Sharp's Rule (Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:12, 1 Tim.
5:21, Eph. 5:5)
In an attempt to prove
the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often
called "Sharp's Rule" by Trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when
two or more words (nouns) are joined by the word "and" they all refer
to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the
first noun and not before the other noun(s): "THE king AND _master of the
castle."
Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction
(sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with
"God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. IF he could
convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there
was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) absolute
grammatical Bible proof that God and Jesus are the same "person"!
Probably the most telling blow against this 200-year-old controversial rule is
the rejection of it by so many of the most respected trinitarian Bible language
experts. Even Trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace (who desperately tries for some
kind of "absolute" scriptural proof for a trinity idea) complains
that
"so many grammarians and exegetes objected to the validity of Granville
Sharp's Rule with reference to texts dealing with the Deity of Christ"!
He specifically mentions "the great Greek grammarian," G. B. Winer
(trinitarian) and "one of the greatest grammarians of this century,"
J. H. Moulton[1] (trinitarian) as rejecting this
"rule"!
I have also seen that the Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner[2] rejects this rule as do C. F. D. Moule[3] and Henry Alford[4]. Even famed
trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt ("probably the greatest biblical
scholar of our day") showed his rejection of the "absoluteness"
of this rule by his rendering of Titus 2:13.[5]
In fact, even very trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace complains that the common
translation of Titus 2:13 as found in the KJV ("the glorious appearing of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ") treats "`God' and `Savior' separately"! - Emphasis
mine; Compare 2 Peter 1:1, 2 KJV). The same separation can be seen in the ASV
(Titus 2:13), the Douay Version, and the NEB (footnote).
Additionally, at Titus 2:13 the Sahidic Coptic text reads noute. mn penswthr
ihsous pecristos, "God, and our Savior
Jesus Christ." Thus, two Persons are in view, not one and the same. The
Coptic translators did not know of a "Granville Sharp Rule.
And even stranger, perhaps, is the fact that, even though Wallace's examples
show Paul using "Sharp's rule" many times, John (who most
trinitarians consider the Bible writer who most frequently and most clearly
"declares Jesus' deity" and who, undeniably, is the only Gospel
writer who ever actually applied the term theos ["God" or "god"]
directly to Jesus) never uses Sharp's "Rule" to show Jesus' alleged
equality with god!
And we can see John's understanding of Jesus' relationship to God at John 17:1,
3; John 20:17; Rev. 1:6 (RSV - Compare Rev. 5:9, 10); Rev. 3:12.
There are many places where (if the trinity doctrine were really true, and if
Sharp's rule really worked "absolutely") John should have used the
"Rule." For example, see Rev. 14:4 - "the firstfruits to the God
and to the Lamb." (Compare Rev. 7:10 and examine Revelation chapters 4 and
5.)
If Sharp's "Rule" is the only way (as even Wallace admits) that one
can find even four passages which show with "absolute grammatical
certainty" that "Jesus Christ is God," then the "Jesus =
God" concept is actually grammatically uncertain in all of the Bible.
Certainly this would not be the case in God's inspired word if Jesus were
really equally God! - 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
NOTES
1. J. H. Moulton's A Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 84, Vol. 1, says: "We cannot discuss here the problem of Titus 2:13, for we must, as grammarians, leave the matter open ...." As a trinitarian, however, he later tried to justify a trinitarian interpretation of Titus 2:13 "historically" (rather than grammatically) by citing certain 7th century A. D. manuscripts. This certainly shows that Moulton ("one of the greatest grammarians of this century" according to Wallace himself) did not reject Sharp's "Rule" because of a "theological bias" as Wallace claims (p. 102), but, in spite of a strong trinitarian "theological bias" rejected Sharp's "Rule" on grammatical grounds even though he preferred (for inadequate "historical" reasons and a theological trinitarian bias) a trinitarian interpretation of Titus 2:13.
2. The Roman Catholic scholar, Karl Rahner, commenting on 2 Peter 1:1, says that `God' "here is clearly separated from `Christ'." - Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol.1, 3rd printing: 1965.
3. According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."
4. Famed British NT scholar and trinitarian
clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which
clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the
grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and
contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's
[Paul's] way of writing." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol.
3. And,
“I have fully discussed the question in the
note on [Titus 2:13], to which I would refer the reader as my justification for
interpreting here [2 Peter 1:1], as there, [‘the god of us’] of the Father, and
[‘savior jesus christ’] of the Son.” - p. 390, Vol. 4.
5. "Of the
Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ
Jesus" - Titus 2:13,The Bible, A New Translation by Dr.
James Moffatt, Professor of New Testament Greek at Oxford University.
------------------------------------------------------------------