We have previously noted in our discussions on monotheism that to apply the title of “God” to others, including Jesus, does not demand or even imply that the one to whom it is applied be Almighty God or a person of that Almighty God. Why then bother discussing texts that potentially apply the term to him?  It is simply a matter of searching for the truth.  If a text calls Jesus “God,” it is not something that need be objected to.  Nevertheless, this would not make it appropriate to apply “God” to Christ in texts that really do not do such. 

For the reason herein stated, it becomes necessary to discuss Titus 2:13.  Whether this text applies the title of “God” to Jesus is an issue of dispute.   To fully appreciate the dispute made with this text we need to have a basic understanding of the issues associated with the dispute.   

If one were to look to older Bible translations at Titus 2:13 that one would find very little reason in concluding that the text applied the title of “God” to Jesus.  In translations such as the King James Version we read of “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” which, at least in the opinion of this writer, reads most naturally of two persons. 

In 1798 Granville Sharp stumbled across what he believed to be evidence that Titus 2:13 and several other texts termed Jesus “God.”  The basis for his research does not seem to have been an effort to further understand Greek grammar, but it was to prove his theology.  That this is correct can be seen reflected in the book where he published his study, Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Bible.  From this we have derived what is commonly known as Sharp’s Rule.  While he actually presented several “rules,” the most well known of them is what demands our consideration here. 

Sharp’s Rule states that when the Greek article, a substantive (generally a noun), the word ‘and’ (Greek, kai) and then another substantive of the same case as the first appear together, it references a single person.[1]  Sharp’s initial rule has been progressively narrowed over time to overcome what have been found to be clear counter examples to it.   In fact, the majority of the texts originally advocated by Sharp himself as proof texts based upon his rule have been dropped by scholars, for the evidence has been found lacking.  Of the texts originally provided by Sharp only two remain, one of which is Titus 2:13.   

What further qualifications have been demanded by the rule to overcome counter examples?  Plurals have been excluded, for within Greek we have found that plurals within the TSKS construction can reference to one group or two.  Proper names have been excluded as a number of texts providing this construction have clearly displayed two persons.  Further, we have more recently found that some have begun to find exemption in substantives which they claim would naturally be paired (i.e “my brother and sister,” “mother and daughter,” “father and son”).  Why all the exceptions?  Is there something unique in Greek that demands these be exempt?  

Trinitarian scholars, including those who are also scholars in the field of Greek, have fought hard to maintain their proof texts and in doing so they have narrowed the rule only to maintain the rule, not because the rule has any demonstrable basis in Greek.  Who are we to say that all these scholars are wrong?  One need simply to look to see the clear counter examples that show the rule invalid.   

Is it legitimate to create subsets of a rule in order to overcome what would be violations of it?  To a certain extent we would say yes, but in such cases it would be necessary to provide a reason for doing so.  In other words, there has to be additional basis in dismissing a text with certain characteristics beyond the fact that it would otherwise violate the rule.  When a sound basis for exceptions cannot be presented, one can only conclude that the motivation for the rule’s defense is theological and not grammatical. 

If we are to maintain that the TSKS construction can display either one or two persons, it becomes necessary to demonstrate this.  What are some examples that can support this position? What is the meaning of Titus 2:13?  What of other texts where Sharp’s rule is argued for?   The rest of this article will attempt to answer these questions.   

Looking to the Greek New Testament and other early Greek literature we can find numerous examples where the TSKS construction is used for either one person (or group) or two.  One of the more prominent examples is that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.  That these two groups can only be thought of as distinct is something that is not only attested to historically, but also scripturally (Act. 23:8).  Nevertheless, we find that the TSKS construction is used repeatedly for these groups.  In fact, this occurs on several occasions within the book of Matthew (Matt. 3:7).    

Singular examples are also available.  One of the most powerful examples against Sharp’s rule comes from Clement, a writer of the early church.  At Paedagogus 3:12 he speaks of “the Father and Son,” a clear example of the TSKS construction.  Would any argue that the Father is the Son?  Indeed, one that teaches Modalism would, and yet this is not a doctrine that Clement is ever found to advocate.

Examining the Greek Septuagint we find Proverbs 24:21 to speak of “the God and king.”  While some have argued that “God”  should be understood as a proper name in light of it being translated from “Jehovah,” such a view only leads to confusion.   If the TSKS construction with singulars refers to a single person when proper names are not used, certainly the LXX translators were aware of this.  Noting that the word "God" in itself is not a true proper name, only a very limited audience would be able to understand the text.  The majority of Greek speaking individuals would be forced to conclude that God and the king were a single individual, and yet somehow distinguished by the context.  This would be lead to an understanding of God that is akin to Modalism, except here the king is a human, making the end result confusion.  This is all, of course, if we consider Sharp's Rule to be valid.  On the other hand, if we simply read the text for what it says, without importing any theological views and any attempts to defend a “rule” that’s only reason for existence is the supposed defense of a doctrine, the text reads naturally with a construction that simply unifies God and the king within the context. 

The TSKS construction with plurals as well as singulars can be used of one person (or group), yet it can also be used of two.  We have considered but a few examples in demonstration of this, but the demonstration has been most clear.  If one were to argue against these examples, be it on the grounds of them including plurals, proper names or any other possible exception, one would be required to prove that there is legitimate grounds for considering these to be exceptions, not simply because the rule says so, but because of certain grammatical characteristics that make them exceptions.  It would be necessary to show why these are unique, and not to simply claim that they are exempt.  .

If a single article can be used with both singulars and plurals, why make use of the single article at all?  Would it not be easier to simply use two articles or none at all when two are referenced?  Perhaps that might be the case for us today who speak and read English, but those reading this at the time when the text was written found something very specific indicated by the single article.   Sometimes it was to show a single person or group, but other times the article served to unify what was spoken of.  Smyth explains: "The single article, use with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion... the generals and captains (the commanding offers)... the largest and smallest ships... the calumniation and envy of the multitude."[2] 

To determine if the reference is of one or two persons (or groups) one can only look to the context or who is being referenced.  If the context or subjects spoken of dictate two persons, then we would most naturally read the text as speaking of two persons.  On the other hand, if the context dictates that it is one person, we would read it as one. 

Looking to Titus 2:13, the text speaks of “the great God” and “our Savior Jesus Christ.”  Is the great God our Savior Jesus, or are they two distinct individuals? Looking to the context we find that from the outset this book distinguishes between God and Christ.  Verse one speaks of “God” and “Jesus Christ,” where the two can in no way be equated.  Verse 4 is also quite clear, speaking of “God the Father and Jesus Christ our Savior.” 

The second chapter of the epistle to Titus sets the context of verse 13, starting in verse 11.  “For the saving grace of God has appeared to all men.”  This has taken place through the appearing of Jesus Christ, who himself could truly be defined as the saving grace of God, for none embody this more than he.  From this we are then presented with Titus 2:13, the text in question.

The context of this text has clearly established both God and Jesus, though clearly distinct.[3]  Is there anything within Titus 2:13 that would demand this reference only a single person?  Nothing can be found.  That the Father is never spoken of as appearing is certainly a valid objection, but reading carefully we note that the text does not speak of “the great God” appearing, but only his glory.  This notion of glory appearing takes us back to Jesus’ words, where he clearly taught that he would come in his glory and the glory of the Father.

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My Words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that one when He comes in His glory, and that of the Father, and of the holy angels.

If Christ were to be coming in his Father’s glory, it would be natural for Paul to speak of “the appearing of the glory of the great God.”  It is in line with this that we note the observations presented in The Expositor’s Greek Testament: “The Second Coming of Christ may, therefore, be regarded as an epifaneia ths dozhs qeou [appearing of the glory of God], even though we should not speak of an epifaneia tou patros [appearing of the Father], while epifaneia ihsou cristou [appearing of Jesus Christ] is normal and natural (see on I Tim. vi. 14). . . In any case, the conception of the Second Coming as an occasion of manifestation of two doxai [glories], that of the Father and of the Son, is familiar from Luke ix. 26."[4]

What though of verse 14, where it speaks only of a single individual?  Some have argued that because it continues the line of thought found in verse 13 and it references only a single person, verse 13 must also be speaking of a single person.  However, there is nothing unnatural about this situation, where the context follows by only speaking of one of the two persons previously mentioned.  A significant parallel is found in Galatians 1:3-4, stating: “Grace [be] to you and peace from God the Father, and [from] our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins.”  That Galatians speaks of two persons is not of dispute, and it functions the same as Titus, thereby eliminating any issue that might be made of what is stated in Titus 2:14.

A Related Text
The other significant text that Sharp’s Rule is often applied to can be found within 2^nd Peter.  The first verse of this epistle presents the TSKS construction, which, if we accept the translation put forth by those defending the rule, speaks of “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”  This rendering’s validity is maintained by highlighting other texts within the context that feature the same construction, speaking of “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:11)

We have argued that context and the terms used can be the only criteria upon which we determine if the TSKS construction is reference one person (or group) or two.  In other words, the construction alone does not tell us, but context and the use of the terms in question does.  Examining the context of 2^nd Peter we find that the second verse of this text provides a clear distinction between God and Christ, as does verse 17. On the other hand, the text clearly identifies Jesus as our Lord in verses 2, 8 and 14.  Therefore, if we agree that context and the terms used dictate if the TSKS construction is used in reference to one person (or group) or two, it is natural to find 1:1 speaking of God and Jesus as two persons, while 11 speaks of Jesus and our Lord and Savior, one person.  The grammar does not tell us how many are referenced, as has been demonstrated with plural substantives, but only context and terms used do.

It is upon these grounds mentioned that we base our rejection of Sharp’s Rule.  We are far from alone in this matter, as clearly evident by the reference provided by The Expositor’s Greek Testament. They too reject that the construction demands a reference to one individual on every occasion.  Again though, it must be reiterated that we find no difficulty in calling Jesus “God,” we simply do not believe that these texts do, a view confirmed by the context of both texts.