2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

by towerwatchman 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

towerwatchman

Earnest
towerwatchman: It is all very well citing Granville Sharp's rule but it should be noted that he stated his rule in a work entitled "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". So the purpose of his rule was to establish the divinity of Christ.
Yes it was, but does the purpose of the work disqualify the work?
You mention that an exception to the rule is when it applies to proper names. You will note another exception in my previous post in Proverbs 4:21.
Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."
Note ‘and do not disobey either of them.’ Identifies more than one person. For you theory to work it should read ‘and do not disobey him.’
You will also note exceptions in the first and second letters to Timothy which I cite in my previous post where it refers to [the] God and Christ Jesus. I don't think anyone has supported the view that in those verses both "God" and "Christ" should be applied to the same person, Jesus.
True, to a point. Jesus is the proper name, Christ is a title. When put together what is being communicated is ‘Jesus the Christ.’ Also note there is only on Christ.
1 Ti 1:11 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,
1:2 …God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus
1:14 … which are in Christ Jesus.
1:15… that Christ Jesus…
1:16,2:5, 3:13, 4:6, 5:21, 6:3, 6:13, 2 Timothy 1:1, 1:2, 1:9, 1:10, 1:13, 2:1, 2:3, 2:8,2:10, 3:12, 3:15, 4:1, 4:22.
In line with this Georg B. Winer maintains in his work on Greek grammar that another exception is the clause in Titus 2:13 [...the great God] and Saviour ... Christ Jesus as there is no ambiguity the two are distinct. The alternative is to suggest that Peter is referring to Jesus Christ as God the Father.
If Peter is referring to Jesus as the Father that would be modalism, goes against the gospels where Jesus repeatedly distinguishes Himself from the Father. Now if there is any doubt, then follow what Winer wrote, Titus 2:13 has no ambiguity, Paul is affirming the deity of Jesus. Supports 2 Pe 1:1 as proof of deity.
Earnest

Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."
towerwatchman Note ‘and do not disobey either of them.’ Identifies more than one person.
That is exactly the reason this verse is another exception to Granville Sharp's rule: "when you have two nouns [the God and king] ... and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person".
In this verse it is absolutely clear that the two nouns do not refer to the same person. Hence an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.
towerwatchman If Peter is referring to Jesus as the Father that would be modalism, goes against the gospels where Jesus repeatedly distinguishes Himself from the Father.
Exactly. When [the] God is used without qualification it refers to God the Father (as in John 1:1), so 2 Peter 1:1 cannot be referring to the same person regardless of Granville Sharp and his rule.
towerwatchman Now if there is any doubt, then follow what Winer wrote, Titus 2:13 has no ambiguity, Paul is affirming the deity of Jesus.
You misunderstand what G.B. Winer wrote. He said in A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek (trans. W. F. Moulton, 1882),162
In Tit. ii. 13 considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that Saviour is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with God, - Christ being first called the great God and then Saviour. The article is omitted before Saviour, because this word is defined by the genitive of us, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Similarly in 2 P. i 1, where there is not even a pronoun with Saviour.
towerwatchman

Earnst.
That is exactly the reason this verse is another exception to Granville Sharp's rule: "when you have two nouns [the God and king] ... and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person". In this verse it is absolutely clear that the two nouns do not refer to the same person. Hence an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*.
"My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king, and do not disobey either of them."
If God and king are not proper names, who are they referring to?
Psalm the God and King ????
2 Peter the God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply.
Exactly. When [the] God is used without qualification it refers to God the Father (as in John 1:1), so 2 Peter 1:1 cannot be referring to the same person regardless of Granville Sharp and his rule.
Wrong Theos with or without the definite article can refer to God the Father. It all depends on the text.
n Tit. ii. 13 considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that Saviour is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with God, - Christ being first called the great God and then Saviour. The article is omitted before Saviour, because this word is defined by the genitive of us, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Similarly in 2 P. i 1, where there is not even a pronoun with Saviour.
I would stay away from anything that starts with “considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe” you are reading opinion.
Note the genitive of us is not Savoir but God and Savior.
Earnest

towerwatchman : Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply [to Proverbs 24:21 LXX]
Why not?
towerwatchman : Wrong Theos with or without the definite article can refer to God the Father. It all depends on the text
What I said was that when [the] God is used without qualification it refers to God the Father (as in John 1:1). When it is used without the definite article it may refer to God the Father or to other gods, or it may be qualitative.
towerwatchman : I would stay away from anything that starts with “considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe” you are reading opinion.
Again you misunderstand the point G.B. Winer is making. He is saying that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 can be read in both ways, that God and Saviour can be understood as referring to one person or that God is referring to one and Saviour to another. Whoever reads those verses has an opinion as to the correct understanding. Winer is saying that considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead him to believe that those verses are referring to both God and Jesus Christ. I concur.
I would also add that if you were to read 2 Peter 1:1 as referring to Jesus Christ as God, it is the only place in Peter's letters where he does so which is a bit strange in view of the doctrinal ramifications.
Earnest

towerwatchman : Note the genitive of us is not Savoir but God and Savior.
2 Peter 1:1 (transliteration) ...in righteousness of the God (tou theou) of us (emon) and (kai) of Saviour (soteros) Jesus Christ
Titus 2:13 (transliteration) ...of the glory of the great God (tou megalou theou) and (kai) of Saviour (soteros) of us (emon) of Jesus Christ
I'm not quite sure what point you were making regarding the genitive of us, but perhaps you could comment on the significance of the difference in these two verses.
towerwatchman

To Earnst
Granville Sharp’s rule does not apply [to Proverbs 24:21 LXX]
Why not?
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person.
In Titus and 2 Pe God and Savior are describing Jesus. What is God and king describing in Proverbs? It is missing.
Again you misunderstand the point G.B. Winer is making. He is saying that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 can be read in both ways, that God and Saviour can be understood as referring to one person or that God is referring to one and Saviour to another. Whoever reads those verses has an opinion as to the correct understanding. Winer is saying that considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead him to believe that those verses are referring to both God and Jesus Christ. I concur.
Context rules note the question if Titus 2:13 is referring to one or two persons is answered by vs 14. = One person.
Let’s look at Paul’s doctrine.
Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
Notice equal translates from ‘isos’. Isos means ‘equal in quantity and quality. Paul’s doctrine supports the deity of Christ.
Equal = 2470 ἴσος [isos /ee•sos/] adj. Probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT 3:343; TDNTA 370; GK 2698; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “equal” four times, “agree together + 2258” twice, “as much” once, and “like” once. 1 equal, in quantity or quality. [Strongs]
I'm not quite sure what point you were making regarding the genitive of us, but perhaps you could comment on the significance of the difference in these two verses.
In response to
In Tit. ii. 13 considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that Saviour is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with God, - Christ being first called the great God and then Saviour. The article is omitted before Saviour, because this word is defined by the genitive of us, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Similarly in 2 P. i 1, where there is not even a pronoun with Savi
Earnest

towerwatchman : Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person.
In Titus and 2 Pe God and Savior are describing Jesus. What is God and king describing in Proverbs? It is missing.
In his book Granville Sharp states his first rule (pp.3-6):
When the copulative kai 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 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...except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number.
He gives as examples 2 Cor.1:3 "Blessed be the God [ho theos] and [kai] Father [pater] of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father [ho pater] ... and [kai] God [theos]..." which contains two examples of the first rule; and others including Rom.15:6; 1 Cor.15:24; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:4; Eph.5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thes.1:3; 3:11,13; James 1:27; Rev.1:6 wherein "the God and Father" is mentioned exactly according to this rule.
This construction is no different to that in Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king..." which is clearly an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.
Earnest : Winer is saying that considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead him to believe that those verses are referring to both God and Jesus Christ. I concur.
You may be right that the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek was wrong in his understanding of Paul's system of doctrine, but I am sure he had no problems in understanding the Greek of Phil.2:6. No doubt one of the reasons he didn't believe Paul would refer to Jesus as "the great God" is the many verses above where Paul refers to "the God and Father" of Jesus Christ. All of which are examples where "the God" refers to God the Father, as it does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
"Note the genitive of us is not Savoir but God and Savior".
In response to "In Tit. ii. 13 ...The article is omitted before Saviour, because this word is defined by the genitive of us, ..."
While I grant you may have a different understanding of Paul's system of doctrine to the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, I think it is a bit arrogant to say his understanding of Greek grammar cannot be right.
towerwatchman

Earnst
When the copulative kai 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 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...except the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number.
He gives as examples 2 Cor.1:3 "Blessed be the God [ho theos] and [kai] Father [pater] of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father [ho pater] ... and [kai] God [theos]..." which contains two examples of the first rule; and others including Rom.15:6; 1 Cor.15:24; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:4; Eph.5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thes.1:3; 3:11,13; James 1:27; Rev.1:6 wherein "the God and Father" is mentioned exactly according to this rule.
This construction is no different to that in Proverbs 24:21 LXX "My son, fear [the] God (ton theon) and king..." which is clearly an exception to Granville Sharp's rule.
Proverbs. What person is God and king describing? Notice you are missing it. Also context rules. The verse identifies more than one.
As to 2 Cor 1:3 our Lord is genitive. Very simple God and Father belong to Lord.
You may be right that the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek was wrong in his understanding of Paul's system of doctrine, but I am sure he had no problems in understanding the Greek of Phil.2:6. No doubt one of the reasons he didn't believe Paul would refer to Jesus as "the great God" is the many verses above where Paul refers to "the God and Father" of Jesus Christ. All of which are examples where "the God" refers to God the Father, as it does in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
Because Paul refers to the Father as the God of Jesus, it somehow disqualifies Jesus as being God. Note that both as God address each other as God.
Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
Titus 2:14 answers the question as to how many are being referred to in vs 13. For your idea to work vs 14 would have to be plural, but notice it is singular ‘who’.
While I grant you may have a different understanding of Paul's system of doctrine to the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, I think it is a bit arrogant to say his understanding of Greek grammar cannot be right.
If that is what was understood, my apologies. It is unfair of me and arrogant to rate another’s understanding of grammar. As to Paul’s doctrine, Paul does preach Jesus as God, and the Trinity.
Acts 28:25 The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: 26 "Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. 27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'
Notice Paul is referring to Isaiah 6 where Isaiah hears YWHW speaking. Paul credits it to the HS.
Earnest

towerwatchman : Proverbs. What person is God and king describing? Notice you are missing it. Also context rules. The verse identifies more than one.
So Granville Sharp's rule has exceptions. This is one of them.
towerwatchman : Because Paul refers to the Father as the God of Jesus, it somehow disqualifies Jesus as being God.
It disqualifies Jesus as being the God (ho theos), and Hebrews 1:8 can also be translated : To the Son He says: "God (ho theos) is your throne forever and ever..." which is more in context with the subsequent verse that God (ho theos), your God (ho theos sou), has anointed you with oil of gladness...
towerwatchman : Titus 2:14 answers the question as to how many are being referred to in vs 13. For your idea to work vs 14 would have to be plural, but notice it is singular ‘who’.
On the contrary, it was not the great God "who gave himself for us" in Titus 2:14, but it was "our Saviour Christ Jesus". Notice it is singular 'who'.
towerwatchman : Paul does preach Jesus as God, and the Trinity.
We have already established you have a different understanding of Paul's system of doctrine to G.B. Winer, the author of A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, and are quite comfortable with Christ being called "the great God". If that is indeed Paul's system of doctrine it would be an option to understand "God and Saviour" as applying to Christ Jesus. However, you do not seem to allow the alternative option, that the expression refers to two people, by those who understand "the God" to refer to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which Paul affirms again and again.
towerwatchman

So Granville Sharp's rule has exceptions. This is one of them.
No it does not apply. In Titus God and Savior are describing Jesus. What is God and king describing in Proverbs? For the rule to apply God and king have to be describing someone. Read the rule again.
t disqualifies Jesus as being the God (ho theos), and Hebrews 1:8 can also be translated : To the Son He says: "God (ho theos) is your throne forever and ever..." which is more in context with the subsequent verse that God (ho theos), your God (ho theos sou), has anointed you with oil of gladness...
Both verses, three occurrences of theos carries the definite article [ho]. There is no ‘that’ in the equation. The use of ‘that’ would make both ‘theos’ in vs 9 third person. The Father would be pointing our some unknown as God. That would be polytheistic.
On the contrary, it was not the great God "who gave himself for us" in Titus 2:14, but it was "our Saviour Christ Jesus". Notice it is singular 'who.
Is that what Paul is communicating?
Titus 1:4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
In Titus 1:4 the Father is identified as God, and Jesus is identified as Lord and Savior.
Tit 1:3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.
In 1:3 and 2:10 the individual identified as God is also the Savior, or the individual identified as Savior is also God. Can the question be answered?
Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
In 2:13 Jesus is identified as God and Savior.
Do we have contradictions here? Is Paul being polytheistic? Or could there be another answer?
1:4 Father is God and Jesus is Lord and Savior,
1:3 and 2:10 God is Savior,
2:13 Jesus is God and Savior.
Reconcile.

2 Peter 1 = Deity of Christ.

Share this