Granville Sharp rules

[Sam V]

Tim,

In the past, you have relied on the Granville Sharp rules to buttress your interpretation of various passages, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and Titus 2:13. I seem to recall you had misgivings about those rules. Do you still support use of Granville Sharp rules? Is your support qualified in some way?

I ask because I am studying your articles on posttribulationism. Your articles titled “AntiChrist Comes First” and “The Blessed Hope” make use of the Granville Sharp rules.

Sam V

[Timothy]

Sam,

The general principle behind Sharp’s rule usually holds true. But Sharp pressed it too far in attempting to find the “deity of Christ” in certain passages where that was not the intent. Sharp defined the rule too narrowly by excluding plurals and impersonal nouns, rather than allowing those Sharp constructions to help define the intent of this construction. Sharp was trying to claim that the rule indicates that two nouns of the same case always refer to the same PERSON. But the truth of the matter is that the two nouns that fit the first rule are indeed being joined together in a unit for some important reason, but not necessarily to make them refer to the same person (although sometimes they do). For example, the plural nouns “the scribes and Pharisees” fit Sharp’s construction except they are plurals. So he excluded plural nouns because they falsified his rule. Obviously they cannot refer to the same people. However, they are intentionally being joined into one unit, the single group that was opposing Jesus. Sharp also excluded all non-personal nouns (which also falsified his rule) and even singular personal nouns which were proper names, again because they falsified his rule. Sharp’s rule is helpful in exegesis to show that the writer’s intent was to join two persons, classes, or things into a single entity, group, or event without necessarily indicating that the two nouns are identical. This broader understanding fits well with Titus 2:13 where the two nouns are not personal, “the blessed hope and glorious appearing.” The 2 nouns are being joined by this construction into a single group, while not being made identical with each other. In Titus 2:13, the “glorious appearing” is Christ’s coming to defeat the Antichrist and armies of the nations when every eye will see Him. The “blessed hope” is our being gathered to Him at that event. They are joined here because both events occur at the same TIME, not because both terms are identical.

There are other problems with the way that Sharp applied his rule to persons, in part because there are other ways that a noun can be made definite in Greek without using the definite article. For example, in the same verse in the clause, “the great God and our Savior,” Sharp applied his rule to show that Jesus is called “the great God,” because “great God” has the definite article, but Savior does not. However, the genitive “our” (of us) makes the second noun definite by identifying WHOSE Savior. So in reality, both nouns are made definite in this clause, but in different ways (one by the article and the other by the genitive of possession). The sense is then to distinguish them (as Sharp’s 2nd rule does) not make them refer to the same person.

[Sam V]

Tim,

Do the Granville Sharp rules have any application as far as interpreting the question posed by the disciples in Mt 24:3?

Matthew 24:3 NKJV
…what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?

[Timothy]

Sam,

Yes, the set of rules (as more precisely defined by Wallace) do have an application to the statement: τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. The single genitive case article τῆς governs both genitive nouns: παρουσίας (coming), συντελείας (completion), and are separated by καὶ (and). While this does not technically fit Sharp’s first rule (because the nouns are not personal nouns), it does follow the broader principle as outlined by Wallace, that in this kind of construction the sense is to join two nouns in a single group or a single event. The nouns “coming” and “completion” (of the age) are being linked together in this construction in time. This is the same as in Titus 2:13 the “blessed hope” and “glorious appearing” are joined in time as a single event, and in 2 Thess. 2:1 the “coming” of Jesus and our “gathering” are linked in time but are not identical things. These all fit the article-noun-kai-noun construction, but are non-personal nouns.

[Sam V]

Tim,

Thanks. That’s what I thought, based on your previous explanations of Greek syntax. This supports an argument for a post-tribulation rapture, as you have noted on several occasons.

I find that the Greek text supporting the more modern versions (like the New American Standard 95 version (NASB95)) do not conform to the Greek text you quoted above, which is the Textus Receptus.

Blueletterbible.com shows the Greek for the NASB95 as τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος (with an extra article “τῆς” after καὶ), thus changing the phrase from a article-noun-kai-noun construction (TSKS) to an article-noun-kai-article-noun construction (TSKTS). This is disappointing, as it negates the joining of “coming” and “completion” in a single group or event.

In this case, the Textus Receptus seems to be the better text, as far as adherence to the doctrine of Christ’s return as taught by the Early Church Fathers.

[Timothy]

Sam,

According to my BibleWorks program, that is not correct. It is the Textus Receptus / Byzantine Text that has the TSKTS construction. The oldest mss, Aleph, B, and Westcott-Hort and the latest critical text (NA28) based on them has the TSKS construction — τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. The NA28 is the base text for most of the latest translations.

But in either case, I would not base doctrine on it, because it is the disciples’ question, not a response by Jesus. The disciples were clearly ignorant on the matter as is shown by Acts 1:6-8.

Tim

[Author]

Posts