What is the Granville Sharp Rule?

The observations of Granville Sharp quite fall in with this, but are only an instance of it. Thus in τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεὸν καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, the τόν belongs to Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν — all the rest is characteristic of Jesus Christ, "the only [master] God and our Lord Jesus Christ." The rule has been drawn of old from the reading of the New Testament. If any student of it would take the first seven verses of the epistle to the Romans — a book in which the observation has peculiar value from the character of the reasoning — I think he will find the light it throws on the subject, and be recompensed through the whole of the rest of scripture for his trouble. I am aware it may be found to militate against many reasonings of individuals, with whose results at the same time I may fully agree. I have no doubt myself of its universal applicability and use.

I now turn to an important instance of this, Titus 2:13. First we have τὴν μαρκαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης. Δόξης is the governing idea here. Grace had appeared (ver. 11). They were waiting for glory: that was their hope (that is object of hope, so used elsewhere), and it would appear hence, the object of hope and the apparition were identical, namely, the glory. Hence, τὴν marks both. But what glory? That is the question. Τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Δόξης still governs the sentence, and God and our Lord Jesus Christ are identified-were in the apostle's mind in the Spirit-in the glory which was to appear. Hence, it was the glory of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as perfectly one in glory. They are not the least separated in the mind of the apostle when speaking of that glory. It is certain that, in saying Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος, the apostle had but one object in his mind presented by the Holy Ghost. But I do not myself believe that μεγάλου Θεοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are here names of one person. I have not the smallest doubt that Jesus is the true God-Jehovah; and I do not believe that this sentence could have been written, had not the glory of the Great God been ascribable to Him. But I do not see that this statement amounts to His being the same person as the great God; though I do not see how it could be true were He not, for they were one in glory.

52 There are many other examples: 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 13; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Romans 15:6. We have 2 Peter 1:1, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here the same remark applies, I judge, as to the passage in Titus. The righteousness is one, as the glory there, and both are identified in it-which could not be said unless Jesus were God. But this last is not the statement of the passage. The righteousness here spoken of is, I judge, spoken of as the righteousness which has secured their having the faith, not the object of it. We have a phrase exactly similar, 2 Peter 2:20, ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Now here the mind acknowledges the identity of person at once: but I judge the mind recognizes it in the words Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος. So in 2 Peter 1:11, εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. So we have (ver. 16) τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν. The power and presence are in one scene or one object before the mind. Compare Romans 1:20.

It is, I think plain, from the examination of a number of passages, that in cases where one article is used with several nouns, (while the grammatical agreement of the article is, by attraction and the usual analogy, partially with the nouns which follow*), the object designated by the article is mentally another, to which all the nouns used apply, or with which they associate themselves. Where each is made a distinct definite object of, each will have the article. That mental object may be a person, who unites in himself the various names or titles. It may be association in a common object or common circumstance. In a word, the nouns are united in some common fact which the mind has before it, so as to group them together. This may be expressed or understood from the context. Thus it is expressed in the following: Titus 2:13; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1.

54 I shall now give some cases in which it evidently is not one person, and in which the common idea is not expressed in the passage. Only before citing them I will here recall the principle I have laid down, as we are at one of the most important and difficult applications of it. The article points to some definite object of the mind. The noun following gives the name to this object. In some cases, where this is sufficiently certain by specific contrast, the name is not even added, as ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. Earlier in the language, this was more extensively the case; and it hence became a pronoun, as in Homer. The object is assumed to be one we have before us, and known as an object, though we add a name (but a name known as designating that object), and much perhaps else about it.

Now in the cases we are about to mention, the object is not named, but the nouns used combinedly make it up. The article supposes the common object in which they are united.

A still more remarkable case is where there are several decidedly distinct and independent persons, but who all form one object before the mind. Matthew 17:1, παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην. Acts 3:11, κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην. Acts 4:19, Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης. In the plural the same thing, Acts 14:5, ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων. This last would come under the class also of cases where the uniting idea is expressed. They were joined in one body in the assault. Gentiles and Jews made only one body, one object in the apostle's mind. In 2 Corinthians 13:11 we have an example where the peace he desired the Corinthian disciples to be in, as a means of enjoying the presence of God, at once introduces, as thus speaking of God's presence, that love which necessarily accompanied it, and made one thought with the peace. Love and peace were together one idea of the blessed power and sweetness of the divine presence.

It is needless to discuss here at length the true bearing of the last clause, which some, out of zeal for the divine glory of our Lord, would have to designate His person only: "of our God and Lord Jesus Christ." But, though this be grammatically a quite possible construction, as it is dogmatically also true in itself, its contextual suitability is another matter. That one article in the singular rightly in Greek designates even distinct persons if the object be to express their union in a common category (as here in "grace"), ought to be known not only to scholars in general, but familiarly to all students of the later body of revelation in its original tongue. Supposing God the Father to be here meant, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ, the insertion of the Greek article was not required, though English needs "the" before Lord Jesus Christ. On the contrary, its insertion in Greek would have been an intrusive error, if both were expressly to be united in a common object; for the repeated article would have had for its effect to present the persons as separate agents rather than as joined. And the nature of the case, as well as the clearly revealed truth of Scripture, shows abundantly that the joint agency of these blessed persons could not be, save in — that which lies behind all — the unity of the divine nature.

Acts 15 furnishes notable instances of the introduction and omission of the article. Γενομένης οὖν στάσεως καὶ συζτήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τῳ Παύλῳ καὶ τῳ Βαρνάβᾳ πρὸς αὐτούς. Here they were the Paul and Barnabas whose history we have had in what precedes. Ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παύλον καὶ Βαρνάβαν καί τινας ἄλλους. Here they are presented with several others as persons now chosen for the first time to go on this errand. Then we have τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, apostles and elders being one company here. (ver. 2.). Again (ver. 12), ἤκουον Βαρνάβα καὶ Παύλου. Here again we have the relaters of the facts brought for the first time before the assembly in this character. Then (ver. 22) ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν σὺν τῳ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ. Here they were jointly concerned as representatives in this matter, and one article is used to both. They were associated in one objective idea in the mind of the writer. Paul and Barnabas have an article, being known as already engaged in it: Judas and Silas are new persons, and hence their names are without the article.

Again, with τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ Φίλιππον, which I cannot now trace, I should expect to find a mental reference in the writer to the king of Macedonia, or some such object, both names being distinctive or characteristic examples. I do not believe mentally τόν applies to either but may be mere freedom of style — using the article to the first and not for the second as in the same category; so in Acts 15:22. It is only where two agents come under one mental thought that this is the case. And I think in reference to it, Paul and Barnabas, or Alexander and Philip, become a single object to the mind. The idiom unites in the one article either two qualities of the same person or two persons under the same quality.

51 One point remains, of which this chapter gives two examples, and of which we may therefore speak here. I mean the use of one article with two nouns of different meaning, and even necessarily sometimes distinct. Thus we have ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ (chap. 1), τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ προφήτας (chap. 2, 3), and in chapter 4, τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. Now our rule here is still the same, and much facilitates the apprehension of these cases. The article directs the mind to an object in view; or a whole class seen together in the speaker's mind, as one for the purpose for which he is speaking, as a unity, or as a whole. Thus, in the first, ὁ calls my attention to an object: two names are given to this object-God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In verse 7 we have τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, two common qualifications of these persons which marked them out. Hence the first has the article, as in every other case, the second not, according to the rule amply discussed, as making up with the other the complete amount included in τοὺς.