reason we have not altogether denied its validity is that although Christos is used in the construction, the Greek patristic writers uniformly see the text as applying to one person. (Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, p. 251)
Although many modern scholars and translations take the former view, the early Church take the latter. I don’t mind taking either view since either way Granville Sharps is still not effected and proves Christ is still God from other passages.
Apart from the question as to whether unorthodox writers also used such texts, what seems to be significant is the fact that the patristic writers did not invoke the language of 1 Tim 5:21 or 2 Thess 1:12 in their appeals to Christ’s deity—the very passages which have proper names and are thus not valid examples of Sharp’s rule. Thus, the singular construction which does not involve proper names seems to be a genuine idiom in the language.
For more information visit https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/ephesians-55-another-example-of-granville-sharps-first-rule/
KJV and Granville Sharp’s Rule
“…the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:” – 2 Peter 1:1 KJV
Because the Elizabethan English is not as familiar to us, many misunderstood the KJV’s renderings of the Granville Sharps as a reference to 2 individuals (Even Granville Sharps himself had a problem with the way the KJV rendered these texts [“…this (Jude 4) in the common english version (KJV) is perfectly rendered…” (54), not that it doesn’t convey that Jesus is both, or all 3, but that it could have been rendered better). However, we know this is nonsense because not only were the KJV translators die-hard trinitarians (cf. Acts 7:59 where they italicised God for Christ to show greater clarity eventhough its not in the Greek), but that would actually prove our point since this is the way the Elizabethan English language worked:
Gal 1:4 – “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:”
Phil 4:20 – “Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Thess 1:3 – “…in the sight of God and our Father;”
1 Thess 3:11 – “Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord (ο κύριος ημων) Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.”
Rev 1:6 – “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
(For “God and THE Father” see Eph 5:20; Col 3:17; James 1:27).
Are these texts saying that God and Father are 2 distinct persons? If so, it would only prove the trinitarian point, especially Rev 1:6, which the KJV renders the Greek literally (“τω θεώ και πατρι αυτού (of him)”). By the same logic, this can legitimately be taken as a reference to Christ the God and His Father. Without having properly understanding Elizabethan English nuances, anyone can misinterpret these texts.
Although the Granville Sharp Rule was formulated by an 18th century scholar, the principle underlying it was already known in the time of the KJV translators. Theodore Beza wrote the following annotation to 2 Peter 1:1 in his 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus:
“Dei nostri & salvatoris, etc. του θεου ημων και σωτηρος, etc. We need to read this conjunctively because there is only one article; as more fully stated in Tit. 2.13, this place also contains a clear testimony of the divinity of Christ.”
Theodore Beza’s Iesu Christi Domini nostri Novum Testamentum p.479
Since this principle was known in the 16th century, the KJV translators could have translated these verses as in the modern translations if they wished to. Although Granville Sharp refined this principle with other parameters, there was already enough insight in the 16th century that “God” and “Saviour” were to be “read conjunctively”. There is no basis to the criticism that the KJV translators were ignorant of the principle given that this annotation appears in the very Greek text from which the KJV translators translated into English. As Beza demonstrates, the rule may be valuable for hermeneutic purposes. However, incorporating the rule into the translation itself (Tit 2:13) may lead to some undesirable consequences.
The Distinction of Definiteness in Titus 2:13: A Closer Look at “The Great God”
Titus 2:13 contains a profound theological statement that has generated considerable discussion among biblical scholars and translators. The verse in Greek reads: “του μεγάλου θεου και σωτήρος ημων ιησου χριστου”. The King James Version translates this literally as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” However, many modern translations, such as the ESV, render it as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” applying Granville Sharp’s rule. This rule, rooted in Greek grammar, suggests that when two singular, personal nouns are connected by “και” (and) and the first noun has the definite article while the second does not, both nouns typically refer to the same person.
While the application of Granville Sharp’s rule sharpens the Christological claim that Jesus is both God and Savior, this interpretive move may obscure a subtle but significant theological distinction present in the Greek text. Specifically, it minimizes the force of the definite article του (“the”) before θεου (“God”).
In this context, the definite article may serve a unique grammatical and theological function. According to Daniel Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 223–224), the article can function either as a monadic article or as an article par excellence. A monadic article identifies a noun as a one-of-a-kind entity, while an article par excellence highlights the noun as the most preeminent of its kind. In either case, the use of του before θεου underscores God’s uniqueness and supremacy.
This grammatical distinction means the text identifies God as “the great God”—not merely our God, nor one among others, but the only true and supreme God. By contrast, the Savior is described in more relational terms as “our Savior,” which reflects a personal, covenantal relationship specific to believers. He is our Savior—but God is the God of all, believers and non-believers alike.
Therefore, while translations influenced by Granville Sharp’s rule rightly emphasize the divinity of Christ, they may inadvertently diminish the grandeur and supremacy implied in the phrase “the great God.” Jesus Christ is not merely our great God; He is the great God—sovereign over all creation. In prioritizing a grammatical rule that enhances Christological clarity, these translations may unintentionally obscure an important theological truth about the nature and supremacy of God as expressed in the original Greek.