The Trinity: Was the Granville Sharp rule made up to support the deity of Christ? 

Hebrews chapter 1 is the clincher. "And unto the Son, He saith, "Thy throne, oh God, is forever and ever..." God calls Him God. What more evidence do we need? There is SO MUCH in the New Testament that testifies to the deity of Christ.

Putting Jesus in His Place has been updated; scheduled to release in Nov. 2024 under the title: The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense (Kregel)

I was reading in Hebrews the other day and I came across another example of the GS rule. Hebrews 3.1 κατανοήσατε *τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα* τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν

Thank you for this. Very familiar with the Granville Sharpe rule (I understand he had more rules and this is like number 4 or 6 ???). Anyways, a former professor went semi-arian a few years after I took NT from him. We are friends and my heart is broken even now after 12 years of his switch.

καί is pronounced like *κε in Ecclesiastical/Modern Greek pronunciation. I do understand, however, that New Zealand English has undergone a vowel shift. So, maybe it’s not entirely fair to point this out.

Granville. I am a Greek teacher and am interested in that tea shirt.

Granville. Yes, the t-shirt pls!

From what I can tell, it seems that a number of pre-AV English translations rendered Titus 2.13 one way (not recognizing the GS rule) but 2 Pet. 1.1 another way (acknowledging Jesus as "God and Savior"). Tyndale, Bishop's Bible and Geneva Bible, for example, showed "God and Savior" as referring to Jesus in 2 Pet. 1.1. Interesting, esp. when you consider King James' first rule for the translators of the AV (The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit) The KJVO people have their sensitivity meter set way high for any whiff of "denial" of the deity of Christ in our evil modern versions, but the KJV translators themselves get a pass for taking the very Bible they were supposed to use as a template (as well as other contemporary versions) and *changing* the rendering to make any reference to Christ as God much more obscure. If the NIV had done that......

Mk.10:18 Jesus answered: ' ' Why do you call me good? Only God is good. Mk.12:29 Jesus answered: ' ' Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.' '

Granville! Great breakdown. Can you explain why the rule is not applied to 2 Thess 1:12 "κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ." It has the same construction but translations have "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" with the added article?

Granville ( I wish you had not abandoned Erasmian pronunciation)

Can you please show us a way to put this in Logos Bible Software so that we get all the occurrences using greek?

Granville! Good video!

Really appreciated that explanation, thanks! Granville

Excellent video, as usual, sir! Quick note: Pretty sure Acts 3 is after Pentecost, although isn't Acts 2:36 another example?

Great video, Dr. Burling. I've noticed that many peculiar Protestant doctrines seem to emerge primarily in the English-speaking West, where a significant number of Non-trinitarian Christians (which is a contradiction in terms) are found. This seems to be particularly prevalent in areas where there's a general lack of familiarity with the Greek language. Given this, I'm curious if you've explored St. Athanasius' works, especially On the Incarnation, in relation to the Granville Sharp Rule. Have you also considered the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers when they were refining the technical teachings on the Trinity? Or are these Fathers simply more explicit in their Greek with statements like "Jesus is one of three persons in the Trinity"? I'm a big fan of your channel-excellent video!

Thanks and Granville!

I’ve been chewing on this for a while - I’m curious what others might think of it. Titus 2:13 is a classic Trinitarian proof-text. Arguments abound over whether it is a proper application of Granville Sharp’s rule. But that rule itself is subject to great controversy and I don’t put much stock into it based on the criticisms I’ve read about it. Sometimes rules like this get in the way of more straightforward understandings. Putting the rule aside, therefore, it seems that dispute is completely unnecessary for this text (and could miss the point altogether) if Christ Jesus is not a referent of “God and Savior” in the first place but instead a referent of “the appearing” or of “glory” of of “the appearing of the glory.” The passage (TR) is: 13 προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου (NASB) looking for the blessed hope and the aappearing of the glory of 1b our "great God and Savior", Christ Jesus… Without the Granville Sharp rule, it would be: (kjv) looking for the blessed hope and the glorious aappearing of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus… or (asv) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ… l But, is there a grammatical reason that this can’t be translated (or at least interpreted) more like (my proposed translation) looking for the blessed hope(1) and the appearing of the glory of our great God(2) and our Savior(3), [all of which is] Christ Jesus. This would mean Christ Jesus is the “appearing of God’s glory” or “the glory of God" and not (at least from this verse) the identity of “our great God” (the couplet also being a common term for roman rulers of the day). The kjv and asv do seem to interpret Jesus as being not the “great god” but instead the thing that will be appearing, but they aren’t seeing it as describing Jesus as actually being the appearing (or glory) of God itself (and also being our savior). I believe that Jesus is clearly referred to as being God’s glory in other passages but I haven’t seen this even discussed anywhere even as a possible translation of this verse. *interestingly, only the asv seems to notice the lack of the article preceding επιφανειαν.

Very good. Thank you

Granville ❤

Granville

Granville. Great video.

Granville!!!

The Trinity = Three authors/One script

I believe Jesus Christ is God but I deny the doctrines of the trinity as the scripture says God is one .I think there are problems with the Athenasian creed or Athenasius' wrightings

Granville!

Titus 2.13 has a nice genitive chain, too.

Granville TSKS

Granville!!

Did you use weird lighting for this video, Doc? Your skin seems to have strangely colored blotches in this video.

Granville.

Hilarious shirt.

Granvile!

Granville!

It is a made-up rule. Mostly defended by mere apologists. Academics don't take that seriously.

Granville (#)

Jehovah's Witnesses are such people who will not believe in the divinity of Jesus. This stubbornness is calculated. There are people who have been commanded to not believe God. Jesus commanded Caiaphas to not believe in Him. Luke 22:66-68 - And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Jesus may jst have been "reading the room" or He was commanding them to do what they were created to do - i.e. crucify Him. JWs are the way they are not because they don't see and understand but because their wills are not permitted to receive the Son of God as He is.

Thank you for your video. I have raised objections in previous videos you have made on this subject. I would not say you have really addressed any of those arguments I made (but then you are not obligated to respond to every youtube commenter!), but I appreciate that you further elaborated on your case for the "rule". The only other observation I have gained since my previous comments, relates to the fact that I have since learned a second language to fluency - French. Now French essentially has language police in Quebec and also has a central "authority" on the language in France. But, for all their attempts to create "rules" for the language, it does not stop normal people from ignoring them in common speech (happy to provide examples). This also applies in English! To bring that to the writers of the Greek NT, they used Koine Greek - a lingua franca at the time - which was not even the first language of any of the NT authors. Yet, modern grammarians would assert confidently that they were obligated to follow what is merely a *regularity* in Greek grammar. The NT writers and their audience knew what they meant by those verses - there would have been no doubt as to the identity of God & Christ at that time - thus they were not obligated to follow the regularity. I am not offering here a formal argument per se, I just find that people who assert the Granville Sharp Rule suffer from a severe case of tunnel vision, debate on this topic really lacks nuance and careful consideration of some of the more relevantly practical considerations. The only other point I would reiterate is that the translators of the NAB (who are trinitarians and accept the deity of Christ) - rejected the use of Granville Sharp "Rule" in those controversial verses...

Ephesians 6:21 does not fall under Granville Sharp's Rule because the verse uses descriptive titles ("beloved brother" and "faithful minister") rather than two singular, personal nouns. Granville Sharp's Rule specifically applies to cases where two personal nouns of the same case are joined by "καί" (and), with the first having a definite article and the second not, implying they refer to the same person. In Ephesians 6:21, the structure is similar, but the nouns are not proper names or distinct roles that carry the theological weight typically associated with Sharp's Rule. Revelation 1:9 does not fall under Granville Sharp's Rule because it involves descriptive titles referring to the same person, John, and not two distinct personal nouns connected in a way that the rule is intended to address. The verse simply uses descriptive terms to convey John's role among the believers, without invoking the specific grammatical structure that Sharp's Rule governs. The application of Sharp's Rule here is not widely recognized or supported by scholarly literature, which typically focuses on passages with significant Christological implications, like Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1. The statement that the rule "is not contested" in this context is misleading because it suggests a consensus where none exists. The lack of contestation likely stems from the fact that Sharp's Rule is not traditionally applied to Ephesians 6:21 or Revelation 1:9, making the claim somewhat circular and overstated.

Summary: Grammar beats human tradition

More properly, the rule (even if legitimate and applicable here) doesn’t actually prove he is God. It only would prove that the term is being applied to him. The next layer of consideration would then be what is meant by that term. There are, of course, numerous such uses for ordinary men. Moses and others.

Granville

Granville!

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville

Granville!

Granville!