The righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ – is Jesus God?

Well, this must be one of the clearest passage that refers to Jesus as God. Perhaps we need to take a closer look.

Let’s read it together with the second verse as it has similar structure (and thankfully the NRSV drops the punctuation that doesn’t exist in the Greek):

2 Peter 1 (NRSV)
1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
May grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Now take a glance of the Greek:

1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ [righteousness] τοῦ θεοῦ [of the God] ἡμῶν [of us] καὶ σωτῆρος [and of saviour] ἡμῶν [of us – NA26 drops this word] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,2 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει [knowledge] τοῦ θεοῦ [of the God] καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου [the lord] ἡμῶν [of us].

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2pe1.pdf
http://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/71///ch/749c42f646f1a6f8cfac33e652f13d26/

I’d like to make a few points here.

1. Translations are often theological in nature and not the faithful representation of the underlying Greek;

2. In both verses God stands with the definite article = THE God. When you see this you can be pretty sure the author has the Almighty in mind.

3. While the two sentences have the same grammatical structure, only the second verse is translated correctly, ie “the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” meaning two different entities are in question.

The excuse for the translation is Granville Sharp’s First Rule:

When two singular nouns are connected by “kai” [“and”], and only the first noun has the definite article, the second noun is taken as a further description of the first noun.

It adds that the article is not to be expected for personal names.

Oh, so in the structure

“the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord”

the rule doesn’t apply, but if I change the word order to

“the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus”

the rule does apply!?!?!

Really? Kidding me!!!

While Granville Sharp’s First Rule is accepted by consensus (which never proves a thing by itself, only sheep mentality), it is little known that Sharp was silenced by Georg Benedict Winer, the highly respected nineteenth century Greek grammarian. Calvin Winstanley was also able to produce four categories of extra-biblical examples when Sharp’s rule didn’t work.

A single such example throws it out the window.

Even though Sharp’s rule is generally accepted today it doesn’t mean it is true. As Einstein said, a theory becomes accepted when its opponents die out. Isn’t that how Trinitarians conquered Unitarians? Not through debate. They excommunicated and exiled them, and killed many of them…

In Koine Greek you can get away without using an article, however, when you use the definite article it adds emphasis – ie the difference between “god” or “the God”, the former can either refer to God or a human judge/ruler – someone with power over life and death -, but the latter clearly refers to the Creator.

If you only ever knew your own mother language you may get stuck with a rule like Sharp’s, but having learned a few other languages I view such a rule as a nonsense.

It is argued that it only refers to singular objectives.

Oh, really? How convenient!!!

If such a rule really existed, it would have to be true of plurals also. But this is not the case:

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone

Clearly, the apostles and prophets are not the same group of people. It is false that in a language a particular rule applies only to single nouns but not to plurals. There is no such a rule. If it applies to singular it must also apply to plural.

This is how Sharp’s rule is argued for (oh, sure, it is not because of theological bias!!!):

1. There are structures where the two nouns clearly refer to the exact same entity [ie 2Pet. 2:20]. Therefore, they draw up this rule. (Couldn’t you have figured it out from the context?)

2. This must be true of other similar structures where it is not certain if it refers to the exact same entity, so they expand the rule. (Let’s rape the context!!!)

This is such a huge leap of faith that only Trinitarians are brave enough to make.

But this rule rapes the Scriptures. It throws context into the rubbish bin.

Let me show you how context invalidates Sharp’s rule:

2 Peter 1
seeing that his divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. For by these he has granted to us his precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

Doesn’t seeing all the personal pronouns in verses 3 and 4 make your head spin? If you accept Sharp’s rule, it must spin, for you don’t have the slightest clue what the verses say.

Let me start off from v4. Whose promises is it about? Is it not God’s?

Romans 15:8
For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers

2 Corinthians 1:20
For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are yes; therefore also through him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.

Galatians 3:21
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

The promises are what God made to Abraham.

Whose glory are we talking about in 2Peter 1:3? Let’s see what Peter thinks about this in the same chapter:

2 Peter 1:17
For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved son with whom I am well-pleased”

Ops! Peter has just made a big stuff-up. He has identified God as the Father!!! It is God’s glory and he gives it to Yeshua.

Guess what? Even Paul thinks the same:

Philippians 2:11
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now when Jesus also makes the same statement I smell conspiracy:

John 17:3
This is eternal life, that they may know you [ie the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent [God’s emissary].

So let me give the interpretation of 2 Peter 1:3-4:

2 Peter 1
seeing that the Father God’s divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Jesus Christ who called us by the Father God’s own glory and excellence. For by these the Father God has granted to us his [ie God’s] precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

According to 2 Peter 1:17 Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father, therefore, these are not his “own glory and excellence” (2:3).

Doesn’t this make it clear that Shrap’s rule is an utter nonsense?

Commentary

Leave a response »

Leave a comment, a trackback from your own site or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry. Trackback URL for this entry Comments feed for this entry

Leave a response

Leave a URL

Preview