@Earnest
Your latest rejoinder reiterates three assertions that require close linguistic scrutiny. First, you restate that in Peter and Paul “the God” (ὁ θεός or its oblique forms) always designates the Father and therefore cannot name Christ; second, you deny that any pre-Nicene writer cites Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 as a unitary title; third, you claim that the KJV translators merely “applied” ἡμῶν to σωτήρ rather than imposing an interpretive gloss. Each contention collapses once the primary Greek evidence is examined with the methodological controls that modern grammarians apply to article usage.
Peter and Paul employ ὁ θεός hundreds of times, and in the overwhelming majority of those occurrences the reference is indeed the Father. Nothing in Sharp’s canon denies that statistical regularity. The canon concerns what happens when two singular, personal, common nouns are bound together inside a single determiner phrase. Neither author provides a counter-example within that syntactic frame. Your argument adduces no sentence of the form τοῦ/ὁ θεοῦ X καὶ Y in which the nouns unambiguously point to distinct persons. That absence is decisive: frequency of another usage elsewhere cannot override the grammar of a concrete clause in which the article welds δύο ὀνόματα into μία ἔννοια.
While it is accurate that ὁ θεός most often designates the Father in the Petrine and Pauline corpora—reflecting the convention of Trinitarian appropriation where ὁ θεός is ascribed to the Father as the source (archē) within the Godhead—this does not preclude exceptions where context or syntax indicates otherwise. The word θεός operates in three senses in the NT: as a designation for the Father (appropriatio), as a reference to the entire Trinity (the divine essence, theotēs), and as a qualitative descriptor of divinity/deity (quiddity). These senses coexist without contradiction, meaning that the habitual use of ὁ θεός for the Father does not exclude its application to the Son in specific instances. Your claim hinges on the absence of explicit instances where Peter or Paul call Jesus ὁ θεός, but this overlooks the syntactic evidence in passages like 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, where Granville Sharp’s rule suggests a single referent for “our God and Savior.” In 2 Peter 1:1, the construction “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) governing both “theou” (God) and “sōtēros” (Savior), followed by the appositive “Iēsou Christou” (Jesus Christ). This TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) structure, as Sharp observed, consistently indicates co-referentiality in Koine Greek when applied to singular, personal, common nouns. Your assertion that ὁ θεός must refer to the Father here assumes a semantic inevitability that overrides the grammatical signal, a methodological error that prioritizes customary usage over syntax. Moreover, the immediate contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where separate articles distinguish “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn”—reinforces the intentional unity in 1:1, suggesting Peter adapted traditional language to affirm Christ’s deity.
You further argue that because Peter’s and Paul’s letters were likely written before the Gospel of John (post-70 CE), John’s usage of ὁ θεός for Jesus in John 20:28 could not have influenced their terminology, thus reinforcing the exclusivity of ὁ θεός for the Father in their writings. This chronological point, while historically plausible, does not negate the broader linguistic and theological context shared by NT authors. Even if Peter and Paul wrote earlier, the early Christian community operated within a developing Christological framework where divine titles were flexibly applied. John 20:28, where Thomas declares “ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou” (my Lord and my God) directly to Jesus, demonstrates that ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son within the first-century church. The grammar—confirmed by “eipen auto” (he said to Him, not “to them”)—leaves no ambiguity that Jesus is the referent, challenging the notion that ὁ θεός is exclusively the Father’s title. While John’s Gospel may postdate Peter and Paul, it reflects the same theological milieu, and its usage provides a precedent that undermines your rigid rule. Peter and Paul, as native Greek speakers or writers within a Hellenized context, were not bound by an unyielding convention but could innovate within their linguistic framework, as evidenced by the TSKS construction in 2 Peter 1:1. The dating of John does not isolate Peter and Paul from this flexibility; rather, it highlights a continuity of thought across the NT, where the Son’s divinity is progressively revealed and expressed.
You contend that John consistently uses ὁ θεός for the Father throughout his Gospel, from John 1:1 onward, and thus has no reason to be inconsistent in verse 28. You argue that John’s purpose statement in 20:31 would be absurd if Jesus were called ὁ θεός (implying the Father) three verses earlier, unless John intended to equate Jesus with the Father. This objection misrepresents both the grammar and theology of John’s Gospel. First, the claim of absolute consistency overlooks the immediate context of John 20:28, where Thomas’s exclamation is unequivocally directed at Jesus. The possessive pronouns “mou” (my) and the verb “eipen auto” (he said to Him) grammatically tie ὁ θεός to Jesus, not the Father, making it impossible to sustain your interpretation without distorting the syntax. Second, the assumption that John’s usage must be rigid ignores the flexibility of NT language. In John 1:1, “ton theon” refers to the Father, while the anarthrous θεός affirms the Logos’s divine nature (quiddity), showing John’s capacity to vary terminology within a single passage. This flexibility extends to 20:28, where ὁ θεός as a title of appropriatio is applied to Jesus to affirm His divinity, not to equate Him with the Father. Third, the purpose statement in 20:31 does not contradict this application. “Son of God” in John carries profound implications of divine sonship and unity with the Father (cf. John 5:18, 10:30), and does not preclude Jesus being called ὁ θεός in a specific context. Your suggestion that this implies Jesus is “both the Father and the Son” mischaracterizes Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes persons within the Godhead while affirming their shared essence (theotēs). John’s use of ὁ θεός for Jesus is not an inconsistency but a deliberate theological statement, consistent with the Gospel’s broader Christological aims.
Hence, your exclusion of John 20:28 by chronological fencing is linguistically immaterial. The question is not whether Peter or Paul read John; the question is whether Koine Greek permits ὁ θεός to be predicated of Christ. Thomas’s confession proves that the language provides such elasticity. Once the title is shown to be transferable, appeal to a presumed semantic impossibility in Peter and Paul is removed; the only remaining test is the local syntax of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, which meets Sharp’s criteria exactly. Against this, you merely invoke “common-sense distribution” and describe the Trinitarian appeal to appropriationes as the retrojection of a fourth-century lens onto first-century prose. Yet appropriation is not a Nicene “invention;” it is the analytical name later theologians gave to a lexical pattern already visible in the NT—Father ordinarily ὁ θεός, Son ordinarily ὁ κύριος, Spirit ordinarily τὸ πνεῦμα—while all three persons may bear each other’s titles under determined conditions. That pattern is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it explains why ὁ θεός could be extended to the Son without erasing its ordinary Father-reference. Your insistence that such extension is “inconsistent” smuggles into the debate a unitarian premise that the very texts in dispute appear designed to challenge.
Trinitarian appropriation, as a theological framework, indeed crystallized in later centuries, particularly through patristic literature and conciliar definitions such as Nicaea (325 CE). However, this does not mean it imposes an anachronistic interpretation on the NT texts. Rather, it articulates relational distinctions within the Godhead that are already implicit in the first-century writings. In established NT terminology, ὁ θεός is generally the standard designation for the Father, ὁ κύριος for the Son, and τὸ πνεῦμα for the Holy Spirit. This convention reflects a pattern of ascription—termed appropriatio in theology—where titles are attributed to specific persons of the Trinity to highlight their roles, not to deny their shared divine essence. Your surprise at this approach overlooks the fact that such distinctions are rooted in the texts themselves, not merely in later dogma. For instance, the relational dynamics between the Father and the Son are evident in passages like John 1:1, where “ton theon” (the Father) is distinguished from the anarthrous θεός (the divine nature of the Logos), suggesting an early awareness of personal distinction within a unified divinity. Linguistic analysis, including Granville Sharp’s rule, further supports this by focusing on syntactic patterns operative in Koine Greek, not on fourth-century theological constructs. Thus, interpreting ὁ θεός in light of these distinctions is not anachronistic but a recognition of the grammatical and theological seeds present in the first-century milieu.
After all, your entire “fourth-century” objection rests on the premise that the Christian kerygma (the core proclamation) and doctrine were artificially altered in the centuries following the apostles as part of an imperial conspiracy. However, this is simply ruled out by the dogma of indefectibility (indefectabilitas)—meaning that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Furthermore, history does not support such a claim; at most, we can speak of a development of doctrine in the sense articulated by John Henry Newman.
Granville Sharp’s rule is a syntactic observation, not a theological assertion dependent on patristic exegesis. It rests on the consistent pattern in Koine Greek where a single article governing two singular, personal, common nouns joined by “kai” indicates one referent, as seen in 2 Peter 1:1 (“tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros”) and Titus 2:13 (“tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn”). The scarcity of explicit pre-Nicene commentary on these specific verses does not undermine this linguistic principle, as the rule’s validity derives from its uniformity across a broad corpus, including non-biblical texts. Early church fathers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus affirm Christ’s deity in general terms, even if they do not directly cite these passages, suggesting a Christological trajectory compatible with Sharp’s interpretation. Your demand for patristic support inverts the burden of proof: it is your dual-referent reading that departs from the grammatical norm, requiring evidence of an exception within Koine Greek syntax, which you fail to provide. The absence of pre-Nicene citations either way reflects the limited scope of surviving texts, not a refutation of the rule’s application.
The church fathers frequently cited Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 to support core Christian doctrines, especially concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, His equality with the Father, and the hope of His second coming. These verses were pivotal in theological debates, particularly in response to heresies that questioned Christ’s divine nature. An overview of how key figures among the church fathers utilized these scriptures illustrates their centrality in early Christian thought.
Titus 2:13 was extensively used by the fathers to affirm Christ’s divinity, His role as Savior, and the eschatological expectation of His return. The phrase "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" became a cornerstone for asserting that Jesus is both fully divine and equal to the Father. For example, Hippolytus, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, quoted Titus 2:13 to emphasize the Christian hope in Christ’s second coming. He referred to Jesus as "our God and Savior," linking this directly to the resurrection of the saints and the glorification of the Father. This reinforced both the eschatological and divine aspects of Christ’s identity.
Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Matthew, Philippians, and John, drew upon Titus 2:13 for several purposes. In the Homilies on Matthew (Matthew 17:10), he used the verse to distinguish Christ’s two advents: His first in grace and His second in glory, urging believers to live righteously while awaiting the "blessed hope" of "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." In Homilies on Philippians (Philippians 2:5-8), he cited it to affirm Christ’s divinity, calling Him "the great God" and countering claims of the Son’s inferiority to the Father. Similarly, in the Homilies on John (John 1:1), Chrysostom referenced the verse to argue for the Son’s eternal nature, noting that "the great God" applies to Jesus, thus aligning His attributes with those of the Father.
Theodoret also made significant use of Titus 2:13, particularly in his letter To John the Œconomus, where he affirmed the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures by calling Him "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." This supported the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In his Letter to the Monks, Theodoret again quoted the verse to emphasize Christ’s glorious appearing as both God and Savior, defending the orthodox view of His dual nature against heresies such as Arianism.
Gregory of Nyssa, in his work Against Eunomius, especially in Books VI and XI, cited Titus 2:13 to argue against Eunomius, affirming that Christ is "the great God and our Savior" and thus upholding His full divinity. He also used the verse to counter Marcionite dualism, asserting the unity of the Godhead and rejecting any division between good and evil deities.
Basil referenced Titus 2:13 in both his Dogmatic Works and De Spiritu Sancto. In the former, he used the verse to argue for the Son’s equality with the Father, showing that "the great God" applies to Jesus and demonstrates His divine nature. In De Spiritu Sancto (Chapter XVI), Basil quoted the verse to highlight the role of the Trinity in salvation, linking the work of the Spirit to Christ’s dispensations as "our great God and Saviour."
Turning to 2 Peter 1:1 we find that this verse, though cited less frequently, was also used to affirm Christ’s divinity and Peter’s apostolic witness, often in contexts related to the foundation of the Church and eschatological hope. Theodoret cited 2 Peter 1:1 alongside Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God") to affirm Christ’s divine sonship and His role as the Church’s foundation, connecting this to the unity of His natures. Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15:13-15, referenced 2 Peter 1:1 indirectly through Peter’s authority, relating it to his leadership in the early Church and the inclusion of Gentiles, as prophesied by Peter. This underscored the apostolic testimony to Christ’s divinity. Additionally, apocryphal texts such as the Revelation of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Peter alluded to 2 Peter 1:1 in the context of the righteousness of believers and their eschatological hope, though often in a more indirect way. In the Revelation of Esdras, the verse is reflected in a vision about the afterlife form of the righteous, while the Apocalypse of Peter references the "like precious faith" and the hope held by Christ’s followers.
Synthesizing the usage of these verses, we see that Titus 2:13 was consistently employed to affirm Christ’s deity—calling Him "the great God" to counter heresies such as Arianism and Marcionism—and to highlight the hope of His second coming, connecting Christian ethics and eschatological expectation. It was also a key support for the doctrine of the hypostatic union, emphasizing Christ’s dual nature as both God and man. 2 Peter 1:1, meanwhile, was used to reinforce Peter’s authoritative witness to Christ’s divinity and role as Savior, and to connect Christ’s righteousness to the faith of believers, especially in discussions about the Church’s foundation and the inclusion of Gentiles.
The theological implications of these quotations by the church fathers reflect a unified stance on three key points. First, both verses were central to proving that Jesus is fully God and equal to the Father, especially in the face of heretical challenges. Second, Titus 2:13, in particular, was often linked to the doctrine of the Trinity, highlighting the Son’s unity with the Father and the Spirit in salvation history. Third, the "blessed hope" mentioned in Titus 2:13 underscored the anticipation of Christ’s return, a central theme in early Christian teaching.
Finally, the KJV rendering necessarily introduces a second determiner in English because Early Modern English lacks a casus obliquus article that can govern two nouns simultaneously. Greek does possess such a device; the KJV translators tacitly decided that Peter intended distinct referents and so allocated the pronoun to the second noun. That is interpretive, not mechanically literal. Had they wished to reproduce the Greek construction, they could have written “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” as the Rheims–Douai did from the Latin Vulgate. This alternative reflects exegetical preference, not grammatical requirement.
The KJV, completed in 1611, predates Sharp’s 1798 articulation of the TSKS rule and reflects a translational decision made without the benefit of his grammatical insight. In the Greek text, “tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou” features a single article (“tou”) unifying “theou” and “sōtēros,” suggesting one referent—Jesus Christ as both God and Savior. The KJV’s separation of “God” and “our Saviour” introduces a second determiner in English, aligning with stylistic or theological preferences rather than the Greek syntax. The translators’ understanding, while historically significant, does not override the grammatical cohesion indicated by the TSKS construction. The contrast with 2 Peter 1:2—where “tou theou” and “Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn” use separate articles to distinguish referents—further supports the unity in 1:1, a nuance the KJV obscures. Your defense of the KJV as a faithful translation of intent assumes a dual-referent meaning that the Greek structure does not necessitate, highlighting a reliance on later interpretive tradition rather than the original text’s syntax.
In sum, your defense of a dual-referent reading depends on (i) treating a statistical default as a categorical prohibition, (ii) dismissing counter-evidence by restricting the corpus ad hoc, (iii) overlooking early witnesses that do take the clauses as unitary, and (iv) mistaking an English determiner for the Greek article. Until a genuine counter-example is produced—namely, an original Koine sentence whose single-article TSKS string of singular personal common nouns indubitably designates two persons—Sharp’s canon remains the only linguistic key that unlocks Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. By that key Peter and Paul announce, in unison, that the one they worship is “Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.”
Your objections fail to dismantle the application of Granville Sharp’s rule to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. The claim that ὁ θεός always refers to the Father in Peter and Paul overstates a convention into an inflexible rule, ignoring syntactic evidence like the TSKS construction and exceptions such as John 20:28. The appeal to John’s later dating and supposed consistency does not negate the flexibility of NT language or the grammatical clarity of Thomas’s confession. The absence of pre-Nicene citations supporting a single referent does not refute Sharp’s rule, which stands on linguistic grounds, while the KJV’s rendering reflects a translational choice, not a definitive rebuttal of the Greek syntax. Ultimately, your position rests on a semantic presupposition that overrides the text’s grammatical signals, whereas Sharp’s rule offers a robust, evidence-based interpretation affirming Jesus as “our God and Savior” in these passages.