NOTE TO READER

There may be some overlap and reiteration below. This is because I was trying to go the extra mile in simplifying a very deep subject for churchgoers, so as to not leave them out of the conversation.

Does the Granville Sharp Rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 Demand That Christ Be Called God?

The primary purpose of a Bible translator or translation committee is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place.—Truth Matters! The primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of words is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator.—Translating Truth!

Those Christians who do not have working knowledge of Biblical Greek, know that we have taken every measure to make this article easy to understand. We have used the Greek interlinear, with the English above the Greek. We have translated all of the Greek herein. We have tried to define and explain uncommon terms. the vast majority of the article will be easy to understand. The very small percentage that may be a little more difficult to understand, please just read more slowly and ponder what is being said, understanding will come to you.

Translating Truth: Titus 1:4; 2:13

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ 2:13 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

 13 προσδεχόμενοιawaiting τὴνthe μακαρίανblessed ἐλπίδαhope καὶand ἐπιφάνειανappearance τῆςof the δόξηςglory τοῦof the μεγάλουgreat θεοῦGod καὶand σωτῆροςof Savior ἡμῶνof us Χριστοῦof Christ Ἰησοῦ,Jesus, 

Titus 2:13 English Standard Version (ESV) 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:13 New International Version (NIV) 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 13 Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus,

Titus 2:13 New American Bible (NAB) 13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,

When we look at the Greek New Testament Interlinear of Titus 2:13 above, we take note that Paul’s words seem a little ambiguous, which is why the translations below are rendering the verse in two different ways. The New International Version (NIV) and English Standard Version (ESV) render it “the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” which makes the phrase about Jesus Christ alone wherein, he is called both the “great God” and “Savior.” On the other hand, the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) renders it “the glory of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus,” and the New American Bible has it as “the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ.” These latter translations have both God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son mentioned as two distinct persons.

In short, over 220 years ago, Granville Sharp, an untrained theologian but serious student of the Scriptures formulated a biblical Greek grammar rule that would become known as Sharp’s rule and supposedly, it could be applied to the construction found here in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as well. ( τοῦof the μεγάλουgreat θεοῦGod καὶand σωτῆροςof Savior ) The rule states that since the definite article (the) does not occur before the second noun (Savior); then the two nouns (God and Savior) are referring to the same person. This would mean that the “great God” and “Savior” would both be descriptively describing Jesus Christ. The formula is ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN. More on this below.

( τοῦof the μεγάλουgreat θεοῦGod καὶand σωτῆροςof Savior )
ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN

We have two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun is preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun is without the definite article. (ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN) Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 6:13; 2 Tim 4:1. This construction is also found in the Greek Septuagint (LXX). (e.g., Pr 24:21)

Genesis 24:21 The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Interlinear

21 φοβοῦFear τὸνthe θεόν,God, υἱέ,oh son καὶand βασιλέα, καὶking and μηθετέρῳ αὐτῶνneither of them ἀπειθήσῃς·may you disobey 

(τὸνthe θεόν,God, υἱέ,oh son καὶand βασιλέα,king )
ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN

Here “God” and “king” are connected by kai “and.” The definite article occurs before the first noun only, with both nouns being in the same case, the accusative.

Still considering Titus but now looking at chapter 1, verse 4, the ESV, CSB, and the NRSV, and almost all other Bible translations that make the phrase in Titus 2:13 all about Jesus Christ alone, wherein he is called both “great God” and “Savior,” now show a distinction in Titus 1:4.

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ 1:4 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

 4 Τίτῳto Titus γνησίῳgenuine τέκνῳchild κατὰaccording to κοινὴνcommon πίστιν·faith;

χάριςgrace καὶand εἰρήνηpeace ἀπὸfrom θεοῦGod πατρὸςFather καὶand Χριστοῦof Christ ἸησοῦJesus τοῦof the σωτῆροςSavior ἡμῶν.of us.

Titus 1:4 English Standard Version (ESV) 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 1:4 Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith. Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 1:4 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 1:4 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 4 To Titus, my loyal child in the faith we share: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Translating Truth 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:2

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β΄ 1:1 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

1 ΣίμωνSimon ΠέτροςPeter δοῦλοςslave καὶand ἀπόστολοςapostle Ἰησοῦof Jesus ΧριστοῦChrist τοῖςto the (ones)  ἰσότιμονequal value ἡμῖνwith us λαχοῦσινhaving obtained) πίστινfaith ἐνby δικαιοσύνῃrighteousness τοῦof the θεοῦGod ἡμῶνof us καὶand σωτῆροςof Savior ἸησοῦJesus Χριστοῦ·Christ;

( τοῦof the θεοῦGod ἡμῶνof us καὶand σωτῆροςof Savior )
ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN

2 Peter 1:1 English Standard Version (ESV) 1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have received a faith equal to ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 1 Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: [c] [c] Or of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ

Above in our Greek text, the apostle Peter refers to “the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” according to the ESV, the CSB, and the NRSV. However, the UASV reads of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ, which the NRSV has as a footnote alternative.

However, still considering 2 Peter chapter 1 but now looking at the very next verse, verse 2, the ESV, CSB, and the NRSV and almost all other Bible translations, which makes the phrase in verse 1 all about Jesus Christ alone, wherein he is called both “God” and “Savior,” now show a distinction in verse 2. They did this even though the grammatical construction verse both verse 1 and verse 2 are identical (not the words).

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β΄ 1:2 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

2 χάριςgrace ὑμῖνto you καὶand εἰρήνηpeace πληθυνθείηmay (it) be multiplied ἐνin ἐπιγνώσειaccurate knowledge τοῦof the θεοῦGod καὶand Ἰησοῦof Jesus τοῦthe κυρίουLord ἡμῶν,of us, 

( τοῦof the θεοῦGod καὶand Ἰησοῦof Jesus τοῦthe κυρίουLord )
ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN

2 Peter 1:2 English Standard Version (ESV) 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

2 Peter 1:2 Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

2 Peter 1:2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the accurate knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;

2 Peter 1:2 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 2 May grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

The Setting for Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1

The passage in Titus 2:13, paired with 2 Peter 1:1, has been at the heart of a detailed discussion among translators and theologians for centuries. Both verses exhibit a particular Greek construction sometimes associated with something known as the Granville Sharp Rule. Many have claimed that this rule obliges readers to understand Christ as explicitly called “God and Savior.” Others have challenged this claim, observing that the development of biblical Greek grammar continues to unfold as new papyri and linguistic insights come to light. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 have become pivotal reference points because interpreters often consider them compelling evidence for equating Christ with God in the same phrase. Yet the discussion runs far deeper than one might assume at first glance. Translators wrestle with Greek grammar, the subtlety of Koine usage, the presence or absence of articles, and the broader theological context of the biblical authors.

Titus is one of the letters that the apostle Paul wrote, with many scholars placing its composition in the mid-60s C.E. The letter addresses Titus, a trusted coworker of Paul, who was laboring among congregations that needed strengthening. Titus 2:13 underscores the “blessed hope” and “appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior,” terms that might refer to one individual or two distinct persons. Paul’s letters reflect a robust belief in Jesus as the divine Son appointed by God for salvation, but he also maintains a consistent distinction between the Father as “God” and Jesus as “Lord” and “Christ.” Interpreters debate whether Paul might occasionally break that pattern in verses such as Titus 2:13.

Second Peter, generally dated to around 64–68 C.E., includes 2 Peter 1:1, which similarly speaks of “our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” depending on how one chooses to punctuate or interpret the underlying Greek. As in Titus, the question revolves around whether the apostle intended to refer to one subject or two separate subjects. In subsequent centuries, the identification of Christ as “our great God and Savior” has had significant weight in confessional statements, but the question remains whether the text itself is always so clear. In 2 Peter 1:1, the same grammatical structure also appears in 2 Peter 1:2, yet translators typically handle verse 1 differently from verse 2, even though the form is similar.

The so-called Granville Sharp Rule, published in 1798, has driven much of this debate. This rule posits that when two singular nouns referring to persons are joined by “and” under a single definite article, they must refer to one and the same individual. Those in favor of that interpretation for Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 see Granville Sharp’s grammatical principle as conclusive evidence that Paul and Peter were labeling Jesus as “God.” Opponents claim the grammar of Koine Greek does not absolutely require that conclusion. They suggest that differences in usage, scribal practices, and the absence of a second article do not always point to a single subject.

Revisiting the Greek Text of Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13 in the Westcott-Hort Greek text reads: “προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.” When rendered in English, a translator must decide whether to say, “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” or “the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus.” At the core is the issue of whether “the great God” and “Savior” both apply to Christ or whether “the great God” is the Father and “our Savior” is Jesus.

Some translations that use the single-subject approach include “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Others, including certain older translations and more recent ones that desire to reflect the distinction between two persons, prefer “the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The difference can be minimal in English print yet profoundly significant theologically. Proponents of the single-subject view argue that the grammar suggests only one subject: Jesus Christ. Those who advocate two subjects argue that the context, overall usage by Paul, and the natural sense of referencing both the Father and the Son favor a distinction.

The historical background of Titus includes the fact that Paul often identified God the Father with the term “God,” while referring to Jesus as “Lord” or “the Christ.” Consequently, it can be a sudden shift if Paul plainly called Jesus “the great God.” This shift compels interpreters to verify whether the grammar compels that reading or whether the pattern of Paul’s usage would encourage one to see two separate persons. These distinctions overlap with the arguments swirling around the Granville Sharp Rule.

Considering the Parallel in Titus 1:4

In the same letter, Titus 1:4 states: “Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” The text in Greek is “χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.” Translations consistently render that phrase as a distinction between two: “God the Father” and “Christ Jesus our Savior.” Yet the construction has parallels to Titus 2:13. If one were to apply a uniform approach to each instance of article-noun-“and”-noun, a consistent translation that merges the references to a single person might cause confusion in 1:4. Translators who render Titus 2:13 as referencing a single subject rarely do the same in Titus 1:4, even though the structure could push them in that direction. Some argue that the presence of “Father” clarifies the identity of “God” in 1:4, thus requiring a different approach. Others believe that, by the letter’s own style, Paul was distinguishing between God the Father and Jesus Christ in both contexts. The question is whether the translator acknowledges that Titus 1:4 and Titus 2:13 share a similar grammatical pattern or whether the context should override uniformity in translation.

The Text of 2 Peter 1:1 and Its Construction

Second Peter 1:1 in the Westcott-Hort edition reads: “Σίμων Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” Translators often give: “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Alternatively, others use: “by the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ.” Once again, the translator must decide if there are two references—“God” and “Savior”—or one reference—“God and Savior.” Many well-known English versions adopt the single-subject translation “our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” but they might shift approach by the time they reach verse 2, which uses a very similar construction yet clearly refers to two persons: “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” The structure in Greek, “τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,” parallels the pattern “τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” in verse 1, though the exact words differ.

This difference in translation from verse 1 to verse 2 raises the question: Why do some insist verse 1 has a single subject while verse 2 has two distinct subjects? Those who view the single-subject approach in 1:1 tend to say that “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” is a phrase from which one dare not deviate. In verse 2, the mention of “God” and “Jesus our Lord” is almost universally recognized as referencing two. Some scholars note that the presence of a proper name in verse 2, “Jesus,” might change the sense, but the raw grammatical form is closely parallel. This inconsistency in translations prompts an inquiry into how absolute the Granville Sharp Rule really is within the Koine Greek environment.

The Emergence of Granville Sharp’s Rule

Granville Sharp was an English lay scholar living from 1735 to 1813, known for his passionate theological convictions. He devoted himself to biblical studies and the defense of the deity of Christ. In 1798, he published “Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ,” wherein he propounded what came to be known as Sharp’s Rule. He believed that when two singular, personal nouns are joined by “and” (καὶ), with only the first noun preceded by the definite article, they refer to one and the same individual. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 were at the forefront of his mind, as both passages could then be read as direct references to Christ as “God.” Sharp’s explicit goal was to fortify arguments that certain New Testament texts point to Jesus’ deity.

From that day onward, grammarians and textual scholars have revisited his rule to see if it truly stands the test of wider Greek usage. New questions arose: Could Koine writers omit the second article while still intending two subjects? Did the Holy Spirit give the biblical authors special linguistic patterns distinct from secular writers of the time, so that older grammatical parallels might not apply? Could the Granville Sharp Rule be so universal if “holy ghost Greek,” once presumed to be unique, turned out to be standard Koine Greek after all?

The Shift Away from “Holy Ghost Greek”

In earlier centuries, some believed that New Testament Greek was a special dialect shaped by the Holy Spirit, standing apart from everyday Koine Greek. Hermann Cremer (1834–1903) once called the Greek of the New Testament “Holy Ghost Greek.” This claim gained traction because many New Testament words lacked obvious secular parallels in the limited Greek corpus then available. Adolf Deissmann shattered that perspective beginning in the late 19th century, demonstrating that New Testament Greek largely matched everyday Koine found in ancient papyri discovered in places like Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. By roughly 1900, large troves of papyrus documents from the early centuries surfaced, showing that words once thought peculiar to the New Testament also occurred in personal letters, business receipts, and other secular texts.

Before these discoveries, Greek grammar rules might have been formulated using only the New Testament and a few classical works. Sharp himself had little access to the papyri, since they were not yet unearthed. He operated under the assumption that biblical Greek might be unique. Over the last century, scholars realized that many phenomena in the New Testament are quite normal in first-century Koine Greek. This broader perspective calls for reevaluating older grammar rules that were based on limited data.

Examining the Papyri and Koine Parallels

After papyri discoveries in Egypt from 1898 onward, thousands of documents from the first few centuries were cataloged. These included mundane items such as bills of sale, official edicts, personal letters, and fragments of literary works. Linguists found that the forms of grammar mirrored those in the New Testament. Certain constructions that seemed unusual in New Testament Greek had parallels in this newly recovered corpus. Therefore, claims of a special, isolated grammar for the New Testament no longer held. Wallace, a prominent New Testament grammarian, notes that resources like Thayer’s lexicon (published in 1886) were outmoded almost as soon as they came off the press. The same reflection might apply to Granville Sharp’s findings if indeed they rested on an incomplete sample of Koine usage.

Those who defend Sharp’s Rule argue that his core principle still stands, at least under a narrower scope. Some even say that with “proper modifications,” the rule retains validity in certain contexts. Others point out that the rule might work best when dealing with a repeated phrase in the same text used by the same writer, whereas applying it in a blanket fashion across all Koine Greek can become precarious.

The “Article + Noun + and + Noun” Formula

Sharp’s Rule concerns a pattern in Greek: the article-substantive-καὶ-substantive sequence, with only one article. The claim is that if these two substantives are singular, personal, and not proper names, then they refer to the same subject. Supporters often show Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as prime examples. Opponents or skeptics of the rule present other texts where the construction does not yield a single subject, or where context strongly indicates two distinct referents.

Some also cite older Greek usage in classical writings, or in the Septuagint, to see whether authors outside the New Testament used the same grammar to merge or distinguish subjects. The Septuagint, being the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, occasionally displays a pattern like “τὸν θεόν, υἱέ, καὶ βασιλέα,” which literally reads “fear God, my son, and king,” with the article present before “God” but not before “king.” Clearly, the writer does not identify “God” and “king” as the same individual. Thus, the presence or absence of the second article does not always unify or merge the referents. Some defenders of Sharp’s Rule point out that was a plural or something else. Others observe that it is enough to show that Greek authors do not necessarily demand a repeated article to indicate a second distinct subject.

The Extension of Granville Sharp’s Rule

Initially, Sharp’s Rule was stated broadly, but it was gradually refined to limit its application. His original statement did not mention the exceptions for proper names, plural nouns, or impersonal nouns. Modern defenders typically specify three conditions under which the rule is claimed to apply: singular, personal, common nouns. Some question whether these conditions were a later “patch” to the rule rather than an integral part of it. Indeed, critics say the rule itself was discovered by focusing on texts where a certain doctrinal conclusion was desirable, and then exceptions were added to salvage the rule wherever it broke down. Those who favor the rule reply that such a process is common in the refinement of grammar over time, especially as more data becomes available.

In either case, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 align well with Sharp’s narrower definition if one regards “God” and “Savior” as singular, personal, and not proper names. Whether “Savior” ought to be treated as a proper noun or as a common title might affect the outcome. If “Savior” is treated like a general title (just as “king,” “father,” or “ruler” might be), one might suspect that the second article need not be present for it to be distinct. If “God” and “Savior” do merge into one person, that interpretation would hinge on an acceptance that the single article in the Greek grammar demands that reading.

Counterexamples from the Broader Greek Corpus

Some have pointed to passages outside the New Testament or within it where the same construction obviously involves two distinct parties, even though the second article was not repeated. Opponents of the single-subject reading list places in the New Testament where this structure refers to different persons, or they note that the overall context makes it impossible to see them as the same. They claim such instances erode the notion that the grammar alone forces a single-subject interpretation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. They also argue that if there was potential ambiguity, the New Testament authors could easily insert the second article to clarify that the references are indeed separate. Conversely, one might argue that an additional article could just as easily be omitted if the reference was intended to be unified. Both sides raise legitimate points about Koine style, leaving the final decision often hinging on context rather than grammar alone.

The Appeal to Context in Titus

The epistle to Titus reveals an author who repeatedly distinguishes between “God” and “Jesus Christ.” Titus 1:1–4 sets the stage, identifying “God” as the One who promised and “Jesus Christ” as the channel through which grace was manifest. Titus 2:11 highlights how “the grace of God” brings salvation to all, training believers. Then Titus 2:13 mentions “the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in many translations. Some say the immediate context draws attention to the hope that belongs to believers because of both God the Father and the Son, and that the phrase might be praising God’s role in sending the Savior. Others note that the structure in Titus 1:4, “Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior,” reveals two persons, not one. If Paul’s typical usage is to identify “God” as the Father, and “the Lord” or “Christ” as the Son, then it might be unusual for him to call Jesus “the great God.” Those who hold a high Christology might respond that Paul indeed viewed Jesus as God in passages like Philippians 2:6. Yet that text does not use the same phraseology as Titus 2:13.

The Appeal to Context in 2 Peter

The second letter of Peter begins with “our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” depending on the translation. In 2 Peter 1:2, the Greek reads “the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,” creating a repeated pattern if one looks at it in detail. Translators commonly differentiate these references, calling 1:1 “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” and 1:2 “God and Jesus our Lord.” The question arises why the same construction is handled in two distinct ways. Defenders of the single-subject viewpoint claim that the presence of “Lord” in verse 2 changes the sense. Others see no reason to alter the grammar from verse 1 to verse 2. The first perspective is that verse 2 clearly references two distinct persons, so verse 1 might also do so. The second perspective is that verse 1 is different in content from verse 2, so identical grammar might not yield an identical sense.

There is also a theological nuance in 2 Peter 1:1–2. The letter’s writer calls believers to a deeper knowledge of both God and Jesus Christ. The phrase “our God and Savior” might be a bold claim of Christ’s divinity if taken as a single subject. Or it could be referencing the two who cooperate in saving humankind if taken as two. Some note that Peter, in his other remarks, generally calls the Father “God,” and calls Jesus “Lord” or “Christ,” though occasionally titles and doxologies can vary. The same tension that appears in Titus recurs here.

Responses of Prominent Grammarians

Early grammarians such as Georg Benedikt Winer (1789–1858), who compiled a massive grammar of New Testament Greek, indicated that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 could allow for either a single-subject or dual-subject reading. Winer pointed out that one might read the verse as referencing only Christ, but also that the normal usage of “God” for the Father in Paul’s writings made that interpretation questionable. He did not deny that the grammar would permit a single subject, but he emphasized that contextual usage might favor distinguishing the Father from the Son in these verses.

James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, also observed that one cannot be certain that an absent article forces a single-subject interpretation in Koine Greek. They recognized that the repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure the separation of two ideas, which meant Titus 2:13 need not necessarily say Christ is “the great God.” They admitted, on grammatical grounds, that an absent article does not mandate a single person. They also, however, personally favored the single-subject reading. Their preference was guided by a conviction that early Christians would have gladly applied “God and Savior” to Christ. Critics of that stance argue that it is more a theological reflection than a grammatical necessity.

Nigel Turner wrote that “if there be ambiguity, as there is here, correct grammatical principles ought to be decisive.” He believed the most “natural” reading would be “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13. Yet he also conceded that Koine Greek frequently did not repeat the article even when two distinct persons were intended, making the grammar ambiguous. He then appealed to broader considerations, such as the usage of “God and Savior” in the Roman world for emperors, asserting that the early Christians might have appropriated the phrase for Christ. Observers who come with a different theological premise see that as an additional argument rather than a grammatical inevitability.

The Influence of Theological Motivations

The question arises whether those who firmly embrace the single-subject reading do so primarily based on grammar or because they wish to support a theological conviction that Christ is fully God, pointedly stated in these texts. Granville Sharp himself plainly stated his motive for studying the Greek text was to amass “new proofs of the Divinity of Christ.” Critics argue that theological bias guided the creation of this “rule,” and it was then justified linguistically. Supporters of Sharp’s Rule say that his convictions simply propelled him to study the text more deeply, which does not invalidate the grammatical rule if it can stand on its own merits.

Many Greek grammarians in the 19th and 20th centuries, who had no inclination to deny Christ’s deity, still concluded that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 need not be exclusively read as identifying Jesus as “God.” They observed that the rule has many exceptions. Others, such as Daniel B. Wallace, have attempted a more thorough defense of Sharp, contending that in classical Greek, papyri, and patristic literature, the principle does hold, provided the construction meets certain carefully delineated conditions.

The Apparent Contradiction with Titus 1:4 and 2 Peter 1:2

A practical test is to observe how translators handle parallel constructions in nearby verses. In Titus 1:4, many of the same translations that render Titus 2:13 as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” translate 1:4 as “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior,” obviously separating them. Similarly, in 2 Peter 1:2, “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” clarifies that there are two persons. Yet verse 1 is often “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in the same translations. The grammar alone does not always account for this shift.

If a translator or translation committee has a theological emphasis on highlighting scriptural references to Christ’s deity, they might be more inclined to unify the references in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Conversely, if they aim to preserve the pattern in which “God” is the Father and “Christ” is the Son, they might read those verses differently. That difference of approach underscores the necessity of awareness of how grammar, context, and doctrinal views can merge to shape translation choices.

Grammatical Ambiguity or Certainty?

One might ask whether the grammar itself is entirely ambiguous or whether there is a clear impetus for uniting the expressions. Several who have studied Koine Greek beyond the New Testament note that the absence of the second article does not necessarily bind the two nouns to the same subject. Equally, the presence of a single article can unify them. Thus, grammar alone rarely decides the matter conclusively. Linguists typically weigh usage by the same author and context. In Titus, the pattern of referencing “God” and “Christ” as separate is fairly consistent. In 2 Peter, the same question arises. By itself, grammar does not prove one viewpoint.

Sharp’s Rule might have more force if the authors consistently employed that construction in every text referring to two persons. Since authors can omit the second article for a variety of reasons, the net effect is that while the single-subject reading is possible, the dual-subject reading is not necessarily excluded. The question becomes: Does the broader scriptural presentation of the Father and the Son as distinct individuals overshadow or reinterpret the single article?

Passages Where “God” and “Lord” Are Distinct

Scriptural examples often show “God” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” listed in the same verse, sometimes with or without repeated articles. In 2 Thessalonians 1:12, we find “the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ” in certain renderings, though some translations supply an extra article for clarity. The phrase is “κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.” If read strictly with Sharp’s approach, some might see one subject. Yet the addition of “Jesus Christ” can clarify that the reference is to two persons, the Father and the Son, or it might be read as a unitive statement about the Son. The context often decides. If the author regularly calls the Father “God” and calls Jesus “Lord,” the synergy of usage might point to two. If the author occasionally calls Jesus “God,” the synergy might unify them in that verse.

Consistency with Pauline Theology

Paul’s letters, especially in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, frequently mention “God the Father” and “the Lord Jesus Christ.” An example is Ephesians 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The same pattern recurs in 2 Corinthians 1:2. The question remains whether Titus 2:13 is an exception to this pattern. If so, it might be the only place where Paul identifies Jesus as “the great God,” directly. Some interpreters find that abrupt. Others believe it is theologically consistent, seeing no contradiction in Paul occasionally calling Jesus “God,” given that Christ shares divine qualities and nature with the Father. Yet one might question whether such a direct usage would appear only once or twice in Paul’s letters if it was a standard part of his theology. Those who read Titus 2:13 as a doxology to the Father and the Son separately say it harmonizes more naturally with typical Pauline usage.

Consistency with Peter’s Theology

First and Second Peter present the apostle’s understanding of the relationship between God the Father and the Son. First Peter 1:3 praises “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This language parallels many statements by Paul, acknowledging the Father as “God” and Jesus as “Lord” or “Christ.” Would 2 Peter 1:1 abruptly name Jesus “God” in a direct manner? Some note that 2 Peter differs somewhat from 1 Peter in style, but not so drastically in theology. Others argue that over time, the early church’s acknowledgment of Christ’s divine status had become more explicit, so 2 Peter might reflect a stronger emphasis on Christ’s deity. Still, the grammar alone in 1:1 cannot prove that argument, and 1:2 seems to revert to “God” and “Jesus our Lord,” differentiating them.

The Testimony of Early Church Writers

A curious note is that the early church fathers, who strongly defended the deity of Christ, did not always appeal to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as indisputable “proof texts.” They had other ways of expressing that doctrine. One might expect that if the grammar was plainly incontrovertible, they would have capitalized on it in debates with groups who questioned Christ’s divine identity. Instead, some references in patristic writings reflect an awareness that the text can be read either way. Over the centuries, commentators have said that while the single-subject reading is possible, the presence of an absent article before the second noun could easily still refer to another subject, especially in Koine Greek.

Modern Scholarship’s Position

Contemporary scholarship is divided. Some grammarians, including Daniel B. Wallace, remain firmly convinced that the Granville Sharp Rule applies to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, establishing that both verses clearly call Christ “God.” Others, such as certain historical grammarians and translators of the Updated American Standard Version, prefer the reading that references two persons, especially in light of the immediate context and parallels with other verses. Both camps argue their case through grammar, syntax, and theology. The net result is that these verses remain open to debate.

The Role of Translator Neutrality

The primary duty of a translator is to convey what the text says, not what the translator thinks it might mean. Some committees approach Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 with a conscious stance on Christian theology that leans them toward a certain reading. That is not necessarily disingenuous. They might sincerely believe the grammar unites the terms under one subject. Another translator might sincerely believe the grammar does not require that unification and is mindful of how the broader biblical usage typically reserves “God” as a frequent reference to the Father. The best practice for translators is to acknowledge that the Greek can be interpreted more than one way. Lexicons and references commonly note the alternative readings. Some Bibles even supply footnotes that say something like: “Or the great God and our Savior” at Titus 2:13. Such notes help readers see the textual and grammatical complexity. Another approach is to place both possible readings directly into the main text or to mention it in the margin.

Understanding the Place of Granville Sharp’s Rule Today

In modern discussions, few regard Sharp’s Rule as absolute. Many see it as a helpful observation about a Greek construction that sometimes implies a single subject, though it is not guaranteed. The fact that it must be accompanied by disclaimers—(1) both nouns must be singular, (2) both must be personal, (3) neither is a proper name—suggests that the original statement was refined over time. Even then, examples in the Koine corpus show that sometimes distinct persons or things might still be referenced. The broader context often resolves ambiguity, or the writer might rely on his audience’s familiarity with who “God” and “Savior” typically reference. If a writer usually calls the Father “God,” the audience might assume that is who is meant, unless some marker clarifies that the Son is in view.

Why the Debate Matters

Some might wonder why the discussion is important. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 have frequently been used to show that the New Testament outright calls Jesus “God.” If they do not necessarily do so, then the burden of that doctrine rests on other passages. Many affirm that Christ has a divine nature and is included in the identity of God from passages such as John 1:1 or John 20:28, or from the claims about Jesus’ preexistence and role in creation. The question then is whether Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 add direct titles or remain consistent with the more typical distinction between Father and Son. The scope of the debate reveals how translation decisions can be shaped by doctrinal convictions. Even if one believes wholeheartedly that Christ is divine, one might still translate these verses in a way that leaves the door open to whether they unify “the great God” and “Savior” in a single person. Others who share the same theological perspective might prefer to see it spelled out in the text. All are presumably seeking faithfulness to the original.

Historical Examples of Translational Choices

The older American Standard Version (1901) often had a cautious approach to these verses. More recent translations such as the English Standard Version or the Christian Standard Bible frequently opt for “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” at Titus 2:13, while at Titus 1:4 they read “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior,” indicating two persons. In 2 Peter 1:1, they do the same by uniting “our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” then distinguish in 1:2 “God and Jesus our Lord.” Meanwhile, the Updated American Standard Version or the New American Bible separate them in Titus 2:13, rendering “the glory of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus,” and might do the same in 2 Peter 1:1, reading “our God and the Savior Jesus Christ.”

Readers might ask why committees that see one approach in Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 do not carry the same approach into Titus 1:4 or 2 Peter 1:2, which share a similar structure. The answer often lies in theological assumptions about who is typically identified as “God” in Scripture. They may also note that the presence of “Father” or “Lord” modifies usage. Not all translators, however, find these explanations entirely convincing.

Ezra Abbot’s Example from Matthew 21:12

Ezra Abbot, a 19th-century scholar, discussed a passage in Matthew 21:12 as an illustration of how Greek authors can omit the second article yet still refer to two distinct groups. The text says that Jesus “cast out all those who were selling and buying in the temple” using the phrase “τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας.” There is a single article before “selling” but not before “buying.” Clearly, these are not the same individuals (sellers vs. buyers). While defenders of Sharp’s Rule point out that this example involves plural nouns, it does illustrate that the presence of a single article in Greek does not necessarily unify the references. The principle might still stand that the rule is narrower, applying only to singular, personal nouns, but one sees the fluid nature of article usage in Koine Greek. Many such examples exist, and they caution translators against being overly dogmatic about the necessity of one subject whenever the second article is missing.

G. B. Winer’s Observations

G. B. Winer, called “the great NT grammarian of the nineteenth century,” recognized that Titus 2:13 can be read in two ways grammatically. He pointed out that the apostle Paul often distinguishes between God and Christ, leading him to suspect that “the great God” refers to the Father and “Savior” refers to Jesus. He wrote that Paul’s usage might not favor the reading that Jesus is “the great God.” Winer also noted that the article is not necessary before “Savior” because it is already made definite by the genitive “of us” or by the further mention of “Jesus Christ.” Hence, no repeated article is required to show distinct persons. Some have criticized Winer for imposing theology onto the grammar, but many grammarians see his approach as balanced. While Winer did not deny the single-subject reading was permissible, he favored the dual-subject approach.

Nigel Turner’s Insights

Nigel Turner stated that “the repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately,” openly acknowledging that Koine Greek can omit the second article and still mean two distinct subjects. He also confessed that “we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive at this period of Greek,” referencing Sharp’s principle. Yet he personally liked the reading that calls Christ “our great God and Savior.” This tension between grammatical possibility and personal preference emerges often in critical commentaries. Turner’s acknowledgement that Koine authors frequently omitted the second article, even when referencing multiple parties, is important to weigh.

Looking at Herbert Weir Smyth’s Observations

Herbert Weir Smyth’s “A Greek Grammar for Colleges” (1920) remains a standard reference for classical Greek. Smyth did not list any special “Granville Sharp Rule.” Instead, he notes that in Greek one article before two nouns joined by “and” can unify them as a single notion, or can refer to two items that belong to a larger group. He shows examples like “the generals and captains” meaning all commanding officers, though “generals” and “captains” are not the same group. Smyth also indicates that repeating the article can emphasize each item distinctly, but the lack of repetition does not force a single entity. This principle implies that the grammar alone is not conclusive. Context and usage must inform the translator. On a strictly grammatical basis, Titus 2:13 could refer to one person, “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” or two, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Koine usage can support either reading.

The Question of Why “Savior” Lacks the Article

Some have highlighted that “Savior” often lacks the article even when referencing one definite individual, due to the usage of titles in Greek. One can omit the article before a noun that is well defined by a genitive phrase, such as “our Savior.” The argument goes that there is no reason to insist on a second article to ensure reference to a different person. The indefinite or definite sense might be conveyed by context. In Titus 2:13, “the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus” does not necessarily unify them into one. Others see that same phenomenon, plus the linking “and,” as evidence that they must be the same. The papyri and other classical documents show that Greek authors could link two distinct persons with a single article if the second is also a well-known figure. There is no universal rule that states it must be a single person.

The Parallel in Jude 4

Jude 4 is sometimes referenced in these discussions because it mentions “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” in some translations. Although not an exact parallel, the argument is that if a single article preceded “Master and Lord,” one might see them as pointing to Jesus. Others respond that they are indeed being applied to the same person, Christ, though the context there is less ambiguous. Jude 4 has a slightly different phraseology but shows how the presence of a single article can unify the references. Yet that does not solve every question about Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1. It only underscores the complexity of Greek usage.

Calvin Winstanley’s Critique

One of the earliest critics of Granville Sharp, Calvin Winstanley, questioned why Sharp’s “rule” had no examples outside of the handful of texts that were used specifically to argue for Christ’s deity. Winstanley pointed out that it is suspicious that Sharp’s rule supposedly never fails—except in the very texts that cause debate. He argued that if one found examples in classical Greek or patristic Greek where the same construction did not unify the references, it would effectively dismantle the rule’s universal claim. Winstanley, who believed in the deity of Christ, suggested that the doctrine might stand stronger on other grounds than grammar that seems so uncertain. Daniel B. Wallace attempts to refute Winstanley’s critique by appealing to more recent evidence, but the original point remains that the impetus for formulating Sharp’s Rule was primarily to bolster a theological stance in certain New Testament passages.

Winstanley was Trinitarian but cautioned that a rule that held true only in the New Testament in all but the disputed cases was too flimsy a ground on which to try to prove the divinity of Christ to the Socinians (Unitarians). Instead he said, “[I think] there are much more cogent arguments in reserve, when [Sharp’s] rule of interpretation shall be abandoned.”[ Winstanley, p. 42] His biggest criticisms of Sharp’s rule rest in the fact that 1) the early church fathers do not follow it and 2) the early church fathers never invoked this rule to prove the divinity of Christ (though it would have been an obvious tool against such heresy). He concludes, “Hence it may be presumed that the doctrine then rested on other grounds.” [Winstanley, p. 43] 

However, just because Wallace exaggerates Winstanley’s concession does not mean that he has no evidence to refute Winstanley. Wallace argues that, for various reasons, the only two passages from Granville’s eight that truly follow Sharp’s rule (for textual reasons, among others) are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.^[26] Wallace interacts in depth with Winstanley’s critiques of Sharp and shows from grammatical, textual, linguistic, and Patristic evidence that Sharp’s rule is truly valid across Classical, Biblical, Papyrological, and Patristic Greek – with some slight modification to the rules. [Sharp Redivivus by Wallace] Here is how Wallace restates the issue:

“In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.”

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 21:12 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)

12 ΚαὶAnd εἰσῆλθενwent in ἸησοῦςJesus εἰςinto τὸthe ἱερόν,temple, καὶand ἐξέβαλενthrew out πάνταςall τοὺςthe (ones) πωλοῦνταςselling καὶand ἀγοράζονταςbuying ἐνin τῷthe ἱερῷtemple καὶand τὰςthe τραπέζαςtables τῶνof the κολλυβιστῶνmoney changers κατέστρεψενhe turned over καὶand τὰςthe καθέδραςseats τῶνof the (ones) πωλούντωνselling τὰςthe περιστεράς,doves,

The formula is ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN.

( τοὺςthe (ones) πωλοῦνταςselling καὶand ἀγοράζονταςbuying )
ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN

We have two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun is preceded by the definite article τοὺς (tous, “the ones”) and the second noun is without the definite article. (ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN) In this construction, the definite article occurs before the first noun (the sellers), but it is not necessary before the second noun (the buyers), so it was omitted. On this Dr. Ezra Abbot writes on page 452, “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·lounʹtas kai a·go·raʹzon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·teʹros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·monʹ] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he doʹxa tou me·gaʹlou The·ouʹ kai so·teʹros he·monʹ], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [I·e·souʹ Khri·stouʹ to so·teʹros he·monʹ] changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·osʹ], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·taʹ ten khaʹrin tou The·ouʹ he·monʹ kai ky·riʹou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου [I·e·souʹ Khri·stouʹ to ky·riʹou] makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”[17]

Grammarian and textual scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace seems to have been highly invested in the defense of Granville Sharp and his rule (ARTICLE + NOUN + “and” (καὶ) + NOUN), the nouns are recognized as referring to the same person when the construction meets three requirements. In other words, the second noun refers to the person as the first noun when (1) neither of them are impersonal, (2) neither is plural and (3) neither is a proper name. Of Course, Ezra Abbot’s example is negated by the plural exception. On this Daniel Wallace says Abbot’s example fails because the “plural substantives are involved; and (2) he [Abbot] argues that English syntax is wholly analogous to Greek with reference to Sharp’s rule.”[18] Wallace further defends Sharp’s Rule on the bible.org website, stating “Granville Sharp is widely known in evangelical circles for his famous Greek rule which has been used to defend the deity of Christ in various NT passages.” (bold mine) This same motivating factor keeps coming to light. Is it that Ezra Abbot got it wrong and misunderstood or that we have a vague pattern that was developed for a sole purpose and then the exceptions to the rule followed because they got in the way of ‘defending the deity of Christ.’ In an entire book dedicated to Granville Sharp, chapter 2, titled Two Centuries of Misunderstanding, Wallace begins by informing his readers that “A. T. Robertson named George Benedict Winer as the catalyst behind the neglect of Sharp’s canon in application to Christological significant texts.” (Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, Wallace, 69) Wallace would have us believe that numerous leading Greek grammarians for the past 140 years have all misconstrued (misinterpreted) Sharp’s Rule (Abbot, Turner, Moulton, Danna, Mantey, to mention just a few of the great ones). The problem that this author has is, you have a supposed rule that is not absolute until you discover all of the exceptions; then, the rule is stated as an absolute except when (1) neither of them are impersonal, (2) neither is plural and (3) neither is a proper name.

Lastly, let us simply say that God does not need our help in developing Bible doctrines. Thus, translators should render verses as they should be and textual scholars should follow the external an internal evidence as opposed to following their desired outcome. In the history of copying the New Testament manuscripts, some copyists took liberties with the text to strengthen doctrine and so it is true of Bible translators, translation committees, and the publishers of these Bibles. The vast majority of Bible translations have been guilty of a little theological bias, as no imperfect human can escape it entirely, but some translations have been far more guilty than others. Let us state clearly here that theological bias is not evil per se, it is a desire that can go unnoticed as it conceals itself because the person sees themselves as they likely are, honest-hearted researchers, seeking the truth. It becomes problematic, more intentional, though, when the textual scholar or the translator ignores the evidence or minimizes the evidence for the sake of their desired outcome. For example, say we have a particular grammar rule that is absolute, which shows up numerous times in a Gospel for example and in every verse but one the translator is faithful to that rule. Now, the obe verse where the translator chose to ignore the grammar rule he has been faithfully obeying, it is verse with enormous theological baggage. The translator may think he is defending the faith, the Word of God, while the objective outside observer may see it as it is, theological bias.

Significance for Translation Committees

Translation committees tend to evaluate textual variants, grammar, lexical meaning, and historical context. In texts like Titus 2:13, committees also account for doctrinal implications. Many committees have decided that Titus 2:13 likely references “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” as a single subject, either because they believe the grammar compels that reading or because they see theological coherence in identifying Christ as “God” in Paul’s writings. Others hesitate, feeling that it is an overreach grammatically or that it conflicts with Paul’s customary usage. The question for committees is whether to present one possible reading or mention both. Some committees prefer the single-subject reading in the main text with a footnote indicating the alternative.

The Overarching Issue of Bias

Every translator approaches the text with some measure of theological orientation, even if not consciously. The best efforts aim to be as objective as possible. In the case of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, there is a known range of grammar possibilities. A translator with a strong conviction about Christ’s deity may lean toward calling him “our great God and Savior.” Another might consider it a forced reading, especially if they observe that the original biblical authors generally reserved the term “God” for the Father. Neither approach necessarily arises from a lack of faith or an ulterior agenda, but from how they weigh grammar, context, and theology.

Deciding Between the Options

Grammatical context, usage within the same letter, and the pattern throughout the New Testament play major roles. The question is whether these verses stand out as singular exceptions calling Jesus “God” directly or whether they carry on the general biblical pattern that distinguishes “God” from the one identified as “Lord” or “Christ.” The matter is not trivial, because it touches how we approach the entire subject of translation and biblical exegesis. Some might prefer to let the passage remain ambiguous: “the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus.” Others prefer the more dogmatic reading: “the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Why Ambiguity Need Not Undermine Doctrine

Some fear that admitting ambiguity in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 might weaken the belief in Christ’s deity. However, one’s doctrine of Christ’s divine nature need not hang on whether these two verses must read a certain way. The New Testament offers multiple lines of testimony about Christ’s prehuman existence, role in creation, exaltation, and equality with the Father in certain respects. Those who trust in that doctrine can see it upheld by numerous passages without forcing Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 to yield a conclusive statement if the grammar is not certain. One can maintain a high Christology while translating these verses in a manner that underscores the typical biblical usage of “God” for the Father.

Conclusion on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1

Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 have fueled lengthy discussions about the Granville Sharp Rule, which claims that when two singular personal nouns are joined by “and,” with one article, they must refer to the same individual. The rule’s origin was steeped in the desire to show explicit references to Christ as “God.” Over the centuries, refinements and exceptions have been acknowledged, showing that the grammar of Koine Greek can be more flexible than originally presumed. The absence of a second article does not necessarily unify two nouns into one subject, especially when the broader context suggests two. At the same time, the grammar does allow a single-subject reading in some circumstances.

The deciding factor often rests with context, the author’s usage elsewhere, and theological presuppositions about whether Paul or Peter would explicitly call Jesus “the great God.” If one sees continuity in how these writers typically reference “God the Father” and “Jesus Christ,” the two-subject rendering may appear more natural. If one is convinced that Paul or Peter occasionally used explicit divine titles for the Son, the single-subject rendering might be preferred. Grammatically, the text of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 admits both possibilities.

No matter the choice, the discussion brings to the forefront the challenges of translating biblical texts faithfully. The question is not whether Christ is deity but whether these specific verses use the phrase “God and Savior” as a single description of Jesus or as a dual reference to God (the Father) and the Savior (the Son). Translators must acknowledge that Koine Greek usage, historical context, and the larger scriptural message all intersect when rendering these passages. The Granville Sharp Rule, in its narrower and more qualified form, can sometimes help highlight places where a single subject is likely intended, but it does not indisputably settle every case.

When approaching Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, readers can note that many reputable translations will differ. One can consult the Greek text, read commentaries from scholars on all sides, and then evaluate the broader usage in the letters of Paul and Peter. Ultimately, those who read Scripture in a spirit of reverence and careful study will glean insights from the words, whichever grammatical choice their translation employs. The overarching message remains that God the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, share a divine bond, yet the New Testament also distinguishes them in various ways. Whether these verses call Jesus “God” outright or ascribe that title to the Father, both texts firmly place Christ in a position of exalted status as Savior and Lord.

You May Also Enjoy

Does Romans 9:5 Exalt Christ as God or Offer a Doxology to the Father?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION