THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST IS CORROBORATED BY GRANVILLE SHARP'S RULE #1 WHEN IT FOLLOWS CONTEXT UNENCUMBERED BY UNWARRANTED EXCEPTIONS

The interpretation of this study must be via the framework in which Scripture was written: a framework which is defined by the normative rules of language, context and logic - rules which do not impose undue, unintended meanings to the text . It contains excerpts from an article by D. B. Wallace entitled “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Καί in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance"

https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule 1

[with comments inserted in brackets by the author of biblestudymanuals.net]:

[BSM.net]:

I) INTRODUCTION

According to the passage that begins with John chapter one and crescendos with Jn 3:15-36: to believe - lit., whoever is the believing one: a moment of faith alone - in God's one and only Son alone - Who is God, the Word, the Light, the Life become Man Who was given for the world / mankind by God His Father in order to propitiate the sins of all mankind in order for each man to choose to believe in so as to have eternal life, as a result of knowing this through a proper reading of Scripture it is made clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God is more than mere man. He is "God, "the Son of God," "the Christ," "the Son of Man," etc. And it is He Who is Human, Who actually paid for the sins of all mankind - taking upon Himself mankind's eternal condemnation forever - a task that only God has the capacity to perform, yet in the form of Man. Hence corroboration of the Deity of Christ, Jesus the Man and His propitiation for mankind's sins throughout Scripture is essential in order to convey an actual trustworthy salvation unto eternal life that has actually occurred in history, hence trustworthy because He is trustworthy, because the testimony of Scripture about Him is true and trustworthy.

Without a true and trustworthy testimony about this actual historical event - that He is God and Man Who propitiated the sins of all mankind in history - there is no salvation unto eternal life.

****** EXCERPT FROM STUDY ON THE CONTENT OF SAVING FAITH ******

THE CONTENT OF WHAT ONE MUST DO FOR SALVATION UNTO LIFE DOES NOT REQUIRE A KNOWLEDGE OF OR BELIEF IN NON-ESSENTIAL-FOR-SALVATION-UNTO-ETERNAL-LIFE DOCTRINES OF THE FAITH SUCH AS THE DEITY OF CHRIST, TRINITY, UNLIMITED ATONEMENT, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, ETC.

ON THE OTHER HAND CERTAIN NON-ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION BELIEFS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIRED SAVING CONTENT SUCH AS THE DEITY OF CHRIST, HIS RESURRECTION, THE TRINITY, ONE GOD, OR THAT NO KIND OF FAITHFULNESS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BE / STAY SAVED, ETC MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT SAVING FAITH IS EXPRESSED WHICH DISBELIEF WOULD NEGATE BEING SAVED AT ALL. ALBEIT A BORN AGAIN BELIEVER MIGHT LATER FALL INTO SUCH APOSTASY YET STILL REMAIN SAVED

To believe unto eternal life that God has made provision for ones sins through His one and only Son includes / implies believing in Jesus Christ's sacrifice / propitiation / provision for ones sins - that He, Jesus Christ, indeed has the capacity and willingness to make that provision - hence it can only be true that He is therefore God, whether or not one knows / believes in this even at the time one expresses saving faith. The successful outcome of salvation unto eternal life, however, is not dependent upon knowing / believing in any non-essential-to-salvation-unto-eternal-life doctrines. The essential content of what one must believe in order to have eternal life is present in every single salvation unto eternal life passage without the need to add or take away anything in that passage. Note that passages that do not indicate that eternal life is in view omitting such words as, "have eternal life," "justified," when the context means to be credited with the Righteousness of God / Jesus Christ, or words to the effect of receiving everlasting residence in the Eternal Kingdom of God; "saved" when the context indicates a one time reception of eternal life, (as opposed to harvesting a more abundant eternal life by works in order to add to an already received one time reception of eternal residence / life in the Eternal Kingdom of God ; and as opposed to the preservation of the value or length of ones temporal life ; etc., etc. It all depends upon Context, Context and Context.

Nevertheless many of Scripture's non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-being-saved-unto-eternal-life doctrines are irretrievably / inseparably related to the essential-to-salvation-doctrines in the sense that they all have to be true for any of them to be true. Although one does not have to know of / or believe in these non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-salvation-unto-eternal life doctrines along with those essential doctrines that give one eternal life at the time they believed and were saved unto eternal life; nevertheless at the moment when one does become saved unto eternal life one cannot be denying the truth of any of non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-being-saved-unto-eternal-life doctrines. For then there is no salvation unto eternal life received at all.

For given the time one needs to spend properly studying and learning Scripture one might not yet have a knowlege of or belief in a number of non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-being-saved-unto-eternal-life doctrines up to the time one was saved unto eternal life, or even thereafter. Most Christians are not good students of Scripture. But the content of the original belief which results in eternal life cannot include disbelief in any of the non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-being-saved-unto-eternal-life doctrines such as belief that Jesus was only human, or less than God, i.e., a god, or that there is more than one god; or that the Trinity is a false doctrine, or that Jesus was never raised from the dead, or a belief that something else besides a moment of faith alone in Christ alone  for forgiveness of sins needs to be done, such as to repent of all of ones sins, or to persevere in good works, or to demonstrate ones faith via some kind of human doing. For to insist on human doing, or to believe in a human being or a created god to provide eternal life thru a self-sacrifice for the sins of the whole world will not provide eternal life at all.

On the other hand, if one who has expressed faith in the essential doctrines of the faith in order to have eternal life without denying any doctrine that would negate receiving eternal life at that moment of faith alone; and thereafter denies any of the doctrines of the faith, especially those essential to salvation unto eternal life; one nevertheless remains saved, albeit an apostate until one repents from such apostasy, and under God's discipline, which might result in an early physical death, and / or  great loss of eternal rewards for the rest of eternity; but never loss of eternal life .

Relative to the essential doctrines of Scripture an individual needs to properly respond to in order to have eternal life; logic demands that the least common denominator of stipulations which complete-salvation-unto-eternal-life passages contain in order to have eternal life is wholly sufficient in order to receive eternal life. In order to determine what the least common denominator of those stipulations is one must review clear salvation passages and then compare them to the more difficult passages to arrive at those stipulations which are common to all of them . Nothing else in any salvation unto eternal life passage or any passage in Scripture needs to be responded to in order to have eternal life. On the other hand, non-essential-to-but-interdependent-with-being-saved-unto-eternal-life doctrines may not be denied / disbelieved at the point of exercising faith in Christ for salvation unto eternal life. Otherwise salvation is not received at that point at all. So all such complete salvation passages - those that declare one to have eternal life once what is stipulated within them is obeyed in the sense of believed in - all have in common a moment of faith alone in a provision made for forgiveness / payment for ones own sins resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ / or an equivalent name or Person for Him which implies residence in the Eternal Kingdom of God, i.e., heaven. This is the least common denominator of passages which provides directions for one to follow in order to have eternal life - in the sense of expressing a moment of faith alone in those essential doctrines. So other stipulations which are in view in addition to the least common denominator of stipulations for eternal life in any salvation passage or in any other passage which are not essential for eternal life when accepted by a moment of faith alone do not serve to provide eternal life; but they certainly are valuable when obeyed, in the sense of for the personal growth and understanding of the born again believer for blessing and eternal rewards. Upon careful examination in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic certain stipulations in complete salvation passages often say precisely the same thing in other words as other stipulations in other complete salvation passages do which ARE thus essential and part of the least common denominator - wholly sufficient for one to respond to [via a moment of faith alone] - unto eternal life.

For example, 'God gave His one and only Son,' in Jn 3:16 is tantamount to saying 'the Christ' in 1 Jn 5:1 and Jn 20:31 as clearly defined from Scripture.

1) [Consider Jn 3:16]:

(Jn 3:16 NIV) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes, [lit., is the believing one] in Him [lit., should not perish], but [should] have eternal life."

2) [Compare to 1 Jn 5:1]:

(1 Jn 5:1 NASB) "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.""

3) [And Compare to Jn 20:31]:

(Jn 20:31 NASB) "But these [words] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

Fully defining the phrase rendered, "the Christ" is not something one would expect an unbeliever or a newborn believer would be very knowledgeable of - albeit Scripture indicates that He is the One Who made provision for ones sins .

Consider what little information Abraham received from God - far less than the Epistles provide for us today - and he was declared Righteous unto eternal life when he believed in that information. For the term Righteousness implies forgiveness of sins - for Abraham was not without sin. Hence the information in Gen 15:6 includes the stipulation that that forgiveness is unto eternal life through a Descendant of Abraham in order to enjoy the blessing of knowing and experiencing innumerable descendants in the eternal kingdom of God - through Abraham's Seed / Descendant (Jesus Christ) in the sense of a being a propitiation for Abraham's sins ."

4) [Compare Ro 4:22-24 ]:

(Ro 4:22 NAS) "Therefore 'It was reckoned to him [Abraham] as righteousness.'

(Ro 4:23 NAS) Now not for his sake only was it written that it was reckoned to him,

(Ro 4:24 NAS) but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him Who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead."

Notice that additional information beyond what the OT Scriptures indicate was revealed by God to Abraham relative to justification unto eternal life is stipulated here by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Roman believers, namely, that "our Lord Jesus Christ ... was raised [from the dead] because of our justification."

****** END EXCERPT ON STUDY ON CONTENT OF SAVING FAITH ******

So if one is contemplating only a mere man of his own imagination who is without the essence and possession of the eternal power of God which would qualify Him to receive the eternal condemnation of all of mankind, suffer that eternal punishment, and be resurrected from the dead in full possession of the essence of the power and glory of God, there will inevitably be something else which is inadequate that one is depending upon which cancels the offer of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ Jesus, the Son of God alone apart from what Scripture offers to all accountable individuals to trust in for eternal life.

[BSM.net]:

There are a number of key passages in Scripture which identify Jesus Christ as God such as John 1:1-3, 14 ; and Jn 20:27-28 [quoted below] being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion. 4

******

[Jn 20:27 (NASB) "Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' 

Jn 20:28 (NASB) Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' "

These two and many other passages corroborate the deity of Jesus Christ . A number of these passages which Granville Sharp wrote extensively about referring to his Rule #1, corroborate the Deity of Christ, especially 2 Thes 1:12; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1, Acts 20:28; Eph 5:5; 1 John 5:20; and Jude 4. These have the same syntactical form which grammarians usually refer to as "TSKS" or "The-substantive-καί-substantive," which Sharp's Rule #1 signifies a grammatical expression beginning with the definite article rendered "The" + a unique substantive = a unique description of a singular person + the Greek conjunction "καί" rendered "and" + a second unique description of a singular person = a unique Referent. This is Sharp's Rule #1.

******

On the other hand, all of the grammatical rules for this TSKS Greek construction - which Sharp addresses with five more of his rules totaling six in number, albeit with unwarranted restrictions - may be more simply summarized with the letters "TDAD" signifying,

'The' + Description + 'And' + Description = the Referent.

Contrary to the contention of many grammarians and theologians, including Granville Sharp, the means by which this TDAD / TSKS construction will produce the most reliable interpretation without unwarranted restrictions such as excluding proper nouns, ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, impersonal nouns, translation Greek, extra biblical writings, etc. is via a careful examination of the passage at hand in Scripture via the normal rules of language, context and logic .

And critical to the understanding of those normative rules of reading is knowing that the meaning of words is established by the context that they are associated with, regardless of what other contexts they may also be associated with. And relative to this study of Granville Sharp's Rule #1 is the fact that a noun, any noun - even a proper personal noun - may become a unique, identity of a singular person depending upon the context it is associated with. For example, the words "ὁ λόγος," the Word, "ἡ ζωὴ," the Life, (temporal and eternal), and "τὸ φῶς," the Light and "θεὸς" in Jn 1:1-11 are the Greek words that author John used to portray a unique, identity of One Person , as did Paul use the words "ὁ θεὸς," the God in Titus 2:13 and Peter in 2 Pet 1:1, etc.

So given that the entire passage at hand has been properly examined via the normative rules of language, context and logic within its respective context without unwarranted restrictions the TDAD / TSKS construction under review will fit into one of the possible categories listed below:

1) A common (but not equal or unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

2) An equal (but not unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

3) A unique experience / identity of the person or thing referred to, (the referent).

The need to fabricate exclusionary grammatical rules to assure correct interpretation of a passage is resolved by paying due attention to the context of each passage, properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic . As a matter of fact, a number of exclusions are unwarranted, and will actually qualify as a personal, singular, identical referent: a unique, identity of a singular person . Furthermore, regarding passages when properly examined do not actually fit Sharp's Rule #1, there are other categories for TDAD / TSKS constructions - five other rules to choose from that Sharp proposed that will fit that passage under examination 7.

******
Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NKJV) in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

(Titus 1:3 NKJV) but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each one is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules.

Nor is there a need to exclude impersonal or proper names for impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS constructions. There does exist the plausibility of unique impersonal or proper names in TDAD / TSKS constructions for unique material objects, such as the Hope Diamond, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, etc. It is plausible that a material thing or things might be described uniquely in a TDAD / TSKS construction by an impersonal name, or a proper name. Furthermore, impersonal objects might also be described as having common / exact, experiences / identities, plural / singular as well in TDAD / TSKS constructions depending upon grammar and context. It all depends upon the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic.

And ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives that enumerate more than one subject need not be excluded because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view such as Grover Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; or Jesus Christ as being the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); the Firstborn of all creation, (Col 1:15, 18); the second or last Adam, (Ro 5:12-21).

Similarly, the plural form of persons or things need not be excluded relative to a unique singular referent because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view, possessing a plurality of names or experiences, etc., that collectively are unique to that one unique singular referent. Or the descriptions might refer to a common or exact experience or identity of more than one referent depending upon a careful, thorough observation via the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic that matches up with the context of the passage, fitting one of the categories possible. A careful examination of the context will tell which category of TDAD / TSKS construction is in view .

Nor do Greek translations of other writings in other languages such as the Hebrew Old Testament, (the Septuagint); or quotes in the New Testament Greek Bible from the Hebrew Old Testament need to be excluded; nor extra biblical Greek writings such as the Apocrypha or Patristic writings of the early church fathers, etc. For a careful examination via the normative rules of language, context and logic of the original writing as well as the Greek translation will reveal whether there are errors in translation or grammar that violate the proper use of the first century Greek of the New Testament or errors in translation or contradictions with what the Bible teaches on a case for case basis. Any discrepancies will disqualify the document from consideration in validating or disproving the Granville Sharp rules. Hence the text under consideration will be excluded without contriving yet another exclusionary rule to avoid contradicting the Granville Sharp rules or some other grammarian's rules and thereby jeopardizing legitimate passages that fit the available categories within the normative rules of language, context and logic .

It all boils down to correctly applying the rules of language, context and logic in interpreting the passage, and then observing the grammatical construction that is present which confirms the interpretation; instead of making up unproved rules of grammar that are not confirmed by usage, which have too many exceptions to actually prove / disprove the Granville Sharp rules as trustworthy .

Since Sharp has more than one rule - not just Rule #1 7 and since there are three categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions , one can simply follow the normative rules of language, context and logic to determine the context and then find the category of TDAD construction that best fits the context and which ever rule of Sharp's Six Rules determines what that TDAD / TSKS construction is saying without having to use a filter of restrictions - even the ones that Sharp decided to impose.

Note that the world does not have to wait for a few individuals who are erudite lettered savants or who each have an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language and / or have an unquenchable 'piety' like Granville Sharp in order to articulate for others what the Word of God has been saying for centuries. This would put the Word of God in the hands of a few instead of all of accountable mankind whoever will choose to study it for themselves as they so choose in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - the language skills that they learned in their schooling . For throughout Scripture, throughout the ages there has been a remnant of believers that did not require an elitist class of pious believers to tell them what to believe / do in order to be saved unto eternal life ]

II) GRANVILLE SHARP'S, "REMARKS ON THE USES OF THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE"

A) ALTHOUGH THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID FOR SHARP'S SIX RULES FOR CLARIFYING THE USE OF THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE IN TSKS / TDAD CONSTRUCTIONS; OVER THE YEARS, THE RULES OF THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS UNWARRANTED EXCEPTIONS MADE UPON THEM BY OTHERS INCLUDING SHARP HIMSELF

[D. B. Wallace]:

"In 1798 Granville Sharp published a monograph entitled, 'Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ... 6

******

In this work Sharp articulated six principles of syntax involving the Greek article, though what has commonly become known as 'Sharp’s rule' is the first of these. It is the only rule which directly impacts the christologically significant passages.

In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. But whether he intended the rule[s] to apply to impersonal nouns and/or plurals can hardly be determined from this definition. As well, he did not clearly exclude proper names from the rule’s application. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule [Sharp's Rule #1] could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. For example, two pages later he points out that “there is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions . . . .” 14

"Later on he [Sharp] explicitly states that impersonal constructions are within the purview of his second, third, fifth, and sixth rules, but not the first. 15 In an appendix Sharp chastises Blunt for bringing in impersonal constructions as exceptions to the rule[s]. 16

[Besides his first rule, Sharp also wrote of five other rules on the TSKS / TDAD grammatical construction. He addressed such subjects as impersonal things, the plural; proper names; common and exact identities and experiences; ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives, etc. With this in mind, it is evident that there is no need to create artificial, unproved restrictions in order to limit TDAD constructions to apply only to Sharp's Rule #1. There are other kinds of descriptions which apply to TSKS / TDAD grammatical constructions, other than what applies to Sharp's Rule #1 - other rules that Sharp wrote about.  7 A careful study of the context of each passage will provide its meaning, which does not have to be filtered through a maze of artificial, unproved restrictions based on the false assumption that Sharp's Rule #1 is the only rule out there that is suited to TSKS / TDAD grammatical constructions. Other kinds of descriptions provide other possibilities of meaning - other categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions which will satisfy the contexts of passages in view as determined via properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic : Common, Exact and Unique Identities and / or Experiences, Singular or Plural, Impersonal or Person ]

[D. B. Wallace, cont.]:

"In part, this paper was an attempt to investigate Winstanley’s evidence 28 ... Our restatement of Sharp’s rule [#1] [are] believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that Winstanley raised. The Sharp rule [#1] as modified by Winstanley is as follows [below]:

Our restatement of Sharp’s rule [#1] is believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that Winstanley raised."

[When a TDAD / TSKS construction fits the context of a passage under examination via the proper use of the  normative rules of language, context and logic, despite objectors' determinations that such a construction does not portray a unique, singular identity of a person, there are other categories that fit the context of the TDAD / TSKS construction: Common, Exact and Unique Identities and / or Experiences, Singular or Plural, Impersonal or Person? . Sharp wrote of six rules, not just one 7]

[D. B. Wallace, cont.]:

"The 'Sharper' rule [#1 only] is as follows:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are

(1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), 19

(2) personal,

(3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.

(4) in the same case 18

This rule, as stated, covers all the so-called exceptions for Sharp's rule #1"

[A number of the exceptions actually do fit Sharp's Rule #1 or qualify as one of the other categories which are reflected in Sharp's other 5 rules   7].

The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule [#1] have done so almost without exception because they ... [did not follow] the restrictions that Sharp set forth [for that rule]"

[Furthermore, the unwarranted exceptions that Sharp and others have imposed upon TDAD, TSKS constructions in order to justify their particular interpretation of christological passages have largely ignored the categories available within the bounds of the normal rules of language, context and logic. Even Sharp has written of 5 other rules - his restrictions notwithstanding - which might fit a category and the passage under review 7. For Sharp's other rules  often covered the exceptions that he and others imposed upon passages in order to support their particular theological biases, especially biased interpretations of christological passages. Ironically, subjects such as different cases, plural, proper names, ordinals, extra biblical writings, plural, etc. which fit other categories within the context are largely beside the point because the christological passages are in the category of the unique identity of a single person - proper names albeit included ]

B) THE NORMAL RULES OF LANGUAGE, CONTEXT AND LOGIC OPERATE LEGITIMATELY WITHIN A TDAD / TSKS CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT UNWARRANTED RESTRICTION - SHARP'S RULE #1 AND ALL SIX RULES CORROBORATE THIS WHEN HIS RESTRICTIONS ARE REPLACED WITH AN APPLICABLE CATEGORY OF CONTEXT TO THE PASSAGE AT HAND

The normal rules of language, context and logic operate legitimately within a TDAD / TSKS construction without unwarranted restriction. Sharp's Rule #1 and all six of his rules corroborate this when his restrictions are replaced with an applicable category of context to the passage at hand. So no exceptions / restrictions such as excluding proper nouns, ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, impersonal nouns, translation Greek, extra biblical writings, etc. need to be made   if a careful examination of the passage at hand in Scripture is made via the normal rules of language, context and logic .

[D. B. Wallace]:

"The bulk of Sharp’s Remarks was a discussion of eight christologically significant texts (Acts 20:28; Eph 5:5; 2 Thes 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 4), encompassing more than two-thirds of the body of the work . 21 Sharp backed up the validity of his arguments with twenty-five non-christologically-significant examples which he believed were undisputed in their semantic force. 22 Included in his disquisition [discourse] are the following illustrations [of descriptions / substantives referring to an identical referrant]" 23

The grammatical rule[s] in general may be summarized with the letters "TDAD" signifying,

'The' + Description + 'And' + Description = the Referent.

Contrary to the contention of many grammarians and theologians, including Granville Sharp, the means by which this TDAD / TSKS construction will produce the most reliable interpretation without unwarranted restrictions such as excluding proper nouns, ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, impersonal nouns, translation Greek, extra biblical writings, etc. is via a careful examination of the passage at hand in Scripture via the normal rules of language, context and logic .

So given that the entire passage at hand has been properly examined via the normative rules of language, context and logic within its respective context without unwarranted restrictions the TDAD / TSKS construction under review will fit into one of the possible categories listed below:

1) A common (but not equal or unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

2) An equal (but not unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

3) A unique experience / identity of the person or thing referred to, (the referent).

The need to fabricate exclusionary grammatical rules to assure correct interpretation of a passage is resolved by paying due attention to the context of each passage, properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic . As a matter of fact, a number of exclusions are unwarranted, and will actually qualify as a personal, singular, identical referent: a unique, identity of a singular person . Furthermore, regarding passages when properly examined do not actually fit Sharp's Rule #1, there are other categories for TDAD / TSKS constructions - five other rules to choose from that Sharp proposed that will fit that passage under examination 7.

Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules. 219

Nor is there a need to exclude impersonal or proper names for impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS constructions. There does exist the plausibility of unique impersonal or proper names in TDAD / TSKS constructions for unique material objects, such as the Hope Diamond, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, etc. It is plausible that a material thing or things might be described uniquely in a TDAD / TSKS construction by an impersonal name, or a proper name. Furthermore, impersonal objects might also be described as having common / exact, experiences / identities, plural / singular as well in TDAD / TSKS constructions depending upon grammar and context. It all depends upon the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic.

And ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives that enumerate more than one subject need not be excluded because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view such as Grover Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; or Jesus Christ as being the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); the Firstborn of all creation, (Col 1:15, 18); the second or last Adam, (Ro 5:12-21).

Similarly, the plural form of persons or things need not be excluded relative to a unique singular referent because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view, possessing a plurality of names or experiences, etc., that collectively are unique to that one unique singular referent. Or the descriptions might refer to a common or exact experience or identity of more than one referent depending upon a careful, thorough observation via the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic that matches up with the context of the passage, fitting one of the categories possible. A careful examination of the context will tell which category of TDAD / TSKS construction is in view .

Nor do Greek translations of other writings in other languages such as the Hebrew Old Testament, (the Septuagint); or quotes in the New Testament Greek Bible from the Hebrew Old Testament need to be excluded; nor extra biblical Greek writings such as the Apocrypha or Patristic writings of the early church fathers, etc. For a careful examination via the normative rules of language, context and logic of the original writing as well as the Greek translation will reveal whether there are errors in translation or grammar that violate the proper use of the first century Greek of the New Testament or errors in translation or contradictions with what the Bible teaches on a case for case basis. Any discrepancies will disqualify the document from consideration in validating or disproving the Granville Sharp rules. Hence the text under consideration will be excluded without contriving yet another exclusionary rule to avoid contradicting the Granville Sharp rules or some other grammarian's rules and thereby jeopardizing legitimate passages that fit the available categories within the normative rules of language, context and logic .

It all boils down to correctly applying the rules of language, context and logic in interpreting the passage, and then observing the grammatical construction that is present which confirms the interpretation; instead of making up unproved rules of grammar that are not confirmed by usage, which have too many exceptions to actually prove / disprove the Granville Sharp rules as trustworthy .

Since Sharp has more than one rule - not just Rule #1 7 and since there are three categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions , one can simply follow the normative rules of language, context and logic to determine the context and then find the category of TDAD construction that best fits the context and which ever rule of Sharp's Six Rules determines what that TDAD / TSKS construction is saying without having to use a filter of restrictions - even the ones that Sharp decided to impose.

Note that the world does not have to wait for a few individuals who are erudite lettered savants or who each have an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language and / or have an unquenchable piety like Granville Sharp in order to articulate for others what the Word of God has been saying for centuries. This would put the Word of God in the hands of a few instead of all of accountable mankind whoever will choose to study it for themselves as they so choose in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - the language skills that they learned in their schooling . For throughout Scripture, throughout the ages there has been a remnant of believers that did not require an elitist class of pious believers to tell them what to believe .

a) 2 Cor 1:2-3 reads as follows:

2 Cor 1:2 (NASB) "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 1:3 (NASB) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,"

In the first phrase of 2 Cor 1:3 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

Εὐλογητὸς  ὁ    θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,         
Blessed[be] the God  and Father  of   Lord    our     Jesus   Christ,

And in the second phrase of 2 Cor 1:3 there is a TDAD construction as well. The descriptions have in view unique proper names defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the Father of mercies and God of all comfort." The proper names and accompanying descriptions are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one Father of mercies and one God of all comfort, one and the same God and Father of all Creation according to the Bible and the truth of reality. Hence the proper names are absolutely unique and acceptable. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they too are unique proper names:

 ὁ    πατὴρ τῶν    οἰκτιρμῶν  καὶ θεός pases parakleseOs
 the Father of the mercies      and God of all [comfort]

b) 2 Cor 11:31 reads as follows:

2 Cor 11:31 (NASB) "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying."

In 2 Cor 11:31 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

ὁ      θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ τοῦ    κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
The  God  and Father of the Lord      Jesus

******

c) Eph 6:21-22 reads as follows:

(Eph 6:21 NASB) "But that you also may know about my circumstances, how I am doing, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful [servant] in the Lord, will make everything known to you, [ref. Col 4:7-9].

(Eph 6:22 NASB) I have sent him to you for this very purpose, [Acts 20:4; 2 Tim 4:12] so that you may know about us, and that he may comfort your hearts."

Τυχικὸς   ὁ     ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς  καὶ  πιστὸς   διάκονος
Tychicus  the  beloved    brother   and  faithful  servant

In Eph 6:22, the referent, (Tychicus) is a proper name for Paul's beloved brother (in Christ) and faithful servant in the Lord whom Paul sent to Ephesus to serve at the church at Ephesians; especially so that the Ephesian believers may know about Paul and his group - their evangelistic efforts - as they traveled throughout their part of the world, (v. 22). So Tychicus in Eph 6:21-22 is a unique identity of a single person as characterized by his relationship with Paul and his experiences serving the church at Ephesus and Colosssae, (Col 4:7). Others might have been similarly beloved by Paul and sent on similar missions; but they were not named with the proper name "Tychicus" nor experienced equally the experiences enumerated in Eph 6:21-22, (and Col 4:7). They might have been experiences in common but not equal or identical as depicted in this passage]

d) Phil 4:20 reads as follows:

Phil 4:20 (NASB) "Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen"

This is an example of a unique identity of a single Person, identified by proper nouns:

Our (believers') God  = our (believers') Father

τῷ      δὲ    θεῷ καὶ  πατρὶ  ἡμῶν ἡ   δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων
to the now God and Father our    the glory to  the   forever and ever

e) Heb 2:9-10; 3:1-4 reads as follows:

(Heb 2:9 NASB) "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

(Heb 2:10 NASB) For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the Author of their salvation through sufferings...

Heb 3:1 NASB) "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

(Heb 3:2 NASB) He was faithful to Him Who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.

(Heb 3:3 NASB) For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.

(Heb 3:4 NASB) For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God."

In Heb 3:1 the last phrase in the Greek is as follows:

κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα     τῆς     ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν
Consider        the Apostle      and High Priest of the  confession  our     Jesus"

[The Apostle of our (believers') confession of faith = the High Priest of our (believers') confession of faith is declared to be Jesus - a unique identity of Jesus, a singular Person as the Apostle and High Priest of believers' confession and further defined as the One Who was faithful to God Who appointed Jesus and counted Him worthy of more glory than Moses for being the Author of their (believers') salvation (Heb 2:9-10) - containing personal descriptions which may be considered proper names because the personal descriptions are connected uniquely to the believer's confession of faith and those unique descriptions would be recognized as a proper noun reference for Jesus Christ alone]

f) Jas 3:8-10 reads as follows:

(Jas 3:8 NASB) "But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.

(Jas 3:9 NASB) by this [the tongue of man] we bless [the] *Lord and Father and with it we curse men who have been made in the likeness of God;

(Jas 3:10 NASB) from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way."

ἐν  αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν  κύριον καὶ πατέρα
by this    we bless      the   Lord   and Father

The words in Jas 3:9 rendered, "By this," in the phrase rendered "by this we bless [the] Lord and Father," refer to the tongue of man which both blesses and curses, (v. 10). The phrase is saying that we, (believers to whom the Book of James is addressed, (v. 1:2ff) who claims God as their Lord and Father) with the tongue that blesses and curses, bless "the Lord and Father." Both are proper names, "the Lord" and "Father" which in this context are uniquely identified together as God, ("Father" is without the definite article which unites the two together as describing one Person). Note that the second phrase of verse 9: "and with it [the tongue] we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God" refers to God, confirming that the one Person in view in Jas 3:9a is God. So in view in Jas 3:9 is a singular unique Person identified by proper names

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior ]

g) 2 Pet 2:20  reads as follows:

(2 Pet 2:20 HCSB) "For if, having escaped the world’s impurity through [the] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these things and defeated, the last state is worse for them than the first."

                                     ἐν          ἐπιγνώσει  τοῦ     κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
                                     through knowledge of the Lord   our    and Savior      Jesus Christ

The context of escaping the world's impurity (evil) through knowledge of (faith in) our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (in the sense of salvation of those who have believed in Christ, (2 Pet 1:1), from the consequences of sins unto eternal life through His sacrifice for unrighteousness, (sins) which context pervades the key phrase in the stipulated in Greek above this paragraph rendered "through [the] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), is in the TDAD grammatical construction. In the Greek the key phrase begins with the definite article, "τοῦ" rendered "of the" followed by "κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" rendered "Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ" wherein the words "κυρίου" (Lord) and "σωτῆρος" (Savior), which some consider "Lord" to be a proper name in the context with Jesus Christ, together comprise a description of the unique identity of a singular Person "Jesus Christ." There is no other Lord or Savior within the bounds of the context in this passage except Jesus Christ. He is uniquely the Lord and Savior of those who through knowledge, (faith in), of Him - His sacrifice for sins - have escaped the world's impurity (sins) unto salvation unto eternal life.

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior ]

h) Rev 16:15 reads as follows:

(Rev 16:15 NASB) "(Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes [on], so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.")

            μακάριος ὁ                        γρηγορῶν        καὶ τηρῶν           τὰ  ἱμάτια     αὐτοῦ
            blessed    the [one who is]  watching         and keeping [on] the garments his

[The two descriptions that are joined together by a single definite article "ὁ" rendered "the" referring to "the one who is," and the conjunction "καὶ" rendered "and" in a TDAD grammatical construction refer to the one who stays awake and the one who keeps his clothes [on] wherein more than one person may be in view who experiences both. Hence a common experience amongst one or more persons is in view - plural - which may not be equal experiences; nor is one unique experience of one person in view.

Contrary to Sharp and Wallace, this passage does not have a unique, identity of a singular person in view]

[D. B. Wallace, cont.]:

"Sharp’s judgment was that in these texts 'the sense is so plain that there can be no controversy.' 24 As is evident even without a context, his assessment was correct. None of the rest of Sharp’s examples required any discussion either, as is obvious from the reactions to his work: no one disputed the validity of these examples. A number of other things were disputed, however, especially the validity of such texts for the christologically pregnant passages.

[Sharp's and Wallace's judgment seems to have missed in Rev 16:15: instead of a unique, singular identity of a person, there is in view a common experience of a plurality of persons. Furthermore, properly interpreted the christological TDAD passages are indeed teaching that Jesus Christ is God which corroborate with the other passages that are of another kind of grammatical construction which prove out that Jesus Christ is God ]

C) RELATIVE TO THE GRANVILLE SHARP RULES AND SHARP'S CRITICS: THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE NORMATIVE RULES OF LANGUAGE, CONTEXT AND LOGIC AND THE IMPOSITION OF UNWARRANTED RESTRICTIONS BY BOTH SIDES UPON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE HAVE DIMINISHED THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS FOR OVER TWO CENTURIES

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"The reactions to Sharp’s rule[s] over the next two centuries cannot be easily summarized. Due to time constraints, our discussion will necessarily be truncated. 25 There are relatively few major players in this debate, and the one who said the least made the greatest impact. But suffice it to say here that not one of Sharp’s critics ever demonstrated an invalid example within the pages of the New Testament.

Gregory Blunt argued essentially from English grammar. His principal argument was a tacit [implied but not actually expressed] syllogism [a "since" ... "therefore" argument]:

[Since] Greek and English are identical with respect to the use of the article. 
[And since] There are many exceptions to Sharp’s rule in English. 
Therefore, his [Sharp's] rule is invalid in Greek.

Blunt thus spent an inordinate amount of time producing English examples (e.g., “the King and Queen”) that seemed to violate the rule. He held to an explicit connection between Greek and English in terms even of surface structure, making typically prescriptive statements about how the Greek article must behave. 26  To such arguments Sharp retorted, “he has not been able to produce against the Rule[s] one single example from the Greek text of the New Testament, (the only true criterion of their truth) . . . .” 27

[BKC.net]:

[Blunt's comparison is based on a false premise:
Since the two languages, English and koine first century Greek are not wholly compatible, especially relative to sentence structure, genders, idiomatic expressions from other languages as well as the uses of the definite article, then anything concluded solely based on English is not trustworthy]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Calvin Winstanley’s criticisms were taken far more seriously. He was able to produce four classes of exceptions to Sharp’s rule[s] in Greek literature outside the NT - exceptions that we will address later. 28 The second edition of his Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version, published six years after Sharp’s death (1819), constitutes to this day the latest and most complete list of exceptions to Sharp’s rule [#1]. We can enlarge on Winstanley’s list substantially. However, it is far more difficult to enlarge on the categories of exceptions which he found. Winstanley is to be regarded as the most formidable adversary of Sharp’s rule [#1], but not the most influential.

Three years after Winstanley’s book appeared, a volume dedicated to the usage of the Greek article was published. "The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament," written by the first Bishop of Calcutta, Thomas Fanshaw Middleton 29 - a work still highly regarded among NT grammarians today 30 - gave an extensive treatment on the use of the article in classical Greek, followed by hundreds of pages of exegetical discussions of the article in the NT. Middleton clearly felt the force of Sharp’s Rule [#1] and lent it credibility from the circle of philology [linguistics]. He believed that Sharp’s canon was valid both for the NT and classical Greek. In addition, he clearly understood the restrictions of the rule[s] to personal, singular, non-proper nouns."  31

[BKC.net]:

[Besides his first rule, Sharp also wrote of five other rules on the TSKS / TDAD grammatical construction. He addressed such subjects as impersonal things, the plural; proper names; common and exact identities and experiences; ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, etc. With this in mind, it is evident that there is no need to create artificial, unproved restrictions in order to limit TDAD constructions to apply only to Sharp's Rule #1. There are other kinds of descriptions / categories which apply to TSKS / TDAD grammatical constructions, other than what applies to Sharp's Rule #1 - other rules that Sharp wrote about .  7 A careful study of the context of each passage will provide its meaning, which does not have to be filtered through a maze of artificial, unproved restrictions based on the false assumption that Sharp's Rule #1 is the only rule out there that is suited to TSKS / TDAD grammatical constructions. Other kinds of descriptions / categories provide other possibilities of meaning in TDAD constructions which will satisfy the contexts of passages in view as determined via properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Although Middleton did not answer all of Winstanley’s objections to Sharp’s canon, he did articulate, in great detail, the nature and validity of [Sharp's Rule #1 which ignored the possibility of any other rule]. Now one hundred and fifty years old, Middleton’s treatment stands as the last clear statement of [Sharp's Rule #1] in any major work. The question which concerns us now is, 'How did [Sharp's Rule #1] become neglected?' It is always a perilous venture to attempt an historical reconstruction over the demise of anything. In this instance, however, a suggestion has already been put forth by another, and I find little in his assessment with which I can take issue. In his essay on “The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ,” A. T. Robertson named Georg Benedict Winer 32 as the catalyst behind the neglect of Sharp’s canon in application to christologically significant texts: 33

[BKC.net]:

[Notice that the word "canon" refers to all of the rules that Sharp wrote about which his critics have totally ignored five of them] 

A strange timidity seized some of the translators in the Jerusalem Chamber that is reproduced by the American Committee. There is no hesitation in translating John 1:1 as the text has it. Why boggle over 2 Peter 1:1?"

[BKC.net]:

[Notice that the only focus iof these criticisms is upon Sharp's Rule #1 as it applies to christological passages. But Sharp wrote of other rules to which TDAD constructions might apply 7 depending upon context which determines the category of the TDAD ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"The explanation is to be found in Winer’s Grammar (Thayer’s Edition, p. 130; W. F. Moulton’s (p. 162) [sic], where the author seeks by indirection to break the force of Granville Sharp’s Rule [#1] by saying that in 2 Peter 1:1 “there is not even a pronoun with "σωτῆρος” [savior]"

1) [2 Pet 1:1]: reads as follows:

(2 Pet 1:1 NASB) "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"

"ἐν  δικαιοσύνῃ    τοῦ     θεοῦ      ἡμῶν  καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“by righteousness  the     of God  our      and Savior      Jesus Christ”

That is true, but it is quite beside the point. There is no pronoun with σωτῆρος [savior] in 2 Peter 1:11, precisely the same idiom, where no one doubts the identity of “Lord and Saviour:”

2) 2 Pet 1:11 reads as follows:

2 Pet 1:11 (NASB) "for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

"τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ  σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
"the Lord     our    and Savior       Jesus Christ

Why refuse to apply the same rule to 2 Peter 1:1, that all admit, Winer included, to be true of 2 Peter 1:11? . . .  The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remark about 2 Peter 1:1.
. . . It is plain, therefore, that Winer has exerted a pernicious influence, from the grammatical standpoint, on the interpretation of 2 Peter 1:1, and Titus 2:13. Scholars who believed in the Deity of Christ have not wished to claim too much and to fly in the face of Winer, the great grammarian, for three generations. 34

3) [Titus 2:13 reads as follows

Titus 2:13 (NASB) "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"

προσδεχόμενοι την       μακαρίαν ελπίδα και επιφάνειαν  της    δόξης     
looking             for the  blessed     hope    and appearing   of the glory

του    μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ἡμῶν Ιησού Χριστού
of the great       God and Savior     our    Jesus  Christ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Winer’s assessment of Titus 2:13 is also worth quoting... in note 2 at the bottom of the same page of Winer's Grammar]:

'In Tit. 2:13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος [savior] is not a second predicate [= a second description of Jesus Christ which is] co-ordinate with θεοῦ [God].' "

[BKC.net]:

[This was an attempt to editorialize Titus 2:13 to say "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" as if to say that they are two distinct persons in order not to declare that Jesus is "the Great God" but only Savior. Instead of restricting himself to what the grammar conveys, Winer erroneously inserted his own interpretation not based on rules of language, context and logic, and thereby concluded that it has to be interpreted his way because the Apostle Paul, he falsely stated, did not consider that Jesus Christ was God. Here was Winer's explanation in a footnote at the bottom of the page of his paper]:

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"[Winer went on to write]: 'In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [savior our] may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article τοῦ [the]; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause:

"τῆς δόξης τοῦ      μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ"
“the  glory   of the great       God and Savior      our     Jesus Christ”

as referring to a second subject' " 35

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"What is most interesting about Winer’s comments on these two texts is that though he advances no real grammatical arguments, because he was a highly regarded grammarian he was apparently able to cancel out, by the intimidation of his own [unproved theological, non-grammatical] opinion, the use of Sharp’s Rule [#1] in these passages [not being biblical]. As we will see, this statement virtually sounded the death knell to Sharp’s principle. Ironically, what Winstanley could not do in a tightly argued, compact book of fifty-five pages (all in eight-point type), Winer did in a single footnote!

As Robertson pointed out, Winer was the catalyst behind the neglect of Sharp’s Rule [#1]. His suggestion can be easily confirmed. For example, J. H. Moulton is strongly influenced by Winer’s comment on Titus 2:13, reading it as though borne from a sober grammatical judgment. In his Prolegomena [introductory statement] he writes: 'We cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 2:13, for we must, as grammarians, leave the matter open: see WM 162, 156n.' 36  Other scholars have followed suit. Some explicitly cite Winer as their authority for doubting the grammatical perspicuity of the construction; 37 others, though not mentioning Winer by name, consider the grammar to be vague. 38

Winer’s influence, then, seems [sufficient] to account for the neglect of Sharp’s Rule [#1] in discussions of the christologically significant passages, but what about the abuse of the Rule [#1]? Almost without exception, those who seem to be acquainted with Sharp’s canon and agree with its validity misunderstand it and abuse it. This widespread misunderstanding shows no partiality - grammarians, exegetes, and theologians alike are culpable. Typically, the Rule [#1] is usually perceived to extend to plural and impersonal constructions - in spite of the fact that Sharp restricted the rule [#1] to personal singular nouns. What are the reasons for such abuse? For one thing, as we have seen, the statement of Sharp’s Rule [#1] is not clear - only an examination of his monograph explicitly reveals his requirement of personal singular nouns. Secondly, the last clear statement of the limitations of Sharp’s canon in any major work was published over one hundred and fifty years ago - in Thomas Fanshaw Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article. 39

For whatever reason, modern grammarians have perpetuated the ambiguity of the original statement, bypassing Middleton’s clear articulation of the Rule #1 altogether. To take but three examples: A. T. Robertson, in his large grammar, discusses the TSKS construction quite extensively. We have already seen that he was well acquainted with Sharp’s Rule #1 - in fact, he was an adamant defender of its validity. 40 However, without interacting with either Sharp or Middleton on the point, he felt that the Rule #1 applied to impersonal nouns as well as personal." 41

[BKC.net]:

[Properly read in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic , passages with TSKS / TDAD construction, which may not fit into the unique person category, may fit into the unique experience category or one of the other categories which are addressed in one of the other Granville Sharp rules relative to persons or impersonal referents 7]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Second, Dana and Mantey - on whose grammar many American students have been weaned - actually reproduce (almost) verbatim Sharp’s rule [#1], but neglect to specify more clearly the limitations." 42

[Note that a careful and thorough application of the normative rules of language, context and logic to the TDAD passage at hand without having to be sifted through a series of unproved arbitrary restrictions is the most accurate and reliable way to determine if the passage qualifies for one of the three categories of the TDAD / TSKS construction as reflected in Granville Sharps 6 rules 7]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"And third, in his recent intermediate grammar dedicated to the memory of Granville Sharp, Stanley Porter states, 'Unfortunately, [these rules have] been widely misunderstood.' 43 But Porter both misstates the rule [Sharp's Rule #1] (ignoring the restriction to personal substantives) and, consequently, applies Sharp's canon to an impersonal construction such as in Eph 3:18" 44

[BKC.net]:

[But Eph 3:18 does fit the Granville Sharp rules, specifically the rule which fits the context of conveying common experiences of a plurality of persons in the sense that all believers in Christ receive the unsurpassable love of Christ for them - the breadth and length and height and depth of it - each believer in God's own way for that particular individual . So plural, impersonal substantives / descriptions need not be excluded if one faithfully applies the normal rules of language, context and logic which will rule it in by context, not by artificial rules that don't take context into consideration. ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Porter are simply the tip of the iceberg of grammarians’ misunderstanding of Sharp’s canon. 45

The reason, therefore, for the abuse of the Rule [#1] seems to be that few have taken the time to read Sharp’s Remarks or Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article - in spite of the fact that “Sharp’s Rule [#1]” is still, here and there, mentioned with approbation [approved sanction]. And the reason that few have actually read Sharp or Middleton, 46 it seems, is either inaccessibility or the natural tendency in biblical studies to think that only the most recent literature makes much of a contribution. 47

The upshot of the present-day imprecise knowledge of Sharp’s limitations is that those who invoke his canon on behalf of the argument for Christ’s deity in Titus 2:13, etc., since they include plurals and impersonals in the rule[s], are unable to regard the rule[s] as absolute. Since these same scholars find exceptions to what they perceive to be the Rule [#1], they can only regard it as a general principle."

[BKC.net]:

[On the other hand, a careful and thorough application of the normative rules of language, context and logic to the TDAD passage at hand without having to be sifted through a series of unproved arbitrary restrictions is the most accurate and reliable way to determine if the passage qualifies for one of the three categories of the TDAD construction as addressed in Granville Sharp's six rules 7]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"For example, Murray J. Harris, in his otherwise excellent and detailed article, 'Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ' (in F. F. Bruce’s second Festschrift [= writing in honor of someone]), makes much of the argument that 'two co-ordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article.' ” 48 Yet he gives in defense of this proposition three proof texts - two of which involve nouns in the plural (which even he concedes do not speak of identity and thus they contradict his version of Sharp’s rule [#1])! 49 

[BKC.net]:

[But nouns in the plural do not contradict the Sharp rule number that permits them. There is more than one rule: ]

Harris is hardly alone in his abuse of Sharp’s canon; indeed, he simply follows in a long train of exegetes who have been unaware of the restrictions laid down by Sharp." 50

[BKC.net]:

[Note that a careful and thorough application of the normative rules of language, context and logic to the TDAD passage at hand without having to be sifted through a series of unproved arbitrary restrictions is the most accurate and reliable way to determine if the passage qualifies for one of the three categories of the TDAD construction that is reflected in Granville Sharp's rules ]

To sum up, the validity of Sharp’s principle was called into question, on theological grounds, [as opposed to grammatical, contextual grounds] by the great grammarian of the nineteenth century, Georg Benedict Winer. His stature as a grammarian, even though he spoke in this instance outside his realm, has apparently brought about the neglect of the Rule [#1] in the vast majority of studies of these passages in this century.

Consequently, and certainly related to this, the Rule [#1] [have] been abused even by those who agree with its validity,  51 because the limitations which Sharp laid down are almost never observed (in large measure because they have not been printed in any major work in the last one hundred and fifty years). 52

[BKC.net]:

[Note that a careful and thorough application of the normative rules of language, context and logic to the TDAD passage at hand without having to be sifted through a series of unproved arbitrary restrictions is the most accurate and reliable way to determine if the passage qualifies for one of the three categories of the TDAD construction that is reflected in Granville Sharp's six rules ]

III) LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF 1ST CENTURY KOINE GREEK GRAMMAR RE: THE USE OF THE ARTICLE TO DESCRIBE COMMON AND / OR EQUAL - OR UNIQUE EXPERIENCES AND / OR IDENTITIES - SINGULAR OR PLURAL, PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL IN NATURE

A) The Nature Of The Linguistic Analysis Of The Definite Article In 1st Century Koine Greek Grammar In General Is One Of The Capacity Of The Definite Article To Determine Concepts That Add To The Basic Definition Of A Subject Giving It A Unique, Common Or Equal Concept Which Is an Identity / Experience: Singular Or Plural, Personal Or Impersonal In Nature As Established In The Particular Context

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"The article intrinsically has the ability to conceptualize,

[= to form a concept beyond its basic function of providing a definition]

for its principal function is not determinative [i.e., defining] but notional [i.e., to originate concepts that add to the basic definition, giving it a unique concept as established in the particular context].

Or, as Rosén has put it, the [definite] article 'has the power of according nominal status to any expression to which it is appended,

[BKC.net]:

[i.e., giving it the unique status based on the criteria within the context of the words within which it is contained, i.e., giving it a particular definition / name]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

and, by this token, of conveying the status of a concept to whatever ‘thing’ is denoted [made known, announced, defined] by that expression, for the reason that whatever is conceived by the mind - so it would appear - becomes a concept as a result of one’s faculty to call it by a name.' 55

To be sure, the Greek article does serve a determining [a defining] function at times. But a hierarchy of usage would suggest that determination has a tertiary role: after conceptualization [= the defining of thoughts and concepts beyond a simple definition] and identification [using a word as a grammatical substitute] (e.g., as in anaphora [= repetition for effect] comes determination [the resolving of a question by a logical argument]." 56

B) The Use Of The Article In A TSKS / TDAD Construction Conveys Common And / Or Equal - Or Unique Experiences And / Or Identities - Singular Or Plural, Personal Or Impersonal In Nature Depending Upon Context Ascertained Via The Normative Rules Of Language, Context And Logic

[BKC.net]:

[The TSKS / TDAD construction conveys common and / or equal - or unique experiences and / or identities - singular or plural, personal or impersonal in nature depending upon the context. It does not require any restrictions, but conforms to the properly interpreted context of the passage the TSKS / TDAD construction / descriptions are located in via the proper use of the normal rules of language, context and logic working together ] 

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"The primary thrust of the article in TSKS [TDAD] constructions is to bring together two substantives [two descriptions] ... This is true of all such constructions [whether singular, plural, personal, impersonal, ordinal, proper noun, etc.] 57 The single article connotes some sort of unity... The article serves to bracket the substantives [descriptions], linking them together into a larger category which is ... [defined by the context]."

[BKC.net]:

[The grammatical rules in general may be summarized with the letters "TDAD" signifying,

'The' + Description + 'And' + Description = the Referent.

Contrary to the contention of many grammarians and theologians, including Granville Sharp, the means by which this TDAD / TSKS construction will produce the most reliable interpretation without unwarranted such as excluding proper nouns, ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, impersonal nouns, translation Greek, extra biblical writings, etc. is via a careful examination of the passage at hand in Scripture via the normal rules of language, context and logic .

So given that the entire passage at hand has been properly examined via the normative rules of language, context and logic within its respective context without unwarranted restrictions the TDAD / TSKS construction under review will fit into one of the possible categories listed below:

1) A common (but not equal or unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

2) An equal (but not unique) experience / identity of the person(s) or thing(s) referred to, (the referent).

3) A unique experience / identity of the person or thing referred to, (the referent).

The need to fabricate exclusionary grammatical rules to assure correct interpretation of a passage is resolved by paying due attention to the context of each passage, properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic . As a matter of fact, a number of exclusions are unwarranted, and will actually qualify as a personal, singular, identical referent: a unique, identity of a singular person . Furthermore, regarding passages when properly examined do not actually fit Sharp's Rule #1, there are other categories for TDAD / TSKS constructions - five other rules to choose from that Sharp proposed that will fit that passage under examination 7.

Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules. 219

Nor is there a need to exclude impersonal or proper names for impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS constructions. There does exist the plausibility of unique impersonal or proper names in TDAD / TSKS constructions for unique material objects, such as the Hope Diamond, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, etc. It is plausible that a material thing or things might be described uniquely in a TDAD / TSKS construction by an impersonal name, or a proper name. Furthermore, impersonal objects might also be described as having common / exact, experiences / identities, plural / singular as well in TDAD / TSKS constructions depending upon grammar and context. It all depends upon the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic.

And ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives that enumerate more than one subject need not be excluded because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view such as Grover Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; or Jesus Christ as being the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); the Firstborn of all creation, (Col 1:15, 18); the second or last Adam, (Ro 5:12-21).

Similarly, the plural form of persons or things need not be excluded relative to a unique singular referent because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view, possessing a plurality of names or experiences, etc., that collectively are unique to that one unique singular referent. Or the descriptions might refer to a common or exact experience or identity of more than one referent depending upon a careful, through observation via the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic that matches up with the context of the passage, fitting one of the categories possible. A careful examination of the context will tell which category of TDAD / TSKS construction is in view .

Nor do Greek translations of other writings in other languages such as the Hebrew Old Testament, (the Septuagint); or quotes in the New Testament Greek Bible from the Hebrew Old Testament need to be excluded; nor extra biblical Greek writings such as the Apocrypha or Patristic writings of the early church fathers, etc. For a careful examination via the normative rules of language, context and logic of the original writing as well as the Greek translation will reveal whether there are errors in translation or grammar that violate the proper use of the first century Greek of the New Testament or errors in translation or contradictions with what the Bible teaches on a case for case basis. Any discrepancies will disqualify the document from consideration in validating or disproving the Granville Sharp rules. Hence the text under consideration will be excluded without contriving yet another exclusionary rule to avoid contradicting the Granville Sharp rules or some other grammarian's rules and thereby jeopardizing legitimate passages that fit the available categories within the normative rules of language, context and logic .

It all boils down to correctly applying the rules of language, context and logic in interpreting the passage, and then observing the grammatical construction that is present which confirms the interpretation; instead of making up unproved rules of grammar that are not confirmed by usage, which have too many exceptions to actually prove / disprove the Granville Sharp rules as trustworthy .

Since Sharp has more than one rule - not just Rule #1 7 and since there are three categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions , one can simply follow the normative rules of language, context and logic to determine the context and then find the category of TDAD construction that best fits the context and which ever rule of Sharp's Six Rules determines what that TDAD / TSKS construction is saying without having to use a filter of restrictions - even the ones that Sharp decided to impose.

Note that the world does not have to wait for a few individuals who are erudite lettered savants or who each have an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language and / or have an unquenchable piety like Granville Sharp in order to articulate for others what the Word of God has been saying for centuries. This would put the Word of God in the hands of a few instead of all of accountable mankind whoever will choose to study it for themselves as they so choose in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - the language skills that they learned in their schooling . For throughout Scripture, throughout the ages there has been a remnant of believers that did not require an elitist class of pious believers to tell them what to believe .

1) Mt 16:1 reads as follows:

Mt 16:1 (NASB) "The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven."

"οἱ    Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι"
"The Pharisees  and Sadducees,"

[BKC.net]:

[The single definite article, "oi" [= "the"] unites two otherwise non-congenial, incompatible, religious, ruling groups of first century Israel described by their plural proper nouns, "Pharisees and Sadducees." They were often in opposition to one another over numerous political and religious matters, (ref. Mt 3:7; 16:6-12), including whether or not they will experience resurrection from the dead, (Mt 22:23-24; 16:6-12). Nevertheless they were united in opposition to Jesus, attempting to test Him in order to destroy His purpose, even kill Him, (Mk 14:1; Jn 5:18; 7:1, 25; 8:40). The experience of their testing of Jesus is the unifying factor in the descriptions of this verse. This verse when compared to the rest of Scripture, indicates that the testing / persecution of Jesus varied from person to person in manner and intensity. Hence the TSKS / TDAD construction contains two proper noun descriptions designating a plurality of persons / individuals that are not identical or equal with one another even relative to their experiences of testing Jesus. But they are nevertheless common experiences of the two groups of individuals in their testing of Jesus.

2) Lk 21:12 reads as follows:

Lk 21:12 (NASB) "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake."

"παραδιδόντες εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ φυλακάς"
"delivering up  to   the synagogues and prisons,"

[Complete Biblical Library Commentary]:

"Jesus further warned His disciples about the religious persecutions which would come. ... He warned the disciples of the persecution they would have to endure. The phrase 'lay their hands on' refers to arrests which would be made. There would be persecution from the religious leaders as evidenced by the word 'synagogues.' There would also be persecution from the civil leaders as evidenced by the words 'prison', 'kings', and 'rulers.' History tells us how these disciples had to endure persecution from both the religious and civil authorities for Jesus' sake."

[So the Disciples would all endure persecutions for Jesus' sake: similar but different persecution experiences by religious leaders in the synagogues and by civil authorities' arresting and throwing them into prisons + further persecutions at the hands of kings and governors for Jesus' namesake. So synagogues and prisons (as well as various palaces of kings and governors), are portrayed as being locations of persecutions by multiple persons - both religious leaders and civil authorities - of the disciples for Jesus' namesake in common with one another by virtue of the TDAD which has in view: common, personal, plural, experiences of the disciples caused by others upon them]

3) Mt 27:56 reads as follows:

Mt 27:56 (NASB) "Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

"Μαρία ἡ   τοῦ                   ᾿Ιακώβου  καὶ ᾿Ιωσὴφ
"Mary   the [one who is]       of James  and  Joseph

μήτηρ  καὶ   ἡ   μήτηρ  τωη   uhiwn zebedaὶοu"
mother and the mother of the sons   of Zebedee")

[BKC.net]:

[The first TDAD description identifies a person named "Mary" amongst the women who were there nearby while Jesus was being crucified in Jerusalem in the First Century, (Mt 27:33-56) - a woman named "Mary" who is the mother of James and Joseph. Whereupon, for the second description, this same Mary is identified as "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," evidently her husband and her sons' father, (cf. Mk 10:35).

Thus a unique identity of a single person with a proper name is in view. Although the proper name of Mary is a very common name, it does not disqualify this verse as a unique, identity of a single person of the proper name "Mary," because of the unique specificity of the context which includes her presence in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' persecution; and it includes the names of two of her sons and of her husband all of which makes the person uniquely identified as a single unique person named Mary.

4) Rev 1:9 reads as follows:

Rev 1:9 (NASB) "I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης  ὁ    ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ
I       John        the brother   your  and

συνκοινωνὸς    ἐν τῇ  θλίψει        καὶ  βασιλείᾳ  καὶ 
fellow partaker in the tribulation and  Kingdom and

ὑπομονῇ       ἐν                    Ἰησοῦ ἐγενόμην ἐν  τῇ νήσῳ
perseverance [which are] in  Jesus  was         in   the island

τῇ  καλουμένῃ   Πάτμῳ διὰ
the being called  Patmos through

τὸν λόγον  τοῦ    Θεοῦ    καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ
the word   [the]  of God and the testimony   of Jesus

[BKC.net]:

[In Rev 1:9, the apostle and author John - referred to by his proper name and by having the office of apostle - is having a common experience as a brother with fellow believers - plural) and as a fellow partaker with them in their temporal  tribulation: the persecution of them during his and fellow contemporary believers' temporal lives in the first century. The 7 year Tribulation is not in view since believers of John's time have all died before that Tribulation will begin. Nevertheless, John and fellow believers together will be "fellow partaker[s] in the ... Kingdom" referring to their experiencing being present in the future Eternal Kingdom of God. And finally, John and fellow believers will experience temporal perseverance through Christ. Hence a common experience with fellow believers - a plurality of persons who are believers including John is in view]

5) Heb 12:2-3 reads as follows:

(Heb 12:2 NASB) "fixing our [believers'] eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of [the] faith [of believers], Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God:

"τὸν                       τῆς     πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ   τελειωτήν     ᾿Ιησοῦν"
"the [One Who is]  of the faith       Author   and  [Perfector],    Jesus."

(Heb 12:3 NASB) For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart."

[BKC.net]:

[The TDAD construction consists of the definite article, (τὸν = the) followed by the descriptive phrase rendered "Author of the faith," a description which is unique to Jesus alone.

Heb 12:2 speaks of Jesus as “the Author and Perfecter of the faith" [of all mankind]. He is Author in the sense that He is the One Who endured the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind so as to make perfect provision for salvation unto eternal life available for all of mankind to believe in and receive, (Heb 10:22; 12:2b-3). And He is the Perfecter of the faith in those who have believed in Him for eternal life in order that they will indeed be raised from the dead unto a sinless, perfect resurrection body unto eternal life, (Heb 11:19).

No one else did what Jesus did in order to be the Author of the provision of the faith; namely to endure the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind so as to make perfect provision for salvation unto eternal life available for all of mankind to believe in and receive, (Heb 10:22; 12:2b-3). This is followed by "καὶ" rendered "and" followed by an anarthrous description (no article) rendered "and Perfecter of [the] faith." Jesus is the Perfecter of the faith in those who have believed in Him for eternal life in order that they will indeed be raised from the dead unto a sinless, perfect resurrection body unto eternal life, (Heb 11:19). Put together the key phrase in view in Heb 12:2 comprises a unique description and a unique identity of a singular Person of Jesus alone being the Author and Perfecter of the faith]

6) Eph 1:2-3 reads as follows:

Eph 1:2 (NASB) "Grace to you and peace from [the] God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 1:3 (NASB) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,"

"ὁ      θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ  τοῦ     κυρίου ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ"
"The  God  and Father  of the Lord     our      Jesus Christ"

"θεός" ["God"] and "πατήρ" ["Father"] in Eph 1:3 are two proper nouns which in the context of the unique God of the Bible and of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesian believers in Christ describe One singular Person Who is named "God" and "Father" - a unique identity of one Person Who is further uniquely identified as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," describing a unique experience of the relationship between God and Father with the Lord Jesus Christ - the God Who is of "our" (believers') Lord Jesus Christ. So Eph 1:3 is a unique identity of God by two proper personal names and by one unique relationship experience with "our (believers') Lord Jesus Christ." Note that although it is true that Jesus Christ is God , the unique identity of Jesus Christ as God and Father is not in view in Eph 1:3. It may be concluded that this verse has the Perfect Humanity of Jesus Christ in view rather than His Deity.

On the other hand, other passages stipulate that God is the God and Father of all believers, (Eph 1:2; 4:6; Phil 4:20; Gal 1:4; etc.). So the proper names of God which are unique identities of Who the God is Who is the God and Father "of our Lord Jesus Christ," Who is also the God and Father of all believers, (Eph 1:2; 4:6; Phil 4:20; Gal 1:4; etc.). Although the context of the TDAD construction in Eph 1:3 is referring to God's unique relationship with Jesus Christ; and although the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ and all believers is a common experience with Christ and all who are believers, the latter is not equal in quality to the unique one He has with His one and only Son.

Note that from a positional standpoint - as opposed to an experiential temporal standpoint - all believers have a standing / position with God which is equal with one another in that their standing is in Christ Who is unique relative to forgiveness of sins unto eternal life .

7) Acts 17:10-12 reads as follows:

Acts 17:10 (NASB) "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Acts 17:11 (NASB)  Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Acts 17:12 (YLT) "many, indeed, therefore, of them did believe, and of the [reputable] Greek women and men not a few.

πολλοὶ  μὲν      οὖν          ἐξ                 αὐτῶν ἐπίστευσαν

Many   indeed therefore from among  them   believed,

καὶ τῶν     Ἑλληνίδων γυναικῶν τῶν εὐσχημόνων

and of the  Grecian       women     the  honorable

καὶ ἀνδρῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι

and men      not  a few

In Acts 17:10-12, Luke tells of many Bereans who did believe in Christ, and of the reputable - Greek women and men - not a few, i.e., many of them, who became believers. The common experience of many individuals believing in Christ amongst the many Bereans of all types - attending the synagogue there is not specifically in view in the TDAD construction either; but it nevertheless is part of the context of the passage.

Note that from a positional standpoint - as opposed to an experiential temporal standpoint - all believers have a standing / position with God which is equal with one another in that their standing is in Christ Who is unique relative to forgiveness of sins unto eternal life .

The TDAD construction specifically has in view the common identity of a plurality of persons - the population of many honorable / reputable - Grecian individuals - women and men - in the population of those of Berea who were attending the synagogue in Berea who did believe at that time - over a period of time of a number of days, (Acts 17:11).

Note that from a positional standpoint - as opposed to an experiential temporal standpoint - all believers have a standing / position with God which is equal with one another in that their standing is in Christ Who is unique relative to forgiveness of sins unto eternal life .

*****

8) Eph 3:17-19 reads as follows:

a) Eph 3:6-16: Background Verses To Establish The Context:

(Eph 3:6 NASB) "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

(Eph 3:7 NASB) of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.

(Eph 3:8 NASB) To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,

(Eph 3:9 NASB) and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

(Eph 3:10 NASB) so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

(Eph 3:11 NASB) This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

(Eph 3:12 NASB) in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.

Eph 3:13 NASB) Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory.

(Eph 3:14 NASB) For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

(Eph 3:15 NASB) from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name,

(Eph 3:16 NASB) that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

b) Eph 3:17-19: Key Verses Which Contain The Key TDAD / TSKS Phrases

(Eph 3:17 NASB) "so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 

κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν   διὰ
to dwell        the  Christ     through

τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
the  faith       in the  hearts      your

ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐρριζωμένοι    καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι 
in    love   being rooted  and having been founded

(Eph 3:18 NASB) may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,

ἵνα   ἐξισχύσητε                   καταλαβέσθαι   σὺν   πᾶσιν τοῖς
that you may be fully able  to apprehend    with  all       the

ἁγίοις τί        τὸ   πλάτος καὶ  μῆκος καὶ  βάθος καὶ  ὕψος    
saints  what  the width    and length and depth  and height [of the love of Christ, (v. 19)

(Eph 3:19 NASB) and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God."

γνῶναί    τε   τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν
to know and the  surpassing

τῆς γνώσεως     ἀγάπην τοῦ     Χριστοῦ ἵνα  πληρωθῆτε           εἰς
the  knowledge love       of the Christ;   that you may be filled unto

πᾶν τὸ   πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ
all   the fullness            of God."

The last phrase of Eph 3:18 which is underlined above describes the love of Christ in figurative language for all believers, (plural). It qualifies as a TSKS / TDAD grammatical construction of four descriptions. Each of the four descriptions - which are four different aspects - stipulated in the TDAD phrase refers to the unfathomable greatness of the love of Christ for believers - Gentile and Jew alike - four different aspects: the breadth and length and height and depth of Christ's love for all believers. None of the descriptions are stipulated or implied as identical or equal to one another. They are common experiences of a plurality of persons in the sense that all believers in Christ receive the unsurpassable love of Christ for them - the breadth and length and height and depth of it - each believer in God's own way for that particular individual. The descriptions therefore do not fit Granville Sharp's first rule of TSKS/ TDAD of an unique personal, singular identical referent because the descriptions qualify for one of Sharp's other rules: a plurality of persons sharing a common experience which is expressed in Eph 3:19: "to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God." Therein lies the unity amongst all believers.

Note that from a positional standpoint - as opposed to an experiential temporal standpoint - all believers have a standing / position with God which is equal with one another in that their standing is in Christ Who is unique relative to forgiveness of sins unto eternal life .

9) Eph 2:11-14 reads as follows:

(Eph 2:11 NASB) "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 'Uncircumcision' by the so-called 'Circumcision,' which is performed in the flesh by human hands -

(Eph 2:12 NASB) remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

(Eph 2:13 NASB) But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

(Eph 2:14 NASB) For He Himself is our peace, Who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,"

"ὁ    ποιήσας                   τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν    καὶ  τὸ  μεσότοιχον  τοῦ     φραγμοῦ λύσας."
"the [One] having made  the both         one  and the middle wall  of the partition having broken down"

In Eph 2:14, Christ Jesus is “the One who made both [Jew and Gentile believers in this age] one" in the sense of joining them into one people in Christ Jesus and the One "Who broke down the barrier of the dividing wall," i.e., the middle wall of partition between both groups. So we have the unique, experience / personal identity via the unique effort / experience of the singular person identified by the proper name of Jesus Christ, Who by His unique effort made both groups - Jew and Gentile - into one - in Christ Jesus - and He is the One Who broke down the middle wall of the partition between both groups - the fulfillment / cancellation of the Law of Moses - an impersonal thing .

a) [Compare Eph 3:4-6]:

(Eph 3:4 NASB) "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

(Eph 3:5 NASB) which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

(Eph 3:6 NASB) to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body [of Christ], and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

So in view in Eph 2:14 which is situated in the context of the Book of Ephesians is a unique experience / identity- a one of a kind action - performed by a single Unique Person, an identity by virtue of His unique experience with the proper name Jesus Christ. His unique action of the shedding of His blood for the sins of all mankind, (Eph 2:13) made both groups of mankind, Jewish and Gentile, through faith in Him, into one group in Christ Jesus. And He is the One Who broke down the barrier of the dividing wall - the middle wall - of the partition between Jew and Gentile that partition being the Law of Moses which He fulfilled and thereby canceled , which divided Jew and Gentile in the temporal life, the one side of the wall being God's chosen people, the other side: those Gentiles who were estranged from God.

10) Mt 12:22

[Mt 12:22 (NASB) "Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw."]

"τὸν                      τυφλὸν   καὶ  κωφόν"
"the  [one who is] blind      and  dumb."

In Mt 12:22, a particular man who is demon-possessed who was also blind and mute, (possibly caused by the demons within him), who was healed by Jesus is in view. It is possible that others were healed by Jesus who were also simliarly (not necessarily equally) demon-possessed, blind and mute - a common experience of a single person being healed by Jesus. For Jesus healed many. A number of individuals in those days in that area of the world were demon possessed and / or with similar physical afflictions. The wording in the passage does not indicate a unique individual who had such a unique combination of ailments who was healed by Jesus.

11) Lk 20:37 reads as follows:

Luke 20:37 (NKJV) "But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' "

(τὸν θεὸν  ᾿Αβραὰμ      καὶ θεὸν  ᾿Ισαὰκ   καὶ  θεὸν ᾿Ιακώβ 
 the God   of Abraham and God   of Isaac and God of Jacob"

There is only one Who is the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob; and of Moses by implication through the context of the account of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus which is referenced here in this passage in Lk 20: the LORD God of all of creation and humanity - a unique identity of a singular person Who is named by a  proper noun.

a) [Compare Ex 3:6]:

(Ex 3:6 NASB)] "He [God] said also, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God."

12) Mt 16:21 reads as follows:

(Mt 16:21 NASB) "From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day."

"τῶν  πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἀρχιερέων     καὶ  γραμματέων"
"the   elders             and chief priests   and scribes" 

Three groups of persons - plural - are identified by classification of office, (not proper) names; namely, elders, chief priests and scribes; members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Ruling Body. The identies of groups of individuals are not identical / unique with one another, nor equal in all respects with one another. For their memberships in the Sanhedrin were not equal in authority in all situations; nor was their participation in the persecution and killing of Jesus equal amongst all participants in the Sanhedrin. A search in Scripture will provide passages which describe many common but not exactly the same or unique experiences relative to their participation in the persecution and death of Jesus. Furthermore, a number of Pharisees believed in Jesus and did not participate in His death, (Jn 12:42). So common experiences of a plurality of persons are in view who are called elders, chief priests and scribes - members of the Sanhedrin.

Mt 21:12 (NASB) "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out [the ones selling and buying] in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves."

Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς εἰς    τὸ  ἱερόν    καὶ  ἐξέβαλεν
And entered   Jesus     into the temple and   cast out

πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας    καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ  ἱερῷ
all         the   [ones] selling and buying          in  the temple

καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν    κολλυβιστῶν     κατέστρεψεν
and the  tables      of the money changers He overturned

καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν     πωλούντων    τὰς περιστεράς
and the seats          of the [ones] selling  the  doves

The Greek phrase,

"τοὺς πωλοῦντας    καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ  ἱερῷ"

is best rendered:

the   [ones] selling and buying          in  the temple"

This rendering is the most faithful to the manuscript evidence - keeping the word order more literal. On the other hand, it does not alter the intended meaning by having the selling come before the buying or the buying before the selling which the latter some versions have. It is in the TDAD, TSKS construction conveying a common experience of persons - plural - who are selling and / or buying in the temple. Note that the rest of the verse portrays Jesus' overturning the tables and chairs of the money changers and those who were selling doves.

C) The Proper Analysis Of The TDAD / TSKS Constructions Which Appear In Christologically Significant Passages Is The Same Analysis To Be Properly Performed Upon Other Passages Without Unproved Unwarranted Restrictions

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"In order to evaluate properly the validity of Sharp’s canon [i.e., Rules], especially as it relates to christologically significant passages, several questions need to be addressed: Why the limitations to personal, singular, non-proper substantives? What do those constructions which do not fit these requirements indicate? Is Sharp’s rule valid within the NT?

Do all the christologically significant texts fit the restrictions Sharp laid down? Is the principle valid outside the NT? And, finally, what arguments, as well as exceptions, can be advanced against Sharp’s rule [#1] - and do these overturn the rule [Sharp's Rule #1] as it relates to the christologically significant texts?"

[BSM.net]:

[The questions above posed about Sharp's "canon" presume that there is only one Granville Sharp rule. But Sharp's writings indicate that he wrote of at least five other rules 7. And from a careful following of the normative rules of language, context and logic , it is discovered that there are a number of contexts which fit TSKS / TDAD constructions ; not just the context that fits Sharp's Rule #1 as restricted by contenders. Sharp addressed such restricted subjects as impersonal things, the plural; proper names; ordinal adjectives. And there are a number of subjects that were excluded by contenders that he evidently overlooked . Those who contend the reliability of Sharp's Rule #1 insist that it must be excluded from consideration when examining christologically relevant texts. There is no need to create artificial, unproved restrictions in order to limit TDAD constructions to apply only to Sharp's Rule #1, because other categories of descriptions provide other possibilities of meaning for TDAD / TSKS constructions which will satisfy the contexts of passages in view as determined via properly following the normative rules of language, context and logic ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"As we saw earlier, the major battle lines over Sharp’s rule [#1] were theological, syntactical, and linguistic. Theologically, opponents of Sharp’s canon felt that the rule [Sharp's Rule #1] is not applicable to the christologically pregnant passages."

[BSM.net]:

[The objections to applying the Granville Sharp rule #1 to christologically pregnant passages were for arbitrary, illogical, non-contextual, non-grammatical reasons - none of which came from an accurate interpretation of applicable passages in Scripture via the normative rules of language, context and logic . Most of the objections resulted from contrived conclusions that Sharp's Rule #1 was not consistent and therefore not reliable to apply to christological passages in the Bible].

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"An examination of such texts and the validity of Sharp’s canon for them will be taken up in the next section. Syntactically, [= following the normative rules of language, context and logic] Calvin Winstanley in particular brought forth TSKS constructions outside the NT which [he claimed] fit the requirements of Sharp’s principle but did not bear the same semantics =i.e., did not follow the normative rules of language, context and logic]."

[BSM.net]:

[Note that Winstanley and D. B. Wallace ignored principles and semantics which the TSKS / TDAD constructions include via a careful following of the normative rules of language, context and logic ; and to which Sharp referred when he wrote of his five other rules ].

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"These, too, will be examined in the next section as they are most relevant for the christologically significant texts. Linguistically, several arguments were marshaled against the restrictions Sharp laid down (viz [= namely] that the substantives [the descriptions] had to be singular, personal, and not proper names if they were ... to have the same referent). The linguistic issue will be taken up here as it affects the question of whether such restrictions are merely a posteriori descriptions [= conclusions based on observations] of NT usage - and thus perhaps coincidental phenomenological descriptions [phenomenological = experiential / known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition; limited in this study to the context of what Scripture says] or valid ontological principles [i.e., true statements based on the true nature of being] which have applicability to a wide range of Greek literature [in the sense that the principles are actually valid]."

[BSM.net]:

[Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .  

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules.

Nor is there a need to exclude impersonal or proper names for impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS constructions. There does exist the plausibility of unique impersonal or proper names in TDAD / TSKS constructions for unique material objects, such as the Hope Diamond, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, etc. It is plausible that a material thing or things might be described uniquely in a TDAD / TSKS construction by an impersonal name, or a proper name. Furthermore, impersonal objects might also be described as having common / exact, experiences / identities, plural / singular as well in TDAD / TSKS constructions depending upon grammar and context. It all depends upon the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic.

And ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives that enumerate more than one subject need not be excluded because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view such as Grover Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; or Jesus Christ as being the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); the Firstborn of all creation, (Col 1:15, 18); the second or last Adam, (Ro 5:12-21).

Similarly, the plural form of persons or things need not be excluded relative to a unique singular referent because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view, possessing a plurality of names or experiences, etc., that collectively are unique to that one unique singular referent. Or the descriptions might refer to a common or exact experience or identity of more than one referent depending upon a careful, thorough observation via the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic that matches up with the context of the passage, fitting one of the categories possible. A careful examination of the context will tell which category of TDAD / TSKS construction is in view .

Nor do Greek translations of other writings in other languages such as the Hebrew Old Testament, (the Septuagint); or quotes in the New Testament Greek Bible from the Hebrew Old Testament need to be excluded; nor extra biblical Greek writings such as the Apocrypha or Patristic writings of the early church fathers, etc. For a careful examination via the normative rules of language, context and logic of the original writing as well as the Greek translation will reveal whether there are errors in translation or grammar that violate the proper use of the first century Greek of the New Testament or errors in translation or contradictions with what the Bible teaches on a case for case basis. Any discrepancies will disqualify the document from consideration in validating or disproving the Granville Sharp rules. Hence the text under consideration will be excluded without contriving yet another exclusionary rule to avoid contradicting the Granville Sharp rules or some other grammarian's rules and thereby jeopardizing legitimate passages that fit the available categories within the normative rules of language, context and logic .

It all boils down to correctly applying the rules of language, context and logic in interpreting the passage, and then observing the grammatical construction that is present which confirms the interpretation; instead of making up unproved rules of grammar that are not confirmed by usage, which have too many exceptions to actually prove / disprove the Granville Sharp rules as trustworthy .

Since Sharp has more than one rule - not just Rule #1 7 and since there are three categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions , one can simply follow the normative rules of language, context and logic to determine the context and then find the category of TDAD construction that best fits the context and which ever rule of Sharp's Six Rules determines what that TDAD / TSKS construction is saying without having to use a filter of restrictions - even the ones that Sharp decided to impose.

Note that the world does not have to wait for a few individuals who are erudite lettered savants or who each have an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language and / or have an unquenchable piety like Granville Sharp in order to articulate for others what the Word of God has been saying for centuries. This would put the Word of God in the hands of a few instead of all of accountable mankind whoever will choose to study it for themselves as they so choose in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - the language skills that they learned in their schooling . For throughout Scripture, throughout the ages there has been a remnant of believers that did not require an elitist class of pious believers to tell them what to believe ]

1) The Proper Approach To The Interpretation Of TDAD / TSKS Constructions In Christologically Significant Passages Is Via The Normative Rules Of Language, Context and Logic - Without Unproved Unwarranted Restrictions

a) Proper Nouns - Personal And Impersonal - In Christologically Significant Passages - In TDAD / TSKS Constructions Need Not Be Excluded Depending Upon  Context

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Both the linguistic and phenomenological [observable] evidence which follows suggests that Sharp and Middleton were on the right track. As we noted earlier, T. F. Middleton, the first Greek grammarian to affirm the validity of Sharp’s rule [#1], attempted to give the rationale behind the limitations which Sharp had laid down. He argued: 'We are, therefore, to inquire what there is inherent in the excluded [proper] Nouns [both personal and impersonal] to cause so remarkable a difference. . . .

. . . [And regarding impersonal nouns:] distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing; nor can distinct nominal essences, without manifest contradiction, be affirmed of it. Essence is single, peculiar, and incommunicable . . .' 65

The reason why proper names are excepted is evident at once: for it is impossible that John and Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of an individual." 66

[BKC.net]:

[Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .  

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules. 219]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"He [T. F. Middleton] further points out that an impersonal object can, of course, be described by two or more substantives, but that such is extremely rare."

[BSM.net]:

[Nevertheless, rarity is not good cause to totally exclude the names of impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS passages when they are present in the context]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"In a lengthy footnote he reasons that [Proper] Nouns expressive of inanimate substances seem to have this difference: that though they have attributes (and we have no idea of any thing which has not) yet those attributes, from their inertness and quiescence, make so little impression on the observer, that he does not commonly abstract them from his idea of the substance, and still less does he lose sight of the substance, and use its name as expressive of the attribute.

Add to this: to characterize persons by the names of impersonal things would be violent and unnatural, especially when two or more things wholly different in their natures are to be associated for that purpose: and to characterize anything in a description by the names of other things would produce more too many possibilities to make sense. 67

Middleton distinguishes between substances and abstract ideas, though he argues that abstract ideas are also excluded from the rule[s] for reasons similar to those related to proper names. 68 He concludes his discussion of impersonal nouns and proper names by stating that “Thus far it appears, then, that the limitations of the rule are not arbitrary, but necessary, and that the several kinds of excluded Nouns have one disqualifying property belonging to them all; which is, that no two of any class are in their nature predicable of [i.e., can be predicated upon] the same individual . . .” 69

[BKC.net]:

[Yes, they can, depending upon context via the proper exercise of the normative rules of lanuage and context upon the passage at hand - the entire passage at hand ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"There is a further issue with proper names which at least deserves mention here: How can one tell whether a name is proper? Words such as θεός [God] and σωτήρ [Savior] were frequently asserted to be proper names or at least quasi-proper names by Sharp’s adversaries. In this way they were able to deny such passages as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as fitting Sharp’s requirements. Suffice it to say here that we do not regard such words as proper names; a defense of this view will come in a later section.  

[Proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles instead of proper names to defend against the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), being a title for Greek gods and not a proper name - thus eliminating the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote, because Paul is falsely perceived as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules]

b) Plural Nouns / Descriptions In Christologically Significant Passages In TDAD / TSKS Constructions Need Not Be Excluded Depending Upon Context

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Regarding plural substantives [plural descriptions] Middleton concludes that plurals may, at times, fit [Sharp's Rule #1] ... but that there will also be many exceptions:

'. . . what reason can be alleged, why the practice in Plural Attributives [= plural adjoining nouns in a TDAD, TSKS construction] should differ from that in Singular ones? The circumstances are evidently dissimilar. A single individual may stand in various relations and act in divers capacities. . . But this does not happen in the same degree with respect to Plurals. Though one individual may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of individuals should all of them act in the same several capacities. . .' " 70

[BKC.net]:

[When plural nouns, impersonal nouns, proper nouns of persons or things, nouns with ordinal or alpha numeric adjectives, etc., etc., do not qualify under Sharp's Rule #1 for a unique, identity, singular person; there are other categories for TDAD / TSKS constructions which have such categories in view - as detailed by Sharp's five other rules 7 - to choose from to follow in order to properly interpret a TDAD / TSKS construction under review via the normative rules of language, context and logic ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

" From a modern linguistic perspective, Middleton’s general instincts are ... correct. He has understood ... the distinction between sense [= what words stand for] and referent, as well as between denotative and connotative meaning. Denotation is distinguished from connotation in that “Denotation [means what something indicates] and connotation means in addition to the exact explicit meaning what it implied by the words conveyed in a statement]  71 ... connotation “move[s] away from objectivity to subjectivity,” 72  and is “the suggestion of a meaning apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes.” 73

When one begins to think in such categories, he or she notices that “strictly speaking, a proper name is a word with denotation but no connotation, reference but no sense . . .” 74  

Hence, two proper names in the TSKS construction could not fit the Granville Sharp rule [#1] for proper names are used merely to identify (and therefore distinguish), not describe, 75 while common personal nouns both identify and describe." 76

[BSM.net]:

[The dictionary, genealogies, etc. provide available meanings / available denotations of a proper name. Whereupon the context of a passage brings connotation to that proper name. It all depends upon the proper use of language, context and logic .

So Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .  

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules. 219]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Such an expression, however, would seem to be just as awkward in Greek (it never occurs in the NT) as it is in English:

[i) Acts 13:9 reads as follows]:

(Acts 13:9 NASB) "But Saul, who was also known as Paul,"

Acts 13:9 (Greek) "Σαῦλος δὲ ὁ καὶ Παῦλος

                               Saul      but  also Paul

which is the normal way for joining two proper names that have the same referent)."

[BSM.net]:

[Inspite of the fact that a TDAD / TSKS construction of two proper names referring to one person or thing does not appear to be in Scripture, albeit not every verse seems to have been examined in this study by D. B. Wallace; nevertheless, it is plausible that two or more proper names may uniquely refer to one person or thing in a TDAD / TSKS koine Greek construction, given the context within the writing that it is defined by - the who, what, why, when, where, to whom, how of it. And this context may be extant in 1st century koine extra biblical writings which are far beyond the scope of anyone's personal study. Hence it cannot be excluded from reality, especially since it is plausible]

c) Impersonal Nouns Which Are Located In Christologically Significant Passages In TDAD / TSKS Constructions Need Not Be Excluded Depending Upon Context

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"With reference to impersonal nouns, a similar pattern emerges: most impersonal nouns, by themselves (i.e., without adjuncts),

[i.e., outside of considering the context]

have zero or minimal connotative [= implied] value.

[most words have minimal connotative value until they are placed in a passage with a context]

They generally have an obvious referential meaning, just as proper names do. In such cases, two impersonal nouns in the TSKS construction would not be expected to have an identical referent."

[BKC.net]:

[On the contrary, one or more impersonal nouns may have in view one unique referent in a particular TDAD / TSKS construction when the context within which the impersonal nouns appear is taken into consideration. Although, statistically speaking, this will not occur  frequently, it is nevertheless plausible. So impersonal nouns cannot be excluded and / or declared indeterminate until a proper examination of the passage is done in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic on a case for case basis. A conclusion might then be arrived at which is that the impersonal noun(s) have an indefinite meaning, and / or the statement is inconclusive and / or the statement is flawed in meaning. So the possibility of an indeterminate statement does not warrant excluding impersonal nouns from consideration relative to TDAD / TSKS constructions and all of Sharp's Six Rules .
For example:

******

i) Phil 2:19-25 reads

(Phil 2:19 NASB) "But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition.

(Phil 2:20 NASB) For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare.

(Phil 2:21 NASB) For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.

(Phil 2:22 NASB) But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.

(Phil 2:23 NASB) There I hope to send him immediately, as soon as I see how things go with me;

(Phil 2:24 NASB) and I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly.

(Phil 2:25 NASB) But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need"

"Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ   ἡγησάμην      Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν
necessary   but  I [thought it]    Epaphroditus the brother

καὶ  συνεργὸν       καὶ  συστρατιώτην μου  ὑμῶν δὲ
and fellow worker and fellow soldier   my,   your  but [= as well as]

ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς     χρείας  μου πέμψαι
messenger  and minister     of the need     my   to send

πρὸς ὑμᾶς"
to      you

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"In Phil 2:25, 'brother' is not synonymous with 'fellow-worker,' though both terms have the same referent. Unlike impersonal concrete nouns, it is inconceivable that one person could 'overlap' with another - two personal singular terms [descriptions] can refer to two distinct individuals or to the same individual. Further, unlike abstract nouns, 'brother' refers to a particular object. Impersonal nouns are seen, then, to be semantically similar to proper names in terms of denotation and referential meaning; and when they occasionally depart from this pattern they do not normally move closer to personal common nouns in their semantic force. Hence, although neither Sharp nor Middleton saw impersonal nouns in the TSKS construction as having the same referent, we must admit that this is possible, though more than likely of rather infrequent occurrence and adhering to certain semantic guidelines"

[BSM.net]:

[It all depends upon context. In this passage in Phil 2:19-25, Paul writes to the church in Philippi of his hope of sending to them Timothy as minister and messenger to them shortly, (v. 19); and of his coming soon himself as soon as things go well for him, (v. 24). In the meantime Paul is sending his brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier in the faith, named with a proper noun, Epaphroditus; who is also their messenger and minister to Paul's need to send someone to minister to the believers in Philippi and to be a messenger to them about Paul's activities in the faith, while he tarries elsewhere with Timothy - the latter two of whom Paul promises to send shortly.

Given the context of this passage from the examination of it via the normative rules of language, context and logic - the contrived, unproved restrictions notwithstanding; Paul is sending a single, unique individual - a one of a kind person: the only one who meets precisely all of what is stipulated by Paul of him including being Paul's brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier in the faith as well their [the believers' in Philippi] messenger and minister in the faith - the only one at this time, from this location where Paul was ministering, sent by Paul to Philippi as his representative, with this proper name, Epaphroditus because Paul could not send Timothy or bring himself to Philippi as yet. All of this context must be taken together with the timing and place and personal attachment of Paul to him which then provides an personal experience tantamount also to a unique identity of a singular person - the referent identified by the proper noun, Epaphroditus. Albeit not satisfying most of those who would like to denegrate Sharp's Rule #1, this TDAD / TSKS construction with one definite article, five descriptions joined together in a unity, is nevertheless a qualified example of Sharp's Rule #1 with proper nouns, and impersonal experiences adding up to a unique identity of a singular person who is named with a proper noun!]

ii) 2 Cor 6:1-7 reads:

(2 Cor 6:1 NASB) "And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain -

(2 Cor 6:2 NASB) for He says, *'At the acceptable time I listened to you, and on the day of salvation I helped you.', Behold, now is *'The acceptable time,' behold, now is *'The day of salvation'

[*Isa 49:8 - the time when God will restore a future generation of Israel to the Promised Land . Paul is indicating here that just as God's Promises will surely be kept with Israel, so all the more with the believer in Christ]

(2 Cor 6:3 NASB) giving no cause for offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited,

(2 Cor 6:4 NASB) but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses,

(2 Cor 6:5 NASB) in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger,

(2 Cor 6:6 NASB) in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love,

(2 Cor 6:7 NASB) in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left."

διὰ       τῶν ὅπλων    τῆς     δικαιοσύνης  τῶν    δεξιῶν         καὶ ἀριστερῶν
through the  weapons of the righteousness on the right hand and left

Note that the apostle speaks of believers - a plurality of persons - not receiving the grace of God in vain, (cf. 2 Cor 6:1). In everything they are to commend themselves as servants of God, (2 Cor 6:4), with endurance in afflictions, hardships, distresses, beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, in sleeplessness, hunger, in purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, in the word of truth, in the power of God.

And in 2 Cor 6:7 they are not to receive in vain the weapons of righteousness, but they are to utilize these weapons which some contend are impersonal by the right hand and left in everything they do. These are actually common experiences by a plurality of persons which comprise a TDAD / TSKS construction to be utilized by believers in everything they do.

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Although the two are closely connected,

[weapons of the righteousness on the right hand and left"] 

they obviously do not have the same referent.

Nevertheless, impersonal nouns may differ from proper names:

(1) when the terms used are abstract (and therefore do not refer to particular entities) - such as “truth” or “authority”;

(2) when two (roughly) synonymous terms stand in apposition (e.g., “Larus argentatus, that is, herring gull”), though such constructions would most naturally drop the connective; or

(3) when there is referential overlap of some sort (e.g., “furniture and tables and chairs”), though this would most naturally occur only in plural constructions. 

In these three instances, impersonal nouns are still not similar to the personal singular nouns which fit Sharp’s canon." [i.e., Sharp's Rule #1]

[Wallace's approach is flawed. Although he seems to recognize that Sharp has more than one rule, e.g., the word "canon" , yet he keeps inventing new restrictions against Rule #1 as if there are no other rules for TSKS / TDAD constructions to which Granville Sharp refers. Context determines whether or not a unique, single, personal identity is in view in order to qualify for Sharp's Rule #1; and if it does not, then Sharp has 5 other rules which reflect one of the three categories of TDAD / TSKS construction: Common, Exact and Unique Identities and / or Experiences, Singular or Plural, Impersonal or Person? ] 7

But it is not a matter of trying to make every TSKS / TDAD construction, no matter what the context, fit Sharp's Rule #1, i.e., a unique, one of a kind identity: a singular person - making sure it passes through the maze of artificial, unproved restrictions that are floating around in disarray, (ignoring Sharp's other rules). And if the TSKS / TDAD in view does not pass Wallace's approach, then they contend that Sharp's Rule #1 has less and less reliability of interpreting Jesus Christ as God in the christological passages that have a Rule #1 TDAD construction = unique category of identity of a singular person.

It is instead a matter of determining the context of the passage at hand which contains a TDAD construction as one of the three available categories of a common, exact or unique referent , via the proper use of the normative rules of language, and context ; and then matching that interpretation up to one of the six Granville Sharp rules that best fits the TDAD / TSKS construction which is evidently going to comply with one of the 3 categories available for TDAD / TSKS constructions .

In the passage that contains 2 Cor 6:7, the descriptions of the TDAD construction are of "the weapons of God's Righteousness for the right hand and the left" which believers are to use in everything [they do] commending [themselves] as servants of God," (2 Cor 6:4, 7). They are common, (not unique, nor exact), to all believers - depending upon how faithful each believer is in his duty to commend himself as a servant of God. Those actions are the common, actions / experiences, impersonal in nature of believers who are persons, plural in number in accordance with what category is available to be conveyed in TDAD descriptions as summarized above in the underlined words: . So the TDAD construction in 2 Cor 6:7 does not qualify as the unique, singular, personal identity of Sharp's Rule #1. But in christological passages that TDAD construction of 2 Cor 6:7, does not fit the category of the TDAD construction of Sharp's Rule #1 anyway. The particular TDAD construction under review in 2 Cor 6:7 is besides the point relative to christological passages, neither proving nor disproving that Titus 2:13 proves that Jesus Christ is God and Savior. But 2 Cor 6:7 is wholly consistent with the one of the other categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions and the context of the passage under review that contains it.

d) Plural Nouns In TDAD/ TSKS Constructions Which Are Not Christologically Significant Need Not Be Excluded Depending Upon Context

["D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Finally, with reference to plural substantives

[= nouns / descriptions = words or word groups functioning syntactically as a noun which are plural in number]:

since groups rather than individuals are in view, the probability of some sort of referential overlap puts such constructions on a different plane than personal singular nouns. Nevertheless, as Middleton admits, they could at times have an identical referent.

[Context determines whether or not an identical referent is in view in order to qualify for Sharp's Rule #1; and if it does not, then Sharp has 5 other rules  7 which reflect the three categories of TDAD / TSKS construction: Common, Exact and Unique Identities and / or Experiences, Singular or Plural, Impersonal or Person? ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"Antecedently, [= a word or group of words referred to by a substitute such as a pronoun] then, Middleton makes out a solid case on a semantic level for distinguishing personal singular nouns from other kinds of substantives. Of course, this is merely a negative argument: it says nothing about the necessity of personal singular nouns invariably having an identical referent."

[BSM.net]:

[Context determines whether or not an identical referent is in view in order to qualify for Sharp's Rule #1; and if it does not, then Sharp has 5 other rules 7 which reflect the three categories of TDAD / TSKS construction as determined by a proper reading of the passage via the normative rules of language, context and logic: Common, Exact and Unique Identities and / or Experiences, Singular or Plural, Impersonal or Person? ]

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"To sum up: by ruling impersonal, plural, and proper nouns as outside the scope of his principle, Sharp demonstrated an intuitive sensitivity to the semantics of the TSKS construction which has eluded most of his modern-day advocates. Middleton then gave articulation to Sharp’s intuition. The reasons for such strictures seem to be inherent within the language itself. It has to be determined, of course, whether the rule is  valid even within such limitations"

[BSM.net]:

[It is not the case that only personal singular nouns invariably can convey a unique referent in a TDAD / TSKS construction. The possibility exists that impersonal nouns and / or plural nouns in a TDAD / TSKS may convey an identical referent as well; albeit less frequently. Context will tell. So there is no reason to exclude impersonal and plural nouns from consideration as fulfilling Sharp's Rule #1 or fulfilling any of Sharp's other five rules when they appear in TDAD / TSKS constructions.

No exceptions / restrictions such as excluding proper nouns, ordinal and alpha numeric adjectives, impersonal nouns, translation Greek, extra biblical writings, etc. need to be made if a careful examination of the passage at hand in Scripture is made via the normal rules of language, context and logic .

Many of the rules of exclusion to Sharp's Rule #1 are unnecessary, even erroneous . Furthermore, such a list of exclusions and grammatical qualifications which includes a considerable understanding of koine first century Greek is beyond the capacity / skill set of most individuals in order to properly arrive at what Scripture says - putting it out of the reach of most people, who only bring their basic linguistic skills to the table when they listen to or read the Word of God. Given that there is no particular set of special instructions on how to read the Bible within the text itself, the means by which this is to be accomplished is to be done by the normal rules of language, context and logic that most individuals learn at home and when they receive schooling in how to understand, speak and read their native language.

Critical to the subject of this study on the Granville Sharp Rules is the linguistic rule that given the proper context and appropriate syntactical / grammatical support, a word that is part of the vocabulary of koine Greek may be defined as a unique identity of a singular person in that language, .

It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction. For a proper name may nevertheless be unique to the context at hand, such as Epaphroditis in Phil 2:25 or Tychicus in Eph 6:22 . Hence with the proper context any proper name, such as "John Smith," may include a unique set of characteristics about him who no one else has.

Furthermore, there is the plausibility that more than one personal proper name can refer to a unique individual such as Paul / Saul; or Peter / Simon or Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens as qualified within its own context. And this plausibility is valid with respect to Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, etc. as He relates to and is God, (cf. Jn 1:1-18 ).

Finally, because of the value of context which is determined by a proper reading of a passage at hand, proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles or quasi-proper names, etc., instead of proper names because of the contrived and false notion that Paul's letters were addressed solely to a Greek audience which would be familiar with the Greek word for God, (Theos), because the word also refers to their Greek gods. Since this is true then the falsely perceived problem of the disqualification of proper names of God when they appear in Christological TDAD passages that Paul wrote is eliminated. For Paul has been falsely declared as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not "Theos" is considered a proper name actually makes no difference regarding Sharp's Rule #1. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any descriptive term by the context that it is associated with - regardless of what other contexts the word may also be associated with; such as Greek gods in extra biblical writings. For example, Titus 1:1-3; 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 as well as numerous other applicable passages in the Hebrew and Greek Bible which comprise the full context of the passage at hand, establish that the "Theou" of Titus 2:13 is a unique, identity of a single Person that need not be excluded because it might have too many associations with other "Theou's" referred to elsewhere. For there is a uniqueness of the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13 as a result of its particular context which includes the God of the Hebrew Bible - the Old Testament - as a result of the work of the writers of Titus and the rest of the Greek Bible - the New Testament.

[Compare Titus 1:1-4; 2:11-14; 3:4-7 ]:

(Titus 1:1 NASB) "Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

(Titus 1:2 NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

(Titus 1:3 NASB) but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior,

(Titus 1:4 NASB) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

(Titus 2:11 NASB) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

(Titus 2:12 NASB) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(Titus 2:13 NASB) looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

(Titus 2:14 NASB) Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

(Titus 3:4 NASB) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

(Titus 3:5 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

(Titus 3:6 NASB) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

(Titus 3:7 NASB) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Throughout Scripture - both OT & NT - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ have been declared Savior - a unique one of a kind Savior. This occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - as if each One is the Savior - each One is the same Savior: God in these verses alone - carefully and properly examined is associated with persons, experiences and writings in such a manner that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone is associated with persons, experiences and writings that make Him unique as that one and only Savior. And God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ in these verses alone are associated with persons, experiences and writings that make each One the same Savior .  

Yet despite context, there are a number of influential 'scholars' who have claimed that Paul does not maintain the Deity of Christ. This begs the question, "What about the other authors of Scripture such as John, Luke, Peter and Jude in key passages?" They don't deny the Deity of Christ and neither does Paul . Let the context of each passage, carefully examined, speak for itself without contrived exclusionary rules. 219

Nor is there a need to exclude impersonal or proper names for impersonal objects from TDAD / TSKS constructions. There does exist the plausibility of unique impersonal or proper names in TDAD / TSKS constructions for unique material objects, such as the Hope Diamond, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, etc. It is plausible that a material thing or things might be described uniquely in a TDAD / TSKS construction by an impersonal name, or a proper name. Furthermore, impersonal objects might also be described as having common / exact, experiences / identities, plural / singular as well in TDAD / TSKS constructions depending upon grammar and context .

And ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives that enumerate more than one subject need not be excluded because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view such as Grover Cleveland being the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; or Jesus Christ as being the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, the first and the last, (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); the Firstborn of all creation, (Col 1:15, 18); the second or last Adam, (Ro 5:12-21).

Similarly, the plural form of persons or things need not be excluded relative to a unique singular referent because a unique singular referent may nevertheless be in view, possessing a plurality of names or experiences, etc., that collectively are unique to that one unique singular referent. Or the descriptions might refer to a common or exact experience or identity of more than one referent depending upon a careful, thorough observation via the proper use of the normative rules of language, context and logic that matches up with the context of the passage, fitting one of the categories possible. A careful examination of the context will tell which category of TDAD / TSKS construction is in view .

Nor do Greek translations of other writings in other languages such as the Hebrew Old Testament, (the Septuagint); or quotes in the New Testament Greek Bible from the Hebrew Old Testament need to be excluded; nor extra biblical Greek writings such as the Apocrypha or Patristic writings of the early church fathers, etc. For a careful examination via the normative rules of language, context and logic of the original writing as well as the Greek translation will reveal whether there are errors in translation or grammar that violate the proper use of the first century Greek of the New Testament or errors in translation or contradictions with what the Bible teaches on a case for case basis. Any discrepancies will disqualify the document from consideration in validating or disproving the Granville Sharp rules. Hence the text under consideration will be excluded without contriving yet another exclusionary rule to avoid contradicting the Granville Sharp rules or some other grammarian's rules and thereby jeopardizing legitimate passages that fit the available categories within the normative rules of language, context and logic .

It all boils down to correctly applying the rules of language, context and logic in interpreting the passage, and then observing the grammatical construction that is present which confirms the interpretation; instead of making up unproved rules of grammar that are not confirmed by usage, which have too many exceptions to actually prove / disprove the Granville Sharp rules as trustworthy .

Since Sharp has more than one rule - not just Rule #1 7 and since there are three categories of TDAD / TSKS constructions , one can simply follow the normative rules of language, context and logic to determine the context and then find the category of TDAD construction that best fits the context and which ever rule of Sharp's Six Rules determines what that TDAD / TSKS construction is saying without having to use a filter of restrictions - even the ones that Sharp decided to impose.

Note that the world does not have to wait for a few individuals who are erudite lettered savants or who each have an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language and / or have an unquenchable piety like Granville Sharp in order to articulate for others what the Word of God has been saying for centuries. This would put the Word of God in the hands of a few instead of all of accountable mankind whoever will choose to study it for themselves as they so choose in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - the language skills that they learned in their schooling . For throughout Scripture, throughout the ages there has been a remnant of believers that did not require an elitist class of pious believers to tell them what to believe ]

2) The Proper Approach To The Interpretation Of TDAD / TSKS Constructions In The New Testament Which Validates Sharp's Rules Is Via The Normative Rules Of Language, Context And Logic - Without Unproved Unwarranted Restrictions

a) Introduction

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"If we exempt the several christologically significant passages from consideration, we can readily see the validity of Sharp’s rule [#1] in the NT."

i) Eph 1:3 we read of “the God and Father"
                                 ὁ    θεὸς καὶ πατήρ); 

proper names, unique, identity, singular, person

ii) in Jas 3:9  we see “the  Lord    and Father”
                             (τὸν κύριον καὶ  πατέρα);

proper noun, unique, identity, singular, person

iii) Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “the son  of Mary and  brother    of James”
                                             ὁ    υἱὸς Μαρίας καὶ   ἀδελφὸς  ᾿Ιακώβου); 

proper noun, unique, identity, singular, person

iv) in Eph 2:14 the author speaks of Christ:

(Eph 2:11 NASB) "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 'Uncircumcision' by the so-called 'Circumcision,' which is performed in the flesh by human hands -

(Eph 2:12 NASB) remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

(Eph 2:13 NASB) But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

(Eph 2:14 NASB) For He Himself is our peace, Who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,"

"ὁ    ποιήσας                   τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν    καὶ  τὸ  μεσότοιχον  τοῦ     φραγμοῦ λύσας."
"the [One] having made  the both         one  and the middle wall  of the partition having broken down"

In Eph 2:14, Christ Jesus is “the One who made both [Jew and Gentile believers in this age] one" in the sense of joining them into one people in Christ Jesus and the One "Who broke down the barrier of the dividing wall," i.e., the middle wall of partition between both groups. So we have the unique, experience / identity via the unique effort / experience of the singular personal proper name of Jesus Christ, Who by His unique effort made both groups - Jew and Gentile - into one - in Christ Jesus - and He is the One Who broke down the middle wall of the partition between both groups - the fulfillment / cancellation of the Law of Moses . 77

v) in Phil 2:19-25 the apostle mentions “Epaphroditus, my brother   and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier”

(Phil 2:19 NASB) "But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition.

(Phil 2:20 NASB) For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare.

(Phil 2:21 NASB) For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.

(Phil 2:22 NASB) But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.

(Phil 2:23 NASB) There I hope to send him immediately, as soon as I see how things go with me;

(Phil 2:24 NASB) and I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly.

(Phil 2:25 NASB) But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need"

"Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ   ἡγησάμην      Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν
necessary   but  I [thought it]    Epaphroditus the brother

καὶ  συνεργὸν       καὶ  συστρατιώτην μου  ὑμῶν δὲ
and fellow worker and fellow soldier   my,   your  but [= as well as]

ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς     χρείας  μου πέμψαι
messenger  and minister     of the need     my   to send

πρὸς ὑμᾶς"
to      you

[D. B. Wallace, (cont.)]:

"In Phil 2:25, 'brother' is not synonymous with 'fellow-worker,' though both terms have the same referent. Unlike impersonal concrete nouns, it is inconceivable that one person could 'overlap' with another - two personal singular terms [descriptions] can refer to two distinct individuals or to the same individual. Further, unlike abstract nouns, 'brother' refers to a particular object. Impersonal nouns are seen, then, to be semantically similar to proper names in terms of denotation and referential meaning; and when they occasionally depart from this pattern they do not normally move closer to personal common nouns in their semantic force. Hence, although neither Sharp nor Middleton saw impersonal nouns in the TSKS construction as having the same referent, we must admit that this is possible, though more than likely of rather infrequent occurrence and adhering to certain semantic guidelines"

[BKC.net]:

[It all depends upon context. In this passage in Phil 2:19-25, Paul writes to the church in Philippi of his hope of sending to them Timothy as minister and messenger to them shortly, (v. 19); and of his coming soon himself as soon as things go well for him, (v. 24). In the meantime Paul is sending his brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier in the faith, named with a proper noun, Epaphroditus; who is also their messenger and minister to Paul's need to send someone to minister to the believers in Philippi and to be a messenger to them about Paul's activities in the faith, while he tarries elsewhere with Timothy - the latter two of whom Paul promises to send shortly.

Given the context of this passage from the examination of it via the normative rules of language, context and logic - the contrived, unproved restrictions notwithstanding; Paul is sending a single, unique individual - a one of a kind person: the only one who meets precisely all of what is stipulated by Paul of him including being Paul's brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier in the faith as well their [the believers' in Philippi] messenger and minister in the faith - the only one at this time, from this location where Paul was ministering, sent by Paul to Philippi as his representative, with this proper name, Epaphroditus because Paul could not send Timothy or bring himself to Philippi as yet. All of this context must be taken together with the timing and place and personal attachment of Paul to him which then provides an impersonal experience tantamount also to a unique identity of a singular person - the referent identified by the proper noun, Epaphroditus. Albeit not satisfying most of those who would like to denegrate Sharp's Rule #1, this TDAD / TSKS construction with one definite article, five descriptions joined together in a unity, is nevertheless a qualified example of Sharp's Rule #1 with proper nouns, and impersonal experiences adding up to a unique identity of a singular person who is named with a proper noun!]

vi) Heb 3:1 refers to Jesus as “the apostle       and high priest of   confession   our      Jesus”
                                                  (τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα   τῆς ὁμολογίας   ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦς);

vii) in Jn 9:8 the evangelist records the healing of a blind “the one [who] man who used to sit and beg:"

(Jn 9:8 NASB) "Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, 'Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?' "

οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ                           καθήμενος καὶ προσαιτῶν…
not this     is      the [one who was]  sitting       and begging...

Note that the full context especially beginning at verse 1 conveys a unique identity through a unique experience of a singular person

unique experience / identity singular person

viii) 2 Pet 1:11 promises entrance into the eternal kingdom “of the Lord our and Savior, Jesus Christ” 

2 Pet 1:11 (NASB) "for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ  σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
the Lord     our    and Savior       Jesus Christ

unique proper names identity singular person

[D. B. Wallace]:

"In each of these instances, the obvious sense of the passage is that only one person is in view. Further, this is so both for nouns, 78 participles, 79 and adjectives, 80 as well as combinations. 81 Not only this, but intervening words do not invalidate Sharp’s rule. In all there are fifty personal singular TSKS constructions which encompass non-constituent [= non-essential] elements. 82 These alien words ranged from postpositive particles and adjectives, to genitive adjuncts and prepositional phrases, and even embedded verb phrases. On six occasions a possessive pronoun was found with the first substantive. 83

For the sake of completeness, the relevant passages are presented below, according to the type of substantive involved."

b) Examples Of Nouns In TDAD / TSKS Constructions In The New Testament - Including Proper Nouns

i) Mark 6:3 reads as follows:

(Mk 6:3 NASB) " 'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him."

ούχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ    τέκτων,     ὁ    υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς  ᾿Ιακώβου
not  this     is      the carpenter, the Son         of Mary and brother    of James

proper noun, unique, identity, singular person

ii) Lk 20:37 reads as follows:

(Lk 20:37 NKJV) "But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' "

(τὸν θεὸν  ᾿Αβραὰμ      καὶ θεὸν  ᾿Ισαὰκ   καὶ  θεὸν ᾿Ιακώβ 
 the God   of Abraham and God   of Isaac and God of Jacob"

There is only one Who is the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob; and of Moses by implication through the context of the account of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus which is referenced here in this passage in Lk 20: the LORD God of all of creation and humanity - a unique identity of a singular person Who is named by a  proper noun.

ii_a) [Compare Ex 3:6]:

iii) Jn 20:17 (NASB) '''Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' " '''

τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ  πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν
the Father  my   and Father  your   and God My and God your

Proper nouns, unique, identity, singular, person

iv) Ro 15:6 (NASB) "so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

τὸν θεὸν καὶ  πατέρα τοῦ    κυρίου ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
the God  and Father  of the Lord    our      Jesus Christ

The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Epistle to the Romans and all of Scripture - the Bible: There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

Proper nouns, unique, identity, single, person

v) 1 Cor 15:24 (NASB) "then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power."

τῷ       θεῷ καὶ  πατρί
to  the God and Father

The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the First Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

vi)  2 Cor 1:2-3 reads as follows:

2 Cor 1:2 (NASB) "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1:3 (NASB) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,"

In the first phrase of 2 Cor 1:3 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names:

Εὐλογητὸς  ὁ    θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,         
Blessed[be] the God  and Father  of   Lord    our     Jesus   Christ,

And in the second phrase of 2 Cor 1:3 there is a TDAD construction as well. The descriptions have in view unique proper names defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the Father of mercies and God of all comfort." The proper names and accompanying descriptions are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names:

 ὁ    πατὴρ τῶν    οἰκτιρμῶν  καὶ θεός pases parakleseOs
 the Father of the mercies      and God of all [comfort]

vii) 2 Cor 11:31 (NASB) reads as follows "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying."

In 2 Cor 11:31 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names:

ὁ      θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ τοῦ    κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
The  God  and Father of the Lord      Jesus

viii) (Gal 1:4 (NASB) Who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
the God  and our       Father

In Gal 1:4 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "Our God and Father." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Epistle to the Galatians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

ix) Eph 1:2-3 reads as follows:

(Eph 1:2 NASB) "Grace to you and peace from [the] God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 1:3 (NASB) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,"

"ὁ      θεὸς  καὶ  πατὴρ  τοῦ     κυρίου ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ"
"The  God  and Father  of the Lord     our      Jesus Christ"

"θεός" ["God"] and "πατήρ" ["Father"] in Eph 1:3 are two proper nouns which in the context of the unique God of the Bible and of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesian believers in Christ describe One singular Person Who is named "God" and "Father" - a unique identity of one Person Who is further uniquely identified as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," describing a unique experience of the relationship between God and Father with the Lord Jesus Christ - the God Who is of "our" (believers') Lord Jesus Christ. So Eph 1:3 is a unique identity of God by two proper personal names and by one unique relationship experience with "our (believers') Lord Jesus Christ." Note that although it is true that Jesus Christ is God , the unique identity of Jesus Christ as God and Father is not in view in Eph 1:3. It may be concluded that this verse has the Perfect Humanity of Jesus Christ in view rather than His Deity.

On the other hand, other passages stipulate that God is the God and Father of all believers, (Eph 1:2; 4:6; Phil 4:20; Gal 1:4; etc.). So the proper names of God which are unique identities of Who the God is Who is the God and Father "of our Lord Jesus Christ," Who is also the God and Father of all believers, (Eph 1:2; 4:6; Phil 4:20; Gal 1:4; etc.). Although the context of the TDAD construction in Eph 1:3 is referring to God's unique relationship with Jesus Christ; and although the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ and all believers is a common experience with Christ and all who are believers, the latter is not equal in quality to the unique one He has with His one and only Son.

Note that from a positional standpoint - as opposed to an experiential temporal standpoint - all believers have a standing / position with God which is equal with one another in that their standing is in Christ Who is unique relative to forgiveness of sins unto eternal life .

x) Eph 5:20 (NASB) "always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;"

τῷ  θεῷ καὶ πατρί
the God and Father

The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Epistle to the Ephesians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names. 

xi) Eph 6:21-22 reads as follows:

(Eph 6:21 NASB) "But that you also may know about my circumstances, how I am doing, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful [servant] in the Lord, will make everything known to you, [ref. Col 4:7-9].

(Eph 6:22 NASB) I have sent him to you for this very purpose, [Acts 20:4; 2 Tim 4:12] so that you may know about us, and that he may comfort your hearts."

Τυχικὸς   ὁ     ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς  καὶ  πιστὸς   διάκονος
Tychicus  the  beloved    brother   and  faithful  servant

In Eph 6:22, the referent, (Tychicus) is a proper name for Paul's beloved brother (in Christ) and faithful servant in the Lord whom Paul sent to Ephesus to serve at the church at Ephesians; especially so that the Ephesian believers may know about Paul and his group - their evangelistic efforts - as they traveled throughout their part of the world, (v. 22). So Tychicus in Eph 6:21-22 is a unique identity of a single person as characterized by his relationship with Paul and his experiences serving the church at Ephesus. Others might have been similarly beloved by Paul and sent on similar missions; but they were not named with the proper name "Tychicus" nor experienced equally the experiences enumerated in Eph 6. They might have been experiences in common but not equal or identical as depicted in this passage]

xii) Phil 4:20 reads as follows:

Phil 4:20 (NASB) "Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen"

This is an example of a unique identity of a single Person, identified by proper nouns:

Our (believers') God  = our (believers') Father]

τῷ      δὲ    θεῷ καὶ  πατρὶ  ἡμῶν ἡ   δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων
to the now God and Father our    the glory to  the   forever and ever

xiii) Col 4:7 (NASB) "As to all my affairs, Tychicus, our beloved brother and faithful servant and fellow bond-servant in the Lord, will bring you information." 

Τυχικὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος
Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful servant and  fellow bond servant

In Col 4:7, the referent, (Tychicus) is a proper name for Paul's beloved brother (in Christ) and faithful servant in the Lord - a fellow bond servant of the Lord Jesus Christ with Paul, whom Paul stated will bring information to the believers in Colossae as to Paul's affairs, i.e., as to Paul's work as an evangelist to the Gentiles. So Tychicus in Col 4:7 is identified with a proper name, and as a unique identity of a single person as characterized by his relationship with Paul and his experiences serving as messenger for Paul to the church in Colossae and Ephesus, (Eph 6:22). Others might have been similarly beloved by Paul and sent on similar missions; but they were not named with the proper name "Tychicus," nor experienced equally the experiences enumerated in Col 4:7, (and Eph 6:22). They might have been experiences in common but not equal or identical as depicted in this passage in Col 4:7 as the unique individual properly named "Tychicus"]

xiv) 1 Thes 1:3 (NASB) "constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,"

εμπρὸσθεν            τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ  πατρὸς ἡμῶν
in the presence of        God  and Father  our

Our (believers') God  = our (believers') Father

This is an example of a unique identity of a single Person, identified by proper nouns:

******

xv) 1 Thes 3:11 (NASB) "Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you;" 

ὁ     θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν
The God and Father our

In 1 Thes 3:11, the TDAD construction has two descriptions which have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "our God and Father." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the First Epistle to the Thessalonians and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

xvi) Titus 2:13 (NASB) "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"

προσδεχόμενοι την       μακαρίαν ελπίδα και επιφάνειαν  της    δόξες     
looking             for the  blessed     hope    and appearing   of the glory

του    μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ἡμῶν Ιησού Χριστού
of the great       God and Savior     our    Jesus  Christ

Since believers in Christ Jesus "in the present age" are in view in Paul's letter to Titus, (ref. 1:1-2), especially throughout vv. 2:11-13 ;

and since believers in Christ Jesus in this present age, according to vv. 11-12, are instructed that since the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,

then they are to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

(v. 13): looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of [their] great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;"

So in Titus 2:13 believers are to look for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of their God and Savior, Christ Jesus - as He brings their salvation unto eternal life: the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior Christ Jesus at His Second Coming, (Titus 1:1-2; cf. 2 Thes 2:8; 1 Tim 1:1 ), Who will be bringing salvation unto eternal life to those who are His own - believers. So it is Christ Jesus Who is "the blessed [sure and eternal] hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior." Our great God and Savior is Christ Jesus - God in three Persons, two Personalities of which are in view in Titus 1:1-2:13 .

Note that the first phrase of Titus 2:13 underlined below:

"προσδεχόμενοι την       μακαρίαν ελπίδα και επιφάνειαν  της    δόξες     
"looking             for the  blessed     hope    and appearing   of the glory

is a TDAD / TSKS construction, wherein both substantives / descriptions in the construction together describe a unique, impersonal, singular experience: the blessed [sure] hope and appearing of the glory ...

followed by the second TDAD / TSKS construction which completes the message:

... of the [our] great God and Savior, Christ Jesus Who is the unique, identity of the singular Person of Titus 2:13b Who is the unique Personification of the unique, impersonal, singular experience of the blessed hope and appearance of the glory, (v. 213a) of the great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, (v. 2:13b).

There is no other way to interpret this verse without contradicting the context which leads up to and through Titus 2:13, and which is supported by all of Scripture - Old and New Testaments:

Since both God and Jesus Christ are repeatedly called "Savior" and / or referred to as the sole Provider of salvation unto eternal life - a salvation which is unique to the Bible and no where else, (Lk 1:47; 2:11; Phil 3:20; Titus 1:1-3, 4; 2:11-13; 3:4-7 above; 1 Tim 1:1-2 Tim 1:10; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; and innumerable places in the Hebrew Scriptures: as Provider of / Savior unto eternal life for Israel and all of mankind in the Eternal Kingdom of God which includes His Servant in the prophecies such as in the Book of Isaiah, and relative to the New Covenant in Jeremiah and Ezekiel;

then the word rendered "Savior" in Titus 2:13 refers to both God and Christ Jesus; and a case can be made for them being One and the same: "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus .

The construction also conveys a unique identity of a singular Person Who is properly named Jesus Christ. Theologically speaking this may be confirmed by a number of passages

xvii) 1 Thes 3:13 (NASB) "so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints."

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ  πατρὸς ἡμῶν
the God  and Father   our

This is an example of a unique identity of a single Person, identified by proper nouns:

Our (believers') God  = our (believers') Father

xviii) 1 Tim 6:15 (NASB) "which He will bring about at the proper time - He Who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,"

ὁ      βασιλεὺς τῶν      βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν      κυριευόντων
The King        of  the  kings               and Lord    of the   lords

The TDAD / TSKS construction conveys with a phrase rendered, "the King of kings and Lord of lords," which many consider a title /a unique proper name a unique identity of a single Person Who in the previous phrase rendered, "He Who is the blessed and only Sovereign," further defined Him as the one and only God - all by virtue of the context in the First Epistle to Timothy and the New Testament and the whole Bible.

xix) Heb 3:1 (NASB) "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;" 

τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ  ἀρχιερέα    τῆς     ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦν
the Apostle       and High Priest of the confession our      Jesus

The context is established that believers are being addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling." And they are asked to "consider Jesus" defined as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession [of faith in Him for eternal life unto a heavenly calling]. These two terms, "the Apostle and High Priest" of that specific, unique heavenly calling are unique titles even proper names for Jesus. Hence in view in this TDAD / TSAS construction is a unique, identity, single, Person, identified by the proper names Jesus, Apostle and High Priest of the believers' heavenly calling.

xx) Heb 12:2-3 reads as follows:

(Heb 12:2 NASB) "fixing our [believers'] eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of [the] faith [of believers], Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God:

"τὸν                       τῆς     πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ   τελειωτήν     ᾿Ιησοῦν"
"the [One Who is]  of the faith       Author   and  [Perfector],    Jesus."

(Heb 12:3 NASB) For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart."

[The TDAD construction consists of the definite article, (τὸν = the) followed by the descriptive phrase rendered "Author of the faith," a description which is unique to Jesus alone.

Heb 12:2 speaks of Jesus as “the Author and Perfecter of the faith" [of all mankind]. He is Author in the sense that He is the One Who endured the cross to pay for the sins of all mankind so as to make perfect provision for salvation unto eternal life available for all of mankind to believe in and receive, (Heb 10:22; 12:2b-3). And He is the Perfecter of the faith in those who have believed in Him for eternal life in order that they will indeed be raised from the dead unto a sinless, perfect resurrection body unto eternal life, (Heb 11:19).

xxi) Jas 1:27 (NKJV) "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

τῷ  θεῷ καὶ  πατρί
the God and Father

The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the Epistle of James and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father. There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

xxii) Jas 3:8-10 reads as follows:

(Jas 3:8 NASB) "But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.

(Jas 3:9 NASB) by this [the tongue of man] we bless [the] *Lord and Father and with it we curse men who have been made in the likeness of God;

(Jas 3:10 NASB) from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way."

ἐν  αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν  κύριον καὶ πατέρα
by this    we bless      the   Lord   and Father

The words in Jas 3:9 rendered, "By this," in the phrase rendered "by this we bless [the] Lord and Father," refer to the tongue of man which both blesses and curses, (v. 10). The phrase is saying that we, (believers to whom the Book of James is addressed, (v. 1:2ff) who claims God as their Lord and Father) with the tongue that blesses and curses, bless "the Lord and Father." Both are proper names, "the Lord" and "Father" which in this context are uniquely identified together as God, ("Father" is without the definite article which unites the two together as describing one Person). Note that the second phrase of verse 9: "and with it [the tongue] we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God" refers to God, confirming that the one Person in view in Jas 3:9a is God. So in view in Jas 3:9 is a singular unique Person identified by proper names

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior ]

xxiii) 1 Pet 1:3 (NASB) "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," 

ὁ    θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ     κυρίου ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
the God and Father of the Lord    our      Jesus Christ

In the first phrase of 1 Pet 1:3 there is a TDAD construction. The descriptions have in view unique proper names, defining a singular Person's identity, namely "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The proper names are unique in the context of this passage, the First Epistle of Peter including the rest of the verse; and all of Scripture - the Bible: there is only one God and Father "Who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." There is only one God of all Creation, one God Who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible and the truth of reality; and no other Gods besides Him, (Isa 45:5; 44:6, 8 ). Hence the proper names are absolutely unique. They do not disqualify the message because of the presence of proper names because they are unique proper names.

xxiv) 1 Pet 2:25 (NASB) "For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls."

τὸν ποιμένα   καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν
the Shepherd and Guardian of   souls    your

Since the only One Who qualifies to be the Shepherd and Guardian of the soul of any man according to Peter and the other authors of the Bible is God, then the names rendered 'Shepherd' and 'Guardian' are actually proper names for God. Hence we have in view a unique identity via proper names of a singular Person.

xxv) 1 Pet 4:17-18

(1 Pet 4:17 NASB) "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

(1 Pet 4:18 NASB) And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?"

ὁ    ἀσεβὴς  καὶ ἁμαρτωλός
the ungodly and sinner

In 1 Pet 4:17, "τῶν ἀπειθούντων " is rendered "the disobeying [one of the gospel]." It clearly implies that all persons who are disobedient to the gospel are godless and sinful, as it stipulates in the next verse: “the godless and sinful man” (ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός). The phrase in v. 18, albeit singular gramatically, in context it refers to more than one individual who has disobeyed the gospel. For it is identifying each one of those who are ungodly and sinners, i.e., a plurality of people. Thus the phrase in v. 18 rendered “the godless man and sinner” implies just one plural referent group of individuals. Hence a common experience establishing an identity of plurality of persons is in view.

xxvi) 1 Pet 5:1 (NASB) "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,"

ὁ    συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ  μάρτυς
the fellow elder          and witness

From 1 Pet 1:1 we have the proper name, Peter, author and apostle of Jesus Christ. Whereupon Peter further identifies himself in the TDAD, TSKS construction in 1 Pet 5:1 as a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ. He further identifies himself in 5:1 as "a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed." Hence we have in view a proper name, a unique, identity, singular, person.

xxvii) 2 Pet 1:1 (NASB) "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"

"ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ    τοῦ     θεοῦ      ἡμῶν  καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“in righteousness  the     of God  our      and Savior      Jesus Christ”

xxix) 2 Pet 1:11 (NASB) "for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ  σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
the Lord     our    and Savior       Jesus Christ

In the TDAD grammatical construction in 2 Pet 1:11, in the Greek in the key phrase begins with the definite article, "τοῦ" rendered "of the" followed by "κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" rendered "Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ" wherein the words "κυρίου" (Lord) and "σωτῆρος" (Savior), which some consider "Lord" to be a proper name in the context with Jesus Christ, together comprise a description of the unique identity of a singular Person "Jesus Christ." There is no other Lord or Savior within the bounds of the context in this passage except Jesus Christ. He is uniquely the Lord and Savior of those who through knowledge, (faith in), of Him - His sacrifice for sins - have escaped the world's impurity (sins) unto salvation unto eternal life, (cf. 2 Pet 2:20).

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior ]

xxx) 2 Pet 2:20  reads as follows:

(2 Pet 2:20 HCSB) "For if, having escaped the world’s impurity through [the] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in these things and defeated, the last state is worse for them than the first."

                                     ἐν          ἐπιγνώσει  τοῦ     κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
                                     through knowledge of the Lord   our    and Savior      Jesus Christ

The context of escaping the world's impurity (evil) through knowledge of (faith in) our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (in the sense of salvation of those who have believed in Christ, (2 Pet 1:1), from the consequences of sins unto eternal life through His sacrifice for unrighteousness, (sins) which context pervades the key phrase in the stipulated in Greek above this paragraph rendered "through [the] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), is in the TDAD grammatical construction. The Greek in the key phrase begins with the definite article, "τοῦ" rendered "of the" followed by "κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" rendered "Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ" wherein the words "κυρίου" (Lord) and "σωτῆρος" (Savior), which some consider "Lord" to be a proper name in the context with Jesus Christ, together comprise a description of the unique identity of a singular Person "Jesus Christ." There is no other Lord or Savior within the bounds of the context in this passage except Jesus Christ. He is uniquely the Lord and Savior of those who through knowledge, (faith in), of Him - His sacrifice for sins - have escaped the world's impurity (sins) unto salvation unto eternal life.

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior ]

xxxi) 2 Pet 3:2 (NASB) "that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles."

τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος
the  Lord    and Savior

In the TDAD grammatical construction of 2 Pet 3:2, the Greek in the key phrase begins with the definite article, "τοῦ" rendered "of the" followed by "κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" rendered "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" wherein the words "κυρίου" (Lord) and "σωτῆρος" (Savior), which some consider "Lord" to be a proper name in the context with Jesus Christ, together comprise a description of the unique identity of a singular Person "Jesus Christ." There is no other Lord or Savior within the bounds of the context in this passage except Jesus Christ. He is uniquely the Lord and Savior of those who through knowledge, (faith in), of Him - His sacrifice for sins - have escaped the world's impurity (sins) unto salvation unto eternal life.

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior .

xxxii) 2 Pet 3:18 (NASB) "but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
the  Lord    our    and Savior      Jesus Christ

In the TDAD grammatical construction in 2 Pet 3:18, the Greek in the key phrase begins with the definite article, "τοῦ" rendered "of the" followed by "κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" rendered "Lord our and Savior Jesus Christ" wherein the words "κυρίου" (Lord) and "σωτῆρος" (Savior), which some consider "Lord" to be a proper name in the context with Jesus Christ, together comprise a description of the unique identity of a singular Person "Jesus Christ." There is no other Lord or Savior within the bounds of the context in this passage except Jesus Christ. He is uniquely the Lord and Savior of those who through knowledge, (faith in), of Him - His sacrifice for sins - have escaped the world's impurity (sins) unto salvation unto eternal life, (cf. 1 Pet 2:20).

Note that since Scripture uniquely refers to God as Savior, (Lk 1:47) and Jesus Christ as Savior, (Lk 2:11); and Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, (Phil 3:20; 2 Pet 1:11: 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; and God as Lord in innumerable places - a case can be made for them being One and the same Savior .

xxxiii) Jude 1:4 (NASB) "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ  κύριον ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν
the only    Master     and Lord    our      Jesus Christ

The context conveys a unique identity singular Person especially considering the words rendered "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," testifying to an Authority and Uniqueness reserved for God alone, Whose name is Jesus Christ, God the Son, (cf. Jude 1:1).

xxxiv) Rev 1:5-6

(Rev 1:5 NASB) "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him Who loves us

[dative, singular, present, participle: Sinaiticus, A, C, Gries, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, We/Ho, Weiss, Sod, UBS]