 |
| Granville Sharp (1735-1813) |
Rule #1
“When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . .”
Examples of this first rule are:
Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exception-less. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised.
Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation.
Many modern Greek Grammars include a section on Sharp's rule. Here is Vaughn's & Gideon's summary.
"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" [and] and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first." (Vaughn and Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979, p. 83.)
You may notice that this version of Sharp's first rule does not limit it to exclusively personal, singular nouns, but also includes plural and non- personal nouns in the first rule. Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 278-290) has noted that when non-personal or plural nouns appear in a TSKS construction, at least some kind of unity is being expressed between the substantives. They may be:
- distinct but united
- overlapping entities
- first entity subset of second
- second entity subset of first
- both entities identical
As a general exegetical rule, we have found that the following general rule is helpful.
TSKTS or SKS- If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" (and) and the article is used with BOTH nouns (TSKTS), or with neither noun (SKS), the nouns point to different persons, things, or qualities. That is, the nouns are being distinguished in the context for a specific reason. This is true even when both nouns are applicable to the same person. eg., "I am the Alpha and Omega." The two nouns are opposites, and are being distinguished as extreme opposites, even though Jesus claims both for Himself.
TSKS - If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person referred to in the first when the nouns are singular, personal, and not proper names. When only the first noun has the article in plural or non-personal constructions, the nouns are being united for a purpose. In this case, even though the nouns themselves may individually refer to different things, qualities, or persons, they are being united for a specific reason in the context. For example, "the scribes and Pharisees." In this TSKS construction the writer meant to unite the two groups in pointing out their common opposition to Jesus, even though the two groups are completely distinct individually.
Rule V.
And as also when there is no article before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first.
Rule VI.
And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, quality, or attribute from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles.
On Sharp’s Rule #6 (TSKTS, article - substantive - kai - article - substantive {personal or non-personal})
Sharp's rule number six essentially states that when two or more nouns of the same case are preceded by the article and connected by the copulative kai, each noun expresses “a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun.”
The sixth rule also applies specifically to both personal and non-personal nouns. When both nouns have the definite article, they refer to different things. Sharp was careful to explain the exceptions, which apply to both the fifth and sixth rules. Notice that only personal nouns may fall under the exception, which is: when both nouns are clearly stated within the context to refer to the same person. Examples are Thomas' exclamation of John 20:28, “My Lord and my God.” Since in the context he was clearly addressing both nouns to Jesus' person, this falls within the exception. Another example, where the same person is addressed with two nouns, is Jesus' statement, from Revelation 22:13, “I am the first and the last.” Since Jesus specifically applied both titles to Himself within the context, this also falls within the exception to the sixth rule. When no such direct statement occurs within the context applying both nouns to a single person, the nouns refer to different things or persons, or qualities. Sharp was clear that any alleged exceptions to the fifth or sixth rules MUST have a clear singular personal application or they cannot be considered exceptions. Some may consider Matthew 28:19 a case in point. Here, we read, ”the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (TSKTSKTS).
Sharp’s Sixth Rule and Matthew 28:19
If rule six can be applied to Matthew 28:19, the use of the article before each noun indicates each of these are distinct somethings. The Pluralists say “rational God-persons”; the Modalists say three different ways of being of the one God referenced by the single “name” of the text—which is more faithful to the context. In which case, to be considered is the reference to a single name which may meet Sharp’s requirement for an exception from the rule for this text altogether.
However, Sharp’s rule is irrelevant to the syntax of the English. In English, “of the Father,” and “of the Son,” and “of the Holy Ghost” are prepositional phrases used as adjectives that modify the word “name”. Adjectives answer the question which one, what kind, or how many? Which name?
Here, we present Matthew 28:19 diagramed according to proper English grammar:
However:
On the other hand, Sharp's rule may be applied. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Sharp didn't say persons only were required, but included things, qualities, or attributes: as is demonstrated by the diagram above: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different attributes of the single "name" into which believers are to be baptized.
Granville Sharp’s sixth rule/exception
Matthew 28:19 does have a threefold reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Although Sharp never cites, or includes, Matthew 28:19 in his study, some Pluralists have appealed to Granville Sharp’s sixth rule, which says, in part, that when two or more nouns are listed and separated by “and” and each noun has the definite article “the” in front of it, then each noun refers to a different person, place, thing, quality, or attribute than the first noun. There are exceptions however, and such is the case when distinct or different actions are intended to be given to the same person. It is the context that must point this out though, and not simply three nouns preceded by definite articles.
When applied to Matthew 28:19 this rule simply identities the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct in some way. If the distinction is pressed too hard, as Pluralists want to suggest, then they must show how these are not three separate beings when orthodox Trinitarians typically affirm one being consisting of three persons. Oneness believers have never ceased to acknowledge the distinctions made here. Oneness theology sees that they are distinct manifestations of God’s roles in our salvation, but all are fulfilled in, and revealed through Jesus. His is the one name mentioned in the text that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but extensions. To say a grammatical rule forces three different nouns to be regarded as separate divine persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial is merely theological interpretation. Granville Sharp’s grammar rule does no such a thing.
Father, Son (John 1:1, 8:58; 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11) and Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3-9) are God/Yahweh of Israel and are identified as such. The God of Israel is not vague or hidden, but has a personal name as one unified personal spirit being. Yet, these distinctions do not necessitate that the inexhaustible and unlimited personality of the God of Israel be divided or separated. Such threefold repetitions are for emphasis and glorify the majesty of our God. They are not to distinguish multiple divine God-persons. As far as Matthew 28:19 is concerned Father, Son and Holy Ghost are but extensions of the name "Jesus": prepositional phrases used as adjectives that modify the word “name” (See the diagram above.).
Before the Pluralists become too comfortable in their assertion that Sharp’s Rule #6 proves the Trinity in Matthew 28:19 they should consider 1 Thessalonians. 5:23. Paul records, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς, καὶ ὁλόκληρον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἀμέμπτως ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τηρηθείη.)
In the Greek text the nouns “spirit”, “soul”, and “body” have the article before them and are separated by “and” and refer to one person. The English translations leave out the articles. (Yet, in spite of this verse some theologians still do not believe the soul and the spirit are distinct, but the same.)
Does anything in the context of Matthew 28:19 indicate an exception to Sharp’s rule? Is there anything that indicates one person/subject is in view rather than three persons/subjects? As we have already seen above we can safely answer, “Yes!” It’s clear that the word “name” is a singular noun. Even Trinitarian scholar R. Kendall Soulen has argued that Matthew 28:19 does refer to one name, but further adds “The name of the Holy Trinity is one name in three inflexions.” To underline the acknowledgement of the Trinitarians of the unity intended by the Matthean statement, even the New Catholic Encyclopedia, when commenting on water baptism states that the baptizer MUST say “In the 'name' of the …”, and not “In the 'names' of the…”, because the unity of the Trinity is to be emphasized by the single "name".
This name refers to the One Who has been Resurrected and appeared before many. It is the name of the One whose empty tomb was covered up with money by the Jews as a night raid by the disciples. It is the name of the missing body from the empty tomb that the governor was never to know about. It is the name of the One who was worshiped while others doubted. It is the name of the One who has all power and for whom we are to make disciples. It is the name of the One who will be with us always. It is the name of the One who Matthew calls Immanuel “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). It is the only name given under heaven whereby all men must be saved (Acts 4:12 cf 22:16).
And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, quality, or attribute from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles, as in the following examples -
John1:17, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια
the grace and the truth
John 2:22, τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ
the scripture and the word
John 11:44, τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας
the feet and the hands
2 Timothy 1:5, τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι καὶ τῇ μητρί,
the grandmother of Lois and the mother
1 Peter 4:11, ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος
the glory and the might
Except when distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeably to the three first rules, but appears to be an exception to this sixth rule, or even to the fifth, (for, this exception relates to both rules,) the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the different nouns relate: as in -
Exceptions to the fifth rule, as in -
1 Corinthians 1:24, θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν:
God of power and God of wisdom
Revelation 20:2, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὅς ἐστιν Διάβολος
the serpent the old, who is Devil
καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς
and Satan
Exceptions to the sixth rule, as in -
1 Thessalonians 3:6, ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ' ὑμῶν καὶ
coming Timothy to us from you and
εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν
announcing good news to us
John 20:28, ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ,
answered Thomas and said to him,
Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.
The Lord of me and the God of me.
Revelation 1:17-18, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος,
I am the first and the last,
καὶ ὁ ζῶν,
and the living (one),
Revelation 2:8, Τάδε λέγει ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος
These things says the first and the last
Revelation 22:13, ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος,
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last,
ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.
the beginning and the end.
Conclusion
So, then, on one hand, we conclude that in the light of Granville Sharp’s Rule Six the articles and the copulative kai separating the nouns “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are distinguishing the different attributes of the single “name” into which disciples were to be water baptized. On the other hand, the exceptions to Sharp’s rules found in holy Scripture demonstrates their unreliability in establishing dogma.
Apostolically Speaking
☩ Jerry L Hayes
View the video that accompanies this essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMd0DopgWdA&t=1297s&ab_channel=BishopJerryLHayes
No comments:
Post a Comment