The Granville Sharp Rule: Defending the Trinity
In defending the doctrine of the Trinity, and more specifically the deity of Jesus, there is a rule of the Koine Greek language that is important to know. The Granville Sharp rule is used as a fortification of two verses of scripture in particular as they relate to the deity of Christ: Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1. Both of these verses contain a version of the phrase, “Our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The rule is used to conclude that both “God,” and “Savior,” refer to Jesus Christ based on the grammatical structure of the sentences. You may want to read this article slowly, because this may be Greek to you!
The rule:
If two substantives (nouns, adjectives, or participles) are connected with the word kai (and), with a definite article preceding the first substantive but not the second, then both substantives refer to the same subject.
These two substantives should agree in gender, number, and case.
Now this rule does have some exceptions, however, if we apply three more conditions, then the rule applies 100% of the time with no exceptions! These three conditions are as follows:
The two substantives must both be:
1) Singular
2) Personal (describing a person, not a thing)
3) Not a proper name (John, Peter, James)
Let’s look at a quick example to give you a better idea of what we’re talking about:
If I said, “We spoke to the captain and owner of the boat, Mr. Jones.” It would seem that Mr. Jones is both the captain of the boat as well as the owner of it.
But if I said “We spoke to the captain and the owner of the boat, Mr. Jones.” It would seem that the captain is an unspecified second individual. This is concerning the definite article mentioned earlier. The word “the” in the first sentence appears only in front of the first substantive; namely “captain,” giving the impression that it is meant to tie the two substantives “captain,” and “owner” to the same subject. But in the second sentence, each substantive possesses its own definite article, separating the two in a way.
Of course in English, this may not seem very conclusive, but in the ancient Greek language, with the added conditions aforementioned, it would be incontestable that both substantives referred to the same subject.
As with anything in existence (especially nowadays), this rule is not without its critics. There are only a couple of objections that are levelled against the Granville Sharp rule, but one sticks out amongst the others, and I will conclude this article with a response to this particular critique.
The critique concerns the last conditional mentioned in the overview of the rule: that neither of the two substantives can be proper nouns. Some will argue that “Savior” is a proper noun in Titus and 2 Peter, but this is perhaps the weakest proper noun argument raised in this discussion. Now, I am responding to the argument that “God” (theos) in the passages is a proper noun. If this argument is successful, then it renders the Granville Sharp rule inapplicable to these two verses. The argument, though, is based on examples given from elsewhere in scripture where “God” is used as a name rather than a descriptive noun. Admittedly, there are a great many passages in the New Testament as well as the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) where Theos is used in such a way.
However, there are three major problems with this argument which I believe serve to demolish it entirely.
While there are many places in scripture where Theos is used as a proper noun, there are also many passages where theos is used as a personal, yet not proper, noun.
The qualifiers in the relevant passages seem to disqualify the use of “God” as a proper noun. Notice in both of the verses in question, the phrase is, “our God and Savior.” If it were used as a proper noun, it would instead read, “God and our Savior.”
In Robert M. Bowman Jr.’s 1998 paper, Sharp’s Rule and Antitrinitatian Theologies, which I have linked at the end of this article, he points out a third problem similar but more complicated than the second one I mentioned. Here is an excerpt from that paper:
“On the other hand, it is really indisputable that theos is often used as a term descriptive of God’s relationship or status or position in relation to us, his creatures, and functions semantically as a non-proper personal noun. The proof of this is that theos can be coupled with other nouns (using kai) and the two nouns function descriptively. Note especially the following examples:
“the God of Abraham and [the] God of Isaac and [the] God of Jacob” (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37)
“the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; etc.) “the Father of mercies and God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3b)
“one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:6) “You are worthy, our Lord and God” (Rev. 4:11)”
-Sharp’s Rule... pg. 21.
While attacks have come against this rule of Greek grammar, and no doubt will continue until the Lord returns, the Granville Sharp rule has withstood scrutiny and critical examination beautifully since its discovery in the late 1700s. To echo Bowman’s conclusion to his paper, the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on one controversial proof-text, but on many passages of scripture; some of which are extremely clear, and some of which become clearer as you study and examine them, of which we have discussed but two in this article. God has revealed Himself as a tri-personal being in His word and faithful study of scripture will make that fact abundantly clear.
Recommended Resources:
Sharps Rule (libero.it) by Robert M. Bowman Jr.
Granville Sharp Rule - YouTube by Greek For All
The Trinity: Can We Defend it Biblically? - YouTube by Mike Winger
Forgotten Trinity (book) by Dr. James White