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 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."

Since justification unto eternal life is repeatedly stipulated in this chapter in Genesis and elsewhere as received when one believes what Abraham believed as recorded in OT Scripture for others to believe and be justified as well as in the NT, then an understanding and belief in our Lord's resurrection from the dead and a number of other details not in the OT account of Abraham's justification but nevertheless present in later Scriptural passages are not essential to know and believe in, in order to be justified unto eternal life. On the other hand, further details of God's plan for justification unto eternal life in addition to what God revealed to Abraham as revealed in later passages of the Old and New Testaments provide for a more complete understanding of ones justification unto eternal life and the believer's walk by faith unto spiritual maturity in every dispensation / economy. The occurence in history of what God had promised to Abraham which included these additional details might more easily afford the faith of an individual in the gospel. Since these further details have intrinsically implied in them the basics of the gospel given and believed by Abraham unto eternal life, then if accepted as true, they also provide justification unto eternal life; but no more and no less than the justification that Abraham received. Since the additional details imply an understanding of the basics of the gospel message, then rejection of any of these additional details implies a rejection of the gospel itself.
It may be helpful to recognize that justification, considered objectively and from the standpoint of God's provision, was indeed accomplished in the death of Christ (Ro 5:9) and therefore did not require the resurrection to complete it. Paul does not mention the resurrection in his definitive statement on justification in 3:21-26. Nevertheless, Christ's resurrection and appearances to many provided eye witness prove of His Resurrection and His propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

****** 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 .

1) Examples Of The Category Of TDAD / TSKS Constructions From Scripture Which May Have A Unique Identity of a Singular Person In View 23

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;

[*Note K, L, byz, sa and bo and Jas 1:27 have "the God and Father;" and WH, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, P, 33, Lach, Treg, Alf, Tisc, Weis, Sod, UBS - have "the Lord and Father;" and Scripture frequently refers to God and Jesus Christ as Lord and God almost always as Father, cf Isa 9:6-7 - the Son / Child of Israel as Everlasting Father. The testimony most likely is that since James frequently refers to both God and Jesus as Lord, but only God as Father, it is most likely that James intended that both Lord and Father refer to Go]

(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 "" 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 zebedaοu"
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.

13) Mt 21:12 reads as follows:

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.  

[BKC.net]:
[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]:

(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."

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,"

εμπρσθεν            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

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

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 .

So the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior, Christ Jesus has Christ Jesus" in His glorified resurrection body specifically in view for believers coming back to earth at His Second Coming, (crefs: hope = 1 Tim 1:1; appearance of His coming - 2 Thes 2:8). Albeit the presence of Father and Spirit Who are omnipresent as well. 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).

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]

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;

[*Note K, L, byz, sa and bo and Jas 1:27 have "the God and Father;" and WH, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, P, 33, Lach, Treg, Alf, Tisc, Weis, Sod, UBS - have "the Lord and Father;" and Scripture frequently refers to God and Jesus Christ as Lord and God almost always as Father, cf Isa 9:6-7 - the Son / Child of Israel as Everlasting Father. The testimony most likely is that since James frequently refers to both God and Jesus as Lord, but only God as Father, it is most likely that James intended that both Lord and Father refer to Go]

(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]

and [Who] released [freed] us from our sins by His blood"

[dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, sinaiticus, A, C, 1, Lach, Treg, Tisc, We/Jo, Weiss, Sod, UBS]

(Rev 1:5 YLT) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to Him Who did love us,

[dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, 1, byz]

and did [wash] us [dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, 1006, byz, bo]

from our sins in His blood

(Rev 1:6 NASB) and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father - to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen."

And in view in Rev 1:6 are believers in this Age who are destined to experience becoming a kingdom of priests to His [Jesus Christ's] God and Father. All believers share a common experience in this Age - a common experience of a plurality of persons with Him [God] Who is God and Father to Jesus Christ uniquely and exclusively, and God and Father to all believers of this Age - the latter as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ.

(Rev 1:5 Interlinear) Greek   τῷ              ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ  λύσαντι            ἡμᾶς ἐκ     τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
                                 English to the [one] loving      us      and having released us      from the  sins           our

So the TDAD / TSKS in verse 5 quoted from the Interlinear above has in view the unique identity of a single Person declared in personal names to be "God" and "Father" to Jesus Christ, and to all believers and for Whom [God and Father] all believers in this Age are destined to experience becoming a kingdom of priests, (v. 6).

xxxv) 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

In Rev 1:9, the apostle and author John - referred to by his proper name - 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.

c) Participles In The TDAD / TSKS Construction In The New Testament Will Not All Be Unique Identities Of Singular Persons As Some Contend

******

i) Mt 7:26 (NASB) "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand."

πᾶς          ὁ              ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ  μὴ ποιῶν    αὐτούς
Everyone the [ones] hearing My  the    words   these     and not doing    them

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Mt 7:26 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one who is hearing My [Jesus'] words and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man built his house on the sand.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view in this passage by virtue of the incapacity of man to always act faithfully to what they 'hear' Jesus say. So the referent who is described as, "like a foolish man who built his house on the sand" will of necessity be representative of a plurality of persons who will have in common the experience of being like a foolish man because they all have in common the experience of having "heard the words of Jesus [figuratively speaking through the Word of God spoken to them., i.e., Scripture] and have not acted faithfully upon [those words]."

ii) Mt 13:20 (NASB) "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;" 

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ             τὸν λόγον ἀκούων                    καὶ  εὐθὺς           μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων                     αὐτόν
this     is      the [one] the  word hearing [who hears]  and immediately with  joy      receiving [who receives] it

Although a singular person is gramatically in view, semantically / contextually a plurality of persons who hears and with joy receives the word is implied. For it is not just one person who is going to hear and receive Jesus' words throughout history.

Thus a common experience of a plurality of persons of hearing and joyously receiving the word is likewise in view.

iii) Mt 27:40 (NASB) "and saying, 'You Who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.' "

ὁ    καταλύων          τὸν ναὸν    καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν
the destroying [one] the temple and in three   days      [the one] rebuilding [it]

In Mt 27:40 the TDAD construction describes a unique single Person who will experience by His own unique actions - identifying Himself as the One Who - will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. The context of this verse of Jesus Christ being the unique Person singular in view is corroborated by the phrase "come down from the cross" as well as Jn 2:19-21 in which Jesus explains that He was speaking of His own body. 

iv) Mk 15:29 (NASB) "Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,"

ὁ    καταλύων          τὸν ναὸν    καὶ οἰκοδομῶν                     ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις
the [one] destroying the temple and building [rebuilding it]  in three   days

In Mk 15:29 the TDAD construction describes a unique single Person who will experience by His own unique actions - identifying Himself as the One Who - will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. The context of this verse of Jesus Christ being the unique Person singular in view is corroborated by the phrase "come down from the cross" as well as Jn 2:19-21 in which Jesus explains that He was speaking of His own body. 

v) Lk 6:47-48 reads:

(Lk 6:47 NASB) "Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

πᾶς         ὁ ἐρχόμενος                    πρός με καὶ  ἀκούων μου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς
everyone the [one who is] coming to      me and hearing  My  the   words and doing them

(Lk 6:48 NASB) he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

The context has in view a plurality of persons: "Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like" in the sense of godly. For it is evident that more than one individual of all of history is in view who will decide to come to Jesus and hear His words and do them. And such has been the case so far in history: more than one person will "be like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built." So there will be a plurality of persons who will have a common experience of a "well built," solid, stable, godly temporal life because they came to Jesus and heard His words and acted upon them.

vi) Lk 6:47-49 (NASB)

(Lk 6:47 NASB) "Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like:

(Lk 6:48 NASB) he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

(Lk 6:49 NASB) But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

ὁ    δὲ    ἀκούσας   καὶ    μὴ   ποιήσας
He who but heard and  not    did [do]

The context of Lk 6:49 has in view a plurality of persons: "But the one who has heard, (the the words of Jesus), and does not do them. For it is evident that more than one individual of all of history is in view who hears Jesus' words and does not do them.  And such has been the case so far in history - more than one person will be, "like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great" - a common experience among a plurality of persons of a ruined temporal life.

vii) Lk 12:19-21

(Lk 12:19 NASB) "And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry.' 

(Lk 12:20 NASB) But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'

(Lk 12:21 NASB) So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

ὁ  θησαυρίζων                  ἑαυτῷ        καὶ  μὴ  εἰς        θεὸν πλουτῶν
he who stores up treasure for himself and  not toward God is rich

The context has in view a plurality of persons who will experience a common consequence of not preparing for the afterlife: "So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view who will decide to store up treasure for himself and not be rich toward God and suffer the consequences in the afterlife, (Lk 12:20) - all of .

viii) Lk 16:18 (NASB) "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."

πᾶς           ὁ                     ἀπολύων           τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ  γαμῶν         ἑτέραν   μοιχεύει
Everyone  the [one who]  is putting away the wife        his       and is marrying  another commits adultery

The context of the TDAD / TSKS in Lk 16:18 is of a plurality of persons - husbands - evidently under the Law - each one of whom will choose to divorce his wife and marry another and thereby be guilty of adultery under the Law - a common experience

******

ix) Jn 5:24 (NASB) "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him Who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

ὁ             τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων  καὶ πιστεύων
the [one] the word  my   hearing  and believing

Although the grammar - the article + two nominative singular present participles - has a singular person in view in both descriptions in the TDAD / TSKS in Jn 5:24, the context, semantically speaking, is one of a plurality of persons: "he who hears My word, and believes Him Who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture which that many individuals will hear Jesus' word, and believe Him [God] Who sent Him [Jesus], and thereby have eternal life, and will not come into judgment, but will pass out of death into life - a common experience amongst many individuals.

x) Jn 6:33 (NASB) "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 

ὁ                    καταβαίνων       ἐκ      τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ζωὴν διδούς     τῷ       κοσμῶ
the [one who] is coming down out of the heaven     and life    is giving 
to the  world

The context in view in Jn 6:33 is of a unique identity of a single Person Who is described as "the bread of God" Who has "come down out of heaven," and "gives life to the world."

xi) Jn 6:40 (NASB) "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him [should] have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." 

πᾶς          ὁ    θεωρῶν       τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς  αὐτὸν ἔχῃ              ζωὴν αἰώνιον
everyone  the seeing [one] the  Son and believing  on  Him    should have life    eternal

Although the grammar - the article + two nominative singular present participles - has a singular person in view in both descriptions in the TDAD / TSKS in Jn 6:40, the context, semantically speaking, is one of a plurality of persons: "Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him [should] have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture which indicate many individuals "shall behold the Son and believe in Him" - a common experience amongst such individual.

The context in Jn 6:40 has in view a plurality of persons: "Everyone who beholds the Son [in the sense being presented with the truth about Him] and believes in Him [should] have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." For it is evident that more than one individual of all of history is in view who will behold the Son and believe Him. They will all together have a common experience of life eternal because each one of them will have believed in Him for eternal life.

xii) Jn 6:45 (NASB) "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

πᾶς          ὁ                   ἀκούσας παρὰ          τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ  μαθὼν             ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ
everyone the [one who] having    heard from the Father   and having learned comes   to      Me

Although the grammar - the article + two nominative singular aorist participles - has a singular person in view in both descriptions in the TDAD / TSKS in Jn 6:45, the context, semantically speaking, is one of a plurality of persons: "And they shall all be taught by God.' Referring to 'Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to [faith] in Me [Jesus].' For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture which indicate many individuals shall be taught by God and come to faith in J


esus - a common experience amongst many individuals.

******

xiii) Jn 6:54 (NASB) "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." 

ὁ                        τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων      μου  τὸ  αἷμα
the [one who is] eating    my   the flesh    and drinking my    the blood

Although the grammar - the article + two nominative singular present participles - has a singular person in view in both descriptions in the TDAD / TSKS in Jn 6:54, the context, semantically speaking, is one of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture which indicate many individuals who will have eternal life, i.e., who "eat My [Jesus'] flesh and drink [His] blood" in a figurative sense:

xiii_a) The Meaning Of Jn 6:53-56 Was Established By Jn 6:35, 40 and 51:

(Jn 6:53 YLT) "Jesus, therefore, said to them, '[Truly, truly], I say to you, If [you do] not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and [you do] not drink His blood, [you] have no life in yourselves;

(Jn 6:54 NIV) Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day;

(Jn 6:55 YLT) for My flesh truly is food, and My blood truly is drink;

(Jn 6:56 NAS) He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

xiii_b) [Jn 6:53-56 compared with Jn 6:35, 40, 51]:

(Jn 6:35 NKJV) "And Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. [The {one who} comes] to Me shall never hunger, and [the {one who} believes in Me shall never thirst [at any time].

(Jn 6:40 NKJV) And this is the will of Him who sent Me, [alt. "of My Father"] that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(Jn 6:51 NKJV) I am the Living Bread Which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.' "

Notice that a moment of faith alone in Christ alone results in God giving one eternal life and to be raised up at the last day. This is paralleled in Jn 6:51 to 'eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood', the latter being a figurative explanation of the former - a plurality of persons who share a common experience of having eternal life and be raised up at the last day.

xiv) Jn 6:56 (NASB) "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

ὁ   τρώγων          μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ  πίνων    μου τὸ αἷμα
the [one] eating   my   the flesh    and drinking my the blood

Although the grammar - the article + two nominative singular present participles - has a singular person in view in both descriptions in the TDAD / TSKS in Jn 6:56, the context, semantically speaking, is one of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture which indicate many individuals who will have eternal life, i.e., who "eat My [Jesus'] flesh and drink [His] blood" in a figurative sense unto eternal life, (cp. Jn 6:54 ), will abide in Me [Jesus], and I in him."

xv) Jn 8:49-50

(Jn 8:49 NASB) "Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

(Jn 8:50 NASB) But I do not seek My glory; there is One Who seeks and judges."

ὁ             ζητῶν   καὶ κρίνων

the [one] seeking and judging

The context of this TDAD / TSKS is Jesus' answer to the unbelieving Jews, (cf. Jn 8:42-47), - their accusation of Him that He was demon possessed. He declared to them that He does not seek His own glory; there is One - meaning God - Who seeks [Glory] and judges [all things]. The context of the Gospel of John and the rest of Scripture testify to this. The TDAD construction quoted above contains two nominative, singular present participles which refer to God alone via the testimony of Jesus His Son which imply that Glory and Judgment are uniquely God's alone as testified to by Jesus His Son - a unique identity via the testimony - the experience - of Jesus the Son of God of a singular Person Who is God.

xvi) 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...

The TDAD / TSKS in Jn 9:8 which is part of the context of Jn 9:1-8 of Jesus' healing of the man born blind has two descriptions comprised of two nominative, singular present participles which refer to a unique identity of that man born blind who was healed by Jesus who was sitting and begging - a singular person.

xvii) Jn 11:2 (NASB) "It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick."

ἦν        δὲ   Μαριὰμ ἡ   ἀλείψασα          τὸν κύριον μύρῳ             καὶ  ἐκμάξασα     τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ
It  was and Mariam the having anointed the Lord   with ointment and having wiped the  feet      His

The TDAD / TSKS in Jn 11:2 is a unique identity of the Mariam (Mary) who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet - two nominative singular aorist participles, unique by virtue of these two experiences in the context of being a sister of Martha and her brother Lazarus of Bethany, whom the latter was sick. A unique identity of a singular person is in view.

xviii) Jn 11:23-26

(Jn 11:23 NASB) "Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.'

(Jn 11:24 NASB) Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'

(Jn 11:25 NASB) Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,

(Jn 11:26 NASB) and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?' "

πᾶς         ὁ                        ζῶν    καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ
everyone the [one who is] living and believing  in  Me

Grammatically, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Jn 11:26 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person "who lives" [in the sense of being physically alive] and who believes in Jesus who thereby will never die" in the sense of have eternal life in view grammatically speaking. But semantically speaking, the construction has a common experience of a plurality of persons in view. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture - OT & NT - which indicate many individuals who will believe in Jesus and have eternal life.

******

xix) Jn 12:48 (NASB) "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has One Who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day."

ὁ                        ἀθετῶν   ἐμὲ καὶ  μὴ  λαμβάνων  τὰ ῥήματά μου
the [one who is] rejecting Me  and not is receiving the words  My

Grammatically, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Jn 12:48 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one "who rejects Jesus" [in the sense of not believing in Him - in His words] and is not receiving His words in the sense of not believing in them, has One [God] Who judges him." Whereupon, Jesis said that the word that I [Jesus] spoke is what will judge him at the last day. But semantically speaking, the TDAD /TSKS construction has a common experience of a plurality of persons in view. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture - OT & NT - which indicate many individuals will not believe in Jesus and be judge by God and not have eternal life.

xx) Jn 14:21 (NASB) "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

ὁ             ἔχων    τὰς ἐντολάς             μου καὶ  τηρῶν   αὐτάς
the [one] having the  commandments My  and keeping them

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Jn 14:21 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one who rejects Jesus in the sense of not believing in Him - in His words and the one who is not receiving His [Jesus'] words in the sense of not believing in them. Hence he has One [God] Who judges him. Whereupon, Jesus said that the word that I [Jesus] spoke is what will judge him at the last day. On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view in this passage by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture - OT & NT - which indicate that many individuals will not believe in Jesus and be judged by God and not have eternal life.

xxi) Acts 10:34-35

(Acts 10:34 NASB) "Opening his mouth, Peter said [to the Gentiles: Cornelius and his household] 'I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,

(NASB) but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is [acceptable] to Him."

ὁ                        φοβούμενος  αὐτὸν καὶ ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην   δεκτὸς       αὐτῷ    ἐστιν
the [one who is] fearing          Him   and  doing          righteousness acceptable  to Him is

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Acts 10:35 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one who is fearing Him [God] and [who] does what is right is acceptable to Him.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view in this passage by virtue of the many passages throughout Scripture - OT & NT - which indicate that many individuals will fear God and do what is right and be acceptable to Him.

xxii) Acts 15:36-38

(Acts 15:36 NASB) "After some days Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.'

(Acts 15:37 NASB) Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.

(Acts 15:38 NASB) But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work."

τὸν           ἀποστάντα            ἀπ ᾿  αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ  μὴ  συνελθόντα         αὐτοῖς
the [one] having withdrawn from them   from Pamphilia  and not having gone with them

Grammatically and semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in Acts 15:38 has two nominative singular aorist participles conveying a unique identity of a single person identified by proper name in verse 37 as "John called Mark," Barnabas' cousin, (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11) - the one who had deserted them [lit. "having withdrawn from them from Pamphilia," (cf. Acts 13:13)] and[who] had not gone with them to the work [of evangelism there].

xxiii) 1 Cor 11:23-29

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'

(1 Cor 11:25 NASB) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'

(1 Cor 11:26 NASB) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

(1 Cor 11:27 NASB) Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

(1 Cor 11:28 NASB) But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

(1 Cor 11:29 NASB) For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly."

ὁ                         γὰρ ἐσθίων  καὶ πίνων
the [one who is]  for  eating   and drinking

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in 1 Cor 11:29 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one who is fearing Him [God] and [who] does what is right is acceptable to Him.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual in all of history is in view in this passage by virtue of the incapacity of man to always be faithful, especially when celebrating the Lord's Supper.

xxiv) 1 Cor 16:13-16

(1 Cor 16:13 NASB) "Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

(1 Cor 16:14 NASB) Let all that you do be done in love.

(1 Cor 16:15 NASB) Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),

(1 Cor 16:16 NASB) that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us."

παντὶ                     τῷ  συνεργοῦντι           καὶ κοπιῶντι
everyone  [who is] the working [one]          and laboring [one with us]

Paul urges the brethren of the church in Corinth to be in subjection / to submit to everyone who is working and laboring in the faith, (cf. v. 13).

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in 1 Cor 16:16 has two nominative singular present participles conveying a singular person - the one who is working and laboring in the faith.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons in Corinth. For it is evident that more than one individual in the church in Corinth is in view who is helping in the work and labors of the faith with Paul and his group in this passage by virtue of those listed in verse 15 and additional persons implied in vv. 12 & 16).

xxv) 2 Cor 1:19-22:

(2 Cor 1:19 NASB) "For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, Who was preached among you by us - by me and Silvanus and Timothy - was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.

(2 Cor 1:20 NASB) For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.

(2 Cor 1:21 NASB) Now He who [confirms] us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,"

ὁ                        δὲ βεβαιῶν        ἡμᾶς σὺν  ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ χρίσας                ἡμᾶς θεός
the [one who is] now confirming  us     with you  in  Christ    and having anointed us      [is] God

(2 Cor 1:22 NASB) Who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge."

ὁ    καὶ  σφραγισάμενος ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς             τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ     πνεύματος
the also having sealed     us     and having given the earnest       of the Spirit

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in 2 Cor 1:21-22 has four nominative singular participles, the first, third and fourth are in the present tense, the second in the aorist tense. Together they convey a singular Person - a unique identity through the details provided by His unique experience of a single Person, properly named, God - Who's name is stipulated in this passage as "Theos, " Who is unique to the context of this passage, the Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistles of Paul and the 66 books of God's Word, the Bible . The first phrase rendered, "He Who confirms us [present tense: Paul and fellow workers in Christ] with you in Christ [with you believers in Christ who comprise the church at Corinth] refers to God's continuous strengthening of believers in their faith in Christ and his progressive enriching of their knowledge of Christ. Whereupon, the second phrase rendered, "and anointed us is God" comes with the sense of setting us believers apart for His service.

[Expositor's Bible Commentary, The - The Expositor's Bible Commentary – Volume 10: Romans through Galatians]

[The second, third and fourth phrases] are in the aorist tense, indicating what took place at the time of [faith in Christ]. The phrase [rendered], "He anointed (chrisas) us," which follows immediately after a reference to Christ (Christos, "the Anointed One"), shows that those to whom God now gives a firm standing, he once commissioned for his service by consecrating them as his "anointed ones" and imparting those gifts necessary for their task. The last two participles [located in v. 22], are intimately related: ... God "set his seal of ownership [sphragisamenos, lit., "having sealed"] us" in that he "put [dous, literally "having given"] his Spirit in our [the believers'] hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Associated with the idea of sealing are the ideas of ownership, authentication, and security; the believer is "branded" as God's property, the reality of his faith is attested, and his status is guaranteed "against the day of redemption" (cf. Eph 4:30).

xxvi) 2 Cor 5:14-15

(2 Cor 5:14 NASB) "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that One died for all, therefore all died; 

(2 Cor 5:15 NASB) and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

αλλα                                            τῷ            ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι
but    [that those should live for] the [One] for    them    having died and having been raised again

Grammatically speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction in 2 Cor 5:15 has two nominative singular aorist participles conveying a singular Person - the One Who died and rose again [on their behalf in the sense of for all believers, (but also for all mankind, (cf. 1 Jn 2:2)]. That this One in view is Christ is established in verse 14. Hence we have in view a unique experience leading to an identity of a single Person further identified by virtue of His proper name which is in view in verse 14 and further defined in verse 15]

xxvii) Gal 1:11-15

(Gal 1:11 NASB) "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

(Gal 1:12 NASB) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

(Gal 1:13 NASB) For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;

(Gal 1:14 NASB) and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

(Gal 1:15 NASB) But when God, Who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased."

ὁ              ἀφορίσας          με  ἐκ     κοιλίας μητρός   μου  καὶ  καλέσας         δα χαρτρός αὐτόυ      
the [One] having selected me from  womb   mother's My   and  having called through grace His

The context in this passage is God's unique calling of Paul to a ministry, (cf. Gal 1:11-14 + multiple passages in Paul's epistles and the Book of Acts), a calling that is not identical to any other. There are similarities in God's calling of others to apostleship, etc., but they are not identical in every respect to God's calling of Paul. So Paul's calling from God and His grace in enabling Paul is unique. And by virtue of this unique experience comes Paul's unique identity of a single individual person: the Apostle Paul.

xxviii) Gal 3:5 (NASB) "So then, does He Who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"

ὁ              οὖν                        ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν    τὸ   πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις            ἐν         ὑμῖν
the [One] therefore [Who is] supplying     to you the Spirit    and working works of power among  you 

Two nominative singular participles comprise the TDAD / TSKS construction describing two unique experiences of the One [and only God] by Whose effort He supplied the Spirit of God and the working of His works of power among the believers of the churches in Galatia; which experiences define the unique identity of the Person of the One and only God Himself, Whom Paul establishes that God makes these experiences occur not as a result of keeping the Law, by by hearing and faith in what the believers heard, i.e., the gospel

xxix) 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 a 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 .

xxix_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.

xxx) 2 Thes 2:4 (NKJV)

(2 Thess 2:3 NASB) "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 

(2 Thess 2:4 NASB) who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."

ὁ ἀντικείμενος                  καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος   ἐπὶ     πάντα λεγόμενον   θεόν
the [one who] is opposing and exalting himself above all       being called God

The two present participles in 2 Thes 2:4 TDAD / TSKS construction are nominative, singular conveying the one in verse 3 called the "man of lawlessness" who is opposing and exalting himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God - a unique experience / identity of a singular person

xxxi) Heb 7:1 (NKJV) "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,"

ὁ             συναντήσας  ᾿Αβραὰμ  ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ  τῆς κοπῆς      τῶν    βασιλέων καὶ εὐλογήσας       αὐτόν
the [one] having met    Abraham returning        from the  slaughter of the kings        and having blessed him

The TDAD / TSKS construction in Heb 7:1 contains two nominative singular aorist participles conveying the actions of One Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God - Who is God, the preincarnate Son of God , the One "having met Abraham returning from the [Abraham's] slaughter of the kings and [Melchizedek] having blessed him." In view in this context is a proper name for a unique experience unto an identity of a single Person

******

xxxii) Jas 1:25 (NASB) "But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does."

Jas 1:25 (YLT) "and he who did look into the perfect law - that of liberty, and did continue there, this one - not a forgetful hearer becoming, but a doer of work - this one shall be happy in his doing.

ὁ             δὲ    παρακύψας    εἰς   νόμον τέλειον τὸν           τῆς     ἐλευθερίας καὶ παραμείνας
the [one] and  having looked into  law     perfect  the [law] of the liberty        and having continued in [it]

This passage contains a TDAD / TSKS construction that has two nominative singular aorist participles conveying the one having looked into [the] perfect law of liberty  - the law of being in Christ and living by His grace . It is referring to a believer in Christ in the sense of those believers, plural, who having looked into the perfect law of liberty in Christ and having continued in it in the sense of staying in fellowship with Him - "this one - not a forgetful hearer becoming, but a doer of work - this one shall be happy in his doing." Hence we have in view a common experience of a plurality of persons - believers in Christ who are faithful.

******

xxxiii) 1 Jn 2:4 (NASB) "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;"

ὁ             λέγων ὅτι ςΕγνωκα αὐτόν,     καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς              αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν,          ψεύστης ἐστίν
the [one] saying       I have known Him  and the commandments His     not [be] keeping, a liar       is

In 1 Jn 2:4, the TDAD / TSKS construction contains one nominative singular perfect participle which conveys a believer saying that he has known Christ, and at the same time the second participle, which is nominative, singular, present stipulates that that believer is not keeping Christ's commandments, concluding that that believer is a liar and the truth is not in him. So the participles convey an example of a believer who is not faithful and therefore has not been knowing Christ during that unfaithful time. The passage therefore has in view all believers who act untruthfully, unfaithful in this manner: a common experience of a plurality of persons.

xxxiv) 1 Jn 2:9 (NASB) "The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now."

ὁ λέγων              ἐν τῷ φωτὶ  εἶναι  καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν       ἐν τῇ  σκοτίᾳ    ἐστίν
the [one] saying  in the light  to be  and the brother   his      [he] hates  in the darkness is

Two nominative singular participles are in view in 1 Jn 2:9 conveying the message that the one who says he is in the Light in the sense of being in fellowship with God in accordance with His Righteousness, and his brother he hates is in darkness until now.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual will have moments when he says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother.

xxxv) 2 Jn 1:9

(2 Jn 1:9 NASB) "Anyone who goes too far [i.e., transgresses - Sinaiticus, A, B, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, We / Ho, Weis, UBS] and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."

(2 Jn 1:9 YLT ) "Every one who is transgressing [i.e., K, L, P, byz, sod], and is not remaining in the teaching of the Christ, [has] not God; he who is remaining in the teaching of the Christ, this one [has] both the Father and the Son."

πᾶς          ὁ            προάγων                                         καὶ        μὴ        μένων       ἐν τῇ  διδαχῇ   τοῦ    Χριστοῦ
everyone the [one] going too far [i.e., is transgressing] and [is] not       continuing in the teaching of the Christ

θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει
God not  has

Two nominative, singular, present participles are in view in this passage grammatically portraying any one individual who goes too far in the sense of any single indivdual who is transgressing and is not continuing / abiding in the teaching of Christ, has not God.

On the other hand, as opposed to a grammatically unique identity of a single person; semantically / contextually speaking, the TDAD / TSKS construction actually conveys a common experience of a plurality of persons. For it is evident that more than one individual - a believer in Christ - will have moments when he goes too far in the sense of transgressing away from Christ's teaching - not continuing in the teaching of the Christ resulting in those moments in his temporal life of not having God, i.e., being out of fellowhip with Him. For the opposite is true as portrayed in the rest of the verse: "he who is remaining in the teaching of the Christ, this one [has] both the Father and the Son." In either case, believers are in view - unfaithful or faithful to Christ's teachings. For unbelievers do not have the choice of not abiding or abiding in the teaching of Christ. They are outside of that capacity until they become believers.

xxxvi) 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]

and [Who] released [freed] us from our sins by His blood"

[dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, sinaiticus, A, C, 1, Lach, Treg, Tisc, We/Jo, Weiss, Sod, UBS]

(Rev 1:5 YLT) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to Him Who did love us,

[dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, 1, byz]

and did [wash] us [dative, singular, aorist, participle: p, 1006, byz, bo]

from our sins in His blood

(Rev 1:6 NASB) and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father - to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen."

And in view in Rev 1:6 are believers in this Age who are destined to experience becoming a kingdom of priests to His [Jesus Christ's] God and Father. All believers share a common experience in this Age - a common experience of a plurality of persons with Him [God] Who is God and Father to Jesus Christ uniquely and exclusively, and God and Father to all believers of this Age - the latter as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ.

(Rev 1:5 Interlinear) Greek   τῷ              ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ  λύσαντι            ἡμᾶς ἐκ     τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
                                 English to the [one] loving      us      and having released us      from the  sins           our

So the TDAD / TSKS in verse 5 quoted from the Interlinear above has in view the unique identity of a single Person declared in personal names to be "God" and "Father" to Jesus Christ, and to all believers and for Whom [God and Father] all believers in this Age are destined to experience becoming a kingdom of priests, (v. 6).

******
xxxvii
)
Rev 16:15

(Rev 16:15 NASB) "Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, 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] watching  and keeping the garments his

(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 "" 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.

[BKC.net]:
[Sharp's and Wallace's judgment seems to have missed the point 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 ]

xxxviii) Rev 22:8

(Rev 22:8 NASB) "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things."

κἀγὼ  ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ              ἀκούων καὶ βλέπων ταῦτα
And I   John       the [one] hearing and  seeing   these things

Two nominative, singular, present participles are in view that convey a proper named, unique, experience / identity of a single person "John the apostle." He is further described as having experienced hearing and seeing a unique revelation of the new heavens from an angel sent from God; which experience uniquely defines who he is, (Rev 22:1-8).

d) Adjectives In The TSKS / TDAD Personal Construction In The New Testament Will Not All Be In Accordance With Sharp's Rule #1 - But Will Fit One Of The Categories In Sharp's Canon Without The Need For Unwarranted Exceptions

i) Acts 3:14

(Acts 3:12 NASB) "But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, "Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? 

(Acts 3:13 NASB) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.

(Acts 3:14 NASB) But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,"

ὑμεῖς δὲ   τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον           ἠρνήσασθε
You   but the holy   and righteous one  disowned

The TDAD / TSKS construction in Acts 3:14 continues to have in view the Holy and Righteous One properly named "Jesus" in verse 13 Whom the Jews, whom Peter was addressing, delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate resulting in Him being crucified, (cf. Acts 2:14-47). Peter's message has in view a unique properly named identity by virtue of His unique experience of a single Person of being God's Son - the Holy and Righteous One Who was crucified for the sins of all mankind so that repentance unto faith in Him will result in eternal forgiveness of sins, (ref. Acts 3:16, 19, 25).

ii) Philemon 1:1 (NASB) "Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker,"

τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ         ἡμῶν
the beloved   and fellow worker our

In Philemon 1:1 Philemon is properly named and further described as "our beloved brother and fellow worker." This information and futher information in vv. 4-22 narrow the subject down to a unique identity of a single person.

******

iii) 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?" 

The TDAD / TSKS construction in 1 Pet 4:18 reads as follows:

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.

iv) Rev 3:17

(Rev 3:17 NASB) ''' "Because you say, I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,' and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

(Rev 3:18 NASB) I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see." '''

σὺ   εἶ   ὁ    ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς    καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ  τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός
you are the  wretched     and miserable and poor      and blind    and naked

Author and apostle, John writes to the church at Laodicea admonishing the believers that they are lukewarm - that they say they are rich and have become wealthy and have need of nothing, that they do not know that they are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. In view grammatically is a statement to a second person singular person; but semantically / contextually in view is a common experience of a plural number of individuals - persons - who comprise the congregation / the church at Laodicea.

e) Mixed Elements in the TSKS Personal Construction In The New Testament Occur

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) 1 Thes 3:2 (NASB) "and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith,"

Τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ    θεοῦ
Timothy,  the brother   our    and servant    the     of God

1 Thes 3:2 describes by proper noun, "Timothy," "our brother" referring to brother in Christ and to "God's fellow worker" being sent by the apostle Paul to Thessalonica in the first century to serve at the church there - to strengthen and encourage them as to their faith. There is sufficient information provided in this first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians to establish a unique identity of a single person.

iii) 1 Tim 5:5

(1 Tim 5:3 NASB) "Honor widows who are widows indeed;

(1 Tim 5:4 NASB) but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

(1 Tim 5:5 NASB) Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day."

ἡ    δὲ    ὄντως  χήρα       καὶ μεμονωμένη
the now indeed  a widow and having been left alone

The context from vv. 3-5 indicates more than one widow is in view. Hence in view is a common experience / identity plural persons in view.

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

"The monotonous pattern of personal singular substantives in the TSKS construction indicating an identical referent immediately places such substantives in a different category from proper names, impersonal nouns, or plural nouns.

[There are three categories with a number of sub-categories which fit proper names, impersonal nouns, plural nouns, etc. These other categories cannot be ignored. Identical referents, i.e., unique identities of singular persons are not the only substantive; there are more categories of substantives .

Furthermore, given an appropriately arrived at context , a proper name or an impersonal noun can indicate an identical referent . This can be substantiated by reading the reviews of the TDAD / TSKS constructions investigated in this study by searching for the word "proper" or "impersonal" to find examples of impersonal or properly named personal referents in TDAD / TSKS constructions which are referred to by an impersonal noun or a proper noun]

[D. B. Wallace, cont.]

"The statistics accentuate this difference: in this construction there are about a dozen personal proper names in the NT (none having an identical referent; close to fifty impersonal nouns (only one unambiguously having the same referent); more than seventy plural substantives (little more than a third having an identical referent); and eighty TSKS constructions fitting the structural requirements of the rule 84 (the christologically significant texts excepted), all of which apparently having an identical referent.

[BSM.net]:

The passages investigated in this paper have a number of identical personal referents, i.e., a unique, identity of a single person each one of which is described with a personal proper name, contrary to the contention of some. So a personal proper name can refer to a unique, identity of a single person depending upon context . Furthermore, although it is plausible and logical for a TDAD / TSKS construction to convey a unique, identity of a single impersonal thing; none have been selected for review in this particular paper. Finally, contrary to finding "seventy plural substantives (little more than a third having an identical referent)"; there is no such thing as a plural substantive / description which has an identical referent. For an identical referent, i.e., a unique identity or experience consisting of plural persons or impersonal things is neither logical nor plausible by definition of the word "unique" meaning one of a kind. If it is one of a kind then it cannot be more than one of a kind. A unique / one of a kind person or thing cannot be a plurality.

All things considered, there is more than one kind of referent for other types of TDAD / TSKS constructions - categories of context to fit into. It all depends upon context . Sharp, Wallace and many others, seem to exclude Personal names and a whole lot of other things, ignoring the normative rules of language, context and logic - the categories that the context of the passage at hand demands , as well as Sharp's other five rules  7.

Although many of the verses with TDAD / TSKS constructions investigated by others like Sharp, Winstanley, Wallace contain proper names; proper names cannot be excluded from consideration as referring to a unique, identity of a single person ; especially if those proper nouns have unique contexts such as those which refer to Jesus Christ, God, disciples' names, the names of Paul's fellow workers, etc. They exist uniquely as stipulated in Scripture and must be counted - especially when the context demands it! See the proper means by which context is to be determined: .

And so do impersonal nouns, plural nouns, and all the other things that individuals exclude from consideration in order to validate or invalidate the Granville Sharp Rule #1 in accordance with their own theological biases.

The key is to approach TDAD / TSKS constructions properly .]

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

"It is evident that Sharp’s limitation to personal singular substantives does indeed have substance; he seems to have articulated a genuine principle of NT grammar. But is his rule inviolable? C. Kuehne, in his second article of a seven-part series entitled “The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity,” 85 discusses all the instances in the NT which meet the requirements for the rule. 86 He summarizes his findings by stating that “Sharp claimed that his rule applied uniformly to such passages, and I indeed could not find a single exception.” 87 Kuehne is not alone in his view of these texts. None of Sharp’s adversaries was able to produce a single exception to his rule within the pages of the NT. Calvin Winstanley, Sharp’s most able opponent, conceded that Sharp’s “first rule has a real foundation in the idiom of the language . . .” 88 And later, he declares, “Now, Sir, if your rule and principles of criticism must be permitted to close up every other source of illustration, there is an end of all farther enquiry . . .” 89 - an obvious concession that, apart from the christologically significant texts, Winstanley could produce no exceptions within the NT corpus. Finally, he admits as much when he writes, “There are, you say, no exceptions, in the New Testament, to your rule; that is, I suppose, unless these particular texts [i.e., the ones Sharp used to adduce Christ’s deity] be such... it is nothing surprising to find all these particular texts in question appearing as exceptions to your rule, and the sole exceptions . . . in the New Testament . . .” 90  We must conclude, then, that (suspending judgment on the christologically significant texts) Sharp’s rule is indeed an inviolable canon of NT syntactical usage." 91

[BKC.net]:

[The problem with the interpretations of Sharp, Wallace and others is that they often do not follow the normative rules of language, context and logic in order to arrive at the context of the passage under review and then match it up with the category of substantive in the TDAD / TSKS substantives / descriptions . Anything outside of their non-contextual interpretation is disqualified from being legitimate. Whereupon unwarranted exclusions are imposed in accordance with a theological bias instead of being faithful to the context and the properly arrived at category which that context matches up with ]

3) The Use Of The TSKS / TDAD Construction In Extra-NT Greek Writings Validates Sharp's Canon Without The Use Of Unwarranted Exclusions

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

"Outside of the NT, what confirmation do we have of the validity of Sharp’s canon? At least four strands of confirmation can be mentioned. The first two deal with the construction in general; the last two with the expressions found in the christologically significant texts (and will be dealt with in the next section)."

a) The Use Of The TSKS / TDAD Construction In Classical Greek Writings

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

"In the debates that raged over the publication of Sharp’s monograph in the first decades of the nineteenth century, many scholars reread the classical Greek authors with an eye toward this particular construction. None apparently did as thorough a job as Middleton. In his Doctrine of the Greek Article, he devotes the first 120 pages to showing the usage of the article in classical Greek as an illustration of its use within the NT. 92 The rest of his five-hundred-plus page volume is concerned specifically with the NT text which he marches through seriatum [in order of appearance in the Bible]- from Matthew through Revelation. In the NT portion of his work he spends several pages on Sharp’s controversial passages - and affirms the rule in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, and Eph 5:5 93 (in this last text, his affirmation is due more to the use of this text in patristic literature [early church fathers' writings that are not inspired] than to Sharp’s canon per se). In the first part of his work, however, he has dedicated fifteen pages (56-70) of proof in order to demonstrate the validity of the rule in classical Greek. To illustrate his point, he cites texts from such authors as Plutarch, Demosthenes, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Aristophanes. For example, Plutarch says that

“Roscius, the son  and heir                 of the deceased     was vexed”
῾Ρώσκιος ὁ    υἱὸς καὶ κληρονόμονος τοῦ    τεθνηκότος ἠγανάκτει); 94

Demosthenes speaks of himself as both the advisor       and  orator
                                                              ὁ    σύμβουλος  καὶ  ῥήτωρ ἐγώ); 95 

Aeschylus says that Demosthenes is the  meddler    and slanderer”
                                                         ὁ     περίεργος καὶ συκοφάντης Δημοσθενής). 96

Aeschylus says that Demosthenes is a “meddler and slanderer” (ὁ περίεργος καὶ συκοφάντης Δημοσθενής).

To be sure, Middleton does list some exceptions - though he feels that they are all capable of explanation and do not mitigate the rule. He concludes the discussion by stating, "Having thus investigated the canon, and having explained the ground of its limitations and exceptions, I may be permitted to add, that Mr. Sharp’s application of it to the New Testament is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek writers, and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue; and that few of the passages [viz., - namely - those which appear to involve proper names] which he has corrected in our common version can be defended without doing violence to the obvious and undisputed meaning of the plainest sentences which profane writers supply." 97

[BSM.net]:

[When a proper name appears, application of the proper approach to Scripture - OT & NT -   is demanded in order to properly determine the context of the entire passage in order to see how that proper name fits and is part of the context, instead of excluding it as irrelevant.

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 - OT & NT - 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.

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 219]

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

"We will, of course, turn to those exceptions which Middleton listed, but our point here is that he found the rule to be consistently valid for Greek outside the NT.

Other grammarians of classical Greek, who presumably have no acquaintance with Sharp’s rule, nevertheless give something of a subconscious stamp of approval on its validity. In his section entitled “Repetition and Non-Repetition of the Article,” Gildersleeve 98 gives a score of illustrations, all but one of which are other than personal singular constructions. As in the NT, these form a conceptual unity but do not involve the same referent. 99 The lone personal singular construction does not violate the rule. 100

[BSM.net]:

[And the contexts of the other passages which are not unique identities of single persons will assuredly fit the context of one of the other categories ]

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

"Kühner-Gerth preface several illustrations of the TSKS construction by stating that “wenn zwei oder mehr Substantive durch καί oder τε . . καί mit einander verbunden werden, so wird der Artikel entweder bei jedem wiederholt . . . oder er wird nicht wiederholt; alsdann werden die einzelnen Begriffe als zu einer Gesamtvorstellung verbunden betrachtet." 101

[BSM.net]:

[The German text quoted above may be translated as follows:

"If two or more nouns are joined by "kai' or "te" ... "kai" the article, becomes connected to each other, so the article is repeated either or [if] it is not repeated; then the individual terms are considered to be an overall concept."]

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

"In this second category, they give almost two full pages of illustrations, most of which involve plural substantives or impersonal nouns in the TSKS construction and which point to a unity of referents but not an identical referent. 102 In addition, they mention examples of the personal singular construction, only one of which is an exception to Sharp’s Rule #1. Yet, this lone example (found in Herodotus, Histories 4.71) did not escape Middleton’s eye: indeed, he discusses it at length and finds it to be wholly dissimilar to other personal singular constructions. 103 Smyth tells us that “a single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion . . .” 104  None of his examples involve the same referent, but neither are any of them personal and singular. Schwyzer-Debrunner discuss only impersonal constructions which merely form a Gesamtvorstellung [= an overview]. 105

All in all, the discussions of the personal singular constructions are rather thin in the standard classical grammars. Yet, this is to be expected since they only speak of a conceptual unity, not of a referential identity. 106

[BSM.net]:

[Conceptual unity constructions may fit the context of other categories of the TDAD / TSKS construction ]

b) The Use Of The TSKS / TDAD Construction In Non-Literary Greek Papyri - Koine Greek 

[D. B. Wallace]:

"We defer, then, to Middleton’s judgment concerning the usage in classical Greek, viz [=namely], that Sharp’s canon “is in strict conformity with the usage of [classical] Greek writers. Of course, it will be conceded that Middleton’s research was almost solely shut up to classical Greek. The question which concerns us here is, If NT grammar is more like that of the non-literary koine documents than the classical authors (an assumption we make for the sake of argument), 107 how valid is Sharp’s canon in these vulgar [= common] writings? If it is frequently disregarded, then we might argue that Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 are mere slips of the pen or that they only serve to illustrate that the koine writers were less refined in their use of the article than were the classical authors.

The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. First, studies on the use of the article in the papyri demonstrate that even in this refined and subtle area of the Greek language, the non-literary writers have a good deal of sophistication. The very fact that Mayser, for example, can arrange his treatment of the article in the Ptolemaic papyri along traditional lines - and that he constantly cites the standard classical grammars as in agreement with the usage in the papyri - is an implicit argument that these non-literary documents are not haphazard in their use of the article. 108 Völker, whose first volume on the papyri is occupied only with the article, makes the point repeatedly that the papyri, even though on a different literary level than Attic Greek [= the literary language of the Greek speaking world], still use the article in substantially the same way. 109 And Eakin, in his study of the first four volumes of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, [= a group of over 5000 manuscripts discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dated from the 3rd century BC of mainly public and private documents written in ancient Greek] concludes by saying that “Perhaps the most important point which the evidence accumulated tends to enforce is the need of caution in assuming hap-hazard [sic] irregularity in the use of the article by κοινή [koine] writers - even those who wrote without a thought of being ‘literary.’ ” 110  Earlier in his essay he argued:

It would be a great mistake, however, to suppose that even such busy, matter-of-fact people as the writers of these non-literary papyri used the article with indifference. I have noted at least two cases where the article had at first been omitted and later inserted above the line. . . .  In neither of these cases would the omission have been a serious grammatical offence, but evidently the writer considered the matter important enough that a correction should be made. 111

Hence, in general, we can say that the use of the article in the papyri conforms pretty much to Attic standards - and yet, it is still below the level achieved in the NT. 112

Secondly, and more specifically, is the semantic function of the TSKS construction in the papyri. The basic database for this paper was the first two volumes of Select Papyri in LCL. 113  These volumes were chosen because the documents the editors employ are representative of a broad spectrum of Egyptian papyri - both in age and geography (i.e., Hunt and Edgar do not just include the papyri from Oxyrhynchus). Scores of examples of the TSKS construction were discovered in these two volumes. Remarkably, only one possible exception to Sharp’s rule was discovered in over five hundred pages of Greek text. 114 A single referent, as in the NT, is uniformly indicated by the personal singular construction. For example,

i) P. Grenf. ii. 87. 10-11 speaks of “the . . . elder and . . . flax-worker” (τῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ καὶ . . . στιππουργῷ);

ii) P. Tebt. 392. 17 refers to one man as “the husband . . . and brother” (ὁ ἀνήρ . . . καὶ ἀδελφός);

iii) P. Eleph. 2.13 pronounces judgment against “him who is insubordinate and does not act” (ἐκ τοῦ ἀτακτοῦντος καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντος);

iv) in BGU 423.1 a son addresses his father as both “father and lord” (τῶι πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ);

v) in P. Oxy. 528.1 a man writes to his “sister and lady” (τῇ ἀδελφῇ καὶ κυρίᾳ);

vi) in P. Lond. 417.1 a brother is addressed as “my master and beloved brother” (τῷ δεσπότῃ μου καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ); 115

vii) in P. Oxy. 925.2-3 a substantival adjective is used in the construction ὁ ἀληθινὸς φιλάνθρωπος καὶ δημιουργός (“the true benevolent one and creator”). 116

viii) “the eternal Augustus and Imperator” - We might also note that a common refrain, “the eternal Augustus and Imperator” (τοῦ αἰωνίου Αὐγούστου καὶ Αὐτοκράτορος), always involved an identical referent, even though “Augustus” might be labeled a quasi-proper name." 117 However, when a proper name was joined to “Augustus,” two individuals were in view. 118

[BSM.net]:

[The proper names for God and Jesus Christ need not be declared titles 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), being a title for Greek gods - 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.

Whether or not "Theos" is a proper name, makes no difference. For a careful examination of a passage on a case for case basis will determine the uniqueness of Theos or any proper name. 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. For there is no one named Theou like the particular "Theou" in Titus 2:13, proper name or not:

[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.)]:

"Altogether there were forty-one constructions which fit the requirements for Sharp’s rule[s]. 119 Only one such construction was in apparent violation of Sharp’s canon.

[BSM.net]:

[Perhaps the one construction that was in apparent violation of Sharp's canon when properly examined via the normative rules of language, context and logic to arrive at the proper contextual / semantic meaning does fit Sharp's Rule #1; if not it might actually fit into one of Sharp's other rules  7 ]

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

"On the other hand, there were scores of TSKS constructions in the papyri which were either plural or impersonal. In general, they followed the semantic contours laid out by Middleton."

[BSM.net]:

[There is no 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 .]

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

"The papyri were seen, then, to be very much in step with the classical authors and the NT. Further, when a writer wanted to distinguish individuals - and there were scores of instances in which distinct individuals were in view - he or she invariably used a second article (TSKTS) - except, of course, when a proper name was involved. In fact, one might be a bit surprised to find in this vulgar [= common] Greek even convoluted constructions where the writer still remembered the second article. For example,

ix) in P. Oxy. 494.22-23 we read of “my wife . . . and my son”

(ἡ  γυνή μου καὶ . . . ὁ   υἱός μου),

the wife my  and       the son my)

where three words intervene;

x) similarly, P. Giess. 80.3-4: “her papa and . . . the mother”

(ὁ   πάπας αὐτῆς καὶ . . . ἡ   μήτηρ)

the papa   her      and      the mother;

xi) BGU 1680.4-8 reads

“my sister and . . . his wife  . . . and her husband and . . .the son”

(τὴν ἀδελφήν μου καὶ. . . τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ . . . καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα    αὐτῆς καὶ . . . τὸν υἱόν),
the   sister      my  and      the wife        his            and the husband her     and       the son

all clear references to different people.

xii) P. Columb. Inventory 480.2-3 mentions “the farmer of the tax on slaves and the controller”

(ὁ πραγματευόμενος τὴν    ὠδὴν ἀνδραπόδων καὶ ὁ    ἀντιγραφεύς). 120
the farmer                 of the tax    on slaves       and the controller

My antecedent presumption was that there would be several exceptions to Sharp’s rule[s] in these two volumes, since the papyri represent the lowest level of hellenistic Greek. The fact that they too conformed to Sharp’s canon - at least the small amount of papyri I investigated - perhaps shows how deeply imbedded was this idiom in the koine period."

c) Exceptions To The Sharp Rule #1 Outside The New Testament

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

"Finally, we need to look at the potential exceptions to the rule[s] which have been mentioned over the years. As we noted earlier, the latest and most complete list of exceptions was compiled by Calvin Winstanley in 1819! From other sources, as well as my own independent study, we can enlarge on Winstanley’s list substantially. However, we can just barely enlarge on the categories of exceptions which Winstanley found. Winstanley was Sharp’s most formidable adversary and, quite frankly, not all of his objections have been adequately answered even to this day. 121 This final portion of the section will be an attempt to interact with Winstanley’s exceptions.

Though he lays out the counter-examples in a seemingly random, rapid-fire order, all of Winstanley’s illustrations can be grouped into one of four classes. First, he gives a dozen or so examples

i) Aristotle in which the substantives, though singular, are generic: for example,

“the disciplined and undisciplined man”
  τὸν σώφρονα   καὶ  ἀκόλαστον). 122  

[BSM.net]:

[Actually another rendering of this phrase which appears in a number of Aristotle's writings is

τὸν σώφρονα      καὶ  ἀκόλαστον

the wise [least]    and  least

from the Greek word σοφός [sophos] Str #4533 meaning wise [one]

The meaning depends upon the context of the passage it is located in. Without the rest of the context which was not provided in this paper by Wallace, it is difficult to determine what is meant by the Greek construction or if a grammatical writing error by the author or translator is present.

There is something skeptical to be said about grammatical errors in Greek writings that appear outside of Scripture which are not inspired - especially when comparing them to what the Bible says. This phrase might demand a TDATD / TSKTS construction with an extra definite article in order to convey two separate groups of humanity, the one disciplined [wise] and the other undisciplined [least].

On the other hand, according to the construction that is reported above without a handle on the context, it is plausible that what is being conveyed is a plurality of individuals, i.e., generic man - humankind in general  - which is in view as a common experience covering all of human kind - a plurality of persons all of whom are either disciplined or undisciplined at one time or the other in one's own mortal life = man can be both disciplined and undisciplined at times in his life. A more detailed understanding of the context is needed]

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

"I have found several more examples from Aristotle and other classical authors which also involve generic nouns. 123  Winstanley grudgingly concedes, “the nouns, though personal, are used in a general or universal sense. In this respect, it must be confessed, they differ materially from those of which you [i.e., Sharp] would correct the common version; and so far may be thought inapplicable . . .” 124  We might, however, in light of Winstanley’s exceptions, modify Sharp’s Rule [#1] to say both that nouns which are plural syntactically and those which are plural semantically (i.e., generic nouns) 125 are not within the purview of the Rule [#1]. Another way to put this is that Sharp’s Rule [#1] applies only to nouns which have an individual referent, as opposed to a class or group. 126 On a deep structure level, then, Sharp’s Rule [#1] has not been subverted by generic singulars.

Secondly, Winstanley cites one clear exception as follows:

ii) Septuagint

******

ii_a) Prov 24:21 from the LXX which was overlooked by Sharp which reads:

“fear   [the]      God,             O   son    and          king”
φοβοῦ [τὸν]      θεόν,           
o    υἱέ    καὶ          βασιλέα).


יְרָא-אֶת-יְהוָה

fear Yahweh [God]

בְּנִי

O my son

וָמֶלֶךְ

and the king

[BSM.net]:

[The Hebrew word יְהוָה rendered God in Hebrew lacks the article as always. It needs no article to be considered definite. The addition of the article in the Greek by the translators was evidently added so that the meaning would not be disrupted. On the other hand, the article was not inserted before "βασιλέα" rendered [human] king which resulted in equating God with a human king. This was an uninspired / ungrammatical / non-contextual editorial decision which perhaps has more to do with rhythm and the poetic flow of the translated language rather than being faithful to the original meaning in the Hebrew. In Wallace's words: "the article is frequently dispensed with for metrical convenience" at the sacrifice of accuracy]

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

"Kuehne argues that the LXX translator here is merely being slavishly faithful to his underlying Hebrew text. 127 This is only partially true. The Hebrew reads

יְרָא-אֶת-יְהוָה

fear Yahweh [God]

בְּנִי

O my son

וָמֶלֶךְ

and the king

[The Hebrew word] יְהוָה rendered God which in Hebrew] lacks the article as always; it needs no article to be considered definite. This fact, coupled with the presence of the direct object marker "-" which is used almost exclusively with definite nouns 128 - renders the noun as virtually the equivalent of an articular noun. Thus, if יהוה is to be translated with a word other than κύριος, [Lord] we might well expect the article to be employed. Indeed, the LXX of Proverbs occasionally translates יהוה with the articular θεός (cf. Prov 3:7, 19; 5:21; 15:29; 19:3) rather than with κύριος, perhaps due to metric considerations. Thus, although יהוה is not arthrous, ὁ θεός fairly represents its syntactical force. The LXX is not, then, slavishly literal, but may in fact be closer to a dynamic equivalence. 129 If so, why then would βασιλέα be anarthrous? Why would the translator begin with a syntactically equivalent translation (ὁ θεός) and then in midstream change to a formally equivalent one? Three possible explanations present themselves. First, consistency is hardly the hallmark of the LXX translators, especially in the later books. Juggling two dissimilar languages creates special problems. Not infrequently, translators vacillate between formal fidelity (which creates abnormal grammar in the receptor language) and dynamic equivalence (which poorly reflects on the structure of the original). When both principles are at work in a given sentence, the results can be erratic. In this case, the flow of the sentence is disrupted by the vocative. Having made the choice to translate יהוה with ὁ θεός, the translator may have been distracted by the the vocative immediately following. To render מלךְ as τὸν βασιλέα would have been an easy oversight. Had the translator rendered יהוה as κύριον, there would have been no problem leaving βασιλέα [= Kingdom] anarthrous. When coupled with the occasional practice of translating יהוה with ὁ θεός, the result seems to be an unintentional violation of normal Greek grammar.

A second explanation is that the choice may have been conscious. Since the vocative [a word referring back to the one addressed / in view] υἱέ [son] stands between the two accusative nouns, the translator may have felt that the syntactical infraction was insignificant in comparison with retaining the correspondence [the harmony] with the Hebrew. What renders this at least plausible is the fact that although the TSKS personal singular construction follows Sharp’s Rule [#1] even when there is interference from a variety of grammatical forms (such as adjectives or possessive pronouns), almost none of the examples in the NT or papyri have an unconnected substantive interfering with the TSKS. That is to say, the intervening nominals [regarding nouns] and adnominals [regarding words that modify nouns] in the TSKS construction are almost always syntactically subordinated to the elements in the construction. 130 Thus it is distinctly possible that a vocative [a word referring back to the one addressed / in view] in the middle of two accusatives [words referring to the direct object] would sufficiently disrupt the semantics. Certainly a vocative is more disruptive than a possessive pronoun precisely because it is not in any way syntactically linked to the substantives in the construction. However, since we know of no parallel instances, this suggestion must remain speculative. 131

A third possible explanation is that poetic license may have played a role in the syntactical choices. The LXX translator of the Proverbs is apparently concerned with Greek meter as well as other poetic features. 132  The syntax of poetry is known to deviate from that of prose in many and substantial ways. 133 Some of these are inexplicable, but nevertheless observed. In particular, the article is frequently dispensed with for metrical convenience. 134

Regarding these possible explanations, it must be admitted that all are somewhat speculative. On any reckoning, Prov 24:21 must be considered an anomaly and hardly representative of the idiom of koine Greek. Nevertheless, it does stand as an exception to Sharp’s Rule [#1]. Whatever the exact reason for this solecism, [= deviation from the normal grammatical rules of 1st century Greek] it is almost surely tied to the LXX as translation Greek. Thus, we might modify Sharp’s Rule [#1] still further by saying that sometimes (once - so far) translation Greek will violate the Rule [#1], if the base language has a contrary construction. 135 Whether this will have a bearing on the christologically significant texts will be developed in the following section.

iii) Herodotus

Thirdly, Winstanley cites an exception which Middleton had discovered and had quite a bit of difficulty with. In Herodotus’ Histories 4.71 we read of

“the cup-bearer and cook         and groom        and servant    and messenger”

(τὸν οἰνοχόον    καὶ   μάγειρον καὶ  ἱπποκόμον καὶ διήκονον  καὶ ἀγγελιηφόρον).

Middleton felt it was impossible that this could refer to one person. In a sense, he equivocated on the text, for he mentioned that he had not had a chance to look at a good edition of Herodotus to see if such was really the reading. I have - and it is. 136 Further, Middleton argued that this was the only instance he had found anywhere in Greek in which one article preceded several nouns of personal description. 137 Clearly, he had a problem with this text. Yet, elsewhere in his grammar, Middleton dealt with the phenomenon of “enumeration” - i.e., instances in which three or more nouns are strung together. And in that section Middleton noted that even the best authors did not follow their normal practice with reference to the article. 138 Other grammarians also point out the problem of enumeration, noting, in effect, that in lists of three or more terms, there is a greater tendency to omit the article when it would otherwise be appropriate. 139 

A linguistic reason can be given for this phenomenon as well. When TSKS fits the Rule [#1], the second substantive either further identifies or describes or clarifies something about the first. If so, then typically a third epithet would be superfluous. 140 Unless there are special contextual reasons for the third being there - in particular, to stress the multi-functional character of the person in view, we might in fact normally expect enumerations to indicate more than one individual.

iii_a) Compare Phil 2:25

Phil 2:25 affords an excellent illustration of such multi-functional emphasis:

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;"

᾿Επαφρόδιτον    τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ   συνεργὸν        καὶ συστρατιώτην μου, ὑμῶν δὲ    ἀπόστολον  καὶ  λειτουργὸν
"Ephaphroditus the brother   and  fellow worker and fellow soldier   my,  your  also messenger and minister

τῆς     χρείας μου.
to the need    my.

The five-fold accolade of Epaphroditus 141 by the apostle bears an implicitly apologetic tone. The church at Philippi had sent Epaphroditus, hoping that Paul would retain him as his assistant and send Timothy back to them (Phil. 2:19-30). Paul, however, was unwilling to send Timothy until he found out more about his own circumstances.  Instead, he decided to send Epaphroditus back (Phil. 2:25-30). Inter alia [= among other things], this epistle is a diplomatic reintroduction of Epaphroditus in light of the Philippians’ hope that Timothy would be sent. 142 In light of this, one can readily see why the apostle would speak so highly of Epaphroditus - and further, why he would build up Epaphroditus before the Philippians as a genuine co-worker (“My brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier”) as well as a truly unselfish emissary (“but your apostle and minister to my need”).

Epaphroditus embodies the very attitude Paul desires of the Philippians. In taking him back, they would become like him. That the multiple TSKS construction has a singular referent, in this instance, is not superfluous, but necessary. 143

We might therefore, in refining Sharp’s Rule [#1] still further, add that where several nouns are involved in the construction it may or may not follow the Rule [#1]. 144 Contextual considerations in which reasons for a trebled or quadrupled identification can be detected (such as in Phil 2:25) are normally required if an identical referent is to be inferred.

[BSM.net]:

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 a 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!]

iv) Patristic Writings

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

"Finally, Winstanley put forth as his trump card a few examples from patristic literature in which, if Sharp’s Rule [#1] applied, the personal distinctions within the Trinity would seem to be blurred. But as these illustrations all come from patristic literature and have a specific content, viz [=namely] references to the Trinity, we will subsume our discussion of them under the christological cruces in the next section.

v) Strabo

One other apparent category of exceptions - and the only one to escape the careful eye of Winstanley - comes from Strabo. 145  In his Geography 17.1.11, Strabo writes as follows: 146

'For Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, succeeded Alexander, and Philadelphus succeeded him, and Euergetes succeeded him, then came Philopater, the son of Agathocleia, then Epiphanes, then Philomater, the son perpetually succeeding the father. But a brother succeeded [Philometer], the second Euergetes, whom people called “Pot-Belly”; Ptolemy who succeeded him, was nick-named Lathouros, and Auletes, who lived in our day, succeeded him and was the father of Cleopatra. Therefore, all [the kings] after the third Ptolemy, since they had been corrupted by wantonness, governed badly, but the fourth and seventh were the worst, along with the last one, Auletes.

In his description of Epiphanes and Ptolemy as “the fourth and seventh,” Strabo uses the TSKS construction: ὁ τέταρτος καὶ ἕβδομος. This is a clear violation of Sharp’s canon - and one which does not fit the other categories of exceptions which we have discovered thus far. For this reason it is a rather noteworthy text. It is interesting that Strabo adds “and the last” (καὶ ὁ ὕστατος) with the article. One might conjecture that in a list of this sort, where “the fourth” cannot possibly refer to the same person as “the seventh,” the article could easily be omitted, while since “the seventh” and “the last” could, in a given context, refer to the same person, the article is necessarily reinserted. (It could even happen in this context from a reader’s perspective, for unless one is consciously counting the rulers, some confusion is most likely). Hence, Strabo offers an example of a fifth category of exceptions to Sharp’s rule [Sharp's Rule #1]: ordinal numerals, when having a personal referent, do not necessarily fit the rule. Although it could be argued that the discrete referents can easily be fleshed out, such an argument would be perilously close to the weak-wristed approach of Middleton 147 regarding patristic Greek to the effect that “we all know that the Father is not the Son; hence there could be no confusion.

From both the linguistic side and the phenomenological side [experiential / known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition], however, ordinal numerals do seem to constitute a special class. First, linguistically, even Middleton recognized “their natural definiteness.” 148 Except in situations such as anaphora [i.e., as in using a word as a reference word as a grammatical substitute for a noun)], they rarely require the article. Hence, they do not function like the usual common epithet. Indeed, ordinal numerals typically have “denotation but no connotation, reference but no sense.” 149 In this respect they function very much like proper names and therefore tend to move in semantic circles outside the ambit [circle] of Sharp’s requirements [for his Rule #1]."

[BSM.net]:

[It seems plausible that the TSKS construction: " ὁ τέταρτος καὶ ἕβδομος" rendered "the fourth and seventh" refers to the fourth and seventh ruler named Ptolemy in the Ptolemaic dynasty, as opposed to the fourth and seventh ruler in Strabo's list. There were many rulers in the Ptolemaic family tree named Ptolemy. Hence they may be distinguishable from one another as a result of the ordinal adjectives to which Strabo refers not from counting down his list but referring to the 4th and 7th ruler named Ptolemy historically speaking; i.e., Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy VII. Whereupon follows the phrase which includes the definite article, "καὶ ὁ ὕστατος" rendered "and the last, referring to Auletes. In any case this is a minimal departure from Sharp's Rule #1 in the use of the definite article for a unique, identity of a single person. If it is determined that Strabo made a grammatical error, and although Strabo and his writings may be revered by some, they are not infallible and are not God inspired. So this kind of exception is not cause to exclude all ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives 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). Those particular examples that are to be excluded on a case for case basis are those whose contexts do not match up with the normative rules of language, context and logic ]

vi) Sophocles

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

"Second, phenomenologically, [phenomenological = experiential / known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition] this example is paralleled in another writer, the tragedian Sophocles. Moorhouse has noted that the article is used in Sophocles “With ordinal numerals in a series     . . . but [is] omitted with ἕκτος, ἕβδομος, ἕνατος.” 150 Whether the syntax of Sophocles is idiolectic [linguistically frozen in the time of his writings because language evolves over time] and shut up to this particular playwright (or even to poetry more generally) or is a more widely diffused idiom native to Greek literature, even diachronically defined, is difficult to assess without a larger data base. But in the least we can say that, linguistically, ordinals behave more like proper names than common nouns (for as quantifiers they are used to identify, not describe) and, phenomenologically, [phenomenological = experiential / known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition] there may be an idiomatic usage of the article in more than one author.

[BSM.net]:

[There is not enough information offered here in this study to accurately determine what Sophocles is saying. If it is determined that Sophocles made a grammatical error, and although Sophocles and his writings may be revered by some, they are not infallible and are not God inspired. So this kind of exception is not cause to exclude all ordinal / alpha numeric adjectives 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). Those particular examples that are to be excluded on a case for case basis are those whose contexts do not match up with the normative rules of language, context and logic ]

D) SUMMARY

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

"We have seen that Sharp’s Rule [#1], when properly understood, [is] not only supported by decent linguistic rationale, but has overwhelming validity in ancient Greek literature. Further, the few classes of exceptions all seem to be capable of linguistic explanation ...

[BSM.net]:

******

[Exceptions have often been falsely made because

1) The context has not been properly investigated,   or

2) the context does not meet the stipulations of the Granville Sharp Rule #1 although it does qualify for one of the other categories that fit one of Sharp's other rules 7;  or

3) there are grammatical errors written by fallible uninspired authors such as improperly translated Greek from the Hebrew Bible (LXX);   or

4) they are meant to support a false theological / contextual premise that the words do not actually convey].

IV) THE CHRISTOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT TEXTS

A) Sharp’s Application To Christologically Significant Texts Does Not Require Unwarranted Exceptions If The Text Is Properly Interpreted

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

"Nevertheless, as this is a paper primarily related to the NT, with other Greek literature serving in a supportive role, the overarching issue is not about the inviolability of Sharp’s Rule [#1] in secular Greek. What is of utmost concern is whether it can be legitimately applied to the [christological texts from Scripture]. What will need to be addressed in the next section, inter alia,
[among other things] is whether the classes of exceptions in any way impinge on the validity of the Rule [#1] when potential affirmations of the deity of Christ are in view.

If the christologically significant texts fit the requirements for Sharp’s Rule [#1], then the case would seem to be settled. Perhaps this is why a perennial argument against affirmations of Christ’s deity in these texts is that the nouns in question do not quite fit the contours of Sharp’s canon.

Based on what he correctly perceived to be an otherwise absolute principle of NT grammar, Sharp argued that there are eight passages in which his Rule [#1] explicitly affirmed the deity of Christ. Unfortunately, his case was weakened in some of these instances either because of textual problems or because one of the nouns involved was more than likely a proper name.

[BSM.net]:

[Exceptions have often been falsely made because

1) The context has not been properly investigated, or

2) the context does not meet the stipulations of the Granville Sharp Rule #1 including passing all the exceptions although it nevertheless qualifies under one of the other categories that fit one of Sharp's other rules 7; or

3) there are grammatical errors written by fallible uninspired authors such as improperly translated Greek from the Hebrew Bible (LXX); or

4) they are meant to support a false theological / contextual premise that the words do not actually convey

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 219]

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

The eight passages are as follows:

[BSM.net]:

******

1) Acts 20:28

(Acts 20:28 NASB) "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

τὴν  ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ     θεοῦ, ἣν                      περιεποιήσατο διὰ   τοῦ  ἰδίου αἵματος
“the church       of the God,  which He [God] purchased        with  his  own   blood”

The manuscripts which have "church of the God" have the earliest manuscripts, Sinaiticus and B and the support of the rest of Scripture. There are no occurrences of "church of the Lord in the rest of Scripture which is attested in Acts 20:28 by P74, A, C*, D, E, Psi, 33, 1739. A third rendering, "the church of the Lord and God," has C3 - a lone manuscript which is dated later than Sinaiticus and B, making it the least plausible manuscript evidence of the three possibilities, albeit it meets the formula of TSKS with a single "the" and two nouns, Lord and God. However the proper nouns need to be explained, for the context does not demand that the Lord and God are the same unless other passages are brought to bear on this verse which stipulate that the LORD Jesus Christ and God are one. The original text of this phrase in Acts 20:28 to read "the church of the Lord and God" was evidently changed because of the phrase which follows, namely "purchased with His [God's] own blood." Note that the last phrase of Acts 20:28 has some less plausible manuscript evidence with the words "purchased with the blood of His [God's] own Son" - evidently also a change made in order to avoid the problem of God having blood, rather than the Humanity of His own Son. All in all, this verse is best rendered as in the NASB quoted above, as well as the YLT, NKJV, HOLMAN, KJV and NIV. The less favorable rendering may be found in the ASV and a few others.

******

2) Eph 5:5

ἐν  τῇ   βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ  θεοῦ
“in the kingdom of    Christ     and God”

The unique expression "kingdom of Christ and God," (P49, Sinaiticus, A, B, Maj) found in a vast array of witnesses, was adjusted in several ways. The scribe of P46 trimmed it to the ordinary expression, "the kingdom of God," (P46); other Western witnesses reveal a transposition, which puts "God" before "Christ," (F, G, Ambrosiaster); and still others also made "Christ subservient to "God" by changing the "kai" to "tou ," = "the kingdom of the Christ of God," (1739). All of these changes display a discomfort with having "Christ" prior to "God" or even having "Christ" present at all. But the grammar of the WH NU reading indicates an equality of God and Christ, Who rule the kingdom as One God.

******

3) 2 Thes 1:12

(2 Thes 1:12 NASB) "so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and ... Lord Jesus Christ."

τὴν  χάριν τοῦ     θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“the grace of the God  our    and Lord      Jesus Christ”

The above TDAD / TSKS construction indicates a unique identity of a singular Person, the proper names "θεοῦ" and "κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ" notwithstanding

******

4) 1 Tim 5:21

διαμαρτύρομαι    ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ   Χριστοῦ  ᾿Ιησοῦ
“I charge you       before    the God  and   Christ   Jesus”

According to WH, NU, the rendering is, "I charge you before God and Christ Jesus," which has the best documentary evidence: Sinaiticus, A, D*, G, 33, cop and Clement. Other manuscripts support is much less supportive: "Jesus Christ," (F, Psi, 1739; or "Lord Jesus Christ," (D2, Maj, syr).

Sharp's choice was the rendering, "the Lord Jesus Christ," which was the least favorable and prompts contenders to disqualify it as fitting his rule #1 in view of the proper nouns it contains - despite the fact that the exclusion of this proper noun and many others is unwarranted because they are unique in their particular contexts ]

5) 2 Tim 4:1
διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Χριστοῦ  ᾿Ιησοῦ
“I charge you    before    the  God  and Lord   Jesus Christ"

According to WH, NU, the rendering is, "I charge you before God and Christ Jesus," which has the best documentary evidence: Sinaiticus, A, C, D org, , P, bo, Gries, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, Weis, Sod Ubs. Other manuscripts support is much less supportive: "the Lord Jesus Christ," (D-corr, K, L, byz).

Sharp's choice was the rendering, "and Jesus Christ" evidently leaving out the definite article "tou" = "the"

6) 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

7) 2 Pet 1:1

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

******

8) Jude 4

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

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

" Sharp invoked dubious textual variants in four of the eight texts to support his Rule [#1] (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Jude 4)." 151 

[BSM.net]:

[Actually the Jude 4 variant that Sharp invoked is the best attested to text which has "Theon" rendered God which is attested to by p72, Sinaiticus, A, B, C, Sa, bo, Gries, Lach, Treg, Alf, Word, Tisc, WH, Weis, Sod, UBS. The text which omits "Theon" has only K, L, P, byz manuscripts supporting it]

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

"As well, in 1 Tim 5:21 and 2 Tim 4:1, if the almost certainly authentic reading of τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ  ᾿Ιησοῦ (for τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Χριστοῦ  ᾿Ιησοῦ) is accepted, then the text can also be dispensed with, for “Christ Jesus” is surely a proper name, and thus does not fall within the limitations of Sharp’s Rule [#1].

"Further, two other passages seem to involve proper names. Second Thessalonians 1:12 does not have merely “Lord” in the equation, but “Lord Jesus Christ.” Only by detaching κυρίου from ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 152 could one apply Sharp’s Rule [#1] to this construction. 153  Ephesians 5:5 has the name “Christ” in the equation, though one would be hard-pressed to view this as less than a proper name in the epistles. 154

[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 219]

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

"This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1, which have escaped the difficulties of textual uncertainty 155 and the charge of disqualification via proper names. 156 If indeed these texts contain explicit statements of Christ’s deity, it is not without significance that they occur in epistles which are among the later books of the NT. Before we can explore more fully these texts, it is necessary to expand our horizons on the legitimacy of Sharp’s principle. That is to say, two other factors directly related to these passages should be addressed. 157

[BSM.net]:

[Titus 2:13 - 2 Pet 1:1 ]

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

"In the preceding section we established that the natural force of the personal, singular, non-proper substantives in Sharp’s construction was to have an identical referent. This was determined through linguistic channels, both negatively (an assessment of the TSKS construction when it deflected from Sharp’s requirements) and positively. It was also determined to be at least a generally valid principle on the basis of evidence, both in the NT and in extra-NT literature."

[BSM.net]:

[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. ]

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

"In addition, there are two other strands of evidence which strongly suggest the validity of Sharp’s canon in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1. First is the patristic confirmation of the Rule [#1]. Second is the usage of θεὸς σωτήρ [God Savior] in the koine period."

B) Additional Testing Of Passages Outside Of The Bible Validates Sharp's Rule #1 Provided The Texts Are Properly Interpreted Via The Normative Rules of Language, Context And Logic

1) Patristic Writings On Christological Texts Confirm Sharp's Rule #1

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

'''This strand of evidence does not deal with the article-noun-καί-noun construction in general, but only with the christologically significant texts. In 1802 a fellow (and later, master) of Trinity College in Cambridge, Christopher Wordsworth, published his Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. Respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, in the Greek Text of the New Testament. 158 Wordsworth tested Sharp’s principle in the patristic literature. He felt that if the principle was valid, then the Greek fathers would certainly have understood the christologically significant texts in the same way that Sharp had. Further, he believed that the Latin fathers, on the assumption of the [rule's] validity, would not have uniformly understood the same texts as referring to one person since there is no article in Latin, rendering their translations more obscure. On the other hand, if Sharp’s Rule [#1] [were] a figment of his own imagination, then the Greek fathers, as well as Latin, would not be uniform in their understanding. 159

Wordsworth found plenty of patristic evidence. Interestingly, since Acts 20:28; 2 Tim 4:1; and Jude 4 were textually suspect, he found very little evidence in the fathers with the reading preferred by Sharp. 160 Further, he found no fathers to confirm Sharp’s interpretation of 1 Tim 5:21  and urged Sharp to abandon his view of this text, arguing that “Christ Jesus” is a proper name. 161

[BSM.net]:

[]

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

'''Concerning 2 Thes 1:12 he states that “my references are few; so few, that at the most, I have not more than one quotation, exclusive of those which are derived from the regular commentators: and so indeterminate, that in all which I can produce, there is not one of the passages which is decisive, either way, with respect to the required interpretation.” ''' 162

[BSM.net]:

[]

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

"Nevertheless, Wordsworth felt that these passages did not impinge on the Rule [#1], for Sharp had either appealed to textual variants in some of these passages (which variants the fathers did not embrace), or else invoked passages which involved proper names. In other words, the Greek patristic writers not only implicitly knew of the requirements of Sharp’s canon, but understood them better than Sharp did himself!

Concerning the remaining three passages (Eph 5:5 ; Titus 2:13 ; and 2 Pet 1:1 ), he noted that they were all used frequently, from the second century on."

[BSM.net]:

[(Eph 5:5 ; Titus 2:13 ; and 2 Pet 1:1 ]

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

"Indeed, he became quite convinced that Sharp had articulated such a sound principle that at one point he [Wordsworth] declared, 'I fully believe, that there is no one exception to your first rule in the whole New Testament: and the assertion might be extended infinitely further. But, in all other places, (whatever it may be in those concerning which we are particularly interested) having, under your guidance, examined them, I am persuaded that the idiom is not 'anceps,' [poetic term] not 'ambiguum,' [indecisive, going back and forth] Nay, may I not venture to add, that the Greek must be a strange language, if such a thing were possible?' 163

After an exhaustive investigation, from Greek Christian literature covering a span of over 1000 years, Wordsworth was able to make the astounding comment,

"I have observed more (I am persuaded) than a thousand instances of the form ὁ Χριστος και Θεος [the Christ and God] (Eph 5:5)[,] some hundreds of instances of the ὁ μεγας θεος και σωτηρ [the great God and Savior] (Tit. 2:13); and not fewer than several thousands of the form ὁ θεος και σωτηρ [the God and Savior] (2 Pet. 1:1.), while in no single case, have I seen (where the sense could be determined) any of them used, but only of one person. 164

On the surface, the massive research of Christopher Wordsworth looks rather impressive. However, we need to inquire further:

(1) Did some of the orthodox fathers use these passages as proof texts in their debates with Arians?  If so, this might imply that such texts had an obvious force to natives of the Greek tongue - one which both friend and foe could perceive. If not, it may well be that the fathers found ready at hand an expression in certain passages which they could use to speak of Christ’s deity, but which nevertheless did not necessarily convey that meaning originally. 165 

(2) Did the orthodox Latin fathers use the same verses in a less-than-uniform manner? If not, our suspicion that the phrase itself, rather than the meaning of the biblical text, was what prompted the unequivocal usage. 

(3) Did any second or third century fathers use these same texts in defense of Christ’s deity? If not, again we may perhaps discount the patristic usage as informed by set idiom and creedal formulation.

Without belaboring the issue, we can answer in the affirmative on all three counts. Wordsworth quotes a number of fathers who used these passages as proofs against Arianism - in fact, he even finds a few Arians who conceded the syntax of the construction to their opponents. For example, regarding Titus 2:13 he argues that the interpretation of our version [KJV] was never once thought of in any part of the Christian world, even when Arianism was triumphant over the Catholic faith. Surely, this fact, [sic] might of itself suffice to overturn every notion of an ambiguity in the form of expression. 166

The Latin fathers (even those whose orthodoxy was unquestioned) were inconsistent in the use of these texts, betraying that the uniformity in the Greek fathers was probably due to Greek syntax, not to nascent creedalism [evolving beliefs]. 167 And some second/third century fathers did, indeed, use these texts as proofs of the deity of Christ. 168 For whatever the Greek patristic testimony is worth, 169 at least we can say that it points only in one direction.''' 170

2) Θεός And Σωτήρ [God And Savior] In The Bible And In Extra Biblical Writings Of The First Century

a) The first century extra biblical writing did not influence the meaning of "Θεός kai Σωτήρ" [God and Savior] in the New Testament Greek Bible, The Old Testament Hebrew Bible did

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

"A second confirmation (related to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1) can be found in the juxtaposition of θεός and σωτήρ [God and Savior] in the milieu of the first Christian century. Several scholars have pointed out the fact that θεός and σωτήρ were often predicated of one person in the ancient world. Some, in fact, have assumed that θεὸς σωτήρ was predicated of Jesus only after 70 CE and in direct opposition to the imperial cult [religion of Rome re: worshipping the Emperor]. 171 Although it is probable that hellenistic religious usage helped the church in how it expressed its Christology, the primary impetus for the content of that Christology more than likely came from a different source. Moehlmann, in his dissertation on this topic, 172 after canvassing the use of the two terms in Greco-Roman civilization, argues that in Jewish literature (including the OT) σωτήρ [Savior] was “usually associated with and generally restricted to God.” 173  He then argues, convincingly I think, that the use of this double epithet for Jesus was due to the growing conviction of the primitive church that Christ was in fact divine."

To put it tersely, to say soter [BSM.net: "soter" = "σωτήρ"= "savior"] was to say theos. When the author of the epistle to Titus says, “looking for the blessed hope and epiphany [appearing] of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” he summarizes the ordinary content of the soter-idea in the culture of his day. Theos soter is a rather fixed, inseparable combination in the civilization of the Roman empire. “No one could be a god any longer unless he was also a savior” had its complement in no one could be a savior without being a god. 174

But what about the precise expression θεὸς σωτήρ? [God Savior]? Whence did it come - and was it ever used of more than one person? Within the pages of the LXX, one finds this exact construction on only one or two occasions. 175  It is consequently quite doubtful that the OT, or more generally, Judaism, was the primary source for such a phrase.

Further confirmation of this is found in the syntax of the construction. The Hebrew OT only rarely has the personal, singular article-noun-waw-noun [TDAD] construction. That is to say, only rarely is this construction found in which the waw connects the two substantives. 176 And when it does so, the semantics are mixed. The LXX almost uniformly renders such a construction as other than a TSKS construction. 177  Thus, neither the general syntactic structure of TSKS nor the specific lexemes of [words which signify] θεός and σωτήρ in such a construction can be attributable to OT influence.

Moulton lists several instances of this expression as referring to Roman emperors, though all but one of them dates from the seventh century CE. 178 But there are earlier uses of the phrase circulating in hellenistic circles - and not a few which antedate the NT. 179 Harris, in fact, argues that “the expression ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ [the God and Savior] was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology . . . and invariably denoted one deity, not two.” 180 More than likely, then, the expression should be traced to non-Jewish sources, especially those relating to emperor-worship. At the same time, “the early Christian texts which call Jesus ‘Saviour’ nowhere exhibit a view of the Soter related to the Hellenistic concept.” 181 Cullmann is surely right that Hellenism accounts for the form, Judaism for the content of the expression, 182 for the juxtaposition of θεός and σωτήρ (though almost always without a connective καί) was a well-established idiom for the early Christians already resident within the pages of their Bible. 183

Nevertheless, regardless of the source of the expression, the use in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 of this idiom is almost certainly a reference to one person, confirming once again Sharp’s assessment of the phrase." 184

[BSM.net]:

[The doctrines of the Bible did not evolve. They are evident in the original text as properly translated and interpreted - both Hebrew and koine Greek Bibles:

1) The Greek Bible - the 37 books of the New Testament - have numerous passages which indicate that they are a precise fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible - the 39 books of the Old Testament especially relative to the promised Messiah to come - the One and only God and Savior, Jesus Christ . So the God and Savior of the Hebrew Bible is a unique God and there is no other; and He is the God and Savior of the Greek Bible and there is no other, (Isa 45:21; Hos 13:4; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet 1:1; Jn 3:16).

2) Extra biblical writings in Greek and other languages may have some similarities to what is stipulated in the Bible, but anything that is not precisely identical to the context of the Bible especially as it relates to Who the God and Savior and Jesus Christ is must be verified by a careful comparison with inspired Scripture.

3) 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 :

i) [Compare Jude 1:24-25]:

(Jude 1:24 NASB) "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,

(Jude 1:25 NASB) to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."

And this message occurs in Titus more than several times - indirectly and directly - both God and Christ Jesus / Jesus Christ are the One and only Savior - both are the same Savior:

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

on Titus

(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."

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

"In sum, Sharp’s Rule [#1] outside of the NT has been very strongly confirmed both in the classical authors and in the koine. And although a few possible exceptions to his Rule [#1] were found in the literature, the phrase ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ [the God and Savior] (Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1) admitted of no exceptions - either in Christian or secular writings. Ironically, then, the very passages in which Sharp sought to prove his Rule [#1] have become among the least contestable in their singular referentiality. Indeed, the researches of Wendland, Moulton, Moehlmann, Cullmann, et al., are so compelling that exegetes nowadays are more apt to deny Paul and Peter than they are Christ 185 - that is to say, precisely because of the high Christology of Titus and 2 Peter the authenticity of these letters is usually denied. 186 In this connection, it is noteworthy that Winer, whose theological argument against Sharp’s canon in Titus 2:13 influenced so many, held to Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Indeed, it was “considerations from Paul’s system of doctrine” which forced him to deny the validity of the Rule [#1]. 187 These two issues - apostolic authorship and Christology - are consequently pitted against each other in these texts, and the opinions of a scholar in one area too often cloud his judgment in the other. 188 Entirely apart from questions of authorship, however, we believe that the evidence adduced thus far firmly supports Sharp’s canon as it applies to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1. What remains to be done is an examination of the substantive arguments against, and especially the alleged exceptions to, Sharp’s principle."

[BSM.net]:

[On the other hand, 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 which is followed by selecting the category that best fits the context ]

C) Arguments Against Exceptions To Sharp's Rule #1

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

"Arguments against Sharp’s canon take two forms: first, arguments against its application to the christologically significant texts; and second, exceptions to the Rule [#1] in general. As we have dealt extensively with the second issue, this section (with which we begin) will merely summarize our findings.

1) General Syntactical Considerations Favor Following The Normative Rules Of Language, Context And Logic

As we saw earlier, four classes of exceptions to Sharp’s canon have been detected in Greek literature (though none in the NT). We raised serious linguistic arguments against them being genuine exceptions, noting however the possibility of blunting Occam’s razor [i.e., the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex] with the resultant complexities that our explanation may have suggested. In this section we wish to make a simple observation: even if every one of our linguistic explanations proved invalid, none of the exceptions impacts the christologically significant texts. 

First of all, generic singulars [singular nouns which refer to semantic plurality, such as "every one," or "each man" or "the believer who"] were seen to be outside the scope of Sharp’s canon on a rare occasion."

[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 ]

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

"We suggested that although such substantives were singular in form they were plural in semantic force.) Such nominals of course would make no impact on the theological cruces [problems], because neither θεός [God] nor σωτήρ [Savior] are functioning as generics in Titus 2:13 or 2 Pet 1:1 - [both words are actually singular / semantically unique in the context that they are imbedded in].

Second, one example of translation Greek (Prov 24:21) proved to be a violation of Sharp’s principle [due to the fact that Hebrew has no definite article and thus affords it being omitted in a Greek translation]. This again does not impact the christologically pregnant texts, for two reasons. 

(1) The personal singular article-substantive-καί-substantive construction is almost never found in either the Hebrew OT or the LXX. Thus, syntactically, we could not argue that such a construction typically represented translation Greek. (Again, only one instance was uncovered in the LXX.) 

(2) More importantly, the expression ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ [the God and Savior] was [not] found to be a Jewish concept but a Greek form. Thus, this precise phrase cannot be considered translation Greek."

[BSM]:

[Actually, it is a huge Jewish concept as stipulated throughout the Hebrew Bible, (ref. 2 Sa 22:3; Ps 106:21; Isa 43:3; 45:15, 21; Hos 13:4) - far greater than a concept that was described in this paper as a primarily a Greek form. God as Savior is stipulated in the prophets as God saving Israel unto their dwelling in the eternal kingdom of God as part of His future covenant with His people Israel, ]

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

"(3) Third, instances involving three or more nominals, known as enumeration, were found to violate the Rule [#1]. One example from Attic Greek [= the literary language of the Greek speaking world in the 1st century] and one from koine were produced.  Again, although a linguistic explanation was offered for this phenomenon, it is obviously irrelevant to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, for only two substantives are used in the constructions in these texts."

[BSM.net]:

[It is not evident that proper names must be excepted from consideration in a TDAD / TSKS construction including enumeration, i.e. more than one nominal / substantive / description. 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]

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

"(4) Finally, one instance involving ordinal numerals was discovered to violate Sharp’s Rule [#1]. We suggested that ordinal numerals behave very much like proper names. Further, some evidence was located which may imply a broadly based idiom for the dropping of the article with ordinals in lists (particularly ἕβδομος [seven], as in our one text from Strabo). Nevertheless, whether due to idiom or analogy to proper names, this category bears no force on the debatable NT texts."

[BSM.net]:

[Strabo's excerpt may have a grammatical error, or it may be misinterpreted here it due to lack of attention to the context, etc. or it may simply be a uninspired writer writing about unscriptural subjects.

Furthermore, 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)]

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

"In conclusion, we must stress the methodological imperative for making a close examination of a given structure’s semantic situation. Too many faulty syntactical deductions are made because the attendant lexical [grammatical] and morphological features [grammatical forms] are not observed. Hence, though there are five classes of exceptions to Sharp’s canon, to appeal to such exceptions vis-ą-vis the christologically pregnant texts is both linguistically imprecise and exegetically irresponsible."

[BSM.net]:

[On the other hand, a careful examination of each passage via the normative rules of language, context and logic which has largely been ignored in this study by D. B. Wallace will provide the most reliableinterpretation which will then qualify for one of Sharp's six rules: ]

2) Θεός [Theos] As A Proper Noun And Two Key  Christological Passages On The Deity Of Christ Investigated In The Light Of Sharp's Rule #1

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

"A second kind of argument dealt specifically with the theological cruces [problems]. In many respects the velocity of the diatribe [the speed and volume of arguments against the Deity of Christ] here may suggest a tacit concession of the validity of Sharp’s Rule [#1] in general. That is to say, the main thrust of the theological arguments was still rooted in syntax: adversaries of the “Christ as God” language attempted to give reasons why such texts did not meet Sharp’s requirements.

We are limiting our discussion to two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1, for it is in these passages that the best case can be made. 189 These texts are quite similar, yet each has its own set of complications. We will deal with the one lexical problem mutually shared by them, then take a brief look at the peculiar difficulties each verse involves. Finally, we will address the one syntactical problem that Winstanley raised as that which he perceived to be his coup de grāce."

******

a) Θεός [Theos] As A Proper Name

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

"C. J. Ellicott, in his essay, “Scripture, and its Interpretation,” argues that “Granville Sharp’s Rule [#1] . . . is sound in principle, but, in the case of proper names or quasi-proper names, cannot safely be pressed.” 190 As we have already noted, it can never be pressed in the case of proper names, just as Sharp himself pointed out.

But what about quasi-proper names? Several scholars take θεός to be just that - in fact, it is often considered to be unequivocally a proper name. If indeed it is, then Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 do not identify Christ as God."

[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.

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 ]

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

"Indeed, it [θεός] is the most common noun used in constructions involving Sharp’s Rule [#1]. Without it, our database would be significantly depleted."

(1) First of all, we see that θεός is used in the TSKS construction well over a dozen times in the NT, 191 and always (if we exclude the christologically significant texts) in reference to one person. This phenomenon is not true of any other proper name in said construction."

[BSM.net]:

[On the contrary, there are proper names in TSKS /TDAD constructions which do refer to one person. So 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]

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

"(2) Second, θεός occurs in the plural frequently in the NT, while no other personal proper name does. 1"

[BSM.net]:

[The fact that θεός occurs in the plural frequently in the NT, while no other personal proper name does, is not sufficent to make a point relative to whether or not θεός is a proper noun, or a quasi-proper noun, or a title, or something else - or most importantly, if it is a unique, identity of a single Person satisfying Sharp's Rule #1.

Since there is more than one Judas, Mary, John, James, etc. in Scripture, then this provides the plausibility of the opportunity to write about these proper nouns in plural form, in and out of Scripture. When θεός occurs in the plural it may refer to gods which are not the God of the Bible. And when θεός occurs in the Bible without the definite article, it may be conveying the quality / the essence of God as in Jn 1:1c and elsewhere all over the Bible - New and Old Testaments. These opportunities establish plausibility and negate the rule that they must be excepted from TDAD / TSKS constructions.

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 . In any case, let the context decide on a case for case basis ]

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

 (3) Third, proper names are usually anarthrous [i.e., they are not accompanied by the definite article] (since they need no article to be definite), except in cases of anaphora [i.e., as in cases where words are used as a grammatical substitute], contrast, or other similar reasons; 193 but “in the [nominative case] θεός is used almost always with the [article]” 194 And in the oblique cases other syntactical factors contribute to its definiteness. 195 Hence, even in this respect, it [θεός] is not wholly analogous to proper names."

[BSM.htm]:

[In Jn 1:1b there is an article with θεός rendered God; yet θεός is without the article in Jn 1:1c. This leaves the question to be answered: If the article effects the meaning of θεός, how is the average reader to figure out Who θεός rendered God actually is depending upon whether or not there is an article in the original Greek accompanying the word θεός which the article is not translated in English?

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 with or without the article - 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.

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]

(4) Fourth, even if θεός were to be considered a proper name in certain NT books, the texts in question are in epistles - and, hence, are ostensibly more concerned with the Gentile mission than perhaps, say, the synoptic Gospels might be. In contact with the polytheistic Greco-Roman world, the apostolic writers could hardly use θεός as a proper name."

[BSM.net]:

[To consider a word a proper name in the Gospels and not in the Epistles in accordance with the readership's personal frame of reference is illogical. There is no guarantee that Gentiles will only read the Epistles and not the Gospels; and Jews the Gospels and not the Epistles. If they do, they are liable to become totally confused and interpret θεός in accordance with what is contended by some as having two different meanings for θεός. The readership cannot be expected to establish the context within their own frame of reference and thereby understand what θεός actually means in the Bible. Let the context arrived at via the normative rules of language, context and logic as they apply to the passage in the Bible as it was written decide on a case for case basis without the imposition of a personal frame of reference that is foreign to Scripture]

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

"Indeed, Weiss goes so far as to say 'denn Paulus sagt 1 Kor. 8, 5, dass tatsächlich θεοὶ πολλοί existieren.' 196 Citing such texts as Acts 19:26; 28:6; John 10:34-35; and 2 Thes 2:4, he argues that Paul (as well as other NT writers)

'will ausdrücklich betonen, dass die Wesen, welche die Heiden anbeten, nicht etwa wesenlose Geschöpfe ihrer Phantasie sind, sondern wirklich existieren.  Er behauptet nur, dass sie von seinem Standpunkt aus nicht Götter in vollem Sinne seien . . . , sondern nur in weiteren Sinne (als übermenschliche Wesen) so gennant werden.' "

[BSM.net]:

[Translation of German above: "(Paul) wants to emphasize explicitly that the beings whom the Gentiles worship are not essentially creatures of their imagination, but really exist. He only claims that from his point of view, they are not gods in their fullest sense..., but only in a broader sense (as superhuman beings) to be so called"] 197

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

"In light of arguments such as these, it is no wonder that in Weiss’ careful and comprehensive study of the article with θεός, he concludes that although “die neutestamentlichen Grammatiker rechnen θεός zu den Appellativis, die sich den Eigennamen nähern . . . für θεός trifft das nun keinesfalls zu . . .”

[BSM.net]:

[Translation of German above:

"(although) the New Testament grammarians count 'θεός' to the Appellativis, [adjective of the nature of a noun] who approach the proper name ... for 'θεός' this is by no means true"] 198

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

"(5) Fifth, there is confirmatory evidence in the hellenistic papyri examined for this paper. Three of the four plural personal noun constructions in which an identical referent was seen had θεός for one of the nouns; e.g., “you . . . the great gods and protectors” (ὑμᾶς . . . τοὺς θεοὺς μεγίστους καὶ ἀντιλήμπτορας) in P. Lond. 23 (=UPZ 14).17-18.

In the hellenistic papyri, θεός was always one of the nouns, perhaps suggesting something of an idiomatic expression. Very much against Ellicott’s view, this at least demonstrates that θεός was hardly considered a quasi-proper name in the koine period.

Hellenistic and Roman kings often ascribed the title of θεός to kings, though almost no one took that literally as a statement of belief: it’s better read as a symbol of exaggerated respect. It could be used that way outside of politics too; for example, when the Jewish philosopher Philo describes Plato as θεώτερος (the ending is just the superlative form of θεός) he definitely does not mean that Plato is a god. In some cases you can find Christian writers using this sense relating to, for example, Christians who have become θεοί by adhering to virtue: they have become “divine” — maybe here “holy” would work  - but not deities.

In the Greek version of the Old Testament θεοί is sometimes used to indicate appointed authorities, especially judges, where the Hebrew has Elohim. אֱלֹהִים‎ (showing a different version of the one-many tension present in Greek). If you don’t know about that usage something like ...

i) Ex 7:1 (NASB) "Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς  Μωυσῆν  λέγων ᾿Ιδοὺ     δέδωκά        σε   θεὸν       Φαραω
And the  Lord    spoke to Moses, saying, behold, I have made you as God    to Pharoah

... becomes very surprising."

[BSM.net]:

[In each one of these passages it is evident that the full context arrived at via a proper exercise of the normative rules of language, context and logic portrays its particular meaning for θεὸν - whether in one context it is a noun, or in another context it is a proper noun. Each construction which contains θεὸν fits one of the categories of the TSKS / TDAD construction. Let the context decide on a case for case basis ]

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

ii) Nouns Vs. Proper Nouns Relative To The Greek Words Rendered "God"

"You’ll also run into a fierce technical argument about what to do with the definite article. It’s pretty common for the New Testament to distinguish between capital-G God and other uses of θεός by the use of the definite article: so ὁ Θεός for the Hebrew God, but θεοί πολλοί, “many gods” for angels and other intermediate beings in 1 Corinthians 8:5. How much stress to lay on the presence or absence of the article is a hot topic among some kinds of theologians; if that’s what you’re trying to figure out there are plenty of links here.

In the New Testament, the common word for God is the Greek word "theos." Theos is the basis of the word theology, "the study of God." Theos is used a number of different ways in the New Testament."

[BSM.net]:

[In each one of these passages it is evident that the full context arrived at via a proper exercise of the normative rules of language, context and logic portrays its particular meaning for θεὸν - whether in one context it is a noun, or in another context it is a proper noun. Each construction which contains θεὸν fits one of the categories of the TSKS / TDAD construction. Let the context decide on a case for case basis ]

iii) Θεός [Theos] Can Speak Of The True God

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

"When the true God is spoken of, the word theos is used.
'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God [Theon] and the Word was God'
[Theos] (John 1:1)
It normally refers to the true God. However it can also refer to false gods and even humans."

[BSM.net]:

[Notice that the last phrase of Jn 1:1 has θεός unaccompanied by an article, stressing the qualities of the θεός of this particular context - the God of the Bible as author John has portrayed Him: Old and New Testament. The presence or absence of the article does not determine Who a particular θεός is. The overall context must determine how the words for God or any words are to be understood. And the way you can determine that a word rendered "God" refers to the true God of the Bible is via a careful examination of the passage via the normative rules of language, context and logic in order to accurately determine the context of the passage ; and not by any other means which results in unwarranted / false exceptions:

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 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]

iv) Θεός [Theos] Can Refer To False Gods

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

"The plural form of theos [theoi] can refer to false Gods.
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods [theos] in heaven or on earth - as in fact there are many gods and many lords (1 Corinthians 8:5).

The Greek word translated gods is the plural of theos [theoi]."

[BSM.net]:

[In each one of these passages it is evident that the full context arrived at via a proper exercise of the normative rules of language, context and logic portrays its particular meaning for θεὸν - whether in one context it is the true God of the Bible - the God of the Old and New Testaments, or in another context it is someone else - a false god or gods, a title or titles given to human or physical or imaginary objects. Each construction which contains θεὸν fits one of the categories of the TSKS / TDAD construction. Let the context decide on a case for case basis ]

v) Θεός [Theos] Also Can Mean Humans

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

''''Jesus used the word rendered '''gods''' to refer to human rulers. '''Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods' [theoi]? If those to whom the word of God [Theou] came were called "gods' [theoi] - and the scripture cannot be annulled - can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's [Theou] Son (John 10:34-36)?" ''' ''''

[BSM.net]:

[In view is the Greek word rendered "God" / "gods" in this passage. The context determines which God it is.

Theos is the common word for God in the koine Greek language. It is not necessarily a proper noun. That must be determined by context.

Note that the spelling of God in Greek depends upon grammar: the number and case; not whether or not the God of the Bible is in view.

Theon = God accusative case, Theos = God nominative case, Theou = of God, genetive case, TheO = to God, dative case, etc.

In each one of these passages it is evident that the full context arrived at via a proper exercise of the normative rules of language, context and logic portrays its particular meaning for θεὸν - whether in one context it is the true God of the Bible - the God of the Old and New Testaments, or in another context it is someone else - a false god or gods, a title or titles given to human or physical or imaginary objects. Each construction which contains θεὸν fits one of the categories of the TSKS / TDAD construction. Let the context decide on a case for case basis ]

******

b) TITUS

[BSM.net]:

[i) The context of "God," "Savior," and "Christ Jesus" in Titus 2:13 is unique and refers to the same Savior. Hence Christ Jesus is God and Savior]

******
i_a) [Compare Titus 1:1-4]:

(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.

[The author of the Epistle to Titus, the Apostle Paul was a Pharisee under the Law of Moses, (ref. Phil 3:5) - a Law which was given exclusively to Israel by the God of the Bible . And in Titus 1:1-4, Paul declares that the God of the Bible of his time - the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, was there "before time began," i.e., uncreated, unlike any other god. So Paul's God is the Creator God, the God of Genesis chapter one . And there is no other God besides Him, (Isa 45:5 ). And Paul declares his message which he is preaching was from the Word of God - the Hebrew Bible which he was raised on and by which Bible he became a Pharisee, a teacher of that Bible. And Paul's preaching of the faith was declared to be "for the faith of those chosen of God," i.e., for those of the faith in Christ through faith in Whom God gives the hope of eternal life. And Paul calls that God, "Savior" unto the "[sure ] hope of eternal life."

Note that immediately after this in Titus 1:4, author Paul declares "grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior."

So this God which Paul wrote about cannot be mistaken for a Greek god or some other god just because the spelling of the word rendered "God" is the same, or because there are some gods which the Greeks and others call savior but not precisely a salvation of the same description as the salvation unto eternal life by faith alone in the Savior alone in the Hebrew Bible or the letters that Paul was writing or the rest of the New Testament books. This is so because the God in the context of the Epistle of Titus refers to God's Word, the Hebrew Bible. He is uniquely the God of the Old Testament, the letters of the Apostle Paul and the rest of the Greek New Testament. There is no other God in view. Hence there is no mandate to disqualify Titus 2:13 from corroborating Sharp's Rule [#1]. Nor can one legitimately deny that this verse clearly states that Christ Jesus is our sure hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior.

i_b) [Compare Titus 2:11]:

(Titus 2:11 NKJV) "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"

And after the first 4 verses in Titus chapter; the immediate foreground of Titus 2:13, continues with the statement by writer and Apostle Paul in Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." It refers to the God of the Bible - the Hebrew and Greek Bible uniquely - and to no other God. And this unique God of the Bible, Paul declares, brings salvation - a unique salvation. And that Salvation, Paul declares, has appeared to all men. So an appearance of this salvation - a manifestation of God's salvation has been brought for all men to see - evidently One that is Personified and unique. Note that Titus 1:1-3 quoted above declared that God is our - the believer's - Savior; and also by virtue of Titus 2:11, the Savior of all men. This is a unique salvation, unlike any other salvation. And this salvation makes the God of Paul and the Bible - the Word of God unique, unlike any other writing - not to be mistaken by any other that is conveyed by the same Greek words for God or Savior or salvation or word, especially as it appears in Titus 2:13.

i_b_1) [Compare 2 Tim 1:10]:

(2 Tim 1:10 NASB) "but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, Who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,"

[In this passage, author Paul declares that the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. It is evidently Jesus Christ Who is the Personification of God's salvation to all mankind. So God and Jesus Christ are both Savior. Hence God and Jesus Christ are One and the same Savior. There is no other Savior]

i_b_2) [Compare Titus 3:4-7]:

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

[Titus reconfirms that God is our Savior and that that Salvation appeared evidently in a Personified form, (v. 6), Who would be mankind's Salvation]:

(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,

[God our Savior saved us according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit - a unique salvation in accordance with the unique Word of God: the Hebrew / OT & Greek / NT Bible]

(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."

[and that salvation was through Jesus Christ our Savior. God and Jesus Christ is our Savior, they are One. For there is only one salvation unto eternal life - only one Savior]

i_c) [Compare 2 Thes 2:1]:

(2 Thes 2:1) "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him."

[This refers to the appearing / the coming of Jesus Christ our Savior - Who is our salvation unto eternal life]

i_d) [Compare Titus 2:11-13]:

(Titus 2:11 NKJV) "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared 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 2:13 Greek Interlinear)

"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"

i_d_1) [Manuscript Evidence of Titus 2:13]:

[The TR, NU reading (Sinaiticus2, A, C, D, Psi, 0278, 33, Maj, it, syr) which has "Jesus Christ;" and is the best manuscript evidence; and the two variants which have "Christ Jesus" (Sinaiticus*, F, G, it(b) ) and "Jesus" (1739) instead of "Jesus Christ" might all syntactically be rendered "the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ" - that is, that the glory belongs both to God and to the Savior Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless the Greek syntax and the context favors the rendering "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." In the Greek, there is one article governing the two titles "God" and "Savior Jesus Christ" joined by the conjunction "kai" ("and"). According to the Sharp's Rule [#1] this construction indicates that the two nouns describe one person. In this case, Jesus Christ is both God and Savior. Finally, since manuscript evidence provides only one "our" in Titus 2:13, and since God and Savior and Christ Jesus are all one and "our," then it modifies "God," "Savior," "and Christ Jesus," all together.

Furthermore, Paul never used the word rendered "appearing" when speaking of God the Father (cf. 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1, 8). Several English versions affirm this interpretation by setting "Jesus Christ" in clear apposition to "our great God and Savior' - for example, see NRSV, NIV, and NLT. Neither of the variant readings alters this ascription of Deity to Jesus. The first variant is a typical transposition ... and the second an atypical shortening of a sacred name]

i_d_2) The message of Titus 2:13 begins at verse 11

(Titus 2:11 NKJV) "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared 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,"

The immediate foreground of the key verse in view in this study, Titus 2:13, begins with the statement by writer and Apostle Paul in verse 11, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." It refers to the unique grace and Person of the God of the Bible - the unique Hebrew and Greek Bible, and to no other God. And this unique God of the Bible, Paul declares, brings salvation - a unique salvation unto eternal life. And that salvation, Paul declares, has appeared to all men. So an appearance of this salvation - a manifestation of God's salvation has been brought for all men to see - evidently One that is Personified and unique. Note that Titus 1:1-3 quoted above declared that God is our - the believer's Savior - and also by virtue of Titus 2:11, the Savior of all men. This is a unique salvation, unlike any other salvation. And this salvation makes the God of Paul and the Bible - the Word of God unique, unlike any other writing - not to be mistaken by any other that is conveyed by the same Greek words for God or Savior or salvation or word.

i_d_3) Then the message of Titus 2:13 continues into verse 12:

(Titus 2:11 NKJV) "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared 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,

Whereupon the message continues with an appeal to the believer to receive instruction to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live righteously and godly in the present age - all the while they are to be:

i_d_4) Then the message of Titus 2:11-13 continues into the key verse Titus 2:13:

(Titus 2:11 NKJV) "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared 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."

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

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

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 .

So the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior, Christ Jesus has Christ Jesus" in His glorified resurrection body specifically in view for believers coming back to earth at His Second Coming, (crefs: hope = 1 Tim 1:1; appearance of His coming - 2 Thes 2:8). Albeit the presence of Father and Spirit Who are omnipresent as well.

b cont.) Titus 2:13 (cont.)

ii) Despite its context, Titus 2:13 is contended by some to have at least three possibilities of interpretation at least two of which do not line up with the actual context:

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

"This verse [Titus 2:13] has one difficulty peculiar to itself. As Berge points out, 'the exegetical problem posed by the entire phrase, has three possibilities:

(1) Jesus Christ is the great God and Savior;

(2) the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ are to be distinguished;

(3) Jesus Christ stands in apposition to the following words of this verse which are underlined below which refer solely to God by virtue of His return in glory...

"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"

...  but He is in opposition to the rest of the words in the verse which are not underlined which words refer solely to God. 199

[BSM.net]:

[There is only one possibility that does not violate the context as previously established above, namely #1: .

Possibility #2 falls short because the context of the Bible, including Titus 1:1-2:13 determines that God and Christ Jesus are Savior, so the great God and Savior and Christ Jesus are One . And the grammar supports this conclusion.

If Titus 2:13 is to be interpreted according to possibility #3 stipulated above, it must be twisted out of its context and counter to it's grammatical form and in violation of the logical point of view that holds the statement together in order to be translated as some contend: "looking for the blessed hope and appearing of Jesus Christ the glory of our great God and Savior" as if "our great God and Savior" is not Christ Jesus; and as if Christ Jesus is simply a demonstration of the blessed hope and appearing of God's glory by our great God and Savior; and as if Christ Jesus not being God and not being Savior, but just a demonstration of the blessed hope and appearing of God's glory.]

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

"This third possibility, even if valid, would not break Sharp’s principle here - it would only deny that in this text Christ is called God. Few commentators actually hold to this view, 200 for it seems to do such violence to taking ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as in apposition to what immediately precedes [without grammatical or contextual warrant]. Nevertheless, though somewhat ancillary [subordinate] to our overriding concern (viz [=namely] the validity of Sharp’s Rule [#1]), since this view would effectively remove Titus 2:13 from the list of passages which affirm the deity of Christ, it should be addressed briefly." 201

iii) The Basic Argument For This Third View Is Threefold:

[BSM.net]:

[Here's the argument underlined from the text of Titus 2:13 once again:

"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]

iii_a) The TSKS construction refers to one person

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

"This approach sees the TSKS construction as referring to one person. Thus, whatever evidence can be mustered for the validity of Sharp’s Rule [#1] in Titus 2:13 can be said to help this approach."

[BSM.net]:

[Those that do not believe in the Diety of Christ and thus in His all sufficiency in making provision for the sins of all minkind inevitably insist that they themselves are responsible to participate in their own salvation in some manner - if they conclude that they need some kind of salvation in the first place. This is a self-destructive compromise - to deny the Deity of Christ is to deny the efficacy of His provision for the salvation of all men. And to include mankind's efforts in paying for sins cancels out God's grace - the only means by which they can obtain their salvation in the first place . For no mere man can pay for his own sins in order to be rewarded with eternal life, much less for the sins of all mankind]

iii_b) It is falsely maintained that the word rendered "Savior" refers to God alone

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

"σωτήρ [savior] is often linked to θεός (ἡμῶν) [= God (our)] in the pastorals with reference to the Father. 202 It would thus seem natural to apply it to the Father in this text as well."

[BSM.net]:

[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 Savior ]

iii_c) It is falsely maintained that the two descriptions "the blessed hope and glory" are terms / titles for Christ, leaving the rest of the verse, "our great God and Savior" to refer to God alone

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

"The NT uses other similar titles for Christ (e.g., ἀλήθεια, [Truth] ζωή, [Life] φῶς [Light]). To see an abstract term used of Christ here would not be out of step with other early Christologies."

iv) There are three difficulties with the view that the two descriptions "the blessed hope and glory" are terms / titles for Christ alone; leaving the rest of the verse, "our great God and Savior" to refer to God alone

iv_a) The interpretation is forced, awkward and too subtle for the average reader

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

"As we noted above, this reading is unnatural and overly subtle: one would expect ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to be in apposition with what immediately precedes (viz [=namely]

του    μεγάλου θεού και σωτήρος ἡμῶν Ιησού Χριστού
of the great       God and Savior     our    Jesus  Christ
 203

iv_b) The word rendered Savior is used of both Christ and God

[BSM.net]:

[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 is the Savior - 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 ]

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

"σωτήρ (ἡμῶν) Savior (our) is used both of Christ and the Father in the pastorals - on one occasion, the referent changes from one verse to the next. 204 If the author can shift from Father to Son in Titus 1:3 and 1:4, there can be no objection to his doing so in Titus 2:10 and 2:13.

iv_c) There is no evidence in Scripture that "glory of the great God and Savior" or "glory of God" is a title for Christ

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

"The evidence for δόξα θεοῦ [glory of God] as a primitive christological title is, at best, inconclusive"

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

Although it is possible in several texts (such as Jas 2:1; Eph 1:17; Heb 1:3), it is unlikely in all of them. In other words, we have no clear instances of δόξα [δόξης] used as a christological title in the NT, so much the more the glory of the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ. Without better evidence forthcoming, this view must be regarded with suspicion. It is an intriguing speculation, but little more. Titus 2:13 appears to be secure as a reference to Christ as θεός."

[BSM.net]:

[None of the references provided clear wording, nor is there any place in Scripture clear evidence of "δόξα θεοῦ" [glory of God] as a title for Jesus Christ. But there is evidence for the 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 which are the Greek words that author John used to portray a unique, identity of One Person ; or the Lamb of God, (Jn 1:29, 36); or "the Way, the Truth and The Life," (Jn 14:6); or "The Door," (Jn 10:9); as did Paul use the words "ὁ θεὸς," the God in Titus 2:13 and Peter in 2 Pet 1:1.

******

c) 2 Pet 1:1

(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”]

This TDAD / TSKS construction indicates that the the two nouns God and Savior describe one Person Note: TR, WH, NU P72, B, C, Maj. have "righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Sinaiticus, Psi, vg(mss), syr(ph), cop(sa) have "Lord" instead of "God."

i) 2 Pet 1:1: The Possessive Pronoun Within The TSKS/ TDAD Construction Of 2 Pet 1:1 Does Not Disqualify It From Meeting Sharp's Rules

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

"This passage also has its own peculiar problem: a possessive pronoun [ἡμῶν = our] is [maintained by critics to be] attached to the first noun. The possessive pronoun seems almost to “bracket” the noun, effectively isolating the trailing noun so that it does not partake of the article. At least, this is the intuitive sense that some exegetes get from the passage. Winer, for example, used this argument, for which Robertson took him to task. More recently, Stauffer argues that in 2 Thes 1:12 “the first attribute (θεός) [God] is separated from the second by ἡμῶν, [our] and therefore it is not to be related to Christ . . .” and, on the following page, “. . . in 2 Pt. 1:1, as in 2 Th. 1:12, the ἡμῶν [our] separates the attributes.” 205 Is this phenomenon really sufficient to break the force of Sharp’s Rule [#1]? In response, Robertson has pointed out that "There is no pronoun with σωτῆρος [Savior] in 2 Peter 1:11;

ii) 2 Pet 1:11, 2:20 and 3:18 Also Have A Possessive Pronoun In Their TSKS / TDAD Constructions Which Do Not Disqualify Them From Meeting Sharp's Rules

[BSM.net]:

[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."

2 Pet 1:11 promises the entrances into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:

the entrance   into the  eternal   kingdom    of the Lord     our    and Savior,     Jesus Christ.
ἡ    εἴσοδος   εἰς    τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν  τοῦ     κυρίου  ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ]

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

"[This is] precisely the same idiom, where no one doubts the identity of “Lord and Saviour.” 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? 206

This is an excellent point, but the case could be made even stronger. First, this particular phrase is used not only in 2 Pet 1:1 and 1:11, but also in 2:20 and 3:18 - again, as in 1:11, in obvious reference to Christ. Indeed, as the author uses only one other article-noun-καί-noun construction in his epistle, this is his normal pattern."

iii) Since Other Passages In Scripture Have A Possessive Pronoun In Its TSKS / TDAD Construction Which Does Not Disqualify Them From Meeting Sharp's Rules, Then The Possessive Pronoun In 2 Pet 1:1 Does Not Qualify It Either

iii_a) [1 Thes 3:2]:

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

"... There are a few other personal, singular TSKS constructions in the NT which have a genitive attached to the first noun, 207 yet Sharp’s Rule [#1 is] not hampered by the presence of the genitive. To be sure, not all of these involve a possessive pronoun (though most do); nor do all of them have a genitive affixed only to the first noun. But this, in principle, would not seem to make much difference, for the genitive would appear to interrupt the article’s “getting to” the second noun, regardless of whether it was a pronoun, or whether another genitive was attached to the second noun. For example, in 1 Thes 3:2 ἡμῶν [our] is attached to the first noun though the second noun does pick up a genitive noun:"

[BSM.net]:

(1 Thes 3:2 (NASB) "and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith,"]

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

"(Τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ     θεοῦ),  
   Timothy,   the brother   our    and servant   of the  God

iii_b) [Rev 1:9]:

(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."

ὁ    ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνός
the brother   your  and fellow partaker

Rev 1:9 above affords an even closer parallel, fitting exactly the structure of 2 Pet 1:1 below:

τοῦ     κυρίου  ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος  ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ
“of the Lord     our    and Savior,     Jesus Christ”

iv) Passages In The Papyri That Have A Possessive Pronoun In Its TSKS / TDAD Construction Which Does Not Disqualify Them From Meeting Sharp's Rules

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

"I have found the same phenomenon in the papyri and, once again, the genitive attached to the first noun never broke the force of Sharp’s principle. For example, 

iv a) P. Lond. 417.1 reads:
τῷ
δεσπότῃ μου καὶ  ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ);
to  master    my   and beloved    brother”

iv b) Sitzungsber. Preuss. Ak. (1911, p. 796) mentions:
Βαιβίου τοῦ    ἐμοῦ   φίλου καὶ γραμματέως)
Baebius, [the] friend  my     and secretary 

iv c) P. Oxy. 2106. 24-25 addresses
τῷ κυρίῳ μου καὶ ἀδελφῷ
the Lord   my  and brother; 

iv d) BGU 1035.1 we see
τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν καὶ δεσπότῃ
the Lord  your   and master   

[This is] an expression repeated nineteen lines later.

In all such instances the possessive pronoun had no effect on breaking the construction. The fact, then, that a possessive pronoun attached only to the first substantive never nullifies Sharp’s principle - either in 2 Peter or in the NT or in the papyri that I have examined - is strong confirmation of the validity of the Rule [#1] in 2 Pet 1:1. In this case, as always, presumption must give way to evidence."

3) Patristic Writings Have A Number Of Exceptions To Sharp's Rule #1

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

"Calvin Winstanley illustrated from patristic literature instances in which, if Sharp’s Rule [#1] applied, the personal distinctions within the Trinity would seem to be blurred."

[BSM.net]:

[The examples provided below do not obfuscate Who the God of the Bible is. They are incomplete without their accompanying context. Furthermore, their messages do not contest the doctrine of the Trinity because their contexts do not exclude the other Personalities of the Godhead that are not in view. Scripture indicates that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and all the associated names, titles, etc. are referring to the One and only God  - often with a view to one attribute / characteristic or another or Personality or another. Note that the patristic literature is not inspired.]

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

"For example,

a) Polycarp speaks of

“glory to the God and Father and Spirit Holy”
           τῷ     θεῷ  καὶ  πατρὶ  καὶ  ἁγίῳ πνεύματι); 208 

[BSM.net]:

[This does not exclude the Son just because it is not present in the excerpt]

[b) Clement of Alexandria gives praise

“to the  only   Father and Son”
  τῷ      μόνῳ  πατρὶ   καὶ υἱῷ. 209 

[BSM.net]:

[This does not exclude the Spirit just because it is not present in the excerpt]

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

"To this kind of exception Middleton can only reply that no ambiguity could result, for the distinctions in the members of the Trinity were obvious to all. 210 I find this kind of response to be the weakest link in the vindication of Sharp’s Rule [#1], for two reasons:

(1) for the other three kinds of exceptions, a syntactical reason naturally presented itself as the cause of the apparent exception, while here Sharp’s advocates appeal to common sense;" 

[BSM.net]:

[First of all, the context is not included in this study. Furthermore, most often what people think is common sense is neither common nor sensible because it is not based on language, context and logic . A reason may indeed be true, but it must still be based upon evidence derived from a proper reading in accordance with language, context and logic.

Finally, logically speaking, not stipulating one of the members of the Trinity in a statement / observation does not exclude that member from existence or participation. Context of a comparable passage in Scripture will decide that issue. If one is not reported as being "present" in a conversation / observation, it does not meant that it was not present or existent]

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

"(2) consequently, this kind of reasoning is a case of petitio principii [i.e., a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant, i.e., taken for granted without evidence] with reference to the christologically significant texts in the NT.

[BSM.net]:

[(3) and a third key reason: the patristic writings are not inspired. The Patristic writings contain numerous contradictions within themselves and with Scripture]

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

"One could just as easily argue - and several have - that since Paul nowhere else explicitly identifies Christ as God, there is no ambiguity in his meaning in Titus 2:13 (that is to say, two persons are obviously meant). Indeed, as we have noted, it is ironic that many scholars who affirm the deity of Christ in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 do so precisely because they deny apostolic authorship and many who affirm apostolic authorship deny that deity is explicitly taught.

There may be a different way to deal with Winstanley’s coup de grāce:

(4) As a preliminary comment to our suggestion, it should be pointed out that

(a) all of the texts which belong in this fourth category are found in patristic literature; 211

(b) all of the texts that Winstanley produced are, in fact, found in second or early third century patristic literature;

(c) all of the texts involve only members of the Trinity; and

(d) all of the texts involve at least two terms to describe the first person of the Trinity - e.g., “the only Father,” or “the God and Father,” etc.

It would seem that we are assuming too much about their own christological articulation when we read early church fathers. There are glimpses, here and there, that in their zeal to defend the deity of Christ they proved too much."

[BSM.net]:

[The phrase "they proved too much" is vague and unsubstantiated. I might guess that what is meant is that there are statements in the Patristic writings that go beyond what Scripture proves out - often flawed when properly compared with Scripture .

Any interpretation is plausible when one has not properly arrived at the context of a passage, especially when one is jumping all over the Bible, cherry picking verses and blending them with unbiblical points of view as well. Trying to reconcile post first century, extra biblical points of view with what the Bible teaches does not serve to better understand God's inspired Word]

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

"Ignatius, for example, speaks of “the blood of God” (Eph. 1:1).

[BSM.net]:

[IgnEph 1:1 "While I welcomed in God [your] well beloved name which ye bear by natural right, [in an upright and virtuous mind], by faith and love in Christ Jesus our Savior -- being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, ye have perfectly fulfilled your congenial work"

Ignatius' work is not inspired and should be interpreted as untrustworthy in most if not all of its message. The doctrines and the language leave much to be questioned in the light of comparable passages from Scripture which are inspired.]

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

"The appellation “Lord and God” was often used of Christ, as well as “Savior and God,” though hardly ever was the reverse order observed in these early writers. Ignatius drops the conjunction altogether in most of his affirmations. Such language, of course, does seem to be appropriate..."

[BSM.net]:

[Ignatius is uninspired and does not compare with Scripture. Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 have "God and Savior, Christ Jesus." Furthermore, if they appear in a different order will that change the context? What the patristic fathers say should not change the context of God's Word. Their writings are not inspired]

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

"and in keeping with the spirit of the apostolic age, but at the same time it renders the statements about the deity of Christ, if not more direct, certainly more blunt. Others seemed at times to blur the distinctions between members of the Trinity. 212 This is not to say that they were unaware of the distinctions necessarily, but simply that their articulation was not what it would be in 325 or 451 [AD]. At the same time, in their zeal to defend the faith - and to practice the faith - these fathers did occasionally overstate their case. Bousset argues that "This sort of hymnological community theology, the distinctive mark of which is a reveling in contradiction, finally had to lead to a complete deification, i.e., to the supplanting of God the Father or the denial of any difference between Father and Son. What is stirring here is naļve Modalism which the Logos theologians later met as their most suspicious and intolerant opponent. 213

[BSM.net]:

[Stick to inspired Scripture and not run the risk of being swayed by such heresies as Modalism: the unbiblical doctrine that the Persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature as portrayed in Scripture. On the other hand, certain aspects of a particular Person of God may indeed be the focus in a particular passage such as some experience of Jesus Christ relative to His redemption of all of mankind when the Father and the Holy Spirit are not referrred to yet by nature are omniscient. Although One Personality of the Godhead may be in view, this is not to say that the other Personalities are not always present, such as the creation of the universe as accounted in Genesis 1 & 2 and John 1