2 Peter 1:1

(Does God and Savior refer to ONE or TWO?)

“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ…“
(2 Peter 1:1 NIV, Emphasis mine)

THE WORDS “God and Savior Jesus Christ” are often cited by Trinitarians as their proof that God and Savior refer to Jesus as the one and same person, resulting in the conclusion that Jesus is God. The basis for this claim rests on the validity of the so-called “Granville Sharp Rule” which states:

“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.”

(Reference: Definite Article In The Greek Text Of The New Testament by Granville Sharp, p.3)

In simpler terms, the Granville Sharp rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person.

The relevant issue is whether “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NIV) refers to two individuals, God and Jesus, or to just one. The NIV assumes only one being is intended, Jesus Christ, who is called both “God” and “Savior.” The New American Standard Bible rendering is more explicit, inserting a comma after “Savior” as “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” and setting “Jesus Christ” in apposition to both “God” and “savior” (there were no such marks of punctuation in the original Greek).

THE VALIDITY OF THE GRANVILLE SHARP RULE

Granville Sharp was a nineteenth-century student of scripture and English philanthropist who studied a narrowly defined aspect of New Testament Greek with the express purpose of proving the deity of Christ. It was in this endeavor that he so-called “discovered” a previously unknown rule of Greek syntax. It has since been named the “Granville Sharp Rule.” Mr. Sharp specifically applied this rule to eight verses purported to prove the deity of Christ including 2 Peter 1:1 and cited them to demonstrate his Rule’s validity.

Since Mr. Sharp had the specific intent to find characteristics of Greek that prove the deity of Jesus, his Rule must be viewed with some skepticism. His “discovered” Rule is self-validating. Further, the reasoning on which it is based is circular since his goal was to find grammatical rules that prove what he already assumed to be true.

The basic problem is that prior to Mr. Sharp’s so-called “discovery,” such a rule was unknown in Greek literature. First, it is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the Apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarian writes:

“Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea.“

(Reference: Moulton Howard – Turner, Grammar, Vol. III, p. 181, Emphasis Mine)

In support of the above statement, Anthony Buzzard writes about Titus 2:13 another passage that claims the application of the Granville Sharp rule which he states:

“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’.“

(Reference: The Doctrine Of The Trinity By Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, p. 280, Emphasis Mine)

Buzzard further goes on to elaborate on the grammatical problem facing 2 Peter 1:1:

“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.”

(Reference: The Doctrine Of The Trinity By Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, p. 281, Emphasis Mine)

In addition, Buzzard stated:

“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.’ 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’.“

(Reference: The Doctrine Of The Trinity By Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, p. 281, Emphasis Mine)

Not only do we find conflicting disagreement among Trinitarians debating the Greek syntax of whether Christ is God or not in the passage, but interestingly, Mr. Sharp’s so-called newfound “rule” of which no recorded evidence is found of any earlier Greek scholar or writer being aware of such “rule” going back millennia. Furthermore, the Greek usage of the definite article described by Mr. Sharp is inconsistent. Sometimes, one article is used with two nouns connected by the conjunction where two separate persons or things are in view, while in other places, two definite articles (or more) are used.

Numerous New Testament examples can be cited where two nouns with the same case, number, and gender share a single definite article and are joined by the conjunction “kai” (“and”), yet where two distinct entities, persons, or things are clearly in view. In the following example, a single definite article precedes two nouns of the same case (and gender and number) that are joined by (kai). In the example of (Mathew 5:20) a single article is used with both “scribes” and “Pharisees” (tôn grammateôn kai pharisaiôn), both of which are in the genitive case, plural number and masculine gender. In the gospel accounts, “scribes” and “Pharisees” are two distinct groups and are not identical.

To illustrate the point further (Mathew 17:1), three or more nouns in the same case, gender and number are joined by “kai” and share a single definite article, ‘The Peter and James and John’ (ton Petron kai Iakôbon kai Iôannén). This is not to belabor the point but to underscore the fact and emphasize that no grammatical rule consistently followed in the New Testament conforms to or validates the so-called Granville Sharp Rule!

In summary, if the Granville Sharp Rule was valid at the time the New Testament was written, its application by the authors of the New Testament (including Peter) is too inconsistent to conclude that 2 Peter 1:1 labels Jesus “God” with any certainty. Furthermore, since Granville Sharp discovered his rule as part of a concerted effort to find grammatical features that prove the deity of Christ, his conclusions must be viewed as self-serving bias and suspect.

APOSTLE PETER WOULD NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF

The desperate attempts of Trinitarians to use 2:Peter 1:1 as their evidence to establish the deity of Jesus Christ is not only an unbiblical interpretation of scripture but for Apostle Peter to contradict his writings elsewhere is highly unlikely. Such as (1 Peter 1:3), a problematic passage that Trinitarians face that directly contradicts their interpretation of (2 Peter 1:1), where Apostle Peter himself stated, that the Father is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us read:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, …”

(Reference: 1 Peter 1:3 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)

Christ Himself further strengthens the above statement of Peter’s Epistle of 1 Peter 1:3 by affirming with the following words spoken by Christ recorded by the apostle John:

“Jesus said to her, ‘Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God’.”

(Reference: John 20:17 NKJV, Emphasis Mine)

OTHER BIBLICAL TRANSLATIONS

When a passage is in question, in the words of apostle Paul, we must compare comparing “spiritual things with spiritual,” (I Cor. 2:13, NKJV). Thus, based on this principle we must ask, “Are there any translations that bring a clear view of 2 Peter 1:1 that further validates that there are TWO distinct beings that are being referred to and not one?” Let us read:

King James Bible

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:”