Why Sharp’s Rule Is Not True
Preliminary Comments
The word “articular” means preceded by an article, and
the word “anarthrous” means not preceded by an article.
The term “TSKS” means
article-substantive-kai-substantive, which means article-noun-and-noun.
Each quotation of the Greek text below is a
word-for-word English translation of the Greek text.
Each English-translation phrase that contains multiple
hyphenated English words is an English translation of a single Greek word.
For example, the English-translation phrase “to-you”
is an English translation of the single Greek word ὑμῖν.
In each quotation below, the words in [brackets] are
added by me for clarification.
Sharp’s Rule
In the 18th century, the anti-Trinitarian Socinians
were saying that Jesus Christ was not identified as God in the New Testament,
that is, except in John 1:1-18.
Therefore, in order to silence the Socinians, Mr.
Granville Sharp (1735-1813), a Trinitarian, wanted to be able to conclude that
the noun “God” referred, not to the Father (God), but to the Son (Jesus
Christ), in each singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration in
Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and GOD), 2 Thessalonians 1:12 (the GOD of-us and
Lord Jesus Christ), Titus 2:13 (the great GOD and Savior of-us Jesus Christ)
and 2 Peter 1:1 (the GOD of-us and Savior Jesus Christ).
In order to reach that conclusion, Mr. Sharp invented
the factually baseless idea that a singular personal article-noun-and-noun
configuration must always refer to one person (on page 3 in the 1803 edition of
his 1798 book, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text
of the New Testament).
Mr. Sharp also wanted to be able to conclude that the
singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration in Acts 13:50 (the Paul
and Barnabas) was not proof that his factually baseless invented idea was not
true.
In order to reach that conclusion, Mr. Sharp invented
the second factually baseless idea that a proper noun functioned differently in
a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration than a non-proper noun
functioned, and that the singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration
in Acts 13:50 (the Paul and Barnabas) therefore was merely an exception to his
first factually baseless invented idea instead of being a refutation of his
first factually baseless invented idea (on page 6 in the 1803 edition of his
1798 book, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of
the New Testament).
The combination of Mr. Sharp’s two factually baseless
invented ideas has come to be known as Sharp’s Rule, according to which a
singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration whose second noun is not
a proper name must always refer to one person.
According to the Sharp’s-Rule rationale, the first
noun in a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration is a constant,
because the first noun always refers to the first stated person, regardless of
whether the first noun is a non-proper noun or a proper name, and the second
noun is a variable, because either the second noun refers to the first stated
person (the same person to whom the first noun refers), if the second noun is a
non-proper noun, or the second noun refers to a second person, if the second is
a proper name.
Therefore, according to the Sharp’s-Rule rationale,
the first noun (the constant) is not a factor in whether or not Sharp’s Rule
requires the referent of a singular personal article-noun-and-noun
configuration to be one person. Only the second noun (the variable) is a factor.
Therefore, according to the Sharp’s-Rule rationale, a
singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration whose second noun is not
a proper name must always refer to one person, regardless of whether the first
noun is a non-proper noun or a proper name.
Dr. Daniel Wallace (1952- ) discusses this in footnote
58 on pages 253-254 in his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin:
Semantics and Significance, where he says, “The only real instance in which a
proper name becomes a factor in Sharp’s Construction is when it stands second
in order … If a proper name is the second noun in a TSKS construction, it would
naturally lack the article without implying identity with the first noun’s
referent. Some have … argued that σωτήρ
[Savior] in Titus 2:13 [the great God and Savior of-us Jesus Christ] is a
proper name. Such a view is easy to refute.”
According to what Dr. Wallace says in footnote 58,
since the second noun “Savior” in Titus 2:13 (the great God and Savior of-us Jesus
Christ) is not a proper name (according to Dr. Wallace), therefore Sharp’s Rule
requires the referent of Titus 2:13 (the great God and Savior of-us Jesus
Christ) to be one person, regardless of whether the first noun “God” is a
non-proper noun or a proper name.
Sharp’s Rule is a subjective method of interpretation
that allows the interpreter to ignore the context and to arbitrarily decide
whether or not the referent of a singular personal article-noun-and-noun
configuration in the New Testament is two persons by arbitrarily deciding
whether or not the second noun is a proper name.
If the personal preference of the interpreter is for
the referent of a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration to be
one person (in order to create the illusion that the noun “God” refers to the
Son [Jesus Christ] instead of the Father [God]), then the interpreter
arbitrarily declares the second noun not to be a proper name (and the referent
therefore to be one person), even if the context requires the referent to be
two persons.
If the personal preference of the interpreter is for
the referent of a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration to be
two persons (because the fact that the referent is two persons is too obvious
to deny), then the interpreter arbitrarily declares the second noun to be a
proper name (and the referent therefore to be two persons) in order to avoid
admitting that Sharp’s Rule is not true, even if there is no factual basis for
the second noun to be a proper name.
Instead of being objective, Sharp’s Rule is
subjective. Instead of being factually based, Sharp’s Rule is agenda driven.
Instead of allowing the context to have priority over the personal preference
of the interpreter, Sharp’s Rule allows the personal preference of the
interpreter to have priority over the context.
The subjective nature of Sharp’s Rule leads the
proponents of Sharp’s Rule to disagree with each other on whether or not the
referent of a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration is two persons
by leading them to disagree with each other on whether or not the second noun
is a proper name. Even when the proponents of Sharp’s Rule agree with each
other that the second noun is a proper name, they disagree with each other on
the reason that the second noun is a proper name.
Any alleged rule of grammar that leads to multiple
different conclusions, as Sharp’s Rule does, cannot be a legitimate rule.
Sharp’s Rule is a contrived rationalization by which
its proponents choose to ignore the context (which requires the noun “God” to
be a reference to the Father [God] instead of the Son [Jesus Christ]) and to
arbitrarily declare the noun “God” in various singular personal
article-noun-and-noun configurations in the New Testament to be a reference to
the Son (Jesus Christ) instead of the Father (God) for the sake of a
Trinitarian agenda.
Ephesians 5:5
It is contextually clear in the below word-for-word
English translation of the Greek text in the fifth chapter of Ephesians that
the nouns “Christ” and “God” consistently refer to two persons (the Son and
Father) throughout that chapter.
Ephesians 5:1 you-must-become … imitators OF-THE GOD …
2 … you-must-walk in love according-as also THE CHRIST he-loved us and he-gave
himself on-behalf-of us offering and sacrifice TO-THE GOD … 5 … every
fornicator or unclean-one or coveter … not he-has inheritance in the kingdom
OF-THE CHRIST and GOD. 6 … because-of these-things … it-comes, the wrath OF-THE
GOD … 14 … he-will-shine-on you, THE CHRIST … 20 giving-thanks always … TO-THE
GOD and FATHER, 21 being-submitted to-each-other in fear OF-CHRIST … 23 … as
also THE CHRIST head of-the church, himself Savior of-the body. 24 … as the
church it-is-submitted TO-THE CHRIST … 25 … according-as also THE CHRIST
he-loved the church and himself he-gave on-behalf-of her, 26 that her
he-would-love, having cleansed by-the washing of-the water in word, 27 that
he-would-present, he to-himself, glorious the church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any of-the such-things, but that she-would-be holy and
without-blemish. … 31 … and they-will-be, the two, one, flesh one. 32 The mystery this great it-is. I, But, I-speak
to/for CHRIST and to/for the church.
The unusual sequence (the Christ and God instead of
the God and Christ) in the phrase “the kingdom of-the Christ and God” in
Ephesians 5:5 is further evidence that Paul is referring to two persons (the
Son and Father), because that sequence is consistent with Paul’s statement in 1
Corinthians 15:22-28 that the Son (Christ) will reign over the kingdom until he
gives the kingdom to the Father (God).
1 Corinthians 15:22 … in THE CHRIST all-ones
they-will-be-made-alive. 23 each-one, But, in the own order. First-fruit,
CHRIST. Afterward, the-ones OF-THE CHRIST in the coming of-him. 24 Afterward,
the end, whenever he-would-give-over the kingdom TO-THE GOD and FATHER … 25
it-is-necessary, For, him to-reign until which he-would-place all the enemies
under the feet of-him … 28 whenever, But, it-would-be-subordinated TO-HIM,
the-things all, at-that-time also HIMSELF THE SON he-will-be-subordinated
TO-THE-ONE HAVING-SUBORDINATED to-him the-things all, that he-would-be, THE
GOD, the-things all in all-things.
Therefore, Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God) refers
to two persons (the Son and Father).
On page 283 in his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon
and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, Dr. Daniel Wallace (1952- ) says, “In
Ephesians 5:5 [the Christ and God] … the TSKS construction still suggested some
sort of unity between God and Christ [Father and Son].”
According to what Dr. Wallace says on page 283,
Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God) refers to two persons (the Son and Father).
On page 252 in his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon
and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance, Dr. Daniel Wallace (1952- ) says,
“proper names are usually anarthrous (since they need no article to be
definite) … but in the nominative [the nominative case], θεός [God] is used almost always with the article. … even
if θεός [God] were to be considered a proper name in certain
NT [New Testament] books, the texts in question [the singular personal
article-noun-and-noun configurations in which one of the two nouns is the noun
“God”] are in [the] epistles.”
According to what Dr. Wallace says on page 252, a
non-proper noun is normally articular (preceded by an article), especially in
the nominative case, and a proper name is normally anarthrous (not preceded by
an article), especially in the nominative case, and the noun “God” is a
non-proper noun, and when a person wants to determined whether a noun in a
singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration in the New Testament is a
non-proper noun or a proper name, the person must make that determination in
the epistle in which the singular
personal article-noun-and-noun configuration appears, not in any other book of
the New Testament.
In Ephesians, which is the only epistle that matters
when discussing Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God), the noun “Christ” (not
attached to the name “Jesus”) is articular 75% of the time (21 out of 28 times)
in general and 80% of the time (4 out of 5 times) in the nominative case in the
Critical Text (100% of the time [5 out of 5 times] in the nominative case in
the Majority Text and in the Received Text), and the noun “God” is articular
77% of the time (24 out of 31 times) in general and 100% of the time (6 out of
6 times) in the nominative case.
Therefore, both of the nouns in Ephesians 5:5 (the
Christ and God) are non-proper nouns (normally articular, especially in the
nominative case) in Ephesians, which is the only epistle that matters when
discussing Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God).
According to the Sharp’s-Rule rationale, a singular
personal article-noun-and-noun configuration whose second noun is not a proper
name must always refer to one person, regardless of whether the first noun is a
non-proper noun or a proper name.
Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God) is a singular
personal article-noun-and-noun configuration whose second noun is not a proper
name (and whose first noun, by the way, is not a proper name either) in
Ephesians, which is the only epistle that matters when discussing Ephesians 5:5
(the Christ and God), and whose referent therefore is required by Sharp’s Rule
to be one person, but whose referent nevertheless is two persons (the Son and
Father) in violation of Sharp’s Rule, which is proof that Sharp’s Rule is not
true.
The proponents of Sharp’s Rule try (in various ways)
to get around the fact that Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and God) is proof that
Sharp’s Rule is not true. Some of them deny the fact that the referent is two
persons (the Son and Father). Some of them deny the fact that the second noun (God)
is a non-proper noun in Ephesians. Some of them deny the fact that the first
noun (Christ) is a non-proper noun in Ephesians and also deny the fact that the
first noun in a singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration is not a
factor in whether or not Sharp’s Rule requires the referent of the singular
personal article-noun-and-noun configuration to be one person.
None of their denials is valid.
The fact remains that Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and
God) is proof that Sharp’s Rule is not true.
The Traditional Objective Method Of Interpretation
The traditional method of interpreting the New
Testament is an objective method that always allows the context to determine
the number of persons (either two persons or one person) in the referent of
each singular personal article-noun-and-noun configuration in the New
Testament.
In sections 1143 and 1030 in his 1920 book, A Greek
Grammar for Colleges, Dr. Herbert Smyth (1857-1937), a grammarian of Classical
Greek, says, “A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns
connected by AND, produces the
effect of a single notion,” and, “An attributive adjective belonging to more
than one substantive agrees with the nearest.”
According
to what Dr. Smyth says in sections 1143 and 1030 in his 1920 book, the most that can be said of any two nouns in an
article-noun-and-noun configuration is that the two nouns are expressed as one
idea (a single notion), the context always being what determines whether the
two nouns refer to one person or thing or to more than one person or thing.
The examples in section 1143 are the phrase “the
Generals and Captains” (οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχαγοί) from section
2.2.8 in Xenophon’s Anabasis, and the phrase “the of-the many-ones slander both
and envy” (ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος) from section 28a in Plato’s Apologia, and the phrase
“regarding the of-themselves souls and bodies” (περὶ
τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς καὶ σώματα) from section 3.2.20 in Xenophon’s Anabasis.
The example in section 1030 is the phrase “the beautiful
and-good man and woman” (τὸν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα καὶ γυναῖκα) from section
470e in Plato’s Gorgias.
According to Dr. Smyth, an article-noun-and-noun
configuration has the same meaning in Greek that it has in English. It means
that the two nouns are expressed as one idea via the one article. It does not
mean anything else. The number of persons or things in the referent of an
article-noun-and-noun configuration is always determined by the context.
In English, when two persons are related to one thing,
the two nouns that refer to the two persons are often expressed as one idea via
an article-noun-and-noun configuration in relation to the one noun that refers
to the one thing, as in the phrase “the marriage contract of the husband and
wife.”
The same thing occurs in the Greek New Testament.
The same two persons (the Father and Son) that are
referenced in relation to two things (grace and peace) in 2 Thessalonians 1:2
(grace to-you and peace from God Father of-us and Lord Jesus Christ) are
expressed as one idea via an article-noun-and-noun configuration in relation to
the one grace in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 (the grace of-the God of-us and Lord
Jesus Christ).
The same two persons (the Father and Son) that are
referenced in relation to two things (grace and peace) in Titus 1:4 (grace and
peace from God Father and Christ Jesus the Savior of-us) are expressed as one
idea via an article-noun-and-noun configuration in relation to the one glory in
Titus 2:13 (the glory of-the great God and Savior of-us Jesus Christ).
The same two persons (the Son and Father) are
expressed as one idea via an article-noun-and-noun configuration in relation to
the one kingdom in Ephesians 5:5 (the kingdom of-the Christ and God).
The same two persons (the Father and Son) are expressed
as one idea via an article-noun-and-noun configuration in relation to the one
righteousness in 2 Peter 1:1 (in righteousness of-the God of-us and Savior
Jesus Christ).
The phrase “the God of-us and LORD Jesus Christ” in 2
Thessalonians 1:12 and the phrase “the God of-us and SAVIOR Jesus Christ” in 2
Peter 1:1 are the same phrase referring to the same two persons (the Father and
Son), the only difference being that the title “Lord” precedes the name “Jesus
Christ” in the one and that the title “Savior” precedes the name “Jesus Christ”
in the other.
Just as the phrase “the Christ and God” in Ephesians
5:5 refers to two persons (the Son and Father) despite the fact that the phrase
“the God and Father” in Ephesians 5:20 refers to one person (the Father), likewise
the phrase “the God of-us and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:1 refers to two
persons (the Father and Son) despite the fact that the phrase “the Lord of-us
and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:11 refers to one person (the Son).
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul says, “But to-us, one God,
the Father, out-of whom the-things all, and we into him, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom the-things all, and we through him.”
The theology of Peter is at least similar to (if not
the same as) the theology of Paul. Therefore, just as Paul uses the noun “God”
in reference to the Father (one God, the Father / 1 Corinthians 8:6) and the
noun “Lord” in reference to the Son (one Lord, Jesus Christ / 1 Corinthians
8:6), hence the phrase “the God of-us and Lord Jesus Christ” in reference to
the Father and Son (two persons) in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, likewise Peter uses
the noun “God” in reference to the Father, hence the phrase “the God of-us and
Savior Jesus Christ” in reference to the Father and Son (two persons) in 2
Peter 1:1, and likewise Peter uses the noun “Lord” in reference to the Son,
hence the phrase “the Lord of-us and Savior Jesus Christ” in reference to the
Son (one person) in 2 Peter 1:11.
As shown above, the traditional method of interpreting
the New Testament is an objective method that always allows the context to
determine whether the referent of each singular personal article-noun-and-noun
configuration in the New Testament is two persons or one person.
Whether a singular personal article-noun-and-noun
configuration refers to two persons or to one person is always determined by
the context, regardless of whether the nouns are non-proper nouns or proper
names.
Depending on the context, a singular personal
article-noun-and-noun configuration that features non-proper nouns can refer
either to two persons (the Christ and God / Ephesians 5:5) or to one person
(the God and Father / Ephesians 5:20).
Depending on the context, a singular personal
article-noun-and-noun configuration that features proper names can refer either
to two persons (the Paul and Barnabas / Acts 13:50) or to one person (the
being-called Devil and Satan / Revelation 12:9 in the Majority Text).
Note: The phrase “the being-said Circumcision” in
Ephesians 2:11 is an article-participle-noun configuration, in which the
article and participle agree in case, number and gender with the single noun.
The phrase “the being-called Devil and Satan” in Revelation 12:9 in the
Majority Text is an article-participle-noun-and-noun configuration, in which
the article and participle agree in case, number and gender with the first
noun. The two phrases are grammatically the same, except that the second phrase
has an additional noun.
According to the traditional objective method of
interpreting the New Testament, the noun “God” in each singular personal
article-noun-and-noun configuration in Ephesians 5:5 (the Christ and GOD), 2
Thessalonians 1:12 (the GOD of-us and Lord Jesus Christ), Titus 2:13 (the great
GOD and Savior of-us Jesus Christ) and 2 Peter 1:1 (the GOD of-us and Savior
Jesus Christ) refers to the Father (God), not to the Son (Jesus Christ), as
determined by the context.
On pages 116-117, and in footnote 45 on page 117, in
his 2009 book, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance,
Dr. Daniel Wallace (1952- ) says, “Smyth tells us [in section 1143 in his 1920
book, A Greek Grammar for Colleges] that a single article, used with the first
of two or more nouns connected by AND, produces the effect of a single notion.
None of his examples [in section 1143: the Generals and Captains / the of-the
many-ones slander both and envy / regarding the of-themselves souls and bodies]
involve the same referent, but neither are any of them personal and singular. …
the discussions of the personal singular constructions are rather thin in the
standard classical grammars. … it is just possible that these grammarians shied
away from the personal singular constructions precisely because such
constructions indicated more than the vague Gesamtvorstellung [general concept]
was meant to convey.”
On pages 116-117
and in footnote 45 on page 117, Dr. Wallace claims that it is possible that the reason that neither Dr.
Smyth nor any other grammarian of Classical Greek says what Sharp’s Rule says
is that Dr. Smyth and the other grammarians of Classical Greek intentionally
avoid the subject.
As shown above, the real reason that neither Dr. Smyth
nor any other grammarian of Classical Greek says what Sharp’s Rule says is that
there is nothing to say, because Sharp’s Rule is not true.
